The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – North West
Cumbria and Lancashire
Initial proposals
Of the six existing constituencies in Cumbria, none were within the permitted range, and it was necessary to cross the county boundary with Lancashire. Of the 16 existing constituencies in Lancashire, seven were within the permitted range, with two constituencies above the range, and seven under. The pairing of Cumbria with Lancashire as a sub-region results in an allocation of 20 constituencies, a reduction of two
Under our initial proposals, the electorate of the City of Carlisle was such that the ward of Dalston & Burgh was transferred to the Workington constituency, and no further changes were proposed to the Carlisle constituency. We proposed a Workington constituency that is more closely aligned with the boundaries of the Allerdale district than the existing constituency and contained all the wards of Allerdale district, except the Crummock & Derwent Valley, and the Keswick wards, plus the Dalston & Burgh ward, as mentioned above.
We proposed a Westmorland and Eden constituency, which contained the entirety of Eden district, and from South Lakeland district the wards of Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale, Kendal Rural, and the five wards which constitute the town of Kendal itself. The Barrow and Furness constituency was extended eastwards across the Leven Estuary in order to avoid significant disruption. This was therefore largely the same as the existing constituency, but now included the Cartmel and Grange wards, and no longer included the Broughton & Coniston ward, which was included in the proposed Copeland and The Western Lakes constituency. This was similar to the existing Copeland constituency, but was extended eastwards to include the Broughton & Coniston, Ambleside & Grasmere, and Windermere wards. We proposed the division of the Bowness & Levens ward between the Copeland and the Western Lakes, and Morecambe and South Lakeland constituencies, so as not to divide Lake Windermere between constituencies.
Our proposed Morecambe and South Lakeland constituency crossed the county boundary between Cumbria and Lancashire and additionally included the Burton & Crooklands, and Arnside & Milnthorpe wards. We considered the existing Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency to be the most suitable for extension across the Cumbria and Lancashire county boundary and, aside from the addition of the Cumbrian wards, the bulk of the constituency would remain largely unchanged. We included in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency the Skerton West ward, with the Skerton East and Upper Lune Valley wards being included in the Lancaster constituency, which was significantly different from the existing Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency and which would no longer extend across the River Wyre into Fleetwood. The town of Fleetwood was included in our proposed Blackpool North and Fleetwood constituency, which would also contain the settlements of Cleveleys and Thornton.
In order to increase the electorate of the existing Blackpool South constituency we proposed that it be extended northwards to include the Claremont, Layton, Park, and Warbreck wards. We proposed relatively minor change to the existing Fylde constituency, but included three wards that comprise the town of Poulton-le-Fylde. We proposed that the Preston constituency should include the Garrison, Sharoe Green, Greyfriars, and Cadley wards, thereby including the Fulwood area, and that the two City of Preston wards of Fishwick & Frenchwood, and Ribbleton be included within the Ribble Valley constituency. This constituency was significantly reconfigured and would no longer include most of the town of Bamber Bridge, nor the wards of East Whalley, Read & Simonstone, Whalley & Painter Wood, and Billington & Langho, which were included in our proposed Hyndburn constituency. This is largely the same arrangement as the existing constituency, but would no longer include wards from the Borough of Rossendale.
Although six existing constituencies – Hyndburn; Rossendale and Darwen; Blackburn; Chorley; South Ribble; and West Lancashire – were able to remain unchanged, other than realigning constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries, we considered that maintaining all of them unchanged would result in significant disruption across the rest of Lancashire and therefore not best reflect the statutory factors overall. We therefore proposed a number of changes to the existing configuration of constituencies. Our proposed Blackburn constituency was otherwise unchanged apart from the realignment of the constituency boundary in the south to reflect local government ward changes, thereby aligning the constituency boundary with that of the town’s southern boundary, along the M65, and no longer dividing the town of Blackburn.
The existing constituencies of Burnley and Pendle required additional electors to bring them within the permitted range. We therefore included the wards of Brierfield East & Clover Hill, Brierfield West & Reedley and Briercliffe with Lanehead in the Pendle constituency, and extended the Burnley constituency south by including the five easternmost wards of the Borough of Rossendale, and renamed it Burnley and Bacup. Following these proposed changes, the existing Rossendale and Darwen constituency was reconfigured to bring it within the permitted electorate range with the inclusion of the Greenfield and Worsley wards. We also proposed the inclusion of the Adlington & Anderton, and Chorley North East wards, from the Borough of Chorley, and renamed the constituency West Pennine Moors. In addition to the changes mentioned, we proposed that the Chorley constituency would include the Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard ward, and the Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South ward, thereby resulting in a Chorley constituency that would remain contained wholly within the Borough of Chorley.
We proposed that the existing Southport constituency be extended across the county boundary into its rural hinterland within Lancashire. Although the existing Southport constituency could remain wholly unchanged, we consider that this would result in significant disruptive knock-on effects throughout the North West, with the consequences extending across Lancashire, Merseyside and Cheshire. The four Borough of West Lancashire wards of North Meols, Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall, Tarleton, and Rufford were therefore included in the proposed Southport constituency, as we considered that these wards were already somewhat separated from the remainder of Lancashire by the River Ribble to the north, and the River Asland/River Douglas to the east. Our proposed South Ribble constituency contained the entirety of the town of Leyland, and most of the town of Bamber Bridge. Our proposals also allowed for a West Lancashire constituency which was wholly unchanged.
The initial proposals in Cumbria were supported in their entirety by some respondents, claiming they better reflected both local government boundaries and the existing constituencies across Cumbria than did any alternatives provided. The proposed Copeland and the Western Lakes constituency was described as ‘geographically coherent’. The proposed Barrow and Furness constituency also received some support, despite assertions that the Cartmel Peninsula had nothing in common with Barrow.
However, opposition significantly outweighed the support. There was opposition to the transfer of the Dalston & Burgh ward to the Workington constituency and proposals to retain the ward within the Carlisle constituency, at the expense of the Brampton & Fellside ward, or to split the Dalston & Burgh ward in some way. There were also calls to change the name of the proposed Westmorland and Eden constituency to Penrith, Eden and Kendal.
Two significant counter proposals and a large number of members of the public provided evidence that the initial proposals had little to no regard to the physical geography or communities within Cumbria. Strong views were expressed that we had fundamentally misunderstood the geographical and demographic characteristics of the sub-region, and that our proposals in Cumbria, with the exception of Carlisle, were flawed and should not stand. There were particular concerns that the initial proposals paid no attention to what was the highest mountain range in England, and which formed a significant physical boundary between communities. It was also claimed that Kendal and Penrith have never before been in a constituency together. The counter proposals in opposition both followed the same fundamental approach and, instead of dividing the existing Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, kept most of it intact, with no inclusion of wards to the east of the Lake District with Whitehaven or Workington. These two towns would instead be included in the same constituency, while in the north of the county a constituency would stretch from Alston in the east to the Solway Firth in the west, including the town of Penrith, but none of the southern part of the Eden Valley.
The requirement for a cross-county boundary constituency between Cumbria and Lancashire was broadly accepted, although there were differing views on how this could be achieved, with both support and opposition to the proposed Morecambe and South Lakeland constituency.
There was a strong view that the two wards of Skerton East and Skerton West should be united within the same constituency. Some said this should be the Morecambe and South Lakeland constituency, but others claimed that Skerton was part of Lancaster, including a petition in which 120 of the 121 signatories identifying as residents of Skerton said that the wards should be together, but within the Lancaster constituency. There was further support for the exclusion from the Lancaster constituency of the town of Fleetwood. As the constituency would contain a geographically larger component from the Wyre borough than currently, it was proposed that its name be changed to reflect this. It was also suggested that the Elswick and Little Eccleston ward should be included within the same constituency as the Great Eccleston ward, which under our initial proposals were separated.
With regard to the Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Blackpool South, and Fylde constituencies, relatively few representations were received, with both support and proportionally little opposition. Of the representations that opposed the initial proposals, the majority came from residents of the Carleton ward, who wished to be included in the same constituency as Poulton-le-Fylde, instead of Blackpool North and Fleetwood.
The south and east of Lancashire were areas in the North West region that received some of the most representations, overwhelmingly in opposition to the initial proposals. In Preston, there was significant opposition to the initial proposals, and calls for the Fishwick & Frenchwood, and Ribbleton wards to be included within the constituency rather than the Greyfriars and Sharoe Green wards, which comprise the Fulwood area, as in the existing constituency. Evidence was provided that the wards of Greyfriars and Sharoe Green were of a fundamentally different character to the rest of urban Preston.
As mentioned previously, the existing constituencies of Hyndburn, Rossendale and Darwen, Blackburn, Chorley, South Ribble, and West Lancashire were all able to remain unchanged, other than to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. Although the only change we had proposed to the Blackburn constituency was the realignment of the constituency boundary in the south to reflect local government ward changes, there was substantial and overwhelming opposition from the Blackburn South & Lower Darwen ward, with the residents of the ward being unequivocal that they belong with Darwen, rather than Blackburn.
The responses to the proposals for the Ribble Valley and Pendle constituency were largely in opposition. Many respondents suggested that there were no community ties between the Billington & Langho, East Whalley, Read & Simonstone, and Whalley & Painter Wood wards and the town of Accrington (which is included in the Hyndburn constituency), and that Whalley is intrinsically linked more to Clitheroe and the wider Ribble Valley than to Hyndburn. Many said that our proposals would arbitrarily divide the town of Whalley by retaining the Whalley Nethertown ward in the Ribble Valley constituency, while others stated that the Sabden area also had links to Whalley, and that all these areas should be considered as one in any revised proposals. The inclusion of the town and area around Bacup in a constituency with Burnley was largely opposed.
The representations received for the proposed constituencies in the rest of south Lancashire were almost wholly in opposition. The West Pennine Moors constituency in particular was almost universally opposed and described as ‘anomalous’. It was claimed that this constituency would arbitrarily divide both Chorley and Rossendale and include parts of both boroughs with areas of Darwen, with which, many respondents said, they had little to nothing in common. It was claimed there were no significant links of either transport or community between the Adlington & Anderton and Chorley North East wards, and Blackburn with Darwen, and that these wards looked unequivocally to Chorley. However, there was some limited support for the approach taken here.
The South Ribble constituency was broadly well received at initial proposals, despite the newly proposed constituency including wards from two local authorities. However, it was suggested that the Walton-le-Dale East and Walton-le-Dale West wards should both be included within the South Ribble constituency, and that the town of Bamber Bridge should be united in Ribble Valley, with both Bamber Bridge East and West wards being included in the same constituency as the Coupe Green & Gregson Lane ward.
There were some calls for the Rufford ward to be included within the West Lancashire constituency rather than the Southport constituency as proposed, with detailed evidence provided that the wards of Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Rufford, and Tarleton, comprised the ‘Northern Parishes’ and should be kept together. There were also calls for the Southport constituency to be renamed Southport and Douglas, in order to reference areas in both local authorities.
Our Assistant Commissioners decided to visit Cumbria. They considered that there were, in effect, only two solutions for the larger part of Cumbria, which would have to be based on which of these seemingly mutually exclusive approaches better reflected the statutory criteria (aside from our proposed Carlisle constituency). These two main options proved to be a fundamentally difficult choice between different statutory factors: the initial proposals were arguably stronger with regard to respecting existing local government boundaries, while the alternative put forward would arguably be stronger in relation to community ties. Neither approach could be reasonably weighed over the other in regard to the existing constituencies, due to the scale of change in both, which required either the wholesale reconfiguration of the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency (as initially proposed), or at least one constituency having to stretch east–west across the whole county (in the alternative). None of the counter proposals received would be without disadvantages, but, in view of the evidence received, neither were the initial proposals. Our Assistant Commissioners considered, however, that the initial proposals might not be the option to best respect the statutory criteria and proposed a pattern of constituencies that was a mixture of those proposed in the counter proposals. We agreed with the pattern proposed by our Assistant Commissioners, and adopted it as part of our revised proposals. Details of the reconfigured constituencies are set out below.
In the south-west of the county, we decided to split the Broughton & Coniston ward along the boundary between the existing Barrow and Furness constituency, and the existing Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, thereby retaining an existing constituency boundary, and meeting a requirement for the alternative scheme to be adopted. However, we did not feel there were sufficient grounds to split the Black Combe & Scafell ward, which was proposed by some respondents, and we included the whole of this ward – and the Millom ward – in the Barrow and Furness constituency, although we acknowledged that this constituency would cross three local authorities and contain a split ward. The northern boundary of this constituency would follow the River Mite as far as Eskdale, where it would then follow the ridgelines of Illgill Head, Scafell Pike, and Great End. We proposed that the remainder of the split Broughton & Coniston ward should sit within a proposed Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, as it is currently. This constituency would contain all the wards from the South Lakeland district that are included in the existing constituency, with the exception of Arnside & Milnthorpe, Burton & Crooklands, and Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale. It would also include all the wards within the Eden district that are to the south of the town of Penrith, together with the Dacre, Greystoke, and Ullswater wards. We considered that our revised proposals addressed many of the objections to the initial proposals in this area, as they reduced the division of the South Lakeland local authority and restored the majority of the existing Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency.
We proposed a Whitehaven and Workington constituency that would contain the entirety of Copeland borough, aside from the two wards in the Barrow and Furness constituency. It would also include both the Crummock & Derwent Valley, and Keswick wards, which are part of the existing Copeland constituency. and the remaining Allerdale borough wards south of the River Derwent.
We proposed no revisions to the initially proposed Carlisle constituency, but that the Dalston & Burgh ward be included in a Penrith and Solway constituency, which would include all the remaining wards in the Eden Valley as well as the 15 most northern wards of the Borough of Allerdale. In the west of Allerdale, the constituency’s southern boundary would be the River Derwent as far as Broughton Cross, and then follow the ward boundaries to the south of Cockermouth, and the north of Keswick. This constituency would include areas from three local authorities, and the Dalston & Burgh ward would continue to be an orphan ward. This constituency would stretch east to west across Cumbria, from Alston to the Solway Firth, an outcome that the initial proposals specifically sought to avoid, but we considered that it allowed for the formulation of constituencies across Cumbria overall that would better reflect the community identity evidence received. We considered that, while our revised proposals for Cumbria may initially seem to be worse than the initial proposals with regard to local government boundaries, the incoming unitary authorities for Cumbria, which will replace the current authorities, will mitigate these concerns to a large extent.
We revised the cross-county boundary constituency between Cumbria and Lancashire to propose that the existing constituency name of Morecambe and Lunesdale should be retained: the Arnside & Milnthorpe, Burton & Crooklands, and Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale wards would be the Cumbrian component of the constituency that would cross between Cumbria and Lancashire. Our Assistant Commissioners visited the Morecambe and Lancaster areas and concluded that the Skerton East and Skerton West wards should both be included in the Lancaster constituency, which was renamed Lancaster and Wyre. We agreed with their recommendation. We were not persuaded that the Elswick and Little Eccleston ward should be included within the same constituency as the Great Eccleston ward, as this would result in both an orphan ward (Elswick and Little Eccleston), and the proposed Lancaster and Wyre constituency containing elements of three local authorities.
In Blackpool and The Fylde, despite some opposition from residents of the Carleton ward who wished to be included with Poulton-le-Fylde, overall the initial proposals were not particularly contentious in this area and we proposed no further change to the composition and names of the three constituencies of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Blackpool South, and Fylde.
Following the site visits by our Assistant Commissioners, we accepted that the Greyfriars and Sharoe Green wards, which comprised Fulwood, were suburban and of a fundamentally different character to the remainder of Preston. We therefore proposed that the Preston constituency should include the Fishwick & Frenchwood, and Ribbleton wards, which our Assistant Commissioners had also visited and which appeared to them to be more akin to the urban core of Preston, and included the Greyfriars and Sharoe Green wards in the Ribble Valley constituency.
In the south of Lancashire, the representations were overwhelmingly in opposition to the initial proposals. The West Pennine Moors constituency in particular was almost universally opposed. The following existing constituencies were all able to remain unchanged, other than to realign constituency boundaries with changed ward boundaries: Hyndburn; Rossendale and Darwen; Blackburn; Chorley; South Ribble; and West Lancashire. We therefore proposed a revised configuration that more closely matched the existing constituencies, with the four existing constituencies of Blackburn, Chorley, Hyndburn, and Rossendale with Darwen all remaining unchanged, apart from the need to realign constituencies with new local government ward boundaries. The Adlington & Anderton, and Chorley North East wards would therefore be returned to the Chorley consistency, as had been suggested in many of the representations. This would also remove any requirement to split the Blackburn South & Lower Darwen ward, as had been proposed by some. We proposed that the Burnley constituency would be largely the same as the existing constituency, but, in order to bring the constituency within the permitted range, it would also include the two Pendle district wards of Brierfield East & Clover Hill, and Brierfield West & Reedley.
Maintaining the existing configuration of constituencies in the south of Lancashire also resulted in less change to the South Ribble constituency than in the initial proposals. We proposed that the constituency should contain the two Chorley wards of Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South, and Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard, which are divided between the existing South Ribble and Chorley constituencies, subject to their realignment to reflect local government ward changes, as well as the wards currently within the constituency that are within South Ribble borough, along with the Farington East and Farington West wards. This configuration would allow the Ribble Valley constituency to include both the Walton-le-Dale East and Walton-le-Dale West wards within the same constituency, and would also mean both Bamber Bridge East and West wards would be united and included in the Ribble Valley constituency along with the Coupe Green & Gregson Lane ward, which also contains some of the settlement’s urban extent.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited the Ribble Valley, Pendle, and Burnley area. They were persuaded by the representations, and their observations, which suggested that the Whalley and Clitheroe areas were similar in nature, sharing rural characteristics and good transport and communication links, and that the wards comprising the town of Whalley and the surrounding areas had little in common with Hyndburn. We therefore accepted their recommendations and proposed a Pendle and Clitheroe constituency that would contain the entirety of the Borough of Pendle, aside from the two Brierfield wards, and ten wards from the Ribble Valley, covering the Whalley and Clitheroe areas. The existing Ribble Valley constituency would therefore be significantly altered, and we acknowledged that the inclusion of Clitheroe and the Whalley area in Pendle and Clitheroe instead of a Ribble Valley constituency might not be popular with some residents. However, we believed that our proposals here went some way to address concerns expressed in representations from both Hyndburn and Whalley, that the two areas have little to nothing in common and that the Pendle and Clitheroe constituency would contain a large enough Ribble Valley element that there would be no question of the area being ‘overlooked’, as was argued in some representations.
We were mindful of the calls for the Rufford ward to be included within the West Lancashire constituency rather than the Southport constituency. Others suggested that all the wards that comprised the ‘Northern Parishes’ should be kept together in the same constituency, which we proposed should be the case with their inclusion in the Southport constituency. However, it remained our view that there is no suitable solution for the North West region without crossing the county boundary between Southport and the Borough of West Lancashire, although the existing Southport constituency can remain unchanged. We therefore made no further changes to the Southport and West Lancashire constituencies, and were not persuaded that the Southport constituency needed to be renamed.
There continued to be opposition to the exclusion of the Dalston & Burgh ward from the Carlisle constituency, with further suggestions to include it at the expense of either the Brampton & Fellside ward or the Longtown & the Border ward. There was also a call to amend the name of the constituency to Carlisle and the Borders.
With regard to the revised Barrow and Furness constituency, some responses said that Eskdale and Ravenglass look north to Whitehaven not south towards Millom, and there were calls for the splitting of the Black Combe & Scafell ward along the existing parish boundary of Eskdale Parish to resolve this. There was also a call to rename this constituency South West Cumbria to reflect its new composition.
We received a large number of representations informing us that, by not including the Seaton & Northside ward in the revised Whitehaven and Workington constituency, the town of Workington was being effectively divided. A number of options to resolve this were proposed, including splitting the Seaton & Northside ward. There were suggestions that Keswick is intrinsically more linked to Penrith or Kendal than it is to Workington or Whitehaven, and calls to rename this constituency West Cumbria. The non-inclusion of the Seaton & Northside ward with the remainder of Workington was one the largest single issues in the North West in the consultation on the revised proposals.
There were objections to the proposed Penrith and Solway constituency, which stretched east–west across Cumbria, with many highlighting this fact and issues relating to physical geography, lack of communities and poor transport connections within the proposed constituency. The Alston Moor ward was often cited as an issue, having limited or no connection to the rest of the constituency. Conversely, we received considerable support for our revised Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, including from many who had objected to our initial proposals and who were of the view that we had ‘got it right’ this time.
As in previous consultation stages, the key opposition to our proposed cross-county Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency came from Cumbria, from where there were objections to the inclusion of wards – namely Arnside & Milnthorpe, Burton & Crooklands, and Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale – in the constituency. We received a representation calling for the division of the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale ward, as well as calls for the ward to be retained within the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency.
We received few representations on our revised proposals regarding the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, and there was support for the inclusion of the Skerton West and Skerton East wards together in that constituency. We had made no changes to the Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Blackpool South, and Fylde constituencies in our revised proposals. Although there remained some opposition to the inclusion of the Carleton ward in Blackpool North and Fleetwood, and a number of alternative names being proposed (although no groundswell of support for name changes), overall there were very few representations from any of these constituencies at revised proposals.
In Preston, there was some opposition to our exchanging of the Fishwick & Frenchwood, and Ribbleton wards with the Greyfriars and Sharoe Green wards, which comprise the Fulwood area and which we included in the Ribble Valley constituency in our revised proposals, but there was also significant support.
In South Lancashire, we had made significant revisions to our initial proposals and in our revised proposals changed all the constituencies so that they were closer in configuration to the existing constituencies. Very few representations were received with regard to Blackburn, where the issue of the Blackburn South & Lower Darwen ward was one of the largest single issues in the North West at the initial proposals stage.
There was a mixture of opposition and support for the revised Burnley constituency. Among those representations in support, detailed evidence was provided of the strong community links between Brierfield and Burnley. However, there was also opposition, with calls for the Brierfield East & Clover Hill ward to be split. Regarding the Hyndburn, and Rossendale and Darwen constituencies, there was support for no change, apart from the realignment of the constituencies with local government ward boundary changes, but there was opposition to the revised constituencies. In the initial proposals, the case was put strongly that the Whalley areas had little in common with Hyndburn and should not be included in the Hyndburn constituency; in the revised proposals, it was claimed that these wards should be in the Ribble Valley constituency, or that they do have connections to Hyndburn and should be included in that constituency. There was also some opposition to the inclusion of the wards that comprise the town of Haslingden in the Hyndburn constituency, rather than in the Rossendale and Darwen constituency, although these wards are currently located in the existing Hyndburn constituency. There were also requests to rename the constituency Hyndburn and Haslingden. Similarly, with regard to the Ribble Valley, and Pendle and Clitheroe constituencies there was both considerable opposition and support with strong evidence and arguments made on both sides. Although a number of representations objecting made reference to the administrative town of the Borough of Ribble Valley – Clitheroe – being in the Pendle and Clitheroe constituency in our revised proposals, others, for example, highlighted the links of Clitheroe and Whalley with the communities of Barley and Colne, which are in the existing Pendle constituency.
In the revised proposals, we changed the initial proposals for the Chorley constituency, so that it would be the same as the existing constituency, apart from a realignment with local government ward boundary changes. This was well received in the Adlington & Anderton, and Chorley North East wards, and equally very poorly received in the large rural wards of Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South, and Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard, where there was considerable opposition to the inclusion of these wards in the South Ribble constituency. These wards have been modified following a local government boundary review. In the initial proposals these two wards had been wholly included in the Chorley constituency, although significant areas of both wards are currently located in the South Ribble constituency.
We were mindful of the calls for the Rufford ward to be included within the West Lancashire constituency rather than the Southport constituency and that others supported that the ‘Northern Parishes’ wards should be kept together in the same constituency. Very few representations were received otherwise with regard to the West Lancashire constituency, which had remained unchanged throughout the consultation stages.
Our revised proposals for Cumbria had attracted both support, particularly for the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, and opposition, primarily to our proposed Penrith and Solway constituency. We had acknowledged previously that we had considered that there were, in effect, only two solutions for the constituencies in Cumbria, and we had to decide which of these seemingly mutually exclusive approaches to take across Cumbria (aside from Carlisle). We had agreed with our Assistant Commissioners, who visited the county, that these two main options would have to be based on a very difficult choice between different competing statutory factors. We significantly altered our initial proposals and considered that these represented the best solution for these two constituencies.
Elsewhere in Cumbria, we did not consider there were sufficient reasons to alter the proposed Carlisle constituency, or to rename it Carlisle and the Borders, as every ward in the constituency was a City of Carlisle ward.
In the south-west of the county, we had split the Broughton & Coniston ward along the boundary between the existing Barrow and Furness constituency, and the existing Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency, thereby retaining an existing constituency boundary, which was required for the revised proposals to be adopted. However, although it would be possible to split the Black Combe & Scafell ward without large scale knock-on effects, or to alter the Barrow and Furness constituency we had proposed, we did not consider that the underlying evidence and reasons for dividing this ward were sufficiently strong to meet the threshold for splitting wards as previously set out, especially as there would not be significant benefits generally to the constituencies in this area.
On a similar basis, we do not consider that there are sufficiently strong grounds to split the Seaton & Northside ward. However, we acknowledge that our revised proposals here do separate Seaton from the rest of Workington and effectively divide the port between constituencies. We therefore recommend the inclusion of both the Seaton & Northside, and Flimby wards in the proposed Whitehaven and Workington constituency. This entails the exchange of other wards to ensure all constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. We noted representations that said that Keswick should be included in the Penrith and Solway constituency instead, and that, although Keswick had been included in the same constituency as Workington in the past and there were inevitably links with the town, Keswick also had links with Penrith. However, we noted and agreed with a representation that said the Keswick ward was also intrinsically linked to the neighbouring Crummock & Derwent Valley ward, and that, if the Keswick ward were to be included in another constituency, so should Crummock & Derwent Valley; this would allow for the Seaton & Northside, and Flimby wards to be included in the Whitehaven and Workington constituency. As there was no body of evidence that suggested that either Crummock & Derwent Valley, or Keswick looked south toward the Westmorland and Copeland constituency, we considered the inclusion of both wards in Penrith and Solway, and of Seaton & Northside, and Flimby in Whitehaven and Workington, to be an improvement on the revised proposals and would also include all these areas in the new unitary authority that is scheduled to be implemented in this part of Cumbria. We accordingly have included these changes as part of our final recommendations. However, we were not persuaded to rename the Whitehaven and Workington constituency West Cumbria.
We noted the opposition and counter proposals to the cross-county boundary Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency, particularly concerning the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale ward and that there had been calls for the ward to be divided, with the larger part retained in the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency. However, we considered that this would leave other parts of the ward detached from the rest of the ward and that the River Lune extended well into the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale ward.
In Lancashire, we considered that there had been sufficient support and no new or significant evidence to persuade us to change the Morecambe and Lunesdale, Lancaster and Wyre, Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Blackpool South, and Fylde constituencies. We acknowledge the large body of representations received about the inclusion of the Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South, and the Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard wards in the South Ribble constituency, but have not been persuaded to amend our revised proposals, not least as large parts of these wards are already in the existing South Ribble constituency. We therefore recommend no further change to our proposed South Ribble and Chorley constituencies with respect to these two wards, as it allows a configuration of constituencies across south Lancashire that closely matches the existing configuration.
The configuration of the following constituencies in our revised proposals were largely the same as the existing constituencies: Preston; Blackburn; Hyndburn; Rossendale and Darwen; and Burnley. We did not consider that a sufficiently strong case had been made to split the Brierfield East & Clover Hill ward. Although there were calls for some areas of the Borough of Ribble Valley to be included with Hyndburn in the revised proposals, we had altered our initial proposals due to the significant amount of opposition received. We do not consider there are sufficient grounds to alter our revised proposals for either the Ribble Valley, or Hyndburn (which would be unchanged from the existing constituency) constituencies. We note the representations from Haslingden opposed to the inclusion of the town in the Hyndburn constituency instead of in Rossendale and Darwen, but this is the existing arrangement. Furthermore, as the Hyndburn constituency would be unchanged from the existing constituency, we do not recommend that its name be changed to include reference to the town of Haslingden.
There continued to be opposition to our proposed Ribble Valley, and Pendle and Clitheroe constituencies, although there was some support, particularly from the proposed Pendle and Clitheroe constituency. We acknowledge that the inclusion of the town of Clitheroe and the Whalley area in Pendle and Clitheroe, instead of a Ribble Valley constituency, is not popular with some residents and noted the alternative suggestions that had been made. However, we consider that there had to be change in this area, and, although both constituencies are significantly reconfigured, we judge that our revised Ribble Valley, and Pendle and Clitheroe constituencies both better meet the statutory factors for the whole of Lancashire than did our initial proposals or the alternatives that have been suggested. We also consider the inclusion of both the Walton-le-Dale East and Walton-le-Dale West wards, and also both Bamber Bridge East and West wards in the Ribble Valley constituency, along with the Coupe Green & Gregson Lane ward, to be a positive outcome for these wards.
We noted the calls for the Rufford ward to be included within the West Lancashire constituency rather than the Southport constituency and that the wards of Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, Rufford, and Tarleton, should be kept together. Very few representations were otherwise received with regard to the West Lancashire constituency, which had remained unchanged throughout the consultation, and we were not persuaded to make any changes to our revised proposals.
Our final recommendations for Cumbria and Lancashire are therefore for constituencies of: Barrow and Furness; Blackburn; Blackpool North and Fleetwood; Blackpool South; Burnley; Carlisle; Chorley; Fylde; Hyndburn; Lancaster and Wyre; Morecambe and Lunesdale; Pendle and Clitheroe; Penrith and Solway; Preston; Ribble Valley; Rossendale and Darwen; South Ribble; West Lancashire; Westmorland and Lonsdale; and Whitehaven and Workington. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
