Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 400 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRS Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB 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 *£ MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS SDR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL AHRAKGEKEKTS FUR THE COUNTY OF CUMBRIA 1*. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to electoral arrangements for districts in the County of Cumbria was made on 3 September 1979* 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 Cumbria County Council in a consultation letter-dated 22 October 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to the district and borough councils, town and 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 papers 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 11 March 1980 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 83 electoral divisions for the county, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. - 4* We considered this scheme together with the views expressed by local interests. On 11 June 1980 we issued draft proposals which we sent to all those who had received our consultation letter or commented on the county council's draft scheme* Notices were inserted in the local press announcing that the draft proposals had been issued and could be inspected at the county council's offices* 5. We incorporated the county council's draft scheme in our draft proposals with the following modifications: (a) Allerdale District. '.Ye replaced 5. of. the electoral divisions in the County Council's draft scheme-* with 5 alternative divisions as proposed by A.Llerdulo District Counc.il. • • . (b) N.'unea of (.0 octoraj divisions. We also, made alterations in the names of some divisions. " ' 6, We had reservations about the councillor/electorate ratio-in'the Alston electoral division of Eden district, which was much higher than normally we would have found acceptable,but decided it was justified because of the exceptional geographical features of the area. For similar reasons we decided to accept the Barrow Island division of Barrow-in-Furness Borough. 7. We received comments in response to our draft proposals from the Cumbria Gounty Council, one district council, three town councils, seven parish councils, six political organisations, one county councillor, one district councillor and ** - > , two private individuals. A list of those who wrote to us is given at Appendix 1 to this report. 8. The Cumbria County Council accepted our draft proposals for all districts except those for Allerdale, in respect of which they objected to the five alternative electoral divisions suggested by Allerdale District Council and adopted by us. They preferred the arrangements proposed in their own draft scheme. 9., The other comments we received can be summarised as follows:- (a) Allerdale District Allerdale District Council put forward suggested amendments to our draft proposals for the electoral divisions of Seaton and Winscales, Buttermere and Derwent, and Dearham and Bassenthwaite. They also suggested alternative names for 13 of the 16 electoral divisions in the district. The Cumbria Labour Party supported the District Council's proposed new arrangements* Objections to our draft proposals based on the District Council fs original suggestions were received from the M&ryport Town Council, Maryport Labour Party and Workington Constituency Labour Party who opposed the splitting of the Ellenborough district ward between the proposed Maryport North and Maryport South divisions* Great Clifton Parish Council and Little Clifton Parish Council objected to their inclusion in the proposed Buttermere and Derwent division whilst Embletou and District Parish Council considered that Setmurthy parish should not be included in our proposed Dearhaa and Bassenthwaite electoral division but in the proposed Buttermere and Dervent division. Seaton Pariah Council wrote in support of our proposed Seaton and Winsoales division* .. .,, . A county councillor, a district councillor and two private individuals objected to the splitting of the Harrington district ward between the proposed Harrington and Salterbeok division, and Moorolose division on the grounds that Harrington would- lose,: its' identity and community tspirit. (b) Cope3tand Cleator Moor Town Council wished to have recorded their objection to the draft proposals for the county, but made no suggestions as to alternatives* (Q) Eden District Westmorland Conservative and Unionist Association suggested alternative arrangements for our proposed Appleby, Kirkby Stephen, and Lowther and Snap divisions. (d) South Lakeland District Westmorland Conservative and Unionist Association forwarded an alternative scheme for our proposed Crooklands, Kent Estuary, Lyth Valley. Upper Kent and Windermere divisions; Windermere Parish Council suggested a rearrangement for the Windermare area which was similar to Westmorland Conservative Association's proposal* Both the Association and the Parish Council felt that their proposed modifications would achieve a better balance of community Interests* Diversion Town Council and Ulverston Conservative and Womens ' Unionists Association reiterated earlier arguments in favour of retaining the existing arrangements as they affected Ulverston. Cartmel Fell Parish Council and Staveley-iu-Cartmel Parish Council both reiterated their objections to being included in the proposed Grange electoral division rather than the proposed Cartmel division* 10. When we came to reassess our draft proposals we took account of all the - - comments we had received and came to the following conclusions:- - ' (a) Allerdale District ... There had been criticism of the draft scherae prepared by the County Council for this district which led us to adopt for our draft proposals the alter- * _native arrangements suggested by the District Council. But these arrangements had also attracted local criticism, even with further amendments suggested by the District-Council. At the same time the County Council raised what seemed to us convincing objections to our draft proposals; Moreover the County Council's draft scheme would provide a more even standard of '" representation and had the advantage of avoiding the necessity to split an' existing parish ward. It was clearly difficult to find a scheme for this'1 district which would command general support, but we caine to the conclusion 'on balance that we should revert to the County Council's draft scheme for' ' our final proposals except for one minor amendment. We considered--there-was substance in the Qnbleton and District Parish Councir's contention that'- -their group of parishes should be kept'in the same division. This involved- transferring Setmurthy parish from Dearham and Bassenthwaite division to •• Buttermere and'Derwent division,, • , . .-•...-.•.' (b) Eden District" " ' .-•••.. , .-. We did not see any obvious advantages in the alternative suggested by the Westmorland Conservative and Unionist Association and decided to adhere to our draft proposals which are supported'by" the"County Council. " (c) South Lakeland District - Although the views of the Winde'rmere Parish Council lent a certain amount of support to the 'alternative put forward by the Westmorland Conservative and Unionist Association for certain divisions in this district we' saw no clear advantage in these suggestions over our draft proposals'. ^Retention of' the existing arrangements in Ulverston, as advocated by the Town Council and the * ' . local Conservative and Women's Unionist Association would result in a less balanced standard of representation and we did not feel able to adopt this suggestion. Nor did we consider that the comments of the Cartmel Fell and 3taveley-in-Cartmel Parish Councils would justify us in changing our draft proposals as they affected those parishes. 11. We therefore decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals for all districts in the county, subject to the changes in Allerdale District set out in paragraph lo(a) above* 12. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 1 gives the names of the electoral divisions. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed electoral divisions, as defined on the map is set out in Schedule 2. PUBLICATION 13. 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 Cumbria County Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (with- out map) are being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments* L.S. Signed: NICHOLAS MORRISON PHYLLIS BOWDEN TIRRELL BRDCKBANK G £ CHEHRY DP HARRISON R R THOHNTOW LESLIE GRIMSHAW (Secretary) 25 September 1980 5F APPENDIX 1 'LISTi . OF THOSE TCIO COMOTTED ON DRAFT PROPOSALS AREA CONCERNED Cumbria County Council