Sefton final recommendations
Explore our final recommendations for new wards in Sefton
The Commission has published final recommendations for new wards in Sefton.
This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.
Explore your area
In the map below we discuss each area of the borough. This detail is also available in our report.
Aintree, Lydiate and Maghull
Aintree, Lydiate and Maghull. Click to expand.
Aintree & Maghull South, Lydiate & Maghull West and Maghull East
Ford, Netherton and Orrell
Ford, Netherton and Orrell. Click to expand.
Ford
Bootle
Bootle. Click to expand.
Bootle East and Bootle West
Crosby
Crosby. Click to expand.
Blundellsands and Great Crosby
Formby
Formby. Click to expand.
Formby East and Formby West
Southport
Southport. Click to expand.
Ainsdale
Aintree, Lydiate and Maghull
Aintree & Maghull South, Lydiate & Maghull West and Maghull East
We received four submissions that related to the names of our proposed Molyneux, Park and Sudell wards. Lydiate Parish Council requested that our draft Park ward be renamed Lydiate & Maghull West. This ward name was suggested by the Southport Liberal Democrats during the previous consultation, and we had invited comments on this proposal. Lydiate Parish Council stated that this revised ward name would assist electors in Lydiate parish to ‘better identify with their ward and strengthen the public’s knowledge on where Lydiate sits in Sefton.’ Three local residents also expressed support for this name change. We are therefore changing the name of Park ward to Lydiate & Maghull West as part of our final recommendations.
In our draft recommendations, we considered whether it was similarly appropriate to rename Sudell ward to Maghull East. Three local residents supported this ward name change. Consequently, we have therefore adopted this ward name change as part of our final recommendations.
To maintain consistency for ward names across the broader Maghull area, we have decided to rename Molyneux ward to Aintree & Maghull South. We consider that this revised ward name provides a clearer description of the ward’s constituent communities. This revised ward name was supported by two local residents.
Ford, Netherton and Orrell
Ford
We received no submissions that related directly to this ward. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Ford ward as final.
Netherton North and Netherton South & Orrell
We received two submissions concerning the names of Netherton & Orrell and St Oswald wards. One local resident suggested renaming these wards Netherton East & Orrell and Netherton St Oswald, while another proposed renaming them Netherton South & Orrell and Netherton North.
We agree that these ward names should be amended to better reflect the communities they represent. After consideration, we find the names Netherton South & Orrell and Netherton North to be more suitable as we consider them to be more geographically accurate and have adopted them as part of our final recommendations.
Bootle
Bootle East and Bootle West
A local resident proposed that our recommended Derby and Linacre wards be renamed Bootle West and Bootle East, respectively. We have decided to adopt these names as we agree with the local resident that they are more relevant and reflective of local communities and will provide electors in Bootle with a clearer understanding of the area that each ward covers.
Another local resident opposed our decision to move the boundary between the current Linacre and Church wards from the A5036 road. While we note that this road would serve as an identifiable boundary, it would result in our proposed Bootle West ward having a forecast electoral variance of -13% by 2029. We are not persuaded that sufficient evidence has been put forward to support such a variance and have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations as final in this respect.
Litherland
We received no submissions that related directly to our proposed Litherland ward. We have therefore decided to confirm the ward as final.
Crosby
Blundellsands and Great Crosby
During the consultation on our draft recommendations, we received several submissions that related to our Blundellsands and Victoria wards. One local resident requested that we refrain from making any changes to the current Victoria ward, expressing satisfaction with the existing boundary arrangement. However, three other local residents supported a change in boundaries, with two of them proposing specific modifications.
One of the local residents suggested shifting the more urbanised parts of our draft Manor ward and incorporating them into a renamed Great Crosby ward. Additionally, they proposed transferring portions of our draft Victoria ward into reconfigured Blundellsands and Waterloo wards. This adjustment would align the boundary with College Road while dividing the latter two wards along Brooke Road East and Brooke Road West. Another local resident, who supported the latter boundary change, also stated that we could address the forecast over-representation of Victoria ward by removing the area opposite Merchant Taylors’ School (up to and including Brownmoor Lane) by placing it in Manor ward.
We carefully considered these proposals. However, we have decided not to adopt any changes to the boundaries of our proposed Blundellsands and Victoria wards in our final recommendations. We consider that the community evidence provided was not strong enough to justify a significant variation in the boundaries defined in our draft recommendations. However, we have been persuaded that a name change for Victoria ward is appropriate and that the name Great Crosby provides a better reflection of the ward’s constituent communities. We have thus renamed our proposed Victoria ward Great Crosby in our final recommendations.
A local resident requested that the Carnegie Library building be moved from Blundellsands ward to Victoria ward. They argued that the building has no historical connection to Blundellsands and was instead part of the College Road community. The suggestion was to adjust the boundary between the two wards to follow Coronation Road. After careful consideration, we have adopted this small adjustment and placed the library in our proposed Great Crosby ward. We believe this change better reflects community identities and represents a minor adjustment that does not affect any electors.
A local resident requested that Forefield Lane be incorporated into a single ward. The road is currently divided between wards and parliamentary constituencies. However, no alternative ward boundary proposal was suggested. As a result, we have decided to retain this boundary in our final recommendations.
Thornton & Hightown
We received a submission from a local resident proposing that the parish of Ince Blundell be incorporated into a Manor ward which would be renamed Thornton & Little Crosby. The argument put forth was that, as a rural parish, the community identities and interests of Ince Blundell would be better represented in a ward alongside other rural parishes.
After careful consideration, we have decided not to adopt this change as part of our final recommendations. We acknowledge that the local resident provided some community evidence to support the transfer of Ince Blundell parish to a different ward. However, on balance, we were not persuaded we had received sufficient evidence to justify such a notable change to our draft recommendations.
We have nonetheless been persuaded that a ward name change is appropriate. However, we consider the name Thornton & Hightown, as suggested by another local resident, to be most appropriate. Given that the Thornton and Hightown areas are the two more populous communities in the ward, we consider it to be the most suitable ward name.
Two local residents requested that the area of Homer Green be included either as part of Ince Blundell or Sefton parishes, rather than in Thornton parish, due to its geographical location and more rural concerns. However, we cannot recommend any changes to external parish boundaries as part of this electoral review; this responsibility lies with the Borough Council through a Community Governance Review.
Waterloo
We received four submissions from local residents regarding our draft Church ward. All of these submissions expressed a preference for a different ward name, with each submission arguing that the Church name did not accurately describe the ward’s constituent communities. The alternative names suggested were Waterloo, Waterloo Station and Waterloo & Seaforth. After careful consideration, we consider that the name of Waterloo to be the most suitable, given it forms the predominant community in the proposed ward. We propose no changes to the boundaries of this ward as part of our final recommendations.
Formby
Formby East and Formby West
A local resident proposed a significantly different warding pattern for the Formby area. This pattern comprised a Formby Freshfield ward and a Formby Ravenmeols ward, with Formby divided along a north–south axis. We carefully considered this proposal, given that we had previously sought feedback on whether such an arrangement would be preferable. However, we have ultimately decided not to adopt these wards in our final recommendations. We determined that the community evidence provided did not sufficiently justify why a north–south divide of Formby would be preferable and how it would better reflect community identities and interests. We consider that without a strong level of community-based evidence to support these proposals, a significant alteration of the boundaries outlined in our draft recommendations is not appropriate.
However, the local resident did provide evidence that the current ward names of Harington and Ravenmeols were no longer suitable. They indicated that the name ‘Ravenmeols’ was particularly unsuitable, given that the Raven Meols Hills are not within the ward. Another local resident submitted a proposal that Harington and Ravenmeols wards be renamed Formby West and Formby East, respectively. We have decided to adopt these ward names, as we agree with this local resident that they will be more identifiable to local electors.
Two local residents opposed splitting Formby between wards. However, as outlined in the draft recommendations, a ward encompassing the entirety of Formby and Little Altcar parishes would require six councillors to achieve good electoral equality. Therefore, both parishes must be divided across two three-councillor wards to ensure adherence to the presumption in legislation that the borough be represented by a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, and to achieve good electoral equality.
Southport
Ainsdale
We received no submissions that related directly to our proposed Ainsdale ward. We have therefore decided to confirm the ward as final.
Birkdale
During the previous consultation, the Sefton Labour Group proposed moving several roads connected to Upper Aughton Road from Kew ward to Birkdale ward, to improve electoral equality in Kew ward. We were initially not persuaded to make this amendment, as we determined that Upper Aughton Road represented a strong and recognisable boundary. However, the Southport Liberal Democrats supported this aspect of the Labour Group’s submission, suggesting that we place the boundary on, or near, Boundary Street. They stated that this change would promote electoral equality but also restore the historical boundary between areas of Kew and Birkdale. They further emphasised that local residents in this area identify themselves as part of Birkdale. We have decided to adopt this proposal as it is clear that there is cross-party support for such change. There is clear evidence provided across both rounds of consultation that this adjustment would better reflect our statutory criteria and, in particular, the local community identities of residents in this area.
A local resident stated that the area incorporated into the Birkdale ward from the Kew ward has traditionally been viewed as part of Kew. However, the specific area transferred into the Kew ward consists of new residential development near the Garden Centre. As outlined in the draft recommendations, this adjustment was made to prevent the development from being divided across wards. The Southport Liberal Democrats have endorsed this decision. We consider that this particular part of the boundary between the Birkdale and Kew wards is clear and identifiable, and we retained it in our final recommendations.
Another local resident noted that it was ‘odd’ that our draft Kew ward had ‘hardly changed’, given the anticipated development within the ward. However, the aforementioned changes will bring the electoral variance of Kew ward closer to the average for the borough, resulting in a better level of electoral equality.
Cambridge and Meols
The Southport Liberal Democrats requested minor adjustments to the boundary between our proposed Cambridge and Meols wards. Specifically, they proposed that Seaton Way and Northam Close, currently split between the two wards, be fully incorporated into Cambridge ward. Additionally, they requested that a few properties on Fairhaven Road be transferred to Meols ward. We concur that these two modifications will create a clearer and more identifiable ward boundary. We also note the minor improvement in electoral equality. We have thus included both changes in our final recommendations.
A local resident suggested that we rename Cambridge ward to Hesketh Park. We decided not to adopt this proposal as we were not persuaded that enough community-based evidence had been received to support this proposal.
Duke’s
A vast majority of Hall Street is currently within Duke’s ward. However, a small portion of the eastern side of the road falls within Norwood ward. The Southport Liberal Democrats requested that all of Hall Street be included in Duke’s ward. We have adopted this minor modification as we consider it to provide for a more clearly identifiable ward boundary.
A local resident stated that our proposed Duke’s ward was particularly ‘odd’ because it combined the most deprived and least deprived areas in Southport. They argued that this would make it difficult for any political party to effectively represent the interests of this ward. We have no view of or regard for which political party may more effectively represent certain types of communities. Furthermore, we do not make the automatic presumption that, because two areas have different social-economic profiles, they should go into different wards. Having considered the evidence received, we have decided to make no changes to the boundaries of this ward, except for the small amendment outlined in the previous paragraph.
Another local resident expressed concerns about the allocation of resources in the Duke’s ward. However, this review is focused exclusively on the electoral arrangements within the borough. Our role does not extend to resource allocation across individual wards.
Kew
The Southport Liberal Democrats proposed adjusting the boundary so that all of Haig Avenue falls within Kew ward. Currently, most of Haig Avenue is in Kew ward, but a small section on the odd-numbered side of the road is in Norwood ward. Similarly, a relatively new development at Princes Gardens is currently situated in the Norwood ward. However, it is only accessible from Kew ward. The Southport Liberal Democrats suggested moving the boundary so that Princes Gardens is included in Kew ward. We agree that these two changes will result in clearer ward boundaries and better reflect road access routes in the area. As a result, we have incorporated these boundary adjustments into our final recommendations.
Norwood
A local resident stated that the boundary between the areas of Kew and Blowick cuts through the middle of a community, following the route of a former railway line instead of the present railway line. They argued that this creates a disconnect between different areas in Norwood ward. The resident re-emphasised a preference for a Blowich ward, which they had put forward during the previous consultation. However, it was not clear from the local resident’s submissions how a potential Blowich ward would be configured. Therefore, we have decided not to make any changes to our Norwood ward based on these submissions.
The local resident also suggested that we could rename Norwood ward to High Park. We decided not to adopt this proposal as we were not persuaded that this name is any more reflective of the communities in this ward than the current name of Norwood.