Kirklees final recommendations
Explore our final recommendations for new wards in Kirklees
The Commission has published final recommendations for new wards in Kirklees.
This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.
Click on the different 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 each area of the authority. This detail is also available in our report.
Huddersfield
Huddersfield. Click to expand.
Ashbrow
Kirklees South
Kirklees South. Click to expand.
Denby Dale
Dewsbury
Dewsbury. Click to expand.
Dewsbury East
Kirklees North
Kirklees North. Click to expand.
Batley East and Batley West
Huddersfield
Ashbrow
We received no submissions directly relating to our proposed Ashbrow ward. We therefore confirm our further draft recommendations for this ward as final and consider it to provide a good reflection of our statutory criteria.
Almondbury and Dalton
The Conservative Group, Councillor Taylor and two local residents opposed our proposal to incorporate the Kirkheaton area within our proposed Dalton ward. They broadly argued that Kirkheaton has little affiliation with Dalton ward and that our recommendations did not reflect community identities and interests in this area. Two of the submissions also stated that the Facebook community groups, which were supplied as supporting evidence to demonstrate the community connection between Kirkheaton and Dalton, were only established to follow the existing ward boundaries. Councillor Taylor also stated that the inclusion of Kirkheaton within Almondbury ward would reduce the number of wards that Kirkburton parish would be split between from three to two. We acknowledge the community evidence received and after careful consideration, we have decided to retain the Kirkheaton area in our proposed Dalton ward on grounds of electoral equality. Including Kirkheaton within Almondbury ward would result in a forecast electoral variance of 17% for Almondbury ward and -18% for Dalton ward. We consider these electoral variances to be very high and we are not persuaded that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify such variances. Therefore, while we acknowledge the opposition to this proposal, we have decided to not make changes to this particular boundary as part of our final recommendations. Crosland Moor and Netherton & Newsome
During consultation on our further draft recommendations, we received a submission from a local resident who objected to warding the Netherton and Newsome areas together, stating that Netherton has more connection to Honley than Newsome. However, as noted in the draft recommendations, a three-councillor Holme Valley North ward that includes Netherton would have a forecast electoral variance of 22% by 2029. We consider this electoral variance to be unacceptably high and have therefore not adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations. Alternatively, a local resident expressed support for our proposal to place the South Crosland and Netherton areas in the same ward, stating that the boundaries make more sense. We therefore propose no changes to Netherton & Newsome ward as part of our final recommendations.
We did not receive any submissions directly relating to our proposed Crosland Moor ward. We therefore confirm our further draft recommendations for this ward as final.
Greenhead
A local resident expressed support for our proposed Greenhead ward, expressing satisfaction that it contained the entire community of Marsh. Two local residents opposed our proposal to include the community of Paddock within Colne Valley East ward. They argued that Paddock should be transferred to Greenhead ward as this area is classed as inner-city Huddersfield and has different issues to the communities in Colne Valley East ward.
Alternatively, the Labour Group and the Golcar branch of the Labour Party expressed support for our recommendation to include Paddock within Colne Valley East ward. The Labour Group reinforced their argument outlined in their initial submission that Paddock and Colne Valley East ward shared many amenities and also argued that Gledholt Woods acts as a physical barrier between Paddock and Greenhead ward.
We decided to not adopt the residents’ proposal to move Paddock into Greenhead ward as part of our final recommendations as it would result in a forecast electoral variance of 20% for Greenhead ward. We consider this electoral variance too high for us to accept and also considered the evidence put forward to us by the Labour Group and the Golcar branch of the Labour Party to be more convincing. Furthermore, the Labour Group suggested that we transfer Heaton Gardens and Gledholt Woods into our proposed Greenhead ward. We were persuaded by the evidence received – which highlighted Gledholt Woods and Greenhead Park as areas that host community events in this area – that this proposal will better reflect community identities and interests. However, instead of following the public footpath south of Gledholt Woods as the ward boundary in this area, as proposed by the Labour Group, we have decided to amend the boundary to follow the railway line. We consider this boundary to be clearer and more locally identifiable.
As part of our final recommendations, we have also decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal to transfer the Highfields area from Dalton ward to Greenhead ward and use the Huddersfield Ring Road as the boundary between these two wards. We agree that this boundary is clearer and more locally recognisable. The group stated that Greenhead Family Doctors and a GP surgery that serves the wider Greenhead area lie within Highfields. We therefore consider that this amendment will better reflect communities and aid in the promotion of effective and convenient local government whilst maintaining good electoral equality for both wards. Lindley
The Labour Group and two local residents supported our recommendation to follow the M62 as the boundary between Lindley and Colne Valley West wards and to include the village of Outlane in Lindley ward. They agreed that this proposal was sensible and used a clear, locally recognisable boundary. We also received support from two local residents for our proposal to include the Birchencliffe area within Lindley ward to reflect community identities and interests. We therefore have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Lindley ward as final. Colne Valley East and Colne Valley West
As part of our further draft recommendations, we decided to change the name of Golcar ward to Colne Valley East and Colne Valley ward to Colne Valley West, due to evidence received from the Labour Group. The Golcar branch of the Labour Party and Councillor Turner expressed support for these name changes and agreed that the name of Colne Valley East was more reflective of the communities in the proposed ward. A local resident also stated that they supported our proposed Colne Valley West ward.
Two local residents, however, expressed opposition to our proposed Colne Valley East and Colne Valley West wards. They argued that the Golcar name should be retained and also stated that the Bolster Moor, Scapegoat Hill and Wellhouse areas should be included in Golcar ward as they are a part of the former Golcar parish.
The Labour Group and the Golcar branch of the Labour Party supported our recommendations for Colne Valley East and Colne Valley West wards and supplied further evidence to support their initial proposal. They argued that Bolster Moor and Scapegoat Hill are rural, farming communities that have closer connections and ties to Colne Valley West ward than to the more urbanised Colne Valley East ward. Councillor Turner’s submission also echoed the Labour Group’s argument. We found that the community evidence provided by the Labour Group, the Golcar branch of the Labour Party and Councillor Turner to be persuasive and are content that our proposals for this area effectively balance our statutory criteria. We therefore confirm our recommendations for Colne Valley East and Colne Valley West wards as final.
Kirklees South
Denby Dale
In response to our draft proposal to retain the existing boundaries of Denby Dale ward, we received support from the Labour Group and a local resident. We therefore confirm this ward as part of our final recommendations.
Holme Valley North and Holme Valley South
We received support for our proposal to divide the parish ward of Netherthong between Holme Valley North and Holme Valley South wards from the Labour Group, Councillor Bellamy and Councillor Barnett. However, we also received submissions in opposition to our recommendations from the Holme Valley South Branch of the Labour Party, Councillor Greaves and many local residents who supported the retention of the existing arrangements. It was argued that Netherthong is a close-knit community with connections to Holmfirth, which is located in Holme Valley South ward. We were persuaded by the local evidence received to retain Netherthong parish ward in its entirety within Holme Valley South ward to reflect community identities and interests. We have therefore made this change as part of our final recommendations, which will also ensure good electoral equality for both wards by 2029. Kirkburton
In response to our draft recommendation to include the villages of Whitley Lower and Briestfield in Kirkburton ward, we received support from a local resident, the Labour Group and Councillor Taylor. A local resident, however, opposed this recommendation and suggested that Whitley Lower should be located within Mirfield ward, arguing that residents share ‘political views’ and use local services in Mirfield town. Furthermore, a local resident expressed concern over how councillors would effectively represent our proposed Kirkburton ward due to its size and opposed being moved into what was deemed as a ward covering the ‘Huddersfield area’. However, we do not consider shared ‘political views’ to be a relevant consideration when we make our recommendations. This is not a feature of our statutory criteria, and we have concluded that insufficient evidence has been supplied to justify amendment to our draft recommendations for this area. We therefore confirm our proposed Kirkburton ward as final. A local resident stated that they ‘would like to see Briestfield be included in Kirkburton Parish Council’. However, changing parish boundaries falls outside the scope of this electoral review and would be the responsibility of Kirklees Council, via a Community Governance Review.
Dewsbury
Dewsbury East
As part of our draft recommendations, we adopted the Conservative Group’s proposal which amended the boundary between Dewsbury East and Dewsbury West wards to follow the railway line. However, we received opposition to this proposal from the Labour Group, the Liberal Democrats and Chickenley Community Centre who supported the retention of the existing boundary in this area. The Labour Group argued that retaining the existing boundary would allow for important facilities such as Dewsbury Bus Station, Dewsbury Fire Station and Kirklees College to be in a ward with the rest of the town centre. Based on the evidence received, we were persuaded to retain the existing boundary between Dewsbury East and Dewsbury West wards to reflect community identities and interests. Dewsbury South
One local resident expressed support for our proposal to retain the River Calder as the boundary between Dewsbury South and Dewsbury West wards, agreeing it was a strong and identifiable boundary. We are therefore confirming our further draft recommendations for Dewsbury South ward as final. Dewsbury West and Mirfield
The Conservative Group opposed our proposal to move electors to the east of Shillbank Lane and Crossley Lane into Dewsbury West ward. The group argued that Dewsbury Country Park has no electors and is not reflective of a community, and therefore dividing the area between wards is ‘immaterial’. This argument was also supported by Councillor Naisbett, Councillor Bolt and several residents who argued that dividing Mirfield parish between two wards would create confusion and would not reflect community ties. We were persuaded by the evidence received and have included the entirety of Mirfield parish in Mirfield ward as part of our final recommendations in order to promote effective and convenient local government and reflect community identities and interests. The Conservative Group expressed that they would support a proposal to move Spring Place Gardens Estate entirely into Dewsbury West ward and deemed it to be ‘logical’. However, the group did not address how this amendment would more effectively balance our statutory criteria. We determined that insufficient evidence was supplied by the Conservative Group to adopt their proposal as part of our final recommendations.
Alternatively, many local residents proposed that the Spring Place Gardens Estate be placed in Mirfield ward arguing that people in this area consider themselves residents of Mirfield and use the town for amenities and services. However, we are of the view, based on the evidence received throughout the three rounds of consultation, that including the entirety of Spring Place Gardens Estate in Mirfield ward would provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. We have therefore adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations.
Kirklees North
Batley East and Batley West
In response to our draft recommendations, Batley West Labour Party supported our proposal to adopt White Lee Road as the boundary between Batley West ward and Heckmondwike ward. However, they suggested an amendment to the boundary between Batley West and Batley East wards to include the electors north of Wellington Street within Batley West ward to ‘harmonise the current anomaly’. We were not persuaded to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations. We considered that insufficient evidence was provided in support of this proposal and it was unclear how this amendment would improve the warding arrangements for this area.
The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats proposed diverting the ward boundary from White Lee Road in this area and including electors between Riding Street and White Lee Croft in Heckmondwike ward. We were not persuaded to adopt their suggestion as part of our final recommendations as we consider White Lee Road to constitute a strong and locally identifiable boundary in this area which will help to promote effective and convenient local government.
A local resident expressed opposition to the inclusion of the Dewsbury Moor area within Batley West ward and stated that Westmoor Primary School is ‘definitely’ in Dewsbury. Under our draft recommendations, Westmoor Primary School remains within Dewsbury West ward and therefore we were not persuaded to amend our proposals for this area. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Batley East and Batley West wards as final.
Birstall & Birkenshaw
The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats proposed to retain the existing boundaries of Birstall & Birkenshaw ward; however, they did not provide supporting evidence to justify this proposal. We also received two submissions from local residents supporting our draft recommendations for this ward. A local resident of Upper Batley Lane proposed to amend the boundary between Birstall & Birkenshaw and Batley West wards to follow Intake Lane or Windmill Lane School to reflect community identities. However, under our draft recommendations this area is already included within our proposed Birstall & Birkenshaw ward, and we were therefore not persuaded the make any amendments on this basis.
We do not consider that sufficient community evidence has been provided to support the retention of the existing arrangements for Birstall & Birkenshaw ward. Given the support received from local residents, we consider our draft recommendations for this area to provide the best balance of our statutory criteria and confirm them as final. Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike and Liversedge & Gomersal
The Labour Group and Liberal Democrats expressed opposition to our draft recommendation to amend the boundary between Heckmondwike and Liversedge & Gomersal wards as they considered the existing boundary of Leeds Road to be clear and identifiable. A local resident ,however, supported this amendment and also suggested to include the electors to the west of Gomersal Road to reflect local community identities. We were convinced by the evidence received from the local resident to include electors west of Gomersal Road as well as in the Stubley Estate in Heckmondwike ward. We consider our final recommendations to reflect community identities and interests in this area while ensuring good electoral equality across wards. A local resident submitted a proposal to amend the boundary between Liversedge & Gomersal and Cleckheaton wards. They proposed that the Hightown area be transferred into Liversedge & Gomersal ward, which they stated is a village of the Liversedge township. However, we do not consider that sufficient evidence was provided to justify amending our recommendations here and how adopting this proposal would better reflect community identities and interests. We therefore did not adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.
The Labour Group expressed support for our draft recommendations for Cleckheaton ward which follow the existing arrangements. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Cleckheaton ward as final.