Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for North East District Council

Electoral review

April 2017

Translations and other formats To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2017

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why ? ...... 1 Our proposals for North East Derbyshire ...... 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? ...... 4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 7 Eckington, Killamarsh and Renishaw ...... 8 ...... 10 Barlow, Brampton, Holmesfield and Walton ...... 14 , Clay Cross, Pilsley and Shirland ...... 16 Grassmoor, & Heath, , , Sutton and ...... 20 Conclusions ...... 23 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 23 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 23 3 Have your say ...... 27 Equalities ...... 28 Appendix A ...... 29 Draft recommendations for North East Derbyshire ...... 29 Appendix B ...... 31 Outline map ...... 31 Appendix C ...... 32 Submissions received ...... 32 Appendix D ...... 33 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 33

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 North East Derbyshire?

4 We are conducting a review of North East Derbyshire as the value of each vote in district county council elections varies depending on where you live in North East Derbyshire. 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 North East Derbyshire

• North East Derbyshire should be represented by 53 councillors, the same number as there are now. • North East Derbyshire should have 24 wards, two fewer than there are now. • The boundaries of 15 wards should change. Eleven will remain the same.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 11 April 2017 to 19 June 2017. 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.

1

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.

You have until 19 June 2017 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 Parliament.1

8 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors (Chair) • Peter Knight CBE, DL • Alison Lowton • Peter Maddison QPM • Sir Tony Redmond

• 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 North East Derbyshire 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 district.

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 North East Derbyshire. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the district. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

15 November 2016 Number of councillors decided 22 November 2016 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 30 January 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 11 April 2017 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 19 June 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 5 September 2017 Publication of final recommendations

3

How will the recommendations affect you?

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. 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.

2016 2022 Electorate of North East 79,660 81,682 Derbyshire Number of councillors 53 53 Average number of 1,503 1,541 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 of our proposed wards for North East Derbyshire will have electoral equality by 2022.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the district 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 forecasts for 2022, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2017. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 2.5% by 2022.

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

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 North Derbyshire District Council currently has 53 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will make sure 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 53 councillors, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

25 We received no significant comments on council size during our consultation on warding patterns and have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 53- member council.

Ward boundaries consultation 26 We received nine submissions in response to our consultation on warding patterns. The Labour Group on the Council and North Derbyshire Conservative Association (the Conservative Association) provided district-wide proposals based on 53 councillors. The Labour Group proposed changes to 10 of the existing 26 wards, while the Conservative Association proposed changes to 23 of the existing 26 wards, and provided two options for the Dronfield area.

27 We also received comments from Derbyshire County Conservatives, Eckington & Killamarsh Branch Labour Party, Dronfield Parish Council, Grassmoor, & Parish Council, Pilsley Parish Council, Derbyshire Fire & Rescue Service and a local resident.

28 We note that the Labour Group proposed limited changes to the existing wards, while improving electoral equality and generally using strong boundaries. The Conservative Association proposed more significant changes, and in a number of areas we had concerns that its proposals join areas with limited links, use weaker boundaries, and in a number of areas create potentially unnecessary parish wards. The remaining submissions made more localised comments, with a number of submissions reflecting support for the Labour Group or Conservative Association proposals.

29 On balance, we consider that the Labour Group’s proposals provide a stronger basis for our draft recommendations. However, in the Tupton and Grassmoor areas we had concerns that its proposals created a ward with no internal road links between the constituent areas. We have therefore looked at alternatives to address this.

30 Our draft recommendations are for 10 three-councillor wards, nine two- councillor wards and five one-councillor wards. We consider that our draft

6 recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

31 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on pages 29–30 and on the large map accompanying this report.

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

Draft recommendations

33 The tables and maps on pages 8–22 detail our draft recommendations for each area of North East Derbyshire. 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

Eckington, Killamarsh and Renishaw

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Eckington North 2 3% Eckington South & Renishaw 3 3% Killamarsh East 2 0% Killamarsh West 3 -4%

8

Killamarsh 34 We received no proposals for changes to the existing Killamarsh East ward. The Conservative Association proposed the retention of the existing Killamarsh West ward, while the Labour Group proposed transferring the Spinkhill area of Eckington parish (currently within the Renishaw ward) to the Killamarsh West ward to improve electoral equality in the Eckington and Renishaw area.

35 We do not consider that the Labour Group proposal to transfer the Spinkhill area of Eckington parish is necessary to ensure good electoral equality in the Eckington and Renishaw area. In addition, we note that the road links between Spinkhill and Killamarsh run outside the district. We are therefore retaining both the existing Killamarsh West and Killamarsh East wards as part of our draft recommendations.

Eckington and Renishaw 36 We received two proposals for this area. The Labour Group proposed a two- councillor Eckington North and three-councillor Eckington South & Renishaw ward. The Eckington South & Renishaw ward would combine the existing Eckington South and Renishaw wards, while transferring the Spinkhill area of Eckington parish to Killamarsh West ward. It also proposed minor amendments to the boundary between the two wards along the B6052. The Eckington & Killamarsh Branch Labour Party put forward broadly similar proposals to the Labour Group. The Conservative Association proposed a three-councillor Eckington West and two-councillor Eckington East & Renishaw ward, arguing that an east–west split was more intuitive, avoiding the split along the B6052 and keeping the area around High Street in a single ward.

37 As stated above, we do not believe that the Labour Group proposal to transfer the Spinkhill area reflects communities, noting that the links to Killamarsh run outside the district boundary. In addition, we note that it is possible to secure good electoral equality in this area without transferring this area. While the Conservative Association proposal secures good electoral equality, without removing Spinkhill, we are not persuaded that an east–west split better reflects the communities. Our tour of the area confirmed that the B6052 provides a good boundary and we note that the Labour Group proposal seeks to strengthen this by moving away from the current boundary along Sitwell Street. We are therefore basing the draft recommendations on the Labour Group’s proposals, but subject to a number of modifications to improve electoral equality.

38 We are retaining the Spinkhill areas in its Eckington South & Renishaw ward while adopting its amendment around Sitwell Street. However, in order to ensure electoral equality we are not adopting its amendment around Market Street, but will transfer an area to the north of Peveril Road to the Eckington North ward.

9

Dronfield

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Coal Aston 2 1% Dronfield North 2 -4% Dronfield South 3 7% Dronfield Woodhouse 1 0% Gosforth Valley 3 4% Ridgeway & Marsh Lane 1 -6% 1 -3%

10

Dronfield 39 The Conservative Association and Labour Group both proposed removing one councillor from the Dronfield area and transferring this to the south to improve electoral equality in both areas. The Labour Group sought to avoid mixing Dronfield with the neighbouring rural areas and its proposals for this area were modifications to the existing wards, which it argued used strong boundaries, including the Dronfield bypass. The Conservative Association provided two options for this area. The first combined parts of Unstone parish with parts of Dronfield, while the second option avoided this. Dronfield Parish Council argued that the integrity of the parish boundary should be maintained.

40 As stated above, we note that the Labour Group proposal uses strong boundaries, including the Dronfield bypass between its Dronfield South and Gosforth Valley wards and Carr Lane between Gosforth Valley & Dronfield Woodhouse wards. Its proposals also secure good electoral equality while respecting Dronfield parish boundary.

41 We note that the Conservative Association’s first option transfers Unstone Green from Unstone parish to a Dronfield South & Unstone ward, arguing that the areas are linked by the B6057 and a bus. However, we are not persuaded that this reflects communities. We are also not persuaded that its proposal to combine and Hundall villages from Unstone parish with Coal Aston reflects communities. In addition, both of these proposals breach the Dronfield parish boundary. Finally, we note that it acknowledged that its Drone Valley ward combines diverse communities and we are not persuaded that these areas that lie either side of the Dronfield bypass share community links. We are therefore not persuaded to adopt the Conservative Association’s first option.

42 We note that the Conservative Association’s second option for Dronfield uses stronger boundaries in some areas and does not breach the Dronfield parish boundary. While the use of the Dronfield bypass as a boundary appears to reflect communities, we are not persuaded that its proposed Dronfield Woodhouse East ward reflects them, particularly as it joins Dronfield Woodhouse with parts of Gosforth Valley, while dividing the Gosforth Valley area between wards. In addition, its Hallowes & Stonelow ward combines two communities either side of the railway line, while securing relatively poor electoral equality. On balance, we are not persuaded to adopt the Conservative Association’s second option for this area.

43 We are therefore adopting the Labour Group’s proposals for this area subject to a minor amendment to the boundary between the Dronfield North and Dronfield South wards, to tie the boundary to the railway line. These proposals secure good electoral equality, while using strong boundaries and reflecting community links.

Unstone and Marsh Lane 44 The Conservative Association proposed two options for this area, while the Labour Group proposed the retention of the existing wards.

45 As stated above, we are not persuaded that the Conservative Association’s first option of transferring parts of Unstone parish to wards with areas of Dronfield parish reflects communities and do not therefore propose adopting it. We note that its

11 second option combines the existing Unstone and Ridgeway & Marsh Lane wards to create a two-councillor ward, arguing that this improves electoral equality.

46 We acknowledge the improvement in electoral equality under the Conservative Association’s second option, but are not persuaded that the small improvement justifies the creation of a two-councillor ward. We are therefore retaining the existing single-councillor Unstone and Ridgeway & Marsh Lane wards.

12

13

Barlow, Brampton, Holmesfield and Walton

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Barlow & Holmesfield 1 5% Brampton & Walton 2 -7%

14

Barlow & Holmesfield 47 We did not receive any proposals to amend the existing Barlow & Holmesfield ward and are therefore retaining the existing ward as part of our draft recommendations.

Brampton & Walton 48 The Conservative Association proposed a small modification to the Brampton & Walton ward, reuniting the area of Wingerworth parish in the existing ward with a Wingerworth ward. It argued that this area is part of Wingerworth parish and is considered part of Wingerworth by local residents. The Labour Group proposed no amendment to the existing ward.

49 We note that removing the area of Wingerworth parish from the Brampton & Walton ward worsens electoral equality in the ward. It would change from having an equal number of electors to the district average to 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2022. However, we also note that although this area is more rural in nature than the rest of Wingerworth, it has good road links into Wingerworth ward. It also improves electoral equality in our proposed Wingerworth ward (see paragraphs 57–62, and we are therefore adopting this amendment as part of our draft recommendations.

15

Ashover, Clay Cross, Pilsley and Shirland

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Ashover 1 4% Clay Cross North 3 6% Clay Cross South 2 -7% Pilsley & Morton 3 -8% Shirland 3 1%

16

Ashover, Pilsley & Morton and Shirland 50 We received two proposals for this area. The Conservative Association proposed a two-councillor Ashover & Shirland ward, combining the existing Ashover and Shirland wards, less the Stonebroom area of Shirland & Higham parish, which it proposed transferring to a two-councillor Stonebroom & Stretton ward. Its Stonebroom & Stretton ward would comprise the existing Pilsley & Morton ward, plus Stonebroom, but less Pilsley parish. The Derbyshire County Conservatives provided support for a two-councillor Ashover & Shirland ward. The Labour Group proposed the retention of the existing Ashover, Pilsley & Morton and Shirland wards. Pilsley Parish Council argued that it should be a ward in its own right.

51 We note the Conservative Association’s argument that the creation of a two- councillor Ashover & Shirland ward combines parishes with a rural identity. However, we are not persuaded that combing two rural wards improves the effective and convenient local government, particularly as this separates Stonebroom village from Shirland & Higham parish, transferring it to a ward with Morton and Stretton parishes. In addition, its consequential proposal to transfer Pilsley parish to three- member Pilsley & North Wingfield South ward requires what appears to be an arbitrary split within the North Wingfield parish. We are not persuaded that this reflects the communities or provides effective and convenient local government within North Wingfield. Therefore, we do not propose basing the draft recommendations for this area on the Conservative Association proposal.

52 We acknowledge Pilsley Parish Council’s argument that it has limited links to Stretton parish, which lies on the other side of the A61. However, a two-councillor ward comprising just Pilsley parish would have 13% fewer electors than the district average by 2022. We do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to justify this poor level of electoral equality, which would also worsen electoral equality in the surrounding wards. Therefore, we do not propose adopting its proposal.

53 On balance, although we acknowledge the concerns raised by Pilsley Parish Council, we consider that the retention of the existing warding pattern for this area, as proposed by the Labour Group, provides the best warding pattern. Although the Conservative Association proposals secured better levels of electoral equality, this was at the expense of effective and convenient local government, requiring the splitting of a number of parishes between wards. We are therefore retaining the existing wards for this area as part of our draft recommendations.

Clay Cross 54 The Conservative Association proposed modifications to the existing Clay Cross North and Clay Cross South wards, including a modification to the boundary between the two wards, but also proposed to transfer part of Clay Cross North parish to its Wingerworth & Old Tupton ward, while transferring part of Tupton parish to Clay Cross. The Labour Group proposed the retention of the Clay Cross North and Clay Cross South wards.

55 We note the Conservative Association’s proposals and the attempts to improve the electoral equality of the existing wards. However, we can see no strong reason for splitting the southern part of Tupton and transferring it to Clay Cross North ward,

17 while splitting an area of Clay Cross North around Woodland Way and transferring it to a Wingerworth & Old Tupton ward. We are not persuaded that either of these proposals reflects communities and have concerns that the division of parishes in this manner would not provide effective and convenient local government. Therefore, we do not propose adopting the Conservative Association’s proposals for these wards.

56 We note that the Labour Group proposes the retention of the existing Clay Cross North and Clay Cross South wards and, while it is possible to modify the boundary between these wards to secure an improvement in electoral equality, this would move away from the strong boundary that runs along Thanet Street and Pilsley Road. We are therefore retaining the existing wards for Clay Cross in our draft recommendations.

18

19

Grassmoor, Holmewood & Heath, North Wingfield, Tupton, Sutton and Wingerworth

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Grassmoor 2 6% Holmewood & Heath 2 -1% North Wingfield Central 3 4% Sutton 2 6% Tupton 3 -7% Wingerworth 3 -2%

20

Grassmoor, Tupton and Wingerworth 57 The Conservative Association put forward proposals for a single-councillor Wingerworth East ward, two-councillor Grassmoor and New Tupton wards and a three-councillor Wingerworth & Old Tupton ward. The Labour Group proposed a two- councillor Tupton ward and three-councillor Grassmoor and Wingerworth wards. Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick Parish Council argued for the retention of the existing wards. A local resident argued for the inclusion of Old Tupton in a ward with Wingerworth, rather than Clay Cross.

58 As discussed in the Ashover, Clay Cross, Pilsley and Shirland section above (paragraphs 50–3) we had concerns about the Conservative Association’s proposal to split part of Tupton parish and transfer it to a ward with Clay Cross North, while transferring an area of Clay Cross to Wingerworth & Old Tupton ward. In not adopting its proposals for these areas, this has a consequential effect to its proposals for this area, meaning we have been unable to consider it further.

59 We note that while the Labour Group’s proposals secure reasonable electoral equality for this area, it created a Grassmoor ward combining Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick and Temple Normanton parishes with an area of Wingerworth parish, subject to significant development. However, this area, including the housing developments around Mill Lane and The Avenue, has no direct road links into Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick and Temple Normanton parishes. Although there is pedestrian access via a track under the railway, we are not persuaded that this provides sufficient links between the areas. We have therefore examined alternative proposals for this area.

60 The nature of the community links, size of the constituent parishes and location at the edge of the district mean that alternatives are difficult to identify and we considered a number of options based on the existing wards. The first option retains the existing three-councillor Wingerworth ward, while transferring a small area of the two-councillor Grassmoor ward around Birkin Lane to the existing Tupton ward, which would have an additional councillor. However, we note that the area of Birkin Lane is separated from Tupton by Hagg Hill and we are not persuaded that this would reflect communities. It would also require the creation of a parish ward in Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick.

61 The second option considered was transferring an area of the existing three- councillor Wingerworth ward, around Longedge Rise and Nottingham Drive to the Tupton ward, which would have an additional councillor. The Grassmoor ward would be modified, transferring Temple Normanton parish to the Holmewood & Heath ward. We note that Temple Normanton parish has good road links into both Grassmoor and Holmewood & Heath.

62 On balance, although this proposal transfers an area of Wingerworth parish to a Tupton ward, the existing ward already includes part of Wingerworth parish and in order to secure electoral equality this is the best option available. As a result of this amendment, we also propose adopting the Conservative Association’s proposal to 21 reunite the rural area of Wingerworth parish, currently in the Brampton & Walton ward, with the Wingerworth ward. Holmewood & Heath, North Wingfield and Sutton 63 The Conservative Association proposed significant amendments to the existing wards for this area. It proposed dividing North Wingfield parish, transferring the southern area to a Pilsley & North Wingfield South ward with Pilsley parish, while transferring the northern area to the North Wingfield & Holmewood ward with the western area of Heath & Holmewood parish. The eastern area of Holmewood & Heath parish would be combined with the existing Sutton ward, along with an area of Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick parish, creating a Calow & Heath ward. The Labour Group proposed the retention of the existing wards for this area.

64 As discussed in the Ashover, Clay Cross, Pilsley and Shirland section above (paragraphs 50–53), we had concerns about the Conservative Association’s suggestion to split part of North Wingfield parish, combining it with Pilsley parish. In addition, we have concerns about its proposal to split Holmwood & Heath parish, transferring part to its Calow & Heath ward, noting that this also contains part of Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick parish to which it has no direct road access. We do not consider that these proposals reflect local communities or that the division of parishes in this manner provides effective and convenient local government. Therefore, we are not adopting these proposals as part of the draft recommendations.

65 As stated in the Grassmoor, Tupton and Wingerworth section above (paragraphs 576–621), we are transferring Temple Normanton parish to the Holmewood & Heath ward to address poor electoral equality in this area. As a result, to ensure good electoral equality, we have made a minor modification its boundary with North Wingfield Central ward, reducing the area of North Wingfield parish that is in the Holmewood & Heath ward. This proposal would retain only the properties that access Chesterfield Road and Road in the Holmewood & Heath ward, while retaining all the properties on Williamthorpe Road in the North Wingfield Central ward. We consider that this amendment strengthens the boundary while reflecting communities. The existing Sutton ward has good electoral equality and we are therefore retaining this ward without amendment.

22

Conclusions

66 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2016 and 2022 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2016 2022

Number of councillors 53 53

Number of electoral wards 24 24

Average number of electors per councillor 1,503 1,541

Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 10% from the average

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

Draft recommendation North East Derbyshire should be made up of 53 councillors serving 24 wards representing five single-councillor wards, nine two-councillor wards and 10 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 North East Derbyshire. You can also view our draft recommendations for North East Derbyshire on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

67 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 ward it must also be divided into parish wards, so that 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.

23

68 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, North East Derbyshire District 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.

69 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 Dronfield, Eckington, North Wingfield and Wingerworth

70 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 Dronfield parish.

Draft recommendation Dronfield Town Council should comprise 19 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bowshaw 1 Coal Aston 3 Dronfield North 3 Dronfield South 5 Dronfield Woodhouse 1 Dyche 1 Gosforth Valley 4 Summerfield 1

71 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 Eckington parish.

Draft recommendation Eckington Parish Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors North 6 Renishaw 3 Ridgeway 3 South 5

72 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 North Wingfield parish.

24

Draft recommendation North Wingfield Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central 4 East 1 West 5

73 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 Wingerworth parish.

Draft recommendation Wingerworth Parish Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Adlington 2 Hardwick Wood 1 Longedge 1 Wingerworth 9 Woodthorpe 1

25

26

3 Have your say

74 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.

75 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for North East Derbyshire, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

76 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

77 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (North East Derbyshire) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

78 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for the North East Derbyshire 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

79 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

80 Electoral equality:

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

81 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?

27

• Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

82 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?

83 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.

84 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.

85 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.

86 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 the North East Derbyshire in 2019.

Equalities

87 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.

28

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for North East Derbyshire

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2022) councillor % councillor % 1 Ashover 1 1,610 1,610 7% 1,607 1,607 4% Barlow & 2 1 1,618 1,618 8% 1,615 1,615 5% Holmesfield Brampton & 3 2 2,858 1,429 -5% 2,853 1,427 -7% Walton 4 Clay Cross North 3 4,755 1,585 5% 4,882 1,627 6%

5 Clay Cross South 2 2,848 1,424 -5% 2,874 1,437 -7%

6 Coal Aston 2 3,115 1,558 4% 3,110 1,555 1%

7 Dronfield North 2 2,955 1,478 -2% 2,948 1,474 -4%

8 Dronfield South 3 4,967 1,656 10% 4,956 1,652 7% Dronfield 9 1 1,541 1,541 3% 1,538 1,538 0% Woodhouse 10 Eckington North 2 3,168 1,584 5% 3,162 1,581 3% Eckington South 11 3 4,612 1,537 2% 4,750 1,583 3% & Renishaw 12 Gosforth Valley 3 4,822 1,607 7% 4,811 1,604 4%

13 Grassmoor 2 2,787 1,394 -7% 3,260 1,630 6%

29

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2022) councillor % councillor % Holmewood & 14 2 2,838 1,419 -6% 3,046 1,523 -1% Heath 15 Killamarsh East 2 3,032 1,516 1% 3,067 1,534 0%

16 Killamarsh West 3 4,407 1,469 -2% 4,425 1,475 -4% North Wingfield 17 3 4,776 1,592 6% 4,818 1,606 4% Central 18 Pilsley & Morton 3 4,250 1,417 -6% 4,271 1,424 -8% Ridgeway & 19 1 1,429 1,429 -5% 1,448 1,448 -6% Marsh Lane 20 Shirland 3 4,584 1,528 2% 4,665 1,555 1%

21 Sutton 2 3,212 1,606 7% 3,267 1,634 6%

22 Tupton 3 3,655 1,218 -19% 4,281 1,427 -7%

23 Unstone 1 1,495 1,495 -1% 1,492 1,492 -3%

24 Wingerworth 3 4,326 1,442 -4% 4,536 1,512 -2%

Totals 53 79,660 – – 81,682 – –

Averages – – 1,503 – – 1,541 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by North East Derbyshire District 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 district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

30

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/east- midlands/derbyshire/north-east-derbyshire

31

Appendix C Submissions received

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

Political Groups

• North East Derbyshire District Council Labour Group • North Derbyshire Conservative Association • Derbyshire County Conservatives • Eckington & Killamarsh Branch Labour Party

Local Organisations

• Derbyshire Fire & Rescue Service

Parish and Town Councils

• Dronfield Parish Council • Grassmoor, Hasland & Winswick Parish Council • Pilsley Parish Council

Local Residents

• One local resident

32

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

33

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

34

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

35