New electoral arrangements for Halton Borough Council - Final recommendations September 2019 - AWS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
New electoral arrangements for Halton Borough Council Final recommendations September 2019
Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019 A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.
Contents
Introduction 1
Who we are and what we do 1
What is an electoral review? 1
Why Halton? 2
Our proposals for Halton 2
How will the recommendations affect you? 2
Review timetable 3
Analysis and final recommendations 5
Submissions received 5
Electorate figures 5
Number of councillors 6
Ward boundaries consultation 7
Draft recommendations consultation 7
Further draft recommendations consultation 8
Final recommendations 9
Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor 11
Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank 14
Runcorn east 16
Runcorn west 20
Widnes east 22
Widnes west 24
Conclusions 27
Summary of electoral arrangements 27
What happens next? 28
Equalities 31
Appendices 33
Appendix A 33
Final recommendations for Halton Borough Council 33
Appendix B 33
Outline map 33
Appendix C 34Draft recommendations: Submissions received 34 Further draft recommendations: Submissions received 35 Appendix D 37 Glossary and abbreviations 37
Introduction
Who we are and what we do
1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an
independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any
political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs
chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out
electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.
2 The members of the Commission are:
• Professor Colin Mellors • Amanda Nobbs OBE
OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson
• Andrew Scallan CBE
(Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE
• Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive)
• Peter Maddison QPM
What is an electoral review?
3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a
local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:
• How many councillors are needed.
• How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their
boundaries are and what they should be called.
• How many councillors should represent each ward or division.
4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main
considerations:
• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each
councillor represents.
• Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.
• Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local
government.
5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when
making our recommendations.
1
Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
16 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance
and information about electoral reviews and the review process in general, can be
found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Why Halton?
7 We have conducted a review of Halton Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the
value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in
Halton. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others.
This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are
as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.
8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:
• The wards in Halton are in the best possible places to help the Council
carry out its responsibilities effectively.
• The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the
same across the borough.
Our proposals for Halton
9 Halton should be represented by 54 councillors, two fewer than there are now.
10 Halton should have 18 wards, three fewer than there are now.
11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.
12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for
Halton.
How will the recommendations affect you?
13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the
Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities
are in that ward. Your ward name may also change.
14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or
result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary
constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local
taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to
take into account any representations which are based on these issues.
2Review timetable
15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of
councillors for Halton. We then held three periods of consultation with the public on
warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation
have informed our final recommendations.
16 The review was conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
19 June 2018 Number of councillors decided
26 June 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards
End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
3 September 2018
forming draft recommendations
Publication of draft recommendations; start of second
4 December 2018
consultation
11 February 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions
Publication of further draft recommendations; start
28 May 2019
of third consultation
End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
24 June 2019
continued to form final recommendations
3 September 2019 Publication of final recommendations
34
Analysis and final recommendations
17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how
many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five
years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to
recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.
18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same
number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the
number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the
council as possible.
19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual
local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on
the table below.
2018 2024
Electorate of Halton 96,542 100,292
Number of councillors 56 54
Average number of electors per
1,724 1,857
councillor
20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the
average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’.
Seventeen of our proposed 18 wards for Halton will have good electoral equality by
2024.
Submissions received
21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may
be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Electorate figures
22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on
from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These
forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the
electorate of around 4% by 2024.
23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that
the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these
figures to produce our final recommendations.
2
Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
3
Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.
5Number of councillors
24 Halton Borough Council currently has 56 councillors. We have looked at
evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that decreasing by two will
ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.
25 As Halton Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three
out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council should
have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. This presumption is based on the
principle that, as the Borough Council elects a third of its members each year, all
electors should have an equal opportunity to take part in every election. Halton
currently has 21 wards, including three two-councillor wards and two single-
councillor wards. Given the presumption in legislation, we only move away from a
uniform pattern of three-councillor wards where we receive compelling evidence
during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory
criteria. This leeway provides us with the scope, in exceptional circumstances, to
avoid the splitting of strongly identified communities.
26 Reflecting the presumption that Halton should be represented by three-
councillor wards, we therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would
be represented by 54 councillors elected from 18 three-councillor wards.
27 We received three submissions about the number of councillors in response to
our consultation on our draft recommendations. One resident proposed that there be
just four councillors. Whilst another proposed that each of our 18 wards be
represented by two councillors, making a total of 36. Neither proposal was
accompanied by evidence which described how the Council would operate with the
proposed number of councillors.
28 The Halton Conservative Association proposed a warding scheme comprising
18 two-councillor wards and five single-councillor wards, which would equate to a
council size of 41. Whilst the submission included some information about the
operation of a council size of 41, we were not persuaded that it provided sufficient
evidence to change our initial conclusions on council size.
29 We received a further proposal, for 26 two-councillor wards, from a respondent
to our further draft recommendations consultation. This proposal was contradictory to
the presumption for three-councillor wards. We have therefore maintained 54
councillors for our final recommendations.
4
Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph
2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).
6Ward boundaries consultation
30 We received 52 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These
included a borough-wide proposal from the Council and two from local residents. The
remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for wards in particular
areas of the borough.
31 The borough-wide scheme provided for 55 councillors. This pattern proposed a
single-councillor ward comprising Daresbury and Preston Brook parishes, with
Moore and Sandymoor parishes combined to form a three-councillor ward alongside
three-councillor wards for Runcorn, Widnes and the Hale peninsula. We carefully
considered the proposal, noting that it would not be consistent with the general
presumption for a uniform pattern of three-member wards. However, we were of the
view that the proposed patterns of wards would result in good levels of electoral
equality in most areas of the authority and generally suggested clearly identifiable
boundaries.
32 One of the local residents proposed eight two-councillor wards. The other
proposed 18 three-councillor wards. In neither case were we convinced that good
electoral equality would be provided or that the boundaries proposed were clear and
identifiable.
33 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we
received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised
boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the
best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative
boundaries.
34 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the
ground. This tour of Halton helped us to decide between the different boundaries
proposed.
35 Our draft recommendations were for 18 three-councillor wards. We considered
that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while
reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence
during consultation.
Draft recommendations consultation
36 We received 177 submissions during consultation on our draft
recommendations. The Halton Conservative Association proposed a borough-wide
scheme based on a pattern of two-councillor and single-councillor wards made up of
current polling districts. As well as breaching the presumption of three-member
wards, this warding scheme would result in electoral variances ranging from +20% to
7-18%. These are levels of inequality which we are not prepared to recommend. We
have therefore not based our final recommendations on this proposal.
37 The Council proposed changes to our draft recommendations for Hough
Green/Birchfield and Halton Brook/Grange. The Council also commented on the
draft recommendations for Preston Brook and Vale and proposed several alternative
ward names in Runcorn and Widnes. Most of the other submissions focused on
specific areas, particularly our proposals in Halton Village, Hale Parish, and the
parishes to the east of Runcorn. In these cases, respondents opposed the
combination of parished areas with parts of unparished Widnes and Runcorn,
respectively.
38 We received a large number of objections to our proposal to combine Preston
Brook parish and parts of south-east Runcorn in a three-member ward. A feature of
many of these objections was the emphasis on community links between Preston
Brook and Daresbury. Councillors for the current Daresbury ward and Moore Parish
Council proposed a pattern of wards in which Daresbury, Moore and Preston Brook
parishes should form a two-councillor ward with part of Sandymoor. The remainder
of Sandymoor would then form a two-councillor ward as would the Brookvale area of
Runcorn. Other respondents, commenting on Preston Brook, did not refer to any
community links between Daresbury, Moore and Sandymoor
39 Departing from our draft recommendations can have consequential implications
for adjoining areas. In some cases we have made changes relying on evidence we
have received at previous stages of the review. We considered that representations
about Halton Village contained strong evidence of community identity and we gave
very careful consideration to our proposals for this area. However, accommodating
this proposal would require significant changes to our proposed wards across the
east of Runcorn. We therefore considered that an additional period of consultation
was appropriate, to allow local residents and organisations to comment upon new
proposals for Halton Village and their impact on the adjoining areas. Our further draft
recommendations were for four three-councillor wards covering Brookvale,
Castlefields, Halton Lea, Halton Village, Norton, Murdishaw, Palace Fields, Preston
Brook and Windmill Hill.
Further draft recommendations consultation
40 We received 86 submissions during consultation on our further draft
recommendations. These included the Council’s objection, in which it favoured a
small modification to its original proposal. We received around 30 submissions
broadly supporting our further draft recommendations for Halton Village and around
50 objecting to any ward which would combine Preston Brook with the Murdishaw
8and Brookvale areas. A petition presenting objections to the proposals for Preston
Brook was raised by the Parish Council.
Final recommendations
41 Halton Council has an electoral cycle in which a third of councillors are elected
at each local election. We have no role in setting the electoral cycle but, under the
legislation, we must reflect it in making our recommendations. This means that when
we review councils like Halton that have this pattern of elections, we will provide
electoral arrangements which give all electors the opportunity to vote in all local
elections, unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so. In practice, this means
that there is a presumption that all of Halton’s wards will be represented by three
councillors.
42 Throughout the review, respondents to our consultations have argued that
combinations of parished and unparished areas would result in electoral outcomes in
which the parishes would be inadequately represented. However, we note the duties
of elected councillors set out in the Council’s constitution, to represent the whole
borough and all of their constituents. Combining distinct communities to form wards
which allow people to vote at every election is not exceptional and Halton is not
exceptional in having parishes adjacent to unparished areas.
43 We sought to identify boundaries which reflected our statutory criteria, provided
wards comprised exclusively of parished areas and avoided the need to split
parishes between wards. However, we could not identify any warding pattern that
would achieve this. Furthermore, we did not receive evidence that demonstrated the
exceptional circumstances which would justify either splitting parishes between
wards or breaking the three-member warding pattern. Therefore, in east Runcorn
and West Widnes, we recommend wards which combine parished and unparished
areas.
44 Our final recommendations are based on the further draft recommendations in
east Runcorn and on the draft recommendations in the remainder of the borough.
We recommend that the borough be represented by 18 three-councillor wards. We
very carefully considered appropriate warding arrangements for Hale and Preston
Brook and recognise that these areas are distinct from their neighbouring
communities. However, as indicated above, we could not identify a warding pattern
that would provide good electoral equality and avoid dividing these communities
between wards. We consider our final recommendations will generally provide for
good electoral equality while best balancing community identities and interests
where we received such evidence during consultation.
945 The tables and maps on pages 11–25 detail our final recommendations for
each area of Halton. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the
three statutory5 criteria of:
• Equality of representation.
• Reflecting community interests and identities.
• Providing for effective and convenient local government.
46 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page
27 and on the large map accompanying this report.
5
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
10Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor 3 12%
Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor
47 The parished area from Moore to Preston Brook is significantly under-
represented. Without changes to electoral arrangements, the area will become much
more severely under-represented due to the amount of housing development taking
place both now and in the near future.
48 We received a limited amount of community evidence in response to our
invitation for warding proposals. It was argued by some that residents of Daresbury,
Moore and Sandymoor enjoy community interactions, whilst others argued that
Daresbury’s ties were with Preston Brook.
49 One proposal advocated a single-councillor ward comprising Daresbury and
Preston Brook parishes together with a two-councillor ward comprising Moore and
11Sandymoor parishes. The resulting two-councillor ward would have a variance of
36% by 2024. Another proposal was for two two-councillor wards, involving the
splitting of Sandymoor parish between them or the combination of part of Sandymoor
parish with the Windmill Hill area of Runcorn. However, the respondent gave no
indication of how Sandymoor parish could be divided in a way which would reflect
community identities within the parish.
50 While there is a general presumption that the borough will have three-member
wards, given the community evidence received, we carefully considered alternative
schemes for this area which would result in a mixed pattern of one-, two- and three-
councillor wards. Our test was whether there were exceptional circumstances which
provide sufficient grounds to move away from a uniform pattern of three-councillor
wards.
51 We considered that whilst a three-councillor ward comprising Daresbury, Moore
and Sandymoor parishes would have a variance of 12% by 2024, this level of
electoral inequality was justified because it would maintain connections between the
three parishes without splitting any of them between wards. This approach would be
consistent with the provision of three-member wards with good electoral equality in
other parts of the borough.
52 Objections to our draft recommendations centred on the exclusion of Preston
Brook parish from the warding for this area and our proposal to ward it with the
unparished area of Runcorn. Objectors argued that Preston Brook parish shares no
community identity or interest with the Brookvale or Murdishaw areas of Runcorn.
Others argued that our draft recommendations would threaten the survival of the
parish councils. Some objectors argued that their concerns outweigh our regard to
electoral equality.
53 Many objectors described the roundabout at the eastern end of the Southern
Expressway as an obstacle to access. However, we note that access between
Preston Brook and the parishes to the north is principally via the roundabout at
Junction 11 of the M56 which appeared to us to be a bigger and busier roundabout
to navigate.
54 We acknowledge that Preston Brook is a distinct community and noted
submissions which argued that residents of Preston Brook use and engage facilities
in Daresbury. We note, however, that our proposals avoid dividing parishes between
borough wards thereby reflecting community identities, ensuring good electoral
equality and maintaining a three-councillor warding pattern. Furthermore, we
consider that in a pattern of three-councillor wards, three borough councillors
can effectively represent the interests of residents in this parished area. We have
12therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Daresbury, Moore &
Sandymoor as final.
13Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank 3 -7%
Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank
55 Our draft recommendation for Ditton, Hale Village and Halebank ward attracted
objections from Hale and Halebank parish councils, local organisations and
residents, particularly of Hale Village, but also from a small number of Ditton
residents. Our draft recommendation gave rise to a petition signed by around 180
14local residents. Of particular concern was the inclusion of areas which have a
predominantly rural character with the urban parts of south-west Widnes.
56 Objectors proposed a single-councillor ward to represent either Hale parish or
Hale and Halebank parishes combined. In each case, the result would be a higher
degree of electoral inequality than we are normally prepared to recommend. Hale
Parish Council’s proposal would result in a -16% electoral variance by 2024. In
Halebank Parish Council’s proposal, the variance would be 57%. This degree of
inequality could be reduced but we would need to split Halebank parish between
wards and include part of the parish in a ward with the Ditton area. We have
received neither proposals nor evidence which would support the splitting of
Halebank parish between wards.
57 Whilst we recognise that Hale has a character and identity which is distinct from
the more urban Widnes area, we consider that in a three-councillor pattern of wards,
three borough councillors representing the Hale and Halebank parishes area can
effectively represent the interests of their residents while avoiding the need to split
either parish between borough wards.
58 We therefore confirm, as final, our draft recommendations for Ditton, Hale
Village & Halebank ward.
15Runcorn east
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Halton Castle 3 -7%
Halton Lea 3 5%
Norton North 3 6%
Norton South & Preston Brook 3 -9%
Halton Castle and Halton Lea
59 The Council proposed a Halton Castle & Windmill Hill ward which would largely
be a combination of existing wards but excluding The Brow. The Liberal Democrats
proposed a broadly similar ward. One resident proposed that the
current Halton Castle ward be split in two. However, this would neither provide
for good electoral equality nor reflect our presumption in favour of three-
councillor wards. Our draft recommendations were based on the Council’s Halton
Castle & Windmill Hill ward which placed most of Main Street in Halton Lea ward.
We also proposed that the expressway leading to the Mersey Gateway Bridge would
form the western boundary of the ward.
1660 The Council’s and Liberal Democrats’ Halton Lea ward, with ShoppingCity at its
centre, would combine The Brow, Hallwood Park, part of Palace Fields and the area
between the Central Expressway, Weston Link roads and Halton Lodge School. We
proposed to modify this by making the Central and Southern expressways the
boundaries of Halton Lea ward. We also proposed to include the part of Palace
Fields which lies between the busway and the Southern Expressway.
This includes the hospital and The Glen.
61 We received over 40 objections to the draft recommendation for Halton Castle
& Windmill Hill. Councillor Howard proposed that the current Halton Castle ward be
extended by the addition of that part of the Windmill Hill area which lies to the north
of the Runcorn busway. Other local councillors were divided between those
expressing support for Councillor Howard’s proposal and those supporting the draft
recommendations which were based on the Council’s original proposal. Whilst a
number of local residents and the Friends of Halton Village expressly supported
Councillor Howard’s proposal, others disagreed with the addition of any part of
Windmill Hill in Halton Castle ward.
62 We were persuaded by submissions to amend our draft recommendations for
Halton Village. In our further draft recommendations, we proposed a Halton Castle
ward which would contain The Brow, and include Phoenix Park and the site of a
substantial anticipated housing development to the west of Norton Priory. We were
not persuaded that the Windmill Hill community should be divided between wards
and proposed, as part of our further draft recommendations, that Windmill Hill should
form part of a three-councillor Norton North ward.
63 During consultation on our further draft recommendations, the Council,
supported by the Runcorn Central Branch Labour Party, broadly reiterated its original
proposal, modifying it slightly in respect of properties on Main Street. The Council
argued that the Croft estate should form a part of Halton Lea ward and that Windmill
Hill form part of a Halton Castle & Windmill Hill ward. The Council then argued that
these changes would allow the Brookvale area to the included in a single ward.
Some councillors making individual responses also argued that the Brookvale area
should not be split between wards. They argued that the area to the north of the
busway and that to the south of the busway form a single community. However, we
received around 30 expressions of support for our further draft recommendations.
Several of those qualified that support by advocating that Halton Cemetery and the
whole of the Astmoor industrial estate be included in Halton Castle ward. Including
all of the industrial estate in Halton Castle ward would mean that Wigg Island and its
principal access route would also be included in the proposed ward.
1764 We acknowledge the support for our proposed Halton Castle ward and are
persuaded that the suggested modifications to it are appropriate, noting that they
have no impact on electoral representation.
65 We received objections to our proposed inclusion of the Brookvale Avenue
North and South areas in Halton Lea ward. However, given our recommendations for
Halton Castle ward, Halton Lea would be significantly over-represented, having an
electoral variance of -14% were we to include those areas in Norton South & Preston
Brook ward. We are not prepared to recommend that degree of electoral inequality.
We have therefore decided to confirm the Halton Lea ward proposed in our further
draft recommendations (and amended in respect of Halton cemetery) as final.
Norton North and Norton South & Preston Brook
66 The Council proposed a single-councillor ward comprising the parishes of
Daresbury and Preston Brook and a retention of the current Norton North
ward. The Liberal Democrats proposed a three-councillor ward comprising
Preston Brook parish and Runcorn North ward. Both the Council and Liberal
Democrats proposed that a large part of Palace Fields be added to Norton South
ward.
67 Because the Council elects by thirds, we were unwilling to recommend a single-
councillor ward in the absence of compelling reasons to do so. In considering the
Liberal Democrats’ proposed Runcorn East ward, we found no evidence to persuade
us that Preston Brook parish should be combined with Norton North ward. We noted
that the principal access between Preston Brook and Norton North would be via the
large roundabout at the end of the Southern Expressway, but that this route more
readily gives access to the areas of Brookvale and Murdishaw Avenue than to
Norton North. We therefore proposed to combine Preston Brook and Brookvale in a
three-councillor Preston Brook & Vale ward as part of our draft recommendations.
68 Our proposals for Halton Village and Halton Lea meant that in order to reflect
our statutory considerations, we needed to address the consequential impact of
those changes on Norton North, Norton South and Preston Brook.
69 We recognise that Preston Brook is a distinct community. We note submissions
which argue that residents of Preston Brook engage with Daresbury’s church and
primary school but also note that children in the parish attend other schools. We note
that access between Preston Brook and Brookvale is via a roundabout at the end of
the Southern Expressway, but also that the principal access between Preston Brook
and Daresbury is via the large roundabout at the M56 motorway which is arguably a
greater barrier.
70 Our proposals avoid splitting any parish between borough wards and we
consider that this approach thereby reflects community identities, ensuring good
18electoral equality and maintaining a three-councillor warding pattern. Furthermore,
we consider that in a pattern of three-councillor wards, three borough councillors
representing the Preston Brook parish area can effectively represent the interests of
its residents. We are not persuaded that our proposals put at risk any individual
parish, or indeed, parishes in general.
19Runcorn west
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Beechwood & Heath 3 8%
Bridgewater 3 9%
Grange 3 4%
Mersey & Weston 3 8%
Beechwood & Heath and Mersey & Weston Point
71 Our draft recommendations for this area drew heavily on the observations we
made whilst visiting the western part of Runcorn. In particular, we were not satisfied
that Weston Point should be separated from Weston Village or that either area would
naturally sit in a ward with Beechwood. We considered that Clifton Lane would
provide an appropriate spine to a ward which links Heath with Beechwood as
suggested by two local residents.
72 We proposed an Old Town & Weston Point ward, the name having been
suggested to us during consultation, and a South Runcorn ward.
2073 Whilst we received broad support for our proposed boundaries, one resident
proposed that the boundary between Halton Lea and South Runcorn should follow
the expressway until the boundary with Daresbury begins, instead of following the
railway line. This resident said that it wouldn’t change the populations of the wards
as there are no houses there, but it would put an important Beechwood footpath
entirely inside Beechwood ward. We are not persuaded that this change would
produce a significant benefit but note that the proposed boundary would be less
distinct than that which formed our draft recommendations.
74 Although we received broad support for our proposed ward boundaries, the
names attracted a number of objections. Beechwood & Heath was generally
proposed as being more appropriate than South Runcorn and we accept that
proposal as part of our final recommendations.
75 The name Old Town & Weston Point also attracted objection, but in this case,
respondents to our consultation suggested a range of names. Some respondents
suggested that Old Town form part of the name, while others strongly opposed that
suggestion. Having considered the range of names suggested, we propose, as part
of our final recommendations, the name Mersey & Weston.
Bridgewater and Grange
76 The Council initially proposed a three-councillor Bridgewater ward which would
extend from the new development next to the Manchester Ship Canal at The Decks
to the large roundabout next to ShoppingCity on Central Expressway. In our draft
recommendations, we modified the Council’s proposal in order to provide electoral
equality in both the Bridgewater and Grange areas. Our proposal would achieve this
by dividing the Halton Brook estate between Grange and Bridgewater wards. The
Council and ward councillors objected to this proposal, suggesting that the whole of
Halton Brook should be included in Bridgewater ward and that electoral equality be
secured by including Morval Crescent and part of Boston Avenue north of the B5155
in Grange ward.
77 We are persuaded that this proposal will reflect community identity, particularly
on the Halton Brook estate, and will provide an acceptable level of electoral equality.
In making our final recommendations we have therefore adopted the ward
boundaries suggested by the Council.
21Widnes east
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Appleton 3 -9%
Central & West Bank 3 -9%
Farnworth 3 8%
Halton View 3 -5%
Appleton, Central & West Bank, Farnworth and Halton View
78 The Council initially provided the only detailed proposal for the whole of this
area whilst one local resident made a specific proposal for Deirdre Avenue.
79 The Council initially proposed two wards which crossed the railway line which
passes through north Widnes. The Council also proposed a central Widnes ward
22which was based on inaccurately mapped electoral data. We modified the Council’s
proposal for central Widnes in order to provide good electoral equality. Our draft
recommendations were also informed by our visit to this area and our subsequent
conclusions that ward boundaries should follow the railway line and that the
Kingsway area is more closely related to the centre of Widnes than the Ball o’ Ditton
area.
80 We received no objections to the boundaries we proposed in our draft
recommendations. The Council suggested that we adopt the ward names of
Appleton and Central & West Bank instead of Appleton Chadwick and Riverside &
Town respectively. In making our final recommendations, we have accepted the
Council’s ward name proposals for this area.
23Widnes west
Number of
Ward name Variance 2024
councillors
Bankfield 3 -8%
Birchfield 3 6%
Highfield 3 -9%
Hough Green 3 -2%
Bankfield and Highfield
81 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on our modifications to the
Council’s proposals for central Widnes and the observations we made when we
visited Ditton. We proposed that the Clincton View area be included as a whole in
24Bankfield ward and that the Radnor Drive, Crossway and Dundalk Road areas be
combined with the Ball o’ Ditton area in a Kingsway Heath ward.
82 We received no objections to the boundaries of the wards we proposed in our
draft recommendations, but the Council suggested that we adopt the name Highfield
instead of Kingsway Heath. In making our final recommendations, we have accepted
the Council’s ward name proposal for this area.
Birchfield and Hough Green
83 As a consequence of our decision with regard to Farnworth and in order to
provide good electoral equality, we proposed modifications to the Council’s initial
proposal for this area. We proposed that housing on both sides of Norland’s Lane be
included in Birchfield ward. We consider that residents on both sides of Norland’s
Lane are unlikely to regard the lane as a boundary between communities. We also
added Heathfield Park and Poleacre Drive to Hough Green ward. These roads are
connected to Hough Green by Queensbury Way and Hough Green Road in an area
where housing is situated on cul-de-sacs which are connected by these local spine
roads.
84 Whilst we received support for our proposed Birchfield ward from one resident,
the Council objected to our proposal that an area to the east of Prescot Road be
included in Hough Green ward. Whilst we accept that Prescot Road would, in some
respects, present a justifiable ward boundary, the consequences of doing so would
be a higher level of electoral inequality than we are normally prepared to
recommend. We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence of community
identity to justify a high electoral variance in this area and therefore confirm our draft
recommendations as final.
2526
Conclusions
85 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final
recommendations on electoral equality in Halton, referencing the 2018 and 2024
electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral
variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of
the wards is provided at Appendix B.
Summary of electoral arrangements
Final recommendations
2018 2024
Number of councillors 54 54
Number of electoral wards 18 18
Average number of electors per councillor 1,788 1,857
Number of wards with a variance more than 10%
5 1
from the average
Number of wards with a variance more than 20%
1 0
from the average
Final recommendations
Halton Borough Council should be made up of 54 councillors representing 18
three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and
illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.
Mapping
Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Halton.
You can also view our final recommendations for Halton on our interactive maps at
www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
27What happens next?
86 We have now completed our review of Halton Borough Council. The
recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal
document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament.
Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into
force at the local elections in 2020.
28Equalities
87 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines
set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to
ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review
process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a
result of the outcome of the review.
2930
Appendices
Appendix A
Final recommendations for Halton Borough Council
Number of Variance Number of Variance
Number of Electorate Electorate
Ward name electors per from electors per from
councillors (2018) (2024)
councillor average % councillor average %
1 Appleton 3 4,902 1,634 -9% 5,069 1,690 -9%
2 Bankfield 3 5,280 1,760 -2% 5,121 1,707 -8%
Beechwood &
3 3 6,116 2,039 14% 6,043 2,014 8%
Heath
4 Birchfield 3 6,045 2,015 13% 5,880 1,960 6%
5 Bridgewater 3 5,727 1,909 7% 6,085 2,028 9%
Central & West
6 3 4,983 1,661 -7% 5,075 1,692 -9%
Bank
Daresbury, Moore
7 3 3,334 1,111 -38% 6,238 2,079 12%
& Sandymoor
Ditton, Hale
8 Village & 3 5,265 1,755 -2% 5,177 1,726 -7%
Halebank
9 Farnworth 3 6,034 2,011 13% 6,031 2,010 8%
10 Grange 3 5,980 1,993 11% 5,785 1,928 4%
31Number of Variance Number of Variance
Number of Electorate Electorate
Ward name electors per from electors per from
councillors (2018) (2024)
councillor average % councillor average %
11 Halton Castle 3 4,923 1,641 -8% 5,156 1,719 -7%
12 Halton Lea 3 5,102 1,701 -5% 5,823 1,941 5%
13 Halton View 3 5,338 1,779 0% 5,269 1,756 -5%
14 Highfield 3 5,225 1,742 -3% 5,078 1,693 -9%
15 Hough Green 3 5,581 1,860 4% 5,454 1,818 -2%
16 Mersey & Weston 3 5,752 1,917 7% 6,020 2,007 8%
17 Norton North 3 5,819 1,940 8% 5,906 1,969 6%
Norton South &
18 3 5,136 1,712 -4% 5,082 1,694 -9%
Preston Brook
Totals 54 96,542 – – 100,292
Averages – – 1,788 – – 1,857 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Halton Borough Council.
Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward
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.
32Appendix B
Outline map
A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying
this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-
west/cheshire/halton
33Appendix C
Draft recommendations: Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/cheshire/halton
Local Authority
• Halton Borough Council
Political Groups
• Central and East Runcorn Labour Party
• East Runcorn Labour Party
• Halton Conservative Association
• Halton Borough Council Liberal Democrat Group
• Weaver Vale Constituency Labour Party
Councillors
• Councillors J. & M. Bradshaw (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor C. Carlin (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor E. Cargill (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor P. Hignett (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor R. Hignett (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor H. Howard (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor P. Lloyd Jones (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillors K. Loftus, A. Lowe & D. Thompson (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor J. Lowe (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor S. Nelson (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor N. Plumpton Walsh (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor P. Sinnott (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor J. Stockton (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor L. Trevaskis (Hale Parish Council)
Local Organisations
• Friends of Halton Village
• Hale Guildswomen Committee
• Hale Village Hall
34Parish and Town Councils
• Hale Parish Council
• Halebank Parish Council
• Moore Parish Council
• Preston Brook Parish Council
Local Residents
• 149 local residents
Petitions
• Hale Parish Council
Further draft recommendations: Submissions received
Local Authority
• Halton Borough Council
Political Groups
• Runcorn Central Branch Labour Party (4 submissions)
Councillors
• Councillors J. & M. Bradshaw (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor C. Carlin (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor E. Cargill (Halton Borough Council) (2 submissions)
• Councillor R. Hignett (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor H. Howard (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor P. Lloyd Jones (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor G. Logan (Halton Borough Council)
• Councillor L. Trevaskis (Hale Parish Council)
Local Organisations
• Friends of Halton Village
Parish and Town Councils
• Preston Brook Parish Council
35Local Residents
• 70 local residents
Petitions
• Preston Brook Parish Council
36Appendix D
Glossary and abbreviations
Council size The number of councillors elected to
serve on a council
Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements
changes to the electoral arrangements
of a local authority
Division A specific area of a county, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever division
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the county council
Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the
same as another’s
Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the
number of electors represented by a
councillor and the average for the local
authority
Electorate People in the authority who are
registered to vote in elections. For the
purposes of this report, we refer
specifically to the electorate for local
government elections
Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local
authority divided by the number of
councillors
Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Parish A specific and defined area of land
within a single local authority enclosed
within a parish boundary. There are over
10,000 parishes in England, which
provide the first tier of representation to
their local residents
37Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish
which serves and represents the area
defined by the parish boundaries. See
also ‘Town council’
Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any
arrangements one parish or town council; the number,
names and boundaries of parish wards;
and the number of councillors for each
ward
Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors vote in whichever parish ward
they live for candidate or candidates
they wish to represent them on the
parish council
Town council A parish council which has been given
ceremonial ‘town’ status. More
information on achieving such status
can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk
Under-represented Where there are more electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per
councillor in a ward or division varies in
percentage terms from the average
Ward A specific area of a district or borough,
defined for electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever ward
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the district or borough council
38The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for
Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England
up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House
Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, London
directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL
committee chaired by the Speaker of the
House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525
conducting boundary, electoral and Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk
Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or
structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Twitter: @LGBCEYou can also read
