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

3 Revised proposals for the West Midlands

3.1 After the consultation on the initial proposals in 2021, we arranged for the appointment of two Assistant Commissioners for the West Midlands – Sir David Natzler KCB and Ruth Bagley OBE – to assist us with the analysis of the representations received during the first two consultation periods. This included chairing public hearings held in the region to collect oral evidence, as follows:

• • Birmingham: 28 February-1 March 2022
  • Stafford: 3-4 March 2022
  • Worcester: 7-8 March 2022

3.2 We asked the Assistant Commissioners to consider all the written and oral representations, and to make recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, in light of evidence provided in the representations. It is important to stress that the Assistant Commissioners had no involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open to viable alternative proposals supported by evidence. We are very grateful for the thorough and methodical approach the Assistant Commissioners have taken to their work.

3.3 What follows in this chapter is:

• • a brief recap of our initial proposals;
  • a description of the views and counter-proposals put forward during the consultations;
  • the Assistant Commissioners’ analysis of the strength of the arguments for adoption of any of those counter-proposals; and
  • our decision on whether or not to make changes to our proposals in the given area.

3.4 A tabular summary of the revised constituencies we now propose appears in the Appendix to this report.

3.5 Throughout this chapter, where we refer to a respondent’s response, we do so by using the reference number, i.e. BCE-12345 (we only include an individual’s name if they gave permission for it to be published). This reference number corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website at www.bcereviews.org.uk. All representations received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this website. The representations received in response to these revised proposals will be published at the end of the review.

Sub-regions

3.6 Our initial proposals sought to respect county boundaries wherever possible. Herefordshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire all have electorates that allow them to be treated as self-contained sub-regions, as they are in the existing pattern of constituencies. In order to respect local authority and existing constituency boundaries, we proposed that each of these counties be a sub-region. The West Midlands metropolitan county is made up of seven local authorities, each containing wards with very large electorates and with their own distinct identity. For this reason we deemed it beneficial to divide the county when allocating sub-regions rather than treating it as a single unit. The electorate of Solihull is too large to be allocated two constituencies and too small for three, and therefore had to be paired with either Birmingham to the west, or Coventry to the east. We proposed to allocate three whole constituencies to the City of Coventry, and therefore as part of our initial proposals we paired Solihull with Birmingham. Although it was possible to allocate 11 constituencies to both the Black Country (comprising Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Walsall) and Staffordshire, doing so would have resulted in 56 constituencies in the region, one fewer than the allocated figure. We therefore proposed to pair Staffordshire and the Black Country for the final sub-region. In the initial proposals we proposed one cross-county boundary constituency between the West Midlands and Staffordshire, which we considered improved the proposals for constituencies in both counties.

3.7 We received broad support for the proposed sub-regions throughout both consultation periods, with all qualifying political parties supporting the subregions we proposed. We received some counter-proposals that proposed Birmingham as a standalone sub-region, combining Solihull with Warwickshire instead (BCE‑80763 and BCE‑94673, John Bryant).

3.8 We also received a substantial number of representations supporting the counter-proposal from Sir Gavin Williamson, MP for South Staffordshire (BCE‑75677), advocating for Staffordshire as a standalone sub-region. Sir Gavin Williamson MP argued that the ‘unique character’ of the county would be negatively impacted by combining it with parts of the Black Country. Instead, his counter-proposal would include Birmingham in a sub-region with the Black Country.

3.9 We considered pairing Solihull with Warwickshire at the initial proposal stage and this was considered once more by the Assistant Commissioners when formulating the revised proposals. The initial proposals for Warwickshire would transfer only a single ward between constituencies in the whole county, and many of the proposals for Birmingham constituencies, such as those for Northfield, Selly Oak and Edgbaston, were broadly supported in the consultation. The Assistant Commissioners noted that altering the sub-regional groupings of these areas would result in substantial disruption to the existing constituencies in Warwickshire and Birmingham.

3.10 While the Assistant Commissioners understood the merits of treating Staffordshire as a standalone sub-region, they also noted that doing so would require all constituencies in the county to have an average electorate of almost 76,000, very close to the top of the permitted range. This approach would significantly hamper the ability to create constituencies in Staffordshire, Birmingham and the Black Country that would satisfy the statutory factors. The Assistant Commissioners particularly noted that Sir Gavin Williamson MP’s counter-proposal would require nine wards to be split between constituencies, an increase of six from the initial proposals. They also concluded that the counter-proposal would significantly disrupt local ties in parts of Birmingham and the Black Country, demonstrating the clear knock-on effects of treating Staffordshire as a standalone sub-region.

3.11 While the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the existence of some benefits in each of these alternative sub-region groupings, they also judged that they would cause severe disruption to existing constituency boundaries and local ties across the region. For this reason, they did not recommend changing the sub-region grouping for these revised proposals. We agree with the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners on this point and therefore do not propose making adjustments to the sub-regions as part of our revised proposals.

Herefordshire

3.12 Both of the existing constituencies in Herefordshire are within the permitted electorate range; however, due to local ward boundary changes in the county, it is not possible to retain both of these constituencies unchanged without dividing wards between constituencies. Two wards, Holmer and Stoney Street, cross the existing boundary between the two constituencies. The initial proposals would include the Stoney Street ward wholly in the North Herefordshire constituency and the Holmer ward wholly in Hereford and South Herefordshire, but otherwise made no changes to the existing constituencies.

3.13 The initial proposals for Herefordshire were supported by the Labour Party (BCE‑79523) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80896); however, the Conservative Party (BCE‑86587) put forward a counter-proposal for the county that would swap the two divided wards, including Stoney Street in the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency, and transferring the Holmer ward to the North Herefordshire constituency.

3.14 Evidence received in support of the Conservative counter-proposal emphasised the significance of the River Wye in the county. Although they noted that there is a bridge over the River Wye into North Herefordshire within the Stoney Street ward, the Assistant Commissioners agreed that the river provides a geographical barrier separating the ward from the northern half of the county; Councillor David Hitchiner (BCE‑97263) described the River Wye as a ‘natural boundary’. The Assistant Commissioners also accepted the evidence from those such as Sir Bill Wiggin (BCE‑59017), MP for North Herefordshire, who indicated that the vast majority of the electorate in the Stoney Street ward live south of the River Wye, and therefore fewer electors would see their existing constituency changed under the Conservative Party counter-proposal relative to the initial proposals.

3.15 Although it was not submitted as a counter-proposal, the Assistant Commissioners considered the possibility of splitting the Stoney Street and Holmer wards in order to retain both constituencies in the sub-region unchanged. This alternative scheme would allow for the River Wye to act as the constituency boundary within the Stoney Street ward. The Holmer ward would be split along the Roman Road to allow all areas south of it to remain in the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. While acknowledging that this configuration would better reflect both local geography and the existing constituency boundaries, the Assistant Commissioners concluded that this would not significantly enhance our ability to adhere to local ties in the county. As such, they did not recommend splitting wards in Herefordshire as part of the revised proposals.

3.16 We accept the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendation to adopt the counter‑proposal put forward by the Conservative Party in Herefordshire. We agree that including the Stoney Street ward in the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency would better reflect the statutory factors, particularly with regard to reducing change to the existing constituencies and better reflecting community ties within the county. We therefore propose transferring the Holmer ward to North Herefordshire, with the Stoney Street ward moving in the opposite direction into Hereford and South Herefordshire. We do not propose revising either constituency name.

Shropshire

3.17 Although four of the five existing Shropshire constituencies are outside of the permitted electorate range, the initial proposals transferred only four whole wards between constituencies – minimising change to existing constituencies. We proposed transferring two wards from Shrewsbury and Atcham to Ludlow, and two from North Shropshire to The Wrekin.

3.18 We also proposed changing the names of the existing constituencies of Shrewsbury and Atcham, Ludlow, and The Wrekin to, respectively: Shrewsbury; Ludlow and Bridgnorth; and Newport and Wellington, as these would better align with the Commission’s naming policy.

3.19 All qualifying political parties endorsed the initially proposed boundaries of the North Shropshire, Shrewsbury, and Ludlow and Bridgnorth constituencies. The boundaries of Telford, and Newport and Wellington, were also supported by the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats and Green Party. We received a joint submission from every Constituency Labour Party in Shropshire (BCE‑62418) concerning these latter two constituencies. It argued for the inclusion of Hadley and Leegomery ward in the Telford constituency, and the inclusion of Priorslee ward in the Newport and Wellington constituency. This counter-proposal received support and opposition from other respondents in both consultation periods.

3.20 We received one counter-proposal putting forward an alternative configuration for the Shropshire sub-region (David Jones – BCE‑54131). This proposal would transfer the Rea Valley ward to the Ludlow and Bridgnorth constituency, allowing the Severn Valley ward to remain in the Shrewsbury constituency.

3.21 We received very few representations commenting on the configuration of both the proposed North Shropshire and Shrewsbury constituencies. We did receive some comments from residents within the Severn Valley ward; these included some objections from the very north of the ward (Councillor Rosemary Dartnall – BCE‑89652), and some supportive comments from southern parts of it (BCE‑67709). We did not receive any representations supporting David Jones’ counter-proposal.

3.22 We received a significant number of representations supporting the Labour Party counter-proposal for the proposed Telford constituency, stating that the initial proposals did not reflect local ties in the area. Councillor Shaun Davies (BCE‑71905) said that Priorslee’s closest community links lay outside of the Telford constituency. Councillor Davies stated that Priorslee ‘has never really been part of Telford New Town’, but rather that ‘It has closer links to Shifnal’. A representation from Councillor Vanessa Holt (BCE‑75906) argued that Hadley and Leegomery would benefit from being included in the Telford constituency, as its local ties with Telford were far stronger than with Wellington. Notwithstanding such representations supporting the Labour Party counter-proposal, we received a greater quantity of comments objecting to it. Representation BCE‑87892 stated that, contrary to the comments of Councillor Davies, the links between Telford and Priorslee ‘are historical and existed before the New Town was built’. We also received representations commenting on the strong and historical links between Hadley and Wellington, such as that from Councillor Stuart Parr (BCE‑97232).

3.23 We received a large number of representations objecting to the two proposed changes to constituency names within the county. Those objecting to the new ‘Newport and Wellington’ constituency name said that it did not recognise the many other towns and villages in the area, particularly with the introduction of Hodnet and Cheswardine into the constituency. In contrast, many people, such as Marianne West (BCE‑66554), argued that all areas within the proposed Newport and Wellington constituency could identify with the existing name of The Wrekin. Mark Pritchard (BCE‑68448), MP for The Wrekin, also raised the point that several other Wellingtons and Newports exist within the UK, and therefore that the proposed name would not sufficiently identify the area it describes.

3.24 We also received a number of representations opposing the proposed Ludlow and Bridgnorth constituency name. Most of the objections provided similar arguments to those made regarding the ‘Newport and Wellington’ constituency name, that naming specific towns was to the exclusion of others. Accordingly, while some respondents favoured reverting to the existing Ludlow constituency name, many felt that South Shropshire would be a more appropriate and inclusive name. The Association of British Counties (BCE‑76801) submitted evidence to argue that South Shropshire would better reflect the cultural identity and generally very dispersed nature of the population across the constituency. As in the case of The Wrekin, this generated a large amount of support, with respondents generally arguing that an alternative name would be more inclusive of the constituency as a whole.

3.25 The Assistant Commissioners recognised the merits of Councillor David Jones’ counter-proposal for Ludlow and Shrewsbury constituencies, particularly for residents who live north of the A5 road where it runs to the south of Shrewsbury but within the Severn Valley ward; however, they were also aware that the existing Ludlow constituency is too small and needs to gain electors. We did not receive any support for the proposal to remove the Rea Valley ward from the proposed Shrewsbury constituency. We therefore agree with the Assistant Commissioners that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this counter-proposal would better reflect the statutory factors, and accept their recommendation that the initial proposals be retained for the Shrewsbury and North Shropshire constituencies, and that the boundaries of the proposed Ludlow and Bridgnorth constituencies are also retained.

3.26 Although we received evidence to support the Labour Party’s counter-proposal for the Telford constituency, we felt that the evidence received in opposition was overall more persuasive. Although our Assistant Commissioners accepted that Priorslee and Hadley have some local ties to Shifnal and Telford respectively, their view was that this counter-proposal would not represent an improvement on the initial proposals, particularly as the proposed Telford constituency was changed only to align with new local government ward boundaries. Therefore, with views on local ties being, at times, contradictory, the Assistant Commissioners took account of the existing constituency boundaries and recommended retaining the initial proposals for the Telford, and Newport and Wellington constituencies, and we agree.

3.27 The naming policy of the Commission outlines a general preference for naming the main population centre(s) in the constituency, but also states that we would accept a suitable alternative with strong local support. The evidence presented to the Assistant Commissioners that the existing name of The Wrekin constituency was both popular and well-grounded in a distinctive and well-known physical geographical feature in the area – to which many people felt affinity – was compelling. We therefore agree with the recommendation to retain the existing The Wrekin as the constituency name in place of Newport and Wellington. While some respondents in the consultation process argued for the retention of Ludlow as a constituency name, the Assistant Commissioners were persuaded that the name South Shropshire would be a more inclusive name to reflect the whole area covered by the constituency, and we accept their recommendation.

Worcestershire

3.28 Four of the six existing constituencies in the county of Worcestershire are within the permitted electorate range, and three are coterminous with their local authority boundaries. The initial proposals therefore proposed moving only two whole wards, from the existing Mid Worcestershire constituency to the Redditch constituency. We also proposed two constituency name changes, to better align with our general constituency naming policy: Mid Worcestershire to Droitwich and Evesham, and Wyre Forest to Kidderminster.

3.29 Of the four qualifying political parties, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats accepted the initial proposals in full. A counter-proposal was submitted by the Green Party (BCE‑97178), which would retain Harvington and Norton ward in a constituency with Evesham, instead transferring Alvechurch South ward into the Redditch constituency. While we received no representations that supported this approach, some opposed it.

3.30 We received a significant number of submissions regarding the proposed Kidderminster constituency. Although almost all representations supported the configuration of the constituency, they largely opposed changing the Wyre Forest constituency name.

3.31 Some respondents objected to the proposed Redditch constituency. Almost all of these objections came from residents of the Dodderhill ward and the Harvington and Norton ward, which would be transferred to the Redditch constituency under the initial proposals. We received a counter-proposal (BCE‑60839) that advocated for reorienting the proposed constituencies of Droitwich and Evesham, and West Worcestershire. This proposal would combine Droitwich with Great Malvern, and Evesham with the southern portion of the Malvern Hills local authority.

3.32 Very few representations were received regarding the configuration of the proposed constituencies of West Worcestershire, Worcester and Bromsgrove. Of the representations that were received, the vast majority of respondents supported our initial proposal to leave all three constituencies wholly unchanged.

3.33 In the initial proposals report, we acknowledged that the proposed Redditch constituency was likely to break ties between the Harvington and Norton ward and Evesham, and the evidence received in both consultation periods corroborated this. Representations from the ward referenced its close ties with Evesham, as well as the poor transport links with Redditch (for example, BCE‑81942). While we received representations objecting to the inclusion of the Harvington and Norton ward in the proposed Redditch constituency, we did not receive any comments directly supporting the Green Party’s counter-proposal for the sub-region; the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) and Conservative Party (BCE‑97169) opposed it during the secondary consultation.

3.34 Consultation responses expressed very strong support for retaining the Wyre Forest constituency name. Most respondents said they did not feel any connection to the town of Kidderminster, despite it being the largest population centre in the constituency. By contrast, we received substantial evidence to show that people felt a sense of belonging to Wyre Forest, a name that most respondents felt was more inclusive of other settlements in the district, such as Bewdley or Stourport-on-Severn (Alan Wakeman – BCE‑74024). We also note the argument made by those such as the MP for Wyre Forest, Mark Garnier (BCE‑60975), who pointed out that as the proposed boundaries were remaining unchanged, it would be consistent with the our naming policy to therefore retain the existing name.

3.35 The Assistant Commissioners recognised the close links between Harvington and Norton ward and Evesham and considered the counter-proposals that sought to improve local ties in this part of the county. While they saw some merit in the counter-proposal submitted by the Green Party, they also identified some areas in which it did not demonstrate improvements when considering the statutory factors. They noted in particular that it would divide the village of Alvechurch between constituencies. It would also adjust the Bromsgrove constituency, which would otherwise be wholly unchanged under the initial proposals, as well as being coterminous with its local authority boundary. The Assistant Commissioners did not believe that this counter-proposal would result in a better reflection of the statutory factors in the sub-region overall, and therefore did not recommend adopting it. We agree with the position of the Assistant Commissioners on this point and therefore do not endorse the Green Party proposal. Given the support we received for our initial proposals for the Bromsgrove constituency, the Assistant Commissioners saw no reason to recommend change to it. We agree, and propose retaining the initial proposals for the Bromsgrove constituency.

3.36 The Assistant Commissioners also considered the counter-proposal in submission BCE‑60839, but felt this counter-proposal to be less compliant when considering the statutory factors. Both constituencies put forward in this counter-proposal demonstrate a far greater degree of change from the existing pattern than in the initial proposals. Furthermore, both took less account of local government boundaries, crossing between Wychavon and Malvern Hills districts, something the Assistant Commissioners felt was unnecessary given the minimal change in the county in the initial proposals. The Assistant Commissioners also noted that the proposed West Worcestershire constituency was largely supported throughout both consultation periods. As a result, they did not recommend the counter-proposal and we agree with them on this point. Consequently, we do not propose making any change to the composition of the proposed Droitwich and Evesham, West Worcestershire, Worcester, or Redditch constituencies.

3.37 The Assistant Commissioners noted the high level of support for the retention of the Wyre Forest constituency name and understood that it reflects the geographic extent of the constituency better than Kidderminster. They also noted that the proposed constituency is wholly unchanged from the existing Wyre Forest constituency. Therefore, respecting the unchanged composition of the constituency and strong local support for the retention of Wyre Forest, they recommended retaining that existing constituency name, with boundaries unchanged from the initial proposals. We accept that recommendation.

Warwickshire

3.38 Four of the six existing constituencies in Warwickshire are within the permitted electorate range. The initial proposals would balance the electorates of the remaining two constituencies by transferring a single ward, Budbrooke, from the Warwick and Leamington constituency to Kenilworth and Southam. The Stratford-on-Avon and Rugby constituencies would be changed only to align with local ward boundaries changes. The proposed Bedworth and North Warwickshire, and Nuneaton constituencies would be wholly unchanged under the initial proposals from their existing form.

3.39 The four largely unchanged constituencies in Warwickshire were supported by all four qualifying parties. The transfer of the Budbrooke ward was supported by the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green parties, but opposed by the Conservative Party (BCE‑86587), who instead proposed splitting this ward, transferring the Hatton Park area to the Kenilworth and Southam constituency to allow the remainder of the ward to retained in Warwick and Leamington. This counter-proposal generated a significant amount of support among respondents to the public consultations.

3.40 Respondents provided evidence on the ‘strong geographical, historical and cultural links’ between villages in the Budbrooke ward and the towns of Royal Leamington Spa and Warwick, stressing the shared community between these villages and their two nearest towns (BCE‑78118). Correspondingly, these representations argued that these areas have very few, if any, ties to either Kenilworth or Southam. Supporters of the Conservative Party counter-proposal argued that it would allow for strong community ties between the parishes of Barford, Budbrooke and Norton Lindsey, and the rest of the Warwick and Leamington constituency to be respected (Councillor Andrew Day – BCE‑79462). Supporters of this counter-proposal also argued that the avoidance of a ‘doughnut constituency’ should be seen as a significant improvement over the initial proposals (BCE‑78118).

3.41 The Assistant Commissioners visited the area in order to assess the viability of this ward split. They observed that the Hatton Park area of the ward appeared to be a distinct community that showed more similarity with rural areas in the Kenilworth and Southam constituency than it did to Warwick town. Evidence gathered on the site visit, however, also showed a clear rural-urban separation between Warwick and the rest of the Budbrooke ward. In particular, the M40 and A46 provide a sizable and distinct boundary between Warwick and population centres such as Barford and Sherbourne. Having considered the evidence collected from representations and their site visit, our Assistant Commissioners concluded that splitting the Budbrooke ward would not meaningfully improve either constituency with regard to the statutory factors. We agree with this assessment, and therefore propose no change to both the Warwick and Leamington, and Kenilworth and Southam constituencies as initially proposed.

3.42 We received some counter-proposals (such as David Murray – BCE‑96434, and Benjamin Nunn – BCE‑79834) that would significantly alter the composition of constituencies in the sub-region in order to align closer with local authority boundaries. We raised this as a potential alternative approach in the initial proposals report; however, the Assistant Commissioners noted that almost no evidence was received requesting change to the constituencies that were left largely or wholly unchanged in the initial proposals. Our revised proposals therefore retain the initial proposals for the Bedworth and North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Rugby, and Stratford-on-Avon constituencies.

Coventry

3.43 Two of the three existing constituencies in Coventry have electorates that are within the permitted range; however, as the wards in the city have very high electorates, it was not possible to develop a pattern of constituencies in the borough that involved the transfer of a single ward. Without splitting a ward between constituencies it was therefore necessary to transfer at least two wards between constituencies. We therefore initially proposed to transfer the Lower Stoke ward from Coventry East to Coventry South, with the Binley and Willenhall ward transferring in the opposite direction.

3.44 While the Labour Party supported the initial proposals for Coventry in full, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats opposed them and submitted counter-proposals. The Conservative Party (BCE‑86587) proposed transferring the Woodlands ward (from the proposed Coventry North West constituency) into Coventry South and transferring the St Michael’s ward in the opposite direction. This counter-proposal generated a large amount of support during the consultation process.

3.45 The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) submitted a counter-proposal that would unite Woodlands and Westwood wards together in the Coventry South constituency. They proposed transferring Lower Stoke ward back to Coventry East, and Foleshill ward to Coventry North West, effectively altering the initial proposals by transferring three wards. Although we received an identical counter‑proposal from David Murray (BCE‑96434), we received little other evidence throughout the consultation process to support this approach.

3.46 Some respondents provided evidence to contest the proposal to transfer the wards of Lower Stoke, and Binley and Willenhall. The proposal to include Lower Stoke and Upper Stoke in separate constituencies was highlighted as a key issue, with responses stating the two areas were ‘very closely integrated’ while Lower Stoke’s connection to the rest of the Coventry South constituency was described as being comparatively weak (BCE‑65308).

3.47 Meanwhile, residents of Binley and Willenhall ward said that leaving it out of the Coventry South constituency would ‘weaken the strong and loved community relationship’ (BCE‑68515) shared with neighbouring Cheylesmore. Councillor Gary Ridley (BCE‑76107) argued that the initial proposals would leave the neighbourhoods within Binley and Willenhall ‘divided and isolated’.

3.48 As well as objecting to the changes in the initial proposals, respondents also provided evidence to directly support the changes in the Conservative Party counter-proposal. Daniel Dalton (BCE‑97220) agreed with the proposal to transfer St Michael’s ward to the Coventry North West constituency, arguing that the ward boundaries to the north west are less significant than those to the south and north east. We also received evidence to support the presence of close community links between the wards of Woodlands and Westwood (BCE‑97188, John Blundell).

3.49 Contrary to this, we received thorough evidence and a number of petitions to support the initial proposals in Coventry. This included representations (such as BCE‑93223) that highlighted a difference between Binley and Willenhall and neighbouring Cheylesmore, arguing that the two areas are socially and geographically distinct. We also received responses (such as BCE‑93982) highlighting the close links between the Lower Stoke ward and the neighbouring wards of St Michael’s and Cheylesmore within the proposed Coventry South constituency.

3.50 We also received evidence that demonstrated the ties of the St Michael’s ward within the Coventry South constituency. Nazifa Zaman (BCE‑97163) felt that it would be inappropriate to transfer the St Michael’s ward to the Coventry North West constituency due to the distribution of housing in the ward, which largely lies to the east, bordering Lower and Upper Stoke. This respondent also provided evidence for a lack of linkages between Lower and Upper Stoke, arguing that residents in Lower Stoke were more likely to travel into the city centre for amenities and services than into Upper Stoke.

3.51 The cases in favour of retaining the initial proposals, and in favour of change, were both persuasively made, and in light of the differing views, the Assistant Commissioners deemed it necessary to conduct site visits in the city, visiting the wards of St Michael’s, Lower and Upper Stoke, Woodlands, and Westwood.

3.52 The Assistant Commissioners visited the St Michael’s ward to assess access routes to neighbouring wards and the communities within it. They judged that, while the ward is bordered by Coventry city wards on all sides, the A4053 central Coventry ring-road is a clear boundary between it and neighbouring wards in the Coventry North West constituency. In contrast, travel between St Michael’s and Lower or Upper Stoke was comparatively seamless. The Assistant Commissioners also noted the relative ease with which it was possible to move between St Michael’s and Cheylesmore wards, despite the inaccessibility mentioned in some representations.

3.53 Although some continuity was noted between the Lower Stoke and Upper Stoke wards, the boundary between the two was distinctive, with the A4600 providing a clear demarcation. Although not to the same extent, the Assistant Commissioners felt similarly regarding the boundary between the Woodlands and Westwood wards that make up the Tile Hill area of the city. Although there was some evidence of a shared community between these two wards, the ward boundary and distinctiveness between the two is clear for the most part.

3.54 Representations received during the public consultations provided us with evidence on the various community links within Tile Hill, and Lower and Upper Stoke. While the Assistant Commissioners recognised the opportunity to reunite both of these areas under the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal, they did not feel that it was proportionate to transfer three wards within the city, altering every existing constituency within Coventry, when one could remain unchanged. They also did not feel it was justifiable to make this adjustment, as this move would break community ties shared between Foleshill and both wards with which it shares its eastern boundary. The Assistant Commissioners accordingly did not recommend adopting this counter-proposal and we agree with their assessment.

3.55 We received comprehensive evidence concerning the wards of St. Michael’s, Lower Stoke, and Binley and Willenhall, both in support of and in opposition to the initial proposals. After reviewing the evidence received from the consultation process and the site visits, the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend making any adjustments to the initial proposals in the city. The Assistant Commissioners did not deem it appropriate to transfer the St Michael’s ward into the Coventry North West constituency, as it would break community ties within the areas to the east, which appeared stronger than those over the central ring road that forms the ward boundary to the north west. We agree with the views of the Assistant Commissioners in respect of the three Coventry constituencies, and feel that the balance of evidence received leads us towards retaining the initial proposals for Coventry. We therefore propose no change to either the boundaries or names of the three initially proposed constituencies for Coventry.