sign in sign up
<<
Home , Baldersdale, Barforth, Bowes, Brignall, Cleatlam, Cotherstone

Councillor submissions to the electoral review

This PDF document contains 18 submissions by councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Durham County Council Review-Submission on the DCC divisional boundaries of the former District (excluding Evenwood Division) by the four County Cllrs for the East & West Divisions

Introduction

The four County Cllrs for the divisions made informal enquiries of local residents before the County Council put in its proposal at the previous consultation. The DCC proposal was (is) based on much objective evidence as to the most convenient and effective way of delivering local government giving the best fit with local community identity. This evidence is detailed below. In their travels since the draft recommendations came out in October, the CCllrs are more convinced than ever that the County Council proposal is the right one for the residents of the dale.

The present configuration of Barnard Castle East & West divisions (BCE and BCW) dates only from 2005, when was transferred to BCE and Ovington & adjacent parishes to BCE. It is more of a north/south than an east/west split. It does not reflect as well as it might how people live and work. DCC’s submission for revised BCE and BCW boundaries has been well researched and we believe fully satisfies the tests of electoral equality, community links, and convenient governance & administration.

It seeks to restore and build upon the pre-2005 boundaries, and in consultations through October/November 2009, it has found widespread support from individuals and Parish Councils, of which some 15 out of 17 favour DCC’s proposals.

Comments on the County Council’s Proposals for Barnard Castle East & West

The DCC proposal is to split the dale east/west at Barnard Castle, into 2*2 member divisions, with western Barnard Castle, everything north of the Tees from Marwood west, and everything south of the Tees from west, forming a new Barnard Castle West division. The town of Barnard Castle would be split by main roads, ie. The road, Bede Road, Galgate, Market Place and Newgate. Much of this town boundary is as at present. Marwood Parish would be split by the Staindrop road. Their parish council is comfortable with that provided that the actual parish boundary with the town does not change as a result.

Community Links The mains roads up the dale, west from Barnard Castle, are the B6278 which goes via Eggleston to Middleton, and the B6277 which goes via to Middleton. These roads converge on Barnard Castle, and it is the town which should be regarded as the east/west hinge of the dale and a natural cut off point. Communities on both sides of the river are serviced by the same Doctors (Middleton and Barnard Castle), primary schools and secondary school, police team, voluntary groups/churches, and fire stations. They share the same DL12 0 postcode. The new division will permit the journey between Barnard Castle and Middleton to be accomplished within one division by either road. At parish level, Eggleston works with Mickleton/Cotherstone in the mid Tees partnership.

What is being proposed by DCC is a fairly modest change on the borders up to 2005. Eggleston used to be in Barnard Castle West until the last boundary review, and its residents still come to the BCW Cllrs with their problems. They never understood why they were moved. Similarly Ovington & neighbours used to be in Barnard Castle East The communities in the proposed new divisions are similar in character as well as from where they are serviced, and it is submitted the new divisions proposed by DCC reflect community identity much better.

West of Barnard Castle the communities on both sides of the are very similar. Villages such as /Mickleton and Eggleston are of a similar character. People from both sides of the river look to Middleton as the ‘capital’ of the upper dale, for shops, banks, Drs, schools etc.

The farming west of Barnard Castle is livestock, not arable, with much hill farming. The upland communities of , , and on the south of the Tees, are similar with Harwood, Forest, Newbiggin, and Eggleston on the north bank. There is a distinct ‘upper dale’ identity that is palpable to villager and farmer alike.

Grouping together communities of similar type makes for convenient and effective local government because the issues are similar and therefore can be tackled effectively. Recent examples for these communities mentioned above have included Ambulance emergency cover & response times; post-16 school transport, winter gritting & snow clearance, and concessionary travel for those away from bus routes. In these examples these upland communities have benefited from being covered by the same Cllrs.

The upland communities south of the river have nothing in common with the lowland farming and commuter parishes of Ovington & . The A66 across Bowes Moor is effectively a motorway and because of limited access points does little to facilitate local traffic south of the Tees. Most local traffic from Bowes goes down the A67 to Barnard Castle.

East of Barnard Castle the farming changes to arable, and the villages are commuter villages. Into this category would fall Winston, Gainford, Ovington, Barningham and . Though they may be on different sides of the river, they share a travel to work pattern down the A67 or A66 to and Teesside. Once again it is submitted that such similar communities will benefit from being covered by the same Cllrs.

It follows that if the Boundary Committee draft recommendation is followed then Upper Teesdale with its distinct identity and issues will be split, as will Lower Teesdale. It would split very similar communities such as Romaldkirk/Eggleston, Holwick/Forest, and Middleton/Mickleton. All of these look to Middleton as the service centre of the upper dale, for shops, banks, Drs, schools, Fire, Police etc. It would be harder to get good representation by our Cllrs as they would be split by the river. The following sections give the evidence in support of these assertions:

Convenient & Effective Local Government

The broad preference expressed by DCC for 2 member wards is particularly appropriate in Teesdale. The town of Barnard Castle is too big for one Cllr but too small for two. There is a large rural hinterland to service. There are 30+ parishes and most of them have councils, which rightly expect to get attention from their CCllrs. The current pattern of 4 Cllrs covering this area has worked well hitherto and is desired to be continued.

A particular weakness of the single member wards in the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendation is the fact that one Cllr has a fairly easy wicket, representing a compact area of Barnard Castle town, with only one Town Council, leaving only 3 to service all the rural areas. The South Tees ward will be particularly difficult to service in terms of area and parish councils.

These assertions are evidenced in subsequent sections, where it is shown how the public services conform with the divisions suggested by DCC.

Public Transport Network - Buses

The point: the bus service network focuses on Barnard Castle as the start and end of routes. There is a good bus service within each of the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East and West wards. There is no bus service connecting the Boundary Committee’s South tees Ward. Even changing at Barnard Castle, getting from Hutton Magna to Holwick would seem to be an impossibility. It is helpful for effective local government to link communities which have a natural affinity, which is assisted by good bus links.

Source: Bus companies and Passenger Transport Section, DCC

Evidence & Detail

There is a good bus service connecting the villages of DCC’s proposed Barnard Castle West ward with Barnard Castle town.

Arriva runs a service (95, 96) between Barnard Castle and Middleton in Teesdale via Cotherstone, Romaldkirk, Mickleton and Eggleston. In detail, 95/96 B Castle - Cotherstone - Romaldkirk- Mickleton- Middleton - Eggleston - Romaldkirk - Cotherstone - B Castle (96 runs opposite direction round the outer loop ie Eggleston - Middleton - Mickleton): Combined frequency 1 per hour

72 Barnard Castle - Bowes. 4 journeys per day

71 Barnard Castle town service (various legs, inc Startforth). 4 journeys on Startforth and Harmire legs, 9 on Green Lane leg per day

Alston Road Garage; runs between Langdon Beck and Barnard Castle (Monday to Saturday) and has some ’demand responsive’ elements where passengers can pre- book or make a request to the driver.

There is a good bus service connecting the villages of DCC’s proposed Barnard Castle East ward with Barnard Castle town.

Arriva runs a service (75, 76) from Darlington to Barnard Castle, either via Staindrop or Winston. In detail, 75 / 76 Darlington - Gainford - Staindrop(75 only) - B Castle. Combined frequency 2 per hour one per hour continues across BCastle to/from service 95 or 96:

Additionally 70 Barnard Castle - Whorlton - Staindrop - Darlington . every 2 hours.

79 Barnard Castle - Barningham - Richmond. 5 journeys per day

Compass Royston operate a service between Barnard Castle and Darlington (Monday to Saturday) via Whorlton, South , Staindrop, Ingleton and Gainford.

Hodgsons operate a service, on Wednesdays only, from Eppleby to Barnard Castle and return. There is only one bus on the day but it does go through Ovington and Hutton Magna. Hodgsons also operate a service from Barnard Castle to Richmond (Monday to Saturday) via Eggleston Abbey, Greta Bridge and Barningham.

Durham Constabulary

The point: the Police are organised in a way that is close to the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East/West wards. The fit between the Dales PACT area (Police & Communities Together) and BCW is especially good. It is helpful for effective local government to link communities which have a natural affinity that is recognised by other bodies, as the Cllrs often attend PACT meetings and have input into policing matters.

Source:

Evidence & Detail The Teesdale beat team is divided into 4 PACT areas (Police and Communities Together). The Dales PACT (, Cotherstone, Romaldkirk, Eggleston, Mickleton, Middleton, Upper Teesdale, Baldersdale and Lunedale); Barnard Castle PACT ( the town, Startforth, Stainton and Stainton Grove); South Teesdale PACT (Bowes, Hutton Magna, Barningham, Ovington, Whorlton and Greta Bridge); East Teesdale and Gaunless Valley PACT, (Staindrop, Gainford, Ingleton, Winston, Cockfield, Woodland, Butterknowle, Copley). This structure as this gives the best geographical fit to deliver local neighbourhood policing and familiarity, with the resources available.

Secondary Schools

The point: the attendances at the schools are a good fit with the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East/West wards. It is helpful for effective local government to have school catchment areas which correlate with Cllrs’ wards, as transport issues to schools are a common piece of casework and it makes sense for the Cllr to cover a similar area. School pupil movements are obviously also reflected by parental movements.

Source: Schools Admissions

Evidence & Detail Staindrop school takes 155 pupils from the proposed BCE ward, 5 from the proposed BCW ward and 30 from Barnard Castle town (East or West not known). 5 children attend from Ovington and 1 from Hutton Magna.

Teesdale school takes 88 pupils from the proposed BCE ward, 236 from the proposed BCW ward and 360 from Barnard Castle town (East or West not known). No children attend from Ovington and 1 from Hutton Magna. Primary Schools

The point: the attendances at the schools are a good fit with the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East/West wards, and show significant ‘cross river’ traffic. It is helpful for effective local government to have school catchment areas which correlate with Cllrs’ wards, as transport issues to schools are a common piece of casework and it makes sense for the Cllr to cover a similar area. School pupil movements are obviously also reflected by parental movements.

Source: Durham County Council Schools Admissions

Startfort Morritt of its 103 pupils, 70% come from north of the river with 65% coming from the proposed BCW ward.

Cotherstone: of its 48 pupils, 7% come from north of the river, 93% from south of the river, with 100% coming from the proposed BCW ward.

Middleton of its 111 pupils, 74% come from north of the river with 26% coming from south of the river with 97.3% coming from the proposed BCW ward.

Gainford of its 83 pupils, 77% come from Gainford village itself, with 10% coming from south of the river (all from Ovington). with 96.4% coming from the proposed BCE ward.

Community Organisations & Partnerships

The point: the Community Partnerships cover both sides of the river and are delineated by how far up the river they are, not whether they are north or south of it.

Source: the partnerships

Evidence & Detail Middleton Plus covers the upper dale westwards from Eggleston on the north bank and Mickleton on the south bank (to include Lunedale).

Mid Teesdale Partnership covers the dale eastwards from Middleton on the north bank to Eggleston and Holwick on the south bank to Cotherstone. To include Lunedale & Baldersdale.

Upper teesdale Agricultural Support Services covers the dale westwards from Barnard Castle on both sides of the riverbank.

GPs practices These broadly reflect the DCC proposed BCE and BCW wards, with the Middleton practice covering both sides of the river down to Marwood and Startforth, ie, on the north of the River, Forest, Newbiggin, Middleton, Eggleston, Marwood, with a few patients in Barnard Castle. On the south side Holwick, Lunedale, Mickleton, Romaldkirk, Cotherstone, Baldersdale, Lartington, Bowes and Startforth. The Barnard Castle practice covers mainly the town, but also extends to the surrounding villages.

There is also a practice at Gainford which covers villages south of the river such as Ovington, as well as Gainford and environs.

Thus it is clear that the GP practices fit better with the DCC proposals.

DCC Highways and Streetscene Council operations like gritting, highways repairs and rubbish collection broadly follow the proposed BCE and BCW split, which will make the Cllrs task simpler when making representations about these services on behalf of constituents.

Housing needs & Planning The Teesdale District Council Housing Strategy 2007-2010 looked at the housing market in the ditrict based on Housing Needs Assessments given to all households in teesdale. This (at p25) broke down Teesdale into market areas which fit well with the DCC proposed BCE and BCW wards, namely: Middleton-in-Teesdale and Upper Teesdale (both sides of the river); Barnard Castle area; Commuter Villages (A66/A67 ie. Winston, Gainford, Ovington, Barningham, Greta Bridge etc. These “market areas have been derived and evidenced on the basis of geographical location, transport links, migration patterns, and dwelling-stock and social-economic factors.”

Royal Mail The postcodes Cross the river as this is the most convenient way to deliver the mail! For example DL12 0 covers Mickleton, Eggleston including Folly Top, Middleton, Lunedale, Holwick, Newbiggin, Forest, Harwood.

North East Ambulance service From 2006-2008 there was a big public campaign about the inadequacies of ambulance emergency response times in rural Teesdale. Interestingly NEAS does now provide monitoring information of response times based on postcodes, with the DL12 0 area covering Mickleton, Eggleston including Folly Top, Middleton, Lunedale, Holwick, Newbiggin, Forest, & Harwood, being particularly sensitive. Comments on the Boundary Committee’s Proposals for Teesdale

General The proposals for single member EDs do not make for effective and convenient local government, in that they give poorest coverage per Cllrs in terms of Cllrs/acre, or Cllrs/Parish Council. By confining one Cllr to the (compact and easily managed) Barnard Castle South ED they leave three Cllrs to share the burden currently carried by four. This problem is most acute in the proposed South Tees ED. A particular weakness of the single member wards in the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendation is the fact that one Cllr has a fairly easy wicket, representing a compact area of Barnard Castle town, with only one Town Council, leaving only 3 to service all the rural areas. The South Tees ward will be particularly difficult to service in terms of area and parish councils.

The proposals also split the town of Barnard Castle in an unsatisfactory fashion; and split very similar communities up and down the river, as evidenced elsewhere in this submission.

The small number of people advocating a ‘south of the river tees’ ‘Old ’ ward, have not advanced any reasons, other than nostalgia, for such an arrangement. It is not the place of this review to reverse a change to county boundaries that was made some 35 years ago, precisely because of the strong community links that exist across the river. This review is how community identities and interests may be best reflected by Cllrs at County Hall in Durham, not Northallerton.

Barnard Castle North ED From a town perspective this proposal splits the town in a most unsatisfactory fashion. For this reason the Town Council does not support this option. The TC prefers the DCC proposal with consequent abolition of the North Town Ward. The main roads out of the town to Middleton, Staindrop, Startforth, Darlington & Whorlton are at least main roads which do form obvious break points in the town. But the proposes North ED boundary uses small residential roads which do not form obvious boundaries and which split residential roads like Green Lane and Victoria Road into separate EDs. This proposed boundary, following as it does residential rather than main roads is rather obscure and will not be easily understood by the electorate, Council Officers and others.

The proposal also splits the big infrastructure sites of the town: GSK, Sports Centre, Teesdale Secondary School, Green lane Primary school- from the users or those affected by these operations, who will largely live in the Bd Castle South ED. It does not make for effective local government if a Cllr’s responsibilities are split like this.

Further while Harmire Road does connect with Middleton, the properties in Dale Road to Victoria Road area have no connection with the dale west of Bd Castle.

The salient to include Stainton & Streatlam north east of the town is clearly there to make up numbers only, as there is no connection with the dale west of Bd Castle. Overall this is an odd and contrived looking ED, which splits the town unsatisfactorily, taking a ‘bite’ out of the north east of it and lumping it in an otherwise mainly rural ED with which it has little connectivity. Looking west up the dale, the proposed ED splits very similar communities as is discussed in the sections on the DCC’s proposals.

South Tees ED Looking west up the dale, the proposed ED splits very similar communities as is discussed in the sections on the DCC’s proposals. The issues and concerns of residents in Holwick (an upland dales hamlet) are very different from those in Hutton Magna (a lowland dales commuter village).

For example gritting runs follow a loop around the dale west of Barnard Castle along the top road to Middleton and back down the bottom one. Bins are emptied in a similar vein. It is convenient and effective for a Cllr to take up community concerns if his ward fits with council services. It will be a fertile source of inconvenience if one Cllr has to talk to two officers in the same issue, or vice versa.

This does not make for convenient or effective local government.

Similarly the proposed South Tees ED splits similar communities east of Barnard Castle in the lower dale also. A notable example being Gainford and the hamlet of Barforth over the river from it. Other than the numbers fit, the proposal has nothing to commend it. There are no links along the STED to connect the communities. There is no bus service for example. The ED is too large an area and has too many parish councils for a single Cllr to serve effectively.

Barnard Castle South ED This one Cllr has a fairly easy wicket, representing a compact area of Barnard Castle town, with only one Town Council. The problems with it are the fact that all the infrastructure sites (schools, GSK, Sports Centre etc) which residents here will use or be affected by,actually are located in the Barnard Castle North ED, outside this Cllr’s area of responsibility. Once again the issues of split responsibility/multiple Cllr involvement come to the fore.

The other problem is that the boundary with the North ED, following as it does residential rather than main roads is rather obscure and will not be easily understood by the electorate, Council Officers and others. PARISH COUNCIL OPINION

At the time of writing this report, the situation is as follows:

For the DCC Proposals Forest & Frith Middleton & Newbiggin Eggleston Marwood Lunedale Mickleton Romaldkirk Cotherstone Lartington Startforth Whorlton & Westwick Winston Barnard Castle Town Stainton & Streatlam Bolam Barningham Bowes

For the Boundary Committee proposal Rokeby & Staindrop

Ovington & Gainford are yet to declare. Some smaller parishes such as and Holwick, which have parish meetings may also yet have an opinion.

Whether you consider the parish council views just on number of councils, or more validly as population covered, it is clear that majority opinion in all parts of the area under discussion is in favour of the DCC proposals.

CONCLUSION The four CCllrs undersigned, in advocating the DCC proposals, are entirely in line with the evidence base, and with public opinion. Individual comment would also seem to be heavily in favour of the DCC proposal.

We commend the DCC proposal for your adoption.

APPROVED BY:

Richard Bell, CCllr Barnard Castle West Division

Address:

Barbara Harrison, CCllr Barnard Castle West Division

Address:

George Richardson, CCllr Barnard Castle East Division

Address:

James Rowlandson, CCllr Barnard Castle East Division

Address:

24th November 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

County Durham Boundary Review

I am writing to express my concern as one of the two elected representatives from the and Division of Durham County Council regarding the boundary review recommendations for the Trimdon Colliery and Trimdon Station communities.

The recommendation is for Trimdon Colliery to be split from our current electoral division and become part of the Thornley Division alongside Trimdon Station.

This recommendations flies in the face of the natural community boundary of ‘the Trimdons’ which includes Deaf Hill, Trimdon Station, Trimdon Colliery, Trimdon Grange, and Trimdon Village.

These communities are all part of the newly formed East Durham Corridor Area Action Partnership which is one of 14 area partnerships created by Durham County Council to hear the views of local people in relation to local issues now that the unitary council has been established. The people use the same shops and services including education, health facilities etc. The Joint Trimdons Regeneration Partnership is working across all the Trimdons and Deaf Hill to create a cohesive approach to social, economic and environmental regeneration. They too are opposed to the current recommendation.

Local people have waited for 20 years to see the divisive district boundary between and Easington (which ran through the middle of the community) to be abolished only to see a new division being created in the Trimdons if this recommendation goes ahead.

We would urge you to do the sensible thing and unsure that one division is created that unites all the Trimdons within one ‘natural’ community. I would be more than happy to explain the rationale for my position in more detail if this would be helpful.

Yours Sincerely,

Peter Brookes County Councillor

The Boundary Review Officer County Durham Review The Boundary Committee for Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW 2nd December 2009

Durham Electoral Review Sept. 2009 Durham County pages 20-21 Paragraphs 112-116 Town page 28 Paragraph 160 Dear Sir, Having stud ied th e repo rt a nd th e map (10) p rovided I must st rongly obj ect to the movement of the Low Spennymoor ward from the Tudhoe Division into the Spennymoor Division. At the same time I strongly object to the mirror movement affecting the Town Council Wards. I la y my o bjections b efore y ou in h opes you will reconsider yo ur proposals. On a positive note I have long concluded that the Spennymoor Township has been under represented at Co unty level th e increase fro m t he current fou r me mbers t o five is most welcome.

My first objection arises from the te xt of the report itself (paragraph 114) “We consider that the bo undary betw een Spennymoor and T udhoe is e asily identifiable”. So do I unfortunately we appear to disagree on where it is. You reference your remarks on the support of Spennymoor Town Council. They are, I am told, replying in their own right, but they do not agree with y our pl ans as ou tlined in map 1 0. The boundary between Tudhoe and Spennymoor is provided by the route of a lo cal waterway known as Ki tty’s Beck, as it flows from the hill below Kirk Merrington to the River Wear. I have included as appendix 1 extracts from a su mmery of local history. The two references show both sides of t he be ck being re garded a s b oundary points in th e 13th & 14th Centuries. T he boundary continued to divide the land holding of the l ocal gentry up to modern times. Indeed up to the Second World War the in Spennymoor opened and closed half an hour later than those in Tudhoe. With the resulting scramble at last orders. The boundary as I have described it is historic, well known and easily identifiable. It begs the question on the quality of your research for you to have got this so wrong. My second objection is in reference to the numerical justification for the change. I have included wi th this l etter (appendix 2) a comparison of numbers in the Tudhoe / Spennymoor Areas. From this comparison you can see that by returning Kirk Merrington to its former and rightful place as part of Spennymoor you will be bringing communities together not pulling them apart and at the same time bring Spennymoor and Tudhoe in line with the ideal numbers you require.

My third objection is based on my personal experience. I was first elected to the County Council in May 1997, I have been fortunate enough to retained my seat ever since. With the exception of the inclusion of Woodside / Ox close the boundary has been stable long before my initial election. Indeed as far back as a nyone can re member. I was el ected to the Town Coun cil in 1987 for the then two m ember wa rd of L ow S pennymoor. I subsequently left to go to university. On my return I rejoined the Town Council this time for the six member seat of Low Spennymoor and Tudhoe Grange. Which as the name would suggest included my former ward. At no time, and in spite of the conclusion you might d raw fro m its name, has th e Low Spenny moor e ver b een p art of Spennymoor electoral division.

I have yet to raise the inclusion of Hett and Croxdale within the Tudhoe Division. That is because I think that is a matter largely for the lo cal members and residents to discuss. However, th e in clusion of th ese a reas in Tu dhoe sh ould not be at the expense of the inclusion of Low Spennymoor

In c onclusion, having laid my o bjections a nd c omments before you I m ust ask you to redefine the proposed b oundary b etween Tudhoe and Spennymoor. T o re tain Low Spennymoor as p art of Tudho e within its easily iden tifiable bou ndary. To retu rn Kirk Merrington to Spennymoor where it has h istorically been . Su ch changes do m atter to communities a nd individuals. Changes must be based on rigorous and well directed research.

Yours truly,

Councillor Neil C. Foster B.A. Hons

Tudhoe Division appendix 1

"The Early History of Spennymoor" by J. K. Proud and R. S. Abley

So, part of the moor was sown with corn and supported that crop in the 14th century, but where , precisely, we re th e pl aces mentioned in th e g rant? Wormdene, says Do dd, who had spo ken to old p eople of th e area, was the wood or wooded valley beside Ox Close, and the old dyk e ran towards th e wood . On e of Dodod's sources o f l ocal knowledge, a man called Tate, contended, in th e 1890 's, t hat Ud desake was an o ld building at the back of Whitworth House. By that time, the name had been corrupted to Eater Slack.

John de Whitworth is named in Bishop Hatfield's survey and is stated to hold the vill of Whitworth by knight's service together with 14 shillings and 10 pence rent, sometime of Marmaduke Muschame, for a certain portion of two parts of the manor of Whitworth; and John paid to the Bishop's exchequer four pounds and eighteen pence.

Before continuing with the Whitworth story, it is of interest to note other happenings in th e Spennymoor are a in th e 13th and 14th centu ries. A charter of 1279 refers to another of the fish ponds i n the ar ea, this time the E ast Pool, in T udhoe, close to the Durham ro ad at Wood Vu e. The theory is that this pool and the other at Blocks were used by the Prior and monks, of Merrington to supply themselves with fish on Fridays: Th is ch arter is im portant in t hat i t contains the first historical reference t o Spennymoor and Tudho e. It c ontains a n agreement b etween Hugh Guby oun, Lord of Tudhoe, and the Prior of Merrington. Surtees records that appendix 2

A comparison of numbers in the Tudhoe / Spennymoor Areas

The Boundary Commission proposals remove from the existing Tudhoe Division two areas Low Spennymoor (FD) and Woodside (FE2) and add Hett (DGG) together with Croxdale (DG) ( My calculations are based on this two area’s having some 767 voters, please adjust if this is not the case)

Therefore Tudhoe: - 7134 -769-842+767 6290 -1.3% (2Memb)

Spennymoor: - 7715 +769+842 9326 -2.46 (3Memb)

My initial proposal is to retain Low Spennymoor (FD) in Tudhoe but to accept moving Woodside back into Spennymoor.

Tudhoe: - 7134 -842 6292 – 1.29 (2 Member)

Spennymoor: - 7715 + 842 8557 -10.05 (3 Member)

If we now include Hett and Croxdale into Tudhoe

Tudhoe 6292 + 767 7059 + 10.75 (2 Member)

If we include Kirk Merrington (FH) in Spennymoor

Spennymoor 8557+919 9476 -.09 (3 Member)

Based on the above I would strongly recommend returning Kirk Merrington into Spennymoor (as it was prior to 2005) and retaining Low Spennymoor in Tudhoe. The inclusion of Hett and Croxdale should only be accepted after this.

The figures are for the most part taken from the full Council report the mathematics is mine please forgive any slight errors.

From: Freeman David Sent: 02 December 2009 18:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham Draft Recommendations

Dear Sir/Madam

County Durham Review

I wish to express my view on your recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Durham County Council. My views refer purely to the proposed Cathedral ward and the proposed Durham South ward.

What I wish to suggest is the amalgamation of these wards to create a 3 member ward.

This could be done on the proposed wards as set out in your draft recommendations or preferably by accepting the proposals submitted by City of Durham Liberal Democrats. Both have ‘Cathedral’ ward as 2 member. The City of Durham Liberal Democrats proposals take on board very recent increases in the electoral roll which appear far more accurate that your original numbers in the draft recommendations and I therefore initially support their 2 member ward rather than your proposed 2 member ward.

My criticism of your proposed Durham South ward is that it is a ward of two very distinct elements, Village and a significant number of Durham University colleges. There is no common bond between these two communities, one residential and the other student. The student colleges are a recognisable community and look to other colleges and the City centre for all their needs. These colleges have always been part of the present ‘Elvet’ ward which is a mixture of colleges and Durham City centre. These colleges should maintain their link with the City centre.

Shincliffe village was until 2005 also part of the former ‘Elvet’ division and has always associated itself with Durham City particularly for schooling. As a village they had a long history of being linked with the City and would not I believe have an objection to doing so once again.

It should also be of interest to you that the areas south of the railway viaduct which you (and the City of Durham Liberal Democrats) have included in the new ‘Cathedral’ ward also used to be in the ‘Elvet’ ward.

There is therefore a history to this whole area being linked.

I hope therefore on the grounds of shared community and interests you will consider a 3 member ward encompassing the ‘Cathedral’ ward and the ‘Durham South’ ward.

Yours sincerely

Councillor David Freeman Elvet Ward Durham County Council

From: Ben Ord Sent: 23 November 2009 13:28 To: Jessica Metheringham Cc: Kevin Thompson Subject: Response to Draft Boundary Proposals for Spennymoor (New Layout) +Option 2 K/M

Subject: Response to Draft Boundary Proposals for Spennymoor

Hi Jessica, I would like to thank you for the professional manner that you Carried out your duties. We have tried to minimise our changes.

However, in view of your communication, we recommend that You understand that Spennymoor is classed as a Growth Point area and that Some 2,300 dwellings have received planning permission. Bearing this in mind, We consider that we should add the FE2 part of Tudhoe and everyone agreed To this. However we ask that the St Andrews Road, Bamburgh Parade, Ladysmock & Vyners Close +245 Electorate be added to our original submission.

This would form a L shaped boundary along St Andrews Road to the Asda Store. This would eliminate Weardale Street, down to and including Rowan Court and Including the houses in between.

We, We estimate that that a further 495 Electorate would come from new Houses built at Byers Green, Middlestone Moor and High Whitworth. Making a new Electorate of 9,237 in our revised Proposals for Spennymoor/Middlestone for 2013. A minus 2.7% Councillor Ratio. Or an average Electorate of 3,099 for each of the 3 Councillors.

This would cover a large area from Todd Hills, Byers Green, all of Middlestone Moor & Spennymoor Wards of the old Sedgefield Borough, Up to St Andrews Church. The FE2 and St Andrews Rd, Bamburgh Parade and Ladysmock & Vyners Close. Plus 495 electorate from New Houses under construction at High Whitworth and Middlestone Moor.

We would like to add as Option 2:- Spennymoor FE1 FE2 added FF2349 FG2778 F1687 &FH919 Kirk Merrington added. 3 Members 9,476 Electorate -.9% Tudhoe: 2 members 7,059 Electorate +10.7% as per the DCC Submission.

Can I add that there are a further 500 houses with planning permission (part of the 2300), In the low Spennymoor area. 100 on the old Greyhound Stadium and 400 on the old Thorns Factory Site on the old Merrington Lane industrial Site. So as we are about to come out of recession, we anticipate a real growth in new housing developments. This is our main area of difference. It is a fact that Spennymoor is a very popular Town for workers to commute from and Developers to build!

These proposals have the backing of the Spennymoor Liberal Democrat Branch And Durham County Liberal Democrat Councillors Ben Ord & Kevin Thompson.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Ben Ord (Chair Spennymoor Liberal Democrats) 23rd November 2009 Councillor Kevin Thompson (Vice Chair Spennymoor Liberal Democrats)

From: John Shiell Sent: 08 November 2009 17:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: New electoral arrangements for Durham County Council

Dear Sir I wish to suggest an alternative to the draft recommendations for the Chester-le-Street area, paragraph 46. I believe that the proposed 3 councillor division is flawed as the size of the electorate is too great to allow individual councillors to be in regular contact with individual electors. Instead I propose that the South Pelaw west of the railway line should be a single councillor division, with the North Lodge and North and East area of Chester-le-Street remaining a two councillor division. This, I believe reflects the identification which the electorate of both sections feel of the area in which they live. Residents living in the South Pelaw area feel that they live in an area which is separated from the Town Centre. Residents living in North Lodge and the North and East part of the town feel much more connected to the town centre. Thank You Councillor John Shiell. Durham County Councillor- Chester-le-Street North and East Division.

From: Owen Temple Sent: 04 December 2009 10:04 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Durham Review - North/South creation of a three member ward

Sirs,

I write to object strongly to your counter-proposal to that put forward by the county council after comprehensive local discussion.

The counter-proposal fails to meet the principles the Boundary committee seeks to apply.

The Communities of The Grove and Moorside are completely separate from Consett, much more related socially and geographically with Castleside than Consett. They are in fact contiguous with Castleside and share Church, community and leisure facilities with Castleside. They have a clear band of open land all around them. If the Boundary Committee were looking for a counter- proposal which created an additional member for the area by means of representing a discrete area they would do much better to look at creating a single member ward from that because it fits the test on grounds of both community and boundary.

Three member wards are not the model chosen for the county. They may occasionally be necessary, but in this case they most certainly are not, and the device should not be used to yoke together different convenience for no better reason than ease of number juggling.

The proposal of the county recognises existing communities, and actually improves the situation for the sub-community of Blackhill by uniting it's small shopping and community central area which is currently divided down Durham Road. Recent environmental improvements in this small area have shown the current absurdity as they have have been subject to decision by four councillors from three different parties - a necessary complication in city centres but seldom in a hamlet! By moving the boundary East to what is known locally as the "Carriageway" - the line of the former railway - a coherent boundary is available. This is not obvious on a map, but is more obvious from a satellite picture, because it is a clear green strip. Using this this boundary provides a clear Western Boundary to Consett North Division. The boundary is already recognised by the Consett and Blackhill conservation area, largely marking the boundary of the old Victorian/Edwardian town from the post-war development.

Thus the county proposal matches the requirement to fit in with communities and clear boundaries.

The Counter proposal does not. It includes a community which has acres of rough space between itself and Consett, but leaves an entirely arbitrary line between Moorside (current Consett South Division, proposed to be thrown in with Consett North Division) and Castleside (currently lumped in with Lanchester though it has no roads, bus services, church or community links other than having formerly been in Lanchester Rural District Council). The county proposal is more rational and logical, therefore, than the counter-proposal of the

Yours,

Councillor Owen Temple

From: CAROL WOODS Sent: 07 December 2009 19:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham

Thank you for listening to local comments and for recommending that Sherburn, and parishes stay in one electoral division. The links between these parishes are strong and they will work much better with common unitary councillors. We are equally happy to have a three member ward with Haswell also included or for there to be a two member ward with Sherburn, Shadforth, Pittington and parishes ( as it is now) and Haswell on its own. Yours sincerely Cllr Carol Woods Sherburn Division