The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Yorkshire and the Humber
West Yorkshire
Initial proposals
Of the 22 existing constituencies in West Yorkshire, nine were within the permitted electorate range: Bradford East; Bradford West; Halifax; Hemsworth; Keighley; Leeds North East; Pudsey; Shipley; and Wakefield. Eight constituencies were above the range: Batley and Spen; Calder Valley; Colne Valley; Dewsbury; Elmet and Rothwell; Leeds Central; Morley and Outwood; and Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford; while five were below the range: Bradford South; Huddersfield; Leeds East; Leeds North West; and Leeds West.
Within the City of Bradford we proposed no change to the existing Bradford East constituency, and only minor realignment to new local government ward boundaries in the Keighley and Shipley constituencies. We proposed only the exchange of two wards – Clayton and Fairweather Green, and Great Horton – between the Bradford West and Bradford South constituencies, which would bring them both within the permitted electorate range.
Within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees, we proposed that the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward be transferred from the existing Calder Valley constituency to a proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency – based largely on the existing Batley and Spen constituency. We also proposed the exchange of four wards between the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies to bring them both within the permitted electorate range. To compensate for the inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in Batley and Hipperholme, the Heckmondwike ward was included in a proposed Dewsbury constituency. This constituency also included part of the Dalton ward to bring it within the permitted electorate range. We proposed that the Dalton ward be split using polling districts, with the area around Kirkheaton being included in the proposed Dewsbury constituency, and the rest of the ward, centred on the Rawthorpe area, remaining in the Huddersfield constituency. To compensate for the inclusion of the Kirkheaton area in the Dewsbury constituency, we proposed that the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward be included in the Huddersfield constituency from the existing Colne Valley constituency. This would bring both of the constituencies within the permitted electorate range. The only further change proposed to the existing Colne Valley constituency would be to realign its boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. The two remaining Kirklees district wards (Denby Dale and Kirkburton) would be grouped with four City of Wakefield wards in the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency.
Within the City of Wakefield we proposed that the Normanton ward be removed from the existing Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford constituency, and the constituency be renamed Pontefract and Castleford accordingly. The Normanton ward would be transferred to the existing Hemsworth constituency in our initial proposals, while the Wakefield South ward would no longer be included, thereby bringing Hemsworth within the permitted electorate range: we consequently also proposed changing the name of the constituency to Normanton and Hemsworth to reflect these changes. In our proposals, the Wakefield South ward would be included with three more City of Wakefield wards (Horbury and South Ossett, Ossett, and Wakefield Rural) and two Borough of Kirklees wards (Denby Dale and Kirkburton) in the Ossett and Denby Dale constituency, as described previously. The remaining five City of Wakefield wards were grouped with the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell to create our proposed Wakefield constituency.
Seven constituencies were proposed wholly within the City of Leeds in the initial proposals. The Leeds North East constituency would be unchanged other than for minor realignment due to new local government ward boundaries. We proposed a Pudsey constituency that would comprise the Calverley & Farsley, and Pudsey wards of the existing Pudsey constituency, plus the Bramley & Stanningley, and Farnley & Wortley wards, currently within the existing Leeds West constituency. We proposed a Leeds North West constituency that would consist of the Guiseley & Rawdon, and Horsforth wards, currently within the existing Pudsey constituency, plus the two wards of Adel & Wharfedale, and Otley & Yeadon, currently within the existing Leeds North West constituency.
We proposed that the Middleton Park ward be transferred from the existing Leeds Central constituency, while the west of the Gipton & Harehills ward, centred on Harehills, would be included in it, following a split of this ward on polling districts between the proposed Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. The remainder of the Gipton & Harehills ward, centred on Gipton, would remain in our proposed Leeds East constituency, which we also proposed would extend to the south-east with the addition of the Garforth & Swillington ward. This, along with minor changes to realign the constituency boundary with new local government ward boundaries in the Whinmoor area, would bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range. The Middleton Park ward, which would no longer be included in the Leeds Central constituency, was included in our proposed Morley constituency, which also contained the wards of Ardsley & Robin Hood, Morley North, and Morley South. Finally, we proposed a Headingley constituency that comprised two wards from the existing Leeds North West constituency (Headingley & Hyde Park, and Weetwood), and two from the existing Leeds West constituency (Armley and Kirkstall).
The initial proposals for the City of Bradford received a mixture of support and opposition during the consultation periods. One of the most significant issues regarded the exchange of wards between the proposed Bradford South and Bradford West constituencies, which respondents considered would damage community cohesion. A number of representations also raised the issue of the division of the community of Wibsey between the Bradford South and Bradford West constituencies in the initial proposals.
Multiple representations proposed splitting a ward in the City of Bradford to avoid the necessity of exchanging wards between Bradford South and Bradford West. Many suggested that just one polling district be included in the proposed Bradford South constituency from a neighbouring ward, to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range. Polling district 18H from the Little Horton ward was identified in some representations as the most appropriate polling district to be included due to supposed links with communities in the existing Bradford South constituency.
Elsewhere in the City of Bradford significant support was received for maintaining the Shipley constituency with only minimal change to align with new local government ward boundaries, while the majority of respondents approved of the minimal changes to the proposed Keighley constituency, but suggested it would be better named Keighley and Ilkley.
The initial proposals for the seven constituencies either wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees were widely opposed during the consultation. The most contentious proposed constituency across the whole Yorkshire and the Humber region was Batley and Hipperholme, with the majority of the opposition centred on the inclusion of the Borough of Calderdale ward of Hipperholme and Lightcliffe in a constituency with the Borough of Kirklees town of Batley and the communities of the Spen Valley. The exclusion of the Heckmondwike ward from the proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency was also strongly opposed during the consultation, with respondents stating it has close links with communities across the existing Batley and Spen constituency.
In the Borough of Calderdale, the proposed constituencies of Calder Valley and Halifax were mostly opposed. Representations contended that they linked areas with no community ties, particularly Brighouse and Halifax, while breaking existing links between areas currently in the same constituency, in particular between Sowerby Bridge and Halifax, and Warley and Halifax.
Multiple counter proposals sought to avoid the inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in a predominantly Borough of Kirklees-based constituency. This could be achieved either by crossing the local authority boundary in a different area or, instead, by splitting a ward between the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies, thus avoiding a cross-local authority boundary constituency altogether.
The initial proposals for the Dewsbury constituency also proved to be contentious, with the large majority of the opposition received from the part of the Dalton ward that would be included within the constituency. Residents of this area stated that they have very few links to the town of Dewsbury, and should remain in a constituency with Huddersfield. The proposed Huddersfield constituency itself was similarly opposed with almost all of the opposition related to the proposed transfer of the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward to the Huddersfield constituency, from the Colne Valley constituency.
The representations received regarding the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency were more balanced between opposition and support. Some respondents suggested that the constituency grouped communities with few ties, and broke links within the City of Wakefield. Others supported the constituency on the grounds that it would group similar towns and villages. Several representations suggested a change of the constituency name due to it not being representative of many of the communities within the proposed constituency.
We received multiple counter proposals for some, or all, of the seven constituencies either wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees. Some of these proposed extensive changes to the arrangement across Kirklees, precipitated by a new cross-local authority boundary constituency with Calderdale. Others proposed multiple ward splits across the boroughs in an attempt to resolve some of the issues discussed above.
Very few representations were received during the consultation process concerning the two proposed constituencies wholly within the City of Wakefield local authority: Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford. However, the cross-local authority boundary constituency of Wakefield was considerably more contentious. Almost all of the opposition regarded the inclusion of the City of Leeds orphan ward of Rothwell.
The initial proposals in the City of Leeds received a mixed response during consultation. We received very few representations regarding the proposed Leeds Central, Leeds North East, and Pudsey constituencies, while the proposed Leeds North West constituency was mostly supported. The proposed Leeds East constituency was the most contentious wholly within the local authority. Respondents opposed the proposed division of the Gipton & Harehills ward, and the subsequent exclusion of the Harehills community from the Leeds East constituency, as well as the inclusion of the Garforth & Swillington ward in the constituency. It was contended that the proposals would divide the east Leeds community and harm community cohesion.
The proposed Morley constituency was also opposed, with most of the representations received objecting to the proposed inclusion of the Middleton Park ward, which it was suggested had poor links to the rest of the constituency, and would be more suitably included in the Leeds Central constituency.
The proposed Headingley constituency was also mostly opposed with the majority of representations objecting to the inclusion of the Armley ward. A smaller number of representations were also received that opposed the inclusion of the Weetwood ward.
Multiple counter proposals were received for some, or all, of the seven constituencies wholly within the City of Leeds. Most involved simple transfers of individual wards between constituencies to resolve some of the issues raised regarding the arrangement to the west of the city. Others proposed more widespread change, particularly in an effort to avoid the division of the community of Harehills from the Leeds East constituency.
In the City of Bradford, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the concerns regarding community cohesion and the breaking of community ties that could result from the exchange of wards between the initially proposed Bradford South and Bradford West constituencies. They therefore recommended adopting a counter proposal that would return the constituencies of Bradford East, Bradford South and Bradford West to the existing arrangement, other than the transfer of the 18H polling district from the Bradford East ward of Little Horton to the proposed Bradford South constituency. They recommended no change to the names of the three constituencies involved.
Elsewhere in Bradford, the Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the widespread support for retaining the proposed Keighley and Shipley constituencies which were changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries, and as such recommended no change to their composition. They did, however, accept the strong support for the Keighley constituency name to be amended and therefore recommended that it be renamed Keighley and Ilkley. We agreed with the Assistant Commissioners’ suggestions for the City of Bradford, and adopted them as our revised proposals.
The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the widespread opposition to the initial proposals for the seven constituencies wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees, and the numerous and wide-ranging counter proposals for alternative constituencies. In particular, they noted the strength of opposition to the proposed inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with Batley and the Spen Valley communities. They decided to visit the area to better understand the issues, and their observations accorded with the criticisms of the initial proposals that were heard during the consultation.
The Assistant Commissioners considered that an alternative arrangement for Calderdale and Kirklees boroughs which involved the split of three wards between constituencies had the most merit of any counter proposal received, or various other possible alternatives investigated by them for the area. Accordingly, they recommended to us that this counter proposal be adopted for the composition of constituencies wholly or partially within Kirklees borough, minus the Colne Valley and Huddersfield constituencies (which they recommended maintaining unchanged from the initial proposals).
The counter proposal recommended by the Assistant Commissioners involved a Spen Valley constituency that comprised the wards of Birstall and Birkenshaw, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike, Liversedge and Gomersal, and Mirfield, plus polling district DA06 of the Dalton ward (which covers the communities of Kirkheaton and Upper Heaton). They recommended a Dewsbury and Batley constituency comprising the wards of Batley East, Batley West, Dewsbury East, Dewsbury South, and Dewsbury West, plus four polling districts of the Kirkburton ward, covering the north of the ward. Finally, no further change to the composition of the Ossett and Denby Dale constituency was recommended, other than the transfer of four polling districts of the Kirkburton ward to the Dewsbury and Batley constituency (as described above). The Assistant Commissioners recommended the name of this constituency be changed to Wakefield West and Denby Dale, being persuaded by the comments that the initially proposed name was not sufficiently representative of many of the communities in the City of Wakefield part of the proposed constituency.
In the Borough of Calderdale, the Assistant Commissioners recommended splitting the Ryburn ward between the proposed Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies, with the three polling districts covering the town of Sowerby Bridge and the village of Triangle (MB, MC and MD) being included in the latter.
We agreed with the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners as described above, and proposed them in their entirety as our revised proposals for the constituencies wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees.
Regarding the City of Wakefield, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to the cross-local authority element of the proposed Wakefield constituency. However, they considered that very few counter proposals received for this area adequately considered the consequential effects to the wider West Yorkshire arrangement of constituencies, and that none were superior to the initial proposals based on the statutory factors. They also noted the limited number of representations received regarding the proposed Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford constituencies. Therefore, they recommended no change to these constituencies, or the proposed Wakefield constituency, from the initial proposals. We agreed with the conclusions reached by the Assistant Commissioners and therefore proposed no change to the composition or names of the constituencies of Normanton and Hemsworth, Pontefract and Castleford, and Wakefield in our revised proposals.
In the City of Leeds, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the significant opposition regarding elements of the seven constituencies wholly within the local authority in the initial proposals. In particular, they noted the strong objections to the removal of the Harehills community from the proposed Leeds East constituency, and the inclusion of the Garforth & Swillington ward. The Assistant Commissioners visited the area. They acknowledged that the proposed division of the Gipton & Harehills ward did not follow any clear physical boundary, whereas the Garforth & Swillington ward is clearly separate from east Leeds. Despite this, although many representations put forward an alternative arrangement for Leeds East, the Assistant Commissioners considered that few sufficiently accounted for the consequential effects on neighbouring constituencies, and none were superior to the initial proposals. Therefore, they did not recommend any change to the Leeds East constituency as initially proposed.
Elsewhere in Leeds, the Assistant Commissioners recommended adopting a counter proposal received for the Headingley, Leeds Central, Morley, and Pudsey constituencies, although they recommended no change to the names of those constituencies as initially proposed. The counter proposal involved the transfer of the Armley ward from the proposed Headingley constituency to Pudsey, the Little London & Woodhouse ward from the proposed Leeds Central constituency to Headingley, the Farnley & Wortley ward from the proposed Pudsey constituency to Morley, and the Middleton Park ward from the proposed Morley constituency to Leeds Central. Cognisant of the small number of representations regarding the proposed Leeds North East constituency, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to its composition or name.
We agreed with the Assistant Commissioners’ suggestions for the constituencies of Headingley, Morley, and Pudsey, and for there to be no change to the proposed Leeds North East and Leeds North West constituencies, and adopted these in our revised proposals. We also agreed with the proposed exchange of the Little London & Woodhouse ward for the Middleton Park ward in the Leeds Central constituency, and adopted this in our revised proposals, although in addition to further change to this constituency, which is detailed below.
We considered the evidence received that our initial proposals broke community ties in east Leeds to be persuasive, and therefore we investigated alternative configurations. We proposed an arrangement which retained all of the Gipton & Harehills ward in the Leeds East constituency, and instead split the Temple Newsam ward between the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. Therefore, our revised Leeds Central constituency consisted of the wards of: Beeston & Holbeck; Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; Hunslet & Riverside; Middleton Park; and eight polling districts from the Temple Newsam ward (covering the areas of Halton and Halton Moor). Our revised Leeds East constituency consisted of the wards of: Cross Gates & Whinmoor; Garforth & Swillington; Gipton & Harehills; Killingbeck & Seacroft; and the remaining four polling districts of Temple Newsam ward (covering the areas of Colton and Whitkirk). While we acknowledged the possible limitations of this arrangement, we considered it was the best alternative to the initial proposals that we were able to identify, and we welcomed views on the revised pattern during further consultation.
Therefore, our revised proposals for the area of West Yorkshire were for the constituencies of: Bradford East; Bradford South; Bradford West; Calder Valley; Colne Valley; Dewsbury and Batley; Halifax; Headingley; Huddersfield; Keighley and Ilkley; Leeds Central; Leeds East; Leeds North East; Leeds North West; Morley; Normanton and Hemsworth; Pontefract and Castleford; Pudsey; Shipley; Spen Valley; Wakefield; and Wakefield West and Denby Dale.
The response to the revised proposals across West Yorkshire varied widely. In some local authorities the proposals were far less contentious than the initial proposals, however, elsewhere, new issues were identified.
Within the City of Bradford, the transfer of the 18H polling district of the Little Horton ward from Bradford East to the proposed Bradford South constituency was strongly opposed. The opposition included a petition of roughly 100 signatories contending there is no commonality between the community of Marshfields in the 18H polling district, and the rest of the proposed Bradford South constituency with which it would be grouped. We received a counter proposal which suggested an alternative ward be split between the Bradford East and Bradford South constituencies, with all of the Little Horton ward remaining in the former. The respondent suggested that the Bowling and Barkerend ward, currently within the existing Bradford East constituency, be split, with the single polling district of 5F, covering part of the community of Tyersal, transferred to the proposed Bradford South constituency, and the remaining seven polling districts, covering the areas of Barkerend and East Bowling, remaining in Bradford East. It was contended that this arrangement would be superior to the revised proposals as it would: avoid the division of the community of Marshfields between constituencies; unite the community of Tyersal in one constituency; and respect the major A6177 ring road (Smiddles Lane) as a constituency boundary better than either the existing arrangement or our revised proposals would. This counter proposal was supported by a number of other respondents.
Although the transfer of the 18H polling district of the Little Horton ward to the proposed Bradford South constituency in the revised proposals was overwhelmingly opposed, we did receive some representations in support of the proposal. These representations suggested the revised proposals were superior to the initial proposals in terms of retaining community ties and protecting community cohesion, and minimising the number of electors moved between constituencies.
Elsewhere in the City of Bradford, the revised proposals resulted in no other significant issues. A handful of respondents contended that the towns of Keighley and Ilkley should be in separate constituencies, while a smaller number opposed the addition of Ilkley to the constituency name. Both the proposed Bradford West and Shipley constituencies resulted in very few representations.
The revised proposals arrangement across the Borough of Kirklees was considerably less contentious than in the initial proposals, resulting in few representations and no single significant issue by number of representations. Respondents suggested the arrangement in the north of the local authority, across the proposed constituencies of Dewsbury and Batley, and Spen Valley, was an improvement on the initial proposals. In the latter, the remaining opposition tended to be with regard to the Mirfield ward or the part of the Dalton ward proposed to be included within it. A small number of respondents from these areas contended that they look to Dewsbury or Huddersfield, and are not a part of the Spen Valley. We received a counter proposal which would transfer these areas, plus part of the Liversedge and Gomersal ward to a constituency with the town of Dewsbury, while the town of Batley would be removed and returned to a constituency with the Spen Valley communities.
The revised Wakefield West and Denby Dale constituency resulted in more opposition than the other proposed constituencies wholly or partially in the Borough of Kirklees. The proposed composition received a mixed response, for similar reasons as its predecessor in the initial proposals (Ossett and Denby Dale). The revised constituency name was opposed by respondents both in favour and opposition of its composition. Some pointed out that the ward of Wakefield West is not included in the proposed constituency, which could lead to confusion. The most popular alternative, by number of representations, was a return to Ossett and Denby Dale.
We received one counter proposal which suggested a slight amendment to the revised proposals arrangement for the Kirklees borough constituencies discussed above. The respondent suggested that the Flockton area of the Kirkburton ward (polling district KB04) be transferred to the proposed Wakefield West and Denby Dale constituency, with the Howden Clough part of the Birstall and Birkenshaw ward (polling district BB03) being transferred from the proposed Spen Valley constituency to Dewsbury and Batley, in exchange. They contended that there are few ties between Flockton and either Dewsbury or Batley, while there are close links between the area of Howden Clough and Batley.
The proposed Colne Valley and Huddersfield constituencies, which were unchanged from the initial proposals, resulted in very few representations in the revised proposals consultation.
The revised arrangement within the Borough of Calderdale was considerably more popular than the initial proposals. The proposed Calder Valley constituency was strongly supported, almost entirely due to the retention of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward, which was transferred to a cross-local authority boundary constituency with the town of Batley in the initial proposals. The proposed Halifax constituency garnered very few representations, with only two opposing the proposed split of the Ryburn ward. These representations contended that this would divide the village of Triangle between constituencies.
The two proposed constituencies wholly within the City of Wakefield were mostly opposed during the consultation on the revised proposals. Respondents opposed the separation of the towns of Altofts and Normanton into separate constituencies, with the latter linked with Hemsworth and other areas in the south of the local authority, with which it was suggested it has few ties. We received one counter proposal which sought to retain Altofts and Normanton in the same constituency, along with the town of Castleford, while the towns of Hemsworth and Pontefract would be combined in a second constituency.
The composition of the proposed Pontefract and Castleford constituency garnered few representations, however, there were a number of requests for the town of Knottingley to be acknowledged in the constituency name. Respondents contended that the constituency contains three distinct towns which should all be acknowledged, and there is precedent for a three-place name constituency in the area due to the existing constituency name of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
The inclusion of the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell in the Wakefield constituency continued to be opposed, although in fewer numbers than at previous stages of consultation. A small number of representations contended that Rothwell should be included in the constituency name to acknowledge its cross-local authority boundary nature.
The revised proposals for the constituencies wholly within the City of Leeds received a mixture of support and opposition during the consultation period. The proposed split of the Temple Newsam ward between the proposed Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies was very strongly opposed. Respondents contended that the revised proposals would sever ties between the Halton area and the rest of the Temple Newsam ward, as well as the wider Leeds East constituency, while transferring it to a Leeds Central constituency with which it has few ties. Representations also stated that the ward split was arbitrary and divided residential areas, particularly around the Templegate estate. In contrast, the revised Leeds East constituency was mostly supported for retaining all of the Gipton & Harehills ward within it. Many respondents stated that, although the Leeds East composition is still not ideal, it is a vast improvement on the initial proposals.
We received a counter proposal which, rather than splitting the Temple Newsam ward, proposed an alternative split (to our initial proposals) of the Gipton & Harehills ward between the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. It proposed the ward be split using a different grouping of polling districts to that in the initial proposals: four polling districts in the east of the ward would remain in the proposed Leeds East constituency (GHA, GHB, GHD and GHI), while the remaining seven polling districts would be transferred to the proposed Leeds Central constituency. Those in support of this counter proposal contended that the resulting split of the ward was more logical than both the initially proposed split of the Gipton & Harehills ward, and the split of the Temple Newsam ward in the revised proposals. In particular, they suggested that Oak Tree Drive, which would form part of the constituency boundary in the counter proposal, is a distinct and well-known boundary between north and south Gipton. One representation went on to assert that the counter proposal is superior to the revised proposal arrangement due to the close ties between Harehills and the Leeds Central ward of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill, and matches more closely how the wards are grouped into inner and outer areas by both the City of Leeds local authority and West Yorkshire Police.
Elsewhere in the City of Leeds, the revised compositions of the proposed Morley and Pudsey constituencies were mostly opposed, although not in substantial numbers. The inclusion of the Farnley & Wortley ward in the proposed Morley constituency was opposed by respondents who stated they have very few links with the town of Morley, and should instead remain in a constituency with the ward of Armley to their north. Similar arguments were made by respondents in the Armley ward regarding their inclusion in a constituency with the town of Pudsey, although in fewer numbers.
Few representations were received in the revised proposals consultation regarding the composition of the proposed constituencies of Headingley, Leeds North East, and Leeds North West – with the latter being mostly supported.
Two counter proposals were received which suggested substantial change to the revised proposals arrangement across the City of Leeds. This included one which would result in Leeds North West, Leeds West, and Pudsey constituencies similar to the existing, but with an additional ward split between Leeds West and Pudsey. The Morley constituency would be the same as in the initial proposals, through the inclusion of the Middleton Park ward.
Many representations were received regarding the proposed naming of one or more of the proposed constituencies in the City of Leeds. The greatest matter regarding a constituency name, by number of representations, was for the proposed Pudsey constituency to be renamed Leeds West and Pudsey. Respondents contended that the existing name would not be representative of the newly included wards of Armley, and Bramley & Stanningley which have closer ties to the city centre. Similar arguments were received regarding the existing name of Morley not being representative of all of the revised constituency, although in fewer numbers than those received regarding the proposed Pudsey constituency. There was also no single most popular alternative name suggestion for the Morley constituency, by number of representations.
Some representations were received regarding the proposed names of the Headingley and Leeds Central constituencies due to the latter no longer containing much of the city centre of Leeds, following the transfer of the Little London & Woodhouse ward between these constituencies in the revised proposals. Respondents contended that the proposed Headingley constituency should acknowledge Leeds in the name, with Leeds North West being the most popular alternative name by number of representations. Such a change would need to be accompanied by a name change to the proposed Leeds North West constituency, which is discussed below. Meanwhile, the most popular alternative name by number of representations for the proposed Leeds Central constituency was Leeds South. Respondents contended that, not only did the proposed constituency no longer contain most of the city centre, many of the suburbs contained within it identified as ‘south Leeds’.
In contrast to the proposed Headingley constituency, respondents contended that it would be anomalous for the Leeds North West constituency to have a Leeds suffix. Most respondents suggested an alternative name that included one or more of the major towns within the constituency (Guiseley, Horsforth, Otley, and Yeadon), but no single name was most popular within the representations. Some alternatives received included Horsforth and Wharfedale, Horsforth and Otley, Guiseley and Otley, and Aireborough and Wharfedale.
Having considered the evidence received regarding the revised proposals across West Yorkshire, we recommend a slight amendment to two constituencies, and a name change to a further seven.
In the City of Bradford, we acknowledge the strong opposition to the transfer of polling district 18H of the Little Horton ward, containing part of the Marshfields community, to the proposed Bradford South constituency. We note the representations and petition contending that this community has little in common with the rest of the constituency in which it would be included and consider that the counter proposal, which would instead transfer the 5F polling district of the Bowling and Barkerend ward, may be superior. We decided to visit the area to compare the different options ‘on the ground’.
We observed that the 18H polling district of the Little Horton ward is isolated from the Wibsey ward of the existing Bradford South constituency by the A6177 road (Smiddles Lane), which we considered to be a fairly busy and substantial road. We then observed the boundary between the Bowling and Barkerend, and Tong wards (of the existing Bradford East and Bradford South constituencies, respectively). Here, we considered the boundary between the two wards (Dick Lane) to be less substantial, and it appeared that the community of Tyersal was spread across both sides of the boundary. Finally, we observed the boundary of the proposed ward split. We noted the split passes through mostly industrial areas, which make up the majority of the 5F polling district. The large majority of the housing is east of the A6177 road, somewhat separated from the rest of the Bowling and Barkerend ward by industrial land. We considered that this likely supports the suggestion that the part of Tyersal that lies within the 5F polling district has links with the community on the other side of Dick Lane, in the Tong ward.
Considering our observations and the evidence received during consultation, we are persuaded of the limitations of our revised proposals for the Bradford East and Bradford South constituencies. We consider that the counter proposal to instead transfer polling district 5F of the Bowling and Barkerend ward to the proposed Bradford South constituency, while retaining all of the Little Horton ward in Bradford East, better reflects the statutory factors. Therefore, we propose this arrangement for the constituencies of Bradford East and Bradford South in our final recommendations.
Elsewhere in the City of Bradford, we make no further changes to the revised proposals in our final recommendations. We acknowledge a small amount of opposition to the grouping of the towns of Keighley and Ilkley in the same constituency. However, we note that the composition of this constituency has only been amended from the existing arrangement to align with new local government ward boundaries, and it was mostly supported across previous consultation stages. We also note that the opposition to the addition of Ilkley to the constituency name was greatly outweighed by representations in favour of such a change received in the initial proposals consultation stage. We note very few representations received regarding the proposed Bradford West or Shipley constituencies.
In the Borough of Calderdale we note the almost universal support for the revised proposals, and therefore retain the proposed Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies unchanged in our final recommendations.
We also acknowledge that the revised proposals arrangement for the Borough of Kirklees is more popular than the initial proposals were. We note some minor opposition to elements of the proposed Dewsbury and Batley, and Spen Valley constituencies, as well as a mixed response to the composition of the proposed Wakefield West and Denby Dale constituency, as voiced at previous consultation stages. Despite this, we are not persuaded to change the composition of the revised proposals in this area. We do not consider that the counter proposals received, which would involve more ward splits, better reflect the statutory factors overall than compared with the revised proposals. Therefore, we make no change to the proposed Dewsbury and Batley, and Spen Valley constituencies in our final recommendations, and no change to the composition of the proposed Wakefield West and Denby Dale constituency. However, we have been persuaded to change the name of the latter and adopt a return to the name Ossett and Denby Dale in the final recommendations. This acknowledges the largest settlement by population in the City of Wakefield part of the constituency, and was the most popular alternative, by number of representations, across the consultation periods. We note very few representations regarding the proposed Colne Valley and Huddersfield constituencies, and retain them unchanged in our final recommendations.
We acknowledge the continued opposition to the inclusion of the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell in the proposed Wakefield constituency, which has been contentious throughout the review process. However, we do not consider that we have received any compelling new evidence to persuade us to change the arrangement in the final recommendations. We are cognisant that to change the cross-local authority arrangement between the cities of Leeds and Wakefield would likely result in wide-scale change across the sub-region, which we consider would result in an inferior proposal overall, with respect to the statutory factors. This was the case regarding the counter proposal we received which involved an alternative cross-local authority boundary arrangement between Leeds and Wakefield, as well as an alternative arrangement between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Therefore, we make no change to the composition of the proposed Wakefield constituency in the final recommendations. Despite this, we have been persuaded by respondents who argued it would be appropriate to include Rothwell in the constituency name, and therefore adopt the name of Wakefield and Rothwell in the final recommendations. We consider that this appropriately acknowledges the cross-local authority element of the proposed constituency.
Elsewhere in the City of Wakefield, we note that the proposed Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford constituencies were mostly opposed. Despite this, we have not been persuaded to change the composition of these constituencies, and still consider that the revised proposals are the superior arrangement in the area. We consider that, although a counter proposal we received would retain the towns of Altofts and Normanton in the same constituency, the arrangement would likely break similarly strong community ties elsewhere in the local authority, and would also result in more extensive change from the existing arrangement. Despite making no change to the composition of the proposed Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford constituencies, we have been persuaded by the evidence regarding the acknowledgement of the town of Knottingley in the name of the latter. Therefore we adopt the name Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley in our final recommendations.
In the City of Leeds, we acknowledged the strong opposition to the proposed split of the Temple Newsam ward between the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. We also noted the counter proposal received which would involve splitting the Gipton & Harehills ward instead, following a more distinct boundary than that used in the initial proposals, according to respondents. We decided to visit the area to observe the boundaries of the proposed ward splits and to consider the various arguments made by respondents in regard to both options.
Having visited both the Gipton & Harehills and Temple Newsam wards, we recognised the limitations involved in splitting either in our final recommendations. We noted that both would likely break community ties, and considered it to be a very finely balanced decision. Having considered all the representations received during all consultations, and our observations from visiting the area, we are persuaded by the evidence received regarding the community ties within the Gipton & Harehills ward, and between Harehills and the wider east Leeds community. We concluded that the revised proposals involving the split of the Temple Newsam ward would result in a pattern of constituencies that better reflected the statutory factors overall. Therefore, we have decided to make no change to the composition of the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies in our final recommendations.
Elsewhere in the City of Leeds, we acknowledge some opposition to the proposed Morley and Pudsey constituencies, but note the arrangement is less contentious than in the initial proposals. We appreciate the merit of elements of the counter proposal which would return the west of the City of Leeds authority to an arrangement similar to the existing. However, we consider that this arrangement would reintroduce some of the issues identified in the initial proposals, as well as some limitations of the existing arrangement, such as the division of the community of Yeadon between constituencies. We also consider that the additional split of the Calverley & Farsley ward would likely break community ties. Therefore, on balance, we consider the revised proposals to be the superior arrangement for the constituencies of Morley and Pudsey, and make no changes to their composition in the final recommendations.
We note few representations regarding the proposed composition of the Headingley, Leeds North East, or Leeds North West constituencies, and therefore retain the arrangement of these constituencies in the final recommendations.
Despite making no change to the composition of the revised proposals in the City of Leeds, we acknowledge the opposition regarding many of the proposed constituency names. We were sympathetic to many of the arguments for alternative names, but noted that there was little consensus on what constituency names best reflected the configuration of constituencies. However, we recognised that, in many cases, representations considered that reflecting Leeds in the constituency name was important. We therefore reflected on our proposed constituency names. We have decided to make no changes to the proposed Leeds East, Leeds North East, and Leeds North West constituency names. We adopt the name Leeds Central and Headingley for the Headingley constituency of the revised proposals, to acknowledge that it contains most of the city centre, within the Little London & Woodhouse ward. In turn, we adopt the name Leeds South for the Leeds Central constituency of the revised proposals, to reflect that most of this constituency lies to the south of the centre of the City of Leeds. Finally, we change the names of the proposed Morley and Pudsey constituencies to Leeds South West and Morley, and Leeds West and Pudsey, respectively. We consider that these constituency names acknowledge the areas of these constituencies which likely identify more closely with the city centre of Leeds itself, while still recognising the historically independent towns which feature in the existing constituency names.
Therefore, our final recommendations in West Yorkshire are for constituencies of: Bradford East; Bradford South; Bradford West; Calder Valley; Colne Valley; Dewsbury and Batley; Halifax; Huddersfield; Keighley and Ilkley; Leeds Central and Headingley; Leeds East; Leeds North East; Leeds North West; Leeds South; Leeds South West and Morley; Leeds West and Pudsey; Normanton and Hemsworth; Ossett and Denby Dale; Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley; Shipley; Spen Valley; and Wakefield and Rothwell. The areas contained by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
