LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF WEST YORKSHIRE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KIRKLEES Boundary with:- BRADFORD LEEDS HIGH PEAK (DERBYSHIRE) BRADFORD LEEDS WAKEFIELD ROCHDALE KIRKI ES BARNSLEY HIGH PEAK REPORT NO. 659 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 659 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF WEST YORKSHIRE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KIRKLEES AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE CITIES OF BRADFORD AND LEEDS, AND WITH THE BOROUGH OF HIGH PEAK, IN DERBYSHIRE THE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1 . This report contains our final proposals for the boundaries of the Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees with the Cities of Bradford and Leeds and the Borough of High Peak in Derbyshire. We are not suggesting any radical changes but are making a number of minor proposals to make the boundary more clearly identifiable and to remove anomalies. Our recommendations in respect of the boundaries of Kirklees with Wakefield, Barnsley, Oldham and Calderdale were contained in our earlier reports, no's 600, 601, 611, and 630 respectively. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE START OF THE REVIEW 2, On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Kirklees as part of the mandatory review of West Yorkshire and its Metropolitan Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. 3. Copies of the letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan Boroughs; to county and district councils bordering the metropolitan area; to parish councils in Kirklees and the adjoining districts; to the local authority associations; to Members of Parliament with constituency interests; to the headquarters of the main political parties; to the local press, television and radio stations; and to a number of other interested persons and organisations. 4. To enable the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Section 60(1) of the Local Government act 1972, we requested the Metropolitan Boroughs, in co-operation as necessary with other local authorities, to insert a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers to give wide publicity to the start of the review in the area concerned. 5. A period of seven months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their detailed views on whether changes to Kirklees1 boundaries were desirable; and if so, what those changes should be and how they would meet the criterion of effective and convenient local government as prescribed by Section 47(1) of the 1972 Act. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US 6. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987 we received submissions from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council . and Bradford and Leeds City Councils. We also received representations from Councillor Kath Pinnock, East Bierley C.E. (C) First School and thirty four other members of the public. ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS 7. After considering these representations, we published a consultation letter on 30 May 1990 announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions for Kirklees. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council and Bradford and Leeds City Councils were asked to publish a notice giving details of our proposals, and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for three months. Comments were invited by 25 July 1990. RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS 8. In response to our draft proposals we received representations from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, Bradford and Leeds City Councils, Derbyshire County Council, the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, the Bradford Conservative Group, Mrs Elizabeth Peacock MP, Mr Bob Cryer MP, Councillors Kath Pinnock, R C Light, E Durkin and D M Mathews, several local organisations and 1331 letters from local residents. The Birstall and Birkenshaw Liberal Democrats forwarded 100 standard forms and we received 100 letters from pupils of the Cleckheaton Music Centre and two petitions containing a total of 1598 signatures. ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 9. After considering these representations we decided to issue further draft proposals in respect of Kirklees' boundaries with Bradford and Leeds. The letter announcing our further draft proposals was published on 5 April 1991. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned, to other interested parties and to those persons and bodies who had made representations to us or had expressed an interest. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council and Bradford and Leeds City Councils were asked to publish a notice giving details of our proposals and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our ' letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices. Comments were invited by 31 May 1991. RESPONSE TO OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 10. In response to our further draft proposal we received comments from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, Bradford and Leeds City Councils, West Yorkshire Police Authority, Mrs Elizabeth Peacock MP, Mr Barry Seal MEP, Councillors Kath Pinnock, D M Matthews and R C Light and the East Bierley Village Preservation Society. In addition, 59 local residents wrote to us and we received 61 pro-forma slips, and 2 petitions signed by a further 42 local residents. ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR ADDITIONAL FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 11 . Having considered the response to our further draft proposals we decided, before reporting to you, to issue additional further draft proposals in respect of Kirklees1 boundaries with Bradford and Leeds. Copies of our letter, which was issued on 21 February 1992, were sent to all those who had received our letter of 5 April 1991 and the local authorities concerned were asked to ensure it received publicity on the same lines as our further draft proposal. Comments were invited by 5 May 1992. RESPONSE TO OUR ADDITIONAL FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 12. In response to our letter of 21 February 1992 we received submissions from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, Bradford and Leeds City Councils, Dewsbury Health Authority, Mr Graham Riddick MP, Mrs Elizabeth Peacock MP, Councillor Kath Pinnock, the Head Teacher of Birkenshaw County First School and 18 other members of the public. PROPOSALS FOR RADICAL CHANGE Interim Decision 13. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987, four members of the public suggested splitting Kirklees into two or more separate boroughs. The main reason given for these suggestions was that Huddersfield was felt to be incompatible with the remaining parts of Kirklees. 14. We considered the suggestions that Kirklees should be split up into two or more separate districts but felt that there was little evidence, either to demonstrate that the present arrangements did not provide for effective and convenient local government, or to show that there was any strong support locally for such a change. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of these suggestions. Final Proposal 15. Our interim decision to make no proposals for partitioning Kirklees was opposed by ten members of the public who maintained that Kirklees was too large and would benefit from being split into two separate boroughs. The Morley and Leeds Liberal Democrats suggested that, if the borough was split, any new authority based on the town of Dewsbury should include the former Borough of Morley, currently part of the Metropolitan District of Leeds. 16. Following the announcement of our further draft proposals, Mr Graham Riddick MP raised again the question of splitting Kirklees. His main arguments were that people from Huddersfield had nothing in common with people from Dewsbury and Batley and the 17 years of "forced cohabitation" had not brought these areas closer together. Mr Riddick suggested that Kirklees should be abolished and that a new district of Greater Huddersfield should be created. 17. We received 60 letters and two petitions, one with 98 signatures and the other with 55 signatures, supporting Mr Riddick's proposal, and 9 letters opposing it. Most of those in favour of dividing Kirklees emphasised the difference in character between the north and the south of the borough. Many shared Mr Riddick's view that Kirklees was not providing services efficiently or that preferential treatment was being given to the north of the borough. Others felt strongly that Kirklees was too large and too disparate to succeed as an entity and suffered from a lack of identity. 18. Of those opposed to a split, most considered that the services provided by Kirklees were good. Some felt that smaller authorities would not be viable and could not adequately perform the functions required of a local authority. Others referred to the disruption and the cost such a reorganisation would entail. 19. Mr Riddick subsequently informed us of his presentation to the House of Commons, on 9 March 1992, of a petition with over 8000 signatures, calling for the abolition of Kirklees and the formation of a new council based on the Huddersfield area. He also drew our attention to a telephone poll carried out in 1991 by the Huddersfield Daily Examiner Newspaper which, he claimed, indicated that 14000 Kirklees residents were in favour of splitting the Borough. Two members of the public wrote directly to us to express a wish to see Kirklees divided into the former boroughs of Huddersfield and Dewsbury.