New electoral arrangements for & Cleveland Borough Council Draft recommendations February 2018 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

© The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2018

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2018

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Redcar & Cleveland? ...... 1 Our proposals for Redcar & Cleveland ...... 1 Have your say ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 3 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 7 ...... 8 Redcar ...... 12 Marske, and Saltburn ...... 16 and Loftus ...... 18 Skelton and Lockwood ...... 20 ...... 22 Conclusions ...... 24 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 24 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 24 3 Have your say ...... 28 Equalities ...... 29 Appendix A ...... 30 Draft recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council ...... 30 Appendix B ...... 32 Outline map ...... 32 Appendix C ...... 33 Submissions received ...... 33 Appendix D ...... 34 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 34

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed • How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called • How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Redcar & Cleveland?

4 We are conducting a review of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Redcar & Cleveland. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Redcar & Cleveland

• Redcar & Cleveland should be represented by 59 councillors, the same number as there are now. • Redcar & Cleveland should have 24 wards, two more than there are now. • The boundaries of all but one ward should change.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for an 10-week period, from 6 February 2018 to 16 April 2018. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new wards – the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we received.

6 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

1

You have until 16 April 2018 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 27 for how to send us your response.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament1.

8 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair) • Sir Tony Redmond (Deputy Chair) • Alison Lowton • Peter Maddison QPM • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Redcar & Cleveland are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

What is an electoral review?

10 Our three main considerations are to:

• Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government

11 Our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Consultation

12 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Redcar & Cleveland. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 September 2017 Number of councillors decided 26 September 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 4 December 2017 End of consultation, we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 6 February 2018 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 16 April 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 5 June 2018 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

3

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

4

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

15 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

16 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

17 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2017 2023 Electorate of Redcar & 104,847 107,029 Cleveland Number of councillors 59 59 Average number of 1,777 1,814 electors per councillor

18 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All but one of our proposed wards for Redcar & Cleveland will have electoral equality by 2023. Loftus ward will have 11% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

20 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Electorate figures

21 The Council submitted electorate figures, including forecast electorate for 2023, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2018. These figures were broken down to polling district level. During the course of drawing up warding proposals the Council submitted a revised figure for the existing electorate. The Commission generally seeks to avoid amendments to the

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

electorate figures. However, in this instance we have accepted the Council’s request to use more up to date figures. The Council’s figures predicted an increase in the electorate of around 2% by 2023.

22 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council currently has 59 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

24 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 59 councillors – for example in a mix of one-, two-, and three- councillor wards.

25 We received no significant comments about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 59-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 28 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included four detailed borough-wide proposals from the Conservative, Independent, Labour, and Liberal Democrat groups on the Council. The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent group proposals were identical in parts of Eston, Redcar and Marske and with broad similarities in other parts of Eston, Redcar and Saltburn. There were more significant differences in Brotton, Guisborough, Loftus and Skelton. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups provided some evidence to support their proposals. The Independent Group provided limited evidence to support its proposals. The Labour Group put forward significantly different proposals from the other groups across the borough, also with limited supporting evidence.

27 The four borough-wide schemes each provided for a mixed pattern of one-, two- or three-councillor wards for Redcar & Cleveland. All four borough-wide proposals secured generally good levels of electoral equality. The remaining submissions made comments across the borough, with several respondents putting forward comments about a number of areas.

28 We carefully considered the proposals received and note the areas of similarity between the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals and the evidence provided to support them. We had a few concerns about the location of boundaries proposed by the Labour Group, particularly in Guisborough and Skelton,

6

and parts of Eston and Redcar. In addition, limited evidence was provided to support these proposals. On that basis, whilst we have been mindful of the Labour Group’s proposals we have largely based our draft recommendations on elements of the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals. We have also taken into account the other evidence received, while reflecting the statutory criteria. We also visited Redcar & Cleveland to look at the various proposals on the ground. This visit helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed during consultation.

29 Our draft recommendations are for 12 three-councillor wards, 11 two-councillor wards and one one-councillor ward. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

30 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on page 24) and on the large map accompanying this report.

31 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed ward.

Draft recommendations

32 The tables and maps on pages 8 – 23 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

Eston

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Eston 3 4% Grangetown 2 7% Normanby 3 8% 3 -4% South Bank 2 0% 3 -7%

8

Ormesby and Normanby 33 The Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals for these two wards were identical, proposing a minor amendment to the boundary between the existing wards. A local resident also stated that the electoral equality of the existing Ormesby and Normanby wards could be improved with a small amendment between them. However, the Labour Group proposed an Ormesby ward that incorporated the rural west area of Guisborough parish.

34 The Labour Group did not provide any evidence for the inclusion of part of Guisborough parish in its Ormesby ward and we are not persuaded that this would reflect local communities. Therefore, we have based our draft recommendations for these wards on the proposals from Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat groups and the local resident. We note that the existing wards have good boundaries and that it is possible to improve electoral equality of both with a small boundary amendment between them.

Eston, Grangetown, South Bank and Teesville 35 The Independent and Liberal Democrat groups put forward identical proposals for these wards. The Conservative Group also put forward broadly similar proposals, but with a different arrangement for the docks area and two minor differences between Eston, South Bank and Teesville wards. The Labour Group put forward significantly different proposals for this area.

36 A local resident stated that the South Bank is generally considered to be the area to the north of the trunk road and that it should be a two-councillor ward. He stated that the Tawney Road area is generally regarded as part of Grangetown, not Teesville. He also argued that the existing Eston and Teesville wards split the Whale Hill community along Birchington Avenue, with the community centre in Eston ward and the social club in Teesville ward. He argued that these community facilities should be in one ward. Finally, he argued that the current Eston and Teesville wards split the shopping centre at Normanby Top, and it would be better served being in a single ward. The Liberal Democrat Group put forward broadly similar evidence but also argued for the inclusion of the former steel works site in the single ward to help facilitate its redevelopment.

37 We note that the Labour Group did not provide any evidence to support its proposals and that its proposed boundaries do not reflect other comments outlined above. Its proposals would split the Whale Hill area, retain the Tawney Road area in Teesville and incorporate a large area to the south of the trunk road in a South Bank ward. We do not consider that these boundaries reflect the evidence received and are therefore not adopting these proposals in this area.

38 We are basing our draft recommendations for these wards on a mixture of the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals. These proposals avoid the split of the Tawney Road and Whale Hill areas. We also note that they minimise the area of Teesville that is included in the South Bank ward. We consider that the Liberal Democrat Group’s proposal to include the whole of the former steel works in a single ward is stronger than the Conservative proposal which splits it between three wards. Our tour of the area leads us to concur with the Liberal Democrats that the whole of the Eston High Street area should be in a single ward.

9

Finally, our tour also confirmed that the Conservative proposal to include Caithness Road and Hamilton Grove in the South Bank ward better reflects the access north and improves electoral equality in both the proposed wards.

10

11

Redcar

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 2 5% 2 1% 3 2% Mickledales 3 2% Newcomen 2 8% West Dyke 2 -7% Zetland 2 -6%

12

Mickledales and West Dyke 39 The Independent and Liberal Democrat groups put forward identical wards for this area. The Conservative Group’s proposals agreed the same overall extent for this area, but proposed a different configuration for dividing it. The Labour Group proposed a three-councillor ward for part of this area, but did not include the Mickledales estate to the south of Redcar Road. A number of local residents supported the inclusion of the Mickledales estate in a Mickledales ward.

40 We note that the Labour Group proposal excludes the Mickledales estate area to the south of Redcar Road. While we acknowledge that this area is part of Longbeck parish, our tour of the area confirmed that this estate would be best served in a ward with the area immediately to the north and not as part of a more rural Longbeck ward. Therefore, we are not adopting the Labour Group proposals.

41 Our tour of the area suggested that the Independent and Liberal Democrat proposal to divide the Ings area along part of Greenstones Road would not best reflect the local communities. We consider that the Conservative Group proposal to retain the whole of the Ings area in a single ward, along with the properties around Aintree Road uses the stronger boundaries. We are therefore adopting the Conservative Group’s Mickledales and West Dyke wards without amendment. We note one objection to the name West Dyke, but also note this reflects the existing ward name, so we propose retaining it. However, we would welcome further comments on the proposed name.

Dormanstown, Kirkleatham and Newcomen 42 The Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals for Kirkleatham ward are identical. The Independent and Liberal Democrat groups also put forward identical proposals for Dormanstown and Newcomen wards. The Conservative proposals for these two wards were similar, but transferred a different area to the east of Kirkleatham Lane to the Dormanstown ward. The Labour Group proposal is based on the existing wards, but with a number of small amendments.

43 We note the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups’ argument for placing Kirkleatham village in the Kirkleatham ward, along with village. We note that the Labour Group proposed retaining these villages in the Dormanstown ward, although it did not provide evidence to support this. On balance, we concur with the argument that these villages would be better served in the Kirkleatham ward as they have direct access into the remainder of the ward and are therefore basing the draft recommendations on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat proposal.

44 We note that the Labour Group’s Dormanstown ward is based on the existing ward and retains a large area to the east of Kirkleatham Lane in the Dormanstown ward. However, a local resident argued that this area is really considered part of Newcomen, pointing out that it includes Newcomen Primary School. We note that all proposals include some of the area to the east of Kirkleatham Lane to secure electoral equality, but consider that the Labour Group proposal includes such a large area that it does not reflect the local communities. Therefore, we are not adopting these proposals.

13

45 The Conservative Group and Independent and Liberal Democrat groups proposals included smaller, but slightly different areas to the east of Kirkleatham Lane in the Dormanstown ward. However, on balance, following our visit to the area we are of the view that the Liberal Democrat and Independent group proposal transferred a more discrete area to Dormanstown ward. The Conservative proposal divided properties on Thames Road and Tyne Road, which we do not consider reflects the local communities. We are therefore basing our proposals for this area on the Independent and Liberal Democrat groups’ proposals.

Coatham and Zetland 46 The Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals for these two wards were identical. They proposed the retention of the existing Zetland ward, while proposing modifications to the Coatham ward, to include Coatham Sands and to improve electoral equality. The Labour Group’s Coatham ward was almost identical to the existing ward, but also included Coatham Sands. Its Zetland ward was based on the existing ward, but also included the odd numbered houses on Ings Road, to the west of the railway.

47 Our proposals for the Newcomen and West Dyke wards mean that we are unable to adopt the Labour Group proposals for this area without a significant worsening of electoral equality elsewhere. We are therefore adopting the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat proposals without amendment.

14

15

Marske, New Marske and Saltburn

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Longbeck 2 5% Saltburn 3 -9% St Germain’s 3 5%

16

Longbeck and St Germain’s 48 The Conservative, Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat groups put forward almost identical proposals for a St Germain’s ward. The Conservative, Independent, and Liberal Democrat groups proposed a two-councillor Longbeck ward, which included the transfer of the Mickledales estate area of Longbeck parish to a Mickledales ward (discussed in paragraph 40). The Labour Group put forward proposals for a three-councillor Longbeck ward which retained the Mickledales estate area in the Longbeck ward.

49 As discussed above, our visit to the area confirmed that the Mickledales estate area of Longbeck parish is best served in the urban Mickledales ward. This was also supported by comments from several local residents. Therefore, with the transfer of this area, we are unable to consider the Labour Group proposal for a three-councillor ward and are instead adopting the proposal for a two-councillor Longbeck ward.

50 We are adopting the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat groups’ proposal for the Longbeck and St Germain’s wards, without amendment.

Saltburn 51 The Conservative, Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat groups put forward broadly similar proposals for the Saltburn ward. However, there were several proposals that included small parts of neighbouring Guisborough and Skelton & Brotton parishes in the ward. We acknowledge that there were issues of community links and access behind these proposals, particularly for the inclusion of the area in the Saltburn ward which we note is much closer to Saltburn than Guisborough town. However, in all these instances, the proposed ward boundaries would require the creation of unviable parish wards in either Guisborough or Skelton & Brotton parishes. None of these parish wards would have over 100 electors and we do not consider that the creation of such small wards provides effective and convenient local government. We are therefore tying the boundary to the south and east of the Saltburn ward to the parish boundary.

17

Brotton and Loftus

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Brotton 3 -4% Loftus 3 -11%

18

Brotton and Loftus 52 The Conservative and Independent groups put forward identical proposals for these wards. The Liberal Democrat Group proposed two similar wards, but included in the Loftus ward, rather than the Brotton ward. The Labour Group proposed the inclusion of Skinningrove in the Loftus ward, but also the area of Lockwood parish. We note that under the Conservative and Independent groups’ proposal, the Loftus ward would have 11% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023.

53 We have considered the Labour Group’s proposal, but note it did not put forward any evidence to support it. As discussed below (paragraph 56), there is good evidence for retaining the majority of Lockwood parish in a single ward. Therefore, we do not consider the proposal to include Moorsholm in the Loftus ward reflects local communities, and are not adopting it.

54 Our tour of the area suggested that while Skinningrove has road links into both Loftus or Brotton, the Liberal Democrat Group proposal to separate it from does not reflect communities. While Skinningrove sits below Carlin How, the areas are very close by and we consider they would be best served if kept together in the same ward. On balance, although the Conservative and Independent groups’ proposal produces a ward with a variance over 10%, we consider that this provides the strongest warding pattern, so we are adopting it as part of our draft recommendations.

19

Skelton and Lockwood

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Lockwood 1 4% Skelton East 2 -5% Skelton West 2 -1%

20

Lockwood, Skelton East and Skelton West 55 The Independent and Liberal Democrat groups proposed broadly similar wards for this area. They proposed a three-councillor Skelton ward and a two-councillor South Cleveland Villages ward comprising Lockwood parish and part of Skelton parish. The Conservative Group proposed a single-councillor Lockwood ward and two two-councillor Skelton wards. The Labour Group proposed a single-councillor Lockwood ward and a three-councillor Skelton ward.

56 We also received a number of objections regarding the existing division of Lockwood parish between wards, particularly the inclusion of an area in the west of the parish in a ward with parts of Guisborough parish. We received a number of alternative proposals that addressed this, however, they included the creation of unviable parish wards or did not consider the wider impact across the district.

57 The Labour Group’s proposal divides Lockwood parish between four wards, which we do not consider reflects other comments received or the community identity of the parish, so have not considered this proposal further.

58 The Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat groups’ proposals broadly respected the Lockwood parish boundary, only dividing it between two wards to secure electoral equality. However, the Conservative Group proposal divided village from the remainder of Lockwood parish which we do not consider reflects community identity or the submissions received. We also had concerns about the Independent and Liberal Democrat groups’ proposals to create a two- councillor ward covering Lockwood parish and a larger part of Skelton parish. Our tour of the area confirmed that this proposal divides Skelton Green from Skelton town, which we consider should remain in the same ward.

59 Therefore, for this area we have drawn up an alternative warding pattern taking into consideration the evidence received. We propose a single-councillor Lockwood ward covering all of Lockwood parish apart from village. This retains the majority of Lockwood parish in a single ward, and ensures that most of the Lockwood parish villages are in the same ward. We acknowledge the comments that Boosbeck has links into Lingdale and the rest of Lockwood parish, but as confirmed on out tour of the area, it also has good links into Skelton. We are therefore placing Boosbeck into a ward with Skelton and propose the creation of a two-councillor Skelton East ward and two-councillor Skelton West ward.

21

Guisborough

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Belmont 2 -1% Guisborough 3 6% Hutton 3 2%

22

Belmont, Guisborough and Hutton 60 The Independent and Liberal Democrat groups put forward identical proposals for this area. The Conservative Group put forward alternative proposals. The Labour Group’s proposals created unviable parish wards and also joined Boosbeck village to a ward with Guisborough. We do not consider this reflects communities or provides effective and convenient local government. We therefore did not consider their proposals for this area further.

61 We visited this area of Redcar & Cleveland on tour and were able confirm that the Conservative Group’s proposal provides a strong north south boundary along the dismantled railway line to the south of the former Blackett Hutton site. This proposal also has the advantage of retaining all of the town’s main shopping facilities in a single ward and the tour suggested that the east west split around Stump Cross better reflects communities. Our tour also highlighted that Stump Cross has direct pedestrian access into Westgate Park while the Independent and Liberal Democrat groups’ proposals separate these areas. Finally, to the west the Conservative Group proposals use the clearly identifiable boundary of the A171.

62 On balance, we consider that the Conservative Group’s proposals provide the strongest ward boundaries for Guisborough and largely we propose to adopt them. However, we have made two minor amendments to ensure all the properties on Park Lane and Westgate are not separated from other properties on the same roads in their respective wards.

23

Conclusions

63 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2017 and 2023 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2017 2023

Number of councillors 59 59

Number of electoral wards 24 24

Average number of electors per councillor 1,777 1,814

Number of wards with a variance more 1 1 than 10% from the average

Number of wards with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council should be made up of 59 councillors serving 24 wards representing one single-councillor, 11 two-councillor wards and 12 three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in the table and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

64 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that

24

each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

65 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

66 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Guisborough, Saltburn, Marske & New Marske and Skelton & Brotton parishes.

67 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Guisborough parish.

Draft recommendation Guisborough Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Belmont 4 Guisborough 6 Hutton 6

68 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Saltburn, Marske & New Marske parish.

Draft recommendation Saltburn, Marske & New Marske Parish Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Longbeck 5 Mickledales 1 St Germain’s 6 Saltburn 6

25

69 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Skelton & Brotton parish.

Draft recommendation Skelton & Brotton Parish Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Annandale Park 2 Brotton East 4 Brotton West 3 New Skelton & Hollybush 3 & Layland 1 Old Skelton 3 Skelton Green 1

26

27

3 Have your say

70 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

71 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of ward.

72 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

73 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: Review Officer (Redcar & Cleveland) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

74 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for the Redcar & Cleveland which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

75 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

76 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

77 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?

28

• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

78 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

79 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Millbank (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

80 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

81 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

82 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council in 2019.

Equalities

83 This report has been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

29

Appendix A Draft recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward/ name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % 1 Belmont 2 3,657 1,829 3% 3,599 1,800 -1%

2 Brotton 3 5,276 1,759 -1% 5,222 1,741 -4%

3 Coatham 2 3,749 1,875 5% 3,794 1,897 5%

4 Dormanstown 2 3,544 1,772 0% 3,668 1,834 1%

5 Eston 3 5,760 1,920 8% 5,660 1,887 4%

6 Grangetown 2 3,923 1,962 10% 3,866 1,933 7%

7 Guisborough 3 5,661 1,887 6% 5,771 1,924 6%

8 Hutton 3 5,147 1,716 -3% 5,569 1,856 2%

9 Kirkleatham 3 5,558 1,853 4% 5,527 1,842 2%

10 Lockwood 1 1,895 1,895 7% 1,884 1,884 4%

11 Loftus 3 4,770 1,590 -11% 4,839 1,613 -11%

12 Longbeck 2 3,548 1,774 0% 3,816 1,908 5%

13 Mickledales 3 5,205 1,735 -2% 5,564 1,855 2%

30

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward/ name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % 14 Newcomen 2 3,906 1,953 10% 3,912 1,956 8%

15 Normanby 3 5,519 1,840 4% 5,895 1,965 8%

16 Ormesby 3 4,886 1,629 -8% 5,232 1,744 -4%

17 Saltburn 3 4,851 1,617 -9% 4,971 1,657 -9%

18 Skelton East 2 3,473 1,737 -2% 3,443 1,721 -5%

19 Skelton West 2 3,323 1,662 -7% 3,606 1,803 -1%

20 South Bank 2 3,511 1,756 -1% 3,620 1,810 0%

21 St Germain's 3 5,788 1,929 9% 5,695 1,898 5%

22 Teesville 3 5,033 1,678 -6% 5,086 1,695 -7%

23 West Dyke 2 3,367 1,684 -5% 3,365 1,682 -7%

24 Zetland 2 3,497 1,749 -2% 3,424 1,712 -6%

Totals 59 104,847 – – 107,029 – –

Averages – – 1,777 – – 1,814 – Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 31

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/north- east/redcar-and-cleveland/redcar-and-cleveland

32

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/north-east/redcar-and-cleveland/redcar- and-cleveland

Political Groups

• Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Conservative Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Independent Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Labour Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Liberal Democrat Group

Councillors

• Councillors S Kay & C Kingham

Parish Councillors

• Councillor V Rider

Local Organisations

• Boosbeck Looking Good • Friday Friends • Neighbourhood Action Partnership

Parish and Town Councils

• Lockwood Parish Council • Saltburn, Marske & New Marske Parish Council

Local Residents

• 17 local residents

33

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

34

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

35

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in

whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

36

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 14th floor, Millbank Tower Government and political parties. It is London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1P 4QP committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Email: Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk areas. Twitter: @LGBCE