Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.300 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT N0.3OO LOCAL aOVj^-LUi.i^T I30UKLn.n: UCJi.-inISoIGN r'CR I' CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton GCB K3'£ DEPUTY CHAIKWAN Mr J M Rankin QC tlEMBLRS Lady Bov/den MrJ T Brockbanlc Professor Michael Chisholm Ivir H R Thornton G3 LL Mr D P Harrison To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF TRAFFORD 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Trafford in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 28 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Trafford Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Greater Manchester County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned, the parish councils in the borough and the headquarters of-the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3. Trafford Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration* In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed siae of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore aaked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that in metropolitan districts there shall be elections by thirds. Section 6(2}(b) of the Act requires that every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning a number of councillors divisible by three. The Trafford Borough Council's draft scheme was prepared accordingly. 5. Trafford Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation on 16 July 1976. They proposed to divide the area into 21 wards each returning 3 members to form a council of 63* 6. We also received from a local political party and some councillors an alternative scheme which provided for the division of tias borough into 21 wards eachreturnfog 3 members and a local political association submitted a scheme based on 18 three^member wards. Another local political association submitted an alternative scheme providing for the division of the borough Into 21 wards each returning 3 members. Comments were also received from various councillors and members of the public suggesting differing proposals for certain wards. We considered all the representations but they did not appear to offer any advantage over the draft scheme submitted by Trafford Borough Council. We decided, therefore, to use the Borough Council's draft scheme as the basis of our draft proposals. We made a number of modifications to the proposed wards to secure improvements in the standard of representation and we also made an alteration to the name of one of the proposed wards. On the recommendation of Ordnance Survey we made some minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more easily identifiable on the ground. 7. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraph 6 above we decided that the Borough Council's dra^t scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements for the Borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 8. On 10 December 1976 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Borough Council's draft scheme. The Borough Council were asked to make these draft proposals and the accompanying map, which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 18 February 1977. 9. Trafford Borough Council informed us that they approved the draft proposals. 10. We received a large number of responses to our draft proposals from individuals, organisations and local political parties and associations. We decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request Mr J.PAspden QBE was appointed an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 11. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, Stretford, Manchester on 20 October 1977. A copy of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 12. In the light of the information gained at the meeting and from his inspection of the area the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be confirmed subject to the modifications which he specified in his report. These modifications were related .to boundary adjustments between the following proposed wards:- Priory and Mersey St Mary's; Mersey St Mary's and Broadheathj Mersey St Mary's and St Martin's; Talbot and Longford. 13. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the Assistant CommiaBioner's report. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to these amendments, we decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals. 14. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map* Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3. PUBLICATION 15* In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Trafford Borough Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without the map) are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. L.S. Signed: EDMUND COMPTON (Chairman) JOHN M RANKIN (Deputy Chairman) PHYLLIS BOUDEN T BRQCKBANK "• MICHAEL CHISHOLM i D P HARRISON R R THORNTON N DIGNEY (Secretary) ZL September 1978 4? SCHEDULE 1 ' LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND UKPOHT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO THE COMMISSION REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS - METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF TRAFFORD. 1 On 10 December 19?6 the Commission sent notice of their draft proposals for the future electoral arrangements for the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford to the Trafford Borough Council and others. 2 The Borough Council had submitted a scheme for 21 three-member wards to the Commission, who considered it together with the correspondence received by the Borough Council during the period leading to the submission and also further letters received by the Commission. • 3 "^he Commission decided to accept the Council's draft scheme as the basis for their draft proposals, subject to the following / modifications made in the interests of equality of representation the alteration of boundaries between the Davyhulme East and Davyhulme West wards; the Urmston and Flixton wards; and the Mersey-St Mary's, St Martin% and Priory wards, and also subject to the change of the proposed ward name of Mersey - St Mary's to • Mersey St Mary's. 4 Publication of the draft proposals resulted in the Borough Council approving them and letters in support of them were also received from Mr I H Hurst and Mr F Johnson, but the following representations were made by other bodies and persons: -1- (a) The Trafford Metropolitan District Council Labour Group and the Trafford Metropolitan District Labour Party reiterated their previous submission to the Commission of an alternative 21 three-member scheme and claimed that their proposed boundaries had taken more notice of the Commission's guidelines than the boundaries in the Commission's draft proposals; (b) A group of councillors representing the existing ward No 10 expressed the view that the scheme submitted by the Trafford Labour Group had greater merit than the Commission's draft proposals, but that if those proposals were nevertheless in general implemented such implementation should not extend to the exchange of two areas between the Talbot and Longford wards, as not only would a change 01 voting habits of the electorate be imposed, but also a greater imbalance in the numbers would be brought about; (c) Mr J M Phillipson objected to the boundaries of the proposed Priory ward, as he considered that they divided homogeneous communities and were not easily recognisable