New electoral arrangements for Pendle CouncilFinal recommendationsDecember 2019

Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, pleasecontact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crowncopyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best effortshave been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report arerepresentative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variationsbetween these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or thedigital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in whichthe final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to eitherthe large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness ofthe boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map orthe digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1

Who we are and what we do 1

What is an electoral review? 1

Why Pendle? 2

Our proposals for Pendle 2

How will the recommendations affect you? 2

Review timetable 3

Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 5

Electorate figures 5

Number of councillors 6

Ward boundaries consultation 7

Draft recommendations consultation 8

Final recommendations 8

Conclusions 21

Summary of electoral arrangements 21

Parish electoral arrangements 21

What happens next? 25

Equalities 27

Appendices 29

Appendix A 29

Appendix B 31

Appendix C 32

Appendix D 33

West Craven 9

Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west 12

Nelson 16

Colne and the rural east 18

Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council 29

Outline map 31

Submissions received 32

Glossary and abbreviations 33

1

Introduction

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an

independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any

political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs

chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out

electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE

(Chair)

• Andrew Scallan CBE

(Deputy Chair)

• Susan Johnson OBE

• Peter Maddison QPM

• Amanda Nobbs OBE

• Steve Robinson

• Jolyon Jackson CBE

(Chief Executive)

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a

local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed.

• How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their

boundaries are and what they should be called.

• How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main

considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each

councillor represents.

• Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.

• Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local

government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when

making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

2

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance

and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found

on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Pendle?

7 We are conducting a review of Pendle Borough Council (‘the Council’) at the

request of the Council in 2018. Furthermore, the value of each vote in borough

council elections varies depending on where you live in Pendle. Some councillors

currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral

inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as

possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Pendle are in the best possible places to help the Council

carry out its responsibilities effectively.

• The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the

same across the borough.

Our proposals for Pendle

9 Pendle should be represented by 33 councillors, 16 fewer than there are now.

10 Pendle should have 12 wards, eight fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for

Pendle.

How will the recommendations affect you?

13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the

Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are

in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward

name may also change.

14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or

result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary

constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local

taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to

take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

3

Review timetable

15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of

councillors for Pendle. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on

warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation

have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 February 2019 Number of councillors decided

26 February 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards

6 May 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and

forming draft recommendations

30 July 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second

consultation

7 October 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and

forming final recommendations

17 December 2019 Publication of final recommendations

4

5

Analysis and final recommendations

17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how

many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five

years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to

recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same

number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the

number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the

council as possible.

19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual

local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on

the table below.

2019 2024

Electorate of Pendle 66,626 68,836

Number of councillors 49 33

Average number of electors per

councillor 1,360 2,086

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the

average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All

of our proposed wards for Pendle will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received

21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may

be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on

from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These

forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the

electorate of around 3% by 2024.

23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that

the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these

figures to produce our final recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

6

Number of councillors

24 Pendle Borough Council currently has 49 councillors. We looked at all the

evidence provided during the initial stages of the review and concluded that

decreasing this number by 16 will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and

responsibilities effectively.

25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be

represented by 33 councillors.

26 As Pendle Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three

out of every four years), there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a

uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern

of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an

alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

27 We received submissions during both stages of consultation that proposed we

recommend a one-councillor ward for the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth

and Old Laund Booth, in the south-west of the borough. This would have resulted in

a council size of 34 councillors. We also received a proposal from a local resident

during the consultation on our draft recommendations that suggested we adopt a

two-councillor ward and single-councillor ward in the same area. This proposal would

maintain a council size of 33 but would depart from the uniform pattern of three-

councillor wards.

28 As explained in detail in paragraphs 59–60, we have been persuaded that a

uniform pattern of three-councillor wards will not reflect community identities in the

south-west of the borough. We have consequently changed our recommendations in

this area. We have decided to adopt the local resident’s proposal for a two-councillor

ward and single-councillor ward, moving away from the presumption that the

borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We consider that this

proposal will best reflect our statutory criteria.

29 We also received several submissions that supported the decision to reduce

the number of councillors on the Council from 49 to 33. One submission suggested

the Council be represented by 20 councillors but did not provide any detailed

evidence as how this number would allow the Council to carry out its roles and

responsibilities effectively. We have thus based our final recommendations on a 33-

member council.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

7

Ward boundaries consultation

30 We received 33 submissions in response to our consultation on ward

boundaries. These included four full borough-wide proposals. Two were received

from the Council (the second received after a change of the Council’s political

control), one from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party and one from a local

resident. We also received proposals for minor variations to the second Council

scheme from the Pendle Liberal Democrats and two borough councillors. The

remainder of the submissions provided localised comments in particular areas of the

borough. These included the Barnoldswick Branch of Pendle Labour Party, which

provided an alternative warding pattern in the West Craven area, and the Labour

Party Colne Co-ordination Committee, which submitted a pattern of wards for the

Colne area.

31 The first Council scheme and the Pendle Constituency Labour Party’s scheme

both proposed a uniform pattern of 11 three-councillor wards across Pendle.

Conversely, the second Council scheme and the variations of that scheme proposed

a pattern of 11 three-councillor wards with an additional single-councillor ward in the

south-west of the borough. We carefully considered these proposals and were of the

view that the proposed patterns of wards would generally result in good levels of

electoral equality in most areas of the authority and largely used clearly identifiable

boundaries.

32 The borough-wide scheme proposed by a local resident suggested a warding

pattern made up one-, two-, three- and four-councillor wards. We consider four-

councillor wards do not aid effective and convenient local government and potentially

dilute the accountability of councillors to the electorate, so we did not adopt these

wards as part of our draft recommendations. We also considered the evidence for

either single- or two-councillor wards was not persuasive enough for us to depart

from the presumption that the borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor

wards. We therefore did not adopt any of these proposals as part of our draft

recommendations. We did nonetheless consider the three-councillor wards proposed

by the local resident where appropriate.

33 Our draft recommendations were predominantly based on the second Council

scheme, which we considered best reflected our statutory criteria. However, we

developed our own warding pattern in the south-west of the borough in order to

create a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards.

34 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the

ground. This tour of Pendle helped us to decide between the different boundaries

proposed.

8

35 Our draft recommendations were for 11 three-councillor wards. We considered

that our draft recommendations provided for good electoral equality while reflecting

community identities and interests where we received such evidence during

consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation

36 We received 74 submissions during consultation on our draft

recommendations. These included borough-wide responses from the Council and

the Conservative Group. The rest of the submissions related to specific areas of the

borough, where we received strong, well-evidenced objections to our draft

recommendations for the south-west of the borough, specifically with regard to our

proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward.

37 We have therefore proposed changes to the warding arrangements in this area

as part of our final recommendations. As a consequence, we have moved away from

a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, creating a two-councillor Brierfield West

& Reedley ward, and a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward.

38 Based on evidence received during consultation, we have also changed the

names of wards in West Craven, Nelson and Colne to better reflect community

identities.

Final recommendations

39 Our final recommendations are for 10 three-councillor wards, one two-councillor

ward and one single-councillor ward. We consider that our final recommendations

will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and

interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

40 The tables and maps on pages 9–19 detail our final recommendations for each

area of Pendle. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the

three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation.

• Reflecting community interests and identities.

• Providing for effective and convenient local government.

41 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page

29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

9

West Craven

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2024

Barnoldswick 3 7%

Earby & Coates 3 9%

Barnoldswick and Earby & Coates

42 We received 12 submissions that related directly to our proposed wards in the

West Craven area. Three of these submissions argued against our proposal to place

the Coates area of Barnoldswick parish in a ward with Earby (and the adjoining

parishes), arguing this would not effectively represent local communities.

43 We carefully considered these submissions, and while we note the requests

made for the Coates area to remain in a Barnoldswick ward, a three-councillor ward

comprising entirety of Barnoldswick parish would result in an electoral variance of

34%. On the basis that local electors should have a vote of broadly equal weight, we

10

consider this too significant an electoral variance and have not adopted this proposal

as part of our final recommendations.

44 One of these submissions proposed that Foulridge parish, rather that the

Coates area, could be placed in a ward with the parishes of Earby, Salterforth and

Kelbrook & Sough. It was argued that the A56 provides strong road access between

these communities.

45 We have carefully considered these proposals but note that, given the

reduction in the number of councillors and wards across the borough, it is inevitable

that part of Barnoldswick parish will need to be in a ward that includes adjoining

communities. The proposal to place Foulridge parish in a ward with the parishes of

Earby, Salterforth and Kelbrook & Sough would not solve this issue as it would not

take account of the Coates area which cannot be placed in Barnoldswick ward given

the need to ensure good electoral equality. Therefore, we have not adopted this

proposal as part of our final recommendations.

46 The Council, the Conservative Group and Pendle Liberal Democrats all

supported our ward boundaries in the area. However, along with several other

submissions, they opposed the ward names of West Craven East and West Craven

West. A majority of these submissions suggested that these wards be renamed

Coates & Earby (or Earby & Coates) and Barnoldswick respectively, with the Pendle

Liberal Democrats stating these proposed names would be more representative of

the communities that reside within each ward. We are persuaded by the evidence

received and have decided to rename these wards as part of our final

recommendations. We are recommending the ward name of Earby & Coates, given

that Earby is the most populated parish within the ward.

47 Barnoldswick Town Council and the Pendle Liberal Democrats both opposed

the parish warding arrangements proposed as part of our draft recommendations for

the parish of Barnoldswick. The two submissions stated that the Craven parish ward

would be too large with 11 parish councillors, with both suggesting identical revised

parish warding arrangements. We have adopted these proposed changes, which will

provide for effective and convenient local government for Barnoldswick Town

Council. The electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick parish are outlined on page 22

of this report.

48 A local resident, Councillor Carter, Earby Town Council and Kelbrook & Sough

Parish Council suggested that a property, which is located on the very edge of the

Laneshaw Bridge parish boundary along Skipton Old Road, be incorporated into

Kelbrook & Sough parish. We have no power to change external parish boundaries

as part of our review. A community governance review conducted by the Council

would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing this issue.

11

49 We also received a submission from a local resident that asked for a property,

which straddles the boundary between Pendle borough and Craven district, be

wholly contained in one local authority. Another local resident stated the whole of the

West Craven area should be within Craven district. However, changing the external

boundaries between Pendle and Craven falls outside the scope of this electoral

review.

12

Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2024

Barrowford & Pendleside 3 -1%

Brierfield West & Reedley 2 10%

Fence & Higham 1 -6%

Barrowford & Pendleside

50 We received four submissions that referred to our proposed Barrowford &

Pendleside ward. One of these came from Roughlee Parish Council, which

supported our proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward.

13

51 A local resident and Old Laund Booth Parish Council both argued that our

proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward was too large and diverse, stating that the

urban Barrowford area is distinct from the adjoining rural parishes. The local resident

preferred that the existing wards remain in place. However, due to the reduction in

the number of councillors for the borough, it is an inevitable consequence that we

need to amend the allocation of councillors for wards as well as amending existing

ward boundaries. The submission also asked for Higherford village to be placed in

Blacko parish. However, changes to external parish boundaries falls outside the

scope of this electoral review.

52 Old Laund Booth Parish Council suggested Barrowford parish be warded

separately from the rural parishes, thereby allowing the parishes of Old Laund Booth

and Higham with Close Booth to be placed in a ward with the rest of the rural

parishes. However, a three-councillor ward comprising just Barrowford parish would

result in an electoral variance of -23%, which we consider too high to recommend. It

would not be possible to accept this proposal and ensure even, reasonable electoral

equality.

53 During our consultation on the warding arrangements for Pendle, we received

a submission from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party that proposed a

Barrowford & Pendleside ward that resulted in a variance of 13%. We chose not to

adopt this proposal when formulating our draft recommendations, as we considered

Blacko parish has a far stronger affiliation with the western parishes. We also

considered the electoral variance was too high and not supported by the evidence

received. A local resident submitted an alternative version of the Pendle

Constituency Labour Party’s scheme, which provided for a Barrowford & Pendleside

ward that produced an electoral variance of 9%. This was achieved by transferring

further electors from Barrowford parish into a Nelson East ward. This proposal would

provide for good electoral equality.

54 We therefore examined this proposal when formulating our final

recommendations. However, we considered that evidence received was not strong

enough to transfer several hundred electors around the A6068 and Victoria Park into

a Nelson town ward. In this area, we consider that the M65 motorway and the

Barrowford and Nelson parish boundary represent stronger boundaries.

Furthermore, we maintain the view that placing Blacko parish in a ward with the

eastern parishes would not effectively reflect local community identities and

interests.

55 Therefore, in consideration of all the evidence received in relation to this ward,

we confirm our draft recommendation Barrowford & Pendleside ward as final.

14

Brierfield West & Reedley and Fence & Higham

56 We received numerous submissions that objected to our draft

recommendations for the parishes of Brierfield, Reedley, Old Laund Booth and

Higham with West Close Booth. These included strong, well-evidenced

representations from the Liberal Democrats, Old Laund Booth Parish Council and

Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council. It was argued that our proposed

Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward, which combined the parishes of Old Laund

Booth and Higham with West Close Booth with the urban parishes of Brierfield and

Reedley, did not take account of community identity and local geography, with the

M65 motorway forming a barrier between communities.

57 Several of these submissions supported the alternative proposal made by the

Council, which proposed that the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth and Old

Laund Booth form a single-councillor ward, increasing the council size by one from

33 to 34. We have decided not to adopt this proposal as adopting a 34-councillor

warding pattern would have notable consequential effects on electoral equality in

other wards across the borough, specifically in the West Craven area.

58 The Conservative Group also objected to our proposed Brierfield West, Fence

& Higham ward, instead proposing a Pendle View ward, along with significant

modifications to wards in the town of Nelson. However, we did not adopt this

proposal as we considered the community evidence provided was not strong enough

to warrant such substantial changes to our draft recommendations.

59 We also received a submission from a local resident who suggested that our

proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward be split into a single-councillor

Fence & Higham ward and a two-councillor Brierfield West ward. After carefully

considering the submissions in relation to this area, we are persuaded that sufficient

evidence has been received to move away from the presumption of a uniform pattern

of three-councillor wards, and that a two-councillor and single-councillor warding

arrangement in the south-west of the borough is justified on the grounds of

community identities and interests.

60 We therefore recommend a two-councillor Brierfield West & Reedley ward and

a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward, which we consider will better reflect the

distinct community identities of the two rural parishes and the more densely

populated areas of western Brierfield and Reedley Hallows parish. This proposal will

also provide for reasonable electoral equality, where our final Brierfield West &

Reedley ward will have an electoral variance of 10%, while our Fence & Higham

ward will have an electoral variance of -4% by 2024.

61 One local resident asked that a property, which is located on the very edge of

the Reedley Hallows parish boundary along Greenhead Lane, be incorporated into

Old Laund Booth parish. As previously mentioned in this report, we have no powers

15

to amend external parish boundaries and a community governance review

conducted by the Council would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing

this issue.

16

Nelson

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2024

Bradley 3 -6%

Brierfield East & Clover Hill 3 -3%

Marsden & Southfield 3 -2%

Whitefield & Walverden 3 3%

Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden

62 The submissions we received for this area proposed significantly different

boundaries. The Council suggested various amendments between our proposed

Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden wards. However,

no community evidence was provided to substantiate these changes. We have

therefore not adopted these proposals as part of our final recommendations.

63 The Conservative Group proposed significantly different boundaries in Nelson,

proposing a Brierfield & Nelson West ward, a Cloverhill & Walverden ward and a

Bradley & Whitefield ward. However, as stated in paragraph 58, we considered the

community evidence provided was not strong enough to warrant substantial changes

to our draft recommendations. Furthermore, the Conservative Group’s Cloverhill &

Walverden ward resulted in an electoral variance of 16%. Given we have an

obligation to ensure that electors in Pendle have a vote of broadly equal weight, we

17

consider that this variance will not provide for sufficient electoral equality.

Consequently, we have not adopted these proposals as part of our final

recommendations.

64 Councillor Ali argued that because our proposed Brierfield East and Clover Hill

ward would fall under Nelson and Brierfield parishes, it would possibly lead to

confusion with a potential risk of under representation and neglect of local issues.

However, Councillor Ali did not provide for an alternative warding pattern for this

area.

65 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these wards

as final. We consider that these three wards represent the best balance of our

statutory criteria.

Marsden & Southfield

66 We received several submissions concerning our proposed Southfield &

Marsden ward. These included a submission from Councillor McGowan. A majority

of these submissions argued that the proposed ward name was unsuitable, stating

that Marsden, as the more historic and recognisable part of the ward, should come

before Southfield in the ward name. Based on the submissions received, we

consider there is enough evidence to support a name change that better reflects

community identity.

67 Two submissions agreed with the proposal to place the areas of Marsden and

Southfield into a single ward, while one submission opposed the decision, stating

they should be separately warded. However, no alternative warding pattern that

would adequately reflect our statutory criteria was provided. Therefore, except for the

name change outlined above, we are confirming our draft recommendations for this

ward as final.

18

Colne and the rural east

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2024

Boulsworth & Foulridge 3 3%

Vivary Bridge 3 -9%

Waterside & Horsfield 3 -6%

Boulsworth & Foulridge

68 We received a submission from a local resident which opposed combining

Foulridge parish in a ward with the existing Boulsworth ward, emphasising the

distinct identity of the parish. However, given that Pendle elects a third of its

councillors each year, there is a presumption in law that it will have a uniform pattern

of three-councillor wards. Therefore, it is necessary to place Foulridge in a ward

alongside the adjoining rural parishes of Laneshaw Bridge and Trawden Forest in

order to achieve good electoral equality and maintain a three-councillor warding

pattern. In this case, we considered the evidence provided was not compelling

19

enough to move away from this pattern of wards, and we have therefore decided to

confirm our proposed Boulsworth & Foulridge ward as final.

69 The Pendle Liberal Democrats opposed the parish warding arrangements for

the Colne parish that were proposed as part of our draft recommendations –

specifically in the Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have adopted the changes

proposed, which we consider will provide for effective and convenient local

government for Colne Town Council. These changes are detailed further on page 22

of this report.

70 We received no other submissions that related directly to our proposed

Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft

recommendations for this ward as final.

Vivary Bridge

71 We received one submission from a local resident that stated that the disused

railway line would represent a better boundary between Vivary Bridge and

Barrowford & Pendleside wards. We are of the view that ward boundaries should

follow the existing parish boundaries in this area. If the ward boundary followed the

disused railway line, it would require the creation of a new parish ward. We consider

this would not ensure effective and convenient local government, especially given

the lack of community evidence to justify such a change. We therefore did not adopt

this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

72 No further submissions were received in regard to our proposed Vivary Bridge

ward, so we therefore confirm the draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Waterside & Horsfield

73 We have changed the name of our proposed Waterside ward to Waterside &

Horsfield based on submissions received. The Council, the Conservative Group and

the Liberal Democrats all supported this name change, with the Liberal Democrats

providing good evidence that the proposed ward will include the Colne cricket

ground, which provided the origin of the Horsfield name. Renaming this ward will

better reflect the communities that reside within it, so we have adopted it as part of

our final recommendations. Our final Waterside & Horsfield ward will an electoral

variance of -6% by 2024.

20

21

Conclusions

74 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final

recommendations on electoral equality in Pendle, referencing the 2019 and 2024

electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral

variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of

the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2019 2024

Number of councillors 33 33

Number of electoral wards 12 12

Average number of electors per councillor 2,019 2,086

Number of wards with a variance more than 10%

from the average 0 0

Number of wards with a variance more than 20%

from the average 0 0

Final recommendations

Pendle Borough Council should be made up of 33 councillors serving 12 wards,

representing one single-councillor ward, one two-councillor ward and 10 three-

councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated

on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping

Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Pendle Borough Council.

You can also view our final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council on our

interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

75 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory

criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and

Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be

divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that

each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to

the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

22

76 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish

electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our

recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Pendle

Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in

Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to

parish electoral arrangements.

77 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory

criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish

electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick, Colne and Nelson.

78 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick

parish.

Final recommendations

Barnoldswick Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present,

representing three wards:

Parish ward Number of parish councillors

Coates 3

Barnoldswick North 4

Barnoldswick South 7

79 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Colne parish.

Final recommendations

Colne Town Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing

five wards:

Parish ward Number of parish councillors

Central 2

Lidgett 2

Vivary Bridge 7

Waterside East 2

Waterside West 4

80 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Nelson parish. The

parish warding arrangements in Nelson parish are affected both by our proposed

borough wards and by Lancashire county divisions. The parish wards for Nelson

parish proposed as part of our draft recommendations did not fully consider the

impact of the county divisions in Nelson. We are therefore proposing amended

parish warding arrangements for Nelson parish at this stage to reflect both the new

borough wards and the existing county divisions.

23

Final recommendations

Nelson Town Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing

seven wards:

Parish ward Number of parish councillors

Bradley 6

Clover Hill 2

Marsden East 1

Marsden West 1

Southfield 6

Walverden 5

Whitefield 3

24

25

What happens next?

81 We have now completed our review of Pendle Borough Council. The

recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal

document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament.

Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into

force at the local elections in 2020.

26

27

Equalities

82 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines

set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to

ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review

process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a

result of the outcome of the review.

28

29

Appendices

Appendix A

Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2024)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

1 Barrowford &

Pendleside 3 5,974 1,991 -1% 6,190 2,063 -1%

2 Barnoldswick 3 6,571 2,190 8% 6,711 2,237 7%

3 Boulsworth &

Foulridge 3 6,128 2,043 1% 6,430 2,143 3%

4 Bradley 3 5,835 1,945 -4% 5,912 1,971 -6%

5 Brierfield East &

Clover Hill 3 5,860 1,953 -3% 6,062 2,021 -3%

6 Brierfield West &

Reedley 2 4,270 2,135 6% 4,573 2,287 10%

7 Earby & Coates 3 6,525 2,175 8% 6,830 2,277 9%

8 Fence & Higham 1 1,943 1,943 -4% 1,956 1,956 -6%

9 Marsden &

Southfield 3 5,982 1,994 -1% 6,133 2,044 -2%

10 Vivary Bridge 3 5,495 1,832 -9% 5,714 1,905 -9%

11 Waterside &

Horsfield 3 5,634 1,878 -7% 5,898 1,966 -6%

30

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2024)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

12 Whitefield &

Walverden 3 6,409 2,136 6% 6,427 2,142 3%

Totals 33 66,626 – – 68,836 – –

Averages – – 2,019 – – 2,086 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Pendle Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward

varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to

the nearest whole number.

31

Appendix B

Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying

this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-

west/lancashire/pendle

32

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:

www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendle

Local Authority

• Pendle Borough Council

Political Groups

• Pendle Conservative Group

• Pendle Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor Z. Ali (Pendle Borough Council)

• Councillor C. Carter (Pendle Borough Council)

• Councillor N. McGowan (Pendle Borough Council)

Parish and Town Councils

• Barnoldswick Town Council

• Earby Town Council

• Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council

• Kelbrook & Sough Parish Council

• Old Laund Booth Parish Council (x2)

• Roughlee Parish Council

Local Residents

• 61 local residents

33

Appendix D

Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to

serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements

changes to the electoral arrangements

of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for

electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors can vote in whichever division

they are registered for the candidate or

candidates they wish to represent them

on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the

same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the

number of electors represented by a

councillor and the average for the local

authority

Electorate People in the authority who are

registered to vote in elections. For the

purposes of this report, we refer

specifically to the electorate for local

government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local

authority divided by the number of

councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per

councillor in a ward or division than the

average

Parish A specific and defined area of land

within a single local authority enclosed

within a parish boundary. There are over

10,000 parishes in England, which

provide the first tier of representation to

their local residents

34

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish

which serves and represents the area

defined by the parish boundaries. See

also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral

arrangements

The total number of councillors on any

one parish or town council; the number,

names and boundaries of parish wards;

and the number of councillors for each

ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for

electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors vote in whichever parish ward

they live for candidate or candidates

they wish to represent them on the

parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given

ceremonial ‘town’ status. More

information on achieving such status

can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per

councillor in a ward or division than the

average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per

councillor in a ward or division varies in

percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough,

defined for electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors can vote in whichever ward

they are registered for the candidate or

candidates they wish to represent them

on the district or borough council

The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.

Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.ukOnline: www.lgbce.org.uk orwww.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE