Staffordshire and the Black Country
The Black Country
3.82 Every existing constituency in the Black Country is below the permitted electorate range, and it is therefore unavoidable that every constituency will require some element of change in this review. When developing the initial proposals, we were acutely aware of the strong community identities across the Black Country, and the initial proposals sought to preserve these ties as far as practicable.
Back to topDudley
3.83 In Dudley borough, we proposed Halesowen and Stourbridge constituencies, which would contain all the core wards that make up each respective town. The initial proposals would split the Sandwell borough ward of Blackheath, transferring the southernmost polling district to the Halesowen constituency. We proposed expanding the existing Dudley North constituency southward to include the Brockmoor and Pensnett ward. The remaining wards from the existing Dudley South constituency would either transfer to Stourbridge, or form part of the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.
3.84 The initial proposals in Dudley were supported in full by the Conservative Party (BCE‑86587). The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) supported the Dudley and Stourbridge constituencies, but proposed an alternative configuration for Halesowen. The Labour Party (BCE‑79523) supported the proposed Stourbridge and Halesowen constituencies; however, they opposed crossing the West Midlands combined authority boundary at Kingswinford, instead advocating for a crossing at Aldridge (see below). Consequently, the Labour Party counter‑proposal would include two constituencies in the north of the Dudley borough, crossing the boundary with Sandwell to include parts of Tipton and Rowley Regis. Both the Labour Party counter-proposal and that of the Liberal Democrats were opposed by representations received in the secondary consultation.
3.85 We received two other counter-proposals that advocated changes to the Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency. The proposal of Sir Gavin Williamson MP (BCE‑75677) sought to eliminate a cross-county boundary constituency altogether, whereas Mike Wood, MP for Dudley South (BCE‑86083), proposed extending the constituency to include the Dudley ward of Brockmoor and Pensnett. Both of these counter-proposals combined Dudley with parts of Birmingham, and Sir Gavin Williamson MP’s proposal in particular generated a substantial number of representations, both in support and in opposition.
3.86 The proposed constituencies of Dudley, Stourbridge and Halesowen were largely supported by members of the public, MPs, and local councillors during the public consultations. By far the most substantial issue raised during the consultation periods was the proposal to include the three wards comprising Kingswinford in a constituency with parts of Staffordshire.
3.87 The public consultation generated a largely negative response to the proposed Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency. Residents in Kingswinford argued that the initial proposals would break community ties between Kingswinford and the rest of Dudley borough. Furthermore, Dave Tyler (BCE‑81254) argued that, despite their proximity, the links between Kingswinford and South Staffordshire were particularly weak, stating that there is ‘no Social, Community or Economic connection between those areas and our existing local townships’.
3.88 The Assistant Commissioners visited the Kingswinford area on a site visit. They observed that, while the Kingswinford area seemed to have commonality with the urban area of Dudley, it also appeared to be a distinct community in its own right, with some element of separation between itself and the town of Dudley.
3.89 We received evidence in the secondary consultation to support the approach of keeping Staffordshire as a self-contained sub-region, as in the counter-proposal submitted by Sir Gavin Williamson MP. While not all respondents directly supported this alternative proposal specifically: respondents more generally felt the separate identity of Staffordshire should not be combined with urban areas in the Black Country. Councillor Clive Rathbone (BCE‑90589) argued that the initial proposals would break bonds between towns in South Staffordshire and damage the ‘unique identity’ of the area.
3.90 Despite the large amount of support we received for Sir Gavin Williamson MP’s counter-proposal, we also received evidence that objected to it. The Assistant Commissioners noted that the counter-proposal would involve multiple divided wards across Birmingham, the Black Country and Staffordshire, something which was directly objected to by Brewood and Coven Parish Council (BCE‑93214).
3.91 The Assistant Commissioners judged that counter-proposals from the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Sir Gavin Williamson MP would all involve the disruption of local ties across Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell; they also noted that they would make alterations to proposed constituencies that had been largely supported in public consultation, such as Halesowen or Dudley. The Assistant Commissioners considered that we received satisfactory evidence that these counter-proposals would be a poor reflection of community links in the area (Councillor Simon Phipps – BCE‑95024).
3.92 The proposed Halesowen constituency was well received during the public consultations. Respondents supported the decision to include the Cradley and Wollescote ward in the constituency, as well as the decision to split the Blackheath ward (Belle Vale Conservatives – BCE‑84789). At the Birmingham public hearing, Mick Freer (BCE‑97208) provided evidence that the initial proposals for Halesowen ‘closely equate to cultural, historic and industrial heritage’ in the area.
3.93 The initial proposals would retain all wards described by Suzanne Webb, MP for Stourbridge (BCE‑83929), as the ‘four core Stourbridge wards’ within the Stourbridge constituency; and also retain the constituency name and the borough designation. Responses from this constituency, welcomed and supported this approach.
3.94 Although to a lesser extent, we also received support for the proposed Dudley constituency. In particular, the proposal to transfer the Dudley borough ward of Brockmoor and Pensnett was supported, with the Dudley North Conservative Association (BCE‑79495) stating that this ‘unifies a wider community surrounding the Town Centre into one parliamentary constituency’.
3.95 The Assistant Commissioners appreciated that Sir Gavin Williamson MP’s counter-proposal for the region would satisfy the desire of many respondents for Staffordshire to be a self-contained sub-region; however, they also considered that it would split multiple wards unnecessarily and disrupt community ties, existing constituency boundaries and local authority boundaries across the region. For this reason, they could not see that it demonstrated an improvement on the initial proposals for Staffordshire or the West Midlands metropolitan area. We agree with the assessment of the Assistant Commissioners and therefore do not propose adopting this counter-proposal or making any adjustments to the proposed Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency.
3.96 The Assistant Commissioners were satisfied that the Dudley, Halesowen and Stourbridge constituencies were all largely supported in the consultation period. They judged that we did not receive evidence to demonstrate that alterations would better reflect the statutory factors across the sub-region. Furthermore, we agree with the assertion of the Assistant Commissioners that counter-proposals from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats would disrupt local ties across the Black Country by dividing towns such as Dudley and Smethwick. After reviewing the evidence provided to us by the Assistant Commissioners, we do not propose making any changes to the initial proposals for Dudley, Halesowen or Stourbridge.
Back to topSandwell
3.97 As in Dudley, all constituencies in Sandwell have electorates that require them to be changed. We proposed expanding the West Bromwich East constituency southwards to include the ward of St Pauls. West Bromwich West was proposed to be expanded westwards to include the Dudley borough ward of Coseley East. In order to compensate for the loss of the St Pauls ward, we proposed extending the existing Warley constituency westwards to take in the Rowley ward and most of the Blackheath ward.
3.98 The initial proposals for Sandwell were opposed by the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative Party’s counter-proposal (BCE‑86587) was supported locally, and would include the St Pauls ward in a Smethwick constituency, but divide the two named Wednesbury wards between constituencies. The Labour Party (BCE‑79523) submitted a counter-proposal that would also include the St Pauls ward in a Smethwick constituency; however, they opted for a different approach in the rest of the borough, instead combining Tipton and Rowley Regis with Dudley, and Wednesbury with Walsall. While we received evidence to support the proposal to join Wednesbury and Walsall, we did not receive many representations endorsing their proposed amendments to the rest of the borough. The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) also proposed a cross-local authority boundary constituency between Sandwell and Walsall, advocating for a constituency that would combine Wednesbury and Darlaston, and combine parts of Smethwick in a constituency with Halesowen.
3.99 All three of the proposed constituencies in the Sandwell local authority drew objections from residents in the borough. The proposal to transfer the St Pauls ward to the West Bromwich East constituency generated the largest amount of opposition.
3.100 Over 650 representations were received regarding Sandwell – more than any other local authority in the region – most of which were in opposition to the initial proposals. Evidence received in the public consultations reinforced the point that Sandwell, rather than a single cultural unit, is made up of six distinct towns, ‘which all have their own cultural and historic identity’ (BCE‑71611).
3.101 The proposal to transfer the St Pauls ward into the West Bromwich East constituency raised a significant level of opposition, as did the proposal to include the Rowley ward in a constituency with Smethwick. The Assistant Commissioners noted, however, that while the number of comments received during the consultation periods was extensive, there was, at times, contradictory evidence regarding local ties in the borough.
3.102 Consultation respondents almost unanimously argued that the proposed transfer of the St Pauls ward into the West Bromwich East constituency would break community ties in Smethwick. Councillor Jay Anandou (BCE‑81640) said that, if adopted, Smethwick town centre would be ‘ripped apart’ by the initial proposals.
3.103 Evidence was also provided that pointed to a physical separation between St Pauls and West Bromwich (BCE‑92740). The Assistant Commissioners visited the area to ascertain the extent of these physical barriers. Upon visiting Smethwick, they considered the boundary between St Pauls and the rest of Smethwick to be indiscernible on the ground. In contrast, St Pauls and West Bromwich are separated by the M5 motorway and a large industrial estate. The Assistant Commissioners’ assessment was that the ties of the St Pauls ward were clearly to Smethwick in the south, rather than north to West Bromwich, corroborating much of the evidence that we received.
3.104 We received evidence outlining the local ties around Rowley Regis. Most of the evidence said that the links between Rowley Regis and Smethwick were weak, with poor transport links and a lack of shared community services between the two areas (BCE‑81708). Rather than Smethwick, respondents identified Blackheath (BCE‑85216) or Tividale (BCE‑85004) as areas with which Rowley Regis has closer connections.
3.105 The Assistant Commissioners also visited Rowley Regis in order to discern the community ties in the area and provide context to the representations given during the consultation process. Upon visiting the area, the Assistant Commissioners found far greater evidence of a shared community with Blackheath than with Tividale. Despite this, there did appear to be some community links between Rowley and Tividale wards and it was considered plausible that they could be included in the same constituency.
3.106 We received a substantial amount of evidence regarding the community ties of Wednesbury. Supporters of the Conservative Party counter-proposal argued that Wednesbury North has a far greater connection with neighbouring Friar Park than Wednesbury South and the counter-proposal would ‘unite’ the two communities (Councillor Scott Chapman – BCE‑70193). Despite many attendees at the public hearings supporting this claim, we received a substantial number of comments from Wednesbury residents in the secondary consultation giving evidence to the contrary. One respondent stated that the Conservative Party counter-proposal ‘would not ‘Unite Wednesbury’ as has been suggested but would seek to divide it another way instead’ (BCE‑95693). Similarly, Robert Yardley (BCE‑97213) highlighted that the Conservative Party counter-proposal would create a constituency boundary through the town centre, separating it from the main residential area of Wednesbury; proposing instead transferring Friar Park into a constituency with both Wednesbury wards in order to truly reflect a united Wednesbury.
3.107 Upon visiting Wednesbury, the Assistant Commissioners found that, while there are evidently some local ties between Wednesbury North and Friar Park, there are also strong ties with Wednesbury South, with the ward boundary between the two cutting directly through Wednesbury town centre.
3.108 In order to achieve a full analysis of local ties and ward boundaries in the district,
the Assistant Commissioners also visited the Hateley Heath ward. They found little separation between Hateley Heath, Friar Park and Wednesbury South, and some evidence of community between all three wards was observed. It appeared that the roads to the south and east of the Hateley Heath ward provide some separation between the ward and West Bromwich town centre.
3.109 The representations and site visits provided the Assistant Commissioners with significant evidence on the community links in Sandwell. The Assistant Commissioners concluded that it was essential to transfer the St Pauls ward back into a constituency with the rest of Smethwick. They also accepted that, while Rowley has close links with Blackheath, links also exist with Tividale to the north. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended transferring the Rowley ward out of the constituency and replacing it with St Pauls, in order to preserve close local ties within Smethwick. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendation, and propose adopting their recommendations. Given the loss of the Rowley ward, we propose renaming the constituency simply to Smethwick in our revised proposals.
3.110 Having considered the evidence received throughout both the consultation periods and their own visit to the area, the Assistant Commissioners were struck by the extent to which local ties across Sandwell are structured by the six towns that make up the borough. In formulating their recommendations, therefore, they opted to prioritise keeping towns whole, even where this disrupts existing constituencies more than is necessary. We have reviewed the possible alternatives, and are satisfied that this approach balances the statutory factors appropriately.
3.111 These revised proposals for the St Pauls and Rowley wards are in line with the Conservative Party counter-proposal for Sandwell; however, on the balance of the evidence received, the Assistant Commissioners did not deem it appropriate to recommend dividing Wednesbury North and South. Instead, they recommended transferring Friar Park and Hateley Heath wards westwards to join the towns of Wednesbury and Tipton. We recognise that this approach would disrupt the existing constituency boundaries more than both the initial proposals and the Conservative Party counter-proposal; however, we agree with the view of the Assistant Commissioners that this solution would minimise the division of any of the six Sandwell towns, and thereby allow local ties to be reflected as best as possible across the whole borough. We therefore propose a constituency named Tipton and Wednesbury.
3.112 Consequently, the Assistant Commissioners recommended transferring the remaining Sandwell borough wards of Rowley, Tividale and Oldbury into a constituency with West Bromwich and Great Barr. In making this recommendation, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that there is little evidence of clear community ties between Great Barr at one end of this proposed constituency, and Rowley Regis at the other; however, their assessment is that there is no alternative that would not divide more than one of the six Sandwell towns. Having considered these alternatives, we agree, and therefore we accept the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners, and propose to name this constituency West Bromwich.
Back to topWolverhampton
3.113 The initial proposals would retain three constituencies for the City of Wolverhampton, with both the Wolverhampton North East and Wolverhampton South East constituencies expanded into the Walsall local authority, creating an eastern boundary running along the M6 motorway. We proposed expanding the Wolverhampton South West constituency eastwards to include the wards of Oxley and Blakenhall.
3.114 While the initial proposals for Wolverhampton were accepted in full by the Conservative Party, both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats opposed them, and submitted counter-proposals for the city.
3.115 The Labour Party submitted a counter-proposal that would transfer Blakenhall into a constituency with Bilston, but divide Bushbury North from Bushbury South in the process (BCE‑79523). This proposal was well supported and accounted for the majority of the responses we received regarding the initial proposals for Wolverhampton. The Liberal Democrats submitted a proposal that would both retain Blakenhall in the Wolverhampton South East constituency and keep both Bushbury wards together (BCE‑97146). This counter-proposal would also retain the Dudley borough ward of Coseley East in the Wolverhampton South East constituency and combine Willenhall in a constituency with the city centre.
3.116 We received evidence, particularly at the Birmingham public hearing, that Blakenhall looked east towards Bilston for its community ties. Councillor Paul Birch (BCE‑97167) argued that strong community, educational and religious links existed between Blakenhall and neighbouring wards to the east, which contrasted sharply with Penn to the west, with which it shared few similarities and local ties.
3.117 Contrary to this, we also received evidence that, while Blakenhall does share strong links with Spring Vale and Ettingshall to the east, it also has ‘community and family ties’ with Graiseley and Penn in the proposed Wolverhampton West constituency (BCE‑95937). We received further evidence to oppose the Labour Party counter-proposal for Wolverhampton in regard to Bushbury. Councillor Andrew McNeil (BCE‑97148) described Labour’s proposal for Wolverhampton as ‘very inappropriate’, going on to describe the long-standing history and ‘deep roots’ between the two Bushbury wards.
3.118 The Assistant Commissioners accepted the argument that Blakenhall has strong local ties eastwards towards Bilston; however, they also recognised that some links exist westwards too, with Graiseley and, to a lesser extent, with Penn. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioners do not agree that Blakenhall should be transferred back into the Wolverhampton South East constituency at the expense of a divided community elsewhere. After reviewing the evidence received, they therefore concluded that they could not recommend the adoption of the Labour Party counter-proposal for Wolverhampton.
3.119 We did not receive any representations with evidence to support the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal for the city, and the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend this counter-proposal either. We accept their judgement, and therefore do not propose making any revisions to the initial proposals for Wolverhampton.
Back to topWalsall
3.120 In the remainder of the Walsall local authority, we initially proposed reconfiguring the orientation of the existing constituencies, combining the part of the existing Walsall South constituency east of the M6 with the wards of Aldridge Central and South, and Streetly into a new Walsall constituency. The remaining wards in the borough, comprising the remainder of the existing Walsall North and Aldridge-Brownhills constituencies, would be combined into a proposed Bloxwich and Brownhills constituency. Both constituencies drew opposition in the consultation period, although our proposed Walsall constituency was considerably more unpopular, particularly the proposal to divide the two named Aldridge wards from each other.
3.121 The initial proposals for Walsall were opposed by the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Counter-proposals from the Conservative Party (BCE‑86587) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) both sought to bring the two Aldridge wards within the same constituency. Both these counter-proposals would instead divide what representations said constitute the four ‘core’ urban Walsall wards between two constituencies. We received a sizeable petition from the residents of Aldridge, objecting to the initial proposals and endorsing the Conservative Party counter-proposal (BCE‑83623). We did not receive evidence to support the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal for the borough.
3.122 The Labour Party’s counter-proposal for the Walsall local authority would involve the creation of a ‘Walsall and Wednesbury’ constituency, crossing the M6 motorway and local authority boundary between the two towns (BCE‑79523). This counter-proposal would also create a Lichfield and Aldridge constituency, crossing over the metropolitan boundary. While this proposal generated some support during the consultation process, it was also strongly opposed by residents of Aldridge.
3.123 We also received a counter-proposal from David Murray (BCE‑96434), which would combine Walsall and Bloxwich, allowing the existing Aldridge-Brownhills constituency to remain largely unchanged; this proposal would require a split of the Paddock ward.
3.124 The sizeable opposition to the proposed Walsall constituency was largely accompanied by support for either the Conservative or Labour Party counter-proposal. Supporters of the Labour Party counter-proposal argued that Walsall shares community ties with Wednesbury to the south, and that they should comprise a Walsall and Wednesbury constituency. Valerie Vaz, MP for Walsall South, (BCE‑97260) provided a thorough account of Walsall’s shared community ties with Wednesbury, as well as describing the divisions between the town and neighbouring Aldridge and Streetly. Valerie Vaz MP explained how strong educational, retail and transport links accounted for the ‘already considerable overlap between the communities in both local authority areas’, additionally outlining the role of rural land as a ‘strong geographical boundary’ between Walsall and Aldridge to the east.
3.125 On a site visit to the area, it was clear to the Assistant Commissioners that, despite some evidence of shared retail services, the M6 motorway represents a substantial physical barrier between Walsall and Wednesbury. While there is road access underneath the motorway, the Assistant Commissioners saw little evidence of a continuous community of interest. Other than the oral and written evidence provided by Valerie Vaz, we received very little evidence to support the counter-proposal submission from the Labour Party in Walsall. Furthermore, we received evidence in the secondary consultation that directly opposed the Labour Party counter-proposal for the area (BCE‑94585).
3.126 The Assistant Commissioners felt that opposing comments submitted by residents of Aldridge were both numerous and rich in detail throughout both consultation periods. Arguments put forward by respondents stressed the close community environment shared between both Aldridge wards and Rushall-Shelfield (Maria Smith – BCE‑75470). Speaking at the Birmingham public hearing, Jon Jo MacNamara (BCE‑97192) echoed the views of many Aldridge residents throughout the consultation periods. While they supported the proposal to transfer the Pheasey Park Farm ward into a constituency with Aldridge Central and South, they stressed the point that ‘there is no commonality at all between Walsall and Aldridge’. Many of the responses regarding Aldridge supported the counter-proposal submitted by the Conservative Party; however, the Assistant Commissioners noted that very few recognised or acknowledged that the proposal would divide the town of Walsall in half.
3.127 We received little evidence supporting counter-proposals for Walsall borough from the Liberal Democrats or David Murray. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioners visited the Paddock ward, in order to assess whether it would be a suitable ward to split, as proposed by David Murray. They concluded that areas to the east of the canal within the ward appeared to share commonality with areas of the Daisy Bank area within the Pheasey Park Farm ward; the canal was also deemed by the Assistant Commissioners to be a clear line by which the ward could be divided. They considered that the polling districts to the west of the canal appeared more urban and central due to their proximity to the ring-road and town centre.
3.128 The Assistant Commissioners also visited St Matthew’s ward, in order to investigate another possible area where splitting a ward could result in a pattern of constituencies that did not divide either Aldridge or Walsall. They observed that some parts of the St Matthew’s ward appeared to show evidence of historic community links to Rushall, part of the existing Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. The Assistant Commissioners saw evidence of the name of Rushall being used in the ward; sites such as Rushall Hall, Rushall Close and Saint Michael the Archangel Rushall Parish Church.
3.129 The Assistant Commissioners agreed with those who argued that the links between Walsall and Aldridge are weak; however, they considered that the evidence to support the idea that Walsall should be included in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with parts of Sandwell was unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioners recognised that the Labour Party counter-proposal would not only impacted Walsall, but also create a domino effect, disrupting well-received constituencies across the sub-region. They did not consider that this counter-proposal would better reflect the statutory factors across the wider area, and therefore did not recommend adopting it. We agree with this recommendation.
3.130 After consideration of all the evidence received, the Assistant Commissioners believed that revisions should be made to the proposed Walsall, and Bloxwich and Brownhills constituencies, in order to allow for the whole of Aldridge to be represented in a single constituency. Despite this, they did not agree that this should be achieved by splitting the urban core of Walsall between constituencies, as would be the case in both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposals. The Assistant Commissioners felt that these options would seek to respect community ties in one area of the borough by breaking them in another, and therefore did not recommend them to us. We accept the argument put forward by the Assistant Commissioners and do not propose adopting either counter-proposal.
3.131 The Assistant Commissioners considered the counter-proposal submitted by David Murray, which would retain the existing Aldridge-Brownhills constituency largely unchanged; only the Pheasey Park Farm ward and three polling districts from the Paddock ward would be transferred into the constituency. They also considered a similar alternative pattern of constituencies that divided the St Matthew’s ward, utilising a single polling district in place of the polling districts from the Paddock ward. In both of these variations, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that the whole of the Paddock and St Matthew’s wards look towards Walsall rather than Aldridge; however, they also felt that splitting one of these wards would minimise the disruption to local ties across the borough as a whole.
3.132 Based on the evidence received from David Murray (BCE‑97235), the Assistant Commissioners regarded Paddock as a more suitable ward to split than St Matthew’s; however, deviating slightly from David Murray’s counter-proposal, they felt it more appropriate to transfer two polling districts instead of three. The Assistant Commissioners recommended retaining the existing Aldridge-Brownhills constituency, with the addition of Pheasey Park Farm and two polling districts from the Paddock ward in which the great majority of the housing lies to the east of the Rushall canal, forming a constituency boundary that would run partly along the canal. Accompanying this, they also recommended a Walsall and Bloxwich constituency that would comprise the remainder of the four core Walsall wards, together with Bloxwich, Blakenall, and Birchills Leamore.
3.133 While our general approach aims to minimise the number of wards we split across the region, we accept the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioners that this approach would allow for the best representation of community links across Walsall borough; without a split ward either the urban core of Walsall or Aldridge would have to be divided between two constituencies. Based on the evidence presented by the Assistant Commissioners, we accept their recommendations and propose these changes as part of our revised proposals, including a split of the Paddock ward, transferring polling districts UE and UF to a revised Aldridge-Brownhills constituency.
Back to topStaffordshire
3.134 Several existing constituencies in Staffordshire are within the permitted electorate range and, when formulating the initial proposals, we sought to limit change to these wherever possible. In practice, this proved difficult, owing to the disruption caused by the proposal to include Kingswinford with South Staffordshire, and the need for constituencies in the north of the county to gain additional electors. Despite this, the initial proposals would keep two constituencies, Burton and Cannock Chase, wholly unchanged. Four more constituencies, Lichfield, Tamworth, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme, would be changed only to align with new local ward boundaries.
3.135 From the March 2020 electorate figures on which this Review must be based, Stoke-on-Trent Central had the lowest electorate of any existing constituency in England; it was therefore necessary to expand the constituency considerably. We proposed extending it southwards to include Fenton, as well as the wards of Sandford Hill and Meir Hay. Similarly, the initial proposals would extend Stoke-on-Trent South southwards in order to include three wards from the Stafford local authority and two wards from Staffordshire Moorlands district. The initial proposals would reorient the existing Stafford constituency to include rural areas to the north west of the town, and proposed a Stone and Great Wyrley constituency, which would include wards from both Stafford and South Staffordshire local authorities. Our recommendations for the Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency have already been discussed in the section above.
3.136 The initial proposals were largely accepted by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97146) supported the initial proposals for Staffordshire in full and the Conservative Party (BCE‑86587) only proposed a minor alteration to the boundary between the proposed Lichfield and Tamworth constituencies, which received significant local support during the public consultations.
3.137 The Labour Party submitted a counter-proposal that would require a more comprehensive adjustment of the initially proposed Staffordshire constituencies (BCE‑79523). This counter-proposal would retain a wholly unchanged South Staffordshire constituency, and instead proposed a cross-county boundary constituency that would impact the proposed Walsall and Lichfield constituencies. It also proposed alterations to the proposed Tamworth, Stone and Great Wyrley, and Stafford constituencies. We received a very small number of representations commenting on this counter-proposal and received limited local evidence to support it.
3.138 We received several counter-proposals covering the full Staffordshire and the Black Country sub-region. Nicky Davis (BCE‑92319) and David Murray (BCE‑96434) submitted identical counter-proposals for Staffordshire, which would include Stourbridge (in place of Kingswinford) in a cross-county boundary constituency with parts of South Staffordshire. We also received a counter-proposal from Ant Reid (BCE‑66416), which was also presented at the Stafford public hearing. Instead of including parts of South Staffordshire in a cross-county boundary constituency, this proposal would include a Brownhills and Burntwood constituency, based on wards from the Walsall and Lichfield local authorities. We received no representations endorsing any of these counter-proposals; however, each one was thoroughly scrutinised and analysed by the Assistant Commissioners alongside all other representations received during the consultation process.
3.139 The Assistant Commissioners recognised some of the benefits of Ant Reid’s counter-proposal for Staffordshire; for example, allowing the Checkley ward to be included in a Staffordshire Moorlands constituency and limiting change to the existing South Staffordshire constituency. They noted, however, that adopting this counter-proposal would alter the configuration of proposed constituencies that were supported during the consultation process (such as Halesowen), or wholly unchanged constituencies (such as Cannock Chase). As a result, while the Assistant Commissioners did note the merits of this counter-proposal in some areas, they did not feel that it represented an improvement on the initial proposals across the region overall in respect of the statutory factors. They therefore did not recommend adopting the counter-proposal and we share their views on this.
3.140 Both Nicky Davis and David Murray would include five wards making up the town of Stourbridge in a cross-county boundary constituency. The Assistant Commissioners felt that evidence received throughout the public consultations demonstrated that much of this pattern of constituencies may represent an improvement on our initial proposals for Staffordshire. They did not, however, feel that these benefits would justify the consequential effects on constituencies in the Black Country. While the counter-proposal from Nicky Davis only covered Staffordshire, David Murray’s covered the full region. This counter-proposal included a Halesowen constituency that would not only cross the boundary with Birmingham, but with Worcestershire too. While the Assistant Commissioners felt this counter-proposal would offer some improvement in certain areas of the region, they did not feel it demonstrated an improvement overall on the initial proposals; they therefore did not recommend adopting it. We accept the opinion of the Assistant Commissioners on this counter-proposal and do not propose adopting it for these revised proposals.
3.141 We received a large amount of opposition to the proposed changes to the existing South Staffordshire constituency; many wrote in support of the ‘Staffordshire Together’ campaign and counter-proposal (BCE‑75677). While the Assistant Commissioners considered options that either crossed the county boundary elsewhere or not at all, they did not propose any revisions to the Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency. As discussed above, they believe this helps to best satisfy the statutory factors across the sub-region and the region as a whole.
3.142 We received an extremely small number of responses commenting on the unchanged composition of the proposed Burton and Cannock Chase constituencies. Some comments were received that commented on the name of the proposed Burton constituency, arguing for the inclusion of Uttoxeter in the name of this constituency, and stating that a change would ‘enhance the sense of belonging and community links’ for residents in Uttoxeter and surrounding areas in the north of the constituency (Councillor Philip Atkins – BCE‑77497).
3.143 The Assistant Commissioners recognised the strength of feeling in Uttoxeter in favour of a name change; however, they considered that the existing constituency name of Burton is suitable and, as it is well in-line with our naming policy, did not recommend any naming adjustments. Given that these constituencies were proposed unchanged from their existing configurations, and nothing that we received said that alterations would be welcomed, we do not propose adjusting the names or boundaries of the initially proposed Burton and Cannock Chase constituencies.
3.144 The proposed Stoke-on-Trent North, Stoke-on-Trent Central, and Newcastle-under-Lyme constituencies drew an overall level of support, although we did receive alternative proposals for the name of the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency (discussed below). Councillor Faisal Hussain (BCE‑84241) said that the proposed changes to the configuration of the constituencies in Stoke-on-Trent would ‘reflect many pre-existing transport and community links’. In light of the evidence presented by the Assistant Commissioners, we are content to propose the Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent North, and Stoke-on-Trent Central constituencies remain unchanged from the initial proposals.
3.145 Respondents from within the unitary authority of Stoke-on-Trent were largely supportive of the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, agreeing with the approach to retain three named Stoke-on-Trent constituencies. Residents in the proposed constituency based outside of Stoke-on-Trent, however, were far less supportive. Residents of villages such as Barlaston, Oulton and Swynnerton felt that their local ties would be broken by the initial proposals. There was an almost unanimous agreement that these villages had very close community ties to Stone; however, while some respondents felt that a Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone constituency would accurately reflect local ties in the area (BCE‑68646), others felt these areas had no association with Stoke-on-Trent at all (BCE‑54159).
3.146 Due to the size of the electorate of the Staffordshire Moorlands local authority, it is not possible to create a constituency that is wholly coterminous with the boundary of the local authority. This was reflected in the feedback received during the public consultations; a substantial number of comments were received that objected to the proposed transfer of Forsbrook or Checkley from the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency to a Stoke-on-Trent South constituency. Forsbrook Parish Council (BCE‑74562) highlighted the stark contrast between the communities of Staffordshire Moorlands and Stoke-on-Trent, stating that ‘Forsbrook has very little in common with the urban conurbation of Stoke on Trent. The needs of a smaller semi-rural village like Forsbrook have very different needs to the larger settlements of Stoke on Trent South’.
3.147 The unique identity of rural population centres in Staffordshire Moorlands was a present theme throughout the consultation process. Residents of Tean and Checkley said that they felt a far deeper ‘belonging’ to other settlements within the Staffordshire Moorlands local authority, as a result of a shared socio-cultural and industrial history; something they may not feel with Stoke-on-Trent (E Dawson Varughese – BCE‑79031). To supplement the evidence received during the consultation periods, the Assistant Commissioners visited Checkley and Forsbrook on a site visit. They observed that, while there is an element of distance and some visible differences between the two Staffordshire Moorlands wards and Stoke-on-Trent, the two areas are well-connected by road and share some similarities in their nature; this was particularly evident in the Forsbrook ward.
3.148 For these revised proposals, the Assistant Commissioners investigated alternatives that could retain one of these wards within the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency. Due to the low electorates of the proposed Staffordshire constituencies, any alteration to the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency would result in a ‘domino effect’ of change, impacting almost all constituencies across Staffordshire and the Black Country. The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the strong sense of community feeling held in Checkley and Forsbrook; however, given the scale of change necessary to include either of them in the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency, they did not feel that any alternative would be satisfactory across the sub-region as a whole. They therefore did not recommend any changes to the Staffordshire Moorlands and Stoke-on-Trent South constituencies. We support the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners and therefore do not propose any revisions to either constituency.
3.149 Some respondents to the consultation process, such as Jonathan Gullis, MP for Stoke-on-Trent North (BCE‑66516), argued that Kidsgrove and Talke should be included in the proposed Stoke-on-Trent North constituency name, in order to recognise their status as Newcastle-under-Lyme borough wards. This was supported by others, particularly at the Stafford public hearing; however, this feeling was not universal. Councillor Dean Richardson (BCE‑97223) felt this change would be unnecessary, arguing that the existing name was clear in its existing form. The Assistant Commissioners agreed with this latter point, noting that the proposed Stoke-on-Trent North constituency would contain only one more Newcastle-under-Lyme borough ward than the existing constituency, and therefore did not recommend a change of name.
3.150 Similar arguments were advanced concerning the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, with the Conservative Party putting forward Stoke-on-Trent South, Barlaston, and Tean as a more inclusive alternative. While the Assistant Commissioners recognised that the proposed Stoke-on-Trent South constituency would contain a considerable rural element, they did not feel that the existing constituency names are inappropriate or misleading as descriptors for the proposed constituencies. As all three Stoke-on-Trent constituency names are compliant with our naming policy, we agree with the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore do not propose making any adjustments to the names of these constituencies.
3.151 We received more representations concerning the Lichfield ward of Whittington and Streethay than any other single ward in the region. Over 500 individual responses raised unanimous objection to Streethay’s proposed inclusion in the Tamworth constituency. Some of these representations were also sent in conjunction with support for the Conservative Party counter-proposal for Lichfield. Residents in both Lichfield and Streethay submitted thorough arguments advocating for Streethay’s inclusion in the Lichfield constituency. Respondents referenced the physical proximity of Streethay to Lichfield, the reliance on the city for services and amenities, and the clear geographical separation from Tamworth (Steve Beresford – BCE‑55827). Many representations (such as BCE‑79165) explained how Streethay is no longer separated from the city, and is now considered an ‘integral part of Lichfield’.
3.152 The Assistant Commissioners visited Streethay in order to observe the feasibility and suitability of a split of the Whittington and Streethay ward. The Assistant Commissioners observed that, while Streethay could be considered as its own separate community, it also appeared to have a heavy reliance on Lichfield for local amenities. Further to this, the A38 to the east of Streethay acts as a physical divide between Streethay and the rest of the ward, and reinforces the separation between Streethay and its nearest population centre to the east. The Assistant Commissioners also noted that we received many representations in the secondary consultation objecting to the Labour Party counter-proposal for Staffordshire, which would not only included Streethay in the Tamworth constituency, but also include Lichfield in a cross-county boundary constituency with Aldridge (Michael Fabricant, MP for Lichfield – BCE‑89348).
3.153 As a result of the evidence gathered both during consultations and the site visit, the Assistant Commissioners agreed that excluding Streethay from the Lichfield constituency would be undesirable. They therefore considered several alternative patterns of constituencies, including options that split wards, such as the Conservative Party counter-proposal, and options that did not split any wards. They considered transferring the Hammerwich with Wall ward from the proposed Lichfield constituency to Tamworth, thereby allowing Whittington and Streethay to transfer to Lichfield; however, they judged that this arrangement would break close community ties within the town of Burntwood, and would be an inappropriate recommendation for these revised proposals.
3.154 The Assistant Commissioners also reviewed patterns of constituencies that would retain both the Hammerwich with Wall, and Whittington and Streethay wards wholly in the Lichfield constituency. They particularly noted the domino effect that would arise from this and accepted that all solutions following this approach would increase the scale of change in the region far beyond what is necessary. After reviewing several different approaches and possibilities, the Assistant Commissioners therefore concluded that the Conservative Party counter-proposal, which proposed splitting the Whittington and Streethay ward, was the best option for the Lichfield and Tamworth constituencies. They judged that this approach satisfied the statutory factors far better than the initial proposals and recommended that we adopt it for these revised proposals.
3.155 In considering this recommendation, we had particular regard to whether the conditions set out in our policy on ward splits had been met. We concluded that the Conservative Party counter-proposal demonstrated an improvement on the initial proposals with regard to several of the statutory factors. Firstly, splitting the ward would prevent local ties from being broken in both the Lichfield and Tamworth constituencies. Secondly, it would reduce the number of electors that would change constituencies when compared to the initial proposals. Finally, the Conservative Party counter-proposal would form a Lichfield constituency that better respects the physical geography and accessibility concerns raised during the consultation period. The shape of the Whittington and Streethay ward does not follow intuitive boundaries on its western edge, and includes settlements very close to the centres of both Lichfield and Tamworth. Splitting the ward to allow Streethay to remain in the Lichfield constituency would negate some of the clear accessibility issues within the proposed Tamworth constituency. After consideration of all of these matters by reference to the statutory factors, we therefore accept the Assistant Commissioners recommendation to adopt the Conservative Party counter-proposal for Lichfield and Tamworth.
3.156 While we received very few representations from residents in the proposed Stafford constituency, we received some opposition from those who live in the parts of the existing Stafford constituency that would be included in a Stone and Great Wyrley constituency under the initial proposals. Respondents commenting from wards such as Milford and Milwich objected on the grounds that their close local ties to Stafford would be broken by the initial proposals (BCE‑69215). This, together with representations relating to Stone itself, made up the bulk of the largely negative response to this newly formed constituency.
3.157 The proposed Stone and Great Wyrley constituency was widely objected to on the grounds that it would fail to reflect local ties in Staffordshire. Residents in Stone commented that the proposed constituency would combine population centres with different identities and cultures (Stone Independents – BCE‑79330). The geographic expanse of the proposed constituency was also criticised, with some respondents stating that there would be issues with accessibility within the constituency (BCE‑69008). We also received responses saying that the proposed Stone and Great Wyrley constituency would be damaging for local ties in the South Staffordshire local authority. Hatherton Parish Council (BCE‑83075) stated that the two towns in the constituency name are ‘not only geographically miles apart they are also miles apart with regard to identities’.
3.158 The Assistant Commissioners visited the proposed Stone and Great Wyrley constituency to assess the transport links and community ties within it. While they accepted that accessibility within the constituency is relatively poor, they noted that many of the settlements throughout the constituency shared a similar rural character.
3.159 The initial proposals report conceded that the proposed Stone and Great Wyrley constituency would be lacking in community ties between its northerly and southerly parts. The Assistant Commissioners felt that the evidence received throughout the consultation process corroborated this assessment. While the Assistant Commissioners accepted that the Stone and Great Wyrley constituency would not fully reflect community ties in the county, they felt that its retention is key to proposing a pattern of constituencies across the sub-region that satisfies the statutory factors as best as possible. They noted that three qualifying parties supported our proposal for Stone and Great Wyrley, and that the fourth, the Labour Party, still acknowledged the need for an expansive Mid Staffordshire constituency to enable a cohesive pattern of constituencies for Staffordshire as a whole.
3.160 We agree with the Assistant Commissioners that any adjustments to Stone and Great Wyrley would also result in changes to the composition of constituencies across the sub-region, disrupting supported constituencies and unchanged existing constituencies in the process. For this reason, we do not propose making any revisions to the Stone and Great Wyrley, or Stafford constituencies, as initially proposed.
Back to top