Bradford final recommendations

Keighley and Worth Valley

Keighley Central, Keighley East, Keighley West and Worth Valley

Our draft recommendations for Keighley were for three wards of Keighley Central, Keighley East and Keighley West. These were identical to the existing wards, except for a very minor change in the Goose Eye area. Our proposal for Worth Valley ward was the addition of Denholme parish, which allowed for electoral equality in the Bingley Rural area.

The Labour Group, the Greens and the Labour Party’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Keighley & Ilkley constituency fully supported the draft recommendations. Keighley Town Council supported the change in the Goose Eye area, along with supporting all three proposed Keighley wards. They also noted our proposal to add Denholme parish to Worth Valley ward and stated that whilst this created an even larger ward than the current ward, they had no concerns about the inclusion of the parish. Two Keighley Town Council councillors supported the inclusion of the Goose Eye area in Worth Valley ward but objected to the inclusion of Denholme parish.

The Conservatives also opposed the inclusion of Denholme parish in Worth Valley ward and again suggested its alternative proposal to include Bogthorn and Laycock in Worth Valley ward. Oakworth Village Society, Oxenhope Village Council, Worth Valley Labour Party and seven local residents who all live in the existing Worth Valley ward also objected to the inclusion of Denholme parish, stating a lack of shared community identities and interests. Conversely, two local residents from Denholme parish supported its inclusion in Worth Valley ward. Other than the Conservatives, none of the other submissions that objected to the inclusion of Denholme parish in Worth Valley ward suggested an alternative warding pattern that could accommodate Denholme parish in a Bingley-centric ward and provide for electoral equality.

Given the support for the proposals from two of the political groups on the Council, as well as Keighley Town Council, and the lack of any alternative proposals for Worth Valley ward that would, in our view, better reflect our statutory criteria, we consider it appropriate to confirm the draft recommendations for these four wards as final.

Our final recommendations are for four three-councillor wards of Keighley Central, Keighley East, Keighley West and Worth Valley, which will have electoral variances of -2%, -1%, -6% and 10% by 2029, respectively.

Bingley, Baildon and Shipley

Baildon, Bingley East, Bingley West and Shipley

Our draft recommendations for this area transferred the settlement of Eldwick from Bingley ward to a proposed Baildon & Eldwick ward. This proposal allowed us to achieve electoral equality for both wards, as the existing Bingley ward is forecast to have 20% more electors than the average for the district by 2029.

In addition, we had recommended a Bingley Rural ward that moved Denholme parish into Worth Valley ward and used the River Aire as the boundary between Bingley ward and Bingley Rural ward. Our proposed Shipley ward followed the boundaries of the existing Shipley ward, except for a small amendment to provide a more identifiable boundary with our Baildon & Eldwick ward along Green Lane. This proposal meant that the part of Baildon parish currently in a Shipley ward remained in a Shipley ward.

In response, we received a great deal of community-based evidence demonstrating the strong ties that the Eldwick area has with the wider Bingley area. These submissions stated that there is a lack of community ties between Eldwick and Baildon, including the lack of any public transport over Baildon Moor along Bingley Road.

As a result, we proposed further draft recommendations for the area, consisting of four three-councillor wards: Baildon, Bingley East, Bingley West and Shipley.

Our proposed Baildon ward contained all of Baildon parish as well as the unparished area of Esholt. We proposed Bingley East and Bingley West wards with the railway line through the town forming the boundary between the wards. We proposed to include part of Cottingley village in Bingley West ward, with the remainder of the village included in our proposed Shipley ward.

In response to our consultation on these further draft recommendations, we received 391 submissions that made direct reference to at least one of these four wards.

The Labour Group reiterated their support for a ward that included Eldwick in a ward with Baildon and proposed a slightly revised boundary. Southway, Moor Croft and Stone Hill would be included in Baildon & Eldwick ward, with Warren Lane forming the boundary between Baildon & Eldwick and Bingley wards. They stated that adopting the further draft recommendations would fracture community identities in Bingley and Cottingley. They also opposed the inclusion of the part of Baildon parish that is currently in Shipley ward moving to a Baildon ward, on the basis that it would divide the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) between wards.

The Green Group also supported retaining all of the Saltaire WHS in an unchanged Shipley ward. In addition, they also considered that including Eldwick in a Baildon ward was preferable to dividing Bingley and Cottingley. The Conservative and Queensbury Independent Group broadly supported the proposals for Baildon, Bingley East and Bingley West wards as proposed in our further draft recommendations. Anna Dixon, the MP for Shipley, wrote in support of the initial draft proposals.

Councillors Dearden, Fricker and Wheatley, the current councillors for Bingley ward, made a joint submission in opposition to the further draft recommendations. Councillor Wheatley also submitted a petition signed by 229 people objecting to the further draft recommendations and in support of the Labour Group’s suggested amendments.

Councillors Sullivan and Winnard, two of the current councillors for Bingley Rural ward, expressed support for the further draft recommendations. They stated that given the community ties between Eldwick and Gilstead with Bingley, dividing Bingley was necessary to ensure electoral equality, and the proposed boundary along the railway line accomplished this. Both councillors also suggested that a small amendment could be made to the Bingley West boundary to move 39 properties on Lee Lane from Bingley East ward to Bingley West ward. Wilsden Parish Council also wrote in support of this proposed change, albeit in the context of opposing the further draft recommendations more broadly.

Councillors Love, Warnes and Watson, the current councillors for Shipley ward, made a joint submission in support of the initial draft recommendations – particularly the proposal for Shipley ward to remain unchanged. They objected to the further draft recommendation proposal to transfer the part of Baildon parish along Coach Road, Higher Coach Road and Thompson Avenue from Shipley ward to Baildon ward. They expressed a preference for an unchanged Shipley ward, even if it meant Eldwick being included in a Baildon ward, acknowledging that this proposal had faced opposition. Councillor Parkinson of Shipley Town Council wrote in support of this submission.

Baildon Town Council, Councillor Foster and Councillor Turner wrote in support of the further draft recommendations. In contrast, Bingley Town Council opposed the division of Bingley, arguing that following the railway line would harm community ties in the town centre and undermine effective local governance. They proposed that Bingley Rural ward retain its current boundaries and that Bingley ward be represented by four councillors, rather than the current three, to ensure electoral equality. Councillor Clough and Councillor Goode of Bingley Town Council also wrote in opposition to the division of Cottingley under the further draft recommendations. Councillors Heseltine and Truelove, also of Bingley Town Council, made a joint objection to the inclusion of Eldwick in Baildon ward, as proposed under the draft recommendations, citing over 50 emails they had received opposing this proposal. Cottingley Community Centre also objected to the division of Cottingley between wards.

A total of 175 submissions from local residents in Eldwick also continued to oppose the possible inclusion of the area in a Baildon ward. These submissions provided additional evidence regarding the strong community ties between Eldwick, Gilstead and Bingley. We also received 121 local resident submissions objecting to our proposal to divide Bingley along the main railway line. These submissions gave evidence of the community ties in Bingley town centre and the Myrtle Park area. We received 75 submissions from local residents in Cottingley that opposed any division of the village between Bingley and Shipley wards, presenting strong evidence of the community ties in the village which would be broken by the inclusion of the southern part of the village in Shipley ward. Additionally, nine submissions from local residents supported moving the part of Baildon parish currently in Shipley ward back into Baildon ward, whereas six local residents advocated for its continued inclusion in Shipley ward.

Having considered all the submissions made during the three consultation periods, we conducted a detailed tour of the area to help us assess the various proposals and options. We looked at the road connecting Eldwick to Baildon parish as cited in many of the submissions we received. We concur with the view that this road, being the only link between the two areas, combined with the lack of connecting public transport, suggests a lack of strong community ties between Eldwick and Baildon.

We also visited Cottingley to assess our proposed boundary in the village. Whilst we were careful to ensure that the boundary we had proposed did not divide any streets between wards, we found the concerns raised in submissions – that our proposal broke community ties – to be valid. We determined that dividing Cottingley should be avoided if possible. This tour proved invaluable in confirming that it was unsuitable to include Eldwick in a Baildon ward, and to divide Cottingley between wards.

It is clear that throughout three rounds of consultation, we have received substantial feedback on this area, with both support and opposition to our draft and further draft recommendations. This has made balancing the statutory criteria challenging. However, we consider that our final recommendations for these four wards reflect a well-balanced consideration of the submissions we received.

Our final recommendations for Baildon ward and Shipley ward are two three-councillor wards that are very similar to the existing wards.

We propose that the boundary between Baildon and Shipley wards run along Green Lane, so that Lower Green and Milner Road are included in Baildon ward, rather than Shipley ward as at present. We propose that the remaining portion of Baildon parish currently in Shipley ward remain in Shipley ward. In our further draft recommendations, we suggested that this area along Coach Road, Higher Coach Road and Thompson Avenue be included in Baildon ward. We received some support for this proposal, but we also received significant opposition that stated that this proposal to divide the Saltaire WHS between wards would not provide for effective and convenient local government.

We observed that by keeping this area in an unchanged Shipley ward, we can avoid the division of Cottingley between Bingley West and Shipley wards, and we can prevent including any part of Eldwick in a Baildon ward, while achieving electoral equality across wards. Considering the strong evidence we had received against both of these proposals, we concluded that the best balance of our statutory criteria would be to maintain the existing boundary between Baildon and Shipley wards, with the exception of the small change to Lower Green and Milner Road.

Our final recommendations for Bingley are for two three-councillors wards of Bingley East and Bingley West. While we acknowledge the opposition to any division of Bingley in the submissions we received, we note that Bingley parish is currently split between Bingley and Bingley Rural wards. Additionally, there was a suggestion to allocate four councillors in a single Bingley ward. However, as a matter of policy, the Commission does not recommend wards of more than three councillors, as we consider that this dilutes democratic accountability.

We recognise that the existing Bingley and Bingley Rural wards are both well supported. However, these arrangements result in poor levels of electoral equality, with deviations of 14% and 20% more electors than the average for Bradford by 2029. We therefore explored alternative ways we could provide two three-councillor wards covering Bingley and its rural hinterland, while ensuring an effective balance of statutory criteria.

Our final recommendations reflect feedback received in submissions that the railway line is not a suitable boundary between Bingley East and Bingley West wards. After visiting the town, we were persuaded by this view, noting that the railway line and the A650 dual carriageway are situated in cuttings and do not form significant barriers. Consequently, our further draft recommendations risked disrupting community ties in the town centre and Myrtle Park areas. We also concluded that the B6265 Bradford Road would not make a suitable boundary. Therefore, we propose that the boundary between Bingley East and Bingley West wards run along the railway line, with the exception of the area around Leonard Street and Myrtle Avenue, to ensure that the Myrtle Park area is not divided across wards. While this proposal results in an electoral variance of 14% more electors in Bingley East ward than the average for Bradford by 2029, we are satisfied that this proposal best reflects the community identities in this area, and that such a variance can be justified on this basis.

Our Bingley West ward contains all of Cottingley village, as well as the parishes of Cullingworth, Harden and Wilsden.

We looked at the issue of the properties on Lee Lane that were raised in several submissions. These electors live in properties that lie right along the parish boundary between Bingley and Wilsden parishes and, under our final recommendations, are included in Bingley West ward instead of Shipley ward, as per our further draft recommendations. However, we are unable to make changes to parish boundaries as part of this review. They can only be changed by Bradford Council through a Community Governance Review.

Our final recommendations for this area are for four three-councillors wards of Baildon, Bingley East, Bingley West and Shipley, which will have electoral variances of -1%, 14%, 1% and -3% by 2029, respectively.

Northeast of the city centre

Bolton & Undercliffe, Bradford Moor, Eccleshill, Idle & Thackley and Windhill & Wrose

Our draft recommendations for these five wards were unchanged from the existing wards save for a small amendment to the boundary between the Idle & Thackley and Baildon wards.

In response to our draft recommendations, the Labour Group only commented on Windhill & Wrose ward, agreeing that leaving this ward unchanged was best for those communities. The Greens supported all five wards in their response.

We also received two further comments from local residents. One was supportive of Bolton & Undercliffe ward, and the other submission proposed some minor changes to the boundaries of Bolton & Undercliffe ward where it borders, firstly, Bowling & Barkerend ward and, secondly, Eccleshill ward.

The current boundary between Bolton & Undercliffe ward and Bowling & Barkerend ward runs in front of numbers 171-185 Sunnyside Lane and then down the middle of Airedale Road. The local resident suggested following the rear of 171-185 Sunnyside Lane and the rear of the south side of Airedale Road, so that the former properties would be wholly in Bowling & Barkerend ward and the latter properties in Bolton & Undercliffe ward. This would mean that neither road would be divided between wards. In addition, the local resident stated that Primary Way, which has been built since the last review, would be better placed in Bowling & Barkerend ward, to reflect the community identity of those electors.

In addition, the local resident proposed that a minor amendment be made to the boundary between Bolton & Undercliffe and Eccleshill wards to include all of Norman Avenue and Norman Mount in Bolton & Undercliffe ward, given that Norman Grove and Norman Crescent are already wholly in Bolton & Undercliffe ward. The local resident stated that this minor change would enhance community ties.

We propose to adopt these minor changes, which we agree reflect community ties. We also consider that, in this case, placing whole streets together in the same ward will aid effective and convenient local government. Other than these minor changes, we confirm the draft recommendations for these wards as final.

Our proposed final recommendations are for five three-councillor wards of Bolton & Undercliffe, Bradford Moor, Eccleshill, Idle & Thackley and Windhill & Wrose with electoral variances of -5%, 2%, 7%, 8% and -9% by 2029, respectively.

Southeast and southwest of the city centre

Bowling & Barkerend, Holme Wood & Bierley, Queensbury, Royds, Wibsey & Odsal and Wyke

Our draft recommendations in the south of the city were opposed in several submissions, as they created a ward that contained part of Bierley community with the community of Wyke, which lies on the other side of the M606. Having considered those submissions, we proposed a set of further draft recommendations for these six wards based on an alternative proposal received from the Greens. These proposed set of wards did not cross the M606.

In response to the consultation on our further draft recommendations, we received 11 submissions that referred to either some, or all, of these proposed wards.

The Greens were in favour of the further draft recommendations. The Conservatives did not support the further draft recommendations. They stated that their initial proposals were better than the further draft recommendations, as they contained more wards with variances closer to 0% than the further draft recommendations.

The Labour Group also opposed the further draft recommendations, citing the poorer levels of electoral equality compared to the draft recommendations. They also opposed the Bowling & Barkerend ward, as it did not align with the parliamentary constituency boundary in the area. In addition, they reaffirmed their support for the Wyke & Bierley Woods ward that was proposed at the draft recommendation stage, which was based on their warding pattern submission. They stated that Staithgate Lane provided access between the two wards and highlighted that other wards in the authority crossed major roads, with some areas, like Tyersal, having no internal access to the rest of the ward it is part of. The Labour Group also suggested renaming Tong Street ward to Holme Wood & Bierley, as this name better represented the main settlements in the ward. They also stated that Lower Woodlands should be included in a ward with Wyke, given its strong ties to that area and its close geographical proximity.

Councillor Edwards, one of the current councillors for Tong ward, supported the further draft recommendations. Councillor Edwards also argued that the Labour Group’s argument for the inclusion of the Laisterdyke/Swaine Green area in Tong ward to reflect the constituency boundary lacked community-based reasoning.

Oakenshaw Residents’ Association requested that all Bradford residents of Oakenshaw be placed in Wyke ward. They expressed concern that the village is already divided between Bradford and the neighbouring authority of Kirklees, and using the M606 motorway as a boundary would split the village between two Bradford Council wards and one Kirklees Council ward.

After reviewing the submissions and visiting the area during our tour of Bradford, we propose to adopt the further draft recommendations as final for this area, with minor adjustments in the Lower Woodlands area, and a change of name from Tong Street ward to Holme Wood & Bierley ward.

We note the objections from the Conservative and Queensbury Independent Group and the Labour Group with regards to the further draft recommendations offering poorer electoral equality compared to their own proposals or the draft recommendations. However, the Commission views electoral equality as one of three equally weighted statutory criteria. We will propose wards that have electoral variances further from the average if we find that evidence of community identity or effective and convenient local government to be compelling.

We also weighed the evidence regarding effective and convenient local government and the alignment of the parliamentary constituency boundary in the Laisterdyke/Swaine Green area against the evidence of the community identity of electors in this area. We concluded that no further compelling evidence had been provided to justify including this area in the renamed Holme Wood & Bierley ward, given that doing so would result in an electoral variance of 16%.

Having visited the area, we concluded that all of Bierley should remain in the renamed Holme Wood & Bierley ward. However, there was clear evidence that Lower Woodlands area should be included in a Wyke ward, even if this meant creating a ward that crossed the M606, requiring electors to leave the ward and local authority area for a very short time to transverse it. This decision reflects the evidence provided by both the Labour Group and Oakenshaw Residents’ Association.

We did not receive any submissions that directly related to our Queensbury, Royds or Wibsey & Odsal wards, so we are confirming them as final.

Our final recommendations for this area are for six three-councillor wards of Bowling & Barkerend, Holme Wood & Bierley, Queensbury, Royds, Wibsey & Odsal and Wyke with electoral variances of 10%, 1%, -9%, -8%, -7% and -8% by 2029, respectively.

City centre and surrounding area

City and Manningham

Our draft recommendations transferred an area from the City ward to Manningham ward to allow for electoral equality in City ward, which was forecast to have 14% more electors by 2029, due to a number of housing developments in the city centre.

The Labour Group, who made the original suggestion in their warding arrangements submission, responded to this consultation with a suggested amendment to the boundary between City ward and Manningham ward. They stated that, having consulted the Council’s Cabinet member responsible for regeneration, the businesses and residents around North Parade had longstanding ties to the city centre, and for regeneration and redevelopment reasons, they should be retained in City ward.

They proposed an amended boundary that would follow Westgate and Drewton Road with properties and businesses to the south and east placed in City ward. They, in turn, proposed that the boundary along Sunbridge Road is moved south onto Thornton Road and that the properties and businesses that lie in between are included in Manningham ward.

The Greens supported the draft recommendations for these two wards. With no other comments on these proposals, we confirm the draft recommendations as final, subject to the amendment suggested by the Labour Group, which we agree reflects the community interests of the North Parade area.

Our final recommendations are for two three-councillor wards of City and Manningham with 6% and 5% more electors than the average for Bradford by 2029.

Heaton & Frizinghall and Toller

Our proposed draft recommendations made no changes to the existing wards other than renaming Heaton ward to Heaton & Frizinghall ward.

During this consultation, the Greens supported these two wards in their submission. We received no further comments on these wards. We propose to confirm the draft recommendations as final.

Our final recommendations are for a three-councillor Heaton & Frizinghall ward with an electoral variance of 4% and a three-councillor Toller ward with an electoral variance of 3% by 2029.

Great Horton and Little Horton

Our draft recommendations for Great Horton and Little Horton made one small change to the existing Great Horton ward on its southern boundary.

During our consultation, we received five submissions in support of the proposed wards, including Judith Cummins MP, who specifically mentioned their support for the minor change between the two wards.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations as final for these two wards. Our proposed final recommendations are for two three-councillor wards of Great Horton and Little Horton, with electoral variances of -5% and -3%, respectively, by 2029.