People in the Moorlands are being invited to have their say on proposals for new boundaries for council divisions in the Staffordshire Moorlands.
The Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) is the independent body that draws boundaries and divisions for councils. It is reviewing the whole of Staffordshire to make sure councillors will represent about the same number of electors, and that division arrangements will help the council work effectively.
The Commission is proposing that there should continue to be 62 divisions, with one councillor per division. It now wants to hear what residents and local organisations think about the proposals. A 10-week consultation will run until 16th October 2023.
These are the proposals for the Staffordshire Moorlands:
Under a council size of 62, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council will have seven councillors, with each councillor representing on average 2% more electors than the county average.
Biddulph and Leek towns each have too many electors for one county councillor and too few for two councillors if there is to be a good level of electoral equality. Therefore, part of the town must be included in a division with rural parishes, to provide a good balance of our statutory criteria.
Biddulph North and Biddulph South & Endon:
The Council’s scheme was the only proposal we received for this area of Staffordshire Moorlands.
It proposed a small modification to the existing boundary between these two divisions, which would move the area north of Well Street, Princess Street and St John’s Road into Biddulph North division from Biddulph South & Endon. It was of the view that the existing boundary caused an ‘unnatural separation’ along John Street and Congleton Road.
It also included Longsdon parish and an area of Leek parish in a Biddulph South & Endon division. It stated that Longsdon and had strong connections with Endon.
After carefully considering this proposal, we noted that the boundary along Well Street, Princess Street and St John’s Road did not appear as identifiable as the existing one, both along John Street/Congleton Road and along the brook and open space between Thames Drive and Moorland Road. We consider that the existing boundary along the brook and public park is strong and identifiable. Furthermore, we note that the southern end of John Street is retained as a boundary under the Council’s proposals and the existing boundary that continues along that road is easily identifiable. Therefore, although it has an impact on the electoral equality of Biddulph North, we consider this a better balance of our statutory criteria.
We also note that the parish boundary between Leek and Longsdon parishes splits Mollatts Wood Road. We consider that we should unite these residents in a single division and note that doing so improves the variance of Leek South division from 11% to 7%. Therefore, we are content to adopt the Council’s proposal for Biddulph South & Endon division.
We welcome comments with community evidence on these boundaries.
Biddulph North and Biddulph South & Endon divisions are forecast to have 11% fewer and 7% more electors than the county average by 2028.
Caverswall, Cheadle & Checkley and Churnet Valley:
We received two submissions about the Cheadle & Checkley area, in addition to the Council’s proposals.
One resident of Tean wanted to remain in Cheadle & Checkley division. The other resident’s comments were about Tean district ward and therefore outside the scope of this review of Staffordshire County Council’s electoral divisions.
The Council’s proposals included modifications to the boundaries of the existing divisions. One was to exclude Birchall, Cheddleton Heath and Leekbrook villages from Churnet Valley division and place them in Leek South, which it said was on community identity grounds. It also moved an area of Draycott in the Moors into Caverswall division from Cheadle & Checkley.
The Council was of the view that its proposed Churnet Valley had a strong community identity based around the Churnet Valley railway. Although it stated that residents of Draycott tended to shop in Cheadle or outside the district, they were of the view that because there was a community centre there, the community was independent.
We have carefully considered the points made by the Council. We have been persuaded by its proposals for Churnet Valley. However, we have not been persuaded to move Draycott in the Moors from Cheadle & Checkley division where they have some community interests.
Our draft recommendations are based on the Council’s with modifications as described above.
Caverswall, Cheadle & Checkley and Churnet Valley are forecast to have good electoral equality.
Leek Rural and Leek South:
As mentioned above, Leek has too many electors for one county councillor and too few for two.
The Council’s proposals exclude Longdon from Leek Rural division, otherwise retaining the existing division boundaries. It includes Birchall, Cheddleton and Leekbrook in Leek South on community identity grounds, stating that many residents already assumed that they were in Leek South as they looked to Leek for their community. It also excluded an area in the southwest of Leek parish from its Leek South division.
The Council explained that as Leek Rural covered a very large geographical area with 23 parishes, the distances and limited transport links between some of the parishes meant that they stayed independent. Nevertheless, it was of the view that the urban and rural parts of Leek Rural division fit well together despite their differences and diverse needs.
We are content to adopt the Council’s proposals for Leek Rural and Leek South divisions. As mentioned in the section on Biddulph South & Endon, we have moved away from using the parish boundary around Longsdon as a division boundary to unite Mollatts Wood Road residents in the same division.
Leek Rural and Leek South are both forecast to have good electoral equality by 2028.
Further details on the proposals, an interactive map showing the new divisions, and how to have your say are available here. Any changes will be implemented in 2025.
