View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
New electoral arrangements for Pendle CouncilFinal recommendationsDecember 2019
Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, pleasecontact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525
Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk
Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crowncopyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand database right.
Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019
A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best effortshave been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report arerepresentative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variationsbetween these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or thedigital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in whichthe final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to eitherthe large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness ofthe boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map orthe digital mapping should always appear identical.
Contents
Introduction 1
Who we are and what we do 1
What is an electoral review? 1
Why Pendle? 2
Our proposals for Pendle 2
How will the recommendations affect you? 2
Review timetable 3
Analysis and final recommendations 5
Submissions received 5
Electorate figures 5
Number of councillors 6
Ward boundaries consultation 7
Draft recommendations consultation 8
Final recommendations 8
Conclusions 21
Summary of electoral arrangements 21
Parish electoral arrangements 21
What happens next? 25
Equalities 27
Appendices 29
Appendix A 29
Appendix B 31
Appendix C 32
Appendix D 33
West Craven 9
Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west 12
Nelson 16
Colne and the rural east 18
Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council 29
Outline map 31
Submissions received 32
Glossary and abbreviations 33
1
Introduction
Who we are and what we do
1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an
independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any
political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs
chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out
electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.
2 The members of the Commission are:
• Professor Colin Mellors OBE
(Chair)
• Andrew Scallan CBE
(Deputy Chair)
• Susan Johnson OBE
• Peter Maddison QPM
• Amanda Nobbs OBE
• Steve Robinson
• Jolyon Jackson CBE
(Chief Executive)
What is an electoral review?
3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a
local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:
• How many councillors are needed.
• How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their
boundaries are and what they should be called.
• How many councillors should represent each ward or division.
4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main
considerations:
• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each
councillor represents.
• Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.
• Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local
government.
5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when
making our recommendations.
1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
2
6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance
and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found
on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Why Pendle?
7 We are conducting a review of Pendle Borough Council (‘the Council’) at the
request of the Council in 2018. Furthermore, the value of each vote in borough
council elections varies depending on where you live in Pendle. Some councillors
currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral
inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as
possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.
8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:
• The wards in Pendle are in the best possible places to help the Council
carry out its responsibilities effectively.
• The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the
same across the borough.
Our proposals for Pendle
9 Pendle should be represented by 33 councillors, 16 fewer than there are now.
10 Pendle should have 12 wards, eight fewer than there are now.
11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.
12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for
Pendle.
How will the recommendations affect you?
13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the
Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are
in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward
name may also change.
14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or
result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary
constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local
taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to
take into account any representations which are based on these issues.
http://www.lgbce.org.uk/
3
Review timetable
15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of
councillors for Pendle. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on
warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation
have informed our final recommendations.
16 The review was conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
19 February 2019 Number of councillors decided
26 February 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards
6 May 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
forming draft recommendations
30 July 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second
consultation
7 October 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
forming final recommendations
17 December 2019 Publication of final recommendations
4
5
Analysis and final recommendations
17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how
many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five
years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to
recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.
18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same
number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the
number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the
council as possible.
19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual
local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on
the table below.
2019 2024
Electorate of Pendle 66,626 68,836
Number of councillors 49 33
Average number of electors per
councillor 1,360 2,086
20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the
average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All
of our proposed wards for Pendle will have good electoral equality by 2024.
Submissions received
21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may
be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Electorate figures
22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on
from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These
forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the
electorate of around 3% by 2024.
23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that
the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these
figures to produce our final recommendations.
2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.
file://///lgbce.org.uk/dfs/Company/REVIEWS/Current%20Reviews/Reviews%20F%20-%20L/Isles%20of%20Scilly/08.%20Draft%20Recommendations%20Report/www.lgbce.org.uk
6
Number of councillors
24 Pendle Borough Council currently has 49 councillors. We looked at all the
evidence provided during the initial stages of the review and concluded that
decreasing this number by 16 will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and
responsibilities effectively.
25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be
represented by 33 councillors.
26 As Pendle Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three
out of every four years), there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a
uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern
of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an
alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.
27 We received submissions during both stages of consultation that proposed we
recommend a one-councillor ward for the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth
and Old Laund Booth, in the south-west of the borough. This would have resulted in
a council size of 34 councillors. We also received a proposal from a local resident
during the consultation on our draft recommendations that suggested we adopt a
two-councillor ward and single-councillor ward in the same area. This proposal would
maintain a council size of 33 but would depart from the uniform pattern of three-
councillor wards.
28 As explained in detail in paragraphs 59–60, we have been persuaded that a
uniform pattern of three-councillor wards will not reflect community identities in the
south-west of the borough. We have consequently changed our recommendations in
this area. We have decided to adopt the local resident’s proposal for a two-councillor
ward and single-councillor ward, moving away from the presumption that the
borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We consider that this
proposal will best reflect our statutory criteria.
29 We also received several submissions that supported the decision to reduce
the number of councillors on the Council from 49 to 33. One submission suggested
the Council be represented by 20 councillors but did not provide any detailed
evidence as how this number would allow the Council to carry out its roles and
responsibilities effectively. We have thus based our final recommendations on a 33-
member council.
4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).
7
Ward boundaries consultation
30 We received 33 submissions in response to our consultation on ward
boundaries. These included four full borough-wide proposals. Two were received
from the Council (the second received after a change of the Council’s political
control), one from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party and one from a local
resident. We also received proposals for minor variations to the second Council
scheme from the Pendle Liberal Democrats and two borough councillors. The
remainder of the submissions provided localised comments in particular areas of the
borough. These included the Barnoldswick Branch of Pendle Labour Party, which
provided an alternative warding pattern in the West Craven area, and the Labour
Party Colne Co-ordination Committee, which submitted a pattern of wards for the
Colne area.
31 The first Council scheme and the Pendle Constituency Labour Party’s scheme
both proposed a uniform pattern of 11 three-councillor wards across Pendle.
Conversely, the second Council scheme and the variations of that scheme proposed
a pattern of 11 three-councillor wards with an additional single-councillor ward in the
south-west of the borough. We carefully considered these proposals and were of the
view that the proposed patterns of wards would generally result in good levels of
electoral equality in most areas of the authority and largely used clearly identifiable
boundaries.
32 The borough-wide scheme proposed by a local resident suggested a warding
pattern made up one-, two-, three- and four-councillor wards. We consider four-
councillor wards do not aid effective and convenient local government and potentially
dilute the accountability of councillors to the electorate, so we did not adopt these
wards as part of our draft recommendations. We also considered the evidence for
either single- or two-councillor wards was not persuasive enough for us to depart
from the presumption that the borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor
wards. We therefore did not adopt any of these proposals as part of our draft
recommendations. We did nonetheless consider the three-councillor wards proposed
by the local resident where appropriate.
33 Our draft recommendations were predominantly based on the second Council
scheme, which we considered best reflected our statutory criteria. However, we
developed our own warding pattern in the south-west of the borough in order to
create a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards.
34 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the
ground. This tour of Pendle helped us to decide between the different boundaries
proposed.
8
35 Our draft recommendations were for 11 three-councillor wards. We considered
that our draft recommendations provided for good electoral equality while reflecting
community identities and interests where we received such evidence during
consultation.
Draft recommendations consultation
36 We received 74 submissions during consultation on our draft
recommendations. These included borough-wide responses from the Council and
the Conservative Group. The rest of the submissions related to specific areas of the
borough, where we received strong, well-evidenced objections to our draft
recommendations for the south-west of the borough, specifically with regard to our
proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward.
37 We have therefore proposed changes to the warding arrangements in this area
as part of our final recommendations. As a consequence, we have moved away from
a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, creating a two-councillor Brierfield West
& Reedley ward, and a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward.
38 Based on evidence received during consultation, we have also changed the
names of wards in West Craven, Nelson and Colne to better reflect community
identities.
Final recommendations
39 Our final recommendations are for 10 three-councillor wards, one two-councillor
ward and one single-councillor ward. We consider that our final recommendations
will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and
interests where we received such evidence during consultation.
40 The tables and maps on pages 9–19 detail our final recommendations for each
area of Pendle. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the
three statutory5 criteria of:
• Equality of representation.
• Reflecting community interests and identities.
• Providing for effective and convenient local government.
41 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page
29 and on the large map accompanying this report.
5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
9
West Craven
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2024
Barnoldswick 3 7%
Earby & Coates 3 9%
Barnoldswick and Earby & Coates
42 We received 12 submissions that related directly to our proposed wards in the
West Craven area. Three of these submissions argued against our proposal to place
the Coates area of Barnoldswick parish in a ward with Earby (and the adjoining
parishes), arguing this would not effectively represent local communities.
43 We carefully considered these submissions, and while we note the requests
made for the Coates area to remain in a Barnoldswick ward, a three-councillor ward
comprising entirety of Barnoldswick parish would result in an electoral variance of
34%. On the basis that local electors should have a vote of broadly equal weight, we
10
consider this too significant an electoral variance and have not adopted this proposal
as part of our final recommendations.
44 One of these submissions proposed that Foulridge parish, rather that the
Coates area, could be placed in a ward with the parishes of Earby, Salterforth and
Kelbrook & Sough. It was argued that the A56 provides strong road access between
these communities.
45 We have carefully considered these proposals but note that, given the
reduction in the number of councillors and wards across the borough, it is inevitable
that part of Barnoldswick parish will need to be in a ward that includes adjoining
communities. The proposal to place Foulridge parish in a ward with the parishes of
Earby, Salterforth and Kelbrook & Sough would not solve this issue as it would not
take account of the Coates area which cannot be placed in Barnoldswick ward given
the need to ensure good electoral equality. Therefore, we have not adopted this
proposal as part of our final recommendations.
46 The Council, the Conservative Group and Pendle Liberal Democrats all
supported our ward boundaries in the area. However, along with several other
submissions, they opposed the ward names of West Craven East and West Craven
West. A majority of these submissions suggested that these wards be renamed
Coates & Earby (or Earby & Coates) and Barnoldswick respectively, with the Pendle
Liberal Democrats stating these proposed names would be more representative of
the communities that reside within each ward. We are persuaded by the evidence
received and have decided to rename these wards as part of our final
recommendations. We are recommending the ward name of Earby & Coates, given
that Earby is the most populated parish within the ward.
47 Barnoldswick Town Council and the Pendle Liberal Democrats both opposed
the parish warding arrangements proposed as part of our draft recommendations for
the parish of Barnoldswick. The two submissions stated that the Craven parish ward
would be too large with 11 parish councillors, with both suggesting identical revised
parish warding arrangements. We have adopted these proposed changes, which will
provide for effective and convenient local government for Barnoldswick Town
Council. The electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick parish are outlined on page 22
of this report.
48 A local resident, Councillor Carter, Earby Town Council and Kelbrook & Sough
Parish Council suggested that a property, which is located on the very edge of the
Laneshaw Bridge parish boundary along Skipton Old Road, be incorporated into
Kelbrook & Sough parish. We have no power to change external parish boundaries
as part of our review. A community governance review conducted by the Council
would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing this issue.
11
49 We also received a submission from a local resident that asked for a property,
which straddles the boundary between Pendle borough and Craven district, be
wholly contained in one local authority. Another local resident stated the whole of the
West Craven area should be within Craven district. However, changing the external
boundaries between Pendle and Craven falls outside the scope of this electoral
review.
12
Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2024
Barrowford & Pendleside 3 -1%
Brierfield West & Reedley 2 10%
Fence & Higham 1 -6%
Barrowford & Pendleside
50 We received four submissions that referred to our proposed Barrowford &
Pendleside ward. One of these came from Roughlee Parish Council, which
supported our proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward.
13
51 A local resident and Old Laund Booth Parish Council both argued that our
proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward was too large and diverse, stating that the
urban Barrowford area is distinct from the adjoining rural parishes. The local resident
preferred that the existing wards remain in place. However, due to the reduction in
the number of councillors for the borough, it is an inevitable consequence that we
need to amend the allocation of councillors for wards as well as amending existing
ward boundaries. The submission also asked for Higherford village to be placed in
Blacko parish. However, changes to external parish boundaries falls outside the
scope of this electoral review.
52 Old Laund Booth Parish Council suggested Barrowford parish be warded
separately from the rural parishes, thereby allowing the parishes of Old Laund Booth
and Higham with Close Booth to be placed in a ward with the rest of the rural
parishes. However, a three-councillor ward comprising just Barrowford parish would
result in an electoral variance of -23%, which we consider too high to recommend. It
would not be possible to accept this proposal and ensure even, reasonable electoral
equality.
53 During our consultation on the warding arrangements for Pendle, we received
a submission from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party that proposed a
Barrowford & Pendleside ward that resulted in a variance of 13%. We chose not to
adopt this proposal when formulating our draft recommendations, as we considered
Blacko parish has a far stronger affiliation with the western parishes. We also
considered the electoral variance was too high and not supported by the evidence
received. A local resident submitted an alternative version of the Pendle
Constituency Labour Party’s scheme, which provided for a Barrowford & Pendleside
ward that produced an electoral variance of 9%. This was achieved by transferring
further electors from Barrowford parish into a Nelson East ward. This proposal would
provide for good electoral equality.
54 We therefore examined this proposal when formulating our final
recommendations. However, we considered that evidence received was not strong
enough to transfer several hundred electors around the A6068 and Victoria Park into
a Nelson town ward. In this area, we consider that the M65 motorway and the
Barrowford and Nelson parish boundary represent stronger boundaries.
Furthermore, we maintain the view that placing Blacko parish in a ward with the
eastern parishes would not effectively reflect local community identities and
interests.
55 Therefore, in consideration of all the evidence received in relation to this ward,
we confirm our draft recommendation Barrowford & Pendleside ward as final.
14
Brierfield West & Reedley and Fence & Higham
56 We received numerous submissions that objected to our draft
recommendations for the parishes of Brierfield, Reedley, Old Laund Booth and
Higham with West Close Booth. These included strong, well-evidenced
representations from the Liberal Democrats, Old Laund Booth Parish Council and
Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council. It was argued that our proposed
Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward, which combined the parishes of Old Laund
Booth and Higham with West Close Booth with the urban parishes of Brierfield and
Reedley, did not take account of community identity and local geography, with the
M65 motorway forming a barrier between communities.
57 Several of these submissions supported the alternative proposal made by the
Council, which proposed that the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth and Old
Laund Booth form a single-councillor ward, increasing the council size by one from
33 to 34. We have decided not to adopt this proposal as adopting a 34-councillor
warding pattern would have notable consequential effects on electoral equality in
other wards across the borough, specifically in the West Craven area.
58 The Conservative Group also objected to our proposed Brierfield West, Fence
& Higham ward, instead proposing a Pendle View ward, along with significant
modifications to wards in the town of Nelson. However, we did not adopt this
proposal as we considered the community evidence provided was not strong enough
to warrant such substantial changes to our draft recommendations.
59 We also received a submission from a local resident who suggested that our
proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward be split into a single-councillor
Fence & Higham ward and a two-councillor Brierfield West ward. After carefully
considering the submissions in relation to this area, we are persuaded that sufficient
evidence has been received to move away from the presumption of a uniform pattern
of three-councillor wards, and that a two-councillor and single-councillor warding
arrangement in the south-west of the borough is justified on the grounds of
community identities and interests.
60 We therefore recommend a two-councillor Brierfield West & Reedley ward and
a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward, which we consider will better reflect the
distinct community identities of the two rural parishes and the more densely
populated areas of western Brierfield and Reedley Hallows parish. This proposal will
also provide for reasonable electoral equality, where our final Brierfield West &
Reedley ward will have an electoral variance of 10%, while our Fence & Higham
ward will have an electoral variance of -4% by 2024.
61 One local resident asked that a property, which is located on the very edge of
the Reedley Hallows parish boundary along Greenhead Lane, be incorporated into
Old Laund Booth parish. As previously mentioned in this report, we have no powers
15
to amend external parish boundaries and a community governance review
conducted by the Council would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing
this issue.
16
Nelson
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2024
Bradley 3 -6%
Brierfield East & Clover Hill 3 -3%
Marsden & Southfield 3 -2%
Whitefield & Walverden 3 3%
Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden
62 The submissions we received for this area proposed significantly different
boundaries. The Council suggested various amendments between our proposed
Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden wards. However,
no community evidence was provided to substantiate these changes. We have
therefore not adopted these proposals as part of our final recommendations.
63 The Conservative Group proposed significantly different boundaries in Nelson,
proposing a Brierfield & Nelson West ward, a Cloverhill & Walverden ward and a
Bradley & Whitefield ward. However, as stated in paragraph 58, we considered the
community evidence provided was not strong enough to warrant substantial changes
to our draft recommendations. Furthermore, the Conservative Group’s Cloverhill &
Walverden ward resulted in an electoral variance of 16%. Given we have an
obligation to ensure that electors in Pendle have a vote of broadly equal weight, we
17
consider that this variance will not provide for sufficient electoral equality.
Consequently, we have not adopted these proposals as part of our final
recommendations.
64 Councillor Ali argued that because our proposed Brierfield East and Clover Hill
ward would fall under Nelson and Brierfield parishes, it would possibly lead to
confusion with a potential risk of under representation and neglect of local issues.
However, Councillor Ali did not provide for an alternative warding pattern for this
area.
65 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these wards
as final. We consider that these three wards represent the best balance of our
statutory criteria.
Marsden & Southfield
66 We received several submissions concerning our proposed Southfield &
Marsden ward. These included a submission from Councillor McGowan. A majority
of these submissions argued that the proposed ward name was unsuitable, stating
that Marsden, as the more historic and recognisable part of the ward, should come
before Southfield in the ward name. Based on the submissions received, we
consider there is enough evidence to support a name change that better reflects
community identity.
67 Two submissions agreed with the proposal to place the areas of Marsden and
Southfield into a single ward, while one submission opposed the decision, stating
they should be separately warded. However, no alternative warding pattern that
would adequately reflect our statutory criteria was provided. Therefore, except for the
name change outlined above, we are confirming our draft recommendations for this
ward as final.
18
Colne and the rural east
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2024
Boulsworth & Foulridge 3 3%
Vivary Bridge 3 -9%
Waterside & Horsfield 3 -6%
Boulsworth & Foulridge
68 We received a submission from a local resident which opposed combining
Foulridge parish in a ward with the existing Boulsworth ward, emphasising the
distinct identity of the parish. However, given that Pendle elects a third of its
councillors each year, there is a presumption in law that it will have a uniform pattern
of three-councillor wards. Therefore, it is necessary to place Foulridge in a ward
alongside the adjoining rural parishes of Laneshaw Bridge and Trawden Forest in
order to achieve good electoral equality and maintain a three-councillor warding
pattern. In this case, we considered the evidence provided was not compelling
19
enough to move away from this pattern of wards, and we have therefore decided to
confirm our proposed Boulsworth & Foulridge ward as final.
69 The Pendle Liberal Democrats opposed the parish warding arrangements for
the Colne parish that were proposed as part of our draft recommendations –
specifically in the Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have adopted the changes
proposed, which we consider will provide for effective and convenient local
government for Colne Town Council. These changes are detailed further on page 22
of this report.
70 We received no other submissions that related directly to our proposed
Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft
recommendations for this ward as final.
Vivary Bridge
71 We received one submission from a local resident that stated that the disused
railway line would represent a better boundary between Vivary Bridge and
Barrowford & Pendleside wards. We are of the view that ward boundaries should
follow the existing parish boundaries in this area. If the ward boundary followed the
disused railway line, it would require the creation of a new parish ward. We consider
this would not ensure effective and convenient local government, especially given
the lack of community evidence to justify such a change. We therefore did not adopt
this proposal as part of our final recommendations.
72 No further submissions were received in regard to our proposed Vivary Bridge
ward, so we therefore confirm the draft recommendations for this ward as final.
Waterside & Horsfield
73 We have changed the name of our proposed Waterside ward to Waterside &
Horsfield based on submissions received. The Council, the Conservative Group and
the Liberal Democrats all supported this name change, with the Liberal Democrats
providing good evidence that the proposed ward will include the Colne cricket
ground, which provided the origin of the Horsfield name. Renaming this ward will
better reflect the communities that reside within it, so we have adopted it as part of
our final recommendations. Our final Waterside & Horsfield ward will an electoral
variance of -6% by 2024.
20
21
Conclusions
74 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final
recommendations on electoral equality in Pendle, referencing the 2019 and 2024
electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral
variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of
the wards is provided at Appendix B.
Summary of electoral arrangements
Final recommendations
2019 2024
Number of councillors 33 33
Number of electoral wards 12 12
Average number of electors per councillor 2,019 2,086
Number of wards with a variance more than 10%
from the average 0 0
Number of wards with a variance more than 20%
from the average 0 0
Final recommendations
Pendle Borough Council should be made up of 33 councillors serving 12 wards,
representing one single-councillor ward, one two-councillor ward and 10 three-
councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated
on the large maps accompanying this report.
Mapping
Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Pendle Borough Council.
You can also view our final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council on our
interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Parish electoral arrangements
75 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory
criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and
Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be
divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that
each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to
the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.
http://www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk/
22
76 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish
electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our
recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Pendle
Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to
parish electoral arrangements.
77 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory
criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish
electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick, Colne and Nelson.
78 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick
parish.
Final recommendations
Barnoldswick Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present,
representing three wards:
Parish ward Number of parish councillors
Coates 3
Barnoldswick North 4
Barnoldswick South 7
79 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Colne parish.
Final recommendations
Colne Town Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing
five wards:
Parish ward Number of parish councillors
Central 2
Lidgett 2
Vivary Bridge 7
Waterside East 2
Waterside West 4
80 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Nelson parish. The
parish warding arrangements in Nelson parish are affected both by our proposed
borough wards and by Lancashire county divisions. The parish wards for Nelson
parish proposed as part of our draft recommendations did not fully consider the
impact of the county divisions in Nelson. We are therefore proposing amended
parish warding arrangements for Nelson parish at this stage to reflect both the new
borough wards and the existing county divisions.
23
Final recommendations
Nelson Town Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing
seven wards:
Parish ward Number of parish councillors
Bradley 6
Clover Hill 2
Marsden East 1
Marsden West 1
Southfield 6
Walverden 5
Whitefield 3
24
25
What happens next?
81 We have now completed our review of Pendle Borough Council. The
recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal
document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament.
Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into
force at the local elections in 2020.
26
27
Equalities
82 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines
set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to
ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review
process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a
result of the outcome of the review.
28
29
Appendices
Appendix A
Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council
Ward name Number of
councillors
Electorate
(2019)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
Electorate
(2024)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
1 Barrowford &
Pendleside 3 5,974 1,991 -1% 6,190 2,063 -1%
2 Barnoldswick 3 6,571 2,190 8% 6,711 2,237 7%
3 Boulsworth &
Foulridge 3 6,128 2,043 1% 6,430 2,143 3%
4 Bradley 3 5,835 1,945 -4% 5,912 1,971 -6%
5 Brierfield East &
Clover Hill 3 5,860 1,953 -3% 6,062 2,021 -3%
6 Brierfield West &
Reedley 2 4,270 2,135 6% 4,573 2,287 10%
7 Earby & Coates 3 6,525 2,175 8% 6,830 2,277 9%
8 Fence & Higham 1 1,943 1,943 -4% 1,956 1,956 -6%
9 Marsden &
Southfield 3 5,982 1,994 -1% 6,133 2,044 -2%
10 Vivary Bridge 3 5,495 1,832 -9% 5,714 1,905 -9%
11 Waterside &
Horsfield 3 5,634 1,878 -7% 5,898 1,966 -6%
30
Ward name Number of
councillors
Electorate
(2019)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
Electorate
(2024)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
12 Whitefield &
Walverden 3 6,409 2,136 6% 6,427 2,142 3%
Totals 33 66,626 – – 68,836 – –
Averages – – 2,019 – – 2,086 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Pendle Borough Council.
Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward
varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to
the nearest whole number.
31
Appendix B
Outline map
A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying
this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-
west/lancashire/pendle
https://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendlehttps://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendle
32
Appendix C
Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendle
Local Authority
• Pendle Borough Council
Political Groups
• Pendle Conservative Group
• Pendle Liberal Democrats
Councillors
• Councillor Z. Ali (Pendle Borough Council)
• Councillor C. Carter (Pendle Borough Council)
• Councillor N. McGowan (Pendle Borough Council)
Parish and Town Councils
• Barnoldswick Town Council
• Earby Town Council
• Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council
• Kelbrook & Sough Parish Council
• Old Laund Booth Parish Council (x2)
• Roughlee Parish Council
Local Residents
• 61 local residents
https://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendle
33
Appendix D
Glossary and abbreviations
Council size The number of councillors elected to
serve on a council
Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements
changes to the electoral arrangements
of a local authority
Division A specific area of a county, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever division
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the county council
Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the
same as another’s
Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the
number of electors represented by a
councillor and the average for the local
authority
Electorate People in the authority who are
registered to vote in elections. For the
purposes of this report, we refer
specifically to the electorate for local
government elections
Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local
authority divided by the number of
councillors
Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Parish A specific and defined area of land
within a single local authority enclosed
within a parish boundary. There are over
10,000 parishes in England, which
provide the first tier of representation to
their local residents
34
Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish
which serves and represents the area
defined by the parish boundaries. See
also ‘Town council’
Parish (or town) council electoral
arrangements
The total number of councillors on any
one parish or town council; the number,
names and boundaries of parish wards;
and the number of councillors for each
ward
Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors vote in whichever parish ward
they live for candidate or candidates
they wish to represent them on the
parish council
Town council A parish council which has been given
ceremonial ‘town’ status. More
information on achieving such status
can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk
Under-represented Where there are more electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per
councillor in a ward or division varies in
percentage terms from the average
Ward A specific area of a district or borough,
defined for electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever ward
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the district or borough council
http://www.nalc.gov.uk/
The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.
Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.ukOnline: www.lgbce.org.uk orwww.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE
Pendle report cover webLGBCE (19-20)085-PendleFinalRecommendations-AppendixA-2019-11-19 POST EDITORPendle report cover web
Recommended