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

3 Initial proposals for the West Midlands region

20. The West Midlands region comprises the ceremonial counties of Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands, and Worcestershire. It is covered by a mixture of district and county councils, or single-tier metropolitan or unitary authorities.
21. The region currently has 59 constituencies. Of these constituencies, only 26 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of 25 constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of just eight constituencies are above the 5% limit.
22. Our initial proposals for the West Midlands region are for 57 constituencies, a reduction of two.
23. In seeking to produce 57 constituencies within the electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into subregions. 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 on both 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.
24. Our division of the West Midlands 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.
25. The distribution of electors across the West Midlands region is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county, with each constituency falling within the permitted electorate range, is not always possible.
26. Herefordshire’s electorate of 142,019 results in a mathematical entitlement to 1.94 constituencies. We therefore consider Herefordshire as a sub-region in its own right and allocate two whole constituencies, which is the same as the existing allocation.
27. The combined electorate of the unitary authorities of Shropshire, and Telford and Wrekin is 376,136, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 5.12 constituencies. We therefore consider Shropshire as a sub-region in its own right and allocate it five whole constituencies, the same as the existing allocation.
28. The electorate of Worcestershire is 447,152, providing it with a mathematical entitlement to 6.09 constituencies. We also consider Worcestershire as a sub‑region and allocate it six constituencies, the same as the existing allocation.
29. Like the three areas mentioned above, we consider Warwickshire as a sub‑region. Its electorate of 432,462 results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.89 constituencies. Consequently, we allocate it six whole constituencies; this represents no change from the existing allocation.
30. Due to the size of the electorate in the West Midlands combined authority, it is beneficial to further divide it by local authority where possible. The City of Coventry has an electorate of 217,818, giving it a mathematical entitlement to 2.97 constituencies. Similarly, the City of Birmingham, with an electorate of 729,944, has a mathematical entitlement to 9.95 constituencies. Therefore, both local authorities could theoretically be considered as sub-regions in their own right. However, the metropolitan Borough of Solihull, which separates the two cities, has an electorate of 162,614, giving it a mathematical entitlement to 2.22 constituencies: too large for two whole constituencies, and far too small for three. It is therefore necessary to pair Solihull with either Birmingham or Coventry. We consider that pairing Birmingham with Solihull minimises disruption to existing constituencies, and better reflects local ties, and as such is preferable to pairing Coventry with Solihull. Therefore, we consider Coventry as its own sub-region, allocating it three constituencies, representing no change from its existing allocation. Birmingham and Solihull have a combined electorate of 892,558, giving them a mathematical entitlement to 12.16 constituencies. Therefore, this subregion has been allocated 12 whole constituencies, representing no change from the current allocation of constituencies across Birmingham and Solihull.
31. The remaining authorities in the West Midlands combined authority are the metropolitan boroughs of Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton, and Walsall, hereafter referred to as the Black Country. With a collective electorate of 827,975, the Black Country has a mathematical entitlement to 11.28, allowing 11 whole constituencies to be allocated. Similarly, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have a combined electorate of 832,892, giving a mathematical entitlement to 11.35 constituencies. This would also allow 11 whole constituencies to be allocated. However, allocating 11 to both would result in a total of 56 constituencies being allocated to the entire West Midlands region, one fewer than the 57 constituencies which it has been allocated. As a result, it is necessary to combine Staffordshire and the Black Country to form a sub-region. When paired, this sub-region has a total combined electorate of 1,660,867 and a mathematical entitlement to 22.63 constituencies. Therefore, this sub-region is allocated 23 whole constituencies: a reduction of two from the existing allocation. This ensures that the total allocation for the West Midlands region is 57 constituencies. In order to facilitate this sub-region pairing, we recognise that there must be a constituency that crosses the boundary between the Black Country and Staffordshire. The cross-county boundary constituency that we propose combines the Dudley borough town of Kingswinford, with areas in the South Staffordshire local authority.

Initial proposals for the Herefordshire sub-region

32. There are two existing constituencies in Herefordshire, both of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range. Although both constituencies could therefore remain completely unchanged, we propose minor changes to both constituencies to realign with changes to local government ward boundaries.
33. As a result of these local government ward changes, two wards (Holmer and Stoney Street) now cross the existing boundary between the two constituencies. The electorate of the Herefordshire sub-region is such that it is not possible to include both wards in the same constituency. We propose to include the ward of Stoney Street in the North Herefordshire constituency and the ward of Holmer in the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. This configuration has been proposed in order to retain the Victoria Park area of Hereford within the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency, and therefore to respect local ties within the city.

Initial proposals for the Shropshire sub-region

34. There are five existing constituencies in Shropshire, of which only one is currently within the permitted electorate range: two constituencies are above the electorate range, while two are below.
35. The electorate of the existing Telford constituency is such that it could remain unchanged apart from readjustments to take account of local government ward boundary changes. Therefore, we propose realigning this constituency to reflect new local government wards and make no further changes to the constituency.
36. The existing Ludlow constituency has an electorate of just over 69,000, and would therefore have to gain electors to bring it within the permitted electorate range. With an electorate of over 80,000, the existing Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency is too large; its electorate therefore has to be reduced.
37. Consequently, we propose that the existing Ludlow constituency would extend northwards to include the Shropshire wards of Burnell and Severn Valley, from the existing Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. We propose naming this constituency Ludlow and Bridgnorth to reflect the main population centres.
38. Since this change would include the Shropshire village of Atcham in a proposed Ludlow and Bridgnorth constituency, it would no longer be appropriate that the constituency be called Shrewsbury and Atcham. We therefore propose naming this constituency Shrewsbury.
39. With an electorate close to 84,000, the existing North Shropshire constituency is well above the permitted electorate range. The existing The Wrekin constituency has an electorate within the permitted electorate range; however, due to local government ward boundary changes, it would not be possible to keep the constituency wholly unchanged without dividing wards between constituencies. We therefore propose extending the existing The Wrekin constituency northwards to include the Shropshire wards of Hodnet and Cheswardine. While we recognise that the constituency name of The Wrekin reflects a major geographic feature of the area, we propose that this constituency be named Newport and Wellington, to reflect the main population centres in the constituency. We welcome representations on this proposed constituency name and others across the region.

Initial proposals for the Worcestershire sub-region

40. There are six existing constituencies in Worcestershire, four of which have electorates within the permitted electorate range. As a result, substantial change to the existing constituencies in Worcestershire is not necessary.
41. The electorates of four existing constituencies (West Worcestershire, Worcester, Wyre Forest, and Bromsgrove) are such that they can remain completely unchanged, and we propose no changes to these constituencies. However, we propose to change the name of the existing Wyre Forest constituency to Kidderminster, to reflect the main population centre in this constituency. We welcome representations on this proposed constituency name.
42. Of the remaining existing constituencies in the sub-region, Mid Worcestershire has an electorate above the permitted electorate range, and the Redditch constituency, with an electorate of 65,507, is below. We therefore propose extending the Redditch constituency both northwards and southwards, to include the Wychavon District wards of Dodderhill, and Harvington and Norton. We recognise that our proposed Redditch constituency disrupts local ties between Wychbold and Droitwich Spa, and Norton and Evesham. However, we consider that other configurations of constituencies in this area (for example, including wards from the Bromsgrove local authority in the Redditch constituency) would not better reflect the statutory factors. Other than the transfer of these two wards, the existing Mid Worcestershire constituency is unchanged. However, we propose that this constituency be named Droitwich and Evesham, to reflect the main population centres in the constituency.

Initial proposals for the Warwickshire sub-region

43. There are six existing constituencies in Warwickshire. Five of these are within the permitted electorate range. Our initial proposals would bring every constituency in the sub-region to within the permitted electorate range with the transfer of just one ward (plus some realignment to account for changed local government ward boundaries).
44. The electorates of the existing constituencies of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire, at 70,335 and 70,245 respectively, are within the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose keeping both constituencies wholly unchanged. However, we propose changing the name of the North Warwickshire constituency to Bedworth and North Warwickshire to reflect the constituency’s main population centre.
45. The existing Rugby and Stratford-on-Avon constituencies both have electorates within the permitted electorate range. However, neither are able to remain wholly unchanged without dividing wards, as a result of changes to local ward boundaries. As a result, we therefore propose that the Rugby and Stratford-on-Avon constituencies remain unchanged apart from adjustments to realign with these local government ward boundary changes.
46. In its existing form, the Warwick and Leamington constituency has an electorate that is within the permitted electorate range. However, when taking into account changes to local government ward boundaries, the constituency is too large in terms of electorate. The adjacent Kenilworth and Southam constituency requires additional electors to bring its electorate within the permitted range. As a result, we propose transferring a single ward from the existing Warwick and Leamington constituency to our proposed Kenilworth and Southam constituency. In our initial proposals, the Warwick District ward of Budbrooke has been included in the Kenilworth and Southam constituency. This configuration ensures that community ties between the towns of Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa are preserved as much as possible.
47. While our initial proposals would result in minimal change to the existing pattern of constituencies, we did consider an alternative configuration that would result in constituencies arguably better reflecting local authority boundaries, at the cost of more change to existing constituencies. In their existing configurations, the Rugby, and Kenilworth and Southam constituencies include wards from two and three local authorities respectively. The alternative proposal we considered would reconfigure the existing Rugby constituency so that it is coterminous with the Borough of Rugby. In doing so, the Bulkington ward, which in its existing constituency is an orphan ward,⁷ would be included in the Bedworth and North Warwickshire constituency. This would allow the remaining four districts of Warwickshire to be divided into pairs: Nuneaton and Bedworth, and North Warwickshire (sharing two constituencies); and Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon (sharing three constituencies). Creating constituencies in the former pairing can be achieved straightforwardly; however, the latter pairing would require three constituencies to be designed with an average electorate of 70,312 – very close to the permitted minimum. In practice, therefore, this configuration would likely require a ward to be divided between constituencies. We welcome representations on this alternative as well as our initial proposal for the area.

Initial proposals for the Coventry sub-region

48. There are currently three constituencies in this sub-region, two of which are already within the permitted electorate range. One constituency, Coventry South, has an electorate below the permitted electorate range.
49. Due to the large ward sizes in Coventry, there is no solution that allows for all constituencies to fall within the permitted electorate range with the transfer of a single ward. However, there are multiple configurations that bring the Coventry South constituency within the electorate range by exchanging two wards. Our initial proposal would include the City of Coventry ward of Binley and Willenhall in the existing Coventry North East constituency. Meanwhile, we propose to include the Lower Stoke ward in the Coventry South constituency. This configuration would retain Coventry city centre within its existing constituency.
50. We also propose changing the name of the existing Coventry North East constituency to Coventry East, to better reflect the area it would now cover.
51. We propose leaving the existing Coventry North West constituency wholly unchanged.

Initial proposals for the Birmingham and Solihull sub‑region

52. There are 12 constituencies currently in the area covered by this sub-region. With a combined mathematical entitlement to 12.16, our initial proposals allocate 12 constituencies to the sub-region, which is unchanged from the current figure. While we have attempted to limit change to existing constituency boundaries across the West Midlands region, this has not been possible in parts of this sub-region. Primarily, this is due to wards with a large number of electors (wards in this sub-region have an average of 10,379 electors) and changes to local government ward boundaries in the City of Birmingham. Therefore, our initial proposals incorporate some element of change in every constituency in the sub-region.

Solihull

53. Neither of the existing constituencies in the metropolitan Borough of Solihull are within the permitted electorate range. Additionally, due to the large ward sizes in the borough, we have been limited in terms of practicable solutions.
54. We propose extending the existing Meriden constituency to include the two Borough of Solihull wards of Elmdon and Silhill. Consequently, we propose extending the existing Solihull constituency southwards to include the Borough of Solihull ward of Blythe. We recognise that this configuration may not reflect local ties as well as the existing constituency boundaries; however, further minimising disruption to existing constituencies would require a Borough of Solihull ward to be divided between constituencies. At this stage, we do not consider it necessary to divide a ward in this area in formulating a pattern of constituencies that reflect the statutory criteria.
55. With an electorate of 162,614 and a mathematical entitlement to 2.22, two Borough of Solihull wards need to be included in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with the City of Birmingham. We propose including the two northernmost wards of the Borough of Solihull, Castle Bromwich and Smith’s Wood, in a cross-local authority boundary constituency. We did consider alternative solutions, in which the Castle Bromwich and Smith’s Wood wards were retained within the Meriden constituency. However, we concluded that these alternative solutions for the Borough of Solihull constituencies would not better reflect the statutory factors.

Birmingham

56. In the City of Birmingham, changes to local ward boundaries in the city mean that none of the existing ten constituencies would be able to remain wholly unchanged without dividing a substantial number of wards between constituencies.
57. Our initial proposals for the Sutton Coldfield constituency would not represent substantial change from the existing constituency. Local government ward boundary changes have impacted the City of Birmingham ward of Sutton Walmley & Minworth. While the vast majority of the ward is in the existing Sutton Coldfield constituency, a small uninhabited area between the River Tame and the M6 motorway is in the existing Erdington constituency. We propose including the entire Sutton Walmley & Minworth ward in the Sutton Coldfield constituency to account for these ward boundary changes.
58. Our initial proposal for the Birmingham Erdington constituency extends the constituency south-westwards to include the two City of Birmingham wards of Aston and Lozells, which are currently divided between the existing Ladywood and Perry Barr constituencies. While we recognise that these two wards may not best reflect local ties with the Erdington area, this proposal allows us to develop constituencies across the City of Birmingham that better reflect the statutory factors overall.
59. We propose including the City of Birmingham ward of Kingstanding in the Birmingham Perry Barr constituency. This change would allow areas on both sides of the Kingstanding Road, and therefore the whole of the Kingstanding Circle, which is currently divided between constituencies, to be united in a single constituency.
60. Our proposed Birmingham Hodge Hill constituency is the only cross-local authority boundary constituency in the City of Birmingham. We propose expanding the existing Hodge Hill constituency to include the Borough of Solihull wards of Castle Bromwich and Smith’s Wood. We also propose including the Garretts Green ward in this constituency, which is currently included in the Birmingham Yardley constituency.
61. With an electorate of 73,411, the existing Birmingham Yardley constituency is within the permitted electorate range. However, as with almost every other City of Birmingham constituency, it is not possible to keep the constituency wholly unchanged without dividing wards, as a result of changes to local government ward boundaries. We therefore propose expanding the constituency northwestwards to include the entire Small Heath ward. This ward is currently divided between the Yardley and Hodge Hill constituencies; this change would reunite the Small Heath ward within a single parliamentary constituency.
62. The electorate of the Birmingham Edgbaston constituency is below the permitted electorate range; therefore, we propose including the whole of the ward of North Edgbaston in this constituency (it is currently divided between the constituencies of Birmingham Edgbaston and Birmingham Ladywood). We propose no further changes to the constituency, other than minor adjustments to realign with changes to local government ward boundaries.
63. We propose extending the Birmingham Ladywood constituency to include the wards of Balsall Heath West and Alum Rock. This proposal allows all city centre areas within the Middle Ring Road to remain in the Ladywood constituency.
64. As a result of this proposal, the Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East, and Balsall Heath West wards are included in separate constituencies, which we recognise may not best reflect local ties. Our initial proposals recommend this pattern as, in our judgement, this arrangement prevents more extensive divisions of local ties in the Hall Green and Selly Oak areas. We appreciate that there may be substantial strength of feeling regarding local ties in Birmingham, and therefore we would particularly welcome representations on this issue.
65. In formulating our initial proposals, we identified that it is possible to create a configuration of constituencies for the City of Birmingham, all within the permitted electorate range, without the need to divide any wards between constituencies. However, due to the large electorates in City of Birmingham wards, we feel that we are able to generate a pattern of constituencies that better satisfies the statutory factors when a limited number of wards are divided between constituencies. As a result, our initial proposals include two City of Birmingham wards that are divided between constituencies, impacting the constituencies of Birmingham Northfield, Birmingham Hall Green, and Birmingham Selly Oak.
66. We propose dividing the City of Birmingham ward of Weoley & Selly Oak. This ward is currently divided between the existing Northfield and Selly Oak constituencies. Our initial proposals would retain this division. We propose including the area around Weoley Castle in the Northfield constituency and the remainder of the ward, centred on Selly Oak Park, in the Selly Oak constituency.
67. We also propose dividing the City of Birmingham ward of Brandwood & King’s Heath. This ward is also currently divided between two existing constituencies, Selly Oak and Hall Green. Our initial proposals would retain this division, including the northern part of the ward in the Hall Green constituency and the southern portion in the Selly Oak constituency.
68. The division of these two wards allows the Hall Green and Selly Oak areas to be wholly contained in the constituencies that bear their names. We considered an alternative scheme in which none of the City of Birmingham wards were divided between constituencies. However, in this scheme, the Hall Green area was divided between two constituencies and the Selly Oak area was divided between three. Therefore, in order to retain local ties within the city, and satisfy as many of the statutory factors as possible, we are recommending both divisions in our initial proposals. We particularly welcome any representations and counter-proposals that avoid the division of these wards (while respecting the statutory factors).
69. Consequently, our initial proposals would expand the Hall Green constituency to include the entirety of the City of Birmingham ward of Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East; this ward is currently divided between Hall Green and Yardley constituencies. As previously mentioned, our initial proposals would also include part of the Brandwood & King’s Heath ward, which currently is part of the Hall Green constituency.
70. Our initial proposals for the Selly Oak constituency do not represent substantial change from the existing constituency. We propose adjustments to account for local government ward boundary changes. As previously mentioned, our initial proposals for the Selly Oak constituency include the southern area of the Brandwood & King’s Heath ward, together with the eastern area of the Weoley & Selly Oak ward.
71. We propose including the western portion of the Weoley & Selly Oak ward in the Birmingham Northfield constituency. The only other changes that we propose making to this constituency are to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries.

Initial proposals for the Staffordshire and the Black Country sub‑region

72. There are 25 existing constituencies in the area covered by this sub-region. With a combined mathematical entitlement to 22.63, our initial proposals allocate 23 constituencies to the sub-region, a reduction of two from the current figure. Seven of the existing constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. However, the remaining 18 existing constituencies in the sub-region are below the permitted range. The reduction in the number of constituencies overall in the sub‑region would therefore result in significant change to many constituencies. Our initial proposals keep two constituencies wholly unchanged (Cannock Chase and Burton). Four more constituencies (Lichfield, Tamworth, Stoke-on-Trent North, and Newcastle-under-Lyme) are able to remain unchanged apart from adjustments to take account of changes to local government ward boundaries.

Wolverhampton and Walsall

73. There are six existing constituencies in Wolverhampton and Walsall. Every constituency has an electorate below the permitted electorate range, in some cases significantly (such as Wolverhampton South West at 59,260, Wolverhampton North East at 60,709, and Aldridge-Brownhills at 60,602). With a combined mathematical entitlement to 5.04, we propose allocating five constituencies between the metropolitan boroughs of Walsall and Wolverhampton, a reduction of one.
74. The electorate of the existing Wolverhampton South West constituency is such that it is required to expand to include two additional neighbouring wards. We therefore propose extending the constituency eastwards to include the City of Wolverhampton wards of Oxley and Blakenhall. While we recognise that alternative wards can be included in the constituency instead, our initial proposals help to retain close local ties in the Bushbury and Bilston areas of the city. We also propose naming the constituency Wolverhampton West, to better reflect the area it would cover.
75. The two remaining Wolverhampton constituencies, Wolverhampton North East and Wolverhampton South East, both need to expand. Our proposals for the Wolverhampton South East constituency would retain the entire Bilston area within the constituency. We also propose expanding the constituency eastwards to include the Darlaston area, together with the centre of Willenhall.
76. Similarly, our proposals for the Wolverhampton North East constituency would also expand the existing constituency eastwards. We propose retaining the Bushbury and Wednesfield areas within the constituency, together with the Borough of Walsall wards of Willenhall North and Short Heath. We recognise that our proposals would divide the Willenhall area between constituencies. However, we consider that other configurations of constituencies in this and the surrounding area (for example, joining Bilston in a constituency with Bushbury) would not better reflect the statutory factors.
77. The three existing Borough of Walsall constituencies are Walsall North, Walsall South, and Aldridge-Brownhills. Since our proposals would include five Borough of Walsall wards in the Wolverhampton North East and Wolverhampton South East constituencies, we are able to propose two constituencies to be wholly contained within the Borough of Walsall. We propose calling these constituencies Bloxwich and Brownhills, and Walsall, to recognise the main population centres in each respective constituency.
78. Our proposed Bloxwich and Brownhills constituency would include the areas broadly covered by the named towns, while our proposed Walsall constituency would include the municipal centres of the towns of Walsall and Aldridge. We recognise that our proposals not only represent significant change from the existing constituency boundaries, but also divide the town of Aldridge between constituencies. However, due to the very large ward sizes in the borough, and the small electorates of the existing constituencies, our options were limited; therefore, we consider that this proposed configuration of constituencies in Walsall best reflects the statutory factors.

Sandwell and Dudley

79. There are seven existing constituencies in Sandwell and Dudley. As with Wolverhampton and Walsall, every constituency has an electorate below the permitted electorate range. Therefore, every constituency must be changed. Our proposals aim to limit disruption to the existing constituency boundaries and acknowledge community ties.
80. The existing West Bromwich West constituency has an electorate below the permitted range. Therefore, we propose expanding the constituency westwards to include the Borough of Dudley ward of Coseley East. We recognise that this configuration would result in Coseley East being an orphan ward. Overall, however, it allows for constituencies that far better reflect the statutory factors across Sandwell and Dudley, particularly in relation to our proposed Smethwick and Rowley Regis, and Halesowen constituencies.
81. Like West Bromwich West, we also propose extending the existing West Bromwich East constituency to include a single additional ward. We propose extending the existing constituency southwards to include the Borough of Sandwell ward of St. Pauls.
82. The existing Dudley North constituency has an electorate of 61,333, well below the permitted electorate range. However, due to the large ward sizes in the borough, it is possible to include just one additional ward to bring the electorate within the permitted range. We therefore propose extending the existing Dudley North constituency southwards to include the Borough of Dudley ward of Brockmoor and Pensnett. We propose changing the name of the existing Dudley South constituency to Dudley, to reflect that the proposed constituency contains the majority of the town.
83. Our initial proposal for the Stourbridge constituency expands the existing constituency northwards, to include the two Borough of Dudley wards of Netherton, Woodside and St. Andrews, and Brierley Hill. This configuration would allow the whole of Stourbridge town to remain in a single constituency, retaining close communities within a single constituency.
84. It is possible to create a pattern of constituencies for the Black Country without the need to divide any wards between constituencies. However, due to the very large ward sizes, we feel that we are able to generate a configuration of constituencies that better satisfies the statutory factors when a limited number of wards are divided. As a result, our initial proposals include one Borough of Sandwell ward that is divided between constituencies, impacting our proposed Smethwick and Rowley Regis, and Halesowen constituencies.
85. We propose dividing the Borough of Sandwell ward of Blackheath. This ward is currently in the existing Halesowen and Rowley Regis constituency. We propose including an area in the ward to the south of the Birmingham–Worcester railway line in our proposed Halesowen constituency, and the remainder of the ward, largely north of the railway line, in our proposed Smethwick and Rowley Regis constituency.
86. The division of this ward allows local ties to be better preserved across the whole of the Black Country, while also reducing the number of cross-local authority boundary constituencies in the region. We considered an alternative scheme in which no Black Country wards were divided between constituencies. However, doing so resulted in significant changes to the pattern of constituencies covering Dudley, Sandwell and Wolverhampton, thus disrupting multiple community ties in the process. Therefore, in order to better reflect local ties within the area, and reflect the statutory factors, we recommend the division of the Blackheath ward in our initial proposals.
87. Our resulting proposals for the existing Halesowen and Rowley Regis constituency would expand the constituency westwards to include the Borough of Dudley wards of Cradley and Wollescote, and Quarry Bank and Dudley Wood. As in the existing configuration, we also propose retaining the constituency as a cross-local authority boundary constituency, including wards from both Dudley and Sandwell boroughs. We propose retaining the Borough of Sandwell ward of Cradley Heath and Old Hill in the constituency, along with part of the Blackheath ward as previously mentioned. We propose renaming the constituency Halesowen, in order to better reflect the new area which it would cover.
88. Our initial proposals for the existing Warley constituency propose expanding it westward to include the town of Rowley Regis. As stated previously, we also propose including part of the Blackheath ward in the constituency. We propose changing the name of the existing constituency to Smethwick and Rowley Regis to better reflect the main population centres covered by the constituency.
89. As previously outlined, Staffordshire and the Black Country have been included in a sub-region together for our initial proposals. It is therefore necessary for one constituency to include wards from both areas. We propose for this constituency to include the three Borough of Dudley wards of Kingswinford North and Wall Heath, Kingswinford South, and Wordsley, which broadly make up the town of Kingswinford. We recognise that Kingswinford has closer local ties to the Borough of Dudley than it does to Staffordshire, and therefore did consider alternative configurations of constituencies in the sub-region. However, we believe that crossing from the Black Country to Staffordshire at Kingswinford would far better respect the statutory factors elsewhere in both the Black Country and in Staffordshire, when compared to the alternatives.

Staffordshire

90. There are twelve existing constituencies in Staffordshire. Seven existing
    constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. The remaining five constituencies have electorates that are below the permitted electorate range. Our proposals for Staffordshire aim to limit change from the existing constituency boundaries as far as practicable.
91. We propose extending the existing South Staffordshire constituency eastwards to include the three Borough of Dudley wards of Kingswinford North and Wall Heath, Kingswinford South, and Wordsley. We propose naming this constituency Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, which would recognise the largest population centre, and a significant rural part of the constituency.
92. We do not propose making any changes to the existing Cannock Chase and Burton constituencies, as they both have electorates within the permitted range.
93. The existing Lichfield and Tamworth constituencies also have electorates within the permitted range. However, due to local government ward boundary changes, it would not be possible to keep both constituencies wholly unchanged without dividing wards between constituencies. As a result of these changes, two wards now cross the boundary between the two constituencies: Whittington & Streethay, and Hammerwich with Wall. We recognise that both these wards have close links to Lichfield. However, the electorate of the existing Lichfield constituency is such that it is not possible to include both wards in this constituency. We note that the Hammerwich with Wall ward includes part of the town of Burntwood. Therefore, in order to avoid dividing Burntwood between constituencies, we propose including the Whittington & Streethay ward in the Tamworth constituency and the Hammerwich with Wall ward in the Lichfield constituency.
94. The electorate of the existing Staffordshire Moorlands constituency is below the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose expanding the constituency southwards to include the town of Cheadle, and making minor changes to align with local government ward boundary changes, but propose no further change as part of our initial proposals.
95. Every constituency in the unitary authority of the City of Stoke-on-Trent is below the permitted electorate range; therefore, each constituency needs to be modified. The electorate of the existing Stoke-on-Trent North constituency is such that, when it is realigned to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, its electorate would be within the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose a reconfigured Stoke-on-Trent North constituency as part of our initial proposals.
96. The existing Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency, with an electorate of 54,551, has the fewest electors of any existing constituency in England. We therefore propose a reconfigured Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency, which expands southwards to include the component town of Fenton, together with the City of Stoke-on-Trent wards of Sandford Hill and Meir Hay.
97. Like the other two Stoke-on-Trent constituencies, the Stoke-on-Trent South constituency has an electorate that is below the permitted electorate range. Due to our proposed changes to the Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency, and to preserve community ties in the Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle-under-Lyme areas, it is necessary to extend the Stoke-on-Trent South constituency southwards, beyond the boundary of the unitary authority. We therefore propose expanding the constituency to include the Borough of Stafford wards of Barlaston, Swynnerton & Oulton, and Fulford, together with the Staffordshire Moorlands District wards of Forsbrook and Checkley. We recognise that these wards may have closer ties to their respective districts and neighbouring population centres. However, we consider that this configuration of constituencies better reflects the statutory factors across the whole of Staffordshire.
98. The Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency has an electorate of 66,658, which is below the permitted electorate range. However, when the constituency is realigned to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, its electorate would be within the permitted electorate range. Therefore, we propose no further changes to this constituency, beyond realignment to new local government ward boundaries.
99. With an electorate of 73,608, the existing Stafford constituency is within the permitted electorate range. However, it would not be possible to keep the constituency wholly unchanged without dividing wards between constituencies, as the local government ward boundaries have changed. The existing Stafford constituency extends eastwards and southwards from the town of Stafford itself. We considered a pattern of constituencies in which the Stafford constituency broadly covered the same areas. However, due to our proposed changes elsewhere in Staffordshire, this would not have been possible without dividing the Cannock Chase district between constituencies. The existing Cannock Chase constituency is coterminous with its district boundary and can remain wholly unchanged. We therefore propose extending the Stafford constituency northwards and westwards from the town of Stafford, including wards from the surrounding Stafford district together with the Loggerheads, and Maer & Whitmore wards from the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
100. The existing Stone constituency has an electorate that is within the permitted range; however, retaining the constituency wholly unchanged would have knock-on effects across Staffordshire, which we consider would cause unnecessary disruption to areas that could otherwise be wholly unchanged or only minimally changed. We therefore propose a constituency that comprises the Borough of Stafford town of Stone, together with the South Staffordshire district towns of Penkridge and Great Wyrley. While we recognise that this constituency may have limited community ties, we consider that no alternative configuration of constituencies in Staffordshire would better reflect the statutory factors. We recommend naming this constituency Stone and Great Wyrley, to reflect the main population centres in the proposed constituency.

7 ‘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.