New electoral arrangements for Richmondshire District Council Final recommendations April 2018 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

© The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2018

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

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2018 Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Richmondshire? ...... 1 Our proposals for Richmondshire ...... 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 final recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations consultation ...... 7 Final recommendations ...... 8 Catterick ...... 10 North-east parishes ...... 12 Richmond ...... 14 The Dales ...... 16 Conclusions ...... 19 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 19 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 19 3 What happens next? ...... 21 Equalities ...... 21 Appendix A ...... 22 Final recommendations for Richmondshire District Council ...... 22 Appendix B ...... 24 Outline map ...... 24 Appendix C ...... 25 Submissions received ...... 25 Appendix D ...... 27 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 27

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 Richmondshire?

4 We have conducted a review of Richmondshire at the request of the Council. This request was made in accordance with a resolution of the Council taken at its meeting of 16 July 2016 with a view to reducing the number of district councillors.

5 The value of each vote in district council elections varies depending on where you live in Richmondshire. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim, during any electoral review, is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Richmondshire

• Richmondshire should be represented by 24 councillors, 10 fewer than there are now. • Richmondshire should have 16 wards, eight fewer than there are now. • The boundaries of all wards should change, none will stay the same.

6 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Richmondshire.

1

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 OBE (Chair) • Susan Johnson OBE • Alison Lowton • Peter Maddison QPM • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

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

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review was carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Richmondshire 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 Richmondshire. We then held two periods of consultation on warding patterns for the district. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft and final recommendations.

13 This review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

16 May 2017 Number of councillors decided 27 June 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards

4 September 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 31 October 2017 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 15 January 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 3 April 2018 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, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish or town council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

4

2 Analysis and final recommendations

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

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

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

2017 2023 Electorate of 35,908 38,339 Richmondshire Number of councillors 24 24 Average number of 1,496 1,597 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 Richmondshire will have good electoral equality by 2023.

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 2023, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2018. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 6.8% by 2023. This increase is due to largely to development in Colburn, Leyburn and Scotton.

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 final recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Richmondshire Council currently has 34 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that reducing this number by 10 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 24 councillors – for example, 24 one-councillor wards, eight three- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

25 We received four submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations. Councillor Glover supported our proposal that there should be 24 councillors. Melsonby Parish Council, St Martin’s Parish Council and a local resident were concerned that the proposed recommendations would result in district councillors struggling with the extra work load of larger wards. They felt that district councillors would find it more difficult to attend individual parish council meetings. However, we are not persuaded that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify changing our recommendation that there should be 24 councillors. We remain of the view that the evidence provided by the Council demonstrates that the proposed council size will ensure adequate representation for the people of Richmondshire. We have therefore maintained our proposal for 24 councillors as part of our final recommendations.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 49 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included a detailed district-wide proposal from Richmondshire District Council. We received submissions from 12 district and parish councillors, 16 town and parish councils or parish meetings, one local organisation and 19 from local residents. The Council proposed 24 single-member wards. Councillors Linehan and Duff also submitted a district-wide scheme in outline. Their schemes for a council size of 25 would result in 13 single-councillor wards and six two-councillor wards. Councillor Blackie submitted a scheme for the western part of the district including upper Swaledale and upper Wensleydale. His scheme for that part of the district comprised four single-councillor wards.

27 In addition to the district-wide schemes, we also received proposals for more localised areas. Some submissions commented on the Council’s proposals and those made by Councillor Blackie. These also provided us with helpful information about different parts of Richmondshire.

28 We carefully considered the proposals made to us in making our draft recommendations. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries. We also visited the area in order to look at the various different

6 proposals on the ground. This tour of Richmondshire helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

29 Our draft recommendations were for one three-councillor ward, five two- councillor wards and 11 one-councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we had received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation

30 We received 102 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included over 40 objections to our proposal to include Patrick Brompton parish in Scotton ward. The majority of the other submissions focused on other areas, particularly our proposals in Middleham and Catterick. We received considerable support for our proposals for the Wensleydale and Swaledale areas which were based on Councillor Blackie’s warding scheme and which had already attracted local support.

31 Some respondents to our consultation proposed that in rural areas there should be a significantly smaller ratio of electors to councillors than in urban areas or more densely populated parishes. They argued that rural wards would be geographically larger, requiring councillors to travel greater distances in order to visit electors and to attend meetings of numerous parish councils. One resident asked us to disregard the numbers of people living in an area when defining ward boundaries. We are required, however, to consider electoral equality in the district as a whole. We do not consider it would be appropriate or fair to accord significantly greater weight to the vote of an elector in a rural area.

32 Councillor Glover argued that there should be 24 single-councillor wards in Richmondshire. We considered this approach in our draft recommendations and concluded that such a pattern would not provide a good balance between electoral equality and community identities. Furthermore, we received no proposals for a pattern of single-councillor wards that would provide such a balance and therefore recommend, as final, a mixed pattern of single- and multi-councillor wards.

33 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with a modification to the wards in the Lower Wensleydale, Leyburn and Middleham areas based on the submissions received. We have been persuaded by the evidence of community identity from people objecting to our proposals for Patrick Brompton. Therefore, as part of our final recommendations, we propose that it form part of Lower Wensleydale ward along with its neighbour, Newton-le-Willows. In order to maintain good levels of electoral equality, we recommend that Hunton parish be included in Scotton ward. We are recommending a two-councillor Croft & Middleton Tyas ward, but exclude from that ward the parish of Uckerby which we propose form part of Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale ward. We are also making a minor modification to our proposed boundary between Scotton and Colburn wards.

7

Final recommendations

34 Pages 10–18 detail our final recommendations for each area of Richmondshire. 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

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

36 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on page 19 and on the large map accompanying this report.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 8

9

Catterick

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale 3 4% Colburn 2 1% Hipswell 2 -4% Scotton 2 2%

Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale 37 We received a number of proposals for this area during our first round of consultation. These included proposals to divide the parish of Catterick between wards and to retain the present two-councillor Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward. The current ward is forecast to have 21% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2023. This is a much higher level of electoral inequality than we are normally prepared to recommend.

38 Catterick parish cannot form either a single-councillor ward or a two-councillor ward if reasonable levels of electoral equality are to be achieved. Furthermore, having visited the area we considered proposals to divide Catterick between wards would not adequately reflect that community.

10

39 We proposed therefore a three-councillor Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale ward which would largely combine the current Catterick and Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton wards.

40 The Council’s Electoral Services team suggested that we include Uckerby in this ward to reflect the parish’s close ties with Scorton, Bolton-on-Swale and Ellerton- on-Swale. Uckerby Parish Meeting also referred to these ties. Brompton‐on‐Swale Parish Council and one resident proposed a ward comprising the Brompton‐on‐ Swale and Easby areas. Whilst this would result in good electoral equality, it would leave Scorton paired with Catterick and we note that Scorton Parish Council argued that its ties were more with Brompton-on-Swale than with Catterick. Richmondshire Branch Labour Party, Scorton Parish Council and four local residents were concerned that the representation of this ward would be unbalanced if all three councillors came from the main settlements in the ward.

41 Catterick Village Parish Council and two residents proposed that the parish be linked in a ward with Brough St Giles, Tunstall and the Appletons. However, if electoral equality is to be provided at reasonable levels throughout the district, this would require changes to wards for which there has been considerable support.

42 We do not either anticipate the outcome of local elections or conclude that elected councillors are incapable of representing their ward. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that we should abandon our principle of securing good levels of electoral equality within tolerable variances from absolute equality. We consider that combining communities is preferable to splitting them and therefore propose to confirm as final our Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale ward subject to one modification: the inclusion of the parish of Uckerby.

Colburn, Hipswell & Scotton 43 In our draft recommendations, we proposed three two-member wards. We received no objection to our proposed Hipswell ward, which we confirm as final. Colburn Town Council objected to our proposal to provide parish warding arrangements for Colburn. Because Colburn is too large to form a single district council ward, we need to divide it between wards to ensure good electoral equality. That being the case, we must, as required by statute, provide parish warding arrangements. We have therefore decided to confirm our proposed parish warding for Colburn as final.

44 Our draft recommendation to include Patrick Brompton parish in Scotton ward attracted more objection that any other. Objectors provided detailed and persuasive evidence of Patrick Brompton’s ties to Lower Wensleydale, and to Newton-le-Willows in particular. Our final recommendation is that Patrick Brompton be included in Lower Wensleydale ward.

45 The Council’s Electoral Services Team and Councillor Middlemiss suggested that Hunton parish should be included in Scotton ward to reflect its close community links with Arrathorne and Hornby. Councillor Middlemiss also proposed that the former Hospital Site at Horne Road be included in Scotton ward to provide clearer ward boundaries. We agree with Councillor Middlemiss’ assessment and have adopted these changes in our final recommendations.

11

North-east parishes

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Croft & Middleton Tyas 2 -8% Gilling West 1 7% Melsonby 1 3%

12

Gilling West 46 In our draft recommendations, we proposed a Gilling West ward broadly lying to the south of A66 and west of A1(M). This provided a grouping of rural parishes, distinct from the more urban Richmond town. We received no objections to this proposal and confirm it as final.

Croft & Middleton Tyas and Melsonby 47 Our draft recommendations modified the Melsonby ward proposed by Councillors Duff and Linehan by excluding the parish of Cliffe. That parish has a joint parish council with Manfield and we propose that the two parishes be included in the same ward. We received no objections to this proposal and confirm it as final.

48 Our draft recommendations proposed two single-councillor wards for the area east of Scotch Corner. Under that arrangement, Moulton would be in Croft ward and Middle Tyas in a ward of that name. We were keen to receive views about the desirability of a two-councillor ward which combined our proposed Croft and Middleton Tyas wards.

49 The Council’s Electoral Services team argued that single-member wards for this area would be fairer for independent candidates and offer greater clarity to electors about their representation. Meanwhile Councillor Dawson proposed Croft and Barton wards, each of which would have over 20% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district. This would be a degree of electoral inequality we are not prepared to recommend

50 Middleton Tyas Parish Council and Moulton Parish Meeting both sought inclusion within the same ward, arguing that a two-councillor ward would be more acceptable than two single-councillor wards. Councillor Thompson disputed the view from Moulton and argued that a two-member ward would be detrimental in this area.

51 We have carefully considered the arguments presented to us and concluded that the evidence relating to community ties between Moulton and Middleton Tyas is clear. We are not persuaded that a two-councillor ward would cause confusion amongst electors and have therefore decided to adopt a two-councillor Croft & Middleton Tyas ward in our final recommendations.

13

Richmond

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Richmond East 1 5% Richmond North 1 7% Richmond West 2 3%

14

Richmond East, Richmond North and Richmond West 52 In our draft recommendations for Richmond, we proposed the creation of single-councillor Richmond East and Richmond North wards and a two-councillor Richmond West ward. These wards would lie entirely within Richmond’s parish boundary. We considered that creating wards that lie entirely within the town boundary will not only provide for effective and convenient local government but will reflect the community identity of the town area, as distinct from its more rural neighbours. We were not persuaded that Richmond West can be satisfactorily divided into two single-councillor wards having regard to our statutory criteria.

53 We received only one comment which directly addressed our proposals for Richmond. The Richmondshire Branch Labour Party agreed that district council wards for Richmond should lie wholly within the town boundaries and also agreed with our proposal for a two-councillor Richmond West ward. We therefore confirm as final our recommendations for Richmond.

15

The Dales

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Hawes, High Abbotside & 1 -5% Upper Swaledale Leyburn 2 2% Lower Wensleydale 1 -6% Lower Swaledale & 1 -8% Arkengarthdale Middleham 1 -5% Yoredale 1 -3%

16

Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper Swaledale, Lower Swaledale & Arkengarthdale and Yoredale 54 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on a scheme of single- councillor wards proposed by Councillor Blackie and expressly supported by several parish councils, local organisations and residents of the area.

55 The Richmondshire Branch Labour Party, Councillors Amsden, Chapman, B. and R. Phillips, Watkins and Windle and two local residents supported our draft recommendations. Parish councils for Askrigg & Low Abbotside, Aysgarth & District, Burton-cum-Walden and Carperby-cum-Thoresby also supported the draft recommendations. One resident opposed the recommendations as they affected the parish of Melbecks whilst another supported the proposal for Yoredale ward but not for Upper Swaledale.

56 Councillor Blackie supported our proposed boundaries but proposed the ward name of ‘Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper Swaledale’. This name was supported by Councillors Blows and Rhodes, Melbecks and Muker parish councils and three local residents. Councillor Whitehead supported that name and also proposed the ward name of ‘Lower Swaledale & Arkengarthdale’. ‘Upper Dales’ was proposed as an alternative name to ‘Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper Swaledale’.

57 We recommend the ward names of Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper Swaledale and Lower Swaledale & Arkengarthdale which we consider reflect the composition of those wards. However, we consider the proposed name of Upper Dales to be a source of potential confusion with the North Yorkshire County Council electoral division of that name which includes but extends beyond Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper Swaledale.

Leyburn, Middleham and Lower Wensleydale 58 Our draft recommendations for Bolton Castle and Leyburn attracted opposition. The Council’s Electoral Services team and a local resident suggested that Bellerby should be included in Leyburn ward and that Harmby, which we proposed be included in Leyburn ward, should be included in Lower Wensleydale ward to reflect the close ties between the area and Spennithorne. Meanwhile Spennithorne Parish Council and two residents proposed that the parish be included in Leyburn ward to reflect its links with Harmby. Leyburn Town Council proposed that Leyburn be grouped in a ward with Bellerby, Wensley and Harmby.

59 Our proposed inclusion of Middleham and surrounding parishes in Leyburn ward attracted more opposition. Councillor Duff opposed our recommendations for Middleham, citing the separate nature of those communities. He proposed a scheme of wards which would result in high electoral variances in neighbouring areas.

60 Middleham Town Council also objected to the inclusion of that parish in Leyburn ward and proposed a scheme for a ward based on Middleham and its surrounding parishes which forms the basis of our final recommendations for Leyburn and Middleham. The Town Council’s scheme would result in good electoral equality. Caldbergh with East Scrafton Parish Meeting took a similar view to the Town Council whilst the Council’s Electoral Services team also suggested that Caldbergh, Coverham and West Scrafton should be combined in a ward with Carlton Highdale, Carlton Town and Melmerby.

17

61 Proposals for a Middleham ward were accompanied by persuasive evidence of community and economic ties linking parishes around Middleham.

62 We recommend a two-councillor Leyburn ward comprising the parishes of Bellerby, Castle Bolton with East & West Bolton, Carperby-cum-Thoresby, Leyburn, Preston-under-Scar, Redmire and Wensley. The inclusion of Harmby and Spennithorne in the ward would result in electoral variances of +17% in Leyburn and -35% in Lower Wensleydale. These would be levels of electoral inequality we are not prepared to recommend.

63 We also recommend a single-councillor Middleham ward comprising the parishes of Cladbergh with East Scrafton, Carlton Highdale, Carlton Town, Coverham with Agglethorpe, East Witton, Melmerby, Middleham, West Scrafton and West Witton.

64 As described in paragraph 44, our draft recommendation to include the parish of Patrick Brompton in Scotton ward attracted more objection than did any other of our recommendations. A number of district councillors, parish councils, community organisations and local residents proposed that Patrick Brompton be included in Lower Wensleydale ward. The objections were accompanied by detailed evidence of community ties in the area, particularly having regard to the neighbouring parish of Newton-le-Willows. We are persuaded by the evidence received and propose to move away from our draft recommendation for Patrick Brompton.

65 We therefore propose a single-member Lower Wensleydale ward comprising the parishes of Akebar, Barden, Constable Burton, East Hauxwell, Finghall, Garriston, Harmby, Hutton Hang, Newton-le-Willows, Patrick Brompton, Spennithorne, Thornton Steward and West Hauxwell.

18

Conclusions

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

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2017 2023

Number of councillors 24 24

Number of electoral wards 16 16

Average number of electors per councillor 1,496 1,597

Number of wards with a variance more 2 0 than 10% from the average

Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Final recommendation Richmondshire District Council should be made up of 24 councillors serving 16 wards. These councillors will represent nine single-councillor wards, six two- councillor wards and one three-councillor ward. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Richmondshire. You can also view our final recommendations for Richmondshire District Council 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.

19

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, Richmondshire 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 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Colburn and Richmond.

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 Colburn parish.

Final recommendation Colburn Town Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Albermarle 1 Colburn Moor 1 Colburn Town 9

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 Richmond parish.

Final recommendation Richmond Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Richmond East 4 Richmond North 4 Richmond West 7

20

3 What happens next?

72 We have now completed our review of Richmondshire. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2019.

Equalities

73 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

21

Appendix A

Final recommendations for Richmondshire District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % Catterick & 1 Brompton-on- 3 4,783 1,594 7% 5,008 1,669 4% Swale

2 Colburn 2 2,245 1,123 -25% 3,228 1,614 1%

Croft & Middleton 3 2 2,872 1,436 -4% 2,949 1,475 -8% Tyas

4 Gilling West 1 1,692 1,692 13% 1,713 1,713 7%

Hawes, High 5 Abbotside & 1 1,504 1,504 1% 1,522 1,522 -5% Upper Swaledale

6 Hipswell 2 2,957 1,479 -1% 3,058 1,529 -4%

7 Leyburn 2 2,934 1,467 -2% 3,266 1,633 2%

Lower Swaledale 8 1 1,455 1,455 -3% 1,462 1,462 -8% & Arkengarthdale Lower 9 1 1,450 1,450 -3% 1,497 1,497 -6% Wensleydale

22

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % 10 Melsonby 1 1,539 1,539 3% 1,638 1,638 3%

11 Middleham 1 1,483 1,483 -1% 1,514 1,514 -5%

12 Richmond East 1 1,623 1,623 8% 1,681 1,681 5%

13 Richmond North 1 1,646 1,646 10% 1,705 1,705 7%

14 Richmond West 2 3,209 1,605 7% 3,288 1,644 3%

15 Scotton 2 2,974 1,487 -1% 3,268 1,634 2%

16 Yoredale 1 1,542 1,542 3% 1,542 1,542 -3%

Totals 24 35,908 – – 38,339 – –

Averages – – 1,496 – – 1,597 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Richmondshire 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.

23

Appendix B

Outline map

Key

1. Catterick & Brompton-on-Swale 9. Lower Wensleydale 2. Colburn 10. Melsonby 3. Croft & Middleton Tyas 11. Middleham 4. Gilling West 12. Richmond East Hawes, High Abbotside & Upper 5. 13. Richmond North Swaledale 6. Hipswell 14. Richmond West 7. Leyburn 15. Scotton 8. Lower Swaledale & Arkengarthdale 16. Yoredale

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/yorkshire- and-the-humber/north-yorkshire/richmondshire

24

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/north- yorkshire/richmondshire

Local Authority

• Richmondshire Borough Council Electoral Services

Political Group

• Richmondshire Branch Labour Party

Councillors

• Councillor J. Amsden (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor J. Blackie (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor R. Blows (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor P. Chapman (Hudswell & District Parish Council) • Councillor C.B. Dawson (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor C.E.A. Duff (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor W. Glover (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor P. Middlemiss (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor R. Ormston (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillors B. & R. Phillips (Hudswell & District Parish Council) • Councillor A. Rhodes (Hawes & High Abbotside Parish Council) • Councillor A. Thompson (Richmondshire District Council) • Councillor J. Watkins (Arkengarthdale Parish Council) • Councillor P. Windle (Aysgarth & District Parish Council) • Councillor E. Whitehead (Muker Parish Council)

Local Organisations

• Newton‐le‐Willows and Patrick Brompton Village Hall Committee • Patrick Brompton Community Events Committee

Parish and Town Councils

• Askrigg & Low Abbotside Parish Council • Aysgarth & District Parish Council • Brompton-on-Swale Parish Council • Burton-cum-Walden Parish Council • Caldbergh with East Scrafton Parish Meeting • Catterick Village Parish Council • Carperby-cum-Thoresby Parish Council

25

• Colburn Town Council • Hawes & High Abbotside Parish Council • Hudswell & District Parish Council • Leyburn Town Council • Melbecks Parish Council • Melsonby Parish Council • Middleham Town Council • Middleton Tyas Parish Council • Moulton Parish Meeting • Muker Parish Council • Newton-le-Willows Parish Council • Patrick Brompton Parish Council • Scorton Parish Council • Spennithorne Parish Meeting • St Martin’s Parish Council • Uckerby Parish Meeting

Local Residents

• 60 local residents

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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