Commentary on the LGBCE Draft Report

and Revised Proposals for the Warding arrangements and Parish Boundaries in Dales

This report has been agreed by the following Groups and District Councillors

Derbyshire Dales Liberal Democrats 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 They are also significantly out of date (2016) with the one for Ashbourne failing to show at least four major areas of house building.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; 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 ) 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 to the ward and the second to move to 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 Grindlow Foolow Hazlebadge Hazlebadge 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 & 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 Froggatt Froggatt Hassop Rowland Rowland Little 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 Eyam Eyam Offerton Offerton Highlow Highlow Abney & Abney Abney & Abney Grange Grange 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 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 1 1916 Tideswell 1 1916 Litton Litton 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 Nether Haddon

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 , & 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 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 1 1799 Baslow 1 1799 Chatsworth Chatsworth Edensor Pilsley Pilsley Beeley Rowsley

Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal.

Hartington & Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate 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 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 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. Youlgreave Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Youlgreave 1 1891 No equivalent in scheme Stanton (3 wards) Birchover Gratton Monyash Middleton & Smerrill Harthill

Comments This does reflect to a significant extent the wishes expressed by Youlgreave PC in their submission. We feel that it is a grouping of communities that are geographically, economically and socially connected which will therefore support effective and convenient local government. , , , MATLOCK AND

General comments 1. It is in this area that the LGBC differ most radically from the original LibDem / Joint proposals and indeed the original proposals of all the political groups. We are surprised that this level of opinion was not given appropriate weighting. We suggest that these schemes are based on local knowledge that the LGBC would do well to accept rather than impose a scheme from outside particularly as the political group schemes resulted in wards with good electoral equality. 2. The significant changes that LGBC suggest, we believe, are not only inappropriate but also significantly disrupting to local communities. 3. The ward names for the wards covering Matlock and Tansley are not appropriate. They take the ecclesiastical parish names while failing to keep the ecclesiastical parish boundaries. We believe that simpler names could be used namely Matlock West, and Matlock East and Tansley in the naming of the wards. 4. The data provided by DDDC to LGBC suggests that the Oaker and Snitterton civil parish ward of the South Darley district ward will grow from 140 to 142 by 2026. However, this forecast ignores a development in Cawdor Quarry that is already underway with 60 apartments and 15 houses almost ready for occupation and a further 5 houses completed to roof level. The current development in Cawdor Quarry is the first phase of a development that will see some 482 dwellings built. While timing is of course under the control of the developer, we would expect that this may result in perhaps 235 houses in addition to the current property development by 2026 giving an additional electorate of some 500 people if the development is to be completed in 10 years. LGBC needs to factor this growth into the warding arrangements in the area around Matlock. A second issue regarding data relates to the civil parish ward of North of Jackson Road in the All Saints district ward. A new development in an area called The Wolds (otherwise known as the Gritstone Road development) is currently awaiting outline approval for some 345 dwellings and detailed approval of some 78 dwellings. If this gains approval, the phase out for detailed approval is likely to be completed before 2026. This development will add further pressure to the All Saints ward in terms of the size of the electorate. The numbers of electors that we have provided in the tables below do not take account of this growth.

Comments on each proposed ward are given below. Cromford & Matlock Rural Joint proposal – rename as Cromford and LGBC Proposal Matlock Bath Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Cromford 1 1804 Cromford 2 3409 Matlock Bath Matlock Bath Tansley Part Matlock St Giles Part Matlock All Saints

Comments Ref Para 53 . The proposal for a new ward covering the rural parts of the current Matlock All Saints and Matlock St Giles wards and part of the current Masson ward seems to be driven by:  The stated principle to separate rural areas from adjacent urban areas  To create a ward for Tansley as a parish distinct from Matlock  To unite rural areas of Matlock with Tansley, Cromford and Matlock Bath. Although it is appreciated that the LGBC were trying to respond to the contributions of Tansley Parish Council which seeks representation at District level separate from Matlock, we do not think this suggestion offers a workable solution. The proposal attempts to link three very different communities and at the same time puts boundaries through existing ones. This arrangement neither reflects community identity nor will it support effective and convenient local government. We struggle to understand how this reflects community identity or supports effective and convenient local government. The LGBC’s proposal ignores several critical issues. The comment in Para 53 that LGBC is “content that [its] draft recommendations reflect the pattern of communities in this area” suggests that LGBC has not examined the characteristics of these communities and the geography in which they exist. We would like to draw the LGBC’s attention to the following. 1. There is no easy communication between Cromford and Matlock Bath on the one part and Tansley and rural Matlock on the other. To get from the one area to the other inevitably involves driving through Matlock town over one or other of the three bridges over the river Derwent. Therefore, representation by two councillors would inevitably result in a geographic division of responsibility. 2. The issues facing Cromford, Matlock Bath, Tansley and the proposed Matlock Cuckoostone and Lumsdale wards are entirely different due to their different characters. Cromford and Matlock Bath are tourist locations with many visitors each weekend and many businesses focused on visitors. Tansley is a large village with local businesses but with no shops and just three pubs/restaurants. To link Tansley with Cromford and Matlock Bath would not create a homogeneous entity with similar requirements of its councillors and would not provide the independent identity for Tansley that is suggested as one justification for the proposed Matlock Rural and Cromford ward. 3. While independent of Matlock, there is a symbiotic relationship between Tansley and Matlock: Tansley residents use the secondary school (Highfields) and local shops in Matlock. They share a common valley, Lumsdale. They face common infrastructure issues including common drainage for runoff from the surrounding hills through Bentley Brook which runs through Lumsdale. Both communities acknowledge that they are different places but that there is a close linkage. Therefore, there is common interest between Matlock and Tansley. 4. The proposed Cuckoostone and Lumsdale Civil Parish wards have a large rural area but a very small rural population, hence they cannot be considered to be rural wards. We estimate that there are only four houses in the proposed Cuckoostone civil parish ward and fewer than ten houses in the proposed Lumsdale civil parish ward outside the contiguous built area of Matlock. Therefore, to include them in a new Matlock Rural and Cromford ward with the aim of making a rural ward is inappropriate. The electorate lies within the contiguous Matlock built area with the exception of the very small number of isolated houses. A rural fringe appears to be taking on housing developments that are an integral part of a town.

We therefore recommend that: 1. Matlock St Giles remains as a three councillor ward covering the present ward area and in addition the proposed Cuckoostone Civil Parish ward. 2. Cromford and Matlock Bath form a single councillor ward named appropriately. 3. Matlock St Giles is renamed Matlock East and Tansley to take account of Tansley’s separate identity. 4. Matlock All Saints is renamed Matlock West. 5. Homesford (cluster of cottages by Soggs Wood) be moved from Wirksworth to Cromford parish by a minor amendment to Parish Boundaries, as suggested by Cromford Parish Council

Matlock St Giles Joint revised proposal – rename as Matlock East LGBC Proposal and Tansley Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Chesterfield Rd East 3 5166 Chesterfield Rd East 2 3539 Hurst Farm Hurst Farm Matlock Green Matlock Green & Starkholmes Riber & Starkholmes Riber & Starkholmes Riber & Starkholmes Tansley Cuckoostone Cuckoostone civil parish ward Comments The transfer of the area covered by Cuckoostone ward to Matlock St Giles in our proposal, we believe, will increase the electorate by about 180 electors. Our proposal also maintains the links between Matlock and Tansley, while at the same time making explicit Tansley’s independence in the absence of sufficient electors in Tansley to support a dedicated ward councillor by renaming the ward Matlock East and Tansley. We understand that this is the preferred option of Tansley Parish Council

Matlock All Saints* Joint proposal – rename as Matlock West LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllr Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate s Matlock Bk & Sheriff fields 3 5006 Matlock Bk & Sheriff 3 5877 N of Jackson Rd fields Smedley St N of Jackson Rd Part of Darley Dale South Smedley St Oaker and Snitterton Upper Hackney & Farley Excluding the proposed but Cuckoostone Ward Excluding the proposed Cuckoostone Ward

Comments 1. The +8% variance that LGBC’s proposal gives is very high for an area that is expected to see approximately 1000 new homes in the next decade according to the Local Plan. The loss of ‘Cuckoostone’ and gain of a significant number of housing estates from Darley Dale is a major change and taken with those proposed in Matlock St Giles essentially amount to moving Matlock a significant distance north. 2. There is some justification for an adjustment in the boundary with Darley Dale – recent housing developments like ‘Morledge’ do identify more with Matlock than Darley. However, to push the boundary so far north is questionable. The desire to reduce the numbers for Darley Dale to justify a two councillor ward would appear to be over-riding considerations of community. 3. The omission of South Darley does mean that the Peak Park and urban ward mix is avoided but we are surprised that the commissioners did not appreciate that one of the parishes of South Darley (Oaker and Snitterton) is scheduled to have within its boundaries a significant portion of the large development at Cawdor Quarry. The LGBC proposal will have this straddling two wards. The Conservative proposal where part of South Darley was moved into Matlock All Saints would seem to have some virtue in this context. 4. We propose to move the existing All Saints Parish boundary to include the relatively new Morledge estate of approx 440 residents. In addition it would be prudent to either include Oaker and Snitterton or just that part of this Parish that will have the large housing development. See maps in Appendix 2. 5. Our proposal to re-name the ward Matlock West avoids the problem of taking an ecclesiastical parish name with different boundaries. Darley Dale* Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Northwood & 3 5084 Darley Dale North 2 3576 Tinkersley Darley Dale North Darley Dale North Darley Dale South Darley Dale North Darley Dale South Darley Dale South Darley Dale South Darley Dale South Darley Dale South

Comments 1. Not including Northwood and Tinkersley does allow both for continuity and the apparent wishes of the Parish Council to be fulfilled. However, it is not clear what the justification for their preference might be. Also, their desire to remain with Rowsley has been ruled out by the draft scheme and Stanton Parish thought it more important to link with South Darley than with Northwood and Tinkersley. 2. The consequential size of the transfer of electors from Darley Dale to Matlock All Saints does need to be balanced against this preference. This would appear to us to be the tail wagging the dog. 3. It is important to note that all of the ‘complete schemes’ submitted to LGBC included Northwood and Tinkersley with Darley Dale, , WHITE PEAK & WIRKSWORTH, WATER

Hulland Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate 1 1793 Hulland Ward 1 1675 Hulland Hulland Biggin Biggin Atlow Bradley

Comments 1. The inclusion of Bradley in Hulland generates the serious anomaly that as it stands this ward will ultimately have over a third of its electorate based on the outskirts of Ashbourne. Creating a new parish boundary for Bradley along Lady Hole Lane (the current edge of the development area) might be a better solution. See Appendix 1 Ashbourne 2. Kirk Ireton has much more in common with Hulland Ward than with Wirksworth (see later) which is why we have included it here.

White Peak Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate & Lea Hal 1 1912 Tissington & Lea Hal 1 1912 Kniveton Newton Grange Newton Grange Eaton & Alsop Eaton & Alsop Parwich Bradbourne Ballidon Brassington Aldwark Aldwark Fenny Bentley Thorpe Thorpe

Comment The addition of Thorpe and Fenny Bentley to our original scheme make this a large ward and the move of to Wirksworth and Carsington Water is also not ideal. However, on balance this is probably the best compromise. We therefore agree with the LGBC proposal. Wirksworth & Carsington Water* Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Wirksworth Town 3 5457 Wirksworth Town 3 5840 Wirksworth Bolehill Wirksworth Bolehill Middleton Middleton Callow Callow Hognaston Kirk Ireton Carsington Hognaston Hopton Carsington Hopton

Comment The LGBC proposal gives an electorate far too large to make long term sense and too diverse socio- economically and geographically to support convenient and effective local government. In particular: 1. The +8% variance for the LGBC’s proposed ward gives a very large electorate for a Tier 1* settlement. Wirksworth is set to have a significant number of homes built over the next decade. 2. Kirk Ireton and Hognaston have few obvious links to Wirksworth. Their children do not attend Wirksworth schools, either having their own or travelling to Ashbourne. 3. The view of the single resident quoted in the report that ‘all the parishes around Carsington Water be brought within the same ward’ may well have been taken out of context. They were most likely thinking that this would be a ward separate from Wirksworth – an idea defeated by the sparse electorate in the area. We do not believe that their intention was to group those parishes with Wirksworth.

We therefore suggest that Kirk Ireton be moved into its near neighbour Hulland Ward. We also suggest that Homesford (cluster of cottages by Soggs Wood) be moved from Wirksworth to Cromford parish, as requested by Cromford PC, by amendment of the Parish boundary. ASHBOURNE

Ashbourne North Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Belle Vue, 2 3824 Belle Vue, 2 3165 plus 394 from Parkside Parkside Ashbourne South by re- Offcote & Underwood Offcote & Underwood allocating residents N of Mappleton Mappleton Sturston Rd and E of Bradley Compton to this ward

Comments 1. This fails to include the part of Bradley Parish that will form the large housing development on the airfield above Ashbourne, fragmenting representation of that estate. An alternative would be to redefine the Bradley Parish boundary in this area, allowing the relevant part of the parish to be within Ashbourne North or possibly Ashbourne South. See maps in Appendix 1 If left as it stands, a significant proportion of this huge development, planned to be approximately 1500 homes, on the South East edge of Ashbourne will be in the Hulland Ward. 2. Removing Thorpe and Fenny Bentley does allow for Peak Park parishes to remain outside non Peak Park wards but does make for a large White Peak ward.

Ashbourne South* Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Hilltop 3 5771 Hilltop 3 5377 St Oswalds St Oswalds Clifton & Compton Clifton & Compton Osmaston Osmaston Yeldersley & Edlaston & Wyaston

Comments This is our original proposal less the 394 residents transferred to Belle Vue in Ashbourne North. An alternative to address the issue of the large developments on the airfield site could be to re-draw the boundary with Bradley along Lady Hole Lane. A similar exercise with the boundary with Yeldersley parish might help with the development planned for there. See maps in Appendix 1. SOUTH

Doveridge & Sudbury Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate 1 1948 Doveridge 1 1948 Sudbury Sudbury

Comments This proposal has a +8% variance in its electorate which is possibly high for a Tier 3 development area* that has had significant development already. However it is hard to see a solution that does not change existing parish boundaries. We therefore agree with the LGBC proposal. Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Longford 1 1950 Longford 1 1950 Hollington Hollington Brailsford Brailsford Mercaston

Comments This proposal has a +8% variance in its electorate which is possibly high for a Tier 3 development area* that has had significant development already. However it is true that Mercaston has links to Brailsford. We therefore agree with the LGBC proposal. Norbury Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate 1 1886 Snelston 1 1886 Yeaveley Rodsley Shirley Shirley Norbury & Norbury & Roston Marston Montgomery Cubley Cubley Boylestone Hungry Bentley Alkmonton Somersal Herbert

Comments A geographically large ward with a +4% variance but it is hard to see better alternatives without re-drawing parish boundaries. We therefore agree with the LGBC proposal.

* 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. Appendix 1

This shows the area that is earmarked for significant development on the south east fringe of Ashbourne. (Almost all the greenfield sites shown to the south of the existing developments in the top aerial photo have either been developed or are in the process of being developed since this photo was taken). The maps below show how the ‘airfield site’ straddles three parishes and as it stands will put hundreds of homes into the currently rural parishes of Bradley and Yeldersley. This shows a possible re-drawing of the relevant parish boundaries

The two hatched areas are predicted to have 1500 homes when the development is complete, mostly arranged towards the western side, nearest to Ashbourne. A way of keeping these developments within ‘Ashbourne’ would be to change the parish boundaries as shown in blue above.

Appendix 2. Matlock Ward Boundaries

2.1 Morledge

This will transfer an electorate of approx 440 from Darley Dale to Matlock All Saints 2.2 Snitterton

The hatched area to be transferred from South Darley to Matlock All Saints. This will allow the approx 500 homes scheduled for developments in this area to be part of Matlock. The exact development boundaries should be checked with DDDC

With more detail of existing properties Town Council Wards

Ashbourne Town Council Wards

Parish ward Electorate 2021 Cllrs now Electorate 2026 Cllrs proposed Belle Vue 1505 3 1566 3 St Oswalds 1556 3 2062 - 398? 3 Compton (new) (398 part of St O’s) 0 398 1 Parkside 1041 3 1054 4 Hilltop 2637 4 2808 2

With the information supplied we cannot see any justification for these changes. In particular the halving of the number of Cllrs that represent the fastest growing and currently most under-represented area of the town (Hilltop). We do not understand why the LGBCE are recommending changes that have some Cllrs representing 250 electors and others representing 1400? Surely one of the purposes of the review was to reduce variance?

Matlock Town Council

Para 70 refers. The Town Council is reported as having 12 councillors with no change in the number of councillors although two new civil parish wards are created, Cuckoostone and Lumsdale. The current number of town councillors is in fact 11, therefore the LGBC proposal would add one parish councillor. We do not object to these changes which reflect the additional electorate in the area covered by the proposed Lumsdale ward.

However, we propose the following.

1. We propose that the new ward comprises the LGBC’s Cuckoostone and Lumsdale ward. This would be consistent with our proposed Matlock East and Tansley district ward. We do not think that the area covered by the Cuckoostone ward will have sufficient population to warrant a ward of its own since it has approximately 120 houses in total with about 200 on the electoral roll. 2. It is not clear from the LGBC proposals whether a separate civil ward for Riber has been proposed. We do not think that a separation of Riber from Starkholmes civil parish ward is necessary if the proposed LGBC Matlock Rural and Cromford district ward is abandoned as we recommend. A ward for Riber would be very small. 3. We believe that there may be the need for an additional “Cawdor” ward to cover the parts of our proposed Matlock West district ward under development to the south of the River Derwent. Cawdor is developing rapidly, and it is likely to have sufficient electorate to warrant a town ward of its own before 2026. 4. At this stage, we do not believe that the boundaries between Matlock and Darley Dale should be changed. This means that the proposed Matlock West ward will represent electors in Matlock and Darley Dale. 5. Given the planned development in the proposed Matlock West and Matlock East and Tansley wards, we believe that any boundaries fixed in this review may need to be revisited before 2030.

The above proposals will add two parish councillors – one for the proposed Cuckoostone and Lumsdale ward and one for the Cawdor ward.