Wakefield final recommendations

Knottingley and Pontefract

Knottingley & Ferrybridge

We received four submissions regarding the name of our proposed Knottingley ward. The Council, Councillor Girt, the Liberal Democrat Focus Team for Knottingley & Ferrybridge and a local resident all requested that the ward be named Knottingley & Ferrybridge to acknowledge the distinct community of Ferrybridge. We have been persuaded that this name change would better reflect the constituent communities of the ward and therefore have decided to adopt the name Knottingley & Ferrybridge in our final recommendations.

Councillor Roberts suggested that Oakland Hill Park be transferred from this ward to Airedale & Ferry Fryston ward, so that the boundary follows the A1. We decided not to adopt this proposal as it would result in Knottingley & Ferrybridge ward being over-represented.

Pontefract North

Two local residents supported our decision to follow the A1/M62 road as the eastern boundary of this ward, with one stating that the Stumpcross area did not share strong links with the Knottingley and Ferrybridge communities. This feedback was in response to a suggestion made during the previous consultation that the area bounded by Holmfield Lane, Darkfield Lane, Stumpcross Lane and Sowgate Lane be transferred from Pontefract North ward to a Ferrybridge ward.

Conversely, two local residents asserted that our draft Knottingley ward should incorporate areas west of the A-road. One stated that it would improve the relatively high variance of the ward, while the other reiterated their proposals from the last consultation to include the area bounded by Holmfield Lane, Darkfield Lane, Stumpcross Lane, and Sowgate Lane in Knottingley ward. The latter submission argued that this could better reflect community identities and also improve electoral variances between wards. However, we found that the evidence presented was primarily based upon historical connections between this area, Knottingley and Ferrybridge, and we were not convinced that these areas currently share particularly strong community links.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we have decided to retain the A1/M62 as the boundary between our Knottingley & Ferrybridge and Pontefract North wards in our final recommendations.

Pontefract South

We received five submissions in support of our proposal to unite the parish of Wentbridge in Pontefract South ward. One of these submissions also supported our decision to unite East Hardwick parish in this ward. Both parishes are currently split between wards. The respondents generally agreed that these changes would better reflect community identities and promote more effective and convenient local governance. As a result, we confirm this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Councillor Roberts suggested that the boundary between Pontefract North and Pontefract South wards could follow the A645. We have decided not to adopt to this proposal as it would result in significant levels of electoral inequality for both wards.

A local resident argued that beyond 2029, as new housing is developed in Pontefract South ward, the electorate will increase leading to a higher variance and worsening electoral equality. Consequently, they contended that our decision to transfer the southern portion of the existing Pontefract North ward to Pontefract South ward should not be implemented. However, we are only able to consider developments that are projected within the five-year forecast period. As such, any electorate changes expected after this timeframe cannot influence our recommendations.

Featherstone and Normanton

Featherstone and Normanton

A local resident expressed frustration that the recent development near Bruce Smeaton Way fell within Featherstone parish. They suggested changing the parish boundary. However, we note that this area is not within Featherstone parish. Furthermore, we are not responsible for changing parish boundaries, which is the responsibility of Wakefield Council via a Community Governance Review.

Councillor Jennings of Normanton & Altofts Town Council, along with a local resident, opposed the Council’s proposal submitted during the previous consultation to include electors living near Normanton Altofts Junior School within Normanton ward. Councillor Jennings preferred that the boundary follow the railway line. Since our proposed Normanton ward aligns with the railway line, we recommend no changes to this ward.

Ackworth, South Elmsall, South Kirkby & Upton

Ackworth, North Elmsall & Upton

A local resident stated that our recommendations did not adequately consider the demographics of Ackworth, North Elmsall, Upton and Pontefract South wards. They suggested a more representative approach could be achieved by combining Ackworth with parts of south Pontefract, while merging North Elmsall and Upton with Hemsworth ward. However, our recommendations are based not on the demography of areas and we do not assume that, because adjoining areas share demographics, they share community identities and interests. As a result, we have not included this proposal in our final recommendations.

Another local resident argued that Ackworth should have its own councillor to effectively represent its interests, rather than being part of a larger ward. However, in order to maintain the principle of a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, Ackworth must be connected to other communities to form a three-councillor ward that achieves good electoral equality. We consider that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify departing from this principle.

South Elmsall & South Kirkby

During consultation, we received one submission in relation to this ward. A local resident opposed the continued division of South Elmsall parish, which places the Minsthorpe area in Ackworth, North Elmsall & Upton ward. However, including the entire South Elmsall parish – and by extension, the Minsthorpe area – within South Elmsall & South Kirkby ward would result in a projected electoral variance of 15% by 2029. We consider this variance to be too high if we are to ensure good electoral equality. As a result, we are confirming our recommended South Elmsall & South Kirkby ward as final.

Crofton, Hemsworth, Ryhill and Walton

Crofton, Ryhill & Walton

One local resident expressed support for our proposed Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward. However, as outlined in the Wakefield South section of this report, we have decided to incorporate Chevet and Notton parishes in Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward. No additional changes are proposed for this ward as part of our final recommendations.

 Hemsworth

We received no submissions relating to Hemsworth ward. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Hemsworth ward as final.

Wakefield city

Wakefield East

A local resident expressed support for our proposed Wakefield East ward. However, another resident provided compelling evidence that community identities and interests would be better represented by moving the Portobello area into Wakefield South ward. They stated that residents in this area use the schools, health facilities, recreation and community centres, and shops located in Wakefield South ward. Councillor Roberts also supported the inclusion of the Portobello area in Wakefield South ward. Although we did not adopt a similar suggestion in our draft recommendations due to a lack of sufficient community evidence, we have now been persuaded that this adjustment aligns better with our statutory criteria. As a result, we have incorporated it as part of our final recommendations.

This change, however, results in an over-represented Wakefield East ward. To address this, we have adopted the resident’s additional proposal to extend the northern boundary of the ward and include more of the City Fields development. The revised boundary will now follow Neil Fox Way and Nellie Spindler Drive, which we find to be clear and easily identifiable. Using Neil Fox Way as a ward boundary was also suggested by Councillor Roberts. With these adjustments, the revised Wakefield East ward is projected to have an electoral variance of -10% by 2029.

Wakefield North

As detailed further in the Stanley, Outwood and Wrenthorpe section of this report, we propose adjusting the northern boundary of this ward to better reflect local road access routes and create a clearer, more identifiable boundary. Additionally, we recommend adopting Councillor Roberts’ proposal that the boundary between this ward and Wakefield East follow the A61 through the city centre.

However, we have decided not to adopt Councillor Roberts’ suggestion that the boundary with Wakefield East ward follow Westfield Road, College Grove Road and North Avenue, as we determined that it was not particularly clear or identifiable.

Wakefield Rural

We received one submission concerning Wakefield Rural ward, supporting our decision to keep Crigglestone parish entirely in the ward and exclude the Kettlethorpe area. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Wakefield South

One submission supported our proposed changes to Wakefield South ward, while four others opposed the inclusion of the parishes of Chevet and Notton. Two of these respondents argued that it was unsuitable to combine these distinct rural communities with the more urbanised areas of Wakefield city. One of the two submissions preferred that the parishes remain part of a more rural ward, while the other suggested they be placed in the Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward, as at present.

After reviewing the evidence provided, we have been persuaded that placing these parishes in Wakefield South ward would not reflect local community identities. Therefore, we have decided to place Chevet and Notton parishes in our proposed Crofton, Ryhill & Walton ward as part of our final recommendations.

As outlined in the Wakefield East section, we decided to transfer the Portobello area into this ward. However, we were not persuaded to adopt Councillor Roberts’ proposal to also include the Fall Ings area, following the River Calder as the boundary. This is because this change would result in a Wakefield East ward with significant electoral inequality.

Wakefield West

We received a submission regarding this ward from Councillor Roberts, who proposed transferring the Foreman Road and Johnson Road estate into Wakefield North ward, suggesting that the boundary follow the A638. However, as noted in our draft recommendations, placing this estate in Wakefield West ward ensures electoral equality for that ward. We consider that insufficient evidence have been provided to support this proposal and have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Wakefield West ward as final.

Horbury and Ossett

Horbury & South Ossett and Ossett

Councillor Roberts supported the boundaries of these two wards, stating that they are clear and defined.

A local resident objected to the division of the Ossett area between wards. However, to achieve good electoral equality and adhere to the presumption that the authority be represented by a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, the area must be split into two wards. We consider that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify deviating from this arrangement. Therefore, with no further submissions received relating to these two wards, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Horbury & South Ossett and Ossett wards as final.