Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report ...

Local GovernmentBoundary CommissionFor EnglandReport No. 344

LOCAL GOVERN!-ISNT BOUNDARY COMMISSION F0.:; E.'GLAJID

CHAIHKAH

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS

Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB

Mr J M Rankin QC

Lady Bowden

Hr J T Brockbank

Mr R R Thornton CB DL

Mr D P Harrison

Professor G E Cherry

To theSecretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEMETROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KIRKLEES

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried

out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan

borough of Kirklees in accordance with the requirements of section 63-of, and

Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the

future electoral arrangements for that borough.

2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the

1972 Act, notice was given on 27 August 1975 that we were to undertake this

review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to

West Yorkshire County Council, parish councils, the Members of Parliament for

the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political, parties.

Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the

area, and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press

announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the

public1 and from interested bodies.

3- Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft

scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked

to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972

and. the guidelines which we set out' in our Report No 6 about the proposed size

of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They

were asked also to take into account any views expressed: to them following theirv

consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should

publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they

submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local

comment.

4. Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that in metropolitan

districts elections shall be by thirds. Section 6(2) Cb) of the Act requires

that every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning a

number of councillors divisible by three.

5- Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council forwarded their draft scheme of

representation to the Commission on 26 May 1976. They proposed to divide the

area into 27 wards each returning 3 members to form a council of 81 . Following

the elections in May 1976 this scheme was withdrawn and a revised scheme for

2*f 3-member wards was submitted to the Commission on 10 September 1976.

6. The revised draft scheme produced a generally even standard of representation.

Comments suggested that this had been achieved at the expense of breaking local

ties and objections were received to the grouping of urban and rural areas in

the same ward. A political party submitted two alternative schemes for a

V2-member and 8l-member council and alternative arrangements for certain areas

were suggested in other comments. We studied the draft scheme, the alternative

schemes and the alternative arrangements suggested for certain areas. We

decided to base our draft proposals on the revised draft scheme submitted by

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council subject to modifying it by incorporating

alternative proposals for three wards put forward by a parish council. Some

minor boundary realignments suggested to us by Ordnance Survey were adopted.

7. On 15 July 1977 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all

who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's

draft scheme. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council were asked to make these

draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward

boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on

our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and,

by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We

asked that comments should reach us by 9 September 1977.

8. We received forty two letters in response to the draft proposals.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council and West Yorkshire County Council had no

comment to make. Objections to the draft proposals, in whole or in part, were

received from nineteen local branches of political parties and associations,

one councillor, two civic societies, two parish councils, one trades-councils

co-ordinating committee, and fifteen members of the public.

9. In view of these comments we decided that we needed further information to

enable us to reach a conclusion* Therefore in accordance with section 65(2)

of the 1972 Act and at our request, Mr V D Knox, DFC, was appointed an

Assistant Commissioner. He was asked to hold a local meeting and to report to

us. Notice of the meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals

or had commented on them, and was published locally.

10. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, Huddersfield

on 19 and 20 January 1978, having previously inspected the area. A copy of

his report is attached at Schedule 1 to this report..

11.. In the light of the discussion at the-meeting and further subsequent

inspection of certain areas the Assistant Commissioner recommended a pattern of

2^ J-member wards,, forming a council of 72 members, which differed in a number

of ways' from our draft proposals..

12.. The Assistant Commissioner recommended that nine wards forming part of an

alternative scheme submitted by a local political party, and supported by

another, be adopted instead of our draft proposals for the areas concerned. He

further recommended changes in the names of five wards.

1% We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which had

been received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We noted that the

main effect of the very detailed recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner

was to take account of criticism made of our draft proposals in relation to

the breaking of local ties. In some cases he had accepted what was suggested

by most if not all the critics; in others he had reached his own conclusion

after weighing the conflicting arguments, which he was as fairly evenly

balanced. From the numerical point of view his recommendations offered a

marginally better standard of representation than our draft proposals. We

decided to adopt his recommendations as our final proposals.

14. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report

and on the attached map. The changes recommended by the Assistant Commissioner

were nearly all referred to by using polling districts and, at our request,

Ordnance Survey have drawn the map showing our final proposals taking account

of the changes but not showing polling districts. This accords with our usual

practice. Schedule Z gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors

to be returned by each. A detailed description of the boundaries of the

proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3»

PUBLICATION

15., In accordance with Section 60(5>(b) of the Local Government Act 1972,

a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to the Kirklees

Metropolitan Borough Council and will be available for inspection at the

Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without map) are being

sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made

comments.

L.S.

Signed:

NICHOLAS MORRISON (CHAIRMAN)

JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)

PHYLLIS BOWDEN

TYRRELL BROCKBANK

G E CHERRY

D P HARRISON

R R THORNTON

L GRIMSHAW (Secretary)

15 March 1979

SCHEDULE 1

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

FOR THE

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KIRKLEES

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

(V. Douglas Knox D.F.C.)

TO: The Secretary,Local Government Boundary Commission for England,Room 123,20 Albert Embankment,London. SE1 TTJ

1. Following ray appointment by the Secretary of State as Assistant Commissionerfor the purpose of assisting the Commission Ts review of electoral arrangementsfor the Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees, I presided at a local meeting held inthe Town Hall, Huddersfield on 19th and 20th January 1978 to hear representations

2. The meeting opened at 10.30 a.m. on 19th January and adjourned at 6.15 p.m.It was resumed at 10.00 a.m. on 20th January and concluded at approximately5.00 p.m.-

3. Attendance

The following, persons attended the meeting on 19th January:-

NAME REPRESENTING

A. A. Mason Kirklees M.B. Council

G. M. Carter

Jane V, Carter

H. H. Kellett Meltham Town Council

E. Thomas (Mrs.) Kirfield Residents Association

B. Caffell Shepley

J. Caffell Shepley

K. S. Moore Shepley

D. Billington Village of Shepley

Rev. N. Webb Village of Whitley

S. R. Collins Village of Whitley

M. Duncan Directorate of Administration, Kirklees M.B.C

Alec Ramsden Yorkshire Post Newspaper

- 2 -

Joan Kaye

S. Chadwick

John 0. Moore

David Eagley

John R. Glover

M. Hirst

Charles Lee

S. Thornton

S. Pollard .

T. P. Cliffe

T. McCarthy

R. F . Paver

John E. Miller

N. A. D. Hall

E. S . Dixon

J. B. Hickling

H. S. Hopkins

Frank L. Appleyard

A. Crowther

A. Ramsden

S. Dawson

R. Hartley

E. Garrett

Jessie Smith

Henry Leaper

Ian Mercer

G. Earnshaw

Rev. C. H. Harris

L. Allen

F. Withers

G. Rushforth

G. A. Cromach

Willard Satmnba

H. C. G. Mathema

B. Bailey

A. Craven

Shepley

Crosland Moor

Shepley

Huddersfield Examiner Newspaper

Observer for West Yorkshire Metropolitan C.C.

Spenborough Guardian Newspaper

Shepley

Ward IT

Kirklees Council

Leader, Kirklees M.B.C.

Directorate of Administration, Kirklees M.B.C.

Directorate of Administration, Kirklees M.B.C.

Directorate of Technical Services, Kirklees M.B.C

Directorate of Technical Services, Kirklees M.B.C

Chief Executive, Kirklees M.B.C.

Mirfield Civic Society

Dalton Labour Party

Shepley Ward

Birkby Ward

Dewsbury Labour Party

Huddersfield West Labour Party

Huddersfield East Labour Party

Huddersfield West Labour Party

Colne Valley Labour Party

Liversedge Labour Party

Kirkburton Parish Council Clerk

Kirkburton Parish Council

Shepley

Shepley

Shepley

Kirkburton P.C. and Grange Moore

Shepley

Wewsome

Newsome

Councillor Cliffe's Secretary

Secretary, Colne Valley Conservative Assn.

- 3 -

N. Craven

K. Bates

N. Hodgkinson

F. Pickles

D. Rhodes

D. Cross

H. Rhodes

B. Moore

D. G. Firth

E. Mosley

T. Megahy

A. Belcher

H. Senior

Edward Dunford

E. C. Walker

B. Shelden

John H. Watson

E. Moorhouse

Secretary, Colne Valley Conservative Assn.

Huddersfield Conservative Association

Thornhill Ward

Thornhill Labour Party

Shepley

Shepley

Shepley

Shepley

Shepley

Shepley

Kirklees Labour Party

Colne Valley Labour Party

Liberal Group Kirklees M.B.C.

Colne Valley Division Liberal Association

Batley No. 12 Ward

No. 13 Ward

Batley and Morley Constituency Labour Party

Huddersfield'E.G. Labour Party

It will be seen that 6? people attended on the first day and the following•25 attended on the second day:-

Edward Dunford

Fred Pickles

T. P. Cliffe

K. Bates

S. Pollard

H. Hodgkinson

T. Megahy

A. Belcher

David Bagley

S. Dawson

H. S. Hopkins

H. Senior

Brian Eley

Marguerite E. L. Wood

M. Duncan

Colne Valley Division Liberal Association

Thornhill Labour Party

Leader, Kirklees M.B.C.

Huddersfield Conservative Association

Kirklees M.B.C.

Thornhill

Kirklees Labour Party

Colne Valley Labour Party

Huddersfield Examiner Newspaper

Huddersfield West C.L.P.

Dalton Labour Party

Liberal Group, Kirklees M.B.C.

Mirfield Ward Councillor

Kirklees Ward 2U

Kirklees M . B . C .

E. S. Dixon Chief Executive, Kirklees M.B.C.

T. McCarthy Kirklees M.B.C.

R. F. Paver Kirklees M.B.C.

N. A. D. Hall Kirklees M.B.C.

R. Hartley Councillor, Kirklees M.B.C, and HuddersfieldEast Labour Party

E. Moorhouse Huddersfield East Labour Party

A. Crowther Birkby

K. S. Moore . Shepley

Jessie Smith Colne Valley Constituency Labour Party

Leslie H. Parfitt Kirklees M.B.C.

k. In addition to hearing evidence from those who attended and who wishedto give verbal evidence or comment on the evidence of others, I also read inwhole or in part, again so that comment might be made by those present, thewritten comments of Societies, Associations,"Parties, Councils, Committees,Groups or individuals who were not present or represented.

5. Mr. E. S. Dixon, Chief Executive, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council,confirmed that the necessary notices regarding the holding of the meetinghad been published.

BACKGROUND TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. The Commission's letter of 27th August 1975 initiated the electoralreview in Kirklees and, inter alia, mentioned the need for county anddistrict co-operation at an early stage if the advantages of compatibilitywere to be secured. Although there were no consultations at that stage,the West Yorkshire County Council drew up a scheme for its own Council fora Council size of 99 members with Kirklees having 27 Wards, 8l DistrictCouncillors, 18 County electoral divisions and 18 County Councillors.In April 1976 the then Labour-controlled Borough Council drew up andsubmitted to the Commission a 27 ward, 8l-member scheme.

7. Just after the May 1976 elections the metropolitan district councilsin West Yorkshire held a meeting in Leeds to which the County Council andthe Commission were invited, to discuss compatibility. The outcome wasan alternative plan which would give the County 92 members, with Kirklees2k Wards, 72 District Councillors, l6 County electoral divisions and16 County Councillors.

8. The May 1976 district elections resulted in the Conservatives gainingcontrol of Kirklees Council. In the light of the consultations oncompatibility which took place thereafter, the Kirklees Council withdrewthe 27 Ward scheme and on 10th September 1976 submitted their revisedproposals for a 2k Ward scheme returning 72 members, which meant that theCouncil would remain the same size as at present. None of the 2k Wards inthe new scheme was coterminous with an existing Ward. Parish and parishward boundaries were respected in the successor parish areas of theBorough. Kirklees has not carried out a parish review.

- 5 -

9. Following the submission of that scheme the Commission received andconsidered representations and objections which included:-

(a)- two alternative schemes submitted by the Kirklees Metropolitan DistrictLabour Party, one "being the 27 Ward scheme approved by the KirkleesCouncil in April 1976 when the Labour Party was in control, and theother based on 2h Wards, having in mind that the Commissioner mightwell favour a scheme based on 2U Wards;

(b) objections to the disruption of local ties, and to the grouping ofurban and rural areas in the same ward; and

(c) the Holme Valley Parish Council objected to the inclusion in theessentially rural Holme Valley North ward of an area from the formerCounty Borough of Huddersfield, and suggestedalternative proposalswhich affected the proposed Holme Valley North, Almondbury andCrosland wards.

10. The Council's draft scheme offered a generally even standard ofrepresentation with the proposed Birkby ward being the only ward fallingoutside their usual range of tolerance on current electoral figures.However, the entitlement of this ward was expected to improve by 19&1, theelectorate increasing from 9,7 8 to 10,U99.

THE COMMISSION'S DRAFT PROPOSALS

11. The draft proposals were issued by the Commission on 15th July 1977.In the main the Commission adopted the draft scheme submitted by the KirkleesCouncil in September 197,6, but they varied this draft scheme -

(a) by incorporating the alternative proposals for the Holme Valley North,Almondbury and Crosland wards put forward by the Holme Valley ParishCouncil; and

(b) by the addition of three boundary realignments proposed by OrdnanceSurvey, none of which involved electorate.

The effect of these proposals resulted in the following:-

Ward

Holme Valley North

Almondbury '

Crosland

No. ofCllrs.

3

3

3

1976Electorate Entitlement

9,992 2.65

11,137 2.95

11,90** 3.15

1981Electorate Entitlement

10,792 2.86

11,2U9 3.00

12,083 3.23

Details of these alterations are as follows:-

Holme Valley North Ward would gain Brockholes polling district (Q) 520 fromAlmondbury and lose Berry Brow ( C ) , part, 1231, Armitage Bridge ( D ) , part,and Netherton ( Q ) , part, ^5, to Crosland - a net loss of 1097 electors.

Almondbury Ward would lose Brockholes polling district ( Q ) , 520, to HolmeValley North - a net loss of 520 electors.

Crosland Ward' would gain Berry Brow ( C ) , part, 1231, Armitage Bridge CD) ,part, 3^1, and Netherton ( Q ) , part, ^5, from Holme Valley North - a netgain of l6l7 electors.

- 6 -

12. The draft proposals of the Commission for Kirklees so far as thenumerical analysis is concerned were as follows:-

Ward

LindleyPaddockBirkbyCr os landHolme" Valley NorthHuddersfield CentraD eight onD alt onAlmondburyGolcarColne Valley WestHolme Valley SouthKirkburtonDenby DaleMirfieldLiver sedgeCleckheatonBirstallHeckmondwikeBatley NorthBat ley SouthDewsbury EastDewsbury WestDewsbury South

No. ofCllrs.

33333

1 3333333333333333333

72

197

Electo-rate

11,U2U12,0039,7 811.90U9,99211,5 012,00**12.0U711,13710,310,51610,6U810,70610,97112.28010,6010,85912.U3110 ,Tli*12,09911.86911,67112,09712,269

271,877

6

Entitle-ment

3.033.182.583.152.653.063.183.192.952.72.782.822.8U2.913.252.812.883.292.8U3.20 '3.1U3.093.203.25

72.01

Varia-tions

inElecto-rate

-U25-162+151+119+300-231-505-1*88+112-215-371+85+385+622-189+196+371-159-310-365-Ui9-3Ul-6 2-819

-2258

. 19

Electo-rate

10,999ll,8Ui10,U9912.08310,79211,30911,50111,55911,2U910,12910,lU510,73311,09111,59312,09110,80011,23012,27210.3M*11,73U11,39011,33011.U5511.U50

269,619

31

Entitle-ment

2.9^.3.162.803.232.863.023.013.013.002.702.712.812.963.103.232.883.003.282.763.73'376U3.053.063.06

71.98

AV : 3,776 AV13'. Comments were invited on the Commission's draft proposals. The BoroughCouncil and the County Council had no comment to make. Comments werereceived objecting generally to the Commission's draft proposals and to theproposals for particular areas. 'In consequence of these comments, it wasdecided to convene the meeting.

1^. An outline of the general comments on the Commission's proposals are asfollows : -

(i) Kirklees Metropolitan District Labour Party, supported by theHuddersfield West Constituency Labour Party, the HuddersfieldEast Constituency Labour Party, the Huddersfield WestConstituency Labour Party, Lindley Branch, the Kirklees TradesCouncils Co-ordinating- Committee and Mr. M.-McMurdo, object onthe grounds (a) the variation in the size of the electorate istoo large, (b) little regard seems to have been paid to thepreservation of local communities, and (c) the proposedboundaries take no account of natural geographical boundaries.

"^ The Kirklees M.D. Laboury Party put forward two alternativeschemes based on 27 Wards (Scheme A) and 2k Wards (Scheme B) .These schemes were detailed giving (a) lists of proposed wardswith polling districts, (b) summary of proposed ward electorates,and (c) description of proposed new Wards. The supportingbodies consider that the proposals submitted by the KirkleesDistrict Labour Party achieve a greater equality in numbersbetween the wards and also give consideration to the feelings and

- 7 -

wishes of local people. The Labour Party's 2k Ward schemegave the following electorate for the wards they suggested:-

Ward

ThornhillDewsbury EastDewsbury WestMirfieldDaltonAlmondburyDeightonNewsomeBirkbyLindleyPaddockCr os landKirkburtonBat ley EastBatley WestBir stallHightowndec kh eat onHeckmondwikeDenby DaleHolme Valley NorthHolme Valley SouthColne Valley EastColne Valley West

No. ofCllrs.

333333333•

3•3

3o

3•3

333

3333

72

19"

Electo-rate

11,1*6011,87111,681*11,31111,85410,60511,35311,44710,81110,97911,58711,75510,81211,81712,15811,93011,74311,36811,87110,566

9,99210,61+811,13911,136

271,877

'6

Entitle-ment

~~ * '

3.033.143.093.003.142.813.013.032.862.913.073.112.863.133.223.163.113.013.142.802.652.822.952.95

72.00

Varia-tions

inElecto-rate

+39-350-128+100.-399+244-290-192+600+121-402

+60+326-305-402-180

+77+196-401+620+800+333-4oo-350

-154

19*Electo-rate

11,49911,52111,55611, 4n11,45510,84911,06311,255ll,4n11,10011,18911,81511,13811,51211,756U,75011,82011,56411,47011,18610,79210,98610,73910,786

271,623

31

Entitle-ment

3.05 '3.053.063.02

- 3.042.882.932.98 !3.02 |2.94 j2.973.132.95 13.053.123.113.133.063.042.962.862.912.852.86

71.97AV : 3,776 AV : 3,773

(ii)

(iii)

The Kirklees Metropolitan Liberal Group consider that many anomaliesarise from the draft proposals, to some extent due to the fact thatKirklees in addition to being Metropolitan is also rural in character.

Councillor H. Senior of the Kirklees Council cites examples ofinconsistencies in the proposed scheme where the use of main roadsas ward "boundaries cut recognised communities in two, and wherewell established known communities are 'added to wards completelyforeign to them.

(iv) The Huddersfield Conservative Association whilst supporting thedraft proposals suggest a number of minor adjustments to theboundary lines.

(v) The Colne Valley Division Liberal Association support the Commission'sproposal to divide the Borough into 2U wards, but object to certainproposed boundaries which they claim do not respect local ties and insome instances areas with little or no community of interest have beengrouped together. They put forward alternative proposals forthe western side of the Borough comprising 14 wards, retaining the

- 8 -

existing polling districts intact and giving ward electoratesranging from 10, 00 to 11,700 approximately in the wards proposedIheir scheme for these lU wards is as follows:-

KirkburtonDeightonDalt onBirkby and FartownMarsh and PaddockAlmondburyLockwood and NewsomeCrosland MoorLindleyGolcarColne Valley WestHonley and MelthamHolmfirthDenby Dale

Number ofCouncillors

3333333 -3333333

1976^s

Electorate

10,67111,36U11,71311,08910,62110,1*0811.07111,1*7311.00810,73510,7^011,22211,13111,1*39

i ^

Entitlement

2.833.013.10 .2.91*2.812.762.933.0U2.922.31*2.8U2.912.953.03

15. The remaining comments received by the Commission to its draft proposalsrelated to the several wards. Grounds of objection included the following:-

(a) Local ties have been ignored for the sake of achieving equality ofrepresentation;

(b) The interests of rural communities would be subordinated to those of thelarger urban areas in the ward proposed;

(c) Some communities, or parts thereof, which have no links with othercommunities have been linked together;

(d) Certain estates have been split unnecessarily.

Alternative proposals were suggested in several instances, (a) with a view toproviding more logical boundaries, (b) in order to link communities with commoninterests, (c) by avoiding the mix of rural and urban areas in the same ward,the minimum of disruption and misunderstanding would arise and unequalrepresentation for the inhabitants of the rural areas would not take place.

16. In support of various proposals, petitions from the inhabitants ofShepley (705) and Whitley Upper (22*0) were submitted objecting to theirmovement out of the Kirkburton Ward.

17. Alternative names for several wards were suggested by the Labour andLiberal parties and also by individuals.

18. I deal with the comments received by the Commission to their draftproposals and outlined above in more detail later in my report. The reportis not in any way a verbatim note of every word that was said at the meetingbut is, I hope, a fair summary of the principal points made by the variousspeakers, both initially and in reply, and also includes vievs expressed inthe comments sent to the Commission.

- 9 -

THE MEETING

19. The meeting was conducted as informally as possible.

20. After opening the meeting and outlining its purpose and the issues whichappeared to arise, I pointed out that with regard to some proposed amendmentse.g. as to names of wards, it might be possible to reach agreement thereonand'thus for them to be acceptable to all. With regard to County electoralarrangements and District wards I mentioned that whilst recognising thatcompatability was desirable it was not essential.

21. I drew attention to the large number of permutations which had beensuggested for amending certain ward boundafres and reminded those presentthat their effect on adjoining areas would have to be considered in detail inorder that the rules laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 11,Para. 3 were met. These rules formed constraints and they had to be followedin our consideration of the amendments proposed.

22. Mr. E. S. Dixon, Chief Executive, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Councilreviewed the background to the two schemes which had been submitted to theCommission by the Council - the 27 ward scheme when the Labour Party controlledthe Council, and the 2U ward scheme when the Conservative Party took control inMay 1976. The latter scheme divided the area into the same number of wards asexisted at the present time. The average electorate per Councillor for 1976was 3776 and this dropped slightly to 37 5 in the estimates for 1981.

23. The 2k ward scheme proposals complied with the rules set out in the Act.Kirklees had not carried out any Parish reviews and there were U Parisheswithin the District, viz. Meltham, Holme Valley, Denby Dale, and Kirkburton.With the exception of Meltham, the Parishes were warded.

2U. The Kirklees Council had no- comments on the Commission's draft proposals.

25. I observed that the Council's estimated total electorate for 1981 was269,619 whilst the Labour Party's estimate was 271,623, only slightly lessthan the 1976 figure of 271,877. Mr. Dixon said that various formulae hadbeen considered in connection with the prediction of electorate in 1981 andcalled Mr. J. E. Miller, M.Sc. the Council's Chief Planning Officer concernedwith the prediction of ward electorates in connection with the Council'ssubmission.

The method used in predicting the total electorate was to take the 1973 ratioof electors to home population and applying that ratio to the 198l populationestimate. As the 197 based projections were not available, the 198lpopulation estimate was derived by using the 1973 based natural increase to198l and applying the net migration assumptions agreed for incorporation intothe 197 based projection.

In predicting the 198l electorate for each ward, three factors had beenconsidered: (i) the construction of new properties, (ii) demolition andclearance of existing properties, (iii)migration of electors within existingproperties.

26. Councillor T. Megahy, for the Labour Party, said that they preferredthe formula used by the Council's own officials when Kirklees Councilproduced a 27 ward scheme prior to May 1976. Citing as an example the

- 10 -

Mirfield Ward the original figures for this ward were 10,195 in 1975 and10,733 in 1981. He considered that these figures were incompatible withthe present estimates of a decrease from 12,280 in 1976 to 12,091 in 1981in a bigger ward. He and his Labour Party colleagues felt that the semi-scientific method of estimation more recently used by the Council was notas accurate as their method of using known factors in the various wardsespecially having regard to what had taken place in those wards in recentyears and current building rates. He felt that there was an underestimatein the numbers in various individual wards. Mr. Dixon pointed out insupport of the estimated electorate that the base figure for the laterestimate for 1981 (that included in the Commission's draft proposals) hadbeen supplied by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and thishad not been used in the 1975 calculations vhen the 27 ward scheme had beendrawn up.

27. Mr. Dixon said that in drawing up the Council's scheme, which formedthe basis for the Commission's draft proposals, the constraints had beenobserved and pointed out the domino or ripple effect which results whenmoving electorate from Ward to Ward.

28. Councillor T. P. Cliffe, Leader of the Kirklees Council, said the schemesubmitted by the Council and which had been incorporated in the Commission'sdraft proposals, with the exception of the amendment proposed by the HolmeValley Parish Council, was accepted, although they preferred their originalscheme, had been drawn up by the Conservative members of the Council withofficer advice. They had tried to retain communities as far as possible.Sometimes this was not possible owing to the constraints with regard to thesize of the electorate in a particular ward and the principles recommendedwith regard to Boundary making and the preference for major roads. TheA.62 road had been used as a boundary for three wards.

Existing wards ranged from 1 ,829 electors to 6,852 and change was thereforenecessary. The existing wards had been used as starting points, but it hadbeen necessary to move electors to unfamiliar wards and groupings, having'regard to the fact that the same number of wards were being used.

He would be agreeing later in the meeting to a slight amendment to theDewsbury South and Denby Dale ward boundaries suggested by the ThornhillNo. 1 Ward Conservative Association.

Councillor Cliffe criticised both the Labour and Liberal proposals for notincluding in their alternative schemes any reference to a ward bearing thename Huddersfield. There had been a village of that name since .before thesetting up of Huddersfield in 1868 by the amalgamation of ten areas and hefelt that, not only on grounds of historical association, but also becausethere was still an identifiable Central Huddersfield area, albeit it was nearlyall commercial, the name should be retained.

29. Councillor Megahy said that the Labour Party whilst still of the opinionthat the 27 ward scheme which they had proposed when in power was a good one,realised that because of the relationship with the other Metropolitanauthorities in West Yorkshire and with the County, they should restrictconsideration of alternatives to the Commission's draft proposals to their2k ward scheme.

- 11 -

In putting forward their scheme the Labour Party had been conscious of thewholesale upheaval which had taken place during local government reorganisationin 1973 and had been concerned about the effect that a further wholesalereorganisation of wards may have on local democracy and participation ingovernment.

For this reason they had based their scheme on existing wards, consistentwith the need to achieve the required distribution of electorates, and withthe exception of a number of cases where anomalies in the existing set updemanded a change.

With regard to the Commission's draft proposals the Labour Party found theseunacceptable on two counts. First, the variation in size of electorate istoo wide. The difference between the smallest ward in 1981 of 10,129, andthe largest of 12,272 represents a variation of 19% and in eight of theremaining wards the variation is more than 10%. (These figures are evenworse in 1976 ranging from 9,1 8 to 12,1*31, although the particular wardsof Birkby and Birstall respectively do fall within the tolerances in the1981 estimated figures) . Secondly, little regard seems to have been paidto the preservation of local communities. In numerous instances localcommunities have been split between two wards and in other instances partsof communities, or whole small communities, have been detached from areaswith which they have a long standing affinity and placed with areas withwhich they have no affinity and little, if any, communication. This was soin the proposed Colne Valley West, Denby Dale, Kirkburton, Dewsbury South,Batley North, Birstall, Cleckheaton, Liversedge, Heckmondwike and MirfieldWards.

Further, the draft proposals produced wards which ran counter to the linesof natural and road communications. In their alternative scheme they hadused these lines of communications to better advantage.

The Labour Party was strongly against a Huddersfield Central Ward andcriticised the shape of the proposed Paddock and Birkby Wards. They didnot wish any alteration to the existing Wards, and therefore they were ofthe opinion that the final scheme should be as near as possible to theexisting wards.

30. Councillor H. Senior, Leader of the Liberal Group on Kirklees Council,also represented various Liberal associations in Kirklees. He stated thatMr. E. Dunford, Secretary of the Colne Valley Division Liberal Association,would also represent Liberal Party views.

Councillor Senior supported a 2k ward scheme and spoke of the geographicalnature of Kirklees with its valleys and in places independent communities.The Liberals felt that communities should not be broken up but thiswould be inevitable if one stuck rigidly to constructing wards of equalnumbers. Kirklees is not a uniformly built-up, urban, Metropolitan typeof area, but includes extensive areas of a rural nature in between townshipsand settlements, some with only a small number of people.

Ward boundaries should consist of natural boundaries like rivers, streamsand water courses, and in some places railway lines, rather than main roadswhich tend to divide communities .

- 12 -

Kirklees consists of two major areas, well defined and in many ways separateentities. These are based on Dewsbury in the north consisting of theformer County Borough of Dewsbury, the former Borough of Batley andSpenborough and the former Urban Districts of Heckmondwike and Mirfield.The other area consists of the former County Borough of Huddersfield and theformer Urban Districts adjoining it, namely Denby Dale, Kirkburton, Holmfirth,Meltham Call of which are now Parish Councils) and Colne Valley, for all ofwhich Huddersfield is the focal point. There is a natural division betweenthese two major areas consisting of a rural belt and the Liberals do notbelieve it is appropriate to construct wards across it.

In the opinion of the Liberals the northern area (the old Heavey Woollen areaand Spen Valley) should be divided into ten wards and the area based onHuddersfield into lU wards. They supported Labour's 2k ward scheme for thenorthern area and were opposed to the Commission's draft proposals mainlyon the grounds that they carve up established communities, in particular inRavensthorpe.

With regard to the other area based on Huddersfield, they considered thatneither the draft proposals of the Commission nor those of the Labour Partyare appropriate. They, therefore, put forward their own scheme whichproduces not only compact wards but the districts covered by them standtogether. Their scheme is based on existing polling districts which havealways been together and usually have gone well together, and which arewell understood by electors.

Councillor Senior then referred to various ward proposals but I shall includethese in the wards when they are considered individually later in this report.

31. KIRKBURTON/ALMONDBURY/DENBY DALE WARDS

Mr. D. Billington and Mr. K. S . Moore represented the villagers of Shepley,a resolution to that effect having been passed at a Village Meeting on 12thJanuary 1978, together with a further resolution "That the people ofShepley strongly oppose the Boundaries Commission's proposals to includeShepley in the Almondbury Ward and therefore propose that they remain in theKirkburton Ward". These resolutions were supported by the signatures of1019 persons who live in Shepley and as the village's total electorate is1713 this means that 59.5% were in favour of the propositions.

This resolution, supported by the 1019 signatures, is in addition to thepetition from 705 residents which was sent to the Commission prior to thedraft proposals being formulated.

Mr. Billington could find no benefit in the proposed amalgamation of Shepleyand Almondbury apart from the attempt to bring the average electorate perward to 11,300. Many disadvantages were obvious making the proposalsunacceptable if people are to be more important than politics and if peopleand names are to count for more than numbers.

Mr. Billington had lived in Almondbury for over twenty years and in Shepleyfor twelve years and, therefore, knew both areas intimately. There wasnothing wrong with Almondbury or its population, but it is suburban andtown orientated as compared to Shepley which is completely rural and villageorientated. The interests of the two are very diverse. There is no

- 13 -

direct "bus conmunication and for a forty-five minute meeting in Almondburyit could take three hours to accomplish. There is, in effect, no means of•reasonable public transport between Shepley and Almondbury.

Shepley is an old established village, with an excellent 20th Centurycommunity spirit and has 28 independent organisations. Mr. Billingtonhad carried out a straw inquiry at Almondbury and of some fifty peoplequestioned only seven knew of Shepley and only three could explain how toget there.

Kirkburton ward is made up of other villages very similar to Shepley andwhere their problems and way of life are appreciated. There are nogeographical connections between Shepley and Almondbury, indeed Shepleyis in a completely separate valley. There is, however, historicalecclesiastical affinity with Kirkburton as well as other daily links .

Despite the fact that there was a Kirkburton Parish Council there had beenno consultation stemming from the Kirklees Council with regard to thematter of boundary reorganisation. Contact with the various departmentsof the Kirklees Council was already most difficult as some of the serviceswere administered from as far away as Dewsbury and Batley. People didnot know where to contact departments and therefore readily availablecontact with Councillors was essential.

If moved to the Almondbury ward, Shepley would still be part of KirkburtonParish and it would be a natural result for that Council to lose interestin their area.

Under the proposals of the Commission, Shepley would be left virtuallywithout representation. It was noted that the various political partieshad for- electoral purposes suggested they go into the Kirkburton, DenbyDale, Holme Valley or Almondbury wards. On the other hand, the peopleof Shepley merely wanted fair representation and a fair deal for theirvillage.

32. Mr. K. S. Moore of Shepley stated that he was proposing an alternativescheme but was not submitting definitive boundary plans of suggested wardsas his proposals were based on non-divided polling stations of which theCommission would have details already. He criticised the Council^ schemeand the Commission's draft proposals for splitting many of the existingpolling stations and putting the parts into different wards. He consideredthis to be contrary to the rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972.Mr. Moore was also critical of the fact that Kirklees Council in drawing uptheir schemes had not had direct consultation with the Kirkburton ParishCouncil. He considered that section 6 of the Local Government Act 1972required the District Council to confer with Parish Councils in their areaand that public notice of the preparation of a scheme and inviting commentswas insufficient consultation.

Mr. Moore was also critical of the number of Councillors suggested, viz 72,As Kirklees was part of West Yorkshire, were all wards in each of the otherDistricts of West Yorkshire to have similar electorates? With regard tothe electorate for a town's central ward he considered that purely onaccount of its commercial aspect it was bound to have less electors thanresidential wards. His proposals took account of this and his proposalsfor Huddersfield Central Ward showed only 7,959 electors with representa-tion by two Councillors only.

Mr. Moore felt that historic or ecclesiastic boundaries should be used asward boundaries as these had been in existence in many cases for a longtime and were true, accepted and easily identifiable lines. On thequestion of local ties one had to have regard to ecclesiastic deaneriesand he produced a schedule which indicated the relationship of variouschurches (C of E) in the former Kirkburton U.D.C. area with the relevantdeaneries.

Mr. Moore considered the area of Shepley had better representation on theformer Kirkburton U.D.C. than it could possibly have under the newproposals. It was obvious that outsiders were pushing Shepley eitherto Denby Dale or to Almondbury, but the population of Shepley wished'toremain in Kirkburton ward.

Mr. Moore put forward his alternative scheme which took account of thenatural geographic divisions of the respective villages which constitutedsuch an important part of the southern area of Kirklees. His schemecovered only the I1* wards in the southern area of Kirklees based on theold County Borough of Huddersfield, together with the additional areasincorporated to the south. Because his proposals allocated only twoCouncillors to his Central Ward, the spare Councillor could represent hisproposed Kirkburton ward, which would include Shepley, Thurstonland andFarnley Tyas with an electorate of 13,33^, or a further alternative of thewhole of the Kirkburton Parish Council with an electorate of 15,102. Ifthis were not possible he felt that it would be better to transfer theKirfceaton part of the Kirkburton Parish to Dalton Ward rather than moveShepley to Almondbury,

Mr. Di'xon commented briefly on Mr. Moore's alternative scheme and saidthat, as suggested, it would result in "islands" of polling districts inat least two wards, viz. Primrose Hill in Crosland Ward and Ashenhurstin Huddersfield Central Ward.

33. In connection with Mr. Billington's evidence, Councillor Megahy pointedout that under present legislation a Councillor need not reside eitherbefore or after election in the ward which he represents on the DistrictCouncil, so that Almondbury Ward Councillors would not necessarily residein the Almondbury area of the ward merely because that is where the majorityof the electorate lived. Councillor Megahy also criticised the productionof an alternative scheme by Mr. Moore at the meeting, as other interestedpersons and bodies, some of whom were not present at the meeting, had nothad the opportunity of examining it carefully.

In reply to Mr. Dunford, Mr. Billington stated that the incorporation ofShepley in Denby Dale or Holme Valley South was preferable to Almondbury.Mr. Rhodes, of Kirkburton Parish Council, supported Mr. Billington's viewwith regard to a possible incorporation in Denby Dale, but Councillor Moore.a Kirkburton Ward Councillor, said that when there was a Boundary inquiryin 196l the inclusion of Shepley in Holmfirth or Denby Dale had beenstrongly resisted.

31*. Mr. J. Moore of Shepley spoke in support of the evidence given byMr. Billington and Mr. K. S. Moore especially having regard to theresolution of the 1019 Shepley residents.

- 15 -

35. I read the written comments of Mr. P. Unwin of Shepley who objected tothe transfer of Shepley to Almondbury Ward. Mr. Unvin put forward some ofthe points made by Mr. Billington and also felt that it would be moredifficult for a Councillor to serve a rural and urban area where there werediffering and district outlooks and attitudes to the various problems whicharise. Further there would be comfusion in the minds of electors by differentboundaries for parish and metropolitan borough council wards. Mr. A. Belcher,for the Labour Party, pointed out that the Local Government Act 1972 did notdifferentiate between urban and rural areas .

36. Mr. P. Grainger of Shepley was not present at the meeting so I read hiswritten comments. Although he does not agree with Kirkburton Parish Council'sview that the parish should constitute a ward by itself (it is itself anartificial unit), he felt that essentially rural areas should not be groupedwith urban areas and suggested an alternative scheme for Almondbury, Daltonand Kirkburton wards, as follows:-

Ward

Almondbury (- parish wards ofShepley and Thurstonland andFarnley Tyas, + electors southof Wakefield Road)

Dalton (+ parish ward of Kirkheaton,- electors south of Wakefield Road)

Kirkburton (- parish ward ofKirkheaton, + parish wards ofShepley and Thurstonland andFarnley Tyas)

Mo. ofCouncillors

Electorate19T6

11,709approx.

11,677approx

10,

Entitlement

3.10

3.09

2.78

Mr. Grainger considers that his proposals provide a more logical boundarybetween Almondbury and Dalton by using the Wakefield Road and would linkKirkheaton with Dalton with which it has much in common.

The Labour Party would not object to this proposal, although they preferredtheir own scheme. The Liberals thought the variant feasible andCouncillor Cliffe, on behalf of the Council, would have no basic objection.

37. Mr. M. Waddington of Kirkheaton, a Kirkburton Parish Councillor, wasnot present at the meeting so I referred to his written comments. ...It wasnot possible to verify the figures he quoted in his variation of wards.His scheme envisaged the inclusion of Shepley in Denby Dale Ward instead ofAlmondbury.since representatives of Denby Dale were more likely to understandthe problems of Shepley than the more urban area of Almondbury and that byavoiding the mix of rural and urban areas, the minimum of disruption andmisunderstanding would arise.

The numerical effect of Mr. Waddington's uroposals is as follows:-1976

Ward No. of Councillors Electorate Entitlement

Denby Dale(+ Shepley)

Almondbury(- Shepley)

12,681* 3.36

2.50

- 16 -

Although Mr. Waddington does not say so, it is possible he intendsThurstonland and Farnley Tyas to be transferred from Almondbury whichwould affect the Almondbury figures still further.

38. Councillor G. Earnshaw, Chairman, Kirkburton Parish Council, statedthat his Parish Council had not been consulted by the Kirklees Council vithregard to its proposals for the Kirkburton Ward and he felt that thecommunities in his area had not been considered. Kirkburton wished toremain as it is, but if numbers must dictate then reluctantly the majorityof the Council felt it must be the Kirkheaton Parish ward which would haveto go. In saying this he felt that if different wards of the Parish wentinto several wards of the District it would mean the break up of theParish Council as it is now. It would be a blow to community relations ifThurstonland and Farnley lyas and Shepley Parish wards were transferred toAlmondbury District ward. This-would mean the amalgamation of 2,600 ruralelectors with 8,500 mainly urban electors. Councillor Earnshaw referredto the petitions from residents in the Whitley Upper and Shepley Parishwards requesting to remain in Kirkburton ward.

In reply to Councillor Cliffe, Councillor Earnshaw agreed that the proposedelectorate for Denby Dale without Whitley Upper, Whitley Lower and Briestfieldwould be low, 10,050, and therefore consideration might have to be given toWhitley Lower and Briestfield being included in Denby Dale, although thiswould create an "island" of electors separate from the rest of the ward. Inreply to Councillor F. Pickles, Thornhill Ward, Councillor Earnshaw agreedthat neither Briestfield nor Whitley Lower were part of Kirkburton ParishCouncil. In reply to Mr. Dunford, Councillor Earnshaw stated that Shepleydid not wish to go with Denby Dale even though communications between thetwo were good. Councillor Ramsden pointed out that Councillor Earnshaw 'slater possible attachments would affect the Labour Party's proposals forthe Ravensthorpe area.

39. Mr. Ian Mercer, Clerk to the Kirkburton Parish Council also gaveevidence in support of the Parish Council's proposals, which vary theCommission's draft proposals as follows :-

(a) Shepley, Thurstonland and From Almondbury to KirkburtonFarnley Tyas

(b) Kirkburton From Kirkburton to Dalton

(c) Whitley Upper and Briestfield From Denby Dale to Kirkburton

(d) Whitley Lower From Denby Dale to Dewsbury South

(e) Part of Dalton From Dalton to Almondbury

Mr . Dixon supplied the numbers of electorate for these changed areas,including the estimates for 1981:-

1976 1981(a)

2,713

661

188

2,970

- IT -

The wards proposed would have electorates as follows:-

1976 1981

Almondbury 11,693 (+ 3.2%) 11,52^ (+ 2 .6%)

Kirkburton 11,221 (- 0 .9%) 11,725 (+ ^ .k%)

Dalton 11,693 ( + 3 . 2 % ) 11,302 (+ 0 .6%)

Denby Dale - 10,050 (- 11.35?) 10,7^* (- 5.1%)

Dewsbury South 12,^73 (+ 10.1%) 11,638 ( + 3.6%)

Although not specified by the Kirkburton Parish Council it is assumed fromthe figures quoted that the variation of the Dalton and Almondbury wardswould mean the use of the Wakefield Road referred to by Mr. Grainger in hisproposals (Para. 36 of this Report) as the boundary.

Mr. Mercer said that although Briestfield did not form part of KirkburtonParish, as at present constituted, it is essentially part of Grange Moorand should be included with the Whitley Upper ward. Less than 100 electorswere involved,

Uo. Councillor G. Rushforth of Grange Moor and a Kirkburton Parish Councillorreferred to the petition from 220 residents in the Whitley Upper Parish wardrequesting that this area remain within the Kirkburton Ward and objecting tothe proposal that it should be included in Denby Dale ward. The signatoriesdo not accept that the proposed change would improve local elected representa-tion or make for more efficient local government. He stated there were noties, local or geographical, between Grange Moor and the Denby Dale area, butthere were with Lepton and Kirkheaton. He did not think that Briestfieldshould be linked with Dewsbury South.

1*1. A letter was read from the Yorkshire Parish Councils Association, statingthat in the-interests of the rural community involved, the Kirkburton ParishCouncil's recommendations should be given favourable consideration.

U2. Mr. F. Appleyard, of Shepley, did not give evidence, but his writtencomments on the draft proposals were considered in conjunction with the otherproposals for this area. He objected to the use of the name Denby Dale,considering that Skelmanthorpe was more appropriate. He thought that theproposed Denby Dale ward should not include the Flockton and Whitley areasfor, apart from the fact that there is a green belt between the areas, thereis no direct route by either road, rail, canal or river. He furtherobjected to the inclusion of Shepley with Almondbury. It had more incommon with-Kirkburton or Denby Dale. He then put forward his proposalswhich would have the following effects on the Commission's proposals, withfigures supplied by Mr. Dixon:-

(a) Shepley From Almondbury to Denby Dale

(b) Flockton and Whitley Upper From Denby Dale to Kirkburton

(c) Whitley and Briestfield From Denby Dale to Dewsbury South

(d) Undetermined area From Kirkburton to Almondbury

- 18 -

Electorates 1976 1981

Ca) 1,713 1,789

(b) i,U95 1,509

Cc) 299 276

(d) X Y

Proposed Wards 1976 198l

Almondbury 9 , U 2 U + X 9,^51 + Y

Denby Dale 10,890 (- 3.9%) 11,597 (+ 3

Kirkburton 12,215 - X 12,600 - Y

Dewsbury South 12,568 (+ 10.9JO 11,726 (+ k

U3. In order to bring the Almondbury electorate up to within 10$ of theaverage,"X" will have to equal at least 770. The three polling districtsof Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas have a 1976 electorate of 915 which woulddo - but Mr. Appleyard would probably object to that. Because Kirkburtonis a Parish which is warded it is not possible to split the parish wardsadjoining Almondbury ward.

M*. The Labour Party scheme for this part of the District, which issupported by the Colne Valley Constitutency Labour Party, the Clayton Westand Scissett Labour Party, the Skelmanthorpe Branch Labour Party, the DenbyDale Parish Council, and Mr. L. Rowling of Clayton West, is for Shelley tobe linked with Denby Dale, with which it has educational and geographicallinks and a bus connection. Whitley Upper and Flockton would form part ofthe Kirkburton ward whilst Whitley Lower and Briestfield would form part ofDewsbury South (Thornhill) as they have no connection with Denby Dale. IfShelley is not to be included, Flockton could. The 198l projection wouldmean that the electorate would be satisfactory as regards numbers. Shepley,as in the Commission's proposals, would form part of Almondbury ward.

1*5. The Liberal Party proposed that Shepley should "be included with HolmeVftl ipy Smith fHoiTuf- i r th) it could, alternatively, be included with DenbyDale or remain with Kirkburton. If, however, it remained with Kirkburton,without other alteration, the Kirkburtcn ward would be too large. Theyconsidered that notonly should Kirkheaton remain with Kirkburton ward, butit should also include the Briggate polling district in the Dalton wardwith which it is linked ecclesiastically. The Liberals also favouredWhitley Upper with the Kirkburton ward rather than the Commission's proposalsto place it in the Denby Dale ward.

The Liberal Party proposal to include Flockton and Shelley in Denby Daleis simply to lift the numbers in the Denby Dale ward. They are, however,strongly opposed to Whitley Lower and Briestfield being included with DenbyDale since these form part of Dewsbury.

^6, Councillor A. A. Mason, Kirkburton Ward Councillor, stated that thepeople of Shelley would not wish to go into Denby Dale ward.

- 19 -

. KIRKBURTON/DEWSBURY SOUTH WARDS

Uy. Councillor F. Pickles, Thornhill, on "behalf of the Kirklees No. 1(Thornhill Ward) Labour Party, pointed out that in the Commission's proposalsthe villages of Whitley (20U) and Briestfield (95) were taken out of Thornhill(Dewsbury South) and put in Denby Dale, presumably to make up numbers. Thesevillages were linked to Dewsbury educationally and communication-wise andthere was no bus service to Denby Dale. The ward should be named Thornhillon account of its historical association with that name,

U8. Mrs. N. Hodgkinson on behalf of the Thornhill No. 1 Ward ConservativeAssociation agreed with Councillor Pickles re Whitley Lower and Briestfieldwith regard to their identification with Dewsbury and forming part of theDewsbury South ward.

The Ward Conservatives also considered that the River Calder should form theWard boundary on the North-Western side rather than Huddersfield Road whichsplit the Ravensthorpe community in two.

U9. Councillor Cliffe said that the Kirklees Council would accept thatBriestfield and Whitley Lower should be part of Dewsbury South. He alsoagreed that this ward might be renamed Thornhill.

50. Councillor Pickles queried the number of electors in 198l in theCommission's proposals for the Dewsbury South ward. The ward in Labour'soriginal scheme showed an increase of 277 whilst the present proposals ofthe Commission showed a decrease of 8l9 for a larger ward. Their figurestake known developments into account. There were no ties betweenRavensthorpe and Dewsbury South, and it should not be included therein, evenin part.

51. Councillor Senior, for the Liberal Party, said they were generally inagreement with the Labour Party scheme for the North-Eastern wards of theDistrict and with the name of Thornhill for Dewsbury South.

52. Councillor A. Ramsden, Dewsbury Labour Party, said that in Labour'sproposals for Thornhill (Dewsbury South) it had an electorate of 11, 60.As a result of known developments this number could well rise to 12,000.The Commission's proposals split the community of Ravensthorpe and they hadno connection with Thornhill ward,

53. Councillor Megahy stated that the written comments made by the DewsburyConstituency Labour Party were not being proceeded with.

5^. The written comment of the Dewsbury Civic Society was read. Theyobjected to Whitley and Briestfield becoming part of Denby Dale ward; parts,of Ravensthorpe becoming part of Thornhill ward; and parts of Dewsbury Moorbecoming part of Heckmondwike.

DEWSBURY EAST/BATLEY SOUTH WARDS

55. Councillor C. C. Walker of Dewsbury supported his written comment thathe objected to the Commission's proposals for Batley South and Dewsbury Eastwards on account of the boundary splitting of the area known as HangingHeaton. This area had been splitin the past but not the community whichinhabited the old part thereof. He was in agreement with the Labour Partyscheme for a Batley East ward, instead of a Batley South, and this wardwould consist of the present Kirklees ward 12, totalling 8,837, together

- 20 -

with Bennett Lane polling district (DV), part, 1,200 electors, All Saintspolling district (DF), part, 263 electors, and the B.I polling districtfrom existing Kirklees Ward No. 1^, 1,517 electors, giving a total for thisward of ll,8lT. This electorate is not dissimilar to the Commission'sproposal for Batley South of 11,869.

56. Mr. J. S. Watson, Batley and Morley Constituency Labour Party, spoke insupport of the written comments on the Commission's draft proposals. Hewas concerned with the existing 12, 13 and 1^ wards of the Kirklees Council.In their proposals for this area they had endeavoured to retain existingcommunities. In ward 12 the Commission's proposed boundary went throughthe middle of Old Hanging Heaton. In ward 13 the proposed boundary goesup Healey Lane and splits the Healey area, whilst in ward 1^ the districtof Birstall is split in two - one side is in Birstall ward and the otherin Batley North. The people of Batley have already been disturbed byLocal Government reorganisation, and it is difficult to see why it is nownecessary to split so many existing polling districts. In the Commission'sdraft proposals there are 91 parts of polling districts, including 9 for thearea of Batley alone. The Labour Party's alternative scheme, however,contains only IT parts of polling districts and only U for the Batley area.

57. Mrs. Hodgkinson, representing Thornhill No. 1 Conservative Association,was concerned about the boundary of Batley South ward and Dewsbury East wardsplitting the old area of Hanging Heaton. She considered that all HangingHeaton should be in Dewsbury East ward and that it should not split the newestate as the Labour Party scheme did.

BIRSTALL/CLECKHEATON/HECKMOHDWIKE/LIVERSEDGE WARDS

58. Mr. R. Stone's written comments were read. He is in favour of Birstallremaining within a single ward in view of its community and historicalassociations, and also that the name of the ward should remain, Birstall.He proposed that the Birstall ward should include all the Birstall ward ofthe former Batley Municipal Borough, together with polling districts BE, BFand the Smithies Moor area of BG, of the former North ward of Batley M.B.,and those parts of Gomersall from which Birstall is most easily accessible.The remaining parts of Gomersal and Birkenshaw should be included in theproposed Liversedge, Heckmondwike"and Cleckheaton wards where they morelogically belong, and which are below average size in the Commission's draftproposals.

Mr. Stone did not provide a map illustrating his proposals for the Birstallward but from his description of the areas involved (expressed in terms ofpolling districts) it would seem that they closely resemble the proposalsmade by the Labour Party. It does not seem possible to vary theCommission's draft proposals by incorporating Mr. Stone's suggestionswithout alterations to several neighbouring wards, viz Cleckheaton,Heckmondwike, Batley North, Batley South, Dewsbury East and Dewsbury West.His proposed alterations would require a comprehensive scheme.

59. Mr. Watson, Batley and Morley Constituency Labour Party, considered thatGomersal was properly aligned with Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike, as in theLabour Party proposals, rather than with Birstall, as in the Commission'sproposals, and with which there was little affinity.

- 21 -

60. The Cleckheaton, Liversedge and Heckmondwike, Gomersal and BirkenshawBranches of the Labour Party were not represented. Their written commentswere read. These included the comment that the linking of Birstall withBirkenshaw and Gomersal as proposed by the Commission was inadvisable sincethis new vard vould have no established framework or commonality and as suchvould be detrimental to these communities' involvement in local government.

61. Councillor Megahy supported the Branches Y observation regarding theproposed linking up of Gomersal and Birstall and added that Gomersal shouldbe with Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike with which they had always beenassociated. He stated that the information in the Branches' writtencomment regarding Fyenthall and Ashbourne estates was inaccurate and shouldbe disregarded.

62. The letter from the No. lU Ward-Members Branch Labour Party was read.They object to the Birstall community being split in two and claimed therewas no affinity between Birstall and Tong (Birkenshaw).

63. A written comment from Mr. C. Ball was read. He objected to theproposed changes in the Spenborough area for they completely disregardedhistoric, natural and identifiable boundaries and if implemented heconsidered they would be detrimental to the community. He suggested noalternative scheme for the area,

6U. Councillor S. Thornton had submitted a written plea for the use of thename Gomersal and not Birstall as the appropriate ward name. He forwardeda letter from the Brighouse and Spenborough Constituency ConservativeAssociation in support of his plea and also a Report of a Survey prepared.by the Planning Division, Directorate of Architecture, Planning andDevelopment, Kirklees Council, in connection with a draft ConservationArea for Gomersal. This latter document included historical evidencesupporting his plea. One of the points made "by the ConservativeAssociation was that as part of Birstall is outside the ward of that namein the Commission's proposals and the whole of Gomersal lies within it,inevitable confusion would be caused by the use of the name Birstall.

65. Both.the Labour and Liberal Parties' spokesmen said they were in favourof the use of the name Birstall rather than Gomersall and Councillor Cliffefor the Council had no comment.

66. Councillor Senior spoke on behalf of the Spenborough Liberal Association,who had submitted a written comment which was read to the Meeting, andconfirmed that the Liberals did not like the Commission's draft proposalswhich were based on the Conservative controlled Council's scheme. Theypreferred, if there had to be still further change, the Labour Party's2U Ward scheme for the Northern part of Kirklees.

>67. Councillor Me^ahy referred to the Labour Party's proposal for thenaming of the ward "Hightown", rather than "Liversedge" as in theCommission's proposals, on account of their scheme including the Liversedgeelectorate in the Heckmondwike Ward, and Hightown was consequently thelogical name for the ward, being based on the Hightown area. He alsopointed out that their scheme took the area known as Scholes into thesuggested Hightown ward rather than Cleckheaton as proposed.

- 22 -

MIRFIELD/HECKMONDWIKE/DEWSBURY WEST WARDS

68, Councillor Megahy for the Mirfield Labour Party said they appreciatedthey would have to shed, regrettably, some of the present electorate of theMirfield ward if the scheme was to be based purely on equality of electorateper 2k wards, and their suggestions were "based on this. Also, they hadregard to the expected 198l figures. Councillor Megahy repeated the viewsof his Party with regard to a probable increase of electorate as recordedin Paragraph 26 of this report. His proposals would result in some 2,000voters going into the Dewsbury West ward, whilst the Commission's proposalswould result in approximately 1, 00 voters going into Heckmondwike ward.He stated that there was a natural green belt between Mirfield andHeckmondwike and there was no through road link. Communications are withDewsbury, not Heckmondwike. • By transferring part of the electorate toDewsbury West this part would be joined up with Ravensthorpe with which ithas natural links already. The Mirfield Labour Party were not averse tothe area North-West of the A.62 road being added to the Liversedge wardin the Commission's proposals, or in Hightown in their own-scheme. Theelectorate involved was 65 in 1976 and 60 in 1981.

The Kirklees Council had set up five Area Care schemes. Under this, Mirfieldis linked with Dewsbury, whilst Heckmondwike is linked with Batley inanother area. Variations as proposed by the Commission would cause greatconfusion in the minds of the electorate affected and would also have- theeffect of causing the Heckmondwike Councillors to attend two Area Caremeetings.

69. The Labour Party proposals would result in the following changes to theCommission's proposals:-

„ m Electorate2E 22. 1976" 1951

(a) Parts of Northorpe Heckmondwike Mirfield 796 733

(b) Parts of Eastthorpe Mirfield Dewsbury . Q,Q . gggand Northorpe West * '

The resultant wards would then have the following electorates, amendingthe Commission's proposals:-

1976 1981

Mirfield 11,2 6 11,138

Dewsbury West 13,927 13,1 1

Heckmondwike 9,91& 9,6ll

Incorporating in the Labour scheme the amendment of transferring the electorateNorth-West of the A.62 road from Mirfield to Hightown would result as follows:-

1976 1981 0

Mirfield 11.2U6 11,138

Hightown 11,787 11,791

- 23 -

TO.- Councillor Cliffe stated that the Council's Area Care Scheme had beendrawn up on the existing wards and could "be varied if required.Councillor Cliffe called Councillor Mrs. M. Wood, as representative for theMirfield ward, who said that the Council's proposals, which had "been adopted"by the Commission, had used the boundary of the old Mirfield Urban DistrictCouncil as the ward boundary and that alterations had been kept to aminimum. With regard to Councillor Megahy's forecast of an increase inthe electorate by 1981 Councillor Wood said there was now resistance tohigh density development in Mirfield and she felt the Council's laterestimates should be followed.

Councillor Wood was of the opinion that the links between Mirfield andRavensthorpe were not as strong as previously, and that whilst there weregood shopping facilities in Mirfield, should anyone require large items forthe house they may be attracted to Leeds, Bradford or Huddersfield, but notnecessarily to Dewsbury. She was also of the opinion that parents of someschoolchildren wished to send their children to schools in Heckmondwikerather than Dewsbury. Councillor Megahy pointed out that this was becausethere were still selective schools in Heckmondwike but not in Devsbury.Further, the school catchment areas had been chosen as reflecting communityboundaries.

With regard to communications Councillor Wood felt it was not too difficultto travel either to Heckmondwike or Huddersfield via the A.62.

71. Councillor Cliffe called Councillor B. Eley, ward Councillor forMirfield, who lived in Mirfield and who had also lived in Ravensthorpe.He fully supported the Commission's draft proposals for the area as awhole on account of geographical and community interests.

72. Councillor Senior for the Dewsbury Liberals said that they would havepreferred Mirfield Ward to have remained as it is now, but if alterationsare necessary then the parts of Northorpe 1 and Northorpe 2 polling districtsshould be added to Dewsbury West and not Heckmondwike as in the Commission'sproposals.

This would affect the wards as follows:-

1976 Electorate 1981 Electorate

Heckmondwike 9,676 9,387

Dewsbury West' 13,3l8 13,OU8

73. The written comment of Mr. J. Hutchinson of Mirfield was also consideredHe objects to the community known as Lower Northorpe being split betweenMirfield and Heckmondwike wards. That part in the Heckmondwike ward haslittle in common with Keckmondwike and the rest of that ward from which itis separated by a green belt, nor is there a direct road link or bus link.Lower Northorpe looks to Mirfield for some things and to Ravensthorpe forothers.

Mr. Hutchinson considers that Pinching Dyke which has been used as a boundaryof the old Mirfield U.D.C. should be used as the boundary between LowerNorthorpe and Heckmondwike.

The effect on the electorates would "be as follows:-

Northorpe 1 and 2 Polling Districts (part) From Heckmondwike to Mirfield

1976 1981

1,038 957

Heckmondwike 9,676 9,387

Mirfield 13,318 13,0 8

Mr. Hutchinson's further alternative scheme is the same as enunciated by theDewsbury Liberals in Paragraph 72 of this Report.

7^. The Mirfield Civic Society also made written comment and this was readat the Hearing. They considered that the proposals broke up existingcommunities, particularly in their relationship to Mirfield. They suggested,(a) the retention of the present ward boundaries which are geographicallysound and related to the town map (Development Plan). Should this lead toan unbalanced electoral representation then they suggest (b) the linking ofRavensthorpe with Mirfield.

Without more detailed definition it was impossible to know the exact proposalsof the Society, but it was obvious to those at the meeting that they could notbe viewed in isolation.

COLNE VALLEY WEST/GQLCAR/PADDOCK WARDS

75. Councillor Senior and the Colne Valley Division Liberal Associationdid not agree with the Commission's proposals with regard to Linthwaite,which was included as to part in Colne Valley West ward and as to part inGolcar ward. This was the result of taking the ward boundary as theManchester Road (Linthwaite) instead of the River Colne which should beused and so keep the community of Linthwaite together. They furthersuggested that the area of polling district Slaithwaite 5, electorate 171,should go into Golcar ward as it was part of the Golcar ecclesiasticalparish and has stronger association with Golcar than Slaithwaite.

Linthwaite Zl polling district was part of the old Huddersfield constituency,was in Milnsbridge Kuddersfield, and was not linked with Colne Valley.The Liberals therefore considered this area should be linked with Croslandrather than with Golcar ward as in the Commission's proposals and as agreedby the Labour Party scheme.

76. Councillor Mrs. J. Smith considered that as there was a Colne ValleyWest ward in the proposals there should be a Colne Valley East ward also,and this name should be used, as proposed by the Labour Party, instead ofthe name Golcar.

77. Mr. Belcher, for the Labour Party, did not agree with the Liberalsthat polling district Slaithwaite 5 should go into Golcar ward. It shouldremain in Colne Valley West ward as proposed by the Commission. He didsuggest, however, that Longwood Gate polling district (1, 52 electors)should be in Golcar ward, and this was agreed by the Liberals, butCouncillor Cliffe, for the Council, did not agree and said it should gointo Paddock ward as proposed by the Commission.

78. The Liberals considered that Paddock ward should be re-drawn - inshape it was like a boomerang - but Councillor Cliffe said it had been inexistence since 1973 and there had been no objections. Councillor Megahy,for the Labour Party, said this ward was all tied up with the principle of aHuddersfield Central ward.

HUDDERSFIELD CENTRAL WARD

79. Councillor Cliffe, for the Council, said they considered that aHuddersfield Central ward was essential. Originally there had been avillage called Huddersfield circumscribed by roads just as there was nowa central area, or core, of the administrative area of Kirklees, and thistoo was circumscribed by roads. It was still an identifiable area, withits Churches and a YMCA residential centre. There had always beenHuddersfield named wards and the name should be retained.

80. Councillor Megahy called Mr. E. Moorhouse, a member of the HuddersfieldEast Labour Party. He outlined the history of Huddersfield, how the centralwards had changed over the years and that whilst the ten areas which hadformed Huddersfield in 1868 had provided a communal life and the communityspirit still existed in the other areas, the.long standing community in theHuddersfield Central area had been split and indeed the proposed boundariesof the Commission split them. The children who lived in the area would haveno school in its boundary - they would have to go to one of the 17 primaryschools and 5 comprehensive schools in the adjoining areas. With regardto the Churches and the cultural areas, the people who attend are notusually associated with the area. He felt that the ward proposed by theCommission was contrary to the criteria for wards. Community spirit whereit exists should be maintained - the Fartown community would be split bythe proposals. In the Labour Party proposals the whole of this area wouldbe in their Newsome ward. Primrose Hill which is included in theCommission's proposals for a Central Ward has no connection therewith andshould be included in their Newsorae ward. He supported the Labour Partyscheme covering the Central area, the numbers in the various suggested wardsbeing more equal than in the Commission's scheme.

81. Councillor R. Hartley also spoke in support of the Labour Party proposalsand against a Huddersfield Central ward. He considered the Commission'sproposal were hybrid with some parts of the ward up to two miles from theCentral Area. The history of Huddersfield has shown a lessening of the needfor a Central Ward and particularly since 1938. Lindley, Paddock and Birkbywards come very close to the centre and, if Huddersfield Central ward istaken out, the Labour Party proposals should be followed. His party wasalso concerned with the split in the existing voluntary services entailed inthe splitting of no less than U5 polling districts of the old Huddersfield C.B .in the Commission's draft proposals as compared with only two splits in theLabour Party's alternative scheme. He considered that Newsome was an areawith community interests and was not really a part of Huddersfield Central.

82. Mr. Dunford, for the Liberals, said there was no longer a cohesivecommunity right in the centre of Huddersfield, The two central wards in theold County Borough of Huddersfield did not represent communities at alllatterly and had become anachronisms. People living in the outlying areasof the proposed Central Ward would still consider themselves members of theadjoining, communities , rather than of a central community. One coulddiscount the YMCA which only had eight electors on the current Voters List.

- 26 -

They considered it was unnecessary to construct a ward purely to retain thename of Huddersfield. The areas covered by Polling Districts Primrose Hill,Lockwood, Newsome, Berry Brow and Armitage Bridge, which had been includedin Huddersfield Central ward should form part of their proposed ward Lockwoodand Newsome,

83. Councillor Cliffe said that in drawing up the Central Ward they had tohave regard to electoral numbers, and consequently had brought in some of theoutlying areas, but existing Ward 7 on which it was based consisted of thoseround the town centre, viz. the old Huddersfield North Central, HuddersfieldSouth Central and Newsome wards.

8U. Mr. K. S. Moore, Estate Agent with premises in Huddersfield, thoughtthat the commercial centre should be represented by a Ward Councillor sothat that Councillor might be lobbied in connection with Central Area problemsCouncillor Megahy considered that Central Area problems would be dealt withby the appropriate Committee Members from wherever they came.

85. Mr. K. Bates, Agent for the Huddersfield Conservative Association,considered that as the names Colne Valley, Batley, Mirfield and Dewsbury hadbeen retained so should the name Huddersfield. Huddersfield is recognisedfor a particular type of cloth.

CROSLAND WARD

86. Councillor Megahy called Mr. S. Dawson, an ex-Councillor for theLockwood ward, who had submitted a written comment himself and who alsorepresented the Lockwood and Crosland Moor Ward Labour Party Committee,which had also submitted a written comment. Lockwood was at one time acomplete township and still retained some feeling as regards this. The1930 slum clearance programme had caused a transference of the populationfrom central Huddersfield, and as a result community interests had been setup .in the areas to which they moved, to the detriment of the central areaof Huddersfield. The Commission's proposals sought to bring them backinto the central area and the old Lockwood area'was to be incorporated intoHuddersfield Central. Lockwood P.I. Polling Station area was to be splitas to 1,663 electors in the Central Ward and as to 510 in Crosland ward.This area has an affinity with Crosland, has voted with them since 1973and the whole of this area, 2,173 electorate, should be in the proposedCrosland ward as in the Labour Party scheme. The Labour Party alsoconsidered that Berry Brow and Armitage Bridge had little to do withCrosland and should be in Newsome ward as suggested in their scheme. Theeffect of these two suggestions on the Commission's proposals would be asfollows:-

ElectorateFrom From 1976 1981

(a) Lockwood P.(l) part Central Crosland 1,663 1,52U

(b) Armitage Bridge and Crosland Central 1,882 1,786Berry Brow

The amended wards would be as follows:-

Huddersfield Central 11,759 11,571

Crosland 11,685 12,500

87. A written comment by Mr. S. Chadwick, Crosland Moor, was read. Heobjected to the Commission's proposals on two grounds:-

(a) The ward should be called Crosland Moor and not Crosland, and

(b) The proposals for the ward of Crosland included the areasTaylor Kill and Newsome with the areas, of Crosland Moor withwhich they had nothing in common, and were a long distanceapart.

88. The Liberals had included the Crosland Moor side of Milnsbridge andalso areas of the former Lockwood ward which adjoin Crosland Moor, and thedistricts of Thornton Lodge and Rushcliffe, which they considered to bethe most logical place for them.

89. With regard to the name of the proposed Crosland ward and Mr. Chadwick'sobjection, Councillor Cliffe considered the ward was now wider than CroslandMoor and should retain the name Crosland, Councillor Megahy said Labour hadno strong feelings on the name, whilst Mr. Dunford said the Liberals were infavour of Crosland Moor and their scheme had incorporated this name.

90. In connection with the Mount Pleasant area, Councillor Cliffe agreedwith the Labour Party proposals that the whole of this electoral area, 0,should be included in one ward, viz. the Central ward, as opposed to theLabour scheme which included it in their Newsome ward. This would reducethe numbers in Crosland ward by 833, but this would be even more significantin 1981 owing to possible development.

ALMONDBURY/DALTON WARDS

91. Mr. Dunford said that in the Almondbury ward the Liberals thoughtAshenhurst and all of Storths should be included, rather than Brockholes,part of Berry Brow and Shepley as proposed by the Commission, giving anelectorate of about 10,700. In the Dalton ward they suggested all ofMoldgreen, as it was nearly impossible to say which was Dalton and whichwas Moldgreen. They would exclude Briggate from Dalton ward and link itwith Kirkburton owing to historical and ecclesiastical associations. Thiswould give an electorate for Kirkburton of 10,700 approximately, and forDalton 11,700 approximately.

92. In connection with their proposed Lockwood and Newsome ward theysuggest retaining the old parts of Lockwood ward plus Primrose Hill fromthe old South Central ward. This would give an electorate of 11,071 in1976.

HOLME VALLEY NORTH/HOLME VALLEY SOUTH WARDS

93. The Liberals had included Shepley with Holme Valley South (namedHolmfirth by them) and consequently had suggested that Netherthong shouldremain with their Honley and Meltham ward. They had no objection toNetherthong being included in Holme Valley South ward if Shepley wentelsewhere.

9**. Councillor Megahy, for the Labour Party, agreed the areas of HolmeValley North and Holme Valley South as proposed by the Commission.

- 28 -

DEIGHTON WARD

95. Dealing with the wards between Liversedge and Colne Valley Vest,Mr. Dunford, for the Liberals, said there were no existing "wards whichcould be retained. In the case of Deighton ward they had added theCowcliffe ward, including Fixby, only to bring the numbers up to 11,300.Councillor Hartley pointed out that to reach Cowcliffe from Deighton itwould be necessary to cross Birkby ward. Councillor L. K. Parfitt, KirkleesCouncil, pointed out that the Liberal proposal to include Cowcliffe inDeighton ward would mean that the community and ecclesiastical parish wouldbe split between two wards and, further, the Commission's proposals sensiblyused the Bradford Road, a dual carriageway road, as ward boundaries as thisdivided the community already. The Liberals' proposals spread across thismajor road. Mr. Dunford admitted there would be difficulties in includingCowcliffe with Deighton.

BIRKBY/PADDOCK/LINDLEY

96. Mr. Dunford said that Birkby and Fartown had always been linked togetherespecially as it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins.They had also added the polling districts of Kirkgate, Town Hall and Northgatefrom the central area to give an electorate for this ward of 11,089.

97. Marsh and Paddock had a history of being two former County Borough wardsand the Liberals had added Hollin Carr to give an electorate of 10,600 approx.

98. In the Lindley ward the Liberals had included the whole of SalendineNook polling district instead of splitting it as in the Commission's proposals.Part however could be included in their Marsh and Paddock Ward.

99. Mr. Dunford said that the Liberals had included Outlane, which wasdivided by the M.62 motorway, in their Golcar ward rather than partly withPaddock and partly with Lindley as in the Commission's proposals.Councillor Parfitt on the other hand thought that it should not go withGolcar. Councillor Parfitt also considered that, owing to the main roadpattern in the area, it was better that part of the Marsh area should go intothe Lindley ward and part into the Paddock ward with a small part into theBirkby ward, rather than as the Liberals proposed the whole to go into aMarsh and Paddock ward.

100. With regard to the names of the wards, Mr. Dunford for the Liberalssaid they preferred Honley and Meltham to Holme Valley North as Meltham wasnot in Holme Valley. The Labour Party, on the other hand, wished to"marry" Honley and Meltham Parish Councils so agreed with the name HolmeValley North for the ward name. Mr. Dunford stated that other joint namesfor ward names had been used because the areas mentioned in the titles werepractically equal or associated with one another. Councillor Cliffe notedthat the Liberals used Lockwood and Newsome for 'one of their wards but heagreed with Mr. Dawson that there was a natural affinity between Lockwoodand Crosland. Mr. Dunford, in answer to Councillor Cliffe, said the Liberalsfelt it desirable to maintain the name Holmfirth as a ward name, but that itwas not essential to maintain the name of Huddersfield.

- 29 -

INSPECTION

101. I acquainted myself with the area "before the meeting "by touringround the several wards and making myself familiar with the points whichhad been raised in the written comments. In view of the further evidencegiven at the meeting I returned to the area of the Kirklees Council onanother occasion to look at further districts which had "been the subjectof disagreement at the meeting. At the conclusion of these inspectionsI felt I was sufficiently knowledgeable of the area to make any necessaryrecommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

102. It was apparent from the mere reading of the alternative schemes,which had been submitted to the Commission, that if "the ratio of thenumber of local government electors to the number of Councillors to beelected shall be , as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of thedistrict", as laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 11,para. 3(2)(a), then by moving one or more electoral polling district ordistricts from one ward to another ward it would have a ripple effectwhich would have to be followed through the other wards . This effecthas become even more apparent when one has to take into account a possiblecombination of proposals for the same ward.

Even the desirability of avoiding the breaking of local ties is subordinatedto this. There is nothing in the Act or the rules about not includingdifferent communities, or even par i shes , having no ties with each other inone ward, or about keeping all wards of one parish in the same districtward; on the contrary, rule 3(2) (b) in Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act whichreads, "(b) in a district every ward of a parish ...... having a parishcouncil ...... shall lie wholly within a single ward of the district", musthave in contemplation that different parish wards may be in differentdistrict wards. Nor is there anything about rural areas not being joinedwith urban areas even though' the urban area electorate outweighs the ruralelectorate. Nor even that road communication between two parts of a wardis indirect or that there is no bus service between the two parts, or thatone part of a ward is separate from the other by a green belt .

103. There are indeed two areas of discretion. First the Commission areonly required to adhere to the rules, "so far as reasonably practical."Secondly, the ratio has only to be the same, "as nearly as may be".In my opinion these two areas of discretion do not permit the Commission,and consequently myself, to subordinate the same ratio rule to factors ofthe kind mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which are common factorsover much of England and not peculiar to the Kirklees area. If Parliamenthad wished the Commission to have regard to such factors as a general rule,it would have said so, as it has done in relation to breaking local ties,though, as I have said, even this is subordinated to the same ratio rule.

This is not to say that all factors should not be examined in eachindividual case. They should be, and I have considered all the argumentsput to me in relation to their own particular facts, but this generalbackground must affect the weight that is given to factors such as I havedescribed and shows that the same ratio rule cannot be disregarded. Thereare in fact limits to which one can go.

- 30 -

105. Before leaving the general background I should refer to the argumentsput before me on the subject of estimating the 198l electorate as describedin paragraphs 25 and 26 and referred to by various speakers in paragraphs 5,52, 68 and TO. Estimating population, and consequently electorates, isat the best of times a rather difficult and uncertain art and, with adifficult economic background such as we have recently experienced, morethan ever so. In a district ward it is made more difficult by the factthat an unexpected change of planning policy, or a substantial planningappeal success, or the degree of activity of a large builder, can producesubstantial changes . In my opinion the Officers of the Council haveobviously taken a good deal of trouble to try to arrive at as good estimatesas reasonably possible, using later base figures than those used for theCouncil's former 27 ward scheme, which were followed by the Labour Party inthe main in their estimates, and in my opinion the methods the Councilsofficials used were as likely to give as reliable predictions as any otherreasonable method. They may therefore be relied on by the Commission.

106. There was only one suggestion, and that was by Mr. K. S, Moore inpresenting his alternative scheme for the central area of Huddersfield,referred to in paragraph 32, that the number of Councillors for some wardsmight not be the same. This, of course, is not possible, for Section6(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 states that, "For the purposes ofthe election of Councillors every metropolitan district shall be dividedinto wards, each returning a number of councillors which is divisible bythree."

107. In connection with the evidence given by Councillor G. Earnshaw,Chairman, and Mr. Ian Mercer, Clerk, Kirkburton Parish Council (paragraphs38 and 39) relating to the Kirkheaton parish ward of the Kirkburton ParishCouncil being linked with Dalton if numbers of electorate were to beparamount in a decision, I received subsequent to the meeting a lettersigned by the four Parish Councillors for Kirkheaton, one of whom isMr. M. Waddington whose comment to the Commission is referred to atparagraph 37 above, stating that they wished to object in the strongestpossible terms to any such suggestion, especially as the suggestion hadbeen made in order that Shepley might be included in a Kirkburton districtward. In fairness to Councillor Earnshaw and Mr. Mercer they did pointout in giving evidence that it was not the unanimous wish of the KirkburtonParish Council that Kirkheaton might be linked with Dalton. Nor do Iconsider that such a combination would pre-empt the whole future of acommunity and its associations. The future of parish boundaries andparish councils will involve consideration of much wider criteria in theinterests, to use the words of section ^7 of the 1972 Act, of effective andconvenient local government. I desire to make it quite clear that norecommendation which I make in this report on district electoral wardsshould be taken as pre-empting any later decisions on parish boundaries andcouncils. These must be judged on their ovn merits in accordance with thecriteria laid down for them.

108. To a certain extent consideration of the alternative schemes was madeeasier by the Labour Party's acceptance of a 2U ward scheme to fit in withthe proposals for a 92 member West Yorkshire County Council, for which therewould be l6 County electoral divisions in the ration of 1 : li to the numberof wards in Kirklees .

- 31 -

109. The Labour Party proposals had merit in that to a certain extent thewards they produced vere "based on the existing wards, although this was notalways possible as the present electorate ranges from 6,852 for Ward No. 19to 1 ,829 for Ward No. 23. The average ward electorate is 11,328 and theLabour Party alternative scheme varies from 9,992 for Holme Valley Northto 12,158 for Batley West. The Commission's draft proposals, whichincorporate alterations to the Holme Valley North, Crosland and Almondburywards of the Council's scheme, range from 9,7 8 for Birkby to 12,U31 forBirstall ward. All these figures are for 1976. It is, however, expectedthat the Birkby ward would improve by 198l by having an electorate of 10, 99.The "boundaries of some of their proposed wards are conditioned seemingly"by the major road. A.62, which runs through Kirklees, whereas a nearbyriver might have been used just as well without a community being severed.

The Liberals 'proposals in the main covered the former County Borough ofHuddersfield and the former Urban Districts of Denby Dale, Kirkburton,Holmfirth, Meltham and Colne Valley, although they made suggestions forthe remaining areas of Kirklees many of which were similar to those proposedby the Labour Party.

110. In order to achieve its draft proposals the Commission have had tosplit many existing electoral polling districts resulting in 95 parts invarious wards, whereas the Labour scheme only results in l8 parts and fortheir lU ward proposals the Liberals do not split any.

111. The pattern of the wards in the former County Borough of Huddersfieldarea depends almost entirely on whether there is a need for a Central ward.I listened most carefully to all the arguments put forward by Councillor Cliffeand his supporters on the one hand, and by Councillor Megahy and his supportersand by Councillor Senior and Mr. Dunford on the other hand, and have givenmuch thought to this issue before coming to a conclusion. Despite a feelingof regret at the use no longer of the_name Huddersfield as a ward name, Iam inclined to the view, partly by the fact that there are few residentsleft in the mainly commercial area and partly by the fact that those who doremain do not form a community as such, that it is now an anachronism toretain a Central Ward. I do not accept Mr. Moore's argument thatcommercial interests should be represented by a Councillor. He was nottalking about the electorate in the commercial zone. The electorateliving in the commercial area should be linked with wards which spreadfurther afield. I shall deal with the warding of this area when I deal withthe particular wards.

112. Some suggestions put forward appeared on the face of them to be veryattractive and especially when the wards involved fell within the requirednumerical constraint, but when one looked at the next wards in the jigsaw,the suggestions were then found to be unacceptable as they seriouslyaffected the remaining wards and their possible combinations .

113. I shall now deal with the wards, some jointly, some severally.

Kirkburton/Almondbury/Dalton/Denby Dale/Dewsbury South

This area caused the largest number of alternatives to be put forward andit appeared that few seemed to be satisfied with the draft proposals. Thiswas mainly due to the road pattern in the area, also the geographical pattern,

- 32 -

but most of all to the linking of rural communities with urban communities .The residents of Shepley had not only raised a 705 name petition, but 1019persons had also signed a resolution that they did not wish to be linkedwith Almondbury. 220 residents of the Whitley Upper parish ward had alsoforwarded a petition that they wished to remain in Kirkburton ward andnot join the Denby Dale ward. No doubt other parts of the area would haveraised petitions or attended the meeting if they had thought the draftproposals might be altered. Indeed these views were expressed by theParish Councillors of Kirkheaton in their letter sent after the meeting.

11U. I take into account all that was said and written and come to thefollowing conclusions:-

(1) The alternative scheme put forward by Mr. K. S. Moore cannot be adoptedfor the reason set out in paragraph 106 above.

(2) The suggestion of Mr. P. Grainger that the Wakefield Road should formthe boundary between Almondbury ward and Dalton ward found a fairamount of agreement between the major parties, if indeed the wardboundaries were to be altered. I agree with this suggestion and shallrecommend accordingly.

(3) Having regard to the placement of Whitley Lower, Briestfield, WhitleyUpper and Flockton, I felt I could not accept the other suggestionsput forward by Mr. Grainger, and mentioned in paragraph 36, in isolation.

(U) Mr. Waddington in paragraph 37 was concerned that Shepley should not be• with Almondbury. His suggestion was that it should be with Denby Dalewhose representatives would understand rural problems better. He didnot suggest that Shepley should be in Kirkburton ward. If he had,this would have meant another Kirkburton parish ward - possibleKirkheaton where he lives and represents on the Parish Council - leavingthe fold. Mr. Waddington also did not mention whether Thurstonlandand Farnley Tyas, another rural area, should be taken out of Almondbury.His positive suggestion re Shepley would result in an overloaded DenbyDale ward and an underloaded Almondbury, and therefore I cannot accepthis suggestion in isolation.

(5) I accept the arguments put forward by Councillor Earnshaw, Mr. Mercer,Councillor Rushforth, Mr. Appleyard, Mr. Rowling, the Denby Dale ParishCouncil, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party that Whitley Uppershould not be in Denby Dale ward but should be with Kirkburton ward,and I shall recommend accordingly.

(6) Despite the comments of Councillor Mason, I accept the proposals ofthe Labour Party and its branches, the Denby Dale Parish Council,Mr. Rowling and the Liberal Party, that Shelley should be linkedwith Denby Dale through its educational and geographical links andbus communication. I shall recommend accordingly.

(7) I accept the proposals of the Labour Party and its branches, theDenby Dale Parish Council, Mr. Rowling and Mr. Appleyard that asthere is little connection between Flockton and Denby Dale, Flocktonshould be in Kirkburton ward. I shall so recommend. The Liberalshad only placed Flockton in Denby Dale ward on account of numbers.

- 33 -

(8) I accept the views put forward regarding Whitley Lower and Briestfieldby the Labour Party and its Thornhill ward branch, the Thornhill No. 1ward Conservative Association and Councillor Cliffe on behalf ofKirklees Council that as they-were closely linked with Dewsbury theyshould be included in Dewsbury South ward. I shall recommendaccordingly.

(9) I accept the arguments put forward by Mr. Billington and Mr. Moore,on behalf of the residents of Shepley, supported by Mr. Unwin andMr. Grainger, that Shepley, along with Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas,should be included in the.Kirkburton ward rather than the Almondburyward. I shall so recommend.

(10) Mainly because of numbers, but also because of its links with theadjoining area of Dalton, and its more urban atmosphere, and alsobecause the Kirkburton Parish Council itself felt that, if any partof its area was to be separated from it, it should be the Kirkheatonward, I consider that Kirkheaton should form part of the Dalton ward.I shall so recommend.

(11) At the meeting there was no support for Mr. Appleyard's suggestionthat the Denby Dale ward should be called Skelmanthorpe. I shall"recommend that no change in name be made.

(12) I do not consider the alternative scheme for the 1^ southern wardsput up by Mr. K. S. Moore to be a practical one. In two instances

. the polling districts were separated from the wards to which theybelonged.

(13) I do not consider the alternative scheme put forward by Mr. Appleyard,for the Almondbury, Denby Dale, Kirkburton and Dewsbury South wards,to be a practical one. There are too many unknown factors.

115. Kirkburton/Devsbury South

Cl) There was unanimity amongst those present that the ward proposed to benamed Dewsbury South should be renamed Thornhill through its historicalassociations with that name. I shall recommend accordingly.

(2) .1 have already referred to Whitley Lower and Briestfield becoming partof Dewsbury South ward instead of Denby Dale ward. See paragraph11M8) of this report.

(3) I accept the view of Councillor Pickles, supported by Mrs. Hodgkinson,Councillor Ramsden and the Devsbury Civic Society that the part of

' Ravensthorpe included in the Commission's draft proposals for DewsburySouth had little or no connection with Dewsbury South area, andshould be excluded therefrom. The ward boundary in the Ravensthorpearea should be the River Calder as appeared in the Labour Party schemeand supported by Mrs. Hodgkinson on behalf of the Conservatives ofThornhill ward, and by the Liberals. I shall recommend accordingly.

Although both Councillor Pickles and Councillor Ramsden queried the198l electorate figures for Devsbury South vard, for the reasonsgiven in paragraph 105 above, I am satisfied that the Council's morerecent estimates might be followed.

(5) In connection with the comment of Devsbury- Civic Society that partsof Devsbury Moor vere to become part of Heckmondwike vard, in theabsence of a representative I could find no support for this viewat the meeting, which seemed to be incorrect, or otherwise of littlemerit. I cannot therefore recommend any change in the boundaries onthis account. If the recommendations are followed however part ofDewsbury Moor North Polling District will be outside Dewsbury Westward.

116. Cleckheaton/Birstall/Liversedge/Heckmondvike/Batley North/Batley South/Dewsbury East/Dewsbury West

When one examines the Commission's draft proposals it is obvious that fromthe Dalton vard to the point where it leaves the Kirklees area near itsnorthernmost tip, that the primary road A.62 Leeds Road, has been used forboundary purposes between Deighton and Dalton wards, between Liversedge andHeckmondvike wards and betveen Birstall and Batley North vards . This initself has resulted in some communities being split, particularly Birstall,and some areas which have natural links with others, e.g. Gomersal withCleckheaton and Heckmondwike being thrown together with other communitiesthey do not and have not normally linked up with.

These points were put forward forcibly at the meeting and are also containedin the written comment on the draft proposals, particularly from Mr. Stone,who was not at the meeting nor did he provide a map with his written comment,

The Labour Party, whose scheme was supported by the Liberals, put forward analternative scheme for the northern area of Kirklees and this was not basedon the A.62 Leeds Road. It has the advantage of keeping communitiestogether and at the same time gives electoral equality in the variousgroupings. As it does not seem possible to vary the Commission's draftproposals for this area without making electoral inequalities, I am ofthe opinion that the Labour Party scheme is preferable, and I shallrecommend accordingly.

117. Arising out of the recommendation in paragraph 116 it will be seenthat, owing to the redrawing of the Liversedge boundary with Heckmondwike,it is advisable to rename that ward, and I therefore agree it would bemore appropriate that it should be called Hightown after the area of thatname in the centre of the resulting ward, and I shall so recommend.

118. As the boundaries of the wards covering the Batley area are also beingmoved it would be more appropriate that Batley North ward should becomeBatley West and Batley South become Batley East, and I shall so recommend.

119. Concern was expressed by Councillor Walker, Mr. Watson andMrs. Hodgkinson that the old established area of Hanging Heaton was split bythe Commission's draft proposals. Councillor Walker and Mr. Watsonthought it should go into Labour's Batley East ward, whilst Mrs. Hodgkinsonthought it should be Dewsbury East ward, Mrs. Hodgkinson also thought that

all the new estate should go into the Dewsbury East ward. If it did itwill cause a larger electorate in that ward as compared with Batley South,and therefore I accept the "boundary as in the Labour Party's scheme whichgoes through the new estate.

120. Mirfield/Heckmondwike/Dewsbury West

Although Councillor Megahy queried the figures of the electorate for 198lin the Commission's draft proposals for Mirfield, for the reasons given inparagraph 105 above, I am satisfied that the Council's more recent estimatesmight be followed. Councillor Mrs. M. Wood, one of the representatives forthe Mirfield ward on the Kirklees Council, also felt, from a local point ofview and having regard to possible development in the area, that the Council'sestimates were correct.

It was accepted by all that Mirfield was as it is now would have to contract,and it therefore depended on whether parts of the Eastthorpe, Northorpe 1 andNorthorpe 2 polling districts went into the Heckmondwike or Dewsbury Westwards. I inspected this area closely and listened to the arguments at thehearing, and the written comments of Mr. Hutchinson. I am satisfied thatthere is more affinity for the areas concerned with Dewsbury than there iswith Heckmondwike from which it is cut off by a green belt and through lackof good communication. I shall recommend therefore that the scheme of theLabour Party for this area be followed.

In connection with the North-West boundary of the ward, I consider that theA.62 Leeds Road is a more appropriate boundary than that suggested by theLabour party in their scheme, and I shall recommend that this road be usedas the boundary and the 65 electors affected by the change be placed in theLiversedge (Hightown) ward. The Labour Party agreed with this at themeeting. It is of course the boundary in the Commission's draft proposals.

The Mirfield Civic Society suggested a link-up between Ravensthorpe andMirfield, but this is not feasible, in isolation, as it would produce anunacceptable electorate.

121, Huddersfield Central/Paddock/Deighton/Dalton/Crosland

Having stated at paragraph 111 that I do not consider there is need for aHuddersfield Central ward, it now requires the polling districts, containedin that ward in the Commission's draft proposals to be allocated to theadjoining wards and for the boundaries to be redrawn. Both the Labour andLiberal parties' schemes produce a new ward covering the Southern part ofthe Central ward, but they differ as to the allocation of the pollingdistricts. Both put Salford, Newsome, Berry Brow, Armitage Bridge, PrimroseHill in their new ward, called Newsome by Labour and Lockwood and Newsome bythe Liberals; with the Liberals adding Lockwood and Netherton to the ward,whilst Labour added Rashcliffe, Town Hall, Ashenhurst, the whole of MountPleasant, the whole of Manchester Road and Lower houses. Labour tookBeaumont Street (part) , Northgate and Kirkgate into Deighton ward, New NorthRoad (part) into Paddock ward, Thornton Lodge (part) , Lockwood (part) ,Crosland Moor (part) into Crosland ward, Storths (part into Almondbury andMoldgreen (part) into Dalton ward. The Liberals added Beaumont Street (part),Northgate, Kirkgate, Town Hall to their proposed Birkby and Fartown ward,

- 36 -

New North Road (part) and Manchester Road (part) to their proposed Marsh andPaddock ward, and Rashcliffe, Thornton Lodge (part), Mount Pleasant (part)and Crosland Moor (part) to Crosland, Ashenhurst and Storths (part) toAlmondbury and Moldgreen (part) to Dalton.

The Liberals had linked Lockvood with their nev ward of Lockvood and Newsome,although Mr. Dunford did agree that there was more affinity between Lockwoodand Crosland. As the Labour Party had arranged this marriage in their scheme,I am in favour so far as their two wards, Newsome and Crosland are concerned,with the exception of Manchester Road polling district to which I shall referlater.

The Commission, before issuing their draft proposals, had accepted thesuggestions of the Holme Valley Parish Council as set out in paragraph 11 ofthis report. As a result of this, Holme Valley North ward gained Brockholespolling district from Almondbury ward. Included in their scheme was BerryBrow (part), Armitage Bridge (part) and Netherton (part) , which theysuggested should go into Crosland ward. Having seen the area and heard thearguments that they have little to do with Crosland, I am of the opinionthat all of Berry Brow and Armitage should be with the Wewsome ward, whilstthe Netherton (part) should be linked with the rest of Netherton pollingdistrict in Crosland ward. I shall so recommend.

122. With regard to Mr. Chadwick's comment, referred to at paragraph 87above, he is mistaken as to the Commission's proposals for Taylor Hill areaand Newsome. They were not included in the Crosland ward as Mr. Chadwickinfers, but in the Huddersfield Central ward. They will now form part ofthe Newsome ward if my recommendations are accepted.

123. With regard to the name of the ward, Mr. Chadwick is quite vehement inhis written comment that it should be Crosland Moor and not Crosland. Inthis he is supported by the Liberals who use this name in their alternativescheme. The Labour Party had no strong feelings, but the Council felt thatas the ward was now wider than when it had been termed Crosland Moor thename Crosland was more appropriate. If the Council's scheme was beingrecommended I should have agreed that Crosland was the better name. However,the Labour Party scheme which I am recommending is very similar, with theexception of Mount Pleasant polling district which is linked with Newsomeward, to Kirklees Ward No. 11 and, therefore, I see no reason why it shouldnot bear the name Crosland Moor, and I shall so recommend.

12U. As Lockwood polling district is linked with Crosland in my recommendedwarding and not Newsome, the Liberals' suggestion that there should be a wardcalled Lockwood and Newsome falls.

125. Almondbury/D alt on

I have already referred to the suggested boundary between these wards asbeing the Wakefield Road (see paragraph llU(2) above). This reduces theelectorate by some 3,150 approximately, and it is then possible to linkKirkheaton parish ward with Dalton. The Liberals considered there was alink between Briggate and Kirkheaton, although they would have put Briggatewith Kirkburton. The Liberals would also have put the whole of Moldgreeninto the Dalton ward, whilst both the draft proposals and the Labour schemeput part of Moldgreen in Dalton with the draft proposals putting the balance

- 37 -

in Huddersfield Central and the Labour scheme the balance in Almondbury ,I incline to the view that the balance should be with Almondbury, especiallyas I recommend no Huddersfield Central ward. The whole of the pollingdistrict of Storths as suggested in both Labour and Liberal schemes shouldalso be included in Almondbury and as 3,150 approx. electorate is to beadded from South of the Wakefield Road, the polling district of Lowerhousesrightly belongs to Newsome ward as in the Labour Party's scheme.

126. Holme Valley North/Holme Valley South

There was general agreement with regard to these wards. The Liberalspreferred Holmfirth as the name of the ward rather than Holme Valley Southand Honley and Meltham instead of Holme Valley South. These views foundno support from anyone else, and accordingly I see no reason to vary thenames of the wards in the draft proposals.

127. Colne Valley West/Golcar/Paddock/Lindley

The Liberals were strongly opposed to the village of Linthwaite beingbisected by the ward proposals. This can be overcome quite easily byusing the River Colne as the ward boundary instead of the Manchester Road(Linthwaite) A. 62, and I so recommend. The Liberals proposed further thatpolling district Slaithwaite 5 should go into Golcar ward as it has strongerties with Golcar than Slaithwatie. The Labour party disagreed. I aminclined to accept the vie^ of the Liberals and shall so recommend.

128. Both the Commission's draft proposals and the Labour party schemeplaced Linthwaite Zl and Cowlersley polling districts in Golcar, whereasthe Liberals thought they should be linked with Crosland ward. I find nooverwhelming reason to move these polling districts. With regard toLongwood Gate polling district, both the Labour and Liberal partiesconsidered it should be "in Golcar ward rather than in Paddock ward, and Iagree with them and so recommend.

129. Councillor Mrs. Smith considered that Golcar ward should be namedColne Valley East in view of the fact there was a Colne Valley West ward.This suggestion found no support from the others present. I do notconsider there is any justification in varying the name from Golcar.

130. The polling district of Outlane creates great difficulty as it isout on a limb being separated by the Motorway M.62. The draft proposalslink it partly with Paddock and partly with Lindley, the Labour schemeall with Lindley and the Liberals all with Golcar. I consider it willbe best served and represented if it is linked with Lindley ward, and Ishall so recommend.

131. The Marsh area also caused disagreement between the parties. Thedraft proposals, supported by Councillor Parfitt, put part in Lindley,part in Paddock and part in Birkby, whilst the Liberals and the LabourParty favoured them in one ward Marsh and Paddock and Paddock respectively,I see no overwhelming reason for it to be split, and I shall so recommend.

132. Both the draft proposals and the Labour Party scheme place ' Cowcliffein Birkby ward. The Liberals in order to bring their numbers up to 11,300had placed Cowcliffe in Deighton ward. It was pointed out that in order

to reach Covcliffe from Deighton it would "be necessary to cross Birkbyward. This throws doubts on the Liberals' suggestions for that area,and I favour Cowcliffe remaining with Birkby ward.

133, I referred to Manchester Road polling district in paragraph 121 above.Part of this polling district was included in Huddersfield Central wardand part in Paddock ward. In view of my recommendations regardingHuddersfield Central ward I now recommend that the whole of this pollingdistrict "be placed in Paddock ward.

13^. The Liberals proposed Marsh and Paddock and Birkby and Fartown asnames for wards, but this found no support, and I am not inclined torecommend a variation to the suggested names of Paddock and Birkby vards,.respectively.

135. The Kuddersfield Conservation Association suggested, in their writtenstatement, the elimination of certain zig-zags in some of the ward boundaries.As I am not recommending the same boundaries as in the draft proposals, somewill be eliminated thereby. If, however, my proposals are not accepted, orindeed where the zig-aags do remain, I agree that they should be eliminated ifpossible by slight adjustment of line particularly as few electorate areInvolved,

136. I am satisfied that if my recommendations are followed wards moreequitable than those contained in the Commission '^ ilrsft proposals willresult.

?.£C OMMEHD ATI QNS

137. I recommend accordingly:-

(l) The warding of Kirklees, with the polling districts, be as follows :-

1976 ^ 1981Polling District ^ Sleet o- Entitle- '< 31ec£o .. Sntitle-

rate ment' rate ment '

1. CL5CK52ATOM WARD

Birkenshav North (3) 1,391Birkenshaw South (BF) 1,822Drub CO 165Cleckheaton Sast (G) -1 ,^77Cleckheaton West (H) part 1,588East Bierley (M) 1,690Gomersal (N) part 1,715Hunsworth (W) 787Moorend ( A D ) 26lOakenshaw ( AP ).

11,368 3.01 11,813 3.15

- 39 -

1976 1981Polling District Electo- Entitle- Electo- Snfitle-

rate ment rate ment

2. 3IRSTALL WARD

Batleyf tn11ttI! "

If

tt v Dm uu j

3.16 11,527 3.08

(BA)(BB)(BC)(BD)(BE)(BF)(BG)(BH)

1.U621,953U88

1,973570

1,8752,926683

11,930

3. HIGHTOWN WARD

Hartshead <0) 550Hightown (P) U,279Cleckheaton West (G) part 1,500 __ •Scholes North (AL)" 2,270 ..• '"'Scholes South l.AM) 628Roberttown r/ArC) 1,^96Spen and Littletown WestLBG) 999Battyeford 1 (MA) part 29Battyeford 2 (MB) part 36_

11,787 3.12 11,791 3.15

U. HECKMQNDWIKE WARD

Millbridge (AC) 1,227Norristhorpe (AE) 2,1*71Heckmondvike North (BA) 2,555 'Heckmondvike West (BB) 1,267Spen & Littletown East (AS) 2,06UCorner sal (N-) part 2,287_

11,871 3.11* 11,998 3.20

5. BATLEY WEST WARD

Batleyr t

it

it

Heckmondvike EastHeckmondwike SouthSt. MarksDewsbury Moor NorthDewshury Moor South

(BJ)(BK)(BL)(BM)(BC)(BD)(DA) oart(DJ) p'artTDK) part"

2,1^91,U1*22,0151,6201,6071,631

500895

H

i-r,873 3.H 11,239 3.00

- UO -

1976 1981Polling Dlsitrlet Electo- Entitle- Electo- Entitie-

rate rnent rate ment

6. BATLEY EAST WAED

Batley (Bl) 1,517(BN) lit*(BO) U69(BP) 1.U5U(BQ) 767(BR) 1,1*82

Soothill (BS) 680" (BT) 2,397

Hanging Heaton (BU) 729Soothill (BV) 725Bennett Lane (DV) part 1,200All Saints (DF) part 263

11,817 3.13 10,956 2.93

\

7. MIRFIELD WARD

Battyeford 1 (MA) part 2,8HoBattyeford 2 (MB) part 1,736Eastthorpe (MC) part 2,2^7Hopton 1 (MD) 1,088Hopton 2 (ME) 675Northorpe 1 (MF) part •2 ,66p

11,2U6 2.97 11,133 2,97

DEWSBURY WEST WARP

St. Marks (DA)part 661Westborough (DC)" 918Crow Nest (DH) 753Westtovn (DI) Ul8Dewsbury Moor Worth (DJ) part 500Dews bury Moor South (DK)- part 1117Pilgrim (DL) 850Scout Hill (DM) 1,081Ravensthorpe North (DN) l,U6lRavensthorpe South (DO) Ul8Ravensthorpe East (DP) 718Ravensthorpe West _. (DQ) ' 1,002Eastthorpe ' (MC) part h$kNorthorpe 1 (MF) part 953Northorpe 2 (MG) 625

11,969 3.17 11, 457 3.06

- hi -

1976 198lPolling District Electo- Entitle- Electo- Entitle-

rate iaent rate ment

9. DEWSBURY EAST WARD

Bat ley CarrSpringfieldAll SaintsEarlsheatonChickenley NorthChickenley SouthShaw CrossBennett LaneBank TopHeat on LodgeMoorlandsFlatts

(DD)(DE)(DF) part(DR)(DS)(DT)(DU)(DV) part(DW)(DX)(DB)(DG)

563523

1,0171,026

98?1,7931,771

5811,305

9221,<M

339

11. COLNE VALLEY WEST WARD

Linthwaite 1Linthwaite 2Linthwaite 3Linthwaite UScanunondonSlaithwaite 1Slaithwaite 2Slaithwaite 3Slaithwaite UMarsden 1Mars den 2

(F)(G)(H)(I)(L)

• (M)(N)(0)(P)(K)(KA)

11,371 3.1U 11,5*46 3.08

10. THORHHILL WARD

Saville Town (TA) 2,625Thornhill Lees (TB) 1,223Lees Moor (TC) 1,691Combs (TD) 729Valley Road (TE) 1,132Thornhill Edge (TF) 1,850Overthorpe (TG) 1,911Whitley (TH) 20Briestfield (Tl) 95

181;980775120133729028399112

3.03 10,8U2 2.90

837

10JUO 2.8U • 10,351 2.76

- U2 -

1976 1981Polling District Slecto- Entitle- Electo- Zntitle-

rate ment rate meat

12. HOLME VALLEY SOUTH WARD

Cartvorth 1 (R) 301Cartvorth 2 (S) 179Hep-worth (T) 562Austenley (U) 33^Holme (V) 216Nev Mill (A3) 1>07Holmfirth North Central!AC) 777Holmfirth South Central(AE) T39Scholes 1 (AD) SUJiScholes 2 (DA) 152ttetherthong (AA) 1,230Upperthong (AF) 1,311Wooldale (AG) 2,QU6

10,6^8 a.32 10,733 2.37

13. HQLM£ VALLSY ^lORTH WA?tD

Brockholes (Q) 520Honley Central (W) 1,^UHonley East (X) 885Honley South (l) 760Eonley West (2) I,l3lMeltham (AS) 5,202

9,992 2.65 10,122 2.70

. DEN3Y DAL2 VAfiD

Clayton West (AH)Denby & Cumberworth (Al) 570.Denby & Cimbervorth (AK) 290Denby & Cumberworth (AL) U75Denby 4 Cumberworth (AM) 1,525Denby & Cumbervcrth ( A N ) 292Emley 1 (AO) 9^9

(AP) 208(AQ) 83^( A H ) 2,5^8( B K ) • 1.389

10,566 2.30 11,170 2.98

Polling District1976

Electo- Entitle-rate

1961Elected Entitle-

merit rate ment

15. GOLCAR WARD

Golcar 1Golcar 2Golcar 3Golcar UGolcar 5Golcar 6Slaithvaite 5Longwood GateLinthvaiteCowl ersleyNettleton HillStationGolcar East

( A )(3)COC D )(E )(CA)(PA)( R )C z i )(Z2)(S2)( X )(y)

1,6571,579

355225237

1,1*62171

1,318

65696

1,61*0

11,600 3.07 11.50U 3.07

16. CRQSLAND MOOR WARD

Thornton Lodge (H)Marsden Road (l)Crosland Moor (J)Crosland Kill . (K)Lockwood (Pi)Dryclough C?2)Netherton (Q)

1.U611,3312,012

9612,1731,9121,905

11,755 3.11 12,350 3.30

17. NEWSOME WARD

SalfordNewsomeBerry BrowArmitage BridgeRashcliffePrimrose HillTown HallLowerhousesAshenhurstMount Pleasant

(A)(B)(0( D )(AZ)(BA)CAX)CAGI)(AG2)(0)

8552,9281,281*

651577

1,275289

1,501*

1,158

11,125 2.95 10.877 2.90

1976 1981oiling District gleeto~ Entitle- Electo- Sntitle-

rate nent rate merit

8. ALMCTOBURY WARD

AlmonoburyFerns ideFenay BridgeStorthsMoldgreenWaterlooGreen side

( A D )(AE)(AT)(AH)(AV) part(AL) part(AX1) part

2,0922,6181,09^1,5811,281*

9951,U86

11,150

9. KISK3URTON WAHD

WARD

2.95 10,751 2.87

?locicfconKir&burtonKigbburtonLeptou 1Lepton 2Thurstonland &

Parsley TyasThurstonland &

Farnley TyasThur steal and &

Farnley TyasShepleyWhit ley Upper

(32)(3F)(3G)(31)(3J)

(3B)

(3C)

(3D)(3L)(3M)

3731,782

7971,2222,686

28U

U8i

1501,713

622

10,510 2.31 10,959 2.93

Undley <.M) 2,158Birdaencliffe ($) 1,535Quarmby (la) 3,126Salendine Nook (T) 2,899Outlane (si ) 1,196

' 2.89 11.1U7 2.98

PADDOCK WAHD

Marsh (U) 2,85^Nev North Road (V) 1,39^Greenhead (w) l,26lPaddock (AA) 2,195Hollizr Carr (AB) 1,570Royds Sfell (AC) 1,025Manchester Road (AY) 322Eeinvood (L2) 1,29Q

11,911 3.16 ll,t*6i 3.06

Polling District1976

Elect o- Entitle1981

Electo- Entitle-

22. BIRKBY WARD

Wheathouse RoadHalifax Old RoadCowcliffeHillhouseWoodhous e

23. DEIGHTON WARD

SheepridgeBrackenhallDeightonBradleyBeaumont StreetLeeds Road NorthNorthgateKir kg ate

2k. DALTON WARD

RawthorpeD alt onBriggateGreens ideStandiforthWaterloo.MoldgreenKirkheaton

( E ) .( F )(G)(AR)(AT)

(AM)( A N )(AO)(AP)(AQ)(AS)(AU)(AW)

(Al)(AJ1)(AJ2)(AKL) part

' (AK2)(AL) part(AV) part(BH)

rate ment

2,81*22,3572,1171,6831,812

10,811 2.86

1,6001,9222,3kk3,381. 5151,096

31 181

11,353 3.01

1,3611,621

732309

2,UlUl,2t*01,0032,830

11,510 3.05

rate ment

10,627 2.8U

11,683 3.12

11,582 3.09

TOTAL 271,877 71.98 269,619. 71.99

NOTE: In compiling the above Table I have used for the 198l electorate thepredictions of the Kirklees Council's officials using the same methodreferred to in paragraph 25 above.

(2) The ward boundary betveen Almondbury and Dalton wards be the Wakefield Road

(3) Whitley Upper and Flockton polling districts be in Kirkburton ward insteadof in Denby Dale ward.

(U) Shelley polling district be in Denby Dale ward instead of Kirkburton ward.

(5) Kirkheaton polling district be in Dalton ward instead of Kirkburton ward.

(6) Shepley and Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas polling districts be inKirkburton ward instead of Almondbury ward.

(?) Dewsbury South ward be named Thornhill Ward.

(8) Whitley Lower and Briestfield polling districts be in Thornhill wardinstead of Denby Dale ward. •

(9) No change be made in the name of Denby Dale ward.

(10) The boundary between Dewsbury West ward and Thornhill ward in theRavensthorpe area be the River Calder instead of the main Mirfield toDewsbury road.

(11) The alternative scheme put forward by the Labour Party, supported by theLiberals, for the following wards, viz, Cleckheaton, Birstall, Liversedge,Heckmondwike, Batley North, Batley South, Dewsbury West, Dewsbury Eastand Mirfield be adopted instead of the draft proposals of the Commissionfor those wards.

(12) Liversedge ward be named Hightown ward.

(13) Batley North ward be named Batley West.

( lU) Batley South ward be named Batley East.

(15) No change be made in the name of Birstall ward.

(16) The North-West boundary of Mirfield ward be the A.62 road, as in theCommission's draft proposals rather than as in the Labour party's "~alternative scheme.

(l?) Huddersfield Central ward be not proceeded with and the polling districtsforming that ward in the Commission's draft proposals be as recommendedin the Table at Recommendation (l) above.

(18) A new ward named Newsome be formed between Almondbury and Crosland wardsconsisting of the polling districts set out in the Table atRecommendation (l) above.

(19) Crosland ward be named Crosland Moor ward.

(20) The parts of the Berry Brow and Armitage polling districts which wereincorporated into the Crosland._ward in the Commission's draft proposalsat the suggestion of the Holme Valley Parish Council be transferredinto Newsome ward.

(21) The names of the wards Holme Valley North and Holme Valley South benot changed.

(22) The boundary between Colne Valley West and Golcar wards at Linthwaitebe the River Colne instead of the A.62 Manchester Road.

- hi -

(23) The name of Golcar ward "be not changed.

(2U) The names of Paddock and Birk"by vards "be not changed.

(25) The location of polling districts not referred to above "be as setout in the Table at Recommendation (l) above.

My recommendations will involve considerable amendment to the precisedescription of the boundaries, but I have not attempted to do this myselfpreferring to leave this to the Ordnance Survey Office which has much moredetailed maps.

138. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I record my grateful thanks to all who attended the hearing for theirassistance in supplying information, plans and opinions, to the Officers ofthe Council who made all the necessary arrangements for the hearing, and forthe cogent and pleasant way in which the evidence was given.

V. DOUGLAS KNOX

April 1978.

LOCAL &OV£Ri4i=ZNT BOUNDARY COMilSSION FOR EIIOLAND

Review of Electoral Arrangements - Kirklees

Local Meeting; held in the Reception Room, TOTTTI Hall, Huddersfield

Thursday, 19th January, "1973

Assistant Commissioner - Mr. V, D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SKEET

Name Address Repre sehtin_g

c n

77

4-f .

a

S cat .,

(4 (-'V-'

V

;7

LOCAL GOVERN1ENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Review of Electoral Arrangements - Kirlcleea

Local Meeting held in the Reception Room. Town Hall. Huddersfield

Thursday, 19th January, 1978

Assistant Commissioner - Mr. V. D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SHEET . •

Name Address Representing

(Z-

r-

/\o . p4 -, I'

. /r /-/(--A/c,

A-

X i.'Ai k— L'fc -«- *-X

4 3 cvi k ,

-K I'

KflU o

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

of Electoral Arrangements - Kirlclees

Local Meeting held in the Reception Room, Town Hall, Huddersfield

Thursday. 19th January, 1978

Assistant Commissioner - Mr. V. D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Address Representing

l.

S

L

fe

I

- C

A

/<•/V'U

1%L, w-srt-i-*,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Review of Electoral Arrangements - Kirklees

Local Meeting held in the Reception Room, Town Hall, Huddersfield

Thursday, 19th January, 1973

Assistant Commissioner - lir. V, D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Address Representing

0 sj# // fLS y I - 1rj. rsvl*-*fa\~r 4i/>/ n ^

7f ^v^ur

o

/ r *i^-

f -3<

-y^^ We \i ^

c..

•^ / 3S

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COiailSSION FOR ENGLAND

Revie?/ of Electoral Arrangements - Kirklees

Local Meeting held in the Reception Room, Town Hall, Huddersfield"rft-iit.sy ^LCTT Tf lwwAf j jThursday,. Vfttk-Jamiary, 1978

Assistant Comniisaioner - Mr. V. D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Address Representing

TPr ^/v \ ,L—t c.

V ^n - A.

"57

" j

,1 6c ^ A

V&£S>. .WL*

. c

'LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Review of Electoral Arrangements - Kirklees

Local Meeting held in the Reception Room, Town Hall, Hudder afield

, 19th Jonuasy; 1978

Assistant Commissioner - Mr. V« D. Knox

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Address Representing

R .

v - *•* . VIM.

X*j

~S. So

"TU

- 0

O-W-

- 0

T

^C-

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KIRKL3ES

NAMES OF PROPOSED 7/ARDS AND NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS

SCHEDULE 2

NAME 0? WARS

Almondbury

Batley East

Batley West

Birkby

Birstall

Cleckheaton

Colne Valley '.Vest

Crosland Moor

Dalton

Deigfrton

Denby Bale

Dewsbury East

Dewsbury West

Golcar

Heckmondwike

Hightown

Holme Valley North

Holme Valley South

Kirkburton

Lindley

Mirfield

Newsome*

Paddock

Thornhill

NO. OF COUNCILLORS

3

3

3

3

3

3333333333 . .

3

33333

3

3

3

'JIjij 3

BOHOUGH OF KIRKLEES - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WARD BOUNDARIES

Note: Where the boundary is described as following a road, railway, river,canal or similar feature it should be deemed to follow the centreline of the feature unless otherwise stated.

COLNE VALLEY WEST WARD

Commencing at the point where the northwestern boundary of Holme Valley CP

meets the southwestern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwest-Tftv

wards along said southwestern boundary and continuing generally northeast-

wards and southeastwards along the northwestern boundary of the Borough to

the easternmost corner of Parcel No 93391 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm

(B) SE 0616, date of microfilming 197*S thence due southwest from said

corner to New Hey Road, thence northeastwards along said road to Rochdale

Road, thence southeastwards along said road to a point opposite the north-

western boundary of Parcel No 082 , as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (B)

SE 0716, date of microfilming 197^> thence southwestwards to and along said

northwestern boundary and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of

said parcel to its southernmost point, thence southeastwards in a straight

line from said point to the westernmost corner of Parcel No 2200, thence

southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of said Parcel to the north-

western boundary of Parcel No 2600, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm SE 0715

*(A_*) date of microfilming 196*t, thence northeastwards along said north-

western boundary and southeastwards along the northeastern boundary of said

Parcel to "the footpath leading northeastwards to the road known as Causeway,

thence northeastwards along said footpath to said road, thence southwards

along said road to the stream known as Crimble Clough, thence generally

eastwards and southwards along said stream to its culvert adjacent to the

southern end of Brook Terrace, thence due west from said culvert to Clough

Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Radcliffe Road, thence east-

wards along said road to the part of James Street opposite No 108 Radcliffe

Road, thence southwards and southeastwards along said street to the

Slaithwaite to Huddersfield railway, thence northeastwards along said railway

2

to a point due north of the northwesternmost corner of the Weir in the River

Colne adjacent to Linthwaite Laboratories, thence due south to said north-

western corner and continuing southwards along the western boundary of the

weir to the centre of the River Colne, thence generally northwestwards along

said river to the point where it is crossed by the Calder and Hebble

Navigation, Huddersfield Broad Canal, thence due south from said point to

Manchester Road (Linthwaite), thence southwestwards along said road to a

point opposite the northern end of the footpath leading from Yew Tree Lane

to the unnamed road to the west of the property known as Folly, thence south-

westwards and southeastwards along said path to said unnamed road, thence

southeastwards along said unnamed road to Cowlersley Lane, thence southwest-

wards along said lane to the unnamed road leading to the rear's of No's 139

to 169 Cowlersley Lane, thence southeastwards and southwestwards along said

unnamed road to a point in line with the northeastern boundary of the unnamed

property to the southeast of No 159 Cowlersley Lane,'thence-southeastwards to" and

along said northeastern boundary to the southeastern boundary of said unnamed

property, thence southwestwards along said southeastern boundary and the

southeastern boundaries of the unnamed properties and enclosures to the

southeast of No's 161 to 169 Cowlersley Lane, thence northwestwards along the

southwestern boundary of the southernmost enclosure to its northwesternmost

point, thence southwestwards in a straight line from said point to the western-

most corner of No 1 Hazel Grove, thence generally southwestwards along the

southeastern boundaries of No's 1 to 39 Hazel Grove to the southwestern

boundary of the last mentioned property, thence northwestwards along said

southwestern boundary to Cowlersley Lane, thence southwestwards along said

lane to Ladybower Avenue, thence southeastwards along said avenue to a point

opposite the northeastern boundary of No 2 Ladybower Avenue, thence south-

westwards to and along said boundary and southeastwards along the south-

western boundary of said property to the northwestern boundary of No *f

Ladybower Avenue, thence southwestwards along said boundary to the south-

western boundary of said property, thence southeastwards along said boundary

and the southwestern boundaries of No's 6 to 12 Ladybower Avenue and

continuing southeastwards along the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 5^73»

as shown on OS 1:2500 SIM (B) Microfilm SE 101^,date of microfilming May

1978, and the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 606*t and in prolongation

thereof crossing Church Lane, to Heath Road, thence southwestwards along

said road to the footpath that leads southwards and southeastwards from

Heath Road to Blackmoorfoot Road, thence southwards and southeastwards along

said footpath to the northwestern boundary of Meltham CP, thence generally

southwestwards along said CP boundary and southeastwards along the south-

western boundary of said CP to the northwestern boundary of Holme Valley

CP, thence southwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement,

LIKDLEY WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Colne Valley West

Ward meets the northwestern boundary of the Borough, thence generally north-

eastwards along said northwestern boundary to Bryan Lane, thence southwards

along said lane to Grimescar Road, thence southeastwards along said road to

a point opposite the western boundary of Parcel No *f313i as shown on OS

1:3500 SIM (B) Microfilm SE 1219, date of microfilming 1978, thence southwards

along said western boundary and southeastwards along the southern boundary of

said parcel to the western1 boundary of Parcel No 3800, thence southwestwards

along said western boundary to its westernmost point, thence due southwest

from said point to the unnamed stream, flowing southeastwards-from Lower

Burn Farm, thence southeastwards along said stream to the unnamed stream

which flows from Burn Road to Grimescar Foot, thence southeastwards and north-

eastwards along said stream to the' path which leads eastwards to .the property

known as Reap Hirst, thence eastwards along said path to the unnamed road

which leads southwards to Reap Hirst Road, thence southwards along said

unnamed road to Reap Hirst Road, thence generally southwards along said road

to Birkby Hall Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Bryan Road,

thence southwestwards along said road to Halifax Road, thence northwestwards

along said road to Thornhill Road, thence southwestwards and southwards

along said road to New Hey Road,thence northwestwards along said road to

ifReinwood Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Willwood Avenue,

thence northwestwards along said avenue to Burfitts Road, thence southwest-

wards and northwestwards along said road to Oakes Road South, thence south-

westwards along said road to Haughs Road, thence northwestwards and south-

wards along said road to Haughs Lane, thence westwards and southwestwards

along said lane to Longwood Edge Road, thence northwestwards along said

road to Gilead Road, thence southeastwards along said road to the footpath

leading from said road to Lamb Hall Road, thence westwards along said foot-

path, crossing Lamb Hall Road to the footpath leading from said road to

Leys Farm, thence westwards, southwards and southwestwards along said foot-

path and continuing westwards through Leys Farm farmyard to the south-

eastern boundary of Parcel No 6851 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (B)

SE 0917) date of microfilming 1975» thence southwestwards along said south-

eastern boundary and continuing westwards and northwards along the southern

and southwestern boundaries of said parcel to the southern boundary of

Parcel No 36511 thence westwards and northwestwards along said southern

boundary, also being the northern boundary of Parcel No Vj27, to the western-

most point of the last mentioned parcel, thence westwards from said point, in

a straight line, to the southernmost point of Parcel No 3536, being on the

southern boundary of said parcel, thence northwestwards along said southern

boundary to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 3036, thence southwestwards

and westwards along the southeastern and southern boundaries of said Parcel

and the southern boundary of Parcel No 2135 to its westernmost point, thence

southwestwards, in a straight line, from said point to the eastern end of

the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 102 , thence southwestwards along said

northwestern boundary and the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 0 22 to the

footpath leading westwards to Whin Gate, thence westwards along said path to

the path leading to New Lane, thence southwards and southeastwards along said

path to said lane,thence westwards along said lane to Hall Lane, thence south-

westwards along said lane to Round Ings Road, thence eastwards and south- '

wards along said road to a point opposite the northern boundary of Parcel No

857, as shown on OS SUSI 1:2500 Microfilm SE 0816, date of microfilming

5

July 1976, thence southwestwards along said northern boundary, the northern

boundaries of Parcel. No's 3952, 3244, 2050, 0949, 0040 and continuing west-

wards along the northern boundary of Parcel No 0040 as shown on OS 1:2500

Microfilm (B) SE 0?16, date of microfilming 19?4, to the western boundary of

said parcel, thence southwards along said western boundary to the southern

boundary of Parcel No 5&34, thence westwards along said southern boundary

and the southern boundary of Parcel No 2330 and in prolongation thereof to

Rochdale Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the northeastern

boundary of Colne Valley West Ward, thence northwestwards, southwestwards

and northwestwards along said northeastern boundary to the point of

commencement.

BIRKBY WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Lindley Ward

meets the northwestern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northeast-

wards along said borough boundary to Bradford Road, thence southeastwards,

southwards and southwestwards along said road to a point opposite Ash Brow

Road, thence eastwards to and southeastwards, northeastwards and eastwards

along said road to Sheepridge Road, thence northeastwards along said road to

Chestnut Street, thence eastwards and northeastwards along said street to

the unnamed road leading from Chestnut Street to Fieldhouse Lane, thence

southwards and southeastwards along said unnamed road to Fieldhouse Lane and

continuing southeastwards along said lane to the Calder and Hebble Navigation

Huddersfield Broad Canal, thence southwestwards and southwards along said

canal to Bridge No 11, thence northwestwards along said bridge and the

unnamed road leading to Rod Doles Road to the Dewsbury to Huddersfield rail-

way, thence southwestwards along said railway to Hillhouse Lane, thence north-

westwards along said lane and continuing northwestwards along Willow Lane

East, crossing Bradford Road to Willow Lane, thence northwestwards and south-

westwards' along said lane to St John's Road, thence southeastwards along

said road to St John's Crescent, thence southwestwards along said crescent

to the path leading from said crescent to Blacker Road, thence northwest-

6

wards along said path to said road, thence southwestwards along said road

to Murray Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the southern boundary

of No 16 Murray Road, thence eastwards along said southern boundary and

northwards along the eastern boundary of said property to the stream known

as Clayton Dike, thence generally westwards along said stream to the path

leading from Edgerton Road to George Avenue, thence northwards along said

path, crossing George Avenue, to the path leading from said avenue to

Birkby Hall Road, thence generally northwestwards and northwards along said

path to said road, thence northwestwards along said road to the northeastern

boundary of Lindley Ward, thence generally northwards and northwestwards

along said northeastern boundary to the point of commencement.

DEIGHTON WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Birkby Ward meets

the northwestern boundary of the Borough, thence northeastwards and southeast-

wards along said northwestern boundary to the western boundary of Kirkburton

CP, thence southwards along said western boundary to the northern boundary of

Dalton Bank Plantation, thence westwards along said northern boundary and in

prolongation thereof to the River Colne thence generally southwestwards,

westwards and southwestwards along said river to a point opposite the south-

western boundary of Parcel No 0012 as shown on OS 1:2500 Plan SE 1^-1517,

edition of 1960, thence southeastward to and along said southwestern boundary

and the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 0001 and its prolongation south-

eastwards to Bradley Mills Road, thence northeastwards along said road to

the road known as Kilner Bank, thence southwestwards and southwards along said

road to the path leading from said road southwards along the eastern boundary

of the Scrap Yard, thence southwards along said path and its continuation as

a road to Wakefield Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the round-

about junction with the road known as Queensgate, thence southwestwards along

said road to a point opposite the unnamed road leading to the rear of the

7

property of Nos 22 and 23 Princess Alexandra Walk, thence westwards to and

along said road to the eastern boundary of the said property, thence north-

wards along said eastern boundary and westwards along the northern boundary

of said property to the path known as Princess Alexandra Walk, thence south-

wards and northwestwards along said path to Ramsden Street, thence northwest-

wards along said street and High Street to the northern part of Market Street,

thence southwestwards along said street to a point in line with the pedestrian

precinct known as Macaulay Street, thence northwestwards to and along said

precinct to the pedestrian precinct known as Upperhead Row, thence northwards

along said precinct and its continuation as a road to Henry Street, thence

northeastwards along said street to the road known as Westgate, thence east-

wards along said road to John William Street, thence northwestwards along

said street to Viaduct Street, thence northeastwards along said street to

Fitzwilliam Street, thence southwestwards along said street to St John's Road,

thence northwards and northwestwards along said road to the southern boundary

of Birkby Ward, thence northeastwards and eastwards along said southern

boundary to and northeastwards and generally northwards along the eastern and

northeastern boundaries of said ward to the point of commencement.

PADDOCK WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of Birkby Ward meets the

southwestern boundary of Deighton Ward, thence generally southwards along

said southwestern boundary and continuing southwards along Upperhead Row,

crossing Market Street, to the road known as Castlegate, thence southeastwards

along said road to the road known as Chapel Hill thence southwestwards along

said road to the disused Calder & Hebble Navigation, Huddersfield Narrow

Canal, thence northwestwards along said disused canal to a point opposite

the western boundary of the Engineering Works, thence southwards, crossing

the Towing Path, to and along said western boundary to the River Colne,

thence westwards along said river to the Huddersfield to Holmfirth railway

8

at Paddock Viaduct, thence southwestwards along said railway to Manchester

Road, thence westwards and southwestwards along said road to a point opposite

the western boundary of No ^90 Manchester Road, thence northwestwards to

and northwards along said boundary to its northernmost point, thence north-

eastwards from said point, in a straight line, to the westernmost point of

the northwestern boundary of the enclosure to the west of No 4?^ Manchester

Road, thence due north from said point to the River Colne, thence northeast-

wards along said river to a point due south of the junction of Johnny Moore's

Hill Road and Clough Lane, thence due north to said junction and northwestwards

and northwards along said lane to the Huddersfield to Slaithwaite railway,

thence westwards along said railway to Bankhouse Bridge (Foot), thence north-

wards along said bridge and the footpath leading from said bridge to the

road known as Lower Gate, thence westwards along said road to Cross Firs'

Street-, thence northwestwards along said street to Longwood Road, thence

eastwards along said road to Harp Road, thence northwestwards along said

road and Quarmby Road to the southern boundary of Lindley Ward, thence

generally eastwards along said southern boundary and generally northeastwards

along the southeastern boundary of said ward to the southern boundary of

Birkby Ward, thence generally southeastwards along said southern boundary

to the point of commencement.

GOLCAR WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of Lindley Ward meets the

southwestern boundary of Paddock Ward, thence generally southeastwards along

said southwestern boundary to Manchester Road, thence southwestwards along

said road to Park Road West, thence eastwards along said road to a point

opposite the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 1665) as shown on OS 1:2500

Plan SE 12-1?15i edition of 1961, thence southeastwards to and along said

northeastern boundary to the southeastern boundary of said parcel, thence

southwestwards along said southeastern boundary and the southern boundary of

parcel no 0058 to the western boundary of said parcel as shown on OS 1:2500

Plan SE 10-1115i edition of 1962, thence northwestwards along said western

boundary to the southern boundary of parcel no 9 59) thence southwestwards

and westwards along said southern boundary to its westernmost point, thence

due west from said point to Deep Lane, thence southwestwards along said

lane to a point being the prolongation northeastwards of the northwestern

boundary of Parcel No 2 00, thence southwestwards along said prolongation

and northwestern boundary, and continuing along said northwestern boundary

on OS 1:2500 Plan SE 10-111*f, edition of 1963, and OS 1:2500 Microfilm

SIM(B)"SE 1014, date of microfilming 1977 to the northeastern boundary of

parcel no 777 on the last mentioned microfilm,thence southeastwards along

said northeastern boundary and southwestwards along the southeastern boundary

of said parcel to Church lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to the

northwestern boundary of Colne Valley West Ward, thence generally northwards

southwestwards and northwestwards along said northwestern boundary to the

southern boundary of Lindley Ward, thence generally northeastwards and south-

eastwards along said southern boundary to the point of commencement.

CROSLAND MOOR WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Colne Valley West-

ward meets the southeastern boundary of Golcar Ward, thence northeastwards

along said southeastern boundary and the southern boundary of Paddock Ward

to Manchester Road, at its junction with St Thomas' Road, thence southwest-

wards along Manchester Road to Springdale Avenue, thence southeastwards along

said avenue to Rashcliffe Hill Road, thence southeastwards along said road

and Yews Hill Road to North Street, thence southwards along said street to

Swan Lane, thence southeastwards along said, lane to Meltham Road, thence

southwestwards along said road to Bridge Street, thence southeastwards along

said street to the River Holme, thence southwestwards and southwards along

10

said river to a point opposite the northern boundary of the Mill, thence

westwards to and along said northern boundary to the western boundary of

said mill, thence southwards, westwards, southwestwards and southeastwards

along said western boundary to a point due north of the track running

southwards along the eastern side of the Tennis Courts and Bowling Green

in Woodfield Park (Recreation Ground), thence southwards to and along said

track to and westwards along the southern boundary of the Bowling Green and

in prolongation thereof to the eastern boundary of the enclosure to the

south of No 179 Woodfield Road, thence northwards along said eastern boundary

to the southern boundary of said property, thence westwards along said

southern boundary to Woodfield Road, thence southeastwards along said road

and southwards and southwestwards along its continuation as Meltham Road

to the unnamed road leading eastwards through Old Spring Wood, thence east-

wards along said road to the path leading from said unnamed road to Bourn

View Road, thence southeastwards along said path to said road, thence north-

eastwards along said road and its continuation northeastwards as unnamed

road to the unnamed road running southeastwards along the western boundary of

Old Spring Wood, thence southeastwards along said road to Hawkroyd Bank Road,

thence southeastwards along said road to the northern boundary of Holme

Valley CP, thence southwestwards and northwestwards along said northern

boundary and continuing northwestwards, southwestwards and northwestwards

along the northeastern boundary of Meltham CP to the northeastern boundary

of Colne Valley West Ward, thence northeastwards and northwards along said

northeastern boundary to the point of commencement.

NEWSCME WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Crosland Moor Ward

meets the southern boundary of Paddock Ward, thence eastwards along said.

11

southern boundary and generally northwards along the eastern boundary of

said ward to the southern boundary of Deighton Ward, thence generally south-

eastwards along said southern boundary to King's Mill Lane, thence southwards

along said lane to Maple Street, thence southeastwards along said street to

a point opposite the western boundary of the Electricity Sub Station, thence

southwards to and along said western boundary to the north-western boundary

of Longley Park Golf Course, thence southwestwards along said northwestern

boundary and generally southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of

said golf course to the unnamed road leading from Wood Lane to Longley

Special School, thence northwards along said unnamed road to the footpath

leading to the road known as Dog Kennel Bank, thence northeastwards, east-

wards and northeastwards along said footpath to said road, thence southeast-

wards and southwards along said road to a point opposite the northwestern

boundary of Nos 28 to k2 Broadgate, thence eastwards and eastwards and

northeastwards along said northwestern boundary to the northeastern boundary

of said property, thence southeastwards along said northeastern boundary to

the road known as Broadgate, thence southwestwards and southeastwards along

said road to Longley Road, thence northeastwards along said road to a point

opposite the accessway between Nos 4? and ^9 Longley Road, thence southeast-

wards along said accessway to a point opposite the southeastern boundary of

No ^7 Longley Road, thence northeastwards to and along said southeastern

boundary and the eastern boundary of No ^5 Longley Road to the southwestern

boundary of No ^3 Longley Road,thence southeastwards along said southwestern

boundary to and northwestwards along the southeastern boundary of said

property and the-south-eastern boundaries of Nos *f1 to 13 Longley Road to

the southwestern boundary of the enclosure to the rear of No 11 Longley Road,

thence southeastwards along said southwestern boundary and in prolongation

thereof to the footpath leading from Longley Road to the southern end of

Foxglove Road, thence southeastwards along said footpath to the eastern

boundary of Penny Spring Wood, thence southeastwards along said eastern

boundary to and southwards along the eastern boundary of Parcel No 0910

12

as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (AA) SE 1615, date of microfilming 1961, to

the northern boundary of parcel no 1100, thence southwestwards along said

northern boundary and continuing along said northern boundary on OS 1:2500

Microfilm (AA) SE 1614, date of microfilming 19&1, to the western boundary

of said parcel, thence southwards along said western boundary and the

western boundaries of Parcel Nos 1?00 and 1082 to Kaye Lane, thence west-

wards along said lane to Ashes Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane

to a point opposite the southern boundary of Parcel No 866*f, as shown on

OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A_*) SE 1*f13, date of microfilming 1963, thence

southeastwards to and along said southern boundary to the unnamed road

leading northeastwards and southeastwards from Castle Houses, thence south-

eastwards and northeastwards along said unnamed road to the northeastern

boundary of Parcel no 05 8 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A '*) SE 1513,

date of microfilming 1963, thence southeastwards along said northeastern

boundary to and southwestwards along the southeastern, boundary of said

parcel to the northwestern boundary of Kirkburton CP, thence southwestwards

along said northwestern boundary and the northern boundary of Holme Valley

CP to the eastern boundary of Crosland Moor Ward, thence generally north-

wards along said eastern boundary to the point of commencement.

AIMONDBITRY WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Newsome Ward meets

the southern boundary of Deighton Ward, thence eastwards along said southern

boundary and continuing eastwards, northeastwards and eastwards along

Wakefield Road to the northwestern boundary of Kirkburn CP, thence south-

eastwards and southwestwards along said northwestern boundary to the eastern

boundary of Newsome Ward, thence generally northeastwards and northwestwards

along said eastern boundary to the point of commencement.

13

MISFIELD WARD

Commencing on the northern boundary of Kirkburton CP, at a point where

Nun Brook flows into the River Calder, thence northwestwards to and along

said brook to Leeds Road, thence northeastwards along said road and Huddersfield

Road to a point opposite the southwestern boundary of the Garage, No 269,

Huddersfield Road, thence southeastwards to and along said southwestern

boundary to its southernmost point, thence southeastwards in a straight line

from said point to the northernmost point of the western boundary of Parcel

No 1215, as shown on OS 1:2500 Plan SE 2022, edition of 1958, thence from

said point, southwards along said western boundary to the southwestern

boundary of said parcel, thence southeastwards along said southwestern

boundary and the southwestern boundaries of Parcel Nos 1909 and 2703 and

continuing southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 2800,

as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SE 20-2121, edition of 1971, and in prolongation

thereof to the stream known as Finching Dike, thence northeastwards along

said stream to the footpath leading southwards to Crossley lane, thence

southwards along said footpath to said lane, thence southwards along said

lane to the path leading southwestwards from the east of No 206 Crossley

Lane, to Wellhouse Lane, thence southwestwards along said path to Wellhouse

Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to Jenny Lane, thence southwest-

wards along said lane to Greenside Road, thence southeastwards along said

road and Dunbottle Lane to Camm Lane thence southwestwards along said lane

to the road known as Towngate, thence southeastwards along said road to

Crowlees Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Parker Lane, thence

southeastwards along said lane to Huddersfield Road, thence eastwards along

said road to Steanard Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to the

River Calder, thence northeastwards, southeastwards and northeastwards

along said river to a point due northwest of the northwesternmost.point of

Parcel No 37 9, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SE 2219, date of micro-

filming'1967, thence due southeastwards to said point, being on the western

boundary of said parcel, thence generally southwards and southeastwards along

said western boundary and the western boundaries of parcel nos 33 j 319

and M+07 to the road known as Long Causeway, thence southwards along said

road and its continuation as a footpath to Back Lane, thence southwestwards

along said lane to Scopsley Lane, thence southwards along said lane to a

point opposite the northwestern boundary of'Parcel No 9600, as shown on

OS 1:3500 microfilm (A *) SE 2118, date of microfilming 1961, _thence west-

wards to and southwestwards along said northwestern boundary and southwards

along the western boundary of said parcel to the southeastern boundary of

Parcel No ?800, thence southwestwards along said southeastern boundary,

continuing onto OS 1:2500 Microfilm (_A_*) SE 211?, date of microfilming 1961,

to the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 7286 , thence northwestwards along

said northeastern boundary to the northwestern boundary of said parcel,

thence southwestwards along said northwestern boundary and the northwestern

boundary of Parcel No 6581 to the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 5771, thence

southeastwards along said northeastern boundary and southwestwards along the

southeastern boundary of said parcel to the eastern boundary of parcel No 4667T

thence southwards along said eastern boundary to and southwards, eastwards

and southwestwards along the eastern and southeastern boundaries of Parcel No

5055 to the northeastern boundary of Kirkburton CP, thence generally northwest-

wards, northeastwards and northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of

commencement.

KEGHTOWN WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Kirkburton CP

meets the northwestern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwest-

wards, northeastwards and eastwards along said northwestern boundary to the

eastern boundary of Parcel No 83 6, as shown on OS 1:2500 Plan SE 1626,

15

edition of 1957 j thence southwards along said eastern boundary to Whitehall

Road, thence eastwards and northeastwards along said road to the Bradford

to Dewsbury railway, thence southeastwards along said railway to Whitechapel

Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Turnsteads Avenue, thence

southeastwards along said avenue to Whitcliffe Road, thence eastwards along

said road to the Bradford to Dewsbury railway, thence southwards along said

railway to the road known as Westgate, thence eastwards along said road, the

road known as Parkside and eastwards and northeastwards along St Peg Lane and

the road known as Spen Bank to Gomersal Lane, thence generally eastwards

along said lane to the unnamed road that leads southwards from said lane

past Mount Pleasant and the properties known as Walsh Houses, thence south-

westwards, southeastwards and southwestwards along'said road and continuing

southwestwards along the footpath leading to New Street to the northwestern

boundary of Royds Park, thence southwestwards, southeastwards and southwest-

wards along said northwestern boundary to Bradford Road, thence southeastwards

along said road to Primrose Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to

the Bradford to Dewsbury railway, thence southeastwards along said railway

to Huddersfield Road, thence southwestwards, southwards and southwestwards

along said road to the northwestern boundary of Mir.field. Ward, thence south-

westwards and southeastwards along said northwestern boundary to the northern

boundary of Kirkburton CP, thence southwestwards along said northern boundary

to the point of commencement.

CLECKHEATON WARD

Commencing at the point where the northern boundary of Hightown Ward meets

the northwestern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northeastwards

along said northwestern boundary and southeastwards along the northeastern

boundary of the Borough to Warrens Lane, thence southwestwards along said

lane to the point at which it becomes a path, thence northwestwards along

the southwestern extremity of said lane to and south westwards along the

16

line of field boundaries leading southwestwards from said lane to the stream

known as Oakwell Beck, thence southwestwards along said field boundaries to

said stream, thence generally southeastward^ along said stream to its culvert

to the north of the M62 Motorway, thence southeastwards in a straight line

from said culvert to the culvert of Oakwell Beck on the southern side of

the dismantled railway, thence southwestwards along Oakwell Beck to

Nutter Lane, thence westwards along said lane to a point due north of the

northernmost point of the western boundary of The Scotland (PH), thence due

south from said point to said western boundary, thence southwards along

said western boundary and continuing southwards along the line of field

boundaries leading southwards from said western boundary towards Church Beck

to NG Reference point SE 21216 26286, thence southwards in a straight line

from said reference point to the line of field boundaries leading southwards

from NG Reference point SE 2122^26115, thence southwards along said field

boundaries to the northern boundary of No 75 Church Lane, thence eastwards

along said northern boundary and southwards along the eastern boundary of

said property to Church Lane, thence westwards along said lane to Oxford Road,

thence northwestwards along said road to Spen Lane, thence northwestwards

and southwestwards along said lane to the northeastern boundary of Hightown

Ward, thence generally westwards and northwestwards along said northeastern

boundary and westwards along the northern boundary of said ward to the point

of commencement.

BIRSTALL WAED

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Cleckheaton Ward meets

the northeastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally southeastwards

along said northeastern boundary to the northwestern boundary of Nos 2 to 16

Timothy Lane, thence southwestwards along said northwestern boundary and

southwards.along the western boundary of said properties to Timothy Lane,

17

thence southwestwards along said lane to the road known as Batley Field Hill,

thence south-eastwards and southwestwards along said road to Bradford Road,

thence southeastwards and southwards along said road to Hick Lane, thence

northwestwards along said lane and Commercial Street to Market Square, thence

southwards through said square and continuing southwards along Cambridge Street

to Wellington Street, thence westwards along said street to Mayman lane, thence

northwards along said lane to Cemetery Road, thence northwestwards and north-

eastwards along said road to Cross Bank Road, thence northwestwards along

said road to Carlinghow Lane, thence westwards and northwestwards along said

lane and continuing northwestwards along White Lee Road to Leeds Old Road,

ithence southwestwards along said road to a point opposite the southwestern

boundary of No 39 Leeds Old Road, thence northwestwards to and along said

- southwestern boundary to the northwestern boundary of said property, thence

northeastwards along said northwestern boundary, the northwestern boundaries

of White Lee Social Club and No 250 White Lee Road and the southeastern

boundaries of Nos 7 to 1 Houldsworth Avenue to White Lee Road, thence north-

westwards along said road to Leeds Road, thence southwestwards along said road

to a point opposite the southern boundary of the track leading to White Lea

Colliery (disused), thence westwards to and southwestwards along said southern

boundary and'the southern boundary of said Colliery to the northeastern

boundary of Parcel No 730? as shown on OS 1:2500 Plan SE 2125, edition of

1956, thence northwestwards along said northeastern boundary to the eastern

boundary of Parcel No 6520, thence northwards and northeastwards along said

eastern boundary and continuing northeastwards along the southeastern

boundary of Parcel No 7 36" to the northeastern boundary of said parcel, thence

• northwestwards along said northeastern boundary the northeastern boundary of

parcel No 6W? and the northern boundary of said parcel to a point on said

northern boundary being at NG Ref point SE 2158725527, thence westwards from said

point in a straight line to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 565 1 thence

southwards along said eastern boundary and northwestwards along the south-

western boundary of said parcel to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No

18

thence southwestwards along said southeastern boundary and northwestwards along the

southwestern boundary of said parcel to the southeastern boundary of No 26 Craven Lane,

thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary and the southeastern

boundaries of Nos 28 to 56 Craven Lane to the northeastern boundary of the

last mentioned property, thence northwestwards along said northeastern boundary,

crossing Craven Lane in a straight line to the unnamed road leading to Nos 37

to 51 Craven Lane, thence northwestwards along said unnamed road to a point

in line with the northern boundary of No 4 3 Craven Lane, thence, northwestwards

to and along said northern boundary to the southeastern boundary of No 1 Craven

Drive, thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary and northwest-j

wards along the northeastern boundary of said property to Craven Drive, thence

northwards along said drive to the southeastern boundary of Cleckheaton Ward,

thence eastwards along said southeastern boundary and generally northeastwards

along the eastern boundary of said ward to the point of commencement.

BAILEY EAST WARD

Commencing at the point where the southeastern boundary of Birstall Ward meets

the northeastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally southeastwards and

southwestwards along said northeastern boundary to the northeastern boundary

of Parcel No 4113 as shown on OS 1:2500 SUSI microfilm SE 2723, date of micro-

filming, May 1973* thence northwestwards along said northeastern boundary,

crossing the track, to the western boundary of parcel No 5 +0, thence north-

westwards along said western boundary and the southwestern boundary of Parcel

No 5 62 to the northern boundary of Parcel No OV$6, thence westwards along

said northern boundary on to OS 1:2500 SUSI Microfilm SE 2623, date of micro-

filming, May 1973 to the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 795 ) thence

northwestwards along said northeastern boundary and continuing northwestwards

and generally westwards along the northern boundary of Parcel No 7265, thence

westwards in a straight line from the western end of said boundary, crossing

Leeds Road, to the southern boundary of No 901 Leeds Road, thence northwest-

19

wards along said southern boundary to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 608 ,

thence southwards along said eastern boundary and westwards along the

southern boundary of said parcel to the northern boundary of Parcel No 5068,

thence westwards along said northern boundary and southwards along the western

boundary of said parcel, crossing Sykes Lane, and continuing southwards along

the western 'boundary of Parcel No ¥*53 to Grange Road, thence westwards along

said road to a point opposite the eastern boundary of Parcel No 20 1, thence

southwards to and along said eastern boundary and westwards along the southern

boundary of said parcel and the southern boundary of Parcel No 0061 to its

westernmost point, thence southwestwards from said point in a straight line,

crossing the disused Railway, to the southeastern boundary of parcel no 0025,

thence southwestwards along said southeastern boundary, and continuing on

OS 1:2500'Microfilm (B) SE 2523 date of microfilming 1966, to High Street,

thence southeastwards along said street to a point opposite the northern

boundary of No 156 High Street, thence southwestwards to and along said

northern boundary to the southwestern boundary of said property, thence

southeastwards along said southwestern boundary and the southwestern boundaries,

of Nos 15S to 166 High Street to the footpath leading southwestwards to Glenlow

Road, thence southwestwards along said footpath to Glenlow Road, thence south-

eastwards along said road to Guernsey Road, thence southwestwards along said

road to the road known as Croftlands, thence southeastwards along said road

to Leeds Road, thence southwestwards along said' road to Caulms Wood Road,

thence northwestwards along said road to Crackenedge Lane, thence northwards

and northeastwards along said lane to a point opposite the northern boundary

of No 236 Crackenedge Lane, thence due west from said point to the stream

known as Batley Carr Beck, thence southwestwards along said stream to a point

due east of the culvert of Batley Carr Dyke in Albion Mill, thence due west

to said culvert, thence northwestwards along said dyke, crossing Bradford

Road, to David Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the

northeastern boundary of Batley Carr. Working Men's Club, thence northwestwards

to and-along said northeastern boundary to its northernmost point, thence

20

northwestwards in a straight line from said point to the southwestern extremity

of the unnamed road to the southeast of Nos 13 to 23 Town Street, thence north-

westwards along said southwestern extremity and the southwestern boundary of

the garages and enclosure to the southeast of No 23 Town Street and in prolongation

thereof" to the path to the south of said property, thence southwestwards and

northwestwards along said path to Town Street, thence southwestwards along

said street to Upper Road, thence westwards along said road to Halifax Road

thence northwestwards along said road to Track Road, thence northwards along

said road and continuing northwards and northeastwards along Dark Lane to the

southern boundary of Birstall Ward, thence generally northeastwards and south-

eastwards along said southern boundary and northwestwards and northeastwards

along the southeastern boundary of said Ward to the point of commencement.

BATLEY WEST WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of Birstall Ward meets

the western boundary of Batley East Ward, thence southwards along said western .

boundary and Halifax Road to Healds Road, thence westwards along said road,

crossing Staincliffe Road, to Knowles Hill Road, thence southwestwards along

said road to the footpath to the south of No 200 Heckmondwike Road, thence*

southwestwards along said footpath to said road, thence southwards along said

road to Garr Lane, thence southwestwards and westwards along said lane to the

Spen River, thence generally northwards and northwestwards along said river

to the Bradford to Dewsbury railway, thence southeastwards along said railway

to Station Lane, thence northeastwards along said lane to Market Street,

thence northwestwards along said street to Market Place, thence eastwards

through said Place and along High Street to a point opposite the western

boundary of the Car Park, thence northwestwards along said western boundary

and the eastern boundaries of the Telephone Exchange and Albion Court to

Cemetery Road, thence northeastwards along said road to Brighton Street,

21

thence northwestwards along said street to Battye Street, thence northwards

along said street and Upper Battye Street to the point where the western

boundary of Heckmondwike Cemetery meets the northern boundary of No 14 Oxford

Street,, thence eastwards to and northwards along said western boundary and

northeastwards and northwestwards along the northwestern boundary of said

cemetery to Dale Lane, thence northeastwards along said lane to the western

boundary of No J>6 Dale Lane, thence southeastwards to and along said western

boundary and its continuation southeastwards as a field boundary to NG Reference

point SE 220322 2251 thence eastwards in a straight line from said point to

the westernmost point of the southern boundaries of Nos 27 to 1 Fairfield

Road, thence northeastwards along said southern boundaries to Hollinbank Lane,

thence northwards along said lane to the road known as White Lee Side, thence

northwestwards along said road to its junction with Leeside Road, thence

northwards to the western boundary of No 10 Leeside Road, thence northwest-

wards along said western boundary and the western boundary of No 13 Leefield

Hoad to a point opposite the southern boundary of No ^ Leefield Road, thence

southwestwards to and along said southern boundary to the southwestern

boundary of said property thence northwestwards along said southwestern

boundary and the southwestern boundary of No'. 2 Leefield Road to its western- '

most point, thence due north from said point to Leeds Old Road, being on the

southern boundary of Birstall Ward, thence southeastwards and generally

southwards along" said southern boundary to the point of commencement.

X

HECKMONDWIKE WARD

Commencing at the point where the southwestern boundary of Birstall Ward meets

the western boundary of Batley West Ward thence generally southwestwards and

southeastwards along said western boundary and continuing southeastwards

along Spen River to the stream known as Finching Dike, thence generally

westwards along said stream to the northeastern boundary of Mirfield Ward,

22

thence southwestwards and northwestwards along said northeastern boundary

to the eastern boundary of Hightown Ward, thence generally northeastwards

•and northwestwards along said eastern boundary to the southeastern boundary

of Cleckheaton Ward, thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary

and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Birstall Ward to the

point of commencement.

DEWSBTJRY WEST WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Mirfield Ward meets the

southern boundary of Heckmondwike Ward, thence eastwards along said southern

boundary and northeastwards along the southern boundary of Batley West Ward

to Halifax Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Oxford Road, thence

southwestwards along said road to a point opposite the northeastern boundary

of No 2 Oxford Road, thence northwestwards to and along said northeastern

boundary to a point opposite the southern boundary of No 3 West Park Street,

thence southwestwards to and along said southern boundary to the northeastern

boundary of No 3a West Park Street, thence southeastwards along said north-

eastern boundary to the southern boundary of said property, thence southwest-

wards along said southern boundary and the southern boundary of No 5 West Park

Street to its westernmost point, thence southwestwards in a straight line from

said point to the southern boundary of Nos 7 and 9 West Park Street, thence

southwestwards along said southern boundary, and the southern boundaries of

Nos 11 to 41 West Park Street and the property known as Firdene to James Street,

thence southeastwards along said street to Oxford Road, thence southwestwards

along said road to Stockhill Street, thence southeastwards along said street

to the eastern boundary of No 68 Stockhill Street, thence southwards

along said eastern boundary and westwards along the southern boundary of said

property, and continuing westwards along the southern boundaries of Nos 62 to

58 Stockhill Street to the western boundary of the last mentioned property, -

23

thence northwards along said western boundary to the southern boundary of No 56

Stockhill Street, thence southwestwards along said southern boundary and the southern

boundaries of Nos 5^ to 6 Stockhill Street, thence southwestwards in a straight

line, crossing Mitre Road, to the footpath to the north of St John's CE School,

thence westwards along said footpath to Boothroyd Lane, thence southeastwards

and northeastwards along said lane and northeastwards along Moorlands Road to

the accessway from said road to Lacey Street, thence southeastwards along said

accessway to said street, thence southeastwards and southwards along said

street to Boothroyd Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to the road

known as Webster Hill, thence northeastwards along said road to the Mirfield

to Leeds railway, thence northeastwards along said railway to the road known

as Wesley Place, thence southwards along said road to Wellington Road, thence

southwestwards along said road to the road known as Webster Hill, thence

southeastwards along said road to Mill Street West, thence southwards along

said street to the River Calder, thence generally southwards, northwestwards

and southwestwards along said river to the eastern boundary of Mirfield Ward,

thence generally northwestwards and northwards along said eastern boundary to

the point of commencement.

DEWSBURY EAST WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Batley West Ward meets

the southern boundary of Batley East Ward, thence generally southeastwards,

northeastwards and southeastwards along said southern boundary to the eastern

boundary of the Borough, thence generally southwestwards and southwards along

said eastern boundary to the River Calder, thence generally northwestwards

along said river to the eastern boundary of Dewsbury West Ward, thence generally

northwestwards, northeastwards and northwestwards along said eastern boundary

and the eastern boundary of Batley West Ward to the point of commencement.

2k

THORNHILL WARD

Commencing at the point where the south eastern boundary of Mirfield Ward

meets the southern boundary of Dewsbury West Ward, thence generally north-

eastwards and northwards along said southern boundary to the southern

boundary of Dewsbury East Ward, thence generally southeastwards along said

southern boundary to the eastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally

southeastwards, northwestwards and southwestwards, along said eastern boundary

and continuing southwestwards and northwards along the northern boundary of

Kirkburton CP to the eastern boundary of Mirfield Ward, thence generally

northwards along said eastern boundary to the point of commencement,

DALTON WAED

The Kirkheaton Ward of the former Kirkburton UD

and.that area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the northern

boundary of Almondbury Ward meets the southeastern boundary of Deighton Ward,

thence generally northeastwards along said southeastern boundary to the

western boundary of Kirkburton CP, thence southwards along said western boundary

to- the.,nor.tixern boundary of Almondbury Ward,., thence- westwards along s_aid

northern boundary to the point of commencement.

DENBY DALE WARD

The Parish of Denby Dale

and the Shelley Ward of the former Kirkburton UD,

HOME VALLEY NORTH WARD

•The parish of Meltham. •

25 •

and the Honley Central, Honley East, H0nl'ey South, Honley West and Thurstonland

Wards of the former Holmfirth UD.

HOIKE VALLEY SOUTH WARD

Comprises the remainder of the former Holmfirth UD.

cKIRKHffiTON WARD

Comprises the remainder of the former Kirkburton UD.