New electoral arrangements for
Rochdale Borough Council
Draft Recommendations
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: [email protected]
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 2020
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 Rochdale? 2
Our proposals for Rochdale 2
How will the recommendations affect you? 2
Have your say 3
Review timetable 3
Analysis and draft recommendations 5
Submissions received 5
Electorate figures 5
Number of councillors 6
Ward boundaries consultation 6
Draft recommendations 7
Middleton 8
Castleton, Hopwood, North Heywood and South Heywood 12
North West Rochdale 15
Central and South Rochdale 19
East Rochdale 22
Conclusions 25
Summary of electoral arrangements 25
Have your say 27
Equalities 31
Appendices 33
Appendix A 33
Draft recommendations for Rochdale Borough Council 33
Appendix B 35
Outline map 35
Appendix C 37
Submissions received 37
Appendix D 38
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 OBE
(Chair)
• Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Susan Johnson OBE • Peter Maddison QPM
• Amanda Nobbs OBE • Steve Robinson • Jolyon Jackson CBE
(Chief Executive)
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.
6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Why Rochdale?
7 We are conducting a review of Rochdale Borough Council (‘the Council’) as its last review was completed in 2003 and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council in England ‘from time to time’.2 In addition, the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Rochdale. 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 Rochdale 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 Rochdale
9 Rochdale should be represented by 60 councillors, the same number as there are now.
10 Rochdale should have 20 wards, the same number as there are now. 11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.
How will the recommendations affect you?
12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.
13 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 consider any representations which are based on these issues.
Have your say
14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 1 December 2020 to 8 February 2021. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.
15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.
16 You have until 8 February 2021 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 27 for how to send us your response.
Review timetable
17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Rochdale. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.
18 The review is being conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
16 June 2020 Number of councillors decided
23 June 2020 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards
31 August 2020 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations
1 December 2020 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second consultation
8 February 2021 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations
Analysis and draft recommendations
19 Legislation3 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors4 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.
20 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.
21 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.
2020 2026
Electorate of Rochdale 167,096 175,323
Number of councillors 60 60
Average number of electors per
councillor 2,785 2,922
22 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’. All of our proposed wards for Rochdale will have good electoral equality by 2026.
Submissions received
23 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
24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2026, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2021. These
forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 5% by 2026.
25 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 draft recommendations.
3 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 4 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.
Number of councillors
26 Rochdale Borough Council currently has 60 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively. 27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 60 councillors.
28 As Rochdale Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation5 that the Council have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an
alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.
29 We received no significant comments on the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns and have therefore based our draft
recommendations on a 60-member council.
Ward
boundaries consultation
30 We received 51 submissions in response to our consultation on ward
boundaries. These included two borough-wide proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.
31 The two borough-wide schemes provided uniform patterns of three-councillor wards for Rochdale. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the pattern of wards proposed by the Council resulted in good levels of electoral equality in all areas of the authority. Whilst we noted that the proposed wards generally used clearly identifiable boundaries, the commentary provided with them was often descriptive in nature rather than evidential.
32 The proposed pattern of wards from the Liberal Democrats resulted in some wards not achieving good levels of electoral equality. We were therefore unable to consider this scheme in many parts of the borough, although we have incorporated some of the suggested boundaries in places where we took the view that they facilitated a greater balance between our statutory criteria.
33 Our draft recommendations also take 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
5 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph
best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.
34 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed ‘virtual’ tour of Rochdale. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the draft
recommendations.
Draft recommendations
35 Our draft recommendations are for 20 three-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.
36 The tables and maps on pages 8–24 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Rochdale. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory6 criteria of:
• Equality of representation.
• Reflecting community interests and identities.
• Providing for effective and convenient local government.
37 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 33 and on the large map accompanying this report.
38 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.
Middleton
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2026 East Middleton 3 8% North Middleton 3 1% South Middleton 3 3% West Middleton 3 5% South Middleton
39 We received three submissions for this area from the Council, the Liberal Democrats and a local resident.
40 The proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats did not differ significantly. Both schemes suggested a South Middleton ward and an East
Middleton ward that were north–south in orientation and split the area of Alkrington, with the Council following the existing boundary between the two wards and the Liberal Democrats proposing a minor change by running the boundary along Kingsway and Mainway East. While both of these schemes secured reasonable levels of electoral equality, we were concerned that these proposals split the Alkrington community.
41 A local resident argued that Alkrington should not be split between South and East Middleton and should instead be contained within a single ward. Having considered the evidence provided, including an assessment of the proposed
boundaries on our virtual tour, we are of the view that a warding arrangement which unites Alkrington would better reflect communities in the area. We have therefore proposed an alternative warding arrangement in this area.
42 As part of our virtual tour of the borough, we concluded that Wince Brook provides a significant natural boundary between South Middleton and residential areas to the north. Its use as a northern boundary for the South Middleton area facilitates a warding arrangement in which Alkrington is united, while providing for good levels of electoral equality.
43 We therefore propose that South Middleton be formed of the area south of Wince Brook and contain the entirety of Alkrington Garden Village. We consider that this proposal best reflects our three statutory criteria of electoral equality, community ties and effective and convenient local government. We particularly welcome local comments during consultation about alternative proposals for this area.
44 Our proposed South Middleton ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of 3% by 2026.
East Middleton and West Middleton
45 We received nine submissions for East Middleton and West Middleton, including the two borough-wide schemes from the Council and the Liberal
Democrats. The Council’s proposal for the area provided only limited evidence of community identity. While it did secure good levels of electoral equality, this was contingent on the Council’s proposals for South Middleton. Due to the changes we have proposed to South Middleton (discussed above), the proposals for this area from both the Council and the Liberal Democrats would result in poor levels of electoral equality in East and West Middleton. We are consequently recommending our own proposals for the majority of this area.
46 In the north of our proposed East Middleton ward, we have incorporated the Council’s suggestion of the A627(M) and Rochdale Road as a northern boundary between East Middleton and the wards of Castleton and Hopwood. We view this to be a strong and identifiable boundary, as well as being persuaded by the Council’s argument that the Stakehill Industrial Estate – to the south of the A627(M) – should be included within East Middleton, as this area has historical links with Middleton and is considered to be an area of Middleton by residents.
47 Our proposed boundary between East and West Middleton wards uses Whit Brook, close to Boarshaw Road, before running east along Spring Vale and then south along William Street and through the industrial area to Wince Brook. When
conducting our virtual tour, we concluded that Whit Brook provided for the most clearly identifiable boundary between the two areas, while the incorporation of the area to the south of Spring Vale and west of William Street would ensure reasonable levels of electoral equality.
48 We also received two submissions from residents regarding the Middleton Conservation Area. These submissions argued that the streets comprising the conservation area should be placed within the same ward to allow for more effective representation. Having considered the evidence, we have been persuaded that the conservation area should be contained within a single ward to keep a community together, and we have therefore included this area entirely within West Middleton ward.
49 We received two additional submissions from residents which argued that Slattocks should be included within a Middleton ward due to strong community links between Slattocks and Middleton. While the Commission acknowledges these community links, placing Slattocks in East Middleton would create an electoral variance of 23% and -20% in East Middleton and Castleton wards respectively. We are of the view that this level of electoral inequality is not justified by the evidence provided.
50 One resident proposed moving the East Middleton boundary north to the M62 to include the area of Hollins. However, this arrangement would create an electoral variance of 48% in East Middleton ward. We have therefore not incorporated this proposal into our draft recommendations.
51 Finally, due to the proposed reorganisation of ward boundaries in Middleton, we have renamed these wards to better reflect their geographical position within
Middleton.
52 Our proposed East Middleton and West Middleton wards are forecast to have electoral variances of 8% and 5% by 2026, respectively.
North Middleton
53 A high level of development is expected in North Middleton, which would result in the ward being significantly under-represented by 2026 under the current warding arrangements. This therefore necessitated notable changes to the existing warding pattern for the area in order to meet our statutory criteria.
54 We received three proposals for North Middleton ward as well as two schemes from the Council and Liberal Democrats. Our proposal for North Middleton is based on the Council’s submission, with some minor adjustments, as this proposal best satisfies our statutory criteria.
55 While the Council’s scheme offers good electoral equality, we were concerned about the boundary between North Middleton and West Middleton, specifically the proposed boundary along Ennerdale Road and Kirkstone Drive. We consider this to be an unclear boundary between wards, while also noting that this is likely to split communities.
56 After looking closely at this area during a virtual tour, we consider Windermere Road to be a more identifiable boundary than the one proposed by the Council, which used the polling district boundaries. We are further proposing including Torver Drive and Our Lady of the Assumption church in North Middleton ward to reflect our perception of communities in the area.
57 Our proposed North Middleton ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of 1% by 2026.
Castleton, Hopwood, North Heywood and South Heywood
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2026 Castleton 3 -6% Hopwood 3 4% North Heywood 3 -2% West Heywood 3 1% Castleton
58 We received one resident submission and two schemes for Castleton from the Council and the Liberal Democrats. We have based our proposed Castleton ward on the Council’s scheme in this area, subject to a minor amendment, as this provides both good electoral equality and, in our view, reflects communities in the area.
59 Our proposed amendment is to the boundary between Castleton and Milkstone & Deeplish wards, in the north-east of Castleton. The Council proposed extending the ward across Edinburgh Way to New Barn Lane, and we were concerned that this proposal would artificially divide this residential area. We are therefore incorporating the boundary suggested by the Liberal Democrats in this area and proposing
Edinburgh Way as a more identifiable boundary. The ward will have good electoral equality in 2026 and, in our view, will effectively reflect community identities, based on the evidence received.
60 Our proposed Castleton ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of -6% by 2026.
Hopwood and North Heywood
61 We received no resident submissions for this area. Both the Council and Liberal Democrat schemes suggested changes to the current warding arrangements.
62 The Liberal Democrats proposed a large change to North Heywood and included the rural land east and north of Norden within North Heywood. Due to the distance of this area from Heywood, we were not convinced that this arrangement would facilitate effective and convenient local governance and took the view that electors in this area would more closely identify with a more local Norden ward. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposal to use the River Roch as the northern boundary of our proposed North Heywood ward. Our view is that the river forms a natural divide between the communities in Heywood and Rochdale.
63 To the west of our proposed North Heywood ward, we are of the view that the Council’s proposed ward boundary between North Heywood and West Heywood constituted a clear boundary. Therefore, we are proposing to use Cherwell Avenue and Pilsworth Road (see paragraph 69).
64 Both the Council and Liberal Democrats proposed a boundary between the wards of North Heywood and Hopwood that crossed the railway line, with the Liberal Democrats placing a large area of central Heywood into Hopwood and the Council placing the area east of Newhouse Road, south of the railway line, into North Heywood.
65 We carefully examined both proposals on our virtual tour of Rochdale and are of the view that neither arrangement provides for clear and identifiable boundaries for local electors. We consider that these proposals are likely to split local
communities, especially as a result of the Council’s proposed boundary around Walton Street, Grasmere Avenue, Gleneagles Avenue and Newhouse Road which runs between properties and splits streets. Additionally, the current warding
arrangements, as well as the Council’s proposal, include the streets north and south of Egerton Street within Hopwood ward. However, we noted that there is no access to Hopwood for these electors and any access to Hopwood would involve travelling through either North Heywood or West Heywood wards.
66 We are therefore proposing to use the railway line as the boundary between the wards of Hopwood and North Heywood. We are of the view that this provides a clear boundary which is easily identifiable by residents and effectively reflects our statutory criteria. It further unites the electors around Egerton Street into North Heywood.
67 Finally, we have adopted the Liberal Democrat proposal to rename the
Hopwood Hall ward Hopwood. We are of the view that this more accurately reflects communities in this area, given that the suburb of Hopwood is entirely within this ward and that Hopwood Hall itself is located on the periphery of the ward. We nonetheless welcome comments on the ward name during this period of consultation.
68 Our proposed Hopwood and North Heywood wards are forecast to have electoral variances of 4% and -2% by 2026, respectively.
West Heywood
69 We received no resident submissions about this area. We have based our West Heywood ward on the Council’s proposed ward, with some minor adjustments to run the majority of the eastern boundary along Cherwell Avenue and Pilsworth Road in order to use a more identifiable boundary that will be recognisable to local electors. 70 The Liberal Democrat proposal for this ward would result in an electoral variance of 12%. We were not persuaded that the evidence justified this level of electoral inequality and consequently we have not adopted it as part of our draft recommendations.
71 In the south-east of the proposed ward, we have deviated from Pilsworth Road at Egerton Street to include the properties in Rivershill Drive into West Heywood ward. The sole access for these residents is west onto Pilsworth Road and we consider retaining these electors in West Heywood reflects our perception of communities in the area.
72 Our proposed West Heywood ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of 1% by 2026.
North West Rochdale
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2026
Bamford 3 -1%
Healey 3 -6%
Norden 3 -3%
Spotland & Falinge 3 -1%
Bamford
73 The Council and Liberal Democrats proposed different boundaries for this area. The Council submission proposed minimal changes to the current warding
arrangement, while the Liberal Democrats proposed a ward containing both Norden and Bamford. We were not convinced by the Liberal Democrat argument which stated that a Norden & Bamford ward would recognise traditional boundaries without providing any further evidence of community ties.
74 Our proposed boundary between Norden and Bamford largely follows that proposed by the Council. However, during our assessment of the proposed boundary along Bagslate Moor Road and Edenfield Road, we identified two
residential areas that the Council proposed to include in Bamford ward, yet have no direct access into this ward and are separated from the bulk of Bamford by Bagslate Moor and Rochdale Golf Club. We therefore propose to retain the areas of St
George’s Road, Greenview Drive and Pargate Chase in Norden ward and the area to the eastern end of Edenfield Road in Spotland & Falinge. This is discussed in further detail in paragraph 84.
75 We consider this proposed boundary will reflect the community identity and interests of this area, and further ensures that all electors south of Clay Lane are now uniformly placed in Bamford ward.
76 We received one submission concerning Bamford from a resident located in the south of the ward in Marland. This resident argued that this area has more in
common with Castleton and Milkstone & Deeplish. We considered this suggestion. However, we found that moving this area out of Bamford ward would have a severely detrimental impact on electoral equality, with a forecasted electoral variance for Bamford of -29%. Furthermore, we believe that the use of Manchester Road to the south acts as a clear and identifiable boundary, particularly as there are relatively few pedestrian crossings along this road. As part of our draft recommendations, we are therefore following the Council’s proposed boundary in this area, while also adding in the properties on the eastern side of Roch Valley Way into Bamford. We believe that the use of both Manchester Road and Mandale Park provides a clear and identifiable boundary in the south of Bamford ward.
77 Under the draft recommendations, our proposed Bamford ward is forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026 at -1% and we believe it will reflect the local community.
Healey
78 We received proposals for this area from the Council, Liberal Democrats and two local residents. Both the Council and Liberal Democrats proposed a similar Healy ward with the boundary running down Woodland Road in the west, along the southern edge of Cronkeyshaw Common, and up Buckley Brook in the east. The Council did suggest a slight deviation to this boundary and proposed to place the area north of Foxholes Road in Healey rather than using the entirety of Cronkeyshaw Common as a boundary. Having considered the evidence, we are of the view that the Common provides a more identifiable boundary in this area.
79 One resident argued that the boundary between Healey and Central Rochdale should be moved to Moorland Street to include Casson Gate in Healey ward, as the needs and concerns of residents on this street are more in line with Healey. We note the resident’s arguments. However, we are of the view that this proposal would artificially divide the residential area south of Cronkeyshaw Common and would not provide a clear and identifiable boundary. We consider Cronkeyshaw Common to be a stronger, more identifiable boundary than Moorland Street.
80 We received a submission from a local resident which stated that the area around Rochdale Infirmary north of Howard Street should be included in Healey ward. This would place Healey at a 16% variance and Central Rochdale at a
variance of -21%. We are of the view that this level of electoral inequality is
unacceptably high and consequently have not adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.
81 Finally, we propose to move the area around Buckley Road, Buckley Farm Lane and HMP Buckley Hall out of Healey and into Smallbridge & Firgrove ward due to its geographical location being separated from the bulk of Healey ward by a large rural area. We believe effective and convenient local governance will be better facilitated by including this area in Smallbridge & Firgrove ward.
82 We consider our proposed Healey ward to reflect the community and note that it is forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026 at -6%.
Norden
83 We received four submissions for Norden, including two full schemes from the Council and Liberal Democrats and two submissions from residents. The Liberal Democrats proposed large changes to the existing Norden ward, including
combining Norden with Bamford and incorporating the rural areas north of Norden into North Heywood. As discussed in paragraphs 62 and 73, we were of the view that the limited evidence provided did not demonstrate sufficiently strong community links to justify these proposals, particularly given the poor levels of electoral equality that would result.
84 Our draft recommendations for this ward are based on the submission from the Council, as we consider that this proposal best meets our statutory criteria. We have made a slight alteration south of Bagslate Moor Road to include the electors around Greenview Drive and Pargate Chase in Norden. We consider this boundary will reflect the community identity and interests of this area by ensuring that all electors in properties that front onto, or access onto, this area of Bagslate Moor Road are included in Norden ward. We are further proposing to include the entirety of Hooley Bridge in Norden ward by running the southern boundary between Norden and North Heywood along Naden Brook.
85 We further noted that the Council’s proposal to include Catley Lane Head within Norden ward was supported by a local resident, who argued that this community identifies with Norden, with residents using schools, local shops and churches in Norden. We have adopted this proposal.
86 Finally, we received a submission from one resident arguing that Healey should be placed with Whitworth. As Whitworth is in the Rossendale Borough Council area, this is not within the scope of the review as the Commission cannot affect the
external boundaries of the borough.
87 Our proposed Norden ward is forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026 at -3%.
Spotland & Falinge
88 We received four submissions for this area from the Council, Liberal Democrats and two residents.
89 The boundary of the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Spotland ward removes the area of Falinge from the ward and instead proposes a boundary down the River Spodden and Mellor Street. As we have proposed different Norden and Bamford wards to those suggested by the Liberal Democrats (paragraphs 73 and 83), much of the area the Liberal Democrats have allocated to Spotland is in our proposed Norden and Bamford wards. We are therefore not proposing to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ submission in this ward as it would result in very high levels of electoral inequality.
90 The Spotland & Falinge ward proposed by the Council is similar to the existing ward, with a few amendments. The Council proposed to add the area of Lower Falinge up to Toad Lane and St Mary’s Gate into Spotland & Falinge, as well as the area between Holland Street and St Mary’s Gate. Two residents also suggested a similar change and proposed that the Falinge and Lower Falinge areas should be added into this ward due to strong community links and to allow for more effective governance. We were persuaded by this evidence and have adopted these
proposals. Our draft recommendations include Lower Falinge and the Lower Falinge Community Activity Group within the Spotland & Falinge ward.
91 One resident suggested adding the area around Stanley Street to Spotland & Falinge. However, the lack of community evidence for this proposal means that we were not convinced to adopt this suggestion within our draft recommendations. However, we would be particularly interested to hear from residents in this area between Sheriff Street and Heights Lane to understand with which community they most identify.
92 Our proposed Spotland & Falinge ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of -1% by 2026.
Central and South Rochdale
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2026
Balderstone & Kirkholt 3 2%
Central Rochdale 3 1%
Kingsway 3 -1%
Milkstone & Deeplish 3 -2%
Balderstone & Kirkholt and Kingsway
93 We received two schemes for this area from the Council and Liberal Democrats as well as a single resident submission.
94 The scheme proposed by the Council was similar to the current warding arrangements with a few adjustments. We were of the view that the Council’s proposal provided for good levels of electoral equality and used identifiable
boundaries for both Balderstone & Kirkholt and Kingsway wards. We were therefore persuaded to base our draft recommendations on these proposals, subject to some amendments.
95 As part of these proposals, Kingsway ward will gain Burnedge and the area east of New Broad Lane from Balderstone & Kirkholt. We were of the view that New Broad Lane constitutes a stronger boundary than Broad Lane, and further consider
that the proposed boundary around Burnedge will reflect community identity and interests by ensuring that all electors in this area are including in Kingsway. 96 Moreover, in our proposed Kingsway ward we have extended the southern boundary to ensure that all rural electors south of the M62 are grouped together, with the exception of Garside Farm which has sole access into Milnrow & Newhey. We have further removed Newbold Brow and Belfield and placed these areas within Smallbridge & Firgrove. We consider the railway line to be a stronger boundary in this area and are of the view that this proposal allows for the communities north of the railway to be grouped together in a more cohesive ward.
97 The Liberal Democrat scheme for this area was substantially different from the current warding pattern and from the proposal made by the Council. The submission also offered only limited community evidence as to why these wards would better serve south Rochdale. In addition, their proposed Balderstone & Buersil ward would have a variance of -12% by 2026. As we are of the view that these wards would not meet our statutory criteria, we have decided not to adopt the changes proposed by the Liberal Democrats in this area.
98 We received a resident submission which suggested that streets south of Entwisle Road should be included in the Kingsway ward. However, placing these streets in Kingsway ward would cut off this area from the majority of Kingsway due to the limited access across the railway line. We are of the view that the railway line provides a strong, clearly identifiable boundary in this area and we have therefore not adopted the resident’s proposal as part of our draft recommendations.
99 Our proposed Balderstone & Kirkholt and Kingsway wards are forecast to have electoral variances of 2% and -1% by 2026, respectively.
Central Rochdale and Milkstone & Deeplish
100 We received two schemes for this area from the Council and Liberal Democrats, as well as two resident submissions.
101 The Council proposed a Central Rochdale ward with a similar centre to the current warding arrangements, while adding in Newbold Brow and Mayfield in the south-east and the area north of the railway line and east of Broadfield Park in the south-west. A resident suggested a similar boundary in the south-east, and proposed including the areas of Buckley, Smallbridge and Belfield into a Central Rochdale ward. We were not persuaded to include the areas of Newbold Brow and Mayfield into Central Rochdale due to our perception of stronger community links between these areas and their neighbouring communities. In addition, adding these areas into Central Rochdale would worsen levels of electoral equality not only for Central Rochdale but for other surrounding wards. The Council also argued against adding these areas into Central Rochdale, stating that they do not consider Central Rochdale to be their local community. We consider the River Roch to be a clearer
boundary in this area and are therefore incorporating it within our draft recommendations.
102 We also propose that the area around Broadfield Park be moved from
Milkstone & Deeplish to Central Rochdale. This would allow for Rochdale Town Hall, Rochdale Police Station and other amenities to be located in Central Rochdale. We are of the opinion that this would provide for more effective governance and would like to hear the opinions of local residents on this proposal.
103 Aside from the amendments in the north of the ward, we are proposing to retain the existing boundaries of Milkstone & Deeplish. We consider the boundaries of Rochdale Canal, Edinburgh Way and Manchester Road to be particularly strong boundaries and believe that our draft recommendations reflect the community identity of electors in Milkstone & Deeplish.
104 Our proposed Central Rochdale and Milkstone & Deeplish wards are forecast to have electoral variances of 1% and -2% respectively by 2026.
East Rochdale
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2026
Littleborough Lakeside 3 7%
Milnrow & Newhey 3 -4%
Smallbridge & Firgrove 3 -10%
Wardle & West Littleborough 3 4%
Littleborough Lakeside and Wardle & West Littleborough
105 The two borough-wide schemes from the Council and Liberal Democrats proposed significantly different warding arrangements in this area.
106 The Liberal Democrats proposed a scheme which separated the area of Littleborough between Littleborough and Smithy Bridge wards. The submission argued that the community of Smithy Bridge is easily identifiable, has its own train station, and is separated from Littleborough by rivers and green spaces, so therefore would be better served by a ward centred on Smithy Bridge. We received a resident submission which also argued that Smithy Bridge was its own distinct community and therefore should be represented by its own ward.
107 In order to achieve good levels of electoral equality, the Liberal Democrat proposals in this area were reliant on the scheme being further accepted in other parts of the borough. The Commission was of the opinion that the Liberal Democrats’
proposed Wardle & Hamer ward, which stretched from Wardle in the north to Whitworth Road in the south, does not meet our statutory criteria of community identity due to its elongated geography and grouping together of rural areas with the Rochdale urban centre. The Liberal Democrat submission of Wardle & Hamer further did not provide strong community evidence that these areas should be grouped together.
108 As the Commission has been persuaded to adopt the Council proposals, with some minor adjustments, in Healey, Central Rochdale and Smallbridge & Firgrove, we were therefore unable to adopt the Smithy Bridge ward proposed by the Liberal Democrats. This would not have allowed for good electoral equality in the areas of Smithy Bridge, Wardle and Littleborough.
109 We further noted that while there was community evidence demonstrating that Smithy Bridge has a strong community, Smithy Bridge is not split between wards by the Council’s submission. The entirety of the town is contained within Littleborough Lakeside ward, allowing for this community to be effectively represented.
110 Our proposed Littleborough Lakeside and Wardle & West Littleborough wards are both based on the Council’s submission, with some minor adjustments for residents. We are proposing to extend Littleborough Lakeside to include all the properties on Shore Road and some rural properties on the border with Milnrow & Newhey to allow for residents there to be placed within the ward through which they have access. We have further moved all residents east of Ashbrook Hey Lane from Smallbridge & Firgrove to Wardle & West Littleborough to allow the majority of Wardle town to be placed within this ward. We believe these proposals will better serve communities in this area by ensuring that the majority of Wardle is placed within the Wardle & Littleborough ward.
111 Our proposed Littleborough Lakeside and Wardle & West Littleborough wards are forecast to have electoral variances of 7% and 4% respectively by 2026.
Milnrow & Newhey
112 Our draft recommendations for this ward are the same as the current warding arrangements, with minor changes. The Liberal Democrats proposed no change to the current warding arrangements for Milnrow & Newhey due to the knock-on variance changes for the neighbouring wards.
113 The Council proposed an extension of Milnrow & Newhey to include some properties along Rochdale Road up until the bowling green on Thistle Green. The Council argued that this boundary between houses is identifiable as it runs between different housing types. We looked closely at the boundary but did not agree that the boundary proposed by the Council was clear and identifiable to local residents. We are therefore proposing to retain the current boundary which runs along the River Beal, Bridge Street and Buckley Hill Lane.
114 Our proposed ward of Milnrow & Newhey will have an electoral variance of -4% by 2026.
Smallbridge & Firgrove
115 We received two schemes and five residents’ submissions regarding
Smallbridge & Firgrove. All five residents argued against retaining Smallbridge & Firgrove ward in its current state.
116 Four residents argued that Firgrove should be added to Milnrow & Newhey ward. These residents stated that the facilities they use are all located in Milnrow, and that Firgrove is regarded by residents as part of the Milnrow community. Due to these strong community ties, we looked closely at moving the area of Firgrove into Milnrow & Newhey. However, this would result in an electoral variance of 23% for this ward. We have not been persuaded that the evidence provided justifies this level of electoral inequality.
117 The Liberal Democrat submission argued that Smallbridge & Firgrove ward was not a ’natural ward’ and instead joined three or four communities which have little in common. One resident agreed with this proposal, arguing that the current
configuration prevents councillors from working effectively and artificially groups together communities that are geographically separated. The Liberal Democrats therefore proposed a Firgrove ward which used strong natural boundaries of the canal, playing fields, train line and flood plains. While we were persuaded that this ward would provide better representation for communities and good electoral
equality, adopting this ward was contingent on adopting all other wards proposed by the Liberal Democrats in this area. We were not persuaded that the neighbouring proposed ward of Wardle & Hamer represented communities effectively, and the other surrounding wards of Central and Balderstone & Buersil had forecasted
electoral variances of -18% and -12% respectively. Given our responsibility to ensure an effective balance of our statutory criteria across the whole area, we were
therefore unable to adopt the proposed Firgrove ward.
118 We are therefore basing our draft recommendations for Smallbirdge & Firgrove on the Council scheme. We agree that the A664 Albert Royds Street forms a strong spine for Smallbridge & Firgrove ward, which facilitates simple road access between Smallbridge and Firgrove. Nonetheless, we are particularly interested to hear local views in relation to our draft recommendations during the current consultation and for alternative arrangements to be proposed to us.
119 Our proposed Smallbridge & Firgrove ward will have a variance of -10% by 2026. The Commission considers that this ward will better reflect local communities than the current warding arrangements.
Conclusions
120 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft
recommendations on electoral equality in Rochdale, referencing the 2020 and 2026 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
Draft recommendations
2020 2026
Number of councillors 60 60
Number of electoral wards 20 20
Average number of electors per councillor 2,785 2,922 Number of wards with a variance more than 10%
from the average 2 0
Number of wards with a variance more than 20%
from the average 0 0
Draft recommendations
Rochdale Borough Council should be made up of 60 councillors serving 20 wards representing 20 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.
Mapping
Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Rochdale Borough Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Rochdale Borough Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Have your say
121 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.
122 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Rochdale, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.
123 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at
www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
124 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:
Review Officer (Rochdale) LGBCE
PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE
125 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Rochdale which delivers:
• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters.
• Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge
its responsibilities effectively. 126 A good pattern of wards should:
• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters.
• Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links.
• Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries.
127 Electoral equality:
• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Rochdale?
128 Community identity:
• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?
• Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?
• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?
129 Effective local government:
• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively?
• Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate?
• Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?
130 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on
deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.
131 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from. 132 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft
recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and
evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.
133 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft
Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Rochdale Borough Council in 2022.
Equalities
134 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.
Appendices
Appendix A
Draft recommendations for Rochdale Borough Council
Ward name Number of
councillors Electorate (2020) Number of electors per councillor Variance from average % Electorate (2026) Number of electors per councillor Variance from average % 1 Balderstone & Kirkholt 3 7,823 2,608 -6% 8,970 2,990 2% 2 Bamford 3 8,327 2,776 0% 8,688 2,896 -1% 3 Castleton 3 8,003 2,668 -4% 8,265 2,755 -6% 4 Central Rochdale 3 7,853 2,618 -6% 8,839 2,946 1% 5 East Middleton 3 9,314 3,105 11% 9,490 3,163 8% 6 Healey 3 8,124 2,708 -3% 8,266 2,755 -6% 7 Hopwood 3 8,492 2,831 2% 9,082 3,027 4% 8 Kingsway 3 8,323 2,774 0% 8,639 2,880 -1% 9 Littleborough Lakeside 3 8,995 2,998 8% 9,390 3,130 7% 10 Milkstone & Deeplish 3 7,698 2,566 -8% 8,571 2,857 -2% 11 Milnrow & Newhey 3 8,123 2,708 -3% 8,379 2,793 -4%
Ward name Number of councillors Electorate (2020) Number of electors per councillor Variance from average % Electorate (2026) Number of electors per councillor Variance from average % 12 Norden 3 8,370 2,790 0% 8,480 2,827 -3% 13 North Heywood 3 8,140 2,713 -3% 8,547 2,849 -2% 14 North Middleton 3 6,744 2,248 -19% 8,819 2,940 1% 15 Smallbridge & Firgrove 3 7,551 2,517 -10% 7,930 2,643 -10% 16 South Middleton 3 8,802 2,934 5% 9,006 3,002 3% 17 Spotland & Falinge 3 9,136 3,045 9% 8,708 2,903 -1%
18 Wardle & West
Littleborough 3 9,157 3,052 10% 9,135 3,045 4%
19 West Heywood 3 9,021 3,007 8% 8,876 2,959 1%
20 West Middleton 3 9,102 3,034 9% 9,244 3,081 5%
Totals 60 167,096 – – 175,323 – –
Averages – – 2,785 – – 2,922 –
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 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.
Appendix B
Outline map
A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website:
Number Ward name
1 Balderstone & Kirkholt
2 Bamford 3 Castleton 4 Central Rochdale 5 East Middleton 6 Healey 7 Hopwood 8 Kingsway 9 Littleborough Lakeside 10 Milkstone & Deeplish 11 Milnrow & Newhey
12 Norden
13 North Heywood
14 North Middleton
15 Smallbridge & Firgrove
16 South Middleton
17 Spotland & Falinge
18 Wardle & West Littleborough
19 West Heywood
Appendix C
Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater-manchester/rochdale
Local Authority
• Rochdale Borough Council
Political Groups
• Liberal Democrat Group
• Labour Group (Rochdale Local Campaign Group)
Local Residents
Appendix 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
Parish 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 arrangements
The total number of councillors on any 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
The Local Government Boundary
Commission for England (LGBCE) was set up by Parliament, independent of
Government and political parties. It is
directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for conducting boundary, electoral and structural reviews of local government.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE Telephone: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE
