The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – North West
Greater Manchester
Initial proposals
The metropolitan area of Greater Manchester has a mathematical entitlement to 27 constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, 14 are within the permitted electorate range, seven are below, and six are above. The initial proposals left seven of the existing 27 constituencies wholly unchanged.
Our proposed Stockport constituency included the Reddish North and Reddish South wards. The Manor ward, which was formerly within the Stockport constituency was included within the proposed Hazel Grove constituency, which was otherwise unchanged. The existing Cheadle constituency was wholly unchanged. This configuration resulted in three constituencies contained wholly within the boundaries of the Borough of Stockport.
We proposed that the two existing Borough of Trafford constituencies – Stretford and Urmston, and Altrincham and Sale West – would remain wholly unchanged. The existing Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency, spanning the boundaries of Trafford and the City of Manchester, would also remain wholly unchanged. Although the existing Manchester Withington constituency could remain wholly unchanged, because there have been local government ward changes in this area, to do so would mean having to divide a number of these new wards. We therefore changed the constituency only to realign it with these new wards. The existing Manchester Gorton constituency has been similarly subjected to local government ward changes, and as a result no longer included the Gorton & Abbey Hey ward in our proposals. We therefore proposed that the revised constituency be called Manchester Longsight.
We were able to consider the four geographically contiguous boroughs of the City of Salford, Wigan, Bolton, and Bury as a group with an allocation of ten constituencies, thereby allowing us to retain the distinction between the cities of Salford and Manchester, and to largely maintain the existing distribution and configuration of constituencies within these four boroughs.
Our proposed Salford constituency remained wholly within the City of Salford local authority and included the Broughton ward, which, although to the east of the River Irwell, and within the existing Blackley and Broughton constituency, is a ward of the City of Salford local authority. The Eccles, and Swinton & Wardley wards were included within our proposed Worsley and Eccles constituency, as was the Astley Mosley Common ward, from the Borough of Wigan – the only ward from Wigan that was included within a Salford-based constituency. Within the Borough of Wigan, we proposed that the existing Wigan constituency be wholly unchanged. The existing Makerfield constituency could have remained unchanged, but was modified due to changes to the existing Leigh constituency, which has an electorate over the permitted range. The Makerfield constituency was amended to include the Leigh West ward in exchange for the Ashton ward, which was included in our proposed Leigh South and Atherton constituency, which would include the Atherton ward. We acknowledged that the inclusion of the Leigh West ward in a Makerfield constituency, and the Ashton ward in the Leigh South and Atherton constituency, meant that the towns of both Leigh and Ashton-in-Makerfield would be divided between constituencies. However, we considered that some division of communities in this area was unavoidable.
Our proposed Bolton West constituency was largely unchanged, but included the Hulton ward to bring it within the permitted electorate range, as the Atherton ward would no longer be included, and would be wholly contained within the Borough of Bolton. The proposed Bolton North East constituency differed from the existing constituency only by the inclusion of the Little Lever and Darcy Lever ward. As the Bolton South constituency would no longer include the Little Lever and Darcy Lever, or Hulton wards, we included the Salford wards of Walkden North, Walkden South, and Little Hulton, in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range; this also enabled us to keep the town of Walkden in one constituency. We proposed naming this constituency Bolton South and Walkden.
The electorate of the existing Bury North constituency is below the permitted range. We therefore proposed the inclusion of the Radcliffe North ward. As the Bury South constituency would no longer include this ward, we included the Kersal & Broughton Park ward from the City of Salford within the Bury South constituency. Although this would be an orphan ward, we considered it to have better physical links with the Sedgley area of Bury than the City of Salford itself.
The electorate of the existing Rochdale constituency is above the permitted range. We proposed a Rochdale constituency without the Spotland and Falinge ward, which would be included in a Heywood constituency. However, as the existing Heywood and Middleton constituency already had an electorate that is above the permitted range, we further proposed that the wards of South Middleton and East Middleton be included in the renamed Manchester Blackley constituency. This constituency would no longer contain any wards from the City of Salford, nor the Cheetham ward from the City of Manchester, but would include the Moston ward. We acknowledged that our proposals in this area were not ideal, but considered that the extensive disruption that would be caused by the alternatives would not provide a better solution overall for this area.
Within the Borough of Oldham, we proposed that both the existing Oldham East and Saddleworth, and Oldham West and Royton constituencies remain wholly unchanged. However, we sought views on an alternative which would exchange the Alexandra, and St. Mary’s wards (currently within the existing Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency), with the Royton North and Royton South wards (currently within the existing Oldham West and Royton constituency), thereby providing a more compact urban constituency to the west, which would contain a greater proportion of Oldham town centre, and a constituency to the east that would have a more suburban and moorland character.
The existing Stalybridge and Hyde constituency could have remained unchanged, but we considered that maintaining it resulted in a less than ideal configuration across the east of Greater Manchester. We therefore proposed that the constituency would not include the Mossley, Stalybridge North, and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards, but would include the Denton North East, Denton West, and Denton South wards, being the entirety of the town of Denton. The constituency would remain wholly within the Borough of Tameside, and was named Denton and Hyde.
To increase the electorate of the existing Ashton-under-Lyne constituency, we included the three wards of Mossley, Stalybridge North, Dukinfield Stalybridge, as well as the Dukinfield ward, as it contains an urban community that directly borders the centre of Ashton-under-Lyne, and was previously included within the Denton and Reddish constituency. The inclusion of all four of these wards would give the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency an electorate that was above the permitted range, so we proposed to no longer include the Failsworth East and Failsworth West wards, or the Droylsden East and Droylsden West wards within the constituency. We proposed that these four wards, along with the Audenshaw ward, would form a Failsworth and Droylsden constituency, and would also include the Clayton & Openshaw, and Gorton & Abbey Hey wards from the City of Manchester. Furthermore, we proposed dividing the Miles Platting & Newton Heath ward between this constituency and our proposed Manchester Central constituency, with the Miles Platting area, to the west of the A6010, being included in Manchester Central, and the Failsworth and Droylsden constituency, containing the Newton Heath area, to the east of this road. The Manchester Central constituency also included the Cheetham ward, as mentioned previously. We considered that not dividing the Miles Platting & Newton Heath ward would have significant negative knock-on effects across the eastern side of Greater Manchester.
Our proposals for the Stockport constituencies of Stockport, Cheadle, and Hazel Grove were widely supported. Relatively few representations – predominantly positive – were received with regard to the following constituencies, with no counter proposals submitted: Altrincham and Sale West; Stretford and Urmston; Manchester Withington; and Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Our proposed Salford constituency was supported. However, our initial proposals for the remaining constituencies that included part of the City of Salford were considerably less well supported in representations, with requests for the existing Worsley and Eccles South constituency to remain unchanged. These stated that there was no commonality between the Astley Mosley Common ward and Salford borough, and that it was unsuitable to include the Walkden area of Salford in a constituency with Bolton. However, there was also some support for our initial proposal.
We received very few representations regarding the proposed Wigan constituency. We received a substantial number of representations (including petitions) in opposition to the proposals for the two proposed constituencies of Makerfield, and Leigh South and Atherton. In particular, there was overwhelming opposition to the proposed inclusion of the Leigh West ward (which contains Leigh Town Hall and a significant proportion of Leigh town centre) in the Makerfield constituency, and the Ashton ward (which contains half of the town of Ashton-in-Makerfield) in the Leigh South and Atherton constituency. Whilst highlighting a positive element of the initial proposals for the constituencies, in that they would unite the town of Atherton, which had previously been divided between the Leigh and Bolton South constituencies, counter proposals for alternative configurations were submitted. Among these were proposals to exchange the Golborne and Lowton West, and Lowton East wards for the Hindley and Hindley Green wards, although a number of petition representations were against this counter proposal.
Also contained within the counter proposals was the inclusion of the Ashton ward in the Makerfield constituency, and the Leigh West ward in the Leigh and Atherton constituency, requiring a split of both the Atherleigh and Leigh West wards (using polling districts LCA and LDA respectively). Under this counter proposal, the areas of Dangerous Corner and Pickley Green would be included in the proposed Makerfield constituency, which would be unchanged from the existing constituency apart from the addition of these communities. The Leigh and Atherton constituency would include the remainder of both split wards.
The Bolton West, Bolton North East, and Bolton South and Walkden constituencies were all broadly supported, with few representations received, apart from those from the Walkden area, with a number of representations providing evidence that Walkden is an integral part of Salford borough and should not be included within a constituency alongside wards from Bolton.
There was support for the inclusion of the Radcliffe North ward in the proposed Bury North constituency, but there were some representations that said the Unsworth ward should be included in the Bury North constituency instead. Support for our initial proposals from respondents highlighted the strong links between the Unsworth ward and Whitefield and that we had kept the two areas together in the same constituency. We also received some support for the inclusion of the Kersal & Broughton Park ward (from the City of Salford) in the proposed Bury South constituency, but there was a request for the name of the constituency to be changed to Bury South and Kersal.
The proposed Rochdale constituency did not elicit a substantial number of representations, but our proposals for the Heywood and Manchester Blackley constituencies were very much opposed, with a large number of representations received from the town of Middleton, which was divided between constituencies in our proposals. Many of those objecting stated that Middleton is a historic town with a clear and long-established identity, and requested that it remain united within one constituency.
The responses received with regard to the two Oldham constituencies were fairly equally spread. There were also calls for the inclusion of Chadderton within the name of the western constituency.
We received some support for our proposed Manchester Longsight constituency, although some respondents considered that the constituency should be renamed.
There was considerable opposition to our proposals for constituencies in Tameside, with two key issues raised by representations. The first was that the existing Stalybridge and Hyde constituency did not need to be changed and, secondly, in the newly proposed Denton and Hyde constituency, these two towns are separated by the River Tame, so they should not be included together. Concerns were also raised that the proposed Failsworth and Droylsden constituency would cross three local authorities, and contain a split ward. We received considerable evidence that Failsworth and Droylsden do not share a community of interest and are in fact geographically separated by the River Medlock. Evidence was provided that the Denton area and east Manchester are well linked both physically and in community terms. Otherwise, the initial proposals for Manchester did not garner a large number of representations.
In view of the support for the three proposed constituencies in Stockport – Stockport, Cheadle and Hazel Grove – we proposed no changes to our revised proposals. Similarly, in view of the support for the proposed Altrincham and Sale West, Stretford and Urmston, Wythenshawe and Sale East, and Manchester Withington constituencies, we proposed no change to these constituencies as initially proposed.
With regard to our proposals for the boroughs of City of Salford, Wigan, Bolton, and Bury, we made no changes to the Salford constituency as initially proposed, as it had been well supported. We considered that representations for the existing Worsley and Eccles South constituency to remain unchanged, although providing strong evidence to support the existing constituency, could not avoid significant impacts on a number of surrounding constituencies, which would be less in keeping with the statutory factors than the initial proposals.
We received very few representations regarding the Wigan constituency and consequently decided to retain the initial proposals. We noted the significant opposition to our proposed Makerfield, and Leigh South and Atherton constituencies. A counter proposal to exchange the Golborne and Lowton West, and Lowton East wards (which we had included in the Leigh and Atherton constituency) for the Hindley and Hindley Green wards (which we had included in Makerfield), while self-contained, would not, in our view, constitute a resolution to the issue of divided communities, as evidenced by the receipt of a number of petition representations against this counter proposal.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited the area and endorsed the counter proposal that included the Ashton ward in the Makerfield constituency, and the Leigh West ward in the Leigh and Atherton constituency, splitting both the Atherleigh and Leigh West wards (using polling districts LCA and LDA respectively), so as to keep both constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
Our Assistant Commissioners were mindful that the incoming ward boundary between the new Hindley Green, and Atherton South & Lilford wards is very similar to the existing polling district boundary, but more closely aligns with Westleigh Brook. They considered that splitting the LCA polling district here would mean that, although this would be splitting the two ‘existing’ wards of Atherleigh and Leigh West in this way, it would only be splitting a single incoming ward, Leigh West. From their observations of the area, the Assistant Commissioners concluded that Westleigh Brook is a recognisable feature, and would be a suitable boundary along which to split the polling district. Similarly, they felt that the Dangerous Corner area was no more linked to Leigh than it was to Hindley, and that Pickley Green was similarly suitable to be included within the Makerfield constituency. They therefore recommended the further division of the LCA polling district itself. We acknowledged the issues caused by the initial proposals here and that they were deeply unpopular, as a number of local ties would be broken. We agreed with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners and revised the Makerfield, and Leigh and Atherton constituencies, as detailed above, noting that this would maintain the existing centres of Ashton and Leigh within their respective constituencies.
As our proposed Bolton West, Bolton North East, and Bolton South and Walkden constituencies were all broadly supported, apart from the opposition from the Walkden area, we proposed no revision to these three constituencies as initially proposed. In respect of Bury, we agreed with the evidence provided that the Radcliffe North ward is better suited than the Unsworth ward to be included in the Bury North constituency, but did not consider there was a need to change the name of the Bury South constituency, and therefore proposed no change to the proposed Bury North and Bury South constituencies.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted the considerable body of objections – and the quality of the evidence – from Middleton residents opposed to the division of their town between the Heywood and Manchester Blackley constituencies. We acknowledged that the division of the town would not be an ideal outcome, but considered that the alternatives would cause extensive disruption to neighbouring constituencies and therefore failed to provide a better overall pattern of constituencies for this wider area. We also considered whether the name of Middleton should be referenced in the name of either proposed constituency, but were ultimately not persuaded that it should be, and considered that the use of incoming ward boundaries within the Borough of Rochdale would not have any impact on resolving issues such as the division of Middleton between constituencies. We therefore recommended no revisions to the initially proposed constituencies of Heywood, Rochdale, and Manchester Blackley.
Within the Borough of Oldham, we noted that the representations in support and opposition to our initial proposals were broadly equal. However, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the quality of the evidence presented that maintaining both of the Oldham constituencies entirely unchanged would be the solution most in keeping with the statutory factors. As such, we proposed no changes to the initial proposals for Oldham East and Saddleworth, and Oldham West and Royton. As neither constituency would be changing, we were not persuaded of the case for referencing the town of Chadderton in the Oldham West and Royton constituency name.
There was significant opposition to our proposals in Tameside, and we noted the major counter proposals for the area, and that there was significant disagreement among these about the best solution. Following site visits undertaken to this area by our Assistant Commissioners, and their recommendations to us, we considered that a significant change from the initial proposals in the east of Greater Manchester would be appropriate. We therefore revised our initial proposals. The existing Stalybridge and Hyde constituency would remain entirely unchanged, and we proposed an Ashton-under-Lyne constituency containing all the remaining Tameside wards, barring the three Denton wards of Denton North East, Denton South, and Denton West. These wards would be included with four wards from the City of Manchester: Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, and Longsight in a reconfigured Gorton and Denton constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners considered, and we agreed, that there was very persuasive evidence provided in the representations that the Denton area itself was originally overspill from east Manchester, and that the areas are well linked both physically and in community terms. They also recommended that the wards of Ardwick, Fallowfield, Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, and Whalley Range be included in a new, compact Manchester Rusholme constituency as part of this reconfiguration of constituencies. These wards are all to the south of the Mancunian Way, and are all of a similar character. We agreed and amended our initial proposals in this area
We also revised the proposed Manchester Central constituency to include the following wards: Ancoats & Beswick; Cheetham; Clayton & Openshaw; Deansgate; Miles Platting & Newton Heath; Piccadilly; Failsworth East; and Failsworth West. This would be broadly similar to the existing composition of the constituency, with the addition of Failsworth. We were persuaded by evidence that Failsworth is closely linked to east Manchester, and site visits undertaken by our Assistant Commissioners to the area confirmed this. We also noted that our revised proposals for these constituencies would remove from the east of Greater Manchester any constituency crossing three local authorities, and eliminate any requirement for a split ward, while reflecting and addressing the key issues in the objections received to initial proposals across this area.
The Altrincham and Sale West, Cheadle, Stretford and Urmston, and Wythenshawe and Sale East constituencies were unchanged at the initial and revised proposals and very few responses were received in response to the revised proposals, with no new evidence or arguments presented. Similarly, with respect to the Hazel Grove and Stockport constituencies, very few responses were received, although a single counter proposal suggested alterations to the Hazel Grove constituency in which, it is claimed, the town of Hazel Grove is divided between constituencies.
In the City of Manchester and the Borough of Tameside, we had made significant changes to the initial proposals in our revised proposals for the area.
The new configuration for these constituencies was generally well received, particularly with regard to Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge and Hyde (which was now unchanged from the existing constituency), and Manchester Withington constituencies (although there was a call to rename the constituency Chorlton and Didsbury). The Manchester Rusholme constituency was supported, with it being claimed that the wards gel well, with many similarities, including a wide population diversity in each ward. There was a suggestion that the constituency be renamed Manchester South Central, but another representation said the name Manchester Rusholme is ‘inspirational’. However, there was some opposition to the Gorton and Denton constituency, particularly from the Burnage ward, where a number of respondents consider there to be no real link geographically or in community terms to Denton.
In the Borough of Oldham, no changes had been made to either existing Oldham constituencies in the initial or revised proposals. Despite opposition in our initial proposals, there was very little response to our revised proposals not to change the Oldham constituencies. However, although largely content with its configuration, there were further representations for Chadderton to be included in the name of the Oldham West and Royton constituency.
We received very few responses regarding the revised proposals for the Rochdale constituency, although there was a request to rename it Rochdale East. However, there remained significant opposition to our proposed Heywood and Manchester Blackley constituencies, almost all continuing to object to the splitting of the town of Middleton between constituencies. Many of the representations made reference to the historic nature of the town of Middleton and its clear and long-established identity, and said that it should remain wholly within one constituency. Many respondents were also opposed to the town of Middleton no longer featuring in a constituency name.
We had proposed relatively minor changes to the Bury North and Bury South constituencies in our proposals. In the responses to our revised proposals, there were some calls to split the Radcliffe North ward and to rename one or both constituencies, but overall there were very few representations commenting on the Borough of Bury.
Our proposals for the Bolton West and Bolton North East constituencies had been subject to only relatively minor change. However, the Bolton South constituency had been considerably changed with the inclusion of the three wards of Walkden North, Walkden South, and Little Hulton, and a renaming to Bolton South and Walkden. This had largely maintained the town of Walkden in a single constituency rather than dividing it. Counter proposals had been submitted during the initial consultation, but we had made no further changes in our revised proposals, as we considered no practical counter proposal was provided. Opposition to the inclusion of Walkden continued in the revised proposals consultation, but no viable solution was provided that did not result in wholesale knock-on changes across the whole of western Greater Manchester.
Opposition to our proposed Worsley and Eccles constituency, as mentioned previously, concerned the inclusion of the town of Walkden in the Bolton South and Walkden constituency, and that the Astley Mosley Common ward from Wigan borough was included within the proposed Worsley and Eccles constituency. As with Bolton South and Walkden, no suitable alternative counter proposal was provided despite opposition from respondents.
The existing Wigan constituency was retained wholly unchanged in both the initial and revised proposals and garnered minimal representations at either consultation stage. Our revised proposals to split both the Leigh West and Atherleigh wards between Makerfield, and Leigh and Atherton, generated some opposition from the Westleigh area of Leigh, which it was claimed was still not within the same constituency as Leigh. We had acknowledged that our solution here was not perfect, but opposition to our revised proposals was significantly less in number in comparison to our initial proposals.
The Salford constituency, as initially proposed, garnered very few representations at initial proposals. However, in the revised proposals consultation, we received a few representations stating that Swinton and Pendlebury would be divided by the proposed Salford, and Worsley and Eccles constituencies, but no viable counter proposals were submitted.
In light of the general support for the constituencies contained within the boroughs of Stockport and Trafford, we recommend all those constituencies as set out in our revised proposals.
Although there remained opposition to the inclusion of the town of Walkden in the Bolton South and Walkden constituency, no appropriate alternatives were submitted. Elsewhere, there was little opposition to the other constituencies we had proposed for the boroughs of Bolton and Bury. In the City of Salford, the Salford constituency garnered very few further representations. Although there was some objection to the division of Swinton and Pendlebury by the proposed Salford, and Worsley and Eccles constituencies, we again received no viable counter proposal. We therefore recommend constituencies for these three boroughs as set out in our revised proposals.
In the Borough of Wigan, there had been few representations throughout the consultations with regard to the Wigan constituency, and much reduced opposition to the Makerfield, and Leigh and Atherton constituencies in our revised proposals. Although we considered these remaining objections, we can identify no better alternative configuration for the area as a whole, and therefore recommend these three constituencies as set out in our revised proposals.
In the Borough of Rochdale, while the Rochdale constituency was largely non-contentious, we received significant opposition throughout all consultations to the proposed division of Middleton between our proposed Heywood and Manchester Blackley constituencies. We have been unable to find another solution that meets the statutory criteria and does not have major ramifications to surrounding constituencies. However, we do propose to change the name of both constituencies to reflect the significance of the town of Middleton: Heywood and Middleton North, and Blackley and Middleton South.
In the Borough of Oldham, we received relatively few representations apart from continued suggestions to include Chadderton in the name of the Oldham West and Royton constituency. We acknowledge that there is a lot of local support for the inclusion of Chadderton in the constituency name, and that Chadderton is an appreciably larger town (in terms of population) than Royton. We therefore recommend that the constituency be renamed Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton.
There was support for our revised constituencies in the Borough of Tameside, which largely reflect the existing configurations of constituencies, and we recommend those constituencies as set out in our revised proposals. In the remainder of the constituencies in the City of Manchester, we noted the general acceptance of most of these constituencies, but considered the opposition with regard to the inclusion of the Burnage ward in a constituency with Denton. We noted that Burnage is well linked to the Levenshulme and Longsight wards to its north and that there is no way of amending this one small area and including Burnage in the Manchester Withington constituency without negative consequential changes throughout this part of Manchester, or effectively reverting to the initial proposals. We therefore recommend constituencies across these two council areas as set out in our revised proposals.
Our final recommendations for Greater Manchester are therefore for constituencies of: Altrincham and Sale West; Ashton-under-Lyne; Blackley and Middleton South; Bolton North East; Bolton South and Walkden; Bolton West; Bury North; Bury South; Cheadle; Gorton and Denton; Hazel Grove; Heywood and Middleton North; Leigh and Atherton; Makerfield; Manchester Central; Manchester Rusholme; Manchester Withington; Oldham East and Saddleworth; Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton; Rochdale; Salford; Stalybridge and Hyde; Stockport; Stretford and Urmston; Wigan; Worsley and Eccles; and Wythenshawe and Sale East. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
