The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – West Midlands
Staffordshire and the Black Country
Staffordshire
Initial proposals
Of the 12 existing constituencies in Staffordshire (including the City of Stoke-on-Trent), five are outside the permitted electorate range. Our initial proposals were able to keep two constituencies (Burton and Cannock Chase) wholly unchanged, and a further four (Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent North, and Tamworth) changed only to realign with new ward boundaries.
For the reasons described in the section above concerning sub-division of the region, one constituency had to be shared between Staffordshire and the Black Country, and our initial proposals set out a Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency, pairing the south of the county with the Kingswinford area of Dudley council.
As the existing Central and South constituencies of Stoke-on-Trent needed to expand significantly to be brought within the permitted electorate range, this in turn meant that there needed to be significant reconfiguration of the existing Stafford, Stone (renamed to include Great Wyrley), and – to a lesser degree – Staffordshire Moorlands constituencies.
In consultation on our initial proposals, the boundaries of the proposed constituencies of Burton, Cannock Chase, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent Central, and Stoke-on-Trent North were generally supported.
There was a strong response in opposition to our initial proposals elsewhere in Staffordshire, with many responses particularly opposing the pairing of Kingswinford with South Staffordshire, and the physical distance and lack of connections between Stone and Great Wyrley at the extreme ends of the eponymous proposed constituency. Other responses opposed the inclusion of rural areas of Stafford and Staffordshire Moorlands with built-up areas of Stoke-on-Trent in the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, while a large number of responses called for the retention of the Streethay area in Lichfield constituency instead of being included in Tamworth.
We received a number of counter proposals. As well as that already noted in the sub-division of the region section (which would treat Staffordshire alone and pair the Black Country with Birmingham), we received three counter proposals that would cross into the Black Country at alternative points: two crossing into Walsall (also impacting Lichfield); and another crossing into Stourbridge.
There were also a number of requests for changes to names received during the consultation process, seeking a change to: Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke; Stoke-on-Trent South, Barlaston and Tean; and Burton and Uttoxeter.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered carefully what alternative approaches might be possible and more acceptable across Staffordshire. We have already discussed (in the sub-division of the region section above) the consideration of the alternative approach that would treat Staffordshire as a stand-alone sub-region. While recognising the benefits in the south of the county of those counter proposals that would cross into the Black Country in the north, the Assistant Commissioners did not feel that these outweighed the disbenefits of the proposed crossings in the north, in opposition to which we had received a number of responses during consultation.
Considering then the counter proposal to cross into Stourbridge in the south, the Assistant Commissioners noted that, when this counter proposal was followed through, the consequences of the full counter proposal were disruptive to generally supported proposed constituencies in Dudley, and also required the sub-region to include Birmingham and Worcestershire. We agreed that neither of these counter proposals would produce a better overall set of proposals: while arguably an improvement for Staffordshire, they simply shifted the difficulties to other parts of the region and caused more disruption overall than was necessary.
The Assistant Commissioners also looked at whether some of the rural wards of the District of Staffordshire Moorlands might be retained in the eponymous constituency, rather than be included in the Stoke-on-Trent South constituency as proposed, but the very low electorates of the constituencies made this impossible without significant disruption to other parts of Staffordshire. Accordingly they did not recommend a change to the initial proposals in this area.
The Assistant Commissioners also considered the concerns expressed in consultation regarding the distance and lack of ties between Stone and Great Wyrley. While recognising the geographic length of the constituency, and that transport routes from one end to another were not particularly strong, the Assistant Commissioners noted that many settlements throughout the constituency shared a common character, and that those who commented on the pattern of constituencies across the region as a whole had either accepted the constituency as initially proposed, or proposed a similarly extensive Mid Staffordshire constituency as integral to a wider pattern of constituencies across the area. Accordingly they did not recommend any revisions to this proposed constituency.
Considering the request to retain Streethay in Lichfield constituency, the Assistant Commissioners felt there was sufficient justification to recommend a split of the Whittington & Streethay ward in order to achieve this. This was on the basis that Streethay formed a continuation of the built-up area of Lichfield with no clear break, and they were able to recommend a split of the ward using polling districts, and aligning with the Fradley and Streethay civil parish boundary.
Finally, on consideration of the alternative names requested, while recognising that we will often seek to recognise elements of both councils where a constituency crosses a local authority boundary, the Assistant Commissioners felt there was insufficient reason to amend the name of the proposed Stoke‑on‑Trent North constituency, as its boundaries would only have changed minimally to reflect new ward boundaries. Similarly, they did not feel there were any obvious alternative names to reference all three local authorities represented in the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, so recommended that it simply be retained. As the constituency boundaries of Burton were proposed to be unchanged from the existing, the Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded to recommend a change of name.
We agreed with all of the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners in relation to Staffordshire.
In the consultation on the revised proposals, there were few responses in relation to Burton, but a number of these again argued for a recognition of Uttoxeter in the name. There were also very few responses in relation to Cannock Chase, though one or two of those called for Rugeley to be moved out and Great Wyrley to be included in the constituency. The proposed retention of Streethay in Lichfield was well supported, but there was opposition to the continued inclusion of Whittington in the proposed Tamworth constituency.
There were also relatively few responses in respect of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the three proposed Stoke-on-Trent constituencies, and Staffordshire Moorlands. These mostly accepted the proposed constituencies, but included: a request to include more of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme wards in the eponymous constituency; more responses opposed to the inclusion of rural Staffordshire Moorlands wards in the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency; and repeated calls for the recognition of areas beyond Stoke in the names of the proposed Stoke-on-Trent North and South.
Opposition to the proposed Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, and Stone and Great Wyrley constituencies continued in the consultation on the revised proposals, as – to a lesser degree – did opposition to the proposed Stafford constituency. Only one detailed counter proposal was received, however, which relied on an extended sub-region including Shropshire (discussed in the sub-division of the region section above). There was also a request to include Penkridge in the name of the Stone and Great Wyrley constituency, claiming Penkridge as ‘the beating heart of the rural area’.
In respect of the name of the Burton constituency, we have looked again at whether an addition to the name would be justified. Notwithstanding that the boundaries of the proposed constituency will be unchanged from the existing, we are persuaded by the strength of local feeling displayed through the consultations that there is justification to include Uttoxeter in the name. We are not persuaded of the case to exchange Rugeley for Great Wyrley in the Cannock Chase constituency, on the basis that the perceived benefit of this exchange would be at the cost of changing a constituency that would otherwise be completely unchanged from the existing, and also coterminous with the local authority boundary. We therefore recommend two constituencies of: Burton and Uttoxeter; and Cannock Chase.
We have considered the request to include Whittington as well as Streethay in Lichfield. Transferring the polling district that contains the village of Whittington is possible without seeing either Lichfield or Tamworth fall outside of the permitted electorate range. We do not, however, believe that the case for extending the location of the split is sufficiently strong. Although it would again be possible to align with a civil parish boundary (that of Whittington parish), Whittington is – unlike Streethay – clearly a rural village at some distance from Lichfield, rather than a continuation of Lichfield’s built-up environment: there are a large number of such villages and hamlets in similar situations around England where some evidence of local ties does not in itself justify the splitting of the ward. We therefore recommend two constituencies of Lichfield and Tamworth unchanged from our revised proposals.
We have reviewed again the request for amendment to the names of the proposed Stoke-on-Trent North and South constituencies. There has been no new argumentation brought forward in the more recent consultation responses to support name changes, and we therefore recommend the Stoke-on-Trent constituencies with names as in our revised proposals: Stoke-on-Trent Central; Stoke-on-Trent North; and Stoke-on-Trent South. Similarly, there has been no new evidence or alternatives put forward in respect to Staffordshire Moorlands, and we therefore recommend that constituency with no changes from our revised proposals.
We have considered the request to include additional wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme council in the constituency of the same name. These would need to be taken from the proposed constituency of Stone, which is already near the minimum of the permitted electorate range. Doing so would therefore trigger an undesirable domino effect of further change and disruption to the constituencies in rural central Staffordshire. We do not therefore propose to make further changes to this constituency and recommend a Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency as in our revised proposals.
Although opposition has continued to the remaining three proposed constituencies in Staffordshire – in particular Kingswinford and South Staffordshire – we have seen no new evidence or alternatives that would not cause significant issues elsewhere. We do not therefore propose to change the boundaries of any of these constituencies. We are, however, persuaded by the request to add Penkridge to the name of the proposed Stone and Wyrley constituency, which will reflect the broad nature of this constituency. We therefore recommend three constituencies of: Kingswinford and South Staffordshire; Stafford; and Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge.
Our final recommendations for Staffordshire are therefore for: Burton and Uttoxeter; Cannock Chase; Kingswinford and South Staffordshire; Lichfield; Newcastle-under-Lyme; Stafford; Staffordshire Moorlands; Stoke-on-Trent Central; Stoke-on-Trent North; Stoke-on-Trent South; Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge; and Tamworth. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Every constituency in the Black Country is below the permitted electorate range, so it was inevitable that some change would be experienced in every existing constituency. In developing the initial proposals, we sought to respect, as far as possible, the strong and distinct – but often highly localised – different community identities across the area.
In the Borough of Dudley, beyond the Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency discussed above, we proposed Dudley, Halesowen, and Stourbridge constituencies centred around the well-known Black Country towns for which they are named, though, due to the relatively low electorate, it was necessary for the proposed Halesowen to also include the Borough of Sandwell ward of Cradley Heath and Old Hill (and one polling district from the Blackheath ward).
In the Borough of Sandwell, we proposed to expand the West Bromwich East constituency southwards to include the St. Pauls ward, and West Bromwich West westwards to include the Borough of Dudley ward of Coseley East. The existing Warley constituency – having lost St. Pauls ward – was then proposed to expand west to take in the Rowley ward and the remainder of the Blackheath ward, and was accordingly proposed to be renamed Smethwick and Rowley Regis.
The electorate of the three existing constituencies in the Borough of Walsall were sufficiently low that our initial proposals set out only two constituencies wholly within the centre and east of the council area: a Walsall constituency covering the south, and a Bloxwich and Brownhills constituency covering the north. The wards in the west of the Borough of Walsall were then proposed to be transferred into the Wolverhampton North East and South East constituencies. This in turn then required the final constituency in Wolverhampton to take in the Oxley ward in the north and the Blakenhall ward in the south, which warranted a slight change of name to Wolverhampton West.
The initial proposals for constituencies in Dudley other than Kingswinford and South Staffordshire attracted a mix of support and opposition. The proposed Stourbridge constituency in particular attracted strong support. Although the proposed Halesowen and Dudley constituencies also received a good degree of active support, we also received specific counter proposals for these areas, though these were themselves subsequently opposed in the secondary consultation stage.
In contrast to this general support for proposed constituencies in the Dudley council area, those proposed in the Borough of Sandwell area attracted strong opposition, and we received a number of counter proposals for the area. There was particular opposition to our proposed transfer of the St. Pauls ward, and two of the main counter proposals moved it back into the proposed Smethwick constituency. Two main counter proposals also proposed combining Wednesbury with Walsall wards, either at Darlaston or at Walsall itself. One main counter proposal would require separating the two Wednesbury wards into different proposed constituencies, while another would combine Tipton and Rowley Regis with Dudley.
Our proposals for the two main constituencies proposed in Walsall drew significant opposition, though also some support. There was particular opposition to the general east–west orientation of the new constituencies: although some good ties were recognised in the northern proposed constituency between Bloxwich and Brownhills, there were said to be far fewer and weaker ties in the southern proposed constituency, between Aldridge and the town of Walsall, as well as opposition to the two named Aldridge wards being placed in different constituencies. Counter proposals generally shared a common approach of a more north–south orientation of the two constituencies. Two of the main counter proposals entailed dividing the four core wards of Walsall town between the two constituencies, while another (mentioned above) would cross the local authority boundary between Walsall and Wednesbury (as well as link Aldridge with Lichfield). A final counter proposal of note suggested a Walsall and Bloxwich constituency, and an Aldridge-Brownhills constituency largely unchanged from the existing, though this approach required a split of the Paddock ward.
In respect of our initial proposals for the three constituencies in Wolverhampton, we received a mix of opposition and support. Opposition to the initial proposals largely focused on the transfer of Blakenhall ward to the Wolverhampton West constituency, as its primary ties were said to be to the east of the ward, though we did also receive evidence of reasonable ties to the west of the ward as well. There were two main counter proposals received: one would keep Blakenhall with Bilston, but include the Bushbury wards in different constituencies; the other would keep Blakenhall and the Coseley East ward of Dudley in the Wolverhampton South East constituency, and not divide the Bushbury wards.
The Assistant Commissioners considered the counter proposals put forward for the proposed Halesowen and Dudley constituencies, but were not persuaded that either of them represented an improvement on the initial proposals, noting the opposition they had attracted during the secondary consultation, the consequential disruption they would cause to local ties further across to Birmingham and Sandwell, and the active support that the proposed Stourbridge, Halesowen, and – to a lesser extent – Dudley constituencies had received from many other respondents. Consequently they recommended no revisions to the initial proposal for these three constituencies, and we agreed.
On the basis of the strength of opposition to the constituencies proposed in Sandwell, the Assistant Commissioners were keen to identify some revisions that would secure more support. In the south of the borough, they recognised the strength of the argument for a restoration of the St. Pauls ward to the southern constituency, and in consequence removed the Rowley ward, reflecting evidence received of poor connections between this area and Smethwick. They recommended this constituency accordingly be named simply Smethwick. In the north of the borough they felt it was neither appropriate to divide the Wednesbury wards between constituencies, nor necessary to create a constituency crossing the local authority boundary with Walsall, as counter proposals had suggested. Instead, they recommended both Wednesbury wards be kept together with the Friar Park and Hateley Heath wards in a Tipton and Wednesbury constituency. The remaining Sandwell wards they recommended form a West Bromwich constituency. While recognising a certain lack of connection between the geographical extremes of the latter constituency, overall we agreed with these recommendations, as representing a pattern of constituencies that minimised division of communities across the borough.
In Walsall, the Assistant Commissioners were persuaded that some form of reorientation of the two proposed constituencies onto a more north–south alignment would represent a better reflection of the stronger local ties in the borough, as well as being somewhat closer to the existing constituency configurations, and considered the different alternatives that had been presented. They ultimately recommended, following a site visit to the borough, a minor variation of the counter proposal that required a split of the Paddock ward: they felt a split ward would be justified, as it would enable an Aldridge-Brownhills close to the existing configuration, would avoid a more fundamental division of the four core urban Walsall wards between constituencies, and would also avoid the need for either constituency to cross the Borough of Walsall boundaries. We agreed with this reasoning and proposed two revised constituencies of Aldridge-Brownhills and Walsall and Bloxwich.
In respect of Wolverhampton, the Assistant Commissioners noted the evidence that Blakenhall’s ties were mainly east, but there was also evidence of ties to the west. They also took into account opposition expressed to the aspect of one main counter proposal that would require separating the Bushbury wards into different constituencies. While they noted the other main counter proposal would retain Blakenhall in Wolverhampton South East and not divide Bushbury, they also noted that it had not attracted support from respondents in secondary consultation and would also generate knock-on effects to the pattern of constituencies further south. Overall, they decided there was not a sufficiently strong case to recommend any revisions to the proposals for the three Wolverhampton constituencies, and we agreed.
In the consultation on the revised proposals for the Dudley constituencies beyond Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (considered above), responses were generally favourable. There was a mix of views in relation to the proposed Halesowen, with opposition focused on the removal of Blackheath. No detailed counter proposals were put forward.
In the Sandwell area, the number of responses was relatively low, with opposition to the lack of ties between Blackheath and Smethwick, and the loss of Warley as a constituency name. A few responses opposed the inclusion of the Coseley East ward in the proposed Tipton and Wednesbury constituency, stating the ties of the ward went north or south rather than east. There were also a handful of responses opposed to the lack of connections between the extreme ends of the proposed West Bromwich constituency, but again no detailed counter proposal was received.
There was significant support received for the revised approach to forming the two constituencies in Walsall borough, though a slight amendment was suggested: to split the St. Matthew’s ward rather than Paddock ward. There were also a small number of responses seeking a reversion to the initial proposals, or a small variation on those (either an exchange of the Pleck, and Aldridge North and Walsall Wood wards, or a split of the latter).
In respect of Wolverhampton, responses were mixed, with opposition to our proposals focused on the lack of ties between Wolverhampton and Walsall wards in the two eastern constituencies, and further responses asserting the ties between Blakenhall and Bilston that would be broken by including the former in the proposed Wolverhampton West constituency. We did receive a detailed counter proposal, which would rotate the configuration of wards in these three constituencies, so as to both keep the Blakenhall and Bilston wards in the same constituency, and have only one constituency crossing the local authority boundary with Walsall.
In Dudley and Sandwell, we have previously recognised the unfortunate need to split the Blackheath ward, and that the ties between this area and the north of the proposed West Bromwich constituency are not strong, but have seen no better alternative that resolves these issues without creating more issues elsewhere. Similarly, we have not been persuaded that Coseley East could be included in a constituency with Dudley or Wolverhampton without causing disruption and breaking local ties elsewhere. We therefore recommend six constituencies in these areas unchanged from our revised proposals: Dudley; Halesowen; Smethwick; Stourbridge; Tipton and Wednesbury; and West Bromwich.
In Walsall, we have not been persuaded by the recent requests in some consultation responses to revert to the initial proposals or a slight variation of those. From all the evidence we have seen, Bloxwich has good local ties both east and south, but the revised proposals create two constituencies more clearly centred around Walsall and Aldridge respectively, and thus preserving local ties to those better overall than the initial proposals or recent variations on those would. We have considered the alternative of splitting the St. Matthew’s ward rather than Paddock: they would appear to be of equal merit, but, as the revised proposals have received a good deal of support, we believe the correct approach would be to retain the split in the revised proposals. Our recommendations are therefore for two constituencies unchanged from our revised proposals: Aldridge-Brownhills; and Walsall and Bloxwich.
In respect of Wolverhampton, we have not been persuaded to amend our revised proposals. We have considered very carefully the counter proposal we received that would bring back together Blakenhall and Bilston, as well as leave only one constituency crossing the Wolverhampton-Walsall local authority boundary, as this would appear very attractive on both these counts. The full composition of these three constituencies, however, would be radically different from that in our revised proposals, and may not better reflect community ties. We therefore recommend three constituencies unchanged from our revised proposals: Wolverhampton North East; Wolverhampton South East; and Wolverhampton West.
Our final recommendations for the Black Country are therefore for constituencies of: Aldridge-Brownhills; Dudley; Halesowen; Smethwick; Stourbridge; Tipton and Wednesbury; Walsall and Bloxwich; West Bromwich; Wolverhampton North East; Wolverhampton South East; and Wolverhampton West. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
