Kirklees Further Draft Recommendations
Explore our further draft recommendations for new wards in Huddersfield and Dewsbury
LGBCE
This map displays our further draft recommendations for new wards in the Huddersfield and Dewsbury areas of Kirklees.
This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.
Click on the layers on the list in the bottom right hand corner of this map to switch between the different boundaries.
Explore your area
In the map below we discuss the areas of the borough where we are publishing further draft recommendations. This detail is also available in our report.
Huddersfield
Colne Valley East, Colne Valley West and Greenhead
Dewsbury
Dewsbury South, Dewsbury West and Mirfield
Huddersfield
Colne Valley East, Colne Valley West and Greenhead
The Labour Group proposed a ‘Colne Valley West’ ward and a ‘Colne Valley East’ ward to reflect that the Colne Valley area is considered by local people to also include the communities within our proposed Golcar ward. The group stated that the name Golcar only reflects one of the villages located within the ward and that the electors of this area consider themselves to live within Colne Valley. We were persuaded by the evidence received that these ward names will better reflect local community identities and interests in this area, and have therefore adopted the ward names of Colne Valley East and Colne Valley West as part of these recommendations. We particularly welcome local views on this change.
Under our draft recommendations, the Paddock area is located within Huddersfield West ward. The Labour Group opposed this on the basis that it divides the community between two wards. The group therefore proposed that it be included in Colne Valley East ward, which it shares more community connections with. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats also opposed our draft recommendations for this area. However, they proposed to retain Paddock within Greenhead ward and include the Royds Hall area, arguing that Paddock has ‘little affinity’ with our proposed Colne Valley East ward. These proposals were supported by a local resident who also opposed Paddock being included in what they deemed to be a predominantly rural ward. After careful consideration of the evidence received, we have been persuaded by the evidence put forward by the Labour Group and have therefore included Paddock within our proposed Colne Valley East ward as part of our further draft recommendations. On the basis of the evidence received so far, we are content that this will better reflect community identities and interests.
The Liberal Democrats proposed to amend the boundary between our proposed Colne Valley and Golcar wards to include the electors of Bolster Moor and Scapegoat Hill within Golcar ward, on the basis that these areas have Golcar postal addresses. We were not persuaded to adopt this proposal as we consider insufficient community evidence had been supplied and our statutory criteria does not require us to consider postcodes or addresses when determining warding arrangements.
The Labour Group proposed a Greenhead ward encompassing the communities centred around Greenhead Park which it argued was a focal point for community events. Many local residents as well as the Labour Group opposed our draft recommendations for this area on the basis that it divided the community of Marsh between our proposed Huddersfield West and Lindley wards. The Labour Group argued that its proposed Greenhead ward unites the community of Marsh within a single ward and also includes the Reinwood area which it considered to better reflect community ties. Alternatively, the Liberal Democrats proposed to include the Reinwood area in Lindley ward. We were not persuaded to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposal as we did not consider that sufficient evidence was provided to justify this change. However, we considered the evidence supplied to us by the Labour Group to be convincing and we have therefore adopted its proposal as part of our further draft recommendations. We consider this arrangement to better reflect communities identities and interests.
Lindley
The Labour Group proposed to include the village of Outlane within Lindley ward and argued that this area is physically divided from the rest of the Colne Valley area by the M62. Furthermore, the group argued that the residents of Outlane travel into Salendine Nook for shopping and other services. The Labour Group also included examples of Facebook community groups that Outlane shares with other communities in our proposed Lindley ward. We visited this area on tour of the authority and noted the clear access routes the village had into Lindley ward. However, we did not consider the Labour Group’s proposed boundary to be strong and locally recognisable and, to better reflect community identities and interests in this area, we propose to amend the boundary of Lindley to include the electors of Outlane by following the M62. We consider the M62 to be a strong and locally recognisable boundary that will help to promote effective and convenient local government. However, we particularly welcome local input on this proposal during this consultation.
In our original draft recommendations, we moved the Birchencliffe area from Lindley ward to Huddersfield North ward to improve electoral equality. We received opposition to this proposal from the Labour Group, the Liberal Democrats and several local residents who provided strong community-based evidence of this area’s reliance on the amenities and services located in Lindley ward. It was therefore proposed that this area be retained in Lindley ward. Furthermore, it was argued that our original draft recommendations for this area divided the Lindley Park Estate between Lindley and Huddersfield North wards which attracted opposition from many local residents. The submissions similarly shared the sentiment that the estate should remain within Lindley ward to reflect community identities and interests. We have been persuaded by the convincing local evidence received to adopt the proposal to retain the existing boundary between Lindley and Ashbrow wards and therefore to include the Birchencliffe community and the Lindley Park Estate in Lindley ward. We are persuaded that this change will provide a better balance of our statutory criteria. Almondbury, Ashbrow and Dalton
Our original draft recommendations for north-east Huddersfield provided for the three-member wards of Huddersfield North and Huddersfield East. However, we received strong opposition to this recommendation from the Labour Group, the Liberal Democrats, Ashbrow Labour Party and a number of local residents. Our proposals included the communities of Deighton and Fartown in Huddersfield East ward. The Labour Group submitted strong community-based evidence to demonstrate the close connection between these communities and the communities within our proposed Huddersfield North ward. It also argued that the Huddersfield Narrow Canal provides a strong and identifiable boundary between the residential area of Deighton to the north and the industrial area south of the canal. Ashbrow Labour Party reflected the arguments of the Labour Group and also provided an example of a Facebook community group with over 2,000 members that includes the residents of Deighton and Fartown and the other communities within our proposed Huddersfield North ward. We consider the evidence received particularly convincing and have therefore been persuaded to propose the retention of the existing ward of Ashbrow as part of our further draft recommendations. We consider this proposal to better reflect our statutory criteria and will ensure a more effective warding pattern for the wider area. The Green Group proposed to rename this ward to Bradley & Brackenhall to reflect the largest communities within this ward. The Labour Group and the Ashbrow Labour Party, however, proposed to retain the name for this ward as Ashbrow and argued that the existing name was more identifiable and widely used by the local community. We also noted on our tour of the area that the Ashbrow name lends itself to many roads, schools and businesses within the ward. Based on the evidence received and our experience on visiting the area, we propose to retain the existing name of Ashbrow as part of our further draft recommendations. Similarly, the Labour Group and the Liberal Democrats opposed our proposed Huddersfield East ward and suggested retaining the existing Dalton ward subject to including Huddersfield Town Centre to improve electoral equality. Our draft recommendations for this area amended the existing boundary to follow the Kirkburton parish boundary and move the village of Kirkheaton into Almondbury ward. The Labour Group argued that Kirkheaton has nothing in common with Almondbury ward and presented examples of community groups such as Dalton Together and other Facebook groups to emphasize Dalton as a close-knit community that includes Kirkheaton. A local resident also argued that Wakefield Road should be retained as the boundary between Dalton and Almondbury wards as it is a locally recognisable boundary. We propose to adopt the suggestions put forward to us by the Labour Group and Liberal Democrats in this area, based on the strong community evidence received. We also consider that Wakefield Road and the ring road around Huddersfield Town Centre will provide strong and identifiable boundaries based on our tour of this area. We propose to also adopt the suggestion to retain the name of Dalton for this ward as the evidence received demonstrates the name is widely used within the community. We note that the Green Group also agree with this proposed ward name which reaffirmed our decision to adopt this name as part of our further draft recommendations. Councillor Taylor expressed support for our draft recommendation to include Kirkheaton within Almondbury as it results in Kirkburton parish split across two wards instead of three under the existing arrangements. Councillor Taylor considered this will help to promote effective and convenient local government. He also argued that Kirkheaton has much more in common with the Lepton and Almondbury villages rather than the urban Dalton ward. We acknowledge the support from Councillor Taylor for our proposals in this area and, whilst we attempt to respect the boundaries of each parish by not dividing them between wards where possible, we consider that the evidence received during consultation indicates that doing so will better reflect community identities and interests in this instance. Overall, we consider that our further draft recommendations for these wards represent an improvement on our draft recommendations, but we strongly welcome comments and evidence, whether in support or in opposition, to our proposals during the current consultation.
Crosland Moor and Netherton & Newsome
The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats proposed two new wards in opposition to our proposed Huddersfield West and Huddersfield South wards. They proposed a Crosland Moor ward and a Netherton & Newsome ward. These are divided by the River Holme and Lockwood Road, which they state is the main arterial road that connects Huddersfield Town Centre to Holme Valley.
Furthermore, we received opposition from Councillor Lawson and many local residents to separating South Crosland from Netherton. The submissions shared the sentiment that these communities had always been a ‘joint entity’ that shared many services and amenities. They also noted that South Crosland Junior School is located within Netherton to further demonstrate the close community connection between these areas.
The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats stated that our proposal to split Netherton from Crosland Moor had some merit though they supported the above-mentioned submissions to retain South Crosland within a ward with Netherton. Councillor Lawson suggested using Thewlis Lane as the boundary between our proposed Huddersfield West and Huddersfield South wards. However, the Liberal Democrats, Labour Group and the Conservative Group in their initial submission, all suggested the boundary should run north of Crosland Moor Airfield. We considered the evidence provided to us by the groups convincing and were therefore persuaded to adopt this boundary as part of our further draft recommendations to better reflect communities’ identities and interests in this area.
Councillor Lawson also argued that our draft recommendations divided Lockwood and Thornton Lodge which she stated are a close-knit community. Councillor Lawson therefore suggested the boundary to run along Albert Street and St Thomas Road. The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats suggested following the River Holme and Lockwood Road as the boundary between their proposed wards. On our tour of the area, we considered the River Holme would form a strong and locally identifiable boundary between these wards. We have therefore decided to adopt the Labour Group’s and Liberal Democrats’ suggestions for this area; however, we propose to continue the boundary between these wards along the River Holme up to Chapel Hill to bring electors on Albert Street into our proposed Crosland Moor ward. We consider this proposal to provide the best balance of our statutory criteria.
We also propose to adopt the names proposed by the Labour Group, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Group of Crosland Moor and Netherton & Newsome as we consider them to be more reflective of the communities that comprise these wards, based on the evidence received so far.
We received submissions from local residents that shared the sentiment that the boundary of Holme Valley North ward should be extended to include Netherton. However, as stated as part of our draft recommendations, this would result in an exceptionally high forecast electoral variance for Holme Valley North ward. To ensure good electoral equality for this area, we were therefore not persuaded to adopt this proposal as part of our further draft recommendations.
Dewsbury
Dewsbury South, Dewsbury West and Mirfield
In response to our draft recommendations, the Labour Group and Liberal Democrats opposed our proposals for Dewsbury South and Dewsbury West wards. Our proposals extended Dewsbury South ward to include the community of Ravensthorpe and moved Savile Town and Thornhill Lees into Dewsbury West ward to improve electoral equality. However, the Labour Group strongly opposed these proposals and argued for the existing arrangements to be retained in relation to this area of Dewsbury. They argued that the River Calder provides a strong, identifiable boundary between Dewsbury South, Dewsbury West and Dewsbury East and stated that there are no public transport links between the Ravensthorpe area and our proposed Dewsbury South ward. Instead, they referenced the direct public transport links between Dewsbury town centre and Savile Town and Thornhill Lees. On our tour of this area, we also considered the River Calder as a strong and locally identifiable boundary. In light of the evidence received and our experience of visiting this area, we propose to retain Ravensthorpe within Dewsbury West ward and Savile Town and Thornhill Lees within Dewsbury South ward as part of our further draft recommendations to reflect community identities and interests. Furthermore, the Labour Group and Liberal Democrats also proposed to extend Dewsbury West ward to follow Shillbank Lane and Crossley Lane. The group argued that this amendment used strong boundaries to bring electors into Dewsbury West ward and would result in the entirety of Dewsbury Country Park being contained within a single ward. The group stated that its proposals would also result in the Spring Place Gardens estate being wholly contained within Dewsbury West ward. Under our draft recommendations, this estate is split between our proposed Dewsbury West and Mirfield wards. This received opposition from a handful of local residents, the majority of which argued for this area to be moved into Mirfield ward as they have Mirfield postcodes. We do not consider postcodes as part of our statutory criteria when drawing up a pattern of new wards and we were therefore not persuaded to adopt this suggestion as part of our further draft recommendations. However, we have adopted the proposal made by the Labour Group and the Liberal Democrats to unite the estate within Dewsbury West ward to better reflect community identities and promote effective and convenient local government.