Calderdale Final Recommendations
Explore our final recommendations for new wards in Calderdale
The Commission has published final recommendations for new wards in Calderdale.
This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.
Click on the layer 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 borough. This detail is also available in our report.
Hebden Bridge, Luddendenfoot, Todmorden and Warley
Hebden Bridge & Todmorden East and Todmorden West
South Calderdale and Sowerby Bridge
For the areas around Elland, Greetland and Ryburn there are fewer electors than the average per councillor for the borough. Our draft recommendations were based on locally proposed boundaries, with variances which are just within 10%. This made it harder to adjust due to the impact on electoral equality.
East Calderdale
Brighouse
Halifax
The Conservatives expressed support for the draft recommendations while noting that the Halifax area would see the most substantial changes. The Liberal Democrats were also content with the draft recommendations.
Hebden Bridge, Luddendenfoot, Todmorden and Warley
Hebden Bridge & Todmorden East and Todmorden West
In addition to the borough-wide comments, we received four submissions about this area, from Councillor Parsons-Hulse and from residents.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both supported our draft recommendations for this area. The Labour Group supported Todmorden West ward but reiterated its proposal to exclude Chiserley, Old Town and Pecket Well from a ward with Hebden Bridge and instead place them in Luddendenfoot ward. It reiterated its comments during the first consultation that these settlements had similar characteristics. In its view they had shared interests with those in Luddendenfoot ward. However, it acknowledged that it could not test this proposal or provide ‘concrete community evidence’ to support it.
Councillor Parsons-Hulse also proposed that to balance population figures, Luddenden should spread ‘into the natural connected Wadsworth polling district’. In other words, ‘Old Town, Pecket Well and up to the Bradford Board’. She stated that there were stronger links with Hebden Bridge, more so as people from Hebden Bridge used the Arts Centre in Wainsgate Chapel (in Old Town) on a daily basis.
Two of the residents wanted all of Todmorden united in a Todmorden ward on community identity grounds, rather than some of the parish being in a ward with Hebden Bridge.
We considered the submissions carefully. With regards to Todmorden, we agree that uniting Todmorden in a single parish would reflect the community identity of the residents, and we considered doing this as part of our draft recommendations. However, it resulted in a ward with very poor electoral equality. Such a ward is forecast to have 33% more electors than the average for the borough in 2029. Even if we retained the existing number of councillors for Calderdale, it is still forecast to have a high level of electoral inequality, at 26%. We considered this level of electoral inequality too high and not the best balance of our statutory criteria. We therefore retained the boundaries of the existing Todmorden ward as proposed and supported by all the borough-wide proposals and comments we received.
We consider that this is still the best balance of our statutory criteria and have not been persuaded to make any changes to Todmorden West ward.
With regards to the Labour Group’s proposal to exclude Chiserley, Old Town and Pecket Well from a ward in this area, we remain persuaded that residents of these settlements look to Hebden Bridge for their community and amenities, and not to Mytholmroyd in Luddendenfoot. We also believe that while advocating for Old Town and the neighbouring villages to be included in Luddendenfoot ward, some of the evidence provided by Councillor Parsons-Hulse supports them being included in a ward with Hebden Bridge. Therefore, we have not been persuaded to make any changes to the boundaries of our draft recommendations for Hebden & Todmorden East ward.
However, a resident was of the view that it would be more appropriate to name this ward Hebden Bridge & Todmorden East ward because the town in this ward is Hebden Bridge while Hebden is a town in North Yorkshire. We are content to do so, on the grounds that it better reflects the identity of the communities in the ward and will avoid any confusion with Hebden in North Yorkshire.
Aside from this change of name, we confirm our draft recommendations for these two wards as final. Both Hebden Bridge & Todmorden East and Todmorden West wards are forecast to have good electoral equality.
Luddendenfoot and Warley
Our draft recommendations for this area included a Mount Tabor ward based on the existing Warley ward, except that it excluded Warley Town and the area west of Winterburn Lane and Workhouse Lane. We had included these areas in Luddendenfoot ward.
We received over 50 submissions – from Councillor Parsons-Hulse, Mount Tabor Community Association (MTCA), St John, Warley & St Hilda, Wainstalls Community Association, Warley Community Association and residents – in addition to the area-wide comments from the political groups.
The Conservatives supported our draft recommendations. Labour and the Liberal Democrats did not, and neither did a significant number of the other respondents.
The Labour Group proposed modifications which moved Warley Town and an area north of Burnley Road into a Warley or Pellon ward with Mount Tabor Village and Pellon. It placed the area west of Winterburn Lane and Workhouse Lane in Luddendenfoot ward. It stated that Warley was semi-rural like Mount Tabor, and that both communities looked towards Halifax. It was of the view that it was unlikely that residents of these communities looked to Mytholmroyd for their shopping and amenities. The parish priest for St John, Warley & St Hilda expressed similar views, as did Warley Community Association, who stated that they would lose their links with their existing support groups and councillors. It also advocated for the retention of a ward named ‘Warley’. A significant number of Warley residents also advocated for Warley to be included in a ward with Norton Tower and Highroad Well.
The Liberal Democrats were also of the view that Warley Town residents looked towards Halifax. In their view the residents had community links with Mount Tabor, Norton Tower and Highroad Well. They believed that Wainstalls should be included in a ‘Warley/Mount Tabor’ ward. Nevertheless, they proposed retaining the boundaries of the existing Warley ward which excluded Wainstalls. Under this proposal, Luddendenfoot and Warley wards are forecast to have 12% and 1% fewer electors, respectively, than the average for Calderdale by 2029.
Councillor Parsons-Hulse also proposed that Warley Town remain in a ward with Mount Tabor because they were linked through community activities. She too was of the view that Wainstalls should be included in a ward with Warley and Mount Tabor instead of in Luddendenfoot ward. To make up for the removal of Wainstalls from Luddendenfoot, she proposed the inclusion of Old Town, Pecket Well and an area ‘up to Bradford Board’ in Luddendenfoot ward. However, as mentioned in the section on Hebden Bridge & Todmorden East, we were not persuaded to include these settlements in Luddendenfoot ward.
MTCA was of the view that Mount Tabor Village shared similar rural and semi-rural characteristics with Warley Town, Luddenden and Wainstalls and that it had little in common with the more urban part of its current ward. It believed that being included in Luddendenfoot ward would provide for more effective representation by local councillors due to the common needs of the communities they would be representing. This view was shared by the Mount Tabor residents who responded to the consultation. They felt that the draft recommendations placed them in a ward with an area of high density with different priorities from those of their community. Some explicitly stated that the area ‘below Highroad Well’ should be included in a separate ward.
The MTCA proposed two options for revised boundaries. Option one modified the draft recommendations by including residents north of Broadley Road in Luddendenfoot ward. Option two moved the boundary further north to exclude Broadley Avenue, Park Close, Park Fields and Woodlesford Crescent from this ward. Under these options, Luddendenfoot ward was forecast to have a variance of either 1% or -1% by 2029 while the residual ‘Pellon’ ward was forecast to have 14% or 12% fewer electors than the average for the borough, by 2029.
Wainstalls Community Association was content that its community remained in Luddendenfoot ward. This view was shared by a resident who stated that Wainstalls was similar to the other settlements in Luddendenfoot ward. They felt that it was important that they continued to work together on issues like flood prevention and water pollution. However, the Association noted that the draft recommendations placed Balkram Edge in Mount Tabor ward away from their community in Wainstalls.
We considered all the information we received over the course of both consultations carefully. We note and appreciate the time and consideration given to the draft recommendations by the communities, organisations and residents in this area.
Although a significant number of respondents stated that Mount Tabor and Warley should be included in the same ward, we note that views differ as to which ward that should be. Mount Tabor residents and MTCA want to be included in Luddendenfoot ward to the east, while Warley Community Association and Warley Town residents state that their community ties and amenities are towards Halifax and with Highroad Well and Norton Tower.
We also note that some submissions advocated for Wainstalls to be included in a ward with Mount Tabor on accessibility and community interest grounds.
We initially considered including Mount Tabor, Warley and Wainstalls in an enlarged Warley ward based on the existing ward. However, this resulted in a Luddendenfoot ward forecast to have 16% fewer electors than the average for Calderdale in 2029. We considered this variance too high and did not adopt this proposal.
We then considered including these three semi-rural communities in Luddendenfoot ward, as proposed by MTCA and Mount Tabor residents. This placed the more urban areas of Highroad Well, Norton Tower and Pellon in a separate ward, in line with MTCA’s second option. Although we may have been prepared to accept a Pellon ward forecast to have 12% fewer electors, this would not reflect the evidence we received from Warley Town respondents i.e., that they share community with the more densely populated areas of Highroad Well and Norton Tower and look towards Halifax.
After careful consideration, and having recognised that we cannot reflect all the proposals that we have received in light of the fact that people have different views about how the communities in this area should be combined, we have decided to include Mount Tabor with Luddenden and Wainstalls in Luddendenfoot ward, and place Warley Town in a Warley ward with Highroad Well, Norton Tower and Pellon. We consider this reflects the identity of Warley residents and organisations who say that their community is with Highroad Well and Norton Tower. It also reflects the views of the Mount Tabor community who were clear that they had more in common with other similar communities to the east.
The Labour Group also proposed a modification to the boundary of Warley ward and Sowerby Bridge ward. It advocated the inclusion of Friendly Avenue and the neighbouring roads north of the A646 Burnley Road in Warley ward. The Labour Group was of the view that the Friendly area was the gateway to the Upper Valley, after which the landscape becomes more rural. While we agree that the landscape becomes rural after this area, we did not receive evidence that the Friendly area itself looked northwards. Therefore, we have not been persuaded to make this modification.
Luddendenfoot and Warley wards are both forecast to have good electoral equality by 2029.
South Calderdale and Sowerby Bridge
For the areas around Elland, Greetland and Ryburn there are fewer electors than the average per councillor for the borough. Our draft recommendations were based on locally proposed boundaries, with variances which are just within 10%. This made it harder to adjust due to the impact on electoral equality.
Elland
We received two submissions about Elland ward in addition to the borough-wide comments from the political groups.
The borough-wide comments were mainly supportive of this ward. The Labour Group suggested that we consider including the areas south of Dewsbury Road/Clough Lane in Elland ward, as at present, to improve the variance of the neighbouring Rastrick ward. At the same time it noted that we had already considered doing this and acknowledged that the residents concerned were ‘likely to share community interests with Rastrick ward’.
As the Labour Group noted, we excluded this area from Elland ward on community interest grounds, and we consider that this is still the best balance of our statutory criteria.
A resident stated that our draft recommendations placed two houses on Hullen Road in Greetland rather than Elland. However, our draft recommendations place all the properties on Hullen Road in Greetland ward. The boundary runs behind the properties that face on to Victoria Road.
One resident objected to the inclusion of Blackley Village, Broad Carr and an area west and north of Blackley Road, Hammerstones Road and Hullen Edge Road in Greetland ward instead of Elland. We considered doing this as part of our draft recommendations. However, as described in paragraph 69, the distribution of electors in this area of the borough means that any adjustment causes neighbouring wards (to the east) to have poor electoral equality. In this case, moving these areas into Elland ward would leave Greetland ward with at least 14% fewer electors than the average for the borough. Trying to address this would leave Ryburn with at least 16% fewer electors than the average for Calderdale. We were not, therefore, persuaded to change the draft recommendations.
We are confirming our draft recommendations for Elland ward as final.
Greetland, Ryburn and Sowerby Bridge
In addition to the borough-wide submissions, we received just over 20 submissions for this area. These were from Councillor Greenwood, Stainland & District Parish Council and residents.
The Conservatives supported our draft recommendations in this area. The Labour Group also supported our draft recommendations for Greetland and Ryburn wards. It proposed a minor modification which moved the north-eastern boundary of Greetland ward from south of North Dean Business Park to Elland Wood Bottom on the grounds that this industrial estate is more part of Greetland ward.
It also proposed a small modification to the boundary between Sowerby Bridge and the ward to its north. As explained in the section on Warley ward, we did not receive persuasive community evidence to adopt this modification.
The Liberal Democrats objected to our draft recommendations which split Stainland & District parish across district wards.
The Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative warding pattern that placed most of the parish in a ward with Greetland. As part of this proposal, Norland Town and the western edge of Stainland & District parish were placed in Ryburn ward, as was the area of Sowerby Bridge east of Dean Lane. They expressed the view that the draft recommendations would be splitting a farming community.
Stainland & District Parish Council also objected to being split across borough wards. It was of the view that the road links were poor and that Ripponden was not a natural local centre for residents of Stainland and Sowood. It was concerned that being split over two borough wards would negatively impact community participation and that, being a relatively new parish, it was not resourced to address the impacts of this split. Several residents also raised objections.
We considered the Liberal Democrats’ proposal, especially in light of the parish council’s comments. We noted that the proposed wards had good electoral equality. However, we also noted that while it united most of Stainland & District parish, it split another area and community, Sowerby Bridge, without the requisite community evidence to support the proposed boundaries in that area. Therefore, we did not adopt this proposal.
We also considered including a larger area of the parish in Greetland ward. This entailed moving Stainland into Greetland ward with Holywell Green but retaining Sowood Village in Ryburn. However, this produced a Ryburn ward forecast to have 21% fewer electors than the borough average. We considered this poor electoral equality and so did not do this.
Councillor Greenwood supported the draft recommendations for these three wards. She was of the opinion that it made a lot of sense for Stainland, Stainland Dean and Sowood to join Barkisland, Ripponden and Rishworth in a new Ryburn ward, being semi-rural villages with similar issues.
A resident advocated transferring an area below the junction of Harper Royd Lane and Spark House Lane into Sowerby Bridge ward. Failing this, they suggested that we move Norland Town into Sowerby Bridge. Making either of these changes would worsen the electoral equality of Greetland ward, and we did not adopt these suggestions.
We agree that keeping Stainland & District parish in a borough ward is desirable. However, in the absence of a workable alternative that does not split another community, and considering that there is some support for the draft recommendations, we have decided to confirm them as final with one minor modification which places the North Dean Business Park in Greetland ward.
East Calderdale
Brighouse
The borough-wide comments were the only ones we received about Brighouse. These all supported our draft recommendations. We therefore confirm them as final.
Hipperholme & Lightcliffe and Northowram & Shelf
The borough-wide submissions were the only ones we received for this area of Calderdale.
As part of our draft recommendations we did not adopt a proposal to include all of Norwood Green and Coley in Northowram & Shelf, but we did include St Johns View and the southern end of Coley Road in this ward. This was because we were persuaded that the existing boundary that placed neighbouring properties like Coley Dale and Soaper House in different wards was not logical. The existing boundary also placed The Brown Horse Public House and neighbouring property (The Gatehouse) in two different wards.
The Conservatives and Labour both questioned the inclusion of St John’s View in Northowram & Shelf ward instead of Hipperholme & Lightcliffe ward. The Conservatives felt that moving this area into Northowram & Shelf ward, in the Halifax Parliamentary constituency, would affect effective and convenient local government and make ‘life more difficult’ for residents in this area.
The Labour Group also stated that it would be confusing for the residents concerned to vote for a Calder Valley MP but ‘Halifax’ area ward councillors. However, it noted that we do not consider Parliamentary constituencies when drawing up ward boundaries, which is correct. Our new ward boundaries will form the basis of the next review of Parliamentary boundaries.
Nevertheless, we considered the merits of both the existing and our draft recommendations boundaries in the area. We remain persuaded that our draft recommendations provide for a more logical boundary than the existing boundary proposed by the Conservatives and Labour Group. In both instances referred to in paragraph 89, we are persuaded that these neighbouring properties ought to be in the same ward.
However, we made one minor modification to the draft recommendations. This is to include Stonehill House on Denholme Gate Road in Northowram & Shelf ward, with its closest neighbours with whom they will most likely share community interest.
With the exception of this minor modification, we confirm our draft recommendations as final.
Rastrick
The borough-wide comments were the only ones with specific comments about this area.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both supported the draft recommendations.
Labour noted that this ward had an electoral equality outside of 10% from the average for the borough. Although it intimated that we could consider retaining the area south of Dewsbury Road/Clough Lane in Elland, it acknowledged that we had considered this option when drawing up the draft recommendations and that these residents are likely to share community interests with Rastrick ward.
We included this area in Rastrick ward to reflect community evidence and we are content that our draft recommendations still represent the best balance of our statutory criteria. We therefore confirm them as final.
Halifax
The Conservatives expressed support for the draft recommendations while noting that the Halifax area would see the most substantial changes. The Liberal Democrats were also content with the draft recommendations.
The Labour Group proposed significant changes to the draft recommendations in this area. It requested that we modify the boundaries between our draft recommendations for Halifax Town, Wainhouse Tower and Salterhebble wards and that we restore the north-western boundary of the existing Park ward. It also proposed that we make modifications to the boundary between Halifax Town and Ovenden wards with consequential ones to Illingworth & Mixenden ward.
While we noted that some of the proposed boundaries, specifically between Salterhebble and Wainhouse Tower and between Halifax Town and People’s Park wards, were strong and identifiable, these proposals produced wards with poor electoral equality. For instance, the resulting Salterhebble and Wainhouse Tower wards were forecast to have 36% fewer and 14% more electors than the average for Calderdale by 2029.
Halifax Town, Illingworth & Mixenden, Ovenden and Park
In addition to the borough-wide comments, we received a submission from a resident.
The Labour Group proposed the exclusion of Lee Mount from Halifax Town ward and its inclusion in Ovenden ward on the grounds that this area is separate from the rest of Halifax Town. We noted this when putting together the draft recommendations and it was something we had considered doing. However, it produced an Ovenden ward forecast to have 15% more electors than the average for Calderdale by 2029, which we considered too high.
To facilitate an Ovenden ward with good electoral equality, the Labour Group proposed that we restore the existing boundary for Illingworth & Mixenden by excluding the Holmfield area from Ovenden ward.
It also proposed that we restore the existing north-eastern boundary of Park ward along Ovenden Road (A629) and Shroggs Road. At the same time, it suggested moving an area around Arden Road and Well Head Lane from Wainhouse Tower into Halifax Town.
Under these proposals, three wards have variances outside what we consider good electoral equality. Halifax Town, Illingworth & Mixenden and Park wards are forecast to have 12% fewer, 12% more and 18% more electors, respectively, than the borough average by 2029.
With regards to Illingworth & Mixenden, we also note that the Holmfield area south of Beechwood Park is separated from the rest of the ward, which may explain why all the borough-wide proposals we received during the first consultation included them in Ovenden ward to the south instead of Illingworth & Mixenden. Therefore, on balance, we were not persuaded to change the draft recommendations to place them in Illingworth & Mixenden in order to include Lee Mount in Ovenden.
In relation to the draft recommendations for People’s Park ward, as mentioned in our draft recommendations report, on our visit to Calderdale we noted that the eastern end of Pellon Road was a mix of residential and non-residential properties in close proximity and with seamless access to the town centre. When considered together with what we consider a high variance of 18%, we decided not to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal. We consider that including the north-eastern part of the existing Park ward in Halifax Town ward is the best balance of our statutory criteria. We also note the support we received as part of the other borough-wide comments.
The Labour Group requested that we rename Halifax Town to Town ward to avoid confusion with the football club named Halifax Town. We are not convinced that anyone would confuse an electoral ward with a football club, even if they shared the same name, and have not been persuaded to change it.
A resident suggested that People’s Park ward be renamed Crossley ward, after the Francis Crossley who constructed both Crossley House and People’s Park. The Labour Group advocated that we rename this ward Park, as it is currently called, on the basis of it being a recognised community name. While we have no evidence that Crossley will be widely accepted or recognised by residents of the ward, we are content to rename it Park ward in line with Labour’s suggestion.
With the exception of the name change, we confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.
Salterhebble, Southowram & Skircoat Green and Wainhouse
In addition to the borough-wide comments, we received submissions from eight residents.
One resident supported the draft recommendations for Salterhebble ward, while the others objected to Copley and Skircoat Green being included in a ward with Southowram and Siddal. Some cited the A629 as a strong boundary between the communities. Others stated that Copley and Skircoat should be in a ward with Saville Park.
As mentioned earlier, Labour proposed some modifications using the A629 as a strong boundary between these wards. However, this produced a Southowram & Hebble ward with 36% fewer electors than the average for Calderdale. This was very poor electoral equality and we did not accept it.
A resident also proposed a Wainhouse ward bounded by the A629, Hebble Brook, Scarr Bottom Road, Aachen Way and Haugh Shaw Road. However, this too produced wards with very poor electoral equality. Under these proposals, Wainhouse ward is forecast to have 20% more electors than the average for Calderdale, while the resultant Salterhebble ward would have 40% fewer electors. Under these proposals, Sowerby Bridge to the west of Wainhouse is forecast to have 12% more electors per councillor by 2029. We therefore did not adopt this proposal.
In view of this, we are confirming our draft recommendations as final, with a minor modification around North Dean Business Park, which we explain in the section on Greetland. We accept that Southowram and Siddal communities are distinct from Copley and Skircoat Green communities. However, in order to achieve a balance of our criteria, we sometimes have to include different communities in the same ward. We are content that this locally proposed warding pattern is the best balance of our statutory criteria. We have renamed Salterhebble ward, Salterhebble, Southowram & Skircoat Green to reflect the constituent communities within it.