Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CBE. DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH MC MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESHIRE 1. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the electoral arrangements for the districts in the County of Cheshire was made on 28 September 1978. As required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we have now reviewed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report No 6. 2. We informed the Cheshire County Council in a consultation letter dated 12 January 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to the district councils, parish councils and parish meetings in the county, to the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of » local newspapers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3» On 1 August 1979 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 71 electoral divisions for the County, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. k. We considered this scheme together with the views expressed by local interests. On 20 February 1980 we issued draft proposals which we sent to all those who had received our consultation lOtter, or commented on the County Council's draft scheme. Notices were inserted in the J-ocal press announcing that the draft proposals had been issued and could be inspected at the County Council's offices. 5. We incorporated in our draft proposals a number-of modifications to the' County Council's draft scheme .based on comments made about the "county scheme. 6. The modifications we made were as follows:- Ca) City of Chester We adopted the City Council's suggested transfer of the Newton district ward from the proposed Hoole and Newton division to the proposed Upton division; the transfer of the parish of Guilden Sutton from the proposed Mickle Trafford division to the proposed Gowy division; and the transfer of the Dodleston district ward from the proposed Broxton division to the proposed Boughton and Vicars Cross division. (b) Borough of Ellesmere Port:and Neston We adopted the Borough Council's suggested rearrangement of the proposed Sutton and Grange, Rivacre and Westminster, and Central and Stanlow division as follows:- (i) the Sutton, Pooltown and Rivacre district wards to form a Sutton and Rivacre division; (ii) the Grange and Rossmore district wards and polling district NC of the Westminster district ward to form a Grange and Rossmore division; and (iii) the Central, Wolverham and Stanlow district wards and polling districts NA and NB of the Westminster district ward to form a Central and Westminster division. (c) Vale Royal District We adopted Northwich Constituency Labour Party's suggested rearrangement of all the proposed divisions in the district apart from Helsby and Frodsham. (d) Borough of Warrington We adopted the Borough Council's suggested renaming of the proposed Two Crosses and Risley divisions as Penketh and Whitecross division and 1 . Birchwood divisions respectively. We also adopted Winwick Parish Council's suggested rearrangement of the constituent parts of the proposed Poulton North and Winwick, Poulton South and Woolston, and Culcheth and Holcroft divisions to form the following, three divisions:- (i) the Culcheth and Holcroft division comprising the Winwick and Culcheth and Glazebury district wards_and the Southworth ward of Croft parish; (ii) the Poulton North division comprising the Poulton-with-Fearnhead North district ward; and (iii) the Poulton South and Woolston division comprising the Poulton-with- FearnheKd South district ward; and the parishes of Rixton and Woolston. 7- We received comments in response to our draft proposals from the Cheshire County Council, 5 Borough Councils, one District Council, 22 Parish Councils, 3 Parish Meetings, one Member of Parliament, ten local councillors, the County Labour Party, 16 local Labour parties, 8 local Conservative associations, one local Liberal party, one residents' association and 19 private individuals. A full list of those who wrote to us is given at Appendix 1 to this report. 8. The comments we received can be summarised as follows: (a) General The Cheshire County Council generally welcomed and endorsed our draft proposals but urged us to reconsider the proposals for the Vale Royal District. They supported Vale Royal District Council, who urged us to go back to the boundaries in the ar'aft scheme for their district. The County Council also advocated the re-naming of the Culcheth and Holcroft Division in the district of Warrington as Culcheth and Southworth in view of the relocation of the Holcroft area in the division as a result of the Commission's draft proposals. The County Labour Party expressed their 'general support* for the draft proposals. (b) City of Chester Guilden Sutton Parish Council supported the draft proposals whilst the Chester District and Constituency Labour parties both objected to the inclusion of the Dodleston district ward in the proposed Boughton and Vicars Cross division and wished it to be transferred back to the proposed Broxton division. (c) Borough of Congleton Congleton Borough Council, Brereton Parish Council, and Knutsford Constituency ConservativeAssociation on behalf of Brereton Conservative Association, all objected to the proposed Middlewich and Brereton division on the grounds that the two areas had nothing in common. Congleton Conservative and Unionist Association objected to the splitting of Congleton into three mixed urban and rural divisions, namely, Congleton and Buglawton; .Hulme, and Moreton. They proposed two alternative divisions from the urban wards but did not make proposals for the remaining parishes. Holmes Chapel Parish Council repeated an earlier expressed wish that the proposed Hulme division be renamed Congleton Rural, A private individual thought Sandbach was poorly represented in the draft proposals but offered no solutions. (d) Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Crewe Liberal Party, the Constituency Labour Party, Wistaston and Willaston local Labour Party, a local councillor and a private individual all expressed support for the draft proposals whilst Wybunbury Parish Council offered no objections. (e) Borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston The Borough Council, the Borough Labour Party and Bebington and Ellesmere Port Labour Party all supported the draft proposals. (f) Borough of Halton The Borough Council informed us that they had no comments to make on the draft proposals whilst Runcorn, Widnes Constituency and Halton District Labour parties supported the proposals. (g) Borough of Macclesfield The Borough Council were opposed to the joining together of rural and urban areas within the same divisions and,felt that numerical.imbalances4in th,e existing arrangements were not improved by our draft proposals which.furthermore would break local ties. Alderley Edge Branch of Macclesfield Constituency Conservative and Unionist Association, the Macclesfield Constituency Conservative and Unionist Association and two private individuals were also all opposed to the draft proposals and would ^have preferred the existing'electoral arrangements to,continue. One County Councillor, 3 District Councillors, 3 Parish Councils, 3 Parish Meetings, one local Conservative Association branch and 14 private individuals all objected to the proposed Macclesfield Forest division on the grounds that the urban Macclesfield South borough ward has nothing in common with the rural Gawsworth and Sutton wards. Many expressed the wish that the existing Macclesfield Rural No 2 division be retained. Gawsworth Parish Council presented alternative proposals for six of the proposed divisions, namely Alderley, Bollington and Disley, Macclesfield Forest, Macclesfield Ivy, Poynton and Upton and rrestbury. County Councillor T- A G Russell submitted three schemes for the same divisions that Gawsworth Parish Council wished to alter, as examples of how he thought the draft proposals could be improved. Prestbury Parish Council objected to being included in the proposed Upton and Prestbury division as they were opposed to mixed rural and urban divisions. For similar reasons Rainow Parish Council objected to their inclusion in the proposed Bollington and Disley division. Over Alderley and Birtles Branch of Macclesfield Conservative Association objected to the proposed Alderley division and would have preferred the existing arrangements to continue, . Mr Nicholas R Winterton, MP for Macclesfield, and one private individual,submitted alternative proposals for the same six divisions as Gawsworth Parish Council and Councillor Russell. Knutsford and Macclesfield Constituency Labour parties both supported the draft proposals whilst Millington Parish Council offered no adverse comments on them. (g) Vale Royal District The Vale Royal District Council set out in detail the reasons why they preferred the County Council's draft scheme to our draft proposals and, as noted earlier, the County