Solihull final recommendations
Explore our final recommendations for new wards in Solihull
LGBCE
The Commission has published final recommendations for new wards in Solihull.
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 Solihull. This detail is also available in our report.
Urban North
Urban North. Click to expand.
Castle Bromwich and Kingshurst & Smith’s Wood
Suburban West
Suburban West. Click to expand.
Elmdon
Rural East and South
Rural East and South. Click to expand.
Balsall & Berkswell and Meriden & Arden
Urban North
Castle Bromwich and Kingshurst & Smith’s Wood
As part of our draft recommendations, we proposed transferring an area at the north of the borough between Lanchester Way and Auckland Drive (known locally as the Cars Area) from Smith’s Wood to Castle Bromwich in order for Castle Bromwich to reach a good forecast variance by 2030. We welcomed additional comments on whether this was an appropriate area to transfer, or whether another area (such as the Buckingham Road area, as originally suggested by the Meriden and Solihull Conservative Associations) would result in a better balance of our statutory criteria.
The Council proposed returning the Cars Area to Smith’s Wood, with which it has strong ties. It argued that a Castle Bromwich ward including the Cars Area would result in a ward with ‘contrasting community identities and interests.’ Including the Cars Area in Smith’s Wood leaves Castle Bromwich with a forecast variance of -11% and Smith’s Wood with a 17% variance. In order to address this electoral imbalance, the Council proposed transferring the Buckingham Road area from Smith’s Wood to Castle Bromwich, resulting in wards with variances of 13% and -7%, respectively. It noted that the Buckingham Road residential area shares greater community identity with Castle Bromwich than with Smith’s Wood. The Council additionally suggested that Kingshurst & Smith’s Wood would be a more appropriate name for that ward.
In order to partly address the resulting 13% forecast variance for Smith’s Wood ward, the Council suggested transferring a small row of houses along Birmingham Road from Fordbridge. We note that, as the parish boundary runs behind these houses, any small boundary adjustments in the area would result in unviable parish wards, which we consider have too few electors to account for effective and convenient local government.
Councillor Feeney, representing Castle Bromwich ward, echoed the concerns of the Council and reiterated his position during the initial consultation; namely, that the Cars Area represents a distinct area of Smith’s Wood and that residents of the Buckingham Road area (including Windsor Road and Mey Coppice) would describe themselves as aligning more closely with Castle Bromwich to the west.
Five residents all made submissions opposing the inclusion of the Cars Area in Castle Bromwich, highlighting a lack of shared community links between the areas. One resident supported the draft recommendations but provided no further evidence.
Councillor McLoughlin, responding on behalf of the Green Group, disagreed with the Council’s submission. He argued that the Council’s proposals should be disregarded on the basis that they result in a ward with poor electoral equality and rely on interpretations of community identity which are subjective and ‘hard to pin down.’ He argued that the Cars Area should be in Castle Bromwich, as it is largely distinct from both neighbouring wards, and because the Council’s proposed Kingshurst & Smith’s Wood ward is divided into two poorly connected chunks.
Kingshurst Parish Council proposed renaming Smith’s Wood as Smith’s Wood & North Kingshurst, to reflect the fact that the majority of Kingshurst parish is proposed to fall within the same ward as Smith’s Wood. It identified Kingshurst as an area with strong boundaries that correspond to the proposed warding pattern. The parish council’s comments were supported by Councillor Browning, who made two submissions regarding the name of the ward.
Three members of the public made submissions noting the incongruity of a Smith’s Wood ward which included almost all of Kingshurst parish, including the Kingshurst Village Centre, but did not reference Kingshurst in its name. They suggested renaming these wards to accommodate the proposed boundary shift.
Three members of the public opposed the proposals to include Kingshurst in a Smith’s Wood ward, arguing that Kingshurst has a distinct and different character from neighbouring areas and should be represented separately.
We are persuaded by the comments of the Council, Councillor Feeney and most residents, who opposed the inclusion of the Cars Area in Castle Bromwich. We consider that including the Buckingham Road area in Castle Bromwich better reflects the community evidence we have received, and that a Kingshurst & Smith’s Wood ward (named to include both parishes) including the Cars Area achieves a better balance of our statutory criteria, even though it results in poorer electoral equality.
Chelmsley Wood and Fordbridge
Residents from Cambridge Drive and Gloucester Way, which we proposed including in Fordbridge, opposed the draft recommendations. They expressed a strong preference to remain in the same ward as the rest of Bickenhill and Marston Green parish, indicating strong community ties to Marston Green.
Two residents of the Brookfields area, west of Berwicks Lane, made similar comments regarding a lack of connection to Chelmsley Wood and suggesting that it should be included in the same ward as Marston Green. They provided evidence of the area’s ties in the parish, noting that ‘children go to schools in Marston Green, our leisure time is spent in Marston Green - at restaurants, the Tavern or walking through its two parks and the Recreation Ground (even watching the cricket club).’
Bickenhill & Marston Green Parish Council submitted comments in opposition to the draft recommendations, expressing dissatisfaction with a pattern which would see the parish split between three borough wards and the council needing to coordinate with nine borough councillors. It noted a preference for the Council’s proposals for the area during the initial consultation, which would only split the parish between two wards. It additionally suggested that the separation of the Brooklands and Low Brook areas could potentially disrupt community ties within the parish area.
We note the concerns of residents and the parish council in this area; however, we consider that any alterations to boundaries to accommodate these would result in wards with unacceptable forecast variances. A Fordbridge ward that did not include Low Brook would be 15% smaller than the average for Solihull by 2030, and a Chelmsley Ward without Brookfields would be 17% smaller by 2030. We therefore propose retaining our draft recommendations for these wards, though with a name change to reflect Kinghurst’s inclusion with Smith’s Wood rather than Fordbridge.
Suburban West
Elmdon
We received very few responses regarding our proposed Elmdon ward. The Council supported the draft recommendations here, which aligned to its original proposals. We therefore propose retaining Elmdon in our final recommendations.
Lyndon and Olton
Our proposed boundary between Lyndon and Olton wards elicited the greatest level of response across the entire borough. More than 50 local residents, as well as two local borough councillors and the Liberal Democrats, opposed the decision to use the Grand Union Canal as the boundary between these wards. They argued in favour of retaining the existing ward boundary, which runs east of Richmond Road and south of Pierce Avenue.
The Liberal Democrats noted that while ‘the canal may represent a hard boundary, it does not make sense for the purposes of reflecting community identity’ as residents in the Richmond Road area connect more with Olton than Lyndon.
Councillor Jones, of Elmdon ward, supported the Liberal Democrats’ response. Councillor Bradley, of Olton ward, made a detailed submission in favour of retaining the existing boundary between the wards, which better reflects the Olton community.
One resident stressed the ‘unbreakable connection between St Margaret’s School and St Margaret's Church [in Olton]… and that it is formal but it is also part of the lived experience of children and parents that have grown up together over the last decade.’ They additionally described how transport flows from the residential roads into Olton; another resident also emphasised the minimal walking distance from the area to Olton Station and Olton Library, of around ten minutes or less.
The Council and the Labour Party supported the proposals for these wards, arguing that the Grand Union Canal is a sufficiently strong boundary to use here.
We received two additional submissions from members of the public regarding a different aspect of Olton, specifically its boundary with Silhill to the east. These two residents fall within a small area west of Warwick Road and east of the rail line which is currently in Olton ward. The anomalous nature of this area was well summarised by one respondent who noted ‘The boundary between the two wards makes an unnatural move away from the railway line along Wadleys Road, leaving our houses as a kind of adjunct to Olton ward. It would be much more logical for the boundary to continue along the railway line to Grange Road, so that we would then be in Silhill ward. We have much more in common with Silhill ward than with Olton ward.’
We consider that the comments of the many local respondents regarding the boundary between Lyndon and Olton provide significant evidence in favour of retaining the existing boundary here, which results in a minimal impact on electoral equality. We are also persuaded by the two residents who suggested a Grange Road boundary with a small area transferred to Silhill.
As part of our final recommendations we therefore propose an unchanged Lyndon ward (from the existing arrangement), and an Olton ward with an amended boundary with Silhill ward along Grange Road.
Silhill
We received relatively few submissions regarding our proposed Silhill ward. Three members of the public made submissions in support of the draft recommendations. In addition to the two responses described in paragraph 59 above, we received two submissions from residents of Knowle ward who provided persuasive evidence to be included in Silhill ward; these respondents live north of the M42 motorway and feel a greater sense of community with Silhill than Knowle. Paragraphs 85-87 below provide more detail on why we are adopting this suggestion.
We propose an amended Silhill ward with extensions to Grange Road and the M42 motorway, as described, as part of our final recommendations.
Shirley East & Sharmans Cross and St Alphege with Monkspath & Hillfield
The Labour Party proposed renaming our proposed Sharmans Cross ward as Shirley East & Sharmans Cross, which it felt better reflected the separate elements of this ward. A member of the public made similar comments, noting that many local residents identify parts of the ward as Shirley.
Two respondents here raised questions regarding specific ward boundaries, including around Featherstone Crescent, but did not provide alternative suggestions.
Two residents of our proposed St Alphege & Monkspath ward made comments in support of the draft recommendations. The Council reiterated its preference for the ward to include Hillfield in its name, arguing that it is not excessively long and reflects the three composite areas of the ward.
Five residents of Stonor Park Road made submissions in opposition to the draft recommendations, which proposed transferring their area from St Alphege to Olton. They noted that they lie geographically more closely to St Alphege than Olton.
We do not consider that there is an arrangement of wards which would allow Stonor Park Road to be included in a St Alphege ward with good electoral equality. We consider that our proposed boundaries for these two wards provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. We are persuaded by the proposed name changes of the Labour Party and the Council, and are therefore proposing Shirley East & Sharmans Cross and St Alphege with Monkspath & Hillfield wards, respectively.
Shirley South and Shirley West
Three residents disagreed with our proposed Shirley West ward, identifying the A34 (Stratford Road) as a strong boundary which should not be crossed. One respondent suggested that Bills Lane should form Shirley West’s eastern boundary, along with the A34. One respondent suggested a more appropriate name for the ward would be Solihull Lodge and Hasluck’s Green.
The Labour Party made proposals similar to the resident, suggesting Bills Lane and the A34 (Stratford Road) as boundaries for Solihull West. The area along Longmore Road and Featherstone Crescent, originally proposed to be included in Shirley West, would be transferred instead to Shirley South in this arrangement.
We consider that the evidence presented regarding the strength of local boundaries, which allow for more effective and convenient local government, is persuasive and that amending these two wards accordingly provides a better balance of our statutory criteria. We note that using Church Road as a boundary, rather than School Road, between Bills Lane and the A34 results in Shirley South and Shirley West wards with more balanced forecast electorates
We therefore propose amendments to Shirley South and Shirley West in line with the suggestions of the resident and the Labour Party as described, with a boundary between the two wards running along the A34 (Stratford Road), Bill’s Lane and Church Road. We do not consider that alternative names in this area would be more representative than Shirley South and Shirley West.
Rural East and South
Balsall & Berkswell and Meriden & Arden
As part of our draft recommendations here, we proposed including Meriden in an Arden ward separate from Balsall and Berkswell. We received a significant level of dissatisfaction from residents of Meriden parish in response to this proposal. 30 residents of the parish, including from Millison’s Wood, as well as Meriden Parish Council, all opposed the draft recommendations. They preferred the existing warding pattern, with a Meriden ward comprising parishes of Meriden, Balsall and Berkswell.
Meriden Parish Council’s response noted the longstanding working relationship between the parish and the neighbouring parishes of Balsall and Berkswell on local issues. It additionally noted that Meriden falls under the orbit of Coventry, to its east, and that this was a position shared by the Balsall and Berkswell areas.
Residents of Meriden expressed similarly strong ties to Balsall and Berkswell, noting the local secondary school in Balsall Common which takes students from all three parishes. Some also referenced the shopping patterns, policing zones, and health activities (including Balsall and Meriden GP Practice) straddling the parishes.
Three residents made no comment on proposed boundaries but did emphasise the importance of including the name Meriden in any warding configuration. The significance of the Meriden name was also noted by Meriden Parish Council. One resident of Bickenhill suggested an alternative Bickenhill & Arden ward name.
Councillor Burrow, representing Meriden ward, made a submission which supported the draft recommendations. He noted that expected electorate growth in Balsall Common prohibited a configuration in which Meriden, Balsall and Berkswell would all be included within the same ward as such a ward would be too large.
The Council supported our draft recommendations here as well, and made no further suggestions. Saqib Bhatti MBE MP, representing Meriden and Solihull East constituency, made comments supporting the Council’s response for the borough. He suggested a ward name of Arden & Meriden for this ward, arguing that the village of Meriden is of historic significant and should be included alongside Arden.
Balsall Parish Council and Berkswell Parish Council produced a joint response, as they did during the initial consultation. Both parish councils supported the draft recommendations for Balsall & Berkswell ward, which they considered reflects local communities; they did not consider that there were any improvements to be made to either the configuration or name of the ward. Three local residents of these wards also made submissions in support of the draft recommendations.
We note the responses of Meriden Parish Council and residents of Meriden regarding local ties to Balsall and Berkswell, and consider they present good evidence of community ties and effective and convenient local government. However, we note that a ward comprising Balsall, Berkswell and Meriden parishes would result in poor electoral equality; such a ward would have a forecast variance 17% more than the average for the borough by 2030, and would leave an Arden ward (including Barston parish) with a forecast variance of -17% by 2030. We do not consider that wards of 17% and -17% reflect a balance of all three of our statutory criteria, and this imbalance of electoral equality is very strong.
We did consider whether an alternative pattern here, such as a single-member and two-member ward configuration, could address this issue; however, a single-member ward of Meriden parish would be too small, and any other balance of parishes would be too large for a single-member ward.
We propose retaining our draft proposals for the boundaries of these wards. We are persuaded by some residents, and Saqib Bhatti MP MBE, that it is appropriate to include the name Meriden in a ward, and propose that the ward including the parish should be called Meriden & Arden. We propose transferring Barston parish to Knowle ward (see paragraphs 86-87 below) and propose a Balsall & Berkswell ward otherwise unchanged from our draft recommendations. Blythe and
Dorridge & Hockley Heath
We received few submissions regarding these two wards. The Council supported our proposals, as did a resident of Cheswick Green who noted the area was not aligned to Hockley Heath across the motorway. We propose retaining Blythe and Dorridge & Hockley Heath wards as part of our final recommendations.
Knowle
We received submissions from three members of the public in support of our draft recommendations for Knowle. The Council additionally agreed with the proposals here, which aligned to its original submission during the initial consultation.
Two members of the public made argued that the M42 motorway should form the northern boundary of Knowle ward, with areas beyond the motorway aligned to Silhill. One resident noted that ‘I do all my activities in Solihull and am interested in what is happening in the town. I am not interested in Knowle, as I don't shop there. I think the dividing line should be the M42 motorway and not the Blyth River.’ The other respondent included additional detail, suggesting that ‘The motorway is a clearly-defined barrier that hinders interaction between residents on opposite sides of the motorway’, and noted that ‘To use the motorway as the boundary for these wards would be in keeping with the M42 motorway already being proposed as the boundary between the Blythe/Dorridge & Hockley Heath wards.’
We note that such a warding pattern would result in a Knowle ward with a forecast variance of -12%. We are persuaded that the M42 is a strong boundary between Knowle and Silhill and that it would better reflect community ties as well as allowing for more effective & convenient local government. However we considered whether there was a way to improve the variance of -12%. We note that transferring Barston parish into Knowle ward would allow for Knowle and Balsall & Berkswell to have good electoral equality by 2030. Including Barston with Knowle was originally suggested by the Council during the initial consultation due to proximity of services in Knowle, and we propose to transfer it to form part of our final recommendations.
We therefore propose a Knowle ward with the M42 motorway as its northern boundary, and including Barston parish, as part of our final recommendations. We also transfer several properties at the end of Barston Lane (at Copt Heath Wharf) for access reasons, as these residents can only access their area via Barston Lane.