Commentary on the LGBCE Draft Report and Revised Proposals for the Warding arrangements and Parish Boundaries in Derbyshire Dales This report has been agreed by the following Groups and District Councillors Derbyshire Dales Liberal Democrats Derbyshire Dales Constituency Labour Party Cllr Jacqui Alison (Independent) Cllr Rob Archer (Lib Dem) Cllr Martin Burfoot (Lib Dem) Cllr Sue Burfoot (Lib Dem) Cllr Neil Buttle (Green) Cllr Paul Cruise (Lib Dem) Cllr Steve Flitter (Lib Dem) Cllr Clare Gamble (Independent) Cllr David Hughes (Lib Dem) Cllr Peter O’Brien (Labour) Cllr Mike Ratcliffe (Labour) Cllr Peter Slack (Labour) Cllr Steve Wain (Lib Dem) It was collated by Peter Dobbs (Lib Dems) [email protected] March 2021 Commentary on LGBCE Report on Ward Boundary changes March 2021 General Comments Communication of findings. We would have found it helpful if a list of the proposed parishes in each ward had been provided as a summary. Instead, it has to be deduced from the text. It would also have helped if a detailed map showing these parishes for each ward had been given – or at least the option of zooming in on a larger map to study them in detail The maps provided that showed the revised wards in three towns were helpful in this respect although were not easy to find. They are also significantly out of date (2016) with the one for Ashbourne failing to show at least four major areas of house building. Variance. This is just one of the three considerations made by LGBC in their review but we feel that the draft scheme does have some large variances. In particular we take issue with variances in the 8-10% range where these occur in exactly the way that is least desirable due to potential future growth. Overall the draft LGBC has a % variance of -53.2% & +50.6% compared to our original ‘joint’ scheme of -33.5% & +43.6%. Community cohesion. Arguably this is at least as important as excessive variance. We believe it is important to recognise the distinction between rural and urban communities and try to avoid where possible urban areas having very extensive rural hinterlands. This may however be difficult where parishes are sparsely populated. We suggest that some of the new Ward proposals have resulted in both large variances and a lack of community cohesion; Bakewell is an example of this. Impact of planned large developments not completed by 2026. In the Local Plan there is a target to restrict housing development to certain areas in the Derbyshire Dales, specifically most development to be in the towns in Tier 1 of the development hierarchy. Hence we feel that a large positive variance should be flagged when it is for a Tier 1 ward since any large positive variance in 2026 is likely to be even larger in future years. Similarly a large negative variance seems to be less than ideal for an area that will see very little development in the future due to its position in the development hierarchy. Peak District National Park. The objective of not combining ‘Peak Park’ parishes with others obviously has merit and for much of the Dales is straightforward to achieve. However in some parts of the Dales the Parish boundaries are less obliging and this constraint can generate higher variances than would perhaps be desirable. Data Limitations. Obviously estimating the size of the electorate in parishes for 2026 requires some guesswork. However as the figures are scrutinised, significant errors and omissions are appearing. Clearly this is not the fault of the LGBC. However, since this data formed such a crucial part of the exercise, it is perhaps worth having it reviewed before the final warding arrangements are unveiled. Detailed commentary on warding arrangements In the tables below we have placed our revised proposals (in blue), and LGBC’s proposals side by side for comparison. Relation to Local Plan. The DDDC Local Plan has designated areas for development with the Market Towns (Ashbourne, Matlock and Wirksworth) in Tier 1, targeted for the majority of new housing. There are a total of 5 Tiers. We have noted areas affected by such development by an * in our discussion of specific wards below. NORTH In the North, we propose one minor change to the LGBC proposal and one more significant one. The first is to move Abney Civil Parish to the Hathersage ward and the second to move Wardlow to Calver and Longstone. We acknowledge the significant affect this has on variance, taking it outside the target range proposed by LGBC. Bradwell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bradwell 1 1522 Bradwell 1 1669 Great Hucklow Great Hucklow Grindlow Grindlow Foolow Foolow Hazlebadge Hazlebadge Little Hucklow Little Hucklow Wardlow Abney & Abney Grange Comments 1. Abney Civil Parish forms a community with Offerton and Highlow and together are closely linked economically and socially with Hathersage. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are in the same District ward. We have therefore placed them the Hathersage & Eyam ward. 2. Wardlow is a ‘poor fit’ in terms of community cohesion. We acknowledge that these changes will result in a high variance but feel this is an example where community cohesion should take priority Calver and Longstone Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Calver 1 1945 Calver 1 1839 Curbar Curbar Froggatt Froggatt Hassop Hassop Rowland Rowland Little Longstone Little Longstone Great Longstone Great Longstone Wardlow Comments On reflection we feel Wardlow is better staying with the Longstones with which it has long-standing social and economic links, none of which exist with Bradwell. Hathersage Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Hathersage 2 3662 Hathersage 2 3662 Grindleford Grindleford Eyam Eyam Offerton Offerton Highlow Highlow Abney & Abney Abney & Abney Grange Grange Stoney Middleton Stoney Middleton Comments As indicated above Abney Civil Parish actually works with Offerton and Highlow as a community and so Abney & Abney Grange parish should be in this ward. We understand that the great majority of residents in Abney and Abney Grange wish to remain in the Hathersage and Eyam Ward, as they have very little social or economic association with Bradwell. We are supportive of the inclusion of Stoney Middleton, which we understand is also the view of the local communities. Tideswell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Tideswell 1 1916 Tideswell 1 1916 Litton Litton Wheston Wheston Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. MID DERBYSHIRE DALES Bakewell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bakewell 2 3751 Bakewell 3 4894 Bakewell Bakewell Ashford in the water Ashford in the water Sheldon Sheldon Over Haddon Over Haddon Nether Haddon Nether Haddon Monyash Youlgreave Comments With a variance of -10% the LGBC proposal is inappropriate for an area that will have limited development due to its location in the National Park; it would further result in a geographically large and incohesive Ward. This large negative variance places an unnecessary burden on other ward Cllrs. We do not understand why it was felt there was a need to expand the ward to include adjacent quite significant settlements that have their own identities. Why were the views of Youlgreave PC not taken into consideration? We understand that they do not wish to form a large ward with Bakewell. Surely the main justification in ‘expanding’ a market town ward into its ‘rural fringe’ is where the town has too great an electorate for its current number of Cllrs but not enough to justify an extra one. Here that is not necessary. Bakewell, Sheldon, Ashford and Over Haddon form an established social and economic entity which can be served effectively and efficiently by 2 Cllrs, and achieve good variance. We can understand the concern of Bakewell Town Council at “losing” a District Councillor, but the addition of an extensive rural hinterland will have the effect of diluting representation; however two Councillors focussed on the town itself represents an appropriate outcome of the Review. Bonsall , Winster & South Darley Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bonsall 1 1945 Bonsall 1 1680 Winster Winster Elton Gratton South Darley (less Elton Oaker & Snitterton) Ivonbrook Grange Ivonbrook Grange Ible Ible Harthill Middleton & Smerrill Comments 1. The LGBC proposal introduces a significant variance of -7% for a rural ward unlikely to see much development. 2. Middleton and Smerrill as well as Harthill have more links to Youlgreave than with Bonsall and Winster and should be in Youlgreave ward. 3. We suggest either the transfer of the whole of Oaker and Snitterton parish to Matlock All Saints ward OR the moving of the parish boundary to ensure that all of the proposed large scale Cawdor Quarry and Permanite works developments are within Matlock All Saints. Chatsworth Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Baslow 1 1799 Baslow 1 1799 Chatsworth Chatsworth Edensor Edensor Pilsley Pilsley Beeley Beeley Rowsley Rowsley Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. Hartington & Taddington Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Brushfield 1 1754 Brushfield 1 1754 Hartington Town Quarter Hartington Town Quarter Hartington Middle Hartington Middle Quarter Quarter Hartington Nether Hartington Nether Quarter Quarter Taddington Taddington Flagg Flagg Chelmorton Chelmorton Blackwell in the Peak Blackwell in the Peak Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. Stanton Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate No equivalent in Stanton 1 1672 our scheme Birchover Northwood & Tinkersley South Darley Comments This has a large negative variance of -7.4% based on the 2026 figures supplied. As it stands, the planned Cawdor Quarry and Permanite Works developments at the extreme southern end of the ward will in time reduce this but with perhaps a third of the electorate having a stronger link with Matlock simply due to geography.