Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Rochdale Report to The Electoral Commission September 2003 © Crown Copyright 2003 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no. 352 2 Contents Page What is The Boundary Committee for England? 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 11 2 Current electoral arrangements 13 3 Draft recommendations 17 4 Responses to consultation 19 5 Analysis and final recommendations 21 6 What happens next? 35 Appendices A Final recommendations for Rochdale: detailed mapping 37 B Guide to interpreting the first draft of the electoral change Order 39 C First draft of electoral change Order for Rochdale 41 3 4 What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them. Members of the Committee are: Pamela Gordon (Chair) Professor Michael Clarke CBE Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors Archie Gall (Director) We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to ward boundaries, the number of councillors and ward names. This report sets out our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the borough of Rochdale in Greater Manchester. 5 6 Summary We began a review of Rochdale’s electoral arrangements on 14 May 2002. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 25 February 2003, after which we undertook an eight-week period of consultation. We now submit final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. • This report summarises the representations that we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and contains our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. We found that the existing arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Rochdale: • in 12 of the 20 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10% from the borough average and four wards vary by more than 20%; • by 2006 this situation is expected to worsen, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10% from the average in 13 wards and by more than 20% in five wards. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 114-115) are that: • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council should have 60 councillors, the same as at present; • there should be 20 wards; • the boundaries of all 20 existing wards should be modified. The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each borough councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In all of the proposed 20 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10% from the borough average. • This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in none of the wards expected to vary by more than 10% from the average for the borough in 2006. All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to The Electoral Commission, which will not make an Order implementing them before 8 September 2003. The information in the representations will be available for public access once the Order has been made. The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected] (This address should only be used for this purpose) 7 Table 1: Final recommendations: Summary Number of Large Ward name Constituent areas councillors map 1 Balderstone & Kirikholt 3 Part Balderstone ward, 1, 3 and 4 Part Brimrod & Deeplish ward, part Norden & 2 Bamford 3 1 Bamford ward, part Spotland ward Part Brimrod & Deeplish ward, part Castleton 3 Castleton 3 1 and 3 ward, part Middleton North ward Part Central & Falinge ward, part Smallbridge & 4 Central Rochdale 3 1 and 4 Wardleworth ward Part Middleton East ward, part Middleton North 5 East Middleton 3 3 ward Part Central & Falinge ward, Part Healey ward, 6 Healey 3 1, 2 and 4 part Wardle ward Part Heywood South ward, part Middleton Central 7 Hopwood Hall 3 3 ward part Middleton North Part Balderstone, part Newbold ward, part 8 Kingsway 3 4 Milnrow, part Smallbridge and Wardleworth ward Part Littleborough ward, part Milnrow & Newhey 9 Littleborough Lakeside 3 2 and 4 ward, part Wardle ward Part Brimrod & Deeplish ward, Central & Falinge 10 Milkstone & Deeplish 3 1 and 4 ward, part Newbold ward 11 Milnrow & Newhey 3 Part Littleborough, part Milnrow ward 4 Part Heywood North ward, part Healey ward, 12 Norden 3 1 part Norden & Bamford ward, part Spotland ward Part Heywood North ward, part Heywood South 13 North Heywood 3 1 and 3 ward Part Middleton Central ward, part Middleton East 14 North Middleton 3 3 ward, part Middleton North ward Part Milnrow, part Newbold ward, part Smallbridge 15 Smallbridge & Firgrove 3 2 and 4 & Wardleworth ward, part Wardle ward 16 South Middleton 3 Part Middleton South ward 3 Part Central & Falinge, part Healey ward, part 17 Spotland & Falinge 3 1 Spotland ward, part Norden & Bamford ward Wardle & West Part Littleborough ward, part Wardle ward 18 3 1, 2 and 4 Littleborough Part Heywood West ward, part Heywood North 19 West Heywood 3 1 and 3 ward, part Heywood South Part Middleton Central ward, part Middleton West 20 West Middleton 3 3 ward, part Middleton South Notes: 1. The whole borough is unparished. 2. The wards on the above table are illustrated on Map 2 and the large maps. 8 Table 2: Final recommendations for Rochdale Variance Number of Variance Number of No. of Electorate from Electorate electors from Ward name electors per councillors 2001 average 2006 per average councillor % councillor % Balderstone & 1 3 7,234 2,411 -6 7,285 2,428 -7 Kirkholt 2 Bamford 3 7,885 2,628 2 7,975 2,658 2 3 Castleton 3 7,878 2,626 2 7,850 2,617 1 4 Central Rochdale 3 7,590 2,530 -1 7,459 2,486 -4 5 East Middleton 3 7,806 2,602 1 7,804 2,601 0 6 Healey 3 7,626 2,542 -1 7,808 2,603 0 7 Hopwood Hall 3 7,872 2,624 2 8,053 2,684 3 8 Kingsway 3 7,823 2,608 2 7,895 2,632 1 Littleborough 9 3 7,863 2,621 2 8,061 2,687 3 Lakeside Milkstone & 10 3 7,345 2,448 -5 7,307 2,436 -6 Deeplish 11 Milnrow & Newhey 3 7,779 2,593 1 7,983 2,661 2 12 Norden 3 7,607 2,536 -1 7,740 2,580 -1 13 North Heywood 3 7,859 2,620 2 7,945 2,648 2 14 North Middleton 3 7,872 2,624 2 8,029 2,676 3 Smallbridge & 15 3 7,434 2,478 -3 7,461 2,487 -4 Firgrove 16 South Middleton 3 7,919 2,640 3 7,861 2,620 1 17 Spotland & Falinge 3 7,729 2,576 0 7,741 2,580 -1 Wardle & West 18 3 6,695 2,232 -13 7,384 2,461 -5 Littlebororgh 19 West Heywood 3 8,138 2,713 6 7,983 2,661 2 20 West Middleton 3 7,920 2,640 3 8,214 2,738 5 Totals 60 153,874 – – 155,838 – – Average – – 2,565 – – 2,597 – Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Rochdale Borough Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 9 10 1 Introduction 1 This report contains our final recommendations for the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Rochdale. We are reviewing the ten metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester as part of our programme of periodic electoral reviews (PERs) of all 386 principal local authority areas in England. The programme started in 1996 and is currently expected to finish in 2004. 2 This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of Rochdale. Rochdale’s last review was undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which reported to the Secretary of State in April 1979 (Report no. 322). 3 In making final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, we have had regard to: • the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI 2001 No. 3692), i.e.