Councillor hits back at Leader's Hopwood Hall ward boundary comments

Councillor Robin Parker has hit back at comments made by Council leader Councillor Alan Taylor concerning the ongoing Hopwood Hall township voting issue.

Under a motion passed by Rochdale Council, two of the Hopwood Hall members are to be allowed on the Heywood Township and one in the Middleton Township; a move which sparked outrage among opposition councillors, who believe that the electorate for the ward would not be able to hold their councillors to account if they did not hold full voting rights on both townships.

This prompted a controversial stance of defiance from Heywood Township chairman Councillor Alan McCarthy and Middleton Township Chairman Councillor Peter Williams, as reported by Rochdale Online yesterday. The pair have said that they will continue to allow votes from the three Hopwood Hall ward Councillors at their township meetings.

In response, Councillor Taylor blamed the current situation on a Labour Party decision during the ward boundary review in 2003/04, for which Councillor Parker was the Labour party spokesman. Councillor Taylor said that the Labour group 'effectively gerrymandered the boundaries for electoral gain. This is what has caused this situation'.

Councillor Parker has provided an in depth response to Councillor Taylor's comment and says he will be referring what Councillor Taylor has said to the Standards Board. He believes that this is a political issue and has nothing to do with his current role as Mayor.

"The independent Electoral Commission insisted on Local Authorities revising ward boundaries to make the numbers of electorate as equitable as possible, give or take 10%," said Councillor Parker. "The demography of the Borough had changed since the last revision. A lot of properties had been lost at the Heywood and Middleton end of the Borough, but there was a considerable amount of new build in the Norden and Bamford ward and in the Pennines.

"It was clear that Heywood could not sustain three seats and Middleton five. The only way that could have been made to happen would have been to take a large chunk of Bamford into Heywood and a large chunk of Castleton into Middleton. Neither of these options would have been acceptable. The only alternative therefore was to have a ward which straddled the two towns. I say towns rather than Townships because the Townships are a political definition, whereas the borders of Heywood and Middleton are clearly defined geographically.

"Obviously the issue of political representation was key, and so I raised the matter with the Chief Executive and his response was that the councillors for the new ward should sit on both Townships. This being acceptable the proposals were adopted by the Labour Party and then by the Council for submission to the Electoral Commission. The Liberal Democrats submitted their own proposals."

The Electoral Commission noted a number of objections to the proposed Hopwood Hall ward but said that the Liberal Democrat alternative, which was to divide the northern part of Langley in Middleton, would leave that area isolated and with poor access to the remainder of their proposed Heywood South & Birch ward.

The Council accepted that its proposals for the Hopwood Hall area would be contentious locally but stated that the electorate in these areas would be able to retain their respective Heywood and Middleton identities through the maintenance of effective representation on both the Heywood and Middleton Township Committees.

The Electoral Commission report stated: "Having adopted a council size of 60 members, we were persuaded that the Borough Council’s proposals to include the Hollins and Lane End settlements in the proposed Hopwood Hall ward provide the best basis for a ward pattern in this area that balances the statutory criteria. We noted the objections received from local residents and interest groups. However, we took the view that the Borough Council’s proposals facilitate the most viable ward."