LOCAL BOUNDARY FOR ENGLAND REPORT HO. LOCAL G BOUNDARY FOR ENGLAND NO. LOCAL OOVKKNKKUT BOUNDARY CO','MISSION FOK fc.'GLAUD CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEM3EHS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMEMTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF DUDLEY IN THE COUNTY OF WEST MIDLANDS 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Dudley 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(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 8 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Dudley Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the West Midlands County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned, 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. Dudley 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 size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked 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 elections shall be 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. 5. On 16 August 1976 Dudley Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. The council proposed to divide the area 'of the borough into 24. wards, each returning 3 members to form a Council of 72. 6. We considered the draft scheme together with copies of the correspondence received by the Council during the preparation of the scheme and after its publication, as well as the comments we had received direct. We received alternative draft schemes from two local political associations and from a resident. Two of these schemes made identical proposals. In addition two other local political associations, a councillor and a resident, commented on the draft scheme and put forward alternative proposals for specific areas in the Borough. 7. We noted that the Borough Council's draft scheme preserved some existing administrative boundaries and local ties but failed to produce an even standard of electoral representation throughout the borough. We therefore considered whether the alternative schemes which had been submitted to us provided information which would enable us to formulate electoral proposals providing better standards of representation. An alternative scheme submitted by one of the local political associations, which - like the Borough Council's scheme - provided for 2k wards each, returning 3 members to form a Council of 72, contained nine wards coterminous with wards in the Borough Council scheme and offered acceptable standards of representation. 8. We decided that subject to renaming some of the wards and to minor boundary adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey, this alternative 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. 9. On 2k February 1977 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to the recipients of our consultation letter and others from whom comments on the Borough Council's draft schemes had been received. The 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 22 April 1977* 10. Dudley Borough Council accepted our draft proposals but suggested that the proposed Mount Pleasant and Wordsley wards should be renamed Wordsley West and Wordsiey East. 11. The political association and the resident who had earlier submitted the identical schemes referred to in paragraph 6 above requested that their submissions 'should be reconsidered. The political association specifically objected to draft proposals affecting Sedgley, Coseley West and Gornal wards, Netherton and Woodside ward, Amblecote ward, and Belle Vale and Hasbury and Halesowen South wards on the grounds that the proposed ward boundaries divided existing communities. They also suggested alternative ward names. Some of their objections were supported by other local political associations and by local residents. 12. We received 2 petitions each bearing some 250 signatures and various letters objecting to the draft proposals in relation to the proposed Sedgley and Gornal wards. 13. A local political association and a councillor objected to the proposed St Andrews ward and submitted that the area, known as Darby End had strong local ties with the rest of St Andrews ward and should therefore be included in that ward rather than in the proposed Netherton and Woodside ward. 1*f. Another local political association suggested that the boundary of the proposed Quarry Bank and Cradley ward should be adjusted to include the Fatherless Barn Estate, A different political association and two councillors suggested that the boundary of Amblecote ward should be redrawn to follow either the course of the River Stour or the course of the Stourbridge Canal. 15. A local community association submitted an alternative scheme for warding the Kingswinford area. They proposed that the new wards should be named Kingswinford North and Wall Heath, Kingswinford South and Wordsley: replacing our proposed wards of Kingswinford and Wall Heath, Mount Pleasant, and Wordsley. 16. In view of these comments 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 W Bryan was appointed an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 17. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at Dudley on 15 November 1977. A copy of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 18. In the light of discussion at the meeting and his inspection of the areas concerned, the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be confirmed subject to the following modifications:- a. the boundary between the proposed Coseley West ward and-the proposed Gornal ward should be redrawn so as to include part of Upper Gornal in Gornal ward; b. the boundary between the proposed St Andrews ward and the proposed Netherton and Woodside ward should be redrawn so as to include the area known as Windmill end and Darby End in St Andrews ward; c. the boundary of the proposed Netherton and Woodside ward should be adjusted to include a small part of the proposed Brockmoor and Pensnett ward; d. the western boundary of the proposed Amblecote ward should be realigned on the course of the River Stour; e. the boundary between the proposed Belle Vale and Hasbury ward and the proposed-Halftsowen South ward should be altered; f. the boundary between the proposed wards of Wordsley and Mount Pleasant should be redrawn to produce two new wards to be renamed Kingswinford South and Wordsley; g. the proposed Kingswinford and Wall Heath ward should be renamed Kingswinford North and Wall Heath. 19. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments we had received and the report of the Assistant Commissioner. We concluded that the Assistant Commissioner's recommendations should be accepted and formulated our final proposals accordingly. 20. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 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 to this report. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the maps, PUBLICATION 21. 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 Dudley Borough Council and will be available for public 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 BMDK D' COMPTON ( CHAIRMAN ) JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) PHYLLIS 30VTDSH T BROCKBANK MICHAEL CHISHOLM D P HARRISON R R THORNTON LESLIE GRIMSHAW (Secretary) 2- 5 November 19?8 S 1 Metropolitan Borough of Dudley Review of Electoral Arrangements Report of W.O»E.