West Northamptonshire Final Proposals

North and north central parishes

Braunston & Crick and Long Buckby

We received submissions from Daventry Conservatives, Councillor Bignell, Councillor Collins, Ashby St Ledgers Parish Meeting, Crick Parish Council, Long Buckby Parish Council, Watford Parish Council, West Haddon Parish Council, Yelvertoft Parish Council and some residents, in response to our draft recommendations in this area.

Ashby St Ledgers and Crick parish councils expressed support for our draft recommendations Braunston & Crick ward while a resident supported the changes to Long Buckby ward.

Yelvertoft Parish Council expressed the view that its community was with Crick and some of the other parishes in the DIRFT (Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal) area and that it did not support being included in a separate ward to the north. We note that our draft recommendations include this parish in a ward with Crick parish.

Daventry Conservatives, Councillor Bignell, Councillor Collins, Long Buckby Parish Council, Watford Parish Council and some residents objected to the exclusion of Watford parish from this ward and its inclusion in a ward to the east on community grounds. Many stated that Watford residents used facilities in Long Buckby and that the parish councils worked together on some issues. Long Buckby Parish Council stated that there was a strong relationship between the villages which it wanted to continue.

Some of these representations also proposed that West Haddon parish be included in Long Bucky ward. West Haddon Parish Council stated that it had closer geographical and other links with Long Bucky. To address any electoral imbalance this proposed move might cause, Councillor Bignell and the Daventry Conservatives proposed moving Harlestone Manor parish out of Long Buckby ward into a ward to the south or southeast.

We have carefully considered the representations we received and have been persuaded to exclude Watford parish from this ward, on community identity grounds. We note that such a move produces wards with good electoral equality.

We also considered excluding West Haddon parish from this ward. However, this produced a Braunston & Crick ward and a Long Buckby ward forecast to have 14% fewer electors and 14% more electors, respectively, than the district average by 2028. Moving Harlestone Manor parish into Duston or Campion wards will not address the poor electoral equality in Braunston & Crick. As we were not persuaded to create a ward with such poor electoral equality, we have not done so. Furthermore, our draft recommendations for Duston received significant support and we have not received persuasive evidence to support the inclusion of Harlestone Manor in that ward or in Campion ward.

As part of our final recommendations, Braunston & Crick ward excludes Watford parish which we have included in Long Buckby ward. Both wards are forecast to have good electoral equality by 2028.  

Brixworth and Naseby

The submissions we received from Labour, Daventry Conservatives and Councillors Irving-Swift and Parker supported our draft recommendations single-councillor Brixworth ward which was coterminous with Brixworth parish. Councillors Irving-Swift and Parker stated that Brixworth was different from the surrounding villages and hamlets and therefore this warding pattern ‘would work well.’ They also expressed support for our draft recommendations Naseby ward.

However, the Liberal Democrats expressed the view that a single-councillor Brixworth ward disadvantaged the parish by reducing the opportunity for collaboration and communication with other parishes. They proposed creating a two-councillor Brixworth & Welford ward by merging our draft recommendations Brixworth and Naseby wards. They point out that the resultant ward would have better electoral equality than our draft recommendations Naseby ward.

Naseby Parish Council suggested that Naseby ward and Walgrave & East Farndon wards be combined to form a two-councillor ward with better electoral equality than Naseby, which is forecast to have 10% more electors than the average for the district by 2028.

After careful consideration of the representations, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final. Firstly, we note the support for a single-councillor Brixworth ward on community and interest grounds, during both consultations. Secondly, we do not consider that being in separate electoral wards stops parishes and district wards from collaborating on shared issues. We consider that Brixworth ward reflects our statutory criteria, including community identity in the area.

We have also not been persuaded to combine Naseby and Walgrave & East Farndon wards along the lines proposed by Naseby Parish Council, due to the support we received for the boundaries of our draft recommendations Walgrave & East Farndon ward from those who wrote to us.

While we note that Naseby ward is forecast to have 10% more electors than the district average in 2028, we consider that it has good electoral equality and that this is the best balance of our statutory criteria.

Therefore, we confirm our draft recommendations Brixworth and Naseby wards as final.

Moulton

We received submissions from Councillor Lane, Councillor West, Moulton Parish Council and three residents.

Councillor Lane expressed concerns about our draft recommendations Parklands ward. One of the concerns was the exclusion of Moulton Leys from this ward, and its inclusion in Moulton ward. He explained that Moulton Leys was part of Northampton North Parliamentary constituency while Moulton was part of Daventry Parliamentary constituency. Furthermore, he pointed out that Moulton has its own parish council whereas Moulton Leys is part of Northampton Town Council.

Moulton Parish Council wrote in support of the inclusion of Moulton Leys in Moulton ward stating that it was distinct from Northampton town and that residents used facilities in Moulton.

The residents that wrote to us were of the view that Buckton Fields Estate should be included in Kingsthorpe North ward due to its proximity to Kingsthorpe.

We have considered all the submissions we received, including those from the first consultation.

Regarding Moulton Leys, we note that during the warding pattern consultation, the Council and some others expressed the view that this area and the community here looked more to Moulton to the north, than Northampton Town to the south. We also note that Boughton Lane and Moulton Lane form strong identifiable boundaries with Moulton Park industrial estate creating a demarcation between Moulton Leys and the rest of Northampton Town. Therefore, we are content that including Moulton Leys in Moulton reflects community interests and represents the best balance of our statutory criteria.

With regards to Councillor Lane’s comments about Moulton and Moulton Leys being in different parliamentary constituencies, it is important to note that our ward boundaries do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries. The legislation that currently exists states that parliamentary constituencies will use existing district wards as the basis for new parliamentary constituencies.

Therefore, we have not been persuaded to include Moulton Leys in Parklands ward.

We note the comments from the residents about Buckton Fields’ proximity to Kingsthorpe. We also noted this on our tour of the area. However, during the first consultation, we received representations from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Councillor Hallam, Councillor McCord, Daventry Conservatives, Moulton Parish Council and several residents that stated that the estate was not part of the Kingsthorpe community, and that most residents shared interests and ties with Boughton Village and not with Kingsthorpe.

While we note the views of the residents who consider the estate should be included in a ward with Kingsthorpe, we believe that the overwhelming support and evidence is in support of our draft recommendations and we are confirming them as final.

Councillor West advocated for more councillors to reflect growth in Overstone parish. However, Moulton ward is forecast to have about the same number of electors per councillor as the district average, by 2028. It is therefore not under-represented.

Rural North East

This ward was named Walgrave & East Farndon as part of our draft recommendations. We received support for its boundaries from Daventry Conservatives, Councillor Evans, Councillors Irving-Swift and Parker, Holcot Parish Council, Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council, Walgrave Parish Council, and residents. However, most of them wanted it renamed either because they felt that the name was cumbersome or that it was not representative of all the constituent parishes.

Arthingworth Parish Council and Councillor Irving-Swift proposed the name Faxton, this being the name of a church group covering several villages in the area. It was also the name of a ‘lost village’ between Lamport and Maidwell. A resident suggested Lamport & Maidwell because these were ‘better known villages in a more central location’. They suggested that an alternative name would be Rural North East. Another resident wanted a more ‘generic’ name to take the focus away from specific villages, but did not provide any suggestions, noting that coming up with a satisfactory one would be difficult.

East Farndon Parish Council was of the view that the ward was too large and that a single councillor would struggle to engage effectively. Alongside his support for the ward, Councillor Evans also expressed some concern about it only having one councillor.

As mentioned in the section on Brixworth and Naseby above, Naseby Parish Council advocated the merger of this ward with the draft recommendations Naseby ward.

In light of the support we received for the boundaries of this ward, we have not been persuaded to modify its boundaries. However, in view of the comments about the name of the ward, we have decided to rename it.

We noted the suggestions to name the ward Faxton or Lamport & Maidwell. However, it was unclear if either of these names would have widespread support in the area. Therefore, we have decided to name it Rural North East.

If there is a desire locally to change the ward name in the five years following a review, a local authority may seek the Commission’s agreement to change the name if this reflects community identity and sentiment. After five years, a local authority may make a change without seeking the agreement of the Commission.

Aside from the change of name, we confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.  

Billing, Central and East Northampton, and Kingsthorpe

We received several submissions including from the Labour Group, Northampton Town Council, several councillors and residents which proposed that the existing parish wards for the Northampton Town Council area be retained. These existing Northampton Town Council wards are based on the old district wards of Northampton Borough Council before it was abolished.

Northampton Town Council stated that it was a unique council, noting it is the largest parish in the country by population. It was of the view that the existing parish wards are based on historical communities and that continuity was important to its residents and that as a new council, it was working hard to establish itself within West Northamptonshire. The Town Council and other respondents pointed to the varying sizes of the draft recommendations parish wards.

We note these points and understand that significant change so soon after the creation of West Northamptonshire Council and Northampton Town Council may not be welcomed. As mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8, we are conducting this review of West Northamptonshire Council because it has been newly established and to ensure that it has the best electoral arrangements going forward. We do this for every newly created or restructured local authority.

Accordingly, we are recommending new district wards in Northampton and the rest of the district which we believe reflect the best balance of our statutory criteria at the district ward level. When doing so, we are also required, by law, to ensure that the Northampton Town Council wards reflect the district warding pattern. This means that when we create district wards that cut across parts of a parish we must create parish wards (i.e. Northampton Town Council wards) for each of those town council wards which are in different district wards.

In view of the comments we received, we considered retaining those parish wards that were wholly within the new district wards. However, doing this and creating parish wards that do not cross district ward boundaries as required by legislation, would also involve creating many new and some very small parish wards. This would also result in there being more parish wards than Northampton Town councillors. We do not consider that the Commission should change the total number of parish or town councillors as we believe this is an issue that should be considered at the local level and changed, if appropriate, through a Community Governance Review. Accordingly we have not been persuaded to adopt the proposals of Northampton Town Council in relation to this issue.

Billing

The submissions we received from Billing Parish Council, Councillor Hill, Councillor Kilbride and a resident all supported our draft recommendations which united Billing parish in a single West Northamptonshire Council ward. Councillor Hill also supported the use of the A4500 as a strong boundary between this ward and Blackthorn & Rectory Farm ward to the north.

The Council Officers were of the view that it would be difficult to find a suitable site for a polling station in the area between Stockmead Road and Swinford Hollow. We note these comments. However, we note that the access of these residents is to the east towards Billing where we have placed them. Moving this area into another district ward will produce a Billing ward with very poor electoral equality (-15%). We consider our draft recommendations the best balance of our statutory criteria for this area. We also consider that there will be other options available to the Council with regards to the siting of polling stations in the area.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Billing ward as final.

Blackthorn & Rectory Farm and Talavera

We received comments about this area from Councillor Hill.

As mentioned in the section on Billing ward, Councillor Hill supported our draft recommendations which united Billing parish in a single ward. The councillor was of the view that it made sense for Rectory Farm and Blackthorn to be in a different ward from any part of Billing parish. The councillor also supported the use of the A4500 as a boundary.

We did not receive any submissions which objected to either Blackthorn & Rectory or Talavera district wards. Therefore, we are confirming our draft recommendations for these two wards as final.

Abington & Phippsville, Castle and Kingsley & Semilong

In addition to the authority-wide comments, we received specific comments from Council Officers and two residents about these wards.

The Council Officers were concerned about the southern boundary of Castle ward around Auctioneers Way and the challenges this would present them in finding a polling station.

The residents stated that Chipsey Avenue, Cranmere Avenue and Rushmere Avenue shared more community interests with either our draft recommendations Phippsville or Weston wards and that residents on both sides of Rushmere Road ought to be in a single ward. One of the residents stated that Northampton School for Boys separated this area from the rest of Castle ward.

We note the strength of the school as a boundary between the wards and on further reflection, we have moved this area into Weston ward. After careful consideration, we have also strengthened the southern boundary of Castle ward by running the boundary entirely along the River Nene. We note that this latter modification produces a ward to the south with 12% fewer electors than the average for West Northamptonshire; nevertheless, we are content that this warding pattern reflects our statutory criteria.

One of the residents proposed renaming Phippsville, Abington. In their view, most residents would identify as living in Abington and that Phippsville covered a smaller area.

We note that our draft recommendations for this ward were based on Labour and Councillor’s McCord’s identical proposals. At the time, Labour proposed naming it Abington & Phippsville while Councillor McCord called his ward, Abington. The Council’s proposed ward for this area was named Phippsville.

After careful consideration, we have been persuaded that a section of the community in this area identifies with the name Abington and are therefore content to include Abington in the name of the ward. We have renamed it Abington & Phippsville.

The resident also proposed renaming St George ward ‘some combination or one of Kingsley, Semilong or Kingsthorpe Hollow’. We note that the existing ward is named St George. However, we also note that the Council named its proposed ward in the area Kingsley & Semilong, which is in line with the resident’s suggestion. We understand that Kingsley Park and the Semilong area fall within the boundaries of this ward. Therefore, we have renamed St George ward, Kingsley & Semilong.

Except for the modifications to Castle ward boundary and the renaming of Phippsville and St George wards as described above, we are confirming our draft recommendations as final. Abington & Phippsville, Castle and Kingsley & Semilong wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality.

Headlands and Parklands

We received specific comments from Councillor Hallam, Councillor Lane, Eastfield Residents’ Association and two residents about this area.

As mentioned in the section on Moulton, Councillor Lane objected to the exclusion of Moulton Leys from the Parklands ward. He advocated for the retention of the existing boundaries of Boothville & Parklands ward except for moving the area south of St Gregory’s Road into Headlands ward.

Councillor Hallam believed that ‘the right recommendation was to retain Parklands as one community’. Eastfield Residents’ Association and a resident supported our draft recommendations. In particular, the residents’ association expressed support for our use of clear boundaries (e.g., Kettering Road) for Headlands ward.

The resident said they supported the proposals put forward by Eastfield Residents’ Association and the Friends of Eastfield Park (at this last consultation) on which our draft recommendations were based, stating that the other proposals crossed what residents would consider natural boundaries.

The other resident proposed splitting Headlands ward into two single-councillor wards on either an East/West or North/South basis because the ward covered a large geographical area. However, they did not propose specific boundaries and we have not adopted this proposal.

With regards to Councillor Lane’s proposal, we note that Moulton Leys is separated from the rest of Northampton Town by an industrial estate and because of this, Moulton Lane is a strong boundary. Furthermore, without any changes to the boundaries and number of councillors for the district, the existing Boothville & Parklands ward is forecast to have 12% fewer electors than the district average, by 2028. With the new council size, the forecast for this ward is 28% fewer electors than the average for West Northamptonshire, by 2028. We are not minded to create a ward with such poor electoral equality and we did not adopt this proposal. If we moved more than 400 electors south of St Gregory’s Road into Headlands as Councillor Lane proposed, the electoral equality will get poorer.

We are therefore adopting our draft recommendations for Headlands and Parklands wards as final.

Kingsthorpe North and Kingsthorpe South

We received comments from Council Officers, Councillor Lane, Kingsthorpe Parish Council and several residents in response to our draft recommendations for this area.

Councillor Lane supported the draft recommendations for Kingsthorpe North and Kingsthorpe South district wards.

Council Officers stated that they would have difficulty in finding a polling station in the Dixon Road Estate area while a resident of the estate objected to being excluded from Moulton ward and felt that as a result, they would not belong to either the Boughton community or the Kingsthorpe community.

Kingsthorpe Parish Council’s and some residents’ comments related to the proposed parish wards. Kingsthorpe parish currently has five parish wards. Our draft recommendations proposed two which were coterminous with the draft recommendation district wards.

The parish council stated that the existing five parish wards were recently established and that they represented distinct communities. The parish council was of the view that due to the diverse nature of the parish, adequate representation of each community could only be ensured by the preservation of the existing ward structure of five separate wards rather than the two bigger ones.

As mentioned in the section on Moulton ward, three residents were of the view that Buckton Fields should be included in Kingsthorpe North ward due to its proximity.

We have considered all the submissions we received. We remain persuaded that as the Dixon Road area is separated from the rest of Boughton parish by open countryside, it would be well served by being included in a district ward with its closest neighbours in Kingsthorpe. Notwithstanding this, we note that the area remains part of Boughton parish and we have no reason to believe that it will be excluded from the community there.

While Buckton Fields is close to Kingsthorpe, we have been persuaded by evidence at the last consultation which pointed to them being separate communities. We note that including Buckton Fields in Moulton ward was proposed by three of the authority-wide proposals and supported by most of those who wrote to us at during the first consultation.

We are therefore adopting our draft recommendations for Kingsthorpe North and Kingsthorpe South as final.

With regards to the parish wards, the issues are similar to the ones highlighted in relation to Northampton. As mentioned above, by law we must ensure that none of the parish wards cross district ward boundaries. However, we note that some of the existing ones (Kingsthorpe and Spring Park) do not cross them, and we have reinstated them as part of our final recommendations. We have modified the other existing ones to ensure that they do not cross district ward boundaries. This means that Kingsthorpe parish will retain five parish wards, albeit three with different boundaries.

Weston Favell & Abington Vale

We received comments from Councillor Kilbride and two residents about our draft recommendations Weston ward.

As mentioned in the section on Castle ward, the residents advocated that both sides of Rushmere Road ought to be included in the same ward, on community identity grounds. Similarly, they were of the view that the roads east of Northampton School for Boys shared more community interests with our draft recommendations Phippsville and Weston wards.

We carefully considered these representations and note that the school separates residents on either side and would therefore form a strong and identifiable boundary.

We have therefore moved the area east of Northampton School for Boys in to Weston ward.

We also received a comment about the name of the ward. It stated that Weston was not a place and that the ward should be named Weston Favell & Abington Vale. We note that both Weston Favell and Abington Vale are places within the boundaries of this ward and we have therefore renamed the ward accordingly.  

West Northampton and parishes

Dallington Spencer

We did not receive any specific comments about our recommendations for this district ward. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Dallington Spencer as final.

Duston

We received specific comments on our draft recommendations for Duston from Daventry Conservatives, Councillor Golby, Councillor Hinch, Duston Parish Council and a resident.

Councillors Golby and Hinch, Duston Parish Council and the resident expressed support for our draft recommendations for Duston. Most were of the view that a district ward coterminous with the parish reflected community identity in this area. We consider that uniting the parish in a single ward will promote effective and convenient local government.

As mentioned in the section on Long Buckby, Daventry Conservatives and Councillor Bignell suggested that Harlestone Manor parish could be included in this ward to facilitate their proposed warding pattern for West Haddon. However, due to the lack of community identity evidence and the support we have received for this ward, we have not been persuaded to modify the boundaries of this ward.

We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Far Cotton, Delapre & Briar Hill

We received several submissions about the name of this ward. Far Cotton & Delapre Community Council and many residents wanted Far Cotton included in the name of the ward on community identity grounds. The Community Council and residents who wrote in, suggested Far Cotton, Delapre & Briar Hill. The Community Council said it had shared this name on its Facebook page and it had received support.

We have considered these submissions and are content to rename this ward Far Cotton, Delapre & Briar Hill to reflect community identity.

Since we did not receive any submissions objecting to the boundaries of our draft recommendations for this district ward, we confirm them as final.

Hunsbury

We received comments from the Liberal Democrats and West Hunsbury Parish Council about the draft recommendations in this area.

They supported the uniting of West Hunsbury parish in a single ward. However, they expressed concern about the inclusion of East Hunsbury and West Hunsbury parishes in the same ward. The Liberal Democrats stated that the demographics were different and, therefore, they would have different issues. West Hunsbury Parish Council felt that without having a dedicated district councillor, the new ward could be dominated by issues of concern to East Hunsbury residents.

The Liberal Democrats proposed the creation of a single-councillor West Hunsbury ward and a two-councillor East Hunsbury ward. To facilitate good electoral equality in East Hunsbury, they suggested moving Collingtree parish into Nene Valley ward. To deal with the knock-on effect on Nene Valley, they proposed moving an area of Hackleton parish included in our draft recommendations for Nene Valley, into Hackleton & Roade ward and, consequentially, Stoke Bruerne parish from Hackleton & Roade into Deanshanger & Paulerspury ward.

We carefully considered this proposal. We note that the creation of an East Hunsbury ward is dependent on making modifications to three other wards for which we have received no community evidence to change. With respect to the area of Hackleton parish included in Nene Valley ward, we heard that these residents look to and identify with Wootton and not Hackleton. We also note that the parish boundary between Hackleton and Wootton parishes in this area is defaced and splits properties, so using the parish boundary as a district ward boundary is not desirable here. For these reasons, we have not been persuaded to change our recommendations for Hunsbury ward.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Hunsbury as final.

Nene Valley

In addition to the comments mentioned above, from the Liberal Democrats and West Hunsbury Parish Council, we received submissions about this area from Hardingstone Parish Council and a resident.

Hardingstone Parish Council had no objections to our draft recommendations while the resident noted that this ward includes properties accessed from Poppyfield Road that are within the boundaries of Hackleton parish and should therefore be included in Hackleton & Roade ward instead. The resident was concerned that including these properties in Nene Valley ward would increase the number of ‘residents’ to councillors for Nene Valley ward.

As mentioned in the section above, the parish boundary in this area is defaced and splits some properties across different parishes. Also, all the roads east of Lady Hollows Drive and Thrupp Bridge fall within the boundaries of Hackleton parish, not just those accessed from Poppyfield Road. Using the parish boundary as a district ward boundary here will split properties and cul-de-sacs across different district wards. Furthermore, the community evidence we received during the last consultation, suggests that these residents share a community of interest with Wootton parish residents.

We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Nene Valley ward, as final.

Upton

We did not receive any specific comments about our recommendations for this district ward. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Upton ward as final.

Southeast and central

Campion

We received submissions from Councillor Brown and Bugbrooke Parish Council, in addition to the authority-wide comments. They all expressed support for the boundaries of our draft recommendation ward.

Councillor Brown was of the view that the ward reflected communities in the area and that it was largely coterminous with the catchment area for Campion School.

However, the parish council objected to the name of the ward, stating that ‘Campion’ was a family name and is the name of the secondary school, but ‘not a reflection of the area’. Furthermore, since several other wards had retained their existing names of the ward, it wanted Bugbrooke reinstated as the name of this ward.

We carefully considered the comments about the name of the ward. We note that while Bugbrooke remains the largest village within the ward, the boundaries of the new ward are quite different from the existing Bugbrooke ward. We are therefore content to retain the new name for the ward. We consider that it reflects the school that most pupils within the ward will attend.

However, in the five years following a review, a local authority may seek the Commission’s agreement to change the name of a ward if this reflects community identity and sentiment. After five years, a local authority may make a change without seeking the agreement of the Commission.

In light of the support for this ward’s boundaries, we confirm our draft recommendations for Campion ward as final.

Cogenhoe & The Houghtons

We received comments from Labour, Councillor Clarke and Brafield-on-the-Green and Yardley Hastings parish councils in response to our draft recommendations for this area.

Councillor Clarke and Yardley Hastings Parish Council expressed support for the draft recommendations for Cogenhoe & The Houghtons. Yardley Hastings Parish Council stated that the parishes in this ward were grouped along the A428 and had much in common.

Brafield-on-the-Green Parish Council supported the boundaries of the ward but was of the view that the ward should have two councillors so that one could provide cover if the other was absent for any reason.

We note the comments made by Brafield-on-the-Green Parish Council. However, we note that Cogenhoe & The Houghtons ward is forecast to have 5% fewer electors than the district average, by 2028. A two-councillor ward, as suggested by the parish council, is forecast to have more than 50% fewer electors than the district average. This is very poor electoral equality and we are not minded to create such a ward.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Cogenhoe & The Houghtons as final.

Deanshanger & Paulerspury

We received submissions from Deanshanger, Old and Paulerspury parish councils in addition to the comments from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats suggested that we include Stoke Bruerne in this ward to facilitate their proposals for East and West Hunsbury.

Old Parish Council supported the draft recommendations in full. Deanshanger Parish Council supported the boundaries of the ward but expressed surprise at the change of ward name from Deanshanger to Deanshanger & Paulerspury. It stated that as Paulerspury was not the second largest village in the ward, the change was not appropriate. Labour made a similar comment about the name of the ward.

Paulerspury Parish Council wanted the ward to have three councillors, the same as at present. However, we note that with three councillors, this ward will have 31% fewer electors than the average for the district. We are not minded to create wards with such poor electoral variances and we are not recommending this.

We also note that the Liberal Democrats did not provide community interest reasons to support their proposal. In view of the support that we have received for the boundaries of this ward, we have not been persuaded to adopt their proposal to move Stoke Bruerne parish into this ward.

We considered the comments made about the name of the ward. We note that the new name was proposed by the Council and Councillor McCord during the last consultation. Councillor McCord was of the view that villages seven miles away from Deanshanger do not feel any association with Deanshanger. The new name reflects two parishes/villages within the ward: one in the north and the other in the south. We are content with this rationale.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this Deanshanger & Paulerspury ward as final.

Hackleton & Roade

Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Blisworth, Hackleton and Roade parish councils and a resident commented on our draft recommendations for this area.

Labour, Blisworth Parish Council and Roade Parish Council felt that our proposed Hackleton & Roade ward was too big. Blisworth Parish Council’s concerns were that it had many rural issues and others relating to developments and increasing traffic, and that two councillors will not be able to adequately cover such a large area. Roade Parish Council expressed similar views.

We note that a two-councillor Hackleton & Roade is forecast to have very good electoral equality by 2028, with 4% more electors than the district average. On the other hand, a three-councillor Hackleton & Roade ward is forecast to have 30% fewer electors than the average for West Northamptonshire. Therefore, we did not increase the number of councillors for this ward.

Labour proposed creating a single-councillor Grange Park ward as a potential solution. Our draft recommendations placed Grange Park parish in Nene Valley ward and not Hackleton & Roade. Therefore, creating a single-councillor Grange Park ward would not have any effect on the size of Hackleton & Roade ward.

Hackleton Parish Council stated that it would support the creation of Hackleton Urban parish ward if it became part of Wootton parish and Hackleton parish retained the current number of parish councillors. We cannot change parish boundaries. Only West Northamptonshire Council can do that as part of a Community Governance Review.

As mentioned in the section on Hunsbury, to facilitate their proposals for wards in East Hunsbury and West Hunsbury, the Liberal Democrats proposed moving an area east of Lady Hollows Drive (currently in Hackleton parish) into Hackleton & Roade ward. The resident also suggested doing this to keep all of Hackleton parish in a single ward.

However, we note that the boundary between Hackleton and Wootton parishes in this area is defaced. The parish boundary runs through several properties and splits what is a single residential area. We are not minded to use a defaced boundary to create new district wards. Furthermore, during the warding pattern consultation, we heard that these residents look towards Wootton for their community. This was reflected in the Council and Labour proposals at that stage of the review. On community identity grounds we therefore included the area in Nene Valley ward. In accordance with legislation we created a parish ward which we named Hackleton Urban.

We consider that this reflects the community in the area and we have not been persuaded to include the area in Hackleton & Roade ward.

We are confirming our draft recommendations for Hackleton & Roade as final.