Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West region

3 Initial proposals for the North West region

  1. The North West region comprises the county council areas of Cumbria; and Lancashire, including the unitary authorities of Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool6; the unitary authority areas of Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, and Warrington7; and the metropolitan areas of Greater Manchester and Merseyside (which are covered by metropolitan boroughs).
  2. The North West region currently has 75 constituencies. Of these constituencies, 33 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of 28 constituencies currently fall below the 5% permitted limit, while the electorates of 14 constituencies are above the 5% limit.
  3. Our initial proposals for the North West region are for 73 constituencies, a reduction of two.
  4. In seeking to produce 73 constituencies within the electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub‑regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authority areas together in sub-regions was based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and in achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings such as those dictated in some part by the geography of the area.
  5. Our division of the region into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
  6. The distribution of electors across the three counties and two metropolitan areas of the North West region is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county and metropolitan area, while keeping each constituency within the permitted electorate quota, is not possible.
  7. Cumbria’s electorate of 389,717 results in a mathematical entitlement of 5.31 constituencies. This number is too large for the county to be allocated five whole constituencies, and too few for six. As such, we cannot consider it as a sub-region in its own right and it is therefore necessary for Cumbria to be paired with another county.
  8. Our options for pairing Cumbria with another county are limited by the Irish Sea to the west, and the border with Scotland to the north. Since we are not proposing that any regional boundaries should be crossed unless unavoidable, we do not propose that Cumbria be paired with Northumberland or County Durham in the North East region, or North Yorkshire in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. As a result, we propose pairing Cumbria with Lancashire to the south. With a combined electorate of 1,503,760, a sub-region of Cumbria and Lancashire would be entitled to 20.49 constituencies. This allows for 20 whole constituencies to be allocated to the sub-region, albeit with electorates that would be at the upper end of the permitted electorate range. By definition, the sub-region requires a constituency that crosses the county boundary between Cumbria and Lancashire.
  9. Despite considering Lancashire and Merseyside as separate sub-regions, we are proposing a constituency which crosses the county – and sub-region – boundary. It combines four wards of the District of West Lancashire with the town of Southport. Although this crossing is not required by the electorates, we consider that this allows us to better reflect both local ties and the boundaries of existing constituencies, and results in a more appropriate pattern of constituencies across much of the North West region, and especially so in Lancashire and Cheshire.
  10. The electorate of the metropolitan area of Merseyside, of 1,049,947, suggests a mathematical entitlement of 14.31 constituencies. However, the electorate in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, at 244,680 gives the borough a mathematical entitlement of 3.33 constituencies. This means that there cannot be a whole number of constituencies which are wholly contained within the Wirral borough boundary. It is therefore necessary for a constituency to either cross between the Wirral and the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority, or for a constituency which spans the River Mersey between the Wirral and the City of Liverpool. We note that in previous reviews, the crossing of the River Mersey has been strongly opposed, so we are proposing to cross the Wirral and Cheshire West and Chester boundary.
  11. We have therefore decided to treat Merseyside and Cheshire as a sub-region. Their combined electorate of 1,877,361 results in a mathematical entitlement of 25.58 constituencies, giving an allocation of 26 whole constituencies. We are also proposing a second cross-county boundary constituency within the Cheshire and Merseyside sub-region. This constituency will use the natural geographic boundary of the River Mersey to bisect the Borough of Halton. The proposed constituency would extend from Widnes (part of the ceremonial county of Cheshire, but north of the River Mersey), into the Halewood area of the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley (in Merseyside).
  12. The electorate of Greater Manchester – of 2,000,429 – results in a mathematical entitlement of 27.26 constituencies. As such, we are able to allocate Greater Manchester 27 whole constituencies, which is the same as its existing allocation. It can therefore be considered as a sub-region in its own right, with no requirement for any constituencies to cross the boundary of the metropolitan area. We consider that within our proposals any crossings into Greater Manchester would cause unnecessary disruption.
Back to top

Initial Proposals for the Cumbria and Lancashire sub-region

  1. There are currently six constituencies in Cumbria, none of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range. Therefore none are able to be retained unchanged. Furthermore, only five constituencies can be wholly allocated within the county boundary, necessitating one cross-county boundary constituency to be constructed, the larger part of which is within Lancashire. The sub-region as a whole has been allocated 20 constituencies. There will therefore have to be fairly significant change across the Cumbria and Lancashire sub-region.
  2. The electorate of the City of Carlisle local authority is too large for a constituency that is coterminous with the authority boundaries. Therefore, one of the wards from this authority must be included in a constituency based in another Cumbrian district. Despite its proximity to Carlisle city centre, the Dalston & Burgh ward has strong road connections with the District of Allerdale. We therefore propose that this ward be included in the Workington constituency, and propose no further changes to the Carlisle constituency.
  3. Although we were able to propose a constituency which is coterminous with the District of Allerdale, this would result in another constituency that would extend across Cumbria. We therefore propose a Workington constituency that is more closely aligned with the boundaries of the Allerdale district than the existing constituency. This allows us to maintain both the distinction between the ports of Workington and Whitehaven, and take account of new local government ward boundaries in this area. Our proposed Workington constituency therefore contains all the wards of Allerdale district, except the Crummock & Derwent Valley and the Keswick wards. As mentioned above, it also contains the Dalston & Burgh ward from the City of Carlisle, which means that this is an ‘orphan’ ward8.
  4. We propose a Westmorland and Eden constituency, which contains the entirety of Eden district, and extends into South Lakeland District. The wards from South Lakeland which we propose to include are the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale ward, the Kendal Rural ward, and the five wards which constitute the town of Kendal itself. The A6 and M6 provide strong transport links between Kendal and Penrith, which form the two major population centres within our proposed Westmorland and Eden constituency. This configuration allows us to avoid the arbitrary division of either town.
  5. The South Lakeland district ward of Broughton & Coniston has been extensively reconfigured by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The inclusion of this reconfigured ward within the existing Barrow and Furness constituency would result in significant disruption across Cumbria. To avoid this we propose that the Barrow and Furness constituency be extended eastwards, across the Leven Estuary. We acknowledge that the direct transport links eastwards are not ideal. There is a railway line across the estuary, but no direct east-west road link wholly contained within the constituency. However, the A590 is the key road in this area of south western Cumbria, and connects both sections of the constituency, so no part is inaccessible. Our proposed Barrow and Furness constituency is therefore largely the same as the existing constituency, but now includes the Cartmel and Grange wards, and no longer includes the Broughton & Coniston ward. We consider this arrangement allows for a more practicable configuration of constituencies across Cumbria, without fundamentally altering the nature of the existing Barrow and Furness constituency.
  6. Our proposed Copeland and the Western Lakes constituency is similar to the existing Copeland constituency. As mentioned previously, two wards from Allerdale district – the Crummock & Derwent Valley ward, and the Keswick ward, which has been subject to local government ward boundary changes – remain within our proposed constituency. We are also proposing to extend the constituency eastwards into the South Lakeland District. The proposed constituency will therefore include the Broughton & Coniston, Ambleside and Grasmere, and Windermere wards. In order to maintain the entirety of Lake Windermere within a single constituency, and to avoid dividing the communities of Windermere and Bowness-on-Windermere, we propose dividing the Bowness & Levens ward between constituencies. We propose that the westernmost part of this ward, which contains Bowness-on-Windermere and covers the southern expanse of Lake Windermere itself, be included within the Copeland and the Western Lakes constituency. We consider that the division of this ward enables us to better reflect the community ties between the settlements on Lake Windermere, and results in Lake Windermere not being divided between constituencies. This allows one of the most iconic lakes of the Lake District to not only be included in a constituency which covers the majority of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, but also which is wholly contained within Cumbria.
  7. We propose that the remainder of the divided Bowness & Levens ward be included with the Burton & Crooklands, and Arnside & Milnthorpe wards in our proposed Cumbria and Lancashire cross-county boundary constituency. We consider the existing Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency to be the most suitable for extension across the county boundary as its existing northern boundary lies along the entirety of the Cumbria-Lancashire boundary and there are effective transport links along the M6, A6 and A6070 roads. Aside from the addition of the Cumbrian wards, the bulk of the constituency remains largely unchanged. The natural boundary of the River Lune largely forms the point of division between the town of Morecambe and the City of Lancaster, which are included within different constituencies. However, it has been necessary to include the Upper Lune Valley and Skerton East wards in the Lancaster constituency, despite the Skerton ward being west of the River Lune, and no longer included with the Skerton West ward within a Morecambe-based constituency. This is in order to bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range once the Cumbrian inclusion is accounted for. We propose that this constituency be called Morecambe and South Lakeland. We consider that this name acknowledges both the county crossing, and is an accurate description of the constituency.
  8. Our proposed Lancaster constituency is significantly different from the existing Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency. As mentioned previously, the Skerton East ward and the Upper Lune Valley ward are now included within this constituency. Although the proposed constituency still extends into the Borough of Wyre, no part of the constituency now extends across the River Wyre into Fleetwood. The River Wyre in this area forms the new western boundary of the constituency, and the southern boundary now aligns with that of the Borough of Wyre. The constituency is wholly contained within these two authorities. As it is no longer included within a Lancaster based constituency, we propose that the town of Fleetwood be included in our proposed Blackpool North and Fleetwood constituency. This would contain the settlements of Fleetwood, Cleveleys and Thornton from the Borough of Wyre, and five wards from the Blackpool unitary authority, containing the Bispham and Warbreck areas.
  9. The existing Blackpool South constituency has an electorate of 56,887, which is significantly below the permitted electorate range. Therefore, our proposed Blackpool South constituency contains the entirety of the existing constituency, and extends north to include the Claremont, Layton, Park, and Warbreck wards. The constituency remains entirely within the bounds of the Blackpool unitary authority, and its southern boundary continues to align with that of the Borough of Fylde.
  10. There is relatively minor change to the existing Fylde constituency. However, in order to bring it within the permitted range, we propose the inclusion of the Borough of Wyre wards of Tithebarn, Breck, and Hardhorn with High Cross in the Fylde constituency. These three wards comprise the town of Poulton-le-Fylde, which we have sought to avoid dividing. This change has enabled us to propose a Fylde constituency that no longer includes wards from the City of Preston; our proposed Fylde constituency therefore now comprises the entirety of the Fylde borough, and the three Wyre wards mentioned previously.
  11. Our proposed Preston constituency still contains the majority of the city of Preston. However, our proposals for the Lancaster constituency result in the existing Wyre and Preston North constituency being entirely reconfigured. Our proposed Preston constituency includes the Garrison, Sharoe Green, Greyfriars, and Cadley wards, thereby including the wards that comprise the area of Fulwood in our proposed Preston constituency. This results in the proposed constituency being more geographically compact and urban in nature. The entirety of the city of Preston cannot be contained within one constituency, as its electorate is well above the electorate range, an issue that has been exacerbated by changes to local government wards in this area. Further changes are required to bring the constituency within the permitted range, so we propose the inclusion of the two City of Preston wards of Fishwick & Frenchwood, and Ribbleton within the Ribble Valley constituency, which has been significantly reconfigured. We also propose including the Preston Rural North, and Preston Rural East wards from the City of Preston. This arrangement means that most of the town of Bamber Bridge is no longer included within a constituency centred on the Ribble Valley.
  12. Our proposed Ribble Valley constituency includes all except three wards from the Ribble Valley borough. These are the East Whalley, Read & Simonstone, Whalley & Painter Wood, and the Billington & Langho wards. These three wards are included in our proposed Hyndburn constituency. This is largely the same arrangement as the existing constituency. The constituency continues to contain all wards from the Borough of Hyndburn, but will now align with the borough’s southern boundary. No part of it will now extend into the Borough of Rossendale. As Hyndburn itself does not contain enough electors to form a constituency that can be coterminous with its authority of the same name, we propose the inclusion of the three wards mentioned previously from the Borough of Ribble Valley in order to bring the constituency within the electorate range.
  13. The existing constituencies of Hyndburn, Rossendale and Darwen, Blackburn, Chorley, South Ribble, and West Lancashire are all able to remain unchanged, other than in certain locations to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. However, we identified that maintaining all six of these constituencies unchanged results in significant disruption across Lancashire, and a set of constituencies which we consider to have less regard to the statutory factors. We therefore consider that making some relatively minor changes throughout Lancashire results in less disruption overall and a distribution of constituencies that more closely reflects local ties.
  14. Our proposed Blackburn constituency is changed from the existing only by the realignment of the constituency boundary in the south to reflect local government ward changes. This aligns the constituency boundary with that of the town’s southern boundary, along the M65, and better reflects local ties, as it no longer artificially divides the town of Blackburn.
  15. To the east, the existing constituency boundaries of Burnley and Pendle are both coterminous with their respective local authorities. However, both have electorates that are currently below the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose also including the Briercliffe, and Lanehead wards from the Borough of Burnley in our proposed Pendle constituency. In order to then bring the existing Burnley constituency back within the electorate range, we propose extending it south by including the five easternmost wards of the Borough of Rossendale. The A671 forms a direct transport link between the two main urban areas of our proposed constituency, and is here called the ‘Burnley Road’. To recognise the fact that our proposed constituency now crosses two local authorities and includes the town of Bacup, we propose to name this constituency Burnley and Bacup. Although this would add a further rural element to the constituency, we consider that this addition would not constitute a fundamental change of character, compared with that of the existing Burnley constituency.
  16. Following these proposed changes, the existing Rossendale and Darwen constituency requires further reconfiguration in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range. First, we propose that it should now include the Greenfield and Worsley wards, which were formerly within the Hyndburn constituency. This will re-align the northern boundary of the constituency with that of the Rossendale borough boundary. The constituency will continue to contain the four wards which contain the town of Darwen; namely the Darwen West, Darwen South and Darwen East wards, and the West Pennine ward. As these wards alone are not enough to result in the constituency being within the electorate range, we also propose that the Adlington & Anderton, and Chorley North East wards, from the Borough of Chorley, are included. Although the constituency would now span three local authorities rather than two, we consider that this configuration better reflects local ties than the alternatives considered. We also consider that the existing name of Rossendale and Darwen is no longer appropriate. As the constituency now encompasses and is centred around the West Pennine Moors, we propose to reflect that by naming it as such.
  17. As mentioned previously, under our proposals, the Chorley constituency would no longer contain the two wards of Adlington & Anderton, and Chorley North East, and it would require additional electors to bring it within the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose that it includes the Eccleston, Heskin & Charnock Richard ward, and the Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South ward. This results in a revised Chorley constituency which remains contained wholly within the Borough of Chorley.
  18. We propose the extension of the existing Southport constituency across the county boundary into its rural hinterland within Lancashire. Although it is possible to retain the existing Southport constituency wholly unchanged within the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, we consider that this would result in significant disruptive knock-on effects throughout the North West, with the consequences extending across Lancashire, Merseyside and Cheshire. We therefore propose that the four Borough of West Lancashire wards of North Meols, Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall, Tarleton, and Rufford be included in the proposed Southport constituency. We consider these wards suitable for inclusion as they are already somewhat separated from the remainder of Lancashire by the physical boundaries of the River Ribble to the north, and the River Asland/River Douglas to the east. Including these wards within a Southport constituency also allows us to propose a South Ribble constituency which is wholly contained within the Borough of South Ribble, and contains the entirety of Leyland, and most of the town of Bamber Bridge within this constituency, rather than at the extreme western end of the Ribble Valley constituency, as at present. Our proposals also allow for a West Lancashire constituency which is wholly unchanged.
  19. We acknowledge that our proposals for Cumbria and Lancashire might not be ideal in all respects. However, we are of the view that the alternatives we considered resulted in more change, significant disruption across both counties, and a configuration of constituencies which we consider to be less respectful of the statutory factors.
Back to top

Initial Proposals for the Cheshire and Merseyside sub-region

  1. As a consequence of our proposals for the Southport constituency, the existing Sefton Central constituency, which could be left wholly unchanged, is subject to minor change. The proposed Sefton Central constituency now includes the Ainsdale ward from the existing Southport constituency, and no longer includes the Molyneux ward, which is now included in our proposed Liverpool Norris Green constituency. The Bootle constituency is wholly unchanged.
  2. Wards in the City of Liverpool all have large electorates; the Liverpool Riverside ward alone contains 15,186 electors. This means that we have had to propose fairly significant changes in order to produce constituencies in this area which are within the permitted electorate range.
  3. Although it will still contain the Walton area, we propose that the existing Liverpool Walton constituency be largely reconfigured. It would no longer contain the Everton or Anfield wards, and would include the Croxteth and Norris Green wards. We also propose that it would include the Molyneux ward from the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. We acknowledge that this ward is largely rural in nature but we consider that there are no reasonable alternatives in view of the other constituencies we are proposing on Merseyside. We consider that this constituency has been altered significantly enough to require a change of name to better reflect its new configuration. We therefore propose that this constituency be called Liverpool Norris Green.
  4. Our proposed Liverpool Riverside constituency largely follows the form of the existing constituency, but is more centred to the west. It now includes both the Everton and Anfield wards, but no longer includes the existing constituency’s three southeastern wards of Greenbank, Mossley Hill, and St. Michael’s. These three wards are now included in the proposed Liverpool Wavertree constituency. It remains centred on Wavertree, but in order to return the constituency to within the electorate range, we have no longer included the Church or Old Swan wards in the constituency.
  5. The Church ward is now included in our proposed Liverpool Garston constituency. This constituency is mostly the same as the existing Garston and Halewood constituency, except for the addition of the Church ward. The constituency is now wholly contained within the City of Liverpool authority, as it no longer extends into the Halewood area of the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley.
  6. Our proposed Liverpool West Derby constituency is also similar to the existing configuration. It now includes the Old Swan ward, and no longer includes the Norris Green or Croxteth wards. It extends into the Borough of Knowsley, incorporating the wards of Page Moss and Swanside. The City of Liverpool cannot be allocated a whole number of constituencies which would lie entirely within its boundaries, so one constituency must cross into Knowsley. We consider that this is the best location for the crossing, resulting in a compact constituency with an urban character and community links. With the exception of the two wards mentioned previously being included in the Liverpool West Derby constituency, and the realignment of the constituency boundary in the south to match local government ward changes, our proposed Knowsley constituency is otherwise unaltered.
  7. Although the St Helens North constituency can remain unchanged, we propose modifying it slightly in order to account for required changes in the existing St Helens South and Whiston constituency, which has an electorate larger than the electorate range. As such, our proposed St Helens North constituency no longer includes the Parr ward, but now includes the Town Centre ward. Our proposed St Helens South constituency includes all the remaining wards within the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, and also the Prescot South ward from the Borough of Knowsley. Although this would be an orphan ward, it is currently part of the existing St Helens South and Whiston constituency. We considered various configurations of constituencies in this and the surrounding area, but considered these would be more disruptive and reflect the statutory factors to a lesser extent.
  8. We propose using the natural physical boundary of the River Mersey to bisect the Borough of Halton. The northern wards of Halton, including all of the town of Widnes on the northern bank of the river, will form most of a constituency. This constituency would extend north across the ceremonial county boundary of Cheshire to include the three wards of Halewood North, Halewood South, and Whiston & Cronton from the Merseyside Borough of Knowsley. We consider that this proposed Widnes and Halewood constituency results in less change within Liverpool and Knowsley than the alternatives. Similarly, it allows for very minor changes in the Boroughs of St Helens and Warrington. We acknowledge that Whiston is therefore divided between two constituencies, and that this is not an ideal solution, but we considered that there was no reasonable alternative.
  9. On the southern bank of the River Mersey, the town of Runcorn forms the largest urban area of our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency. This constituency contains all the wards of the Borough of Halton that are south of the River Mersey, and extends west into the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority. We propose that it would contain the four wards of Frodsham, Helsby, Gowy Rural, and Sandstone from that authority, which follow the southern bank of the River Mersey, the Manchester Ship Canal, and the M56 and A56. We consider that having the entirety of Widnes and Runcorn in separate constituencies results in a practicable configuration and distribution of constituencies across Cheshire and Merseyside.
  10. The proposed Warrington North constituency is unchanged from the existing constituency, except to realign the constituency boundary with local government ward changes. The existing Warrington South constituency has an electorate of 86,422, which is considerably over the electorate range. Therefore we are proposing a Warrington South constituency which no longer includes the Lymm North & Thelwall, or Lymm South wards.
  11. We propose that these two wards, which constitute the entire town of Lymm, are included within the Tatton constituency, along with the Dane Valley ward from the Cheshire East unitary authority. The inclusion of these wards means that no wards from the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority would be included within a Tatton constituency.
  12. We propose that a new constituency be constructed, which would be centred around, and named, Northwich. This constituency would be wholly contained within the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority, and would arguably be a successor to the existing Weaver Vale constituency, although significantly reconfigured.
  13. The configuration proposed for the Northwich and Tatton constituencies results in minor changes within the rest of the Cheshire East unitary authority. The Macclesfield constituency is wholly unchanged, and our proposed Congleton constituency is also very similar to the existing configuration. The latter no longer includes the Dane Valley ward, but aside from that is unchanged, except to realign the constituency boundary with local government ward changes. Our proposed Crewe and Nantwich constituency is also only changed by just one ward, except for realignment with local government ward changes: it no longer includes the Wybunbury ward.
  14. The existing Eddisbury constituency is significantly reconfigured under our proposals. Although it still spans the two unitary authorities of Cheshire East, and Cheshire West and Chester, the constituency is now more compact. The Wybunbury ward is the only new inclusion within the constituency from Cheshire East. However, the changes affecting Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority wards are more pronounced. The town of Winsford is now mostly included in the Northwich constituency and the constituency no longer extends so far north towards the River Mersey, as that area is now within our proposed Runcorn and Helsby constituency. As the changes to the existing Eddisbury constituency have been significant we are therefore proposing to name this constituency South Cheshire, which we consider to be more reflective of the nature and geographical extent of the constituency. We have also used the River Dee as the constituency boundary between South Cheshire and the Chester North and Neston constituency. The two wards to the south of the river – the Handbridge Park and Lache wards – are included within the South Cheshire constituency.
  15. The five wards which constitute the northern portion of the City of Chester are included in a constituency with the Saughall & Mollington, and Willaston & Thornton wards, as well as the three wards which comprise the town of Neston. We consider the most accurate name for this constituency to be Chester North and Neston. Although we sought not to divide Chester, the River Dee does form a clear geographic boundary between constituencies and the difficulties caused by not dividing the city of Chester are considerable, with knock-on effects throughout both Cheshire West and Chester, and the Wirral.
  16. A key reason for these changes is that there cannot be a whole number of constituencies that are contained within the boundary of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Although there are currently four whole constituencies, the Wirral now only has the electorate for an allocation of three whole constituencies, and one part constituency. As we do not wish to propose a constituency which spans the River Mersey between the Wirral and the City of Liverpool, it is necessary for a constituency to extend into the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority. We propose that this county-crossing constituency be centred around Ellesmere Port, which, as it would no longer incorporate Neston, or the Gowy Rural ward, would now extend along the southern bank of the River Mersey, and include the Eastham and Bromborough wards from the existing Wirral South constituency. To take account of these changes, our proposed constituency will simply be called Ellesmere Port.
  17. Our proposals for the remainder of the Wirral seek to minimise changes wherever possible. To achieve this we propose to divide the Upton ward along the physical boundary of the A5027. The northern half of this ward, consisting of the Upton community, would be included within our proposed Wallasey constituency, the remainder of which is unchanged. The southern half of this ward, containing the Woodchurch community, would continue to be included in the Wirral West constituency, which also gains the Heswall and Clatterbridge wards. Our proposed Birkenhead constituency is changed only by the inclusion of the Bebington ward. We consider that the benefits provided by the division of the Upton ward considerably outweigh the disadvantages of not doing so. It enables us to retain with minimal change three of the existing four constituencies on the Wirral, and all alternative configurations of constituencies within this area that we examined paid far less heed to local and community ties.
Back to top

Initial proposals in the Greater Manchester sub-region

  1. The metropolitan area of Greater Manchester continues to have a mathematical entitlement to 27 constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, 14 are within the permitted electorate range, seven are below, and six are above. Our proposals leave seven of the existing 27 constituencies wholly unchanged.
  2. In the south of the sub-region, the proposed Stockport constituency now includes the Reddish North and Reddish South wards. The Manor ward, which was formerly within the Stockport constituency, is now included within our proposed Hazel Grove constituency, which is otherwise unchanged. The existing Cheadle constituency is wholly unchanged. This configuration results in three constituencies contained wholly within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport.
  3. We propose that the two existing constituencies that are currently contained within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford – Stretford and Urmston, and Altrincham and Sale West – would remain wholly unchanged. The existing Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency, which would continue to span the boundaries of the metropolitan boroughs of Trafford and the City of Manchester, also remains wholly unchanged.
  4. Although the existing Manchester Withington constituency can theoretically 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. In our proposals therefore, we only change the constituency to realign it to these new wards. The existing Manchester Gorton constituency has been similarly subjected to local government ward changes, and as a result no longer includes the Gorton & Abbey Hey ward. As the existing constituency name is no longer appropriate, we propose that the new constituency be called Manchester Longsight.
  5. Within Greater Manchester, it has been possible to consider the four geographically contiguous metropolitan boroughs of the City of Salford, Wigan, Bolton and Bury as a group within the county, with an allocation of ten constituencies. This allows 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.
  6. Our proposed Salford constituency remains wholly within the City of Salford local authority. It now includes 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 and Wardley wards are now included within our proposed Worsley and Eccles constituency, as is the Astley Mosley Common ward, from the Borough of Wigan. This is the only ward from that authority that is included within a Salford-based constituency. Although this ward would add a further rural element to the constituency, we consider the rural area within the existing Worsley and Eccles South constituency to be significant enough for this addition to not fundamentally change the character of the constituency.
  7. Within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, the existing Wigan constituency remains wholly unchanged. The existing Makerfield constituency can remain unchanged, but is modified in order to account for proposed changes to the existing Leigh constituency, which has an electorate over the permitted range. We therefore propose a Makerfield constituency which is largely unchanged, except that it now includes the Leigh West ward rather than the Ashton ward. Our proposed Leigh South and Atherton constituency now includes the Atherton ward, which is once again within a constituency wholly contained within the Borough of Wigan. It also includes the Ashton ward, which was formerly in the Makerfield constituency. We recognise that the inclusion of the West Leigh ward in a Makerfield constituency, and the Ashton ward in the Leigh South and Atherton constituency, means that the towns of both Leigh and Ashton-in-Makerfield are now divided between constituencies. However, we consider that configurations of wards in this and the surrounding area mean that some division of communities is unavoidable. We would welcome, however, any representations with alternative arrangements in this area that result in less disruption, without resulting in consequential negative effects elsewhere in Greater Manchester.
  8. Our proposed Bolton West constituency is largely unchanged. We have included the Hulton ward within this constituency to bring it within the permitted electorate range, as the Atherton ward is no longer included. This also results in the constituency now being wholly contained within the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton. Our proposed Bolton North East constituency only differs from the existing constituency by one ward; the Little Lever and Darcy Lever ward is now included within the constituency. As the Bolton South constituency no longer includes the Little Lever and Darcy Lever ward, or the Hulton ward, we have included the Salford wards of Walkden North, Walkden South, and Little Hulton, in order to bring it within the electorate range. This also enables us to keep the town of Walkden in one constituency. In order to acknowledge the crossing between the Borough of Bolton and the City of Salford, we propose naming this constituency Bolton South and Walkden.
  9. The existing Bury North constituency has an electorate that is under the permitted range. We therefore propose the inclusion of the Radcliffe North ward. As the Bury South constituency no longer includes the Radcliffe North ward, we have included the Kersal & Broughton Park ward from the City of Salford within the Bury South constituency. Although this would be an orphan ward, it appears to have better physical links with the Sedgley area of Bury than the city of Salford itself.
  10. The electorate of the existing Rochdale constituency is slightly over the permitted electorate range. Therefore, we propose 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 has an electorate that is above the electorate range, we further propose that the wards of South Middleton and East Middleton no longer be included in that constituency. This does result in the division of the town of Middleton, and we acknowledge that this is not an ideal outcome. However, we consider that the extensive disruption that would be caused by the alternatives we considered would not provide a better solution overall for this area. As the whole of Middleton is not included in the constituency, we propose calling the constituency Heywood.
  11. Our proposed Manchester Blackley constituency is significantly reconfigured from the existing Blackley and Broughton constituency on which it is based. It no longer contains any wards from the City of Salford, nor the Cheetham ward from the City of Manchester. Instead it now includes the Moston ward, and the South Middleton and East Middleton wards from the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale.
  12. Within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, we propose that both the existing Oldham East and Saddleworth, and Oldham West and Royton constituencies remain wholly unchanged. However, in this area we identified an alternative which we consider has merit. The Alexandra, and St Mary’s wards, both currently within the existing Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, could be exchanged with the Royton North and Royton South wards, both currently within the existing Oldham West and Royton constituency. This would provide 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. While our initial proposal is to retain the existing two constituencies unchanged, we would particularly welcome representations on this alternative.
  13. The existing Stalybridge and Hyde constituency could remain unchanged. However, we consider that maintaining it results in a less than ideal configuration across the east of Greater Manchester. We therefore propose that the constituency no longer includes the Mossley, Stalybridge North and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards. Instead it now includes the Denton North East, Denton West and Denton South wards, which constitute the entirety of the town of Denton. The constituency remains wholly within the Metropolitan Borough of Tameside, and unites the communities of Denton and Hyde, whose urban areas almost adjoin. We propose reflecting this by naming the constituency Denton and Hyde.
  14. The existing Ashton-under-Lyne constituency has an electorate that is below the permitted range. We propose including the three wards mentioned previously (which are no longer within the proposed Denton and Hyde constituency), within our proposed Ashton-under-Lyne constituency. We also propose including 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. This would mean that the Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards would be contained within the same constituency. As the inclusion of all four of these wards would give the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency an electorate that was above the permitted range, we propose no longer including the Failsworth East and Failsworth West wards, or the Droylsden East and Droylsden West wards within this constituency.
  15. We propose that these four wards, along with the Audenshaw ward, would form a Failsworth and Droylsden constituency. We propose that this constituency should also include the Clayton & Openshaw, and Gorton & Abbey Hey wards from the City of Manchester. Furthermore, we propose dividing the Miles Platting & Newton Heath ward between this constituency and our proposed Manchester Central constituency. The Manchester Central constituency would include the Miles Platting area, to the west of the A6010, and the Failsworth and Droylsden constituency would contain the Newton Heath area to the east of this road. The Manchester Central constituency will also include the Cheetham ward, and, as mentioned previously, would not include the Clayton & Openshaw or Moston wards. We consider that not dividing the Miles Platting & Newton Heath ward would have significant negative knock-on effects across the eastern side of Greater Manchester, and would result in a set of constituencies that had less regard for the statutory factors and local ties.
Back to top

6 Hereafter together referred to as Lancashire.
7 Hereafter together referred to as Cheshire.
8 Orphan ward refers to a ward from one local authority, in a constituency where the remaining wards are from at least one other local authority.

Back to top