Let the great boundary rejig commence

[minionofmidas]

If you were to move Mandale and Victoria into Middlesbrough South, and Ingleby Barwick West into Stockton, would that take either seat out of tolerance?

No, that would make virtually no difference at all and look nicer on an overview map. (I think Stockton gains 12 people net, or was it lose); the reason I used the other one was I was figuring that the one way I was splitting only Thornaby while the other way I was splitting them both; but I suppose Parkfield & Oxbridge is not Thornaby?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I know, Eston the place is far smaller than Eston the former Urban District (which was very similar to the area described here, really just some warehousing land in Teesport missing), and I've no idea how well recognized that name still is. It's all continuously built up from Middlesbrough anyways. But was it ever in a Middlesbrough seat?
Only reason I used "East Cleveland" is because that's what the area is also called in the current Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland constituency name.

[minionofmidas]

Billingham and Sedgefield actually makes a fair bit of sense.  Sedgefield town is rather difficult to combine with anywhere else because (rather strangely) there are no north-south roads through it.

Sedgefield has about 5000 inhabitants, and I've never understood why it's a constituency name of such long standing. By far the largest place in the Durham part of the seat is actually Newton Aycliffe.

[doktorb]

Meanwhile, a little tinkering has seen my "logjam" slightly shifted. Now I need to look at southern and eastern Lancs. Remember, I am NOT inlcuding Merseyside, which I appriciate causes a few issues in the West Lancs/Sefton area, but there you go.

For northern Lancashire, then, it looks like I'm pretty much sorted as follows:

South Ribble (76,429)
Regains Lostock Hall, Farington, Tardy Gate, a removal I never did agree with. Keeps only one ward from Chorley borough, and loses any links with West Lancs borough, so becomes far more compact than currently.

Preston (74,807)
The existing constituency, though it loses Ingol. I really wanted to Ingol, but its shape and size made other constructions very difficult. With Preston being so tiny (fewer than 55,000 voters I believe) I expand it to include the whole of Bamber Bridge, Walton-le-Dale, Salmlesbury and Coupe Green.  I know from my own experience that this is "commute to work" world so it's a feasable seat.

Wyre and Preston North (76,733)
It pains me to keep this seat, but I have no choice, the other combinations just would not work for me (I groaned out loud when I saw my Excel spreadsheet turn from "under quota blue" to "over quota red" when I tried adding Fylde to Preston).  Anyway, this is not quite the seat as we know it now, I've added Wyresdale ward, and the Pilling/Hambleton bits too, which I think are in Lancaster and Fleetwood now. Loses the connection with Poulton-le-Fylde, which wasn't really valid/legit anyway.

Blackpool (74,074)
The existing Blackpool South, this has been extended up the Golden Mile to just miss out Bispham. If I were a Scottish Boundary Commissioner, I would call this "Blackpool South and West", but I'm not, so I won't.

Fleetwood and Bispham (72,765)
JUST in quota, but good God am I glad to see the back of this. Fleetwood, Cleveleys, and the eastern suburbs of Blackpool all the way down to Stanley Park.  I could see no other way to undo the tangle here, this works very well.

Fylde (76,339)
The borough plus Poulton-le-Fylde and Carleton. This has been my idea from the start, stop Fylde from being tagged onto Preston (or the other way round).  Yes, Wyre is split three ways but THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

Valleys of Ribble and Lune (74,761)
The borough of Ribble Valley, plus everything that isn't in the Lancaster and Morecambe seat I discribe below. Yes, I've checked Street View and Google Earth to confirm that there IS a single track country lane linking adjoining wards, so all is well.

Lancaster and Morecambe (78,808)
The city of Lancaster, inc. its Uni, plus Morecambe and Heysham. Can't get more sensible than that.

===

Work now in progress = what to do with West Lancs (it's a bit high but I can't now go and carve up South Ribble. What to do with Wigan (currently paired with West Lancs, but at 82,000, something has to give. And I don't know how to find out specific population figures to enable split wards so it's all or nothing......

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

If you were to move Mandale and Victoria into Middlesbrough South, and Ingleby Barwick West into Stockton, would that take either seat out of tolerance?

No, that would make virtually no difference at all and look nicer on an overview map. (I think Stockton gains 12 people net, or was it lose); the reason I used the other one was I was figuring that the one way I was splitting only Thornaby while the other way I was splitting them both; but I suppose Parkfield & Oxbridge is not Thornaby?

Thornaby was in the North Riding; Parkfield and Oxbridge was the other side of the Tees from Thornaby and therefore in County Durham.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I know, Eston the place is far smaller than Eston the former Urban District (which was very similar to the area described here, really just some warehousing land in Teesport missing), and I've no idea how well recognized that name still is. It's all continuously built up from Middlesbrough anyways. But was it ever in a Middlesbrough seat?
Only reason I used "East Cleveland" is because that's what the area is also called in the current Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland constituency name.
[/quote]

East Cleveland in this context is an anachronism as it refers to the defunct Cleveland county.  Cleveland and Teesside are really two distinct places, with Cleveland proper referring to the coast east of Redcar with its cliffs, and arguably the area between there and the North York Moors national park (towns like Saltburn, Skelton/Brotton and arguably Guisborough).  The local council is called "Redcar and Cleveland" to reflect this.  (Before 1983 there was a constituency called "Cleveland and Whitby".)

[minionofmidas]

Meanwhile, a little tinkering has seen my "logjam" slightly shifted. Now I need to look at southern and eastern Lancs. Remember, I am NOT inlcuding Merseyside, which I appriciate causes a few issues in the West Lancs/Sefton area, but there you go.

Merseyside sans Wirral is 10.20 seats; I'd wonder if some wards on the Sefton outskirts can maybe be shifted into the W Lancs seat, but IIRC Andrew proposed something where Southport and Crosby (or whatever it was called) both expanded well outwards.[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it happens. Something has got to give.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol.

[minionofmidas]

If you were to move Mandale and Victoria into Middlesbrough South, and Ingleby Barwick West into Stockton, would that take either seat out of tolerance?

No, that would make virtually no difference at all and look nicer on an overview map. (I think Stockton gains 12 people net, or was it lose); the reason I used the other one was I was figuring that the one way I was splitting only Thornaby while the other way I was splitting them both; but I suppose Parkfield & Oxbridge is not Thornaby?

Thornaby was in the North Riding; Parkfield and Oxbridge was the other side of the Tees from Thornaby and therefore in County Durham.

Are you telling me I can't read maps!?
Apparently you are. And apparently you're right. Oh well.
So yeah, Middlesbrough S & Thornaby it is.

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Meanwhile, a little tinkering has seen my "logjam" slightly shifted. Now I need to look at southern and eastern Lancs. Remember, I am NOT inlcuding Merseyside, which I appriciate causes a few issues in the West Lancs/Sefton area, but there you go.

Merseyside sans Wirral is 10.20 seats; I'd wonder if some wards on the Sefton outskirts can maybe be shifted into the W Lancs seat, but IIRC Andrew proposed something where Southport and Crosby (or whatever it was called) both expanded well outwards.

[/quote]

My dastardly plan was roughly (a) move Tarleton into Southport (b) draw a seat containing Crosby, Formby and the area that used to be Martin Mere (c) draw a seat containing Maghull and Skem (d) see where Ormskirk fits best.

doktorb, I'll be interested to see what constituencies you come up with crossing the Greater Manchester/Lancashire boundary.  There are a few possibilities that make sense, and some that don't; in particular, don't move Norden (the northernmost Heywood/Middleton ward) into Rossendale, it looks tempting on a map, but there's a large hill in the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol.
[/quote]

If it's this single track country lane, that's the Trough of Bowland which I warned you about.

[doktorb]

LOL. But it IS a direct road! I tried adding Rural North but that messed the figures up. This is the only way I've been able to solve my Fleetwood issue =<

[minionofmidas]

So what area should I try next?

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Billingham and Sedgefield actually makes a fair bit of sense.  Sedgefield town is rather difficult to combine with anywhere else because (rather strangely) there are no north-south roads through it.

Sedgefield has about 5000 inhabitants, and I've never understood why it's a constituency name of such long standing. By far the largest place in the Durham part of the seat is actually Newton Aycliffe.

I think it's mostly because this area of rural SE Durham has always ended up being the seat of bits left over once you take out the Pools, Stockton and Darlington.  Newton Aycliffe didn't exist before WW2 - it's a New Town - and there aren't many other large towns in the area.

Back in 1935 there were 11 county seats in Durham: Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, Blaydon, Chester-le-Street, Consett, Durham, Houghton-le-Spring, Jarrow, Seaham, Sedgefield and Spennymoor, plus Darlington, Gateshead, The Hartlepools, South Shields and Stockton-on-Tees which were borough seats, and Sunderland which was a two-member borough seat.

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

So what area should I try next?

Don't think anyone's talked about Yorkshire yet.

[doktorb]

[shudder]  I would not like to give Yorkshire a go. I'll stick with Lancs. And I will remember to look out for any mountains in the borderlands

[minionofmidas]

[shudder]  I would not like to give Yorkshire a go. I'll stick with Lancs. And I will remember to look out for any mountains in the borderlands

Just dynamite any obstructive hills away.

[minionofmidas]

Nottinghamshire 7.82 + Nottingham 2.46. God, no.
NE Lincolnshire 1.52, N Lincolnshire 1.64 (just too large for three seats together, so the Isle of Axholme will be in an East Riding constituency), East Riding 3.50, Hull 2.38, so one seat really expanding out of town. Which frankly ought to have happened before (as also at Nottingham).
South Yorkshire 12.69 : Barnsley 2.32, Doncaster 2.88, Rotherham 2.51. You know what that means? It means pairing with Nottinghamshire. Oh, and Sheffield 4.99, as pointed out before.
West Yorkshire 20.60 : Kirklees 3.97 and Calderdale 1.95 are fine, but Bradford 4.24, Leeds 7.14, Wakefield 3.30... grouping them together for 15 undersized seats is going to mess with our England total.
York 1.96, North Yorkshire 6.04

Hmmm... I'll get the easy parts out of the way first, give some preparative thought to the remainder.

Easy parts like York, that is:
York Central 74,013
No change
York Outer 74,797
No change

North Yorkshire will also retain its six seats, but of the current seats Richmond is too large, while Selby & Ainsty is barely legal and the others are somewhere in between. Preferrably I would have just transferred one or two Hambleton wards from Richmond to Thirsk & Malton but this was not as easy as it sounded because the area would have had to be right between 1659 and 2822 inhabitants, and Leeming ward (1880) is literally the only option, but that looks butt-ugly.
Looking whether I could get some wiggleroom by transferring territory out of Thirsk & Malton, I was stuck by the western boundary of that being a district boundary throughout, and by the unnatural position of Filey in it at the eastern end. However, Filey is far too large to just be added to Scarborough & Whitby; although a plausible solution would be to transfer those two southern wards from Thirsk & Malton to Scarborough & Whitby, move the three rural wards at the northwest end the other way, and then move two northeastern wards from Richmond to Thirsk & Malton. Not at all sure I prefer that; actually I probably don't.
Or you could at least make the butt-ugly bit look less ugly by moving the ward to Leeming's south, Tanfield (1434) into Skipton & Ripon. That works too (but means Skipton & Ripon includes one ward from another district.)

Just for the system's sake:
Richmond (Yorks) 79,434
As currently except without Leeming
Thirsk & Malton 78,713
As currently plus Leeming
Scarborough & Whitby 76,032
Skipton & Ripon 76,654
Harrogate & Knaresborough 74,560
Selby & Ainsty 72,532
all unchanged

Btw. You would drive through another constituency to get to Leeming from Thirsk, but you wouldn't drive far. I've never understood the obsession with road links, at least not in cases like this.

[Bacon King]

I wish there was a program like Dave's Redistricting App for the UK so I could join in on the fun

[minionofmidas]

I wish there was a program like Dave's Redistricting App for the UK so I could join in on the fun

Kids these days. Don't know what a pdf and a pocket calculator are for.

[Bacon King]

I wish there was a program like Dave's Redistricting App for the UK so I could join in on the fun

Kids these days. Don't know what a pdf and a pocket calculator are for.

Where do I find the required information? That's my only problem.

[minionofmidas]

In the former Humberside, as pointed out above the two North Lincolnshire UAs are too large to stand alone for three seats so I treated the Isle of Axholme with East Yorkshire and Hull (though removing the whole of the Isle meant that the North Lincolnshire seats would on average be smaller than the East Yorkshire seats). Also, wards are once again huge - both Beverley & Holderness and "East Yorkshire" are slightly above target as is with any whole ward removed taking them well below quota - and you can't remove a ward from East Yorkshire without splitting it in two anyways. Nor can you sensibly remove a whole ward from Beverley & Holderness.
Elsewhere though, the concept of basically splitting up Haltemprice & Howden, drawing the dense suburban parts into the currently undersized Hull seats, worked very well:
Beverley & Holderness 68,282+x
Loses the southwestern part of Beverley Rural ward (11,506)
East Yorkshire 68,319+x
Loses some southern parts of Wolds Weighton (12,194). Leaving that stupid name in is really just lazyness, and a sense that basically unchanged constituencies shouldn't be renamed.
Hull East 77,296
gains Myton
Hull North & Cottingham 78,176
gains Cottingham North and South
Hull West & Haltemprice 78,286
Hull West & Hessle, minus Myton, plus Tranby, Willerby & Kirk Ella, and South Hunsley
Howden, Goole & Axholme 69,695+x
The three Isle of Axholme wards in North Lincolnshire, and in East Yorkshire the Goole N, Goole S, and Snaith etc wards from the old Brigg & Goole, the Howden, Howdenshire, and Dale wards from the old Haltemprice & Howden, and parts of Beverley Rural and Wolds Weighton as described above.
Sc**nthorpe 75,398
Gains the wards of Burringham & Gunness and Burton upon Stather & Winterton. Bit odd boundary, but avoids a split ward.
Great Grimsby 69,991+x
While here a split ward couldn't be avoided, at least not without lopping off random parts of Grimsby (I didn't check all possible options, but I did check a few and found no solution). Current constituency plus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker (8625) wards
whatever. Brigg & Immingham 68,174+x
Current constituency minus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker; plus Brigg & Wolds and Broughton & Appleby.

The issue, of course, is that that splits Cleethorpes town right down the middle. There's a reason why Great Grimsby constituency isn't any larger than it is at current.
So... it's not cool, but... what if we split Grimsby down the middle instead of Cleethorpes? We can avoid the split ward that way.

Grimsby East & Cleethorpes 74,556
Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker, Haverstoe (ie Cleethorpes), Humberston & New Waltham, and in Grimsby East Marsh, Heneage, Park, Scartho and South wards
Grimsby West, Immingham & Brigg 72,234
West Marsh, Yarborough, and Freshney wards in Grimsby, and Waltham ward and points west of the Brigg & Immingham described above.

[minionofmidas]

I wish there was a program like Dave's Redistricting App for the UK so I could join in on the fun

Kids these days. Don't know what a pdf and a pocket calculator are for.

Where do I find the required information? That's my only problem.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032_iv.pdf
(And the same thing with iii instead of iv for the Metropolitan Areas) has maps. The current ward electorates we're working with are at http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm
And in a few areas you'll need additional info for which you'll just have to shop around on the net. Wikipedia is sometimes quite helpful in explaining what area a place name belongs to exactly, though sometimes it's not. In some new unitaries, the wards listed in the lower document won't add up with those listed on the map.

[minionofmidas]

In West Yorkshire, Calderdale and Kirklees will be minimum change maps. However, Halifax and Huddersfield are both too small and Colne Valley is marginally too large. And wards are, of course, huge - we're on metro territory after all.
Halifax 70,622+x
Calder Valley 68,425+x
The split ward is Hipperholme & Lightcliffe (8644, currently in Calder Valley). Though the wiki article claims that the two places (described as "villages", which I wouldn't call such places) run into each other, but from maps it doesn't look that way at all and it should be very easy to transfer only Hipperholme. Funny sounding name btw. There would appear to be a third, smaller settlement in the ward - Norwood Green. The map'll look better if that's also transferred, though one would have to check the population totals - if Lightcliffe has fewer than 3500 inhabitants, then Norwood Green will have to stay in Calder Valley.

A ward will also have to be split in Kirklees. They have 13,000 inhabitants on average (the usual boundary commission solution to such situations was, of course, to just have some constituencies include one fewer ward than others, as Huddersfield in this case, but the new narrow population targets rule that out.)

Huddersfield 66,206+x
Gains part of Lindley ward (13,678) which is part of the built-up Huddersfield area anyways - as is half (by population) of the current Colne Valley, so it's quite a misleading seat really.
Colne Valley 66,247+x
Loses part of Lindley yadda yadda yadda
Dewsbury 78,610
unchanged
Batley & Spen 76,619
unchanged

[doktorb]

I use these figures - http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm


www.election-maps.co.uk


and Google Earth and StreetView to make sure wards really do join up

[minionofmidas]

Across Bradford, Leeds, and Wakefield, I intend to abolish one seat and have the resulting 15 seats still be 2% sub-quota on average (14.68 is the entitlement). Yet at current seats are undersized mostly on the western end of the area - after all, a seat was eliminated at the eastern end at the last review. In fact, the Normanton Pontefract & Castleford and (just barely so) Leeds Central seats are currently too large. Bradford must lose a seat and drop off territory into Leeds, elsewhere electorates just have to be brought into line (although that means most Leeds electorates, as most of them are too small right now). Wakefield is already shedding about the right amount into Leeds, though maybe I'll add another half-ward.

[minionofmidas]

In Bradford, currently five constituencies are made up of 6 wards each, and it seems fairly obvious to draw four constituencies of 7 wards each and lob off two wards onto Leeds. It's also only commonsense not to use Bradford proper wards - the obvious candidates are Wharfedale and Ilkley. It's also fairly obvious that the "Shipley" constituency is destined for the drop. I also took the opportunity to mess with the uglyshaped Bradford South.
Below are two ward maps for the remainder, chose one.
Bradford West 71,521
Current constituency plus Queensbury ward.
Bradford South East 73,389
Current South, minus Queensbury, plus Little Horton and Bowling & Barkerend
Bradford North East 75,994
Current East, minus Little Horton and Bowling & Barkerend, plus Windhill & Wross, Shipley, Baildon
Keighley 80,382
Current constituency minus Ilkley plus Bingley and Bingley Rural.
Yes, I know that's mismatched - wards in Bradford proper are smaller on average than in the suburbs - so part of Bingley Rural would go into Bradford West.
Or we can avoid the ward split, but have a less sensible map, by amending to:
Bradford West 75,179
Current constituency plus Queensbury and Bingley Rural, minus City
Bradford North East 74,026
Current East, minus Little Horton and Bowling & Barkerend, plus Windhill & Wross, Shipley, City
Keighley 78,692
Current constituency minus Ilkley plus Bingley and Baildon.
Bradford South East is not affected.

Leeds constituencies are made up of four or five wards. That's stark barking insane. I haven't touched it yet. Although I will.

In Wakefield borough, currently Wakefield constituency has 71,111 inhabitants and includes Ossett and most of Wakefield city; Hemsworth has 73,195 inhabitants, a bit of Wakefield city and lots of old pit villages, and Normanton Pontefract & Castleford has 82,834 inhabitants and four towns of which Knottingley is not mentioned in the name, while Outwood (23,518) is in a mostly Leeds-based constituency.
We will have to split a ward or three here anyways, but we could either go the cautious reforming route, which means splitting off some old villages southwest of Normanton (in Normanton ward) and southeast of Pontefract (in Pontefract South ward) and hope the figures somewow magically add up. If the problem is with Wakefield only - and the areas by Normanton, which could go in there, look of lesser magnitude - then obviously that can be solved by splitting the Wakefield South ward currently in Hemsworth, or better yet move it wholly into Wakefield and split the Wakefield Rural ward currently in Wakefield instead (and then perhaps move the people by Normanton into Hemsworth instead - or possibly not at all if the Pontefract area alone is enough people, which I strongly doubt, however).
It's also possible that these areas are just not enough to get Normanton etc below the maximum, in which case we're well & truly fucked. Which all told is quite likely.

Or we could take a more radical approach. The two Ossett wards can go into Leeds instead of the Outwood seats - they have marginally more people to them (24,647), which is good coz we'll be treading a fine line in Leeds. All the Wakefield wards (Wakefield) plus the rural ward immediately east of them (Crofton, Ryhill & Walton) is too few people: 69,174. The remainder of the current Hemsworth constituency plus the two Pontefract wards (Pontefract & Hemsworth) is 74,581, and the remaining Normanton & Castleford seat, including Outwood (which was in Normanton til 2010), is still too large at 82,256 but here the solution to both this and Wakefield is now much more obvious: the Wrenthorpe part of Wrenthorpe & Outwood West ward should be large enough to put the two seats within the corridor, though possibly not by much.

I prefer the more radical approach. Anyone who knows the area and disagrees, speak now or be silent forever cause I'll need to know before I tackle Leeds. Which wont be today. I'm also putting the two Bradford proposals up for discussion, though that doesn't affect anything else.

[minionofmidas]

Great Grimsby 69,991+x
While here a split ward couldn't be avoided, at least not without lopping off random parts of Grimsby (I didn't check all possible options, but I did check a few and found no solution). Current constituency plus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker (8625) wards
whatever. Brigg & Immingham 68,174+x
Current constituency minus Sidney Sussex and part of Croft Baker; plus Brigg & Wolds and Broughton & Appleby.

The issue, of course, is that that splits Cleethorpes town right down the middle. There's a reason why Great Grimsby constituency isn't any larger than it is at current.
So... it's not cool, but... what if we split Grimsby down the middle instead of Cleethorpes? We can avoid the split ward that way.

Grimsby East & Cleethorpes 74,556
Sidney Sussex, Croft Baker, Haverstoe (ie Cleethorpes), Humberston & New Waltham, and in Grimsby East Marsh, Heneage, Park, Scartho and South wards
Grimsby West, Immingham & Brigg 72,234
West Marsh, Yarborough, and Freshney wards in Grimsby, and Waltham ward and points west of the Brigg & Immingham described above.

This is really quite unnecessary. Better to breach the UA/Lincolnshire County Council borders.

[minionofmidas]

Leeds.

Wharfedale (probably Wharfedale, Ilkesley & some other random place, if a boundary commission gets its way, but I don't care) 70,748+x
The Adel & Wharfedale and Otley & Yeadon wards currently in Leeds NW, the Guiseley & Rawdon ward currently in Pudsey, and in Bradford the Wharfedale and Ilkesley wards; and part of the Craven ward included in Keighley in the above description, pop. 12,159, to make up the numbers. (I strongly prefer the first description for Bradford above, btw. The portion of Bingley Rural in Bradford West could be fairly small.)
Leeds North West 64,698+x
Headingley and Weetwood from the current constituency of the same name, Kirkstall from the current Leeds West, and Horsforth and part of Calversley & Farsley (17,435) from the current Pudsey. The ward split would be broadly by the Farsley Ring Road.
Leeds West 68,443+x
The Armley, Bramley & Stanningley and Farnley & Wortley wards of the current constituency, and the Pudsey ward and the remainder of Calversley & Farsley from the abolished Pudsey constituency.

I tried to be similarly creative further east at first, but couldn't come up with anything looking this decent quickly so will be going with a minimum change approach instead.
Leeds North East 67,489+x
Current constituency and anywhere between 4580 and 5789 of the electors of Harewood (14,768), so expanding to the borough limits
Elmet & Rothwell 63,090+x
Current constituency except said portion of Harewood
Leeds East 64,479+x
Current constituency plus about the northern half of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward (14,822)
Leeds Central 64,874+x
Current constituency except the northern half of Burmantofts & Richmond Hill. As that would have to be ridiculously finely sliced (37 persons not spoken for, lol), the constituency will also expand southward to take in the eastern part of Ardsley & Robin Hood (16,625) - Robin Hood (the name made me think it's probably a late 20th century council estate, but apparently it's a pit village; wtf?) and possibly Ouzlewell Green (would look better on a map to include that too, but might take the next seat below target. It's not as if the area belonged in something called "Leeds Central", anyways.).
Morley & Ossett 58,991+x
The Morley North, Morley South, and the bulk of Ardsley & Robin Hood ward of Leeds; and the Ossett and Horbury & South Ossett wards of Wakefield.

EDIT: Hmm, by Ouzlewell Green I meant the separate cluster of houses south of Robin Hood, but apparently the suburban-gridded northern part of the cluster I called Robin Hood also uses the Ouzlewell Green name for its addresses. That area was certainly intended in Central.