The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – North West
Merseyside and Cheshire
Initial proposals
As a consequence of our proposals for the Southport constituency, the existing Sefton Central constituency, which could be left wholly unchanged, was subject to minor change in our initial proposals. The proposed Sefton Central constituency included the Ainsdale ward from the existing Southport constituency, and no longer included the Molyneux ward, which we included in our proposed Liverpool Norris Green constituency. The Bootle constituency was wholly unchanged.
In the City of Liverpool, all the wards have large electorates and we had to propose fairly significant changes in order to formulate constituencies which were within the permitted electorate range. Although it still contained the Walton area, we proposed that the existing Liverpool Walton constituency be largely reconfigured and would no longer contain the Everton or Anfield wards, and would include the Croxteth and Norris Green wards. We also proposed that it would include the Molyneux ward from the Borough of Sefton. We acknowledged that this ward is largely rural in nature, but we considered that there were no reasonable alternatives in view of the other constituencies we proposed on Merseyside. We also proposed that this constituency be called Liverpool Norris Green.
Our proposed Liverpool Riverside constituency largely followed the form of the existing constituency, but was more centred to the west. It included both the Everton and Anfield wards, but no longer the existing constituency’s three south-eastern wards of Greenbank, Mossley Hill, and St. Michael’s, which were included in the proposed Liverpool Wavertree constituency. This constituency remained centred on Wavertree, but, in order to return the constituency to within the permitted electorate range, we no longer included the Church or Old Swan wards in the constituency. The Church ward was included in our proposed Liverpool Garston constituency. This constituency was also wholly contained within the City of Liverpool authority, as it no longer extended into the Halewood area of the Borough of Knowsley.
Our proposed Liverpool West Derby constituency included the Old Swan ward, and no longer included the Norris Green or Croxteth wards. It extended into the Borough of Knowsley, incorporating the wards of Page Moss and Swanside. As the City of Liverpool cannot be allocated a whole number of constituencies entirely within its boundaries, one constituency must cross into the Borough of Knowsley. We considered that this was the best location for the crossing, resulting in a compact constituency with an urban character and community links. With the exception of the two Knowsley council wards mentioned previously being included in the Liverpool West Derby constituency, and the realignment of the constituency boundary in the south to match local government ward changes, our proposed Knowsley constituency was otherwise unaltered.
Although the St Helens North constituency could remain unchanged, we proposed modifying it slightly in order to account for required changes in the existing St Helens South and Whiston constituency, which has an electorate larger than the permitted range. As such, our proposed St Helens North constituency no longer included the Parr ward, but did include the Town Centre ward. Our proposed St Helens South constituency included all the remaining wards within the Borough of St Helens, and also the Prescot South ward from the Borough of Knowsley. Although this would be an orphan ward, it is currently part of the existing St Helens South and Whiston constituency. We considered various configurations of constituencies in this and the surrounding area, but judged these would be more disruptive and not best reflect the statutory factors.
We proposed using the natural physical boundary of the River Mersey to divide the Borough of Halton between constituencies. The northern wards of Halton, including all of the town of Widnes on the northern bank of the river, would form most of a constituency that extended north across the ceremonial county boundary of Cheshire to include the three wards of Halewood North, Halewood South, and Whiston & Cronton from the Borough of Knowsley. We considered that this proposed Widnes and Halewood constituency resulted in less change across Liverpool and Knowsley than the alternatives. Similarly, it allowed for very minor changes in the boroughs of St Helens and Warrington. We acknowledged that Whiston would therefore be divided between two constituencies, and that this was not an ideal solution, but we considered that there was no reasonable alternative.
On the southern bank of the River Mersey, the town of Runcorn formed the largest urban area of our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency. This constituency contained all the wards of the Borough of Halton that are south of the River Mersey, and extended west into the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority, to contain the four wards of Frodsham, Helsby, Gowy Rural, and Sandstone from that authority. We considered that having the entirety of Widnes and Runcorn in separate constituencies resulted in a practicable configuration and distribution of constituencies across Cheshire and Merseyside.
The proposed Warrington North constituency was unchanged from the existing constituency, except to realign the constituency boundary with local government ward changes. The existing Warrington South constituency had an electorate considerably over the permitted range. We therefore proposed a Warrington South constituency which no longer included the Lymm North & Thelwall, or Lymm South wards. These two wards, which constitute the entire town of Lymm, were transferred to the Tatton constituency, along with the Dane Valley ward from the Cheshire East unitary authority. The inclusion of these wards meant that no wards from the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority would be included within a Tatton constituency.
We proposed that a new constituency be constructed, which would be centred around, and named, Northwich, and would be wholly contained within the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority, and would arguably be a successor to the existing Weaver Vale constituency, although significantly reconfigured.
The configuration proposed for the Northwich and Tatton constituencies resulted in minor changes within the rest of the Cheshire East unitary authority. The Macclesfield constituency was wholly unchanged, and our proposed Congleton constituency was also very similar to the existing configuration. The latter no longer included the Dane Valley ward, but aside from that was unchanged, except to realign the constituency boundary with local government ward changes. Our proposed Crewe and Nantwich constituency was also only changed by just one ward, except for realignment with local government ward changes: it no longer included the Wybunbury ward.
The existing Eddisbury constituency was significantly reconfigured under our proposals. The town of Winsford was mostly transferred to the Northwich constituency and the constituency no longer extended so far north towards the River Mersey, as that area was now within our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency. Conversely, it included the Wybunbury ward from Crewe and Nantwich as well as wards from the south of Chester. As the changes to the existing Eddisbury constituency had been significant, we named this constituency South Cheshire, which we considered to be more reflective of the nature and geographical extent of the constituency.
The five wards which constitute the northern portion of the City of Chester were included in a constituency with the Saughall & Mollington, and Willaston & Thornton wards, as well as the three wards which comprise the town of Neston. We considered the most accurate name for this constituency to be Chester North and Neston. Although we sought not to divide Chester, the River Dee does form a clear geographic boundary between constituencies and the difficulties caused by not dividing the City of Chester are considerable, with knock-on effects throughout both Cheshire West and Chester, and the Wirral. We therefore included the wards of Handbridge Park and Lache in our proposed South Cheshire constituency. A key reason for these changes is that there cannot be a whole number of constituencies that are contained within the boundary of the Borough of Wirral. Although there are currently four whole constituencies, the Wirral now only has the electorate for an allocation of three whole constituencies, and one part constituency. As we did not wish to propose a constituency which spanned the River Mersey between the Wirral and the City of Liverpool, it was necessary for a constituency to extend into the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority. We proposed that this cross-county boundary constituency be centred around Ellesmere Port, which, as it would no longer incorporate Neston, or the Gowy Rural ward, would now extend along the southern bank of the River Mersey, and would include the Eastham and Bromborough wards from the existing Wirral South constituency. To take account of these changes, our proposed constituency was simply called Ellesmere Port.
Our proposals for the remainder of the Wirral sought to minimise changes wherever possible. To achieve this we divided the Upton ward along the boundary of the A5027, with the northern half of this ward, consisting of the Upton community, included within our proposed Wallasey constituency, the remainder of which was unchanged. The southern half of this ward, containing the Woodchurch community, would continue to be included in the Wirral West constituency, which also gained the Heswall and Clatterbridge wards. Our proposed Birkenhead constituency was changed only by the inclusion of the Bebington ward. We considered that the benefits provided by dividing the Upton ward considerably outweighed the disadvantages of not doing so. It enabled us to retain with minimal change three of the existing four constituencies on the Wirral, and all alternative configurations of constituencies within this area that we examined paid far less heed to local and community ties.
We received a large number of representations in opposition to the inclusion of the Ainsdale ward in the Sefton Central constituency, with detailed evidence provided that this ward should be included with Southport. Some of these representations highlighted that both the Southport and Sefton Central constituencies are within the permitted electorate range and therefore do not need to change. However, crossing the county boundary between Southport and Lancashire was supported and it was generally acknowledged that this county boundary crossing would enable a pattern of constituencies across much of the North West that would result in less disruption overall and better reflect the statutory factors than a pattern based on no such crossing.
A very large number of representations were received with regard to the Liverpool Norris Green constituency, with overwhelming opposition to the proposed name in particular. Many representations highlighted the importance of Walton to the local community and the fact that Walton is a historic town, pre-dating Liverpool. The other key issue in this constituency concerned the Molyneux ward. This would be an orphan ward from the Borough of Sefton. It was stated that its inclusion within the Liverpool Norris Green constituency would not only arbitrarily divide the town of Maghull, but add an unrepresentative rural spur to an otherwise urban Liverpool constituency. Some respondents proposed that splitting the ward along the prominent boundary of the M57 north of Aintree would resolve this issue.
The remaining constituencies in Liverpool generated relatively few representations and were largely supported, although there was some opposition, with counter proposals submitted for alternative configurations of constituencies in Liverpool. Our proposed configuration for the Liverpool Wavertree constituency was largely supported. There was opposition to our proposed Liverpool West Derby constituency from those who objected to the inclusion of the Borough of Knowsley wards of Page Moss and Swanside. It was stated that Huyton (covered by these latter wards) was fundamentally a part of Knowsley, not Liverpool, although others were unable to identify an alternative solution. The proposed Liverpool Riverside constituency elicited relatively few representations, and, although a counter proposal was received, the implications of it on surrounding constituencies was not addressed.
Very few representations were received regarding the Bootle constituency, although among the representations the issue of the town of Crosby being divided between constituencies was raised. Although a counter proposal had merit, adopting it would not only require further splitting of wards where proposed constituencies were broadly uncontentious, it would also alter the otherwise unchanged Bootle constituency. Representations were also received calling for the reunification of the Croxteth and West Derby wards within the same constituency, to avoid the division of Croxteth Hall and Country Park.
There was opposition to the initial proposals in St Helens, particularly with regard to the Town Centre ward. Evidence was provided that the Town Centre ward was ‘the historical and civic centre of the original St Helens town, most of which is now found in St Helens South’ and that St Helens North comprises many other towns and urban areas. A counter proposal returned the Town Centre and Parr wards to their existing constituencies and resulted in the St Helens North constituency being entirely unchanged from its existing configuration. In order to bring the St Helens South constituency within the permitted electorate range, polling district WC5 from the Whiston & Cronton ward would also be included in the constituency. The split of this ward would follow the Liverpool to Manchester railway line, a recognisable physical feature that the counter proposal stated has been used 13 times as a ward or polling district boundary in the Knowsley Council area.
The use of the River Mersey to bisect the Borough of Halton and create two constituencies centred on Widnes and Runcorn respectively was broadly well received. The representations highlighted that Halewood had a strong historic association with Widnes, although a number of representations from Halewood argued the opposite case.
The configuration of our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency was broadly supported, but a counter proposal for constituencies elsewhere in Cheshire proposed six split wards (Christleton & Huntington; Gowy Rural; Handbridge Park; Marbury; Sandstone; and Willaston & Thornton) some of which would affect the Runcorn and Helsby constituency. Alternative names were requested (Runcorn and Weaver; Runcorn; Frodsham and Helsby; or North West Cheshire), while others called for a neutral name to be used, and referred to the Sandstone Ridge that was located in the constituency. There were also calls for the village of Sutton Weaver, in the Marbury ward, to be included in the same constituency as Runcorn, citing both geographic proximity and community links.
We received few representations regarding the Warrington North constituency, but we received objections to our proposals for Warrington South and Tatton (although there was also appreciable support). Evidence was provided that Thelwall is an integral part of central Warrington, and has limited connections or community ties with Lymm, despite parts being in the same ward, and that the Lymm North & Thelwall ward should be split in order to retain more electors in their existing constituency, and avoid the division of the Thelwall community.
The initial proposals for a Northwich constituency garnered significant support, in particular for the inclusion of the Davenham, Moulton & Kingsmead ward, and the Weaver & Cuddington ward in the constituency. However, we received a large number of representations in opposition to the division of the town of Winsford, as, of the five named Winsford wards, only four would be included, with the Winsford Over & Verdin ward included in the proposed South Cheshire constituency instead. Conversely, as the ward contains not just part of the urban extent of Winsford, but also a large rural component, some representations agreed that the ward should not be included with the more urban centred Northwich constituency. There were also objections from residents of Allostock in the Shakerley ward, who felt that the M6 was a natural boundary between themselves and Northwich, and that they looked northwards to Knutsford instead. We received a counter proposal that exchanged the Winsford Over & Verdin ward for the Weaver & Cuddington ward. Other representations highlighted in detail the community ties in central Cheshire, and proposed an alternative configuration of constituencies to unite the three Mid Cheshire towns of Northwich, Middlewich and Winsford within one constituency, contending that Middlewich’s presence in Cheshire East was anomalous.
Elsewhere in Cheshire, the proposed Macclesfield constituency, which was entirely unchanged, was strongly supported. We received a significant number of representations stating that the Wybunbury ward should be included within the Crewe and Nantwich constituency, with the Leighton ward transferred to South Cheshire instead. There was, however, also limited support for the initial proposals, with others proposing splits of the Haslingden ward, and both the Bunbury and Wrenbury wards, to accommodate new housing developments in Nantwich.
The initial proposal to not include the Lache and Handbridge Park wards in the same constituency as the remainder of Chester was overwhelmingly opposed. Although the River Dee is a clear geographic boundary, residents feel it does not reflect any true divide in the local community. Despite the near unanimous opposition, however, it was broadly accepted by some that there was no better solution that would support a cohesive scheme of constituencies in the wider area. One counter proposal, as previously mentioned, suggested splitting six wards to maintain the existing City of Chester constituency. One counter proposal called for the splitting of the Gowy Rural ward alone to retain Mickle Trafford with Chester. It was also requested that South Cheshire be renamed Chester South and Eddisbury.
The proposal to split the Upton ward between the Wallasey and Wirral West constituencies, although supported by some respondents, was strongly opposed in over 100 representations. These included a detailed counter proposal arguing for a split of the Moreton West and Saughall Massie ward instead. Apart from the representations with respect to the Upton ward, we received relatively few representations with regard to the Wallasey, Wirral West, and Birkenhead constituencies. The proposed Ellesmere Port constituency did not elicit a large number of representations, and, although there was some support, there was also a counter proposal that would split the Willaston & Thornton ward to retain Little Sutton in the Ellesmere Port constituency.
In respect of the Liverpool Norris Green constituency, on the recommendation of our Assistant Commissioners, we restored the name Liverpool Walton, having found the evidence provided particularly persuasive and helpful in understanding the importance of Walton to the local community, and the history of Liverpool as a whole. We also considered that proposals to split the ward of Molyneux had some merit. Our Assistant Commissioners visited the ward and found it to be extensive, containing both urban and rural elements, and small segments of the town of Maghull, with the M57 forming a large and recognisable physical boundary between the rural area to the north, and urban Aintree to the south. We also noted that – unlike Aintree – Maghull has never been associated in a constituency with Liverpool. We were mindful that splitting the ward would result in ‘orphan’ polling districts from Sefton being included in an otherwise Liverpool constituency, but we acknowledged that following the existing ward boundaries in this area under the initial proposals would divide the town of Maghull, and thus likely break community ties there. Although the split of the ward would not result in extensive wider benefits elsewhere in Merseyside, we considered that, in this instance, it would enable greater adherence to the statutory factors overall, and result in a better configuration for both constituencies involved. We did, however, note that the Waddicar area appeared to be an unusual inclusion in the Molyneux ward, seeming to be separate from both Sefton and Aintree, and instead forms a continuous built‑up area with the Kirkby area of Knowsley. We particularly welcomed further views on this from local residents in the consultation on our revised proposals. We proposed that the Molyneux ward be split, with polling districts C4, C5, and C6, covering Aintree, being included in the Liverpool Walton constituency, with the boundary here following the River Alt, as opposed to the motorway. The remainder of the ward was included in the Sefton Central constituency, where the whole ward is currently located.
Although the issue of the town of Crosby being divided between constituencies was raised, the Bootle constituency had been unchanged in our initial proposals, and we decided to make no further changes. There were also some calls for the ‘reunification’ of the Croxteth and West Derby wards within the same constituency, to avoid the division of Croxteth Hall and Country Park. However, we did not consider it was essential for the park to be contained within a single constituency
Apart from the revised proposals for the Liverpool Walton constituency, we considered that there was no persuasive evidence to amend any of the other constituencies in the City of Liverpool.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited St Helens and considered that the counter proposal that returned the Town Centre and Parr wards to their existing constituencies and resulted in the St Helens North constituency being entirely unchanged from its existing configuration had considerable merit, and, in order to bring the St Helens South constituency within the permitted range, polling district WC5 from the Whiston & Cronton ward would also be included in the constituency. We agreed with our Assistant Commissioners that the counter proposal would result in less disruption than the initial proposals and amended both the St Helens North, and St Helens South and Whiston constituencies as described. Our revised proposal for the two St Helens constituencies had an impact on the Widnes and Halewood constituency, insofar as polling district WC5 of the Whiston & Cronton ward would no longer be included in the constituency. In view of the relatively few representations, we proposed no further changes to the Widnes and Halewood constituency.
The proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency was broadly supported. Some representations highlighted that the village of Sutton Weaver, in the Marbury ward, would fall outside of this proposed constituency and called for this area to be included in the same constituency as Runcorn, citing both geographic proximity and community links. This would involve the splitting of the Marbury ward and, while we considered that this had some merit, we considered that doing so would not provide sufficient benefits to either of the proposed constituencies. A number of alternative names were suggested, but we considered there were insufficient grounds to amend either the configuration or name of the Runcorn and Helsby constituency as initially proposed, and made no changes.
Very few representations were received regarding the Warrington North constituency, largely due to the lack of change, and we therefore proposed no changes to the constituency. Following their visit to the area, our Assistant Commissioners considered that the counter proposal to split the Lymm North & Thelwall ward had merit, as they considered that Thelwall was an intrinsic part of central Warrington, separated from the rural market town of Lymm by empty land and the M6 motorway. They also considered that the initial proposals here would break community ties in the area. We agreed with their assessment and therefore revised the initial proposals and adopted the proposal to split the ward, with four polling districts which align with the boundaries of Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish – SNC, SND, SNE, SNF – remaining within the Warrington South constituency. The remainder of the Lymm North & Thelwall ward, comprising Lymm, would be included in the Tatton constituency. This would also allow for the Marbury and Shakerley wards to be included in the Tatton constituency, which would then be the same as the existing constituency, except for the addition of the town of Lymm, and realignment of the Tatton constituency with changes to local government ward boundaries. It would also address the concerns of the residents of Allostock over their links with Knutsford, without requiring another ward split. We therefore revised our initial proposals and split the Lymm North & Thelwall ward.
In respect of our proposed Northwich constituency, we considered that a counter proposal to include the Winsford Over & Verdin ward, originally included in the proposed South Cheshire constituency, in exchange for the Weaver & Cuddington ward, had considerable merit, as did the representations proposing that the three key mid-Cheshire towns of Northwich, Middlewich and Winsford should be contained within the same constituency. Although Middlewich would be an orphan ward, this would enable the Dane Valley ward to be returned to the Congleton constituency. We therefore amended our initial proposals for the configuration of the Northwich constituency, which we renamed Mid Cheshire, and made consequential changes to the configuration of the Tatton and Congleton constituencies.
Our proposed Macclesfield constituency, which was entirely unchanged under the initial proposals, attracted a great deal of support, and we proposed that there be no change.
We considered the representations that suggested that the Leighton and Wybunbury wards should be exchanged between the South Cheshire, and Crewe and Nantwich constituencies. Our Assistant Commissioners visited the two wards; they observed that Leighton is clearly an extension of the urban area of Crewe and that Wybunbury is a large rural ward and, although they acknowledged the evidence that had been presented of the links of the Wybunbury ward with Crewe (not least in relation to the development of HS2), they were overall not persuaded that the counter proposal to exchange the wards would be a better alternative. Similarly, they considered that splitting either the Bunbury or Wrenbury wards to include all new elements of Nantwich within the constituency would not be sufficiently beneficial. We agreed and proposed no changes to the Crewe and Nantwich constituency as initially proposed.
Our initial proposals for Chester were overwhelmingly and strongly opposed. However, although we had no doubt that the Lache and Handbridge Park wards looked to and were part of Chester, we considered that a better alternative to our initial proposals had not been forthcoming, and noted some local representations that, while not actively supporting the proposals, had reluctantly accepted that there was no better solution that would support a cohesive scheme of constituencies in the wider area. We did not consider the counter proposals that split multiple wards in order to retain a constituency centred on the City of Chester had merit. We therefore proposed no further changes to the proposed Chester North and Neston constituency. However, we did accept the argument that the South Cheshire constituency be renamed Chester South and Eddisbury; the change of name would better reflect the inclusion of the Lache and Handbridge Park wards from Chester, and, in having a Chester North constituency it would be sensible to also have a constituency named Chester South. Furthermore, the constituency would also include significant areas from the existing Eddisbury constituency. We therefore proposed this name change as part of our revised proposals.
Our proposals for the Wirral had sought to minimise change to the existing pattern of constituencies. We noted the broad level of support for our proposed constituencies, and also the opposition to the proposed split of the Upton ward, and the detailed counter proposal, arguing for a split of the Moreton West and Saughall Massie ward instead. However, we considered that the constituencies resulting from the counter proposal would be unnecessarily disruptive to the existing configuration of constituencies on the Wirral, and we therefore proposed no further changes to the Birkenhead, Wallasey, and Wirral West constituencies, but we did rename the Ellesmere Port constituency as Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, to recognise the presence of that community in the constituency.
There was continued opposition to the Southport and Sefton Central configurations, on both the grounds of the extension across the county boundary, and the fact Ainsdale remained outside the constituency. However, no new compelling evidence, or viable counter proposals were received. There were further calls to rename Southport as Southport and Douglas.
In our revised proposals report, we requested responses concerning the split of the Molyneux ward, seeking views as to whether to leave it as in the revised proposals, or also include polling district C2 as well, which covers Waddicar. The only representation received was in favour of the boundaries we proposed in our revised proposals. Almost no representations were received with regard to the Bootle constituency, aside from those opposing the composition of the existing constituency.
In Liverpool we received few representations commenting on the configuration of constituencies. However, we did receive some representations commenting on the proposed constituency names. There were calls to rename Liverpool Garston as Liverpool South, and an assertion that Wavertree itself is not in the proposed Liverpool Wavertree constituency. Aside from these there have been very few representations across the entire area.
Aside from requests to use new local government ward boundaries in St Helens, we received very few representations on the proposed St Helens, and Widnes and Halewood constituencies.
We received relatively few representations in regards to the two Warrington constituencies, although there was still some opposition to the removal of some part of Warrington South from the constituency in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range.
We received support for the new Mid Cheshire constituency, although there were also some requests, but no groundswell of support, to change the constituency name to Northwich and Winsford. There was both support and opposition to the splitting of the Lymm North & Thelwall ward between the Warrington South and Tatton constituencies. The Tatton constituency was largely supported, and the few representations we received regarding our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency were mainly continued requests to change its name.
There was support for the proposed Crewe and Nantwich, Congleton, and Macclesfield constituencies. There remained some requests for the Wybunbury ward to be exchanged with the Leighton ward and included in Crewe and Nantwich, or for the Leighton ward to be split between constituencies, but no new evidence was presented and the number of representations were now relatively few in number.
Although we received some support for our approach – including evidence against the splitting of multiple wards to create a single Chester constituency (as had been suggested in previous consultation stages) – we continued to receive strong opposition against the division of Chester and the inclusion of rural wards with the urban element of the Chester North and Neston constituency, as well as the inclusion of Chester wards in the largely rural Chester South and Eddisbury constituency. There were also requests for further name changes, including removing Eddisbury from the name entirely and for the constituency to be merely South Cheshire or South West Cheshire.
There was support for our approach on the Wirral and for all four constituencies of Birkenhead, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Wallasey, and Wirral West, but there was still opposition from the Upton ward to the splitting of the ward between the Wallasey and Wirral West constituencies. Some representations had focused on the crossing onto the Wirral, and the fact that Little Sutton remained divided between the Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, and Chester North and Neston constituencies There were also requests for name changes on the Wirral, with proposals that Birkenhead be renamed Wirral East and Wirral West renamed Wirral Deeside.
On Merseyside we do not consider that there has been a significant level of opposition to our revised proposals, nor any significant or new evidence. We note the calls for the cross-county boundary constituency of Southport to be renamed Southport and Douglas, but do not consider that this change of name is either suitable or required, as we considered that reference to Douglas would mean little to anyone other than to those living in the immediate area. Few further representations were received with regard to the split of the Molyneux ward, the Sefton Central and Bootle constituencies, and we recommend no changes to our revised proposals.
In the areas of Liverpool and Knowsley, there have been few further representations commenting on the pattern of constituencies. We noted the suggestion to rename Liverpool Garston as Liverpool South, but considered this would not better reflect the area covered by the constituency, and that Garston forms part of an existing constituency name.
We received few representations regarding the two St Helens, two Warrington constituencies, or Widnes and Halewood.
Within the remaining areas of Cheshire, no significant further opposition or new evidence was presented. There appeared to be no consensus on an alternative name for the proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency, and we therefore do not recommend that there be any change to the constituency as in our proposals.
Although there was still very significant opposition to our proposed Chester and North Neston, and Chester South and Eddisbury constituencies, there was also an acceptance, albeit reluctant, that there was no other solution that did not either cause serious disruption across the whole area or require splitting multiple wards.
There was support for the four constituencies on Wirral, despite some continued opposition to the division of the Upton ward, but we consider that an alternative split ward here would be more disruptive to the existing pattern of constituencies. We also noted opposition to Little Sutton being divided between the Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, and Chester North and Neston constituencies. However, we do not consider that an alternative proposal here would offer a better solution. We are not persuaded of the case to change the names of our proposed Birkenhead and Wirral West constituencies.
Our final recommendations for Merseyside and Cheshire are therefore for the constituencies of: Birkenhead; Bootle; Chester North and Neston; Chester South and Eddisbury; Congleton; Crewe and Nantwich; Ellesmere Port and Bromborough; Knowsley; Liverpool Garston; Liverpool Riverside; Liverpool Walton; Liverpool Wavertree; Liverpool West Derby; Macclesfield; Mid Cheshire; Runcorn and Helsby; Sefton Central; Southport; St Helens North; St Helens South and Whiston; Tatton; Wallasey; Warrington North; Warrington South; Widnes and Halewood; and Wirral West. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
