sign in sign up
<<
Home , Braithwell, Carlton in Lindrick, Catcliffe, Clowne, Doncaster, Firbeck

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF SOUTH

THE OF Boundaries with: BASSETLAW N. E.

BARNSLEY

DONCASTER

SHEFFIELD

\ ^ ? BASSETLAW

N. E. DERBYSHIRE BOLSOVER

REPORT NO. 670 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO 670 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB

MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr C W Smith

Professor K Young THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

REVIEW OF

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROTHERHAM AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE , THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF DONCASTER, THE DISTRICT OF BASSETLAW IN AND THE DISTRICTS OF 'BOLSOVER AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE IN DERBYSHIRE

,THE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION i 1 . This report contains our final proposals for the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham's boundaries with the City of Sheffield, the 'Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster, the District of Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire, and the Districts of Bolsover and North East Derbyshire in Derbyshire. We are not suggesting any radical 'changes but are making a number of minor proposals to make the Boundary more clearly identifiable and to remove anomalies. Our Recommendations in respect of Rotherham's boundary with are contained in our earlier report No. 601.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE START OF THE REVIEW i

2. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Rotherham as part of the Mandatory Review of South Yorkshire and the districts within it under Section 48(1) of the Local iGovernment Act 1972, i 3. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan Boroughs; to the county and district councils bordering the metropolitan area; to parish councils in Rotherham and the adjoining districts; to the local authority associations; to i Members of Parliament with constituency interests; to the headquarters of the main political parties; to the local press, television and radio stations; and to a number of other interested persons and organisations.

4. To enable the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Section 60(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Metropolitan Boroughs were requested, in co-operation as necessary with other local authorities, to insert a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers to give wide publicity to the start of the review in the area concerned.

5. A period of seven months from the date of our letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their detailed views on whether changes to Rotherham1s boundaries were desirable; and if so, what those changes should be and how they would best meet the criterion of effective and convenient local government as prescribed by section 47(1) of the Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO OS

6. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987 we received representations from Rotherham MBC and the other local authorities concerned, together with representations from a number of local businesses and approximately one hundred and fifty individuals.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS

7. After considering these representations, we published a consultation letter on 8 August 1989 announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions for Rotherham. Copies were sent to the authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. The assistance of the relevant councils was sought in giving publicity to our draft proposals. Comments were invited by 13 October 1989. RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS

8. In response to our letter of 8 August 1989, we received representations from Rotherham and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Councils, Sheffield City Council, Derbyshire County Council, the District Councils of Bassetlaw, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire, the Parish Councils of , , iConisborough Parks, Harthill with Woodall, Orgreave, Ravenfield and Stainton; several local organisations, including the Tinsley Forum; and a number of local residents. i ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS i 9. After considering these representations, we decided to issue further draft proposals in respect of Rotherham's boundaries with Bolsover and Sheffield. The letter announcing our further draft proposals was published on 3 March 1992. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned, asking them to place the further draft proposals on display, and to other interested organisations and persons who had made representations to us or who had expressed an interest. Comments were invited by 28 April 1992.

RESPONSE TO OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

10. In response to our further draft proposals, we received comments from Rotherham and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Councils, Sheffield City Council, Derbyshire County Council, the District Councils of North East Derbyshire and Bassetlaw, the Parish Councils of Braithwell, Harthill with Woodall and Orgreave, the Tinsley Forum, the Head Teacher of Park House School, and eight local residents. i 11. As required by Section 60 (2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us at each stage of the review. The following paragraphs explain how we arrived at our final proposals. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ROTHERHAM AND DONCASTER

Mexborough Curve

Draft Proposal

12. Rotherham suggested amending the boundary in the vicinity of the Curve and Junction so as to unite in Doncaster the Whitelea Industrial Estate which is divided by the present boundary and accessible only from Doncaster. Rotherham suggested that a realignment using the centre of the Mexborough Curve railway line would provide an identifiable boundary.

13. We agreed that it would be sensible to unite the Whitelea Industrial Estate in Doncaster but concluded that a better boundary would be to use the eastern embankment of the railway line, thus retaining British Rail property within one local authority.

14. We decided, therefore, to adopt Rotherham1s suggestion as the basis of our draft proposal but to use the eastern embankment of the Mexborough Curve.

Final Proposal

15. Doncaster supported our draft proposal and Rotherham raised no objections. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Fox Well to Hill Top; Old Denaby

Draft Proposal

16. Rotherham suggested realigning the boundary in the vicinity of Old Denaby. It pointed out that the existing boundary was no longer identifiable, as a result of ploughing, and suggested using footpaths and field boundaries to provide a more readily identifiable boundary. Rotherham also suggested realigning the currently defaced boundary at Fox Well so as to unite that property and its grounds in Doncaster.

17. We agreed that Rotherham's suggestion would provide a more easily identifiable boundary and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

18. Doncaster and Rotherham supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final. i

Firsby Lane, Hill Top

i Draft Proposal

19. Rotherham suggested realigning the boundary to Firsby Lane since the current boundary was no longer identifiable, as a result of ploughing, and was also defaced in the area of the abandoned quarry workings.

i 20. We noted that the current boundary split the property of House at Hill Top and that Rotherham's suggestion would unite the property in Rotherham, although separating it from the village of Hill Top which is in Doncaster.

21 . We agreed that Rotherham's suggestion would provide a better boundary in the area but saw no benefit in separating Toll Bar House from the rest of the community at Hill Top. We therefore decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as the basis of our draft proposal but to use the western side of Firsby Lane so as to unite Toll Bar House in Doncaster. Final Proposal

22. Doncaster and Rotherham supported our draft proposal. Rotherham, however, suggested realigning the boundary down the west side of Firsby Lane to Firsby Reservoir Cottage so that Doncaster would be wholly responsible for highway maintenance of the lane. Ravenfield Residents' Association also supported the draft proposal but submitted an alternative suggestion for the electoral consequences. Conisborough Parks Parish Council opposed the proposal saying that it considered the existing boundary to be satisfactory.

23. We considered that, whilst Rotherham1s suggestion would consolidate the highway maintenance responsibilities for Firsby Lane in Doncaster, all the properties to the south of the Lane would be located in Rotherham, and it seemed unreasonable to require Doncaster to maintain the access to them. We also considered the Residents' Association's suggestion, but noted that there had been no objection to the electoral consequential from either Rotherham or Doncaster. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Braithwell Common to Scotch Spring Lane

Draft Proposal

24. Rotherham suggested a major realignment in this area to provide a clear and identifiable boundary and proposed the transfer of Braithwell Common and Scotch Spring Lane to its authority. Doncaster suggested two minor realignments, at Lane and at Fish Pond Lane, to simplify highway maintenance.

25. We noted that Doncaster's suggestion would leave the hamlet of Silverthorpe in Doncaster but we agreed with Rotherham that the hamlet seemed to have a stronger affinity with Ravenfield in Rotherham than with Doncaster. We also considered the suggestion lin respect of Fish Pond Lane and Stainton Lane but noted that Doncaster's suggestion did not follow Stainton Lane throughout its length.

.26. We considered that Rotherham's suggestion would provide'a i clearer and more readily identifiable boundary and decided, therefore, to adopt it as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

27. We received a large response to the draft proposal. Rotherham supported the proposal but commented that it would support a slight modification in the vicinity of Fish Pond Lane to exclude from the transfer six properties whose residents objected to the proposal. Doncaster objected to the draft proposal on the basis that a realignment of the boundary in the i vicinity of Braithwell would deprive Braithwell of its green belt area. It felt that the current boundary was clearly marked by a twelve-foot wide dyke and therefore objected to the proposed transfer of Braithwell Common and Scotch Spring Lane to Rotherham. i 28. Braithwell Parish Council also objected to the proposal for i similar reasons and expressed fears that the built up area in Maltby would encroach on its area. Stainton Parish Council supported the proposal to transfer the whole of Stainton Lane and Scotch Spring Lane to Doncaster to clarify responsibility for highway maintenance, but opposed the transfer of green belt areas to Rotherham. It disputed the assertion that the present boundary was ill-defined and submitted an alternative suggestion that would transfer land to the north of Maltby to Doncaster. Ravenfield Parish Council suggested that the area to the west of the Ml 8, proposed for transfer to Rotherham, should transfer to its parish rather than to the of Maltby, arguing that the residents there had a greater affinity to Ravenfield. 29. Ravenfield Residents' Association said that large-scale change was unnecessary but suggested that using Hellaby Lane would provide a clear boundary. It -also suggested that the houses at Silverthorpe and on Common Lane should be transferred to Ravenfield Parish and that the area around Braithwell junction should transfer to the unparished area of Maltby in Rotherham.

30. Residents of Braithwell and Stainton in Doncaster, and Maltby in Rotherham, generally opposed the proposal as they believed that green belt areas would be threatened by developments on the Rotherham side of the boundary. Some residents put forward alternative suggestions for minor changes. From the many responses received, it seemed that the current boundary was more clearly identifiable than we had at first thought, being marked by twelve foot ditches and drainage dykes for the majority of its length. We also noted that affinity was said to exist between the communities of Silverthorpe and Ravenfield.

31 . We concluded that there was not sufficient justification for the whole of our draft proposal and decided to withdraw that part of it which related to the stretch of boundary between the Hellaby Lane/Moor Lane junction and Stainton Lane. We considered the various alternative suggestions for minor realignments in the vicinity of Maltby and Braithwell, but concluded that the existing boundary was satisfactory in that area.

32. We have therefore decided to confirm, as our final proposal, a realignment of the boundary from Stainton Lane north of Grange Quarter to the junction of Scotch Spring Lane and Road while retaining the present boundary between the Hellaby Lane/Moor Lane junction to Stainton Lane. In view of the apparent affinity between the communities of Silverthorpe and Ravenfield, we include in our final proposal a realignment of the boundary between Common Lane and Hellaby Lane to unite Silverthorpe and other properties in the area with Ravenfield in Rotherham.

8 [Scotch Spring Lane to Sandbeck Lane

Draft Proposal i 33. Rotherham and Doncaster both proposed similar realignments in order to provide a more clearly identifiable boundary and to simplify road maintenance.

34. We agreed that their suggestions would provide a clearer boundary and considered that the area encompassed by Tickhill iRoad and Sandbeck Lane should be transferred to Rotherham. We therefore decided to adopt the suggestion as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

35. Doncaster and Rotherham both supported our draft proposal. It was opposed by several local residents who argued that the 'areas of Carr House Holt and Woolthwaite Bottom had always been 'associated with Doncaster. We considered these views but concluded that the draft proposal would assist the provision of (effective local government services in the area. As our draft proposal had been supported by both the local authorities .concerned, we have decided to confirm it as final, iNorth Walk

Draft Proposal i '36. Rotherham and Doncaster both proposed similar realignments ,in order to provide a more readily identifiable boundary.

,37. We considered that Rotherham1s suggestion would provide a better boundary and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal. Final Proposal

38. Rotherham and Doncaster both supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

River Torne

Draft Proposal

39. Rotherham suggested a realignment of the boundary to tie it to the new course of the which had been re-routed in places,

40. We agreed that the current boundary was unsatisfactory and decided to adopt Rotherham1s suggestion as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

41. Rotherham and Doncaster both supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Denaby Lane

Interim Decision

42. Doncaster suggested a realignment of the boundary which would transfer Hooton Common including Elm Tree Farm from Rotherham to its area, using Denaby Lane to provide a clearly identifiable boundary and to simplify highway maintenance.

43. Rotherham felt that the current boundary was already clearly identifiable and disputed Doncaster's suggestion that its proposal would simplify highway maintenance.

44. We agreed that the present boundary was based upon clear

10 physical features and considered that Elm Tree Farm had a stronger affinity with Rotherham than Doncaster. We decided therefore to take an interim decision to make no proposal for change in this area.

45. Neither Rotherham nor Doncaster objected to the Commission's interim decision. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ROTHERHAM AND BASSETLAW IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE i River Torne to Maltby Road * Draft Proposal i 46. Rotherham suggested that a realignment of the boundary to follow the A60 and Maltby Road would provide a more clearly identifiable boundary and would simplifsimplifyy highway maintenance. Nottinghamshire made a similar suggestion.

47. with Parish Council suggested realigning the boundary to. a track to the north of Oldcotes and field boundaries to the west. This would produce a more clearly identifiable boundary, would simplify highway maintenance and would retain within Bassetlaw parish land to the west of Oldcotes Village. Bassetlaw agreed that the present boundary was difficult to identify and suggested that it should be realigned to the western side of the A60 and should then follow a track and part of the present boundary. This would ensure that parish land to the west of Oldcotes village would remain in Bassetlaw. i 48. We agreed that the present boundary was unsatisfactory but concluded that there was no justification for the extension of the Metropolitan area proposed by Rotherham. We decided to adopt the Parish Council's suggestion as our draft proposal.

11 Final Proposal

49. Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. Rotherham opposed it arguing that the track to be used as a boundary could be susceptible to ploughing out and suggesting that the parish council would need to provide a fence.

50. We concluded that the general line of the draft proposal had been accepted by all parties and, whilst noting Rotherham1s views about the possible need for a stronger boundary marker, have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

THE ROTHERHAM - DONCASTER - BASSETLAW BOUNDARY

Draft Proposal

51. We recognised that, as a consequence of our draft proposal for the section of the boundary from the River Torne to Maltby Road, a change would be needed to the present Doncaster/Bassetlaw boundary to ensure that the land south of the River Torne being transferred from Rotherham was placed in either Doncaster or Bassetlaw.

52. Parish Council suggested that Styrrup Lane would provide a clearly identifiable boundary and would simplify highway maintenance. We agreed and decided to adopt this suggestion as our draft proposal, using the north side of the lane as the boundary.

Final Proposal

53. Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. Doncaster made no comments. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

12 Haven Hill i 'Draft Proposal i

54. Rotherham said that the current boundary was undefined and 'suggested a realignment to Haven Hill. Nottinghamshire and .Bassetlaw both supported this suggestion.

55. We agreed that Rotherham1s suggestion would provide a clearly identifiable boundary and decided to adopt it as our ,draf t proposal„

Final Proposal

56. Both Rotherham and Bassetlaw supported the draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final. Map 10 illustrates that under our final proposal Field House (now known as Stonehaven) will be retained in Rotherham.

Dyscarr Wood to Lake

Draft Proposal i 57. Rotherham, Nottinghamshire and Bassetlaw all suggested a realignment of the currently defaced boundary to follow recognisable features and to unite Langold Country Park in Nottinghamshire. Nottinghamshire pointed out that the current boundary did not facilitate good management and effective promotion of the Park, as the current arrangements required consultation on planning and policing between three authorities. i iThe Parish Councils of and Carlton-in-Lindrick in Bassetlaw supported the suggested realignment.

58. We agreed that the present boundary was unsatisfactory and decided to adopt the suggestion as our draft proposal.

13 Final Proposal

59. Both Rotherham and Bassetlaw supported the draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Wallingwells Lane

Draft Proposal

60. Rotherham, Nottinghamshire and Bassetlaw all suggested a realignment of the currently defaced boundary to run along Lane. We agreed that this suggestion would provide a clearly marked boundary and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

61. Both Rotherham and Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Owday Lane

Draft Proposal

62. Rotherham and Bassetlaw, supported by Nottinghamshire and Carlton-in-Lindrick Parish Council, suggested a realignment of the currently defaced boundary to Owday Lane to provide a clearly identifiable boundary. We agreed that such a realignment was necessary and decided to adopt the suggestion as our draft proposal.

14 Final Proposal i

63. Both Rotherham and Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. We have received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Gateford to Shire Oak

Draft Proposal

64. Rotherham/ Nottinghamshire and Bassetlaw suggested a realignment of the currently defaced boundary to Thorpe Lane, Nether Thorpe Road and Whitwell Road. We agreed that the present boundary v;as unsatisfactory and decided to adopt the suggestion i as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal i 65. Both Nottinghamshire and Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. Rotherham raised no objections. Derbyshire and Bolsover agreed that the present boundary was obscure but opposed pur draft proposal because of their opposition to our draft proposal for the Rotherham-Bolsover boundary (see paragraphs 66 and 67) . As neither Derbyshire nor Bolsover had provided any new evidence to support their objections, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ROTHERHAM AND BOLSOVER IN DERBYSHIRE i tDumb Hall Lane

Draft Proposal i

66. Our final proposal for the Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire i boundary in the area where these two counties adjoin Rotherham (contained in our report No. 599, paras 49 and 91 } proposed a i

15 realignment of the boundary along Scratta Lane. For the new boundary between Rotherham and Bolsover at this point we decided to adopt as our draft proposal a realignment along Dumb Hall Lane (an extension of Scratta Lane) until it reached Whitwell Road.

Final Proposal

67. Bassetlaw supported our draft proposal. Derbyshire and Bolsover opposed it on the grounds that they did not think that any amendment to the Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire boundary in this area was required. In our report no 599, we had confirmed as final our draft proposal for the Derbyshire/ Nottinghamshire boundary. Accordingly, we have now decided to confirm our draft proposal for the new Rotherham/Bolsover boundary as final.

Shire Oak to Winney Lane

Draft Proposal

68. Rotherham suggested realigning the currently defaced boundary along Bondhay Dyke in order to provide greater clarity. Derbyshire supported the suggestion but Bolsover objected, arguing that there was no justification for the suggested change.

69. We agreed that Rotherham1s suggestion would clarify the boundary and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

70. Derbyshire, Bolsover and Rotherham supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

16 Pebley Reservoir

Draft Proposal

71. Rotherham suggested realigning the boundary in the area of Pebley Reservoir as the current boundary was indistinct, running across marshland at the eastern end of the Reservoir, and following the bed of a defunct stream at the northwestern end. Rotherham said that the reservoir was crucial for the environmental management of the compensation system for the Chesterfield Canal (which is in Rotherham). Its suggestion was ,to realign the boundary along Harthill Lane and the Rotherham Road. i 72. Bolsover opposed the suggestion without giving reasons. Derbyshire considered the suggestion to be premature and that, if Rotherham were to propose a countryside management scheme across the current boundary, there would be no difficulty in setting up appropriate joint arrangements.

73. We concluded that there would be benefits from realigning i the boundary to distinct physical features. We therefore decided to adopt Rotherhamls suggestion as our draft proposal.

Further draft proposal

,74. Rotherham supported our draft proposal. Derbyshire and Bolsover objected, arguing that the proposal would be detrimental to landscape and conservation interests and would split a Bolsover conservation area. They considered the current boundary ito be satisfactory, except at the northwestern end of Pebley Reservoir where the boundary follows the bed of a. defunct stream. Both Councils suggested a realignment in this area, to follow the i course of an overflow channel.

75. We recognised that there were sensitive environmental management issues relating to Pebley Reservoir and its environs

17 and that our draft proposal would split the Barlborough Conservation area. However, whilst Bolsover and Derbyshire sought to retain the existing boundary through the reservoir, we did not consider this to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

76. We decided to withdraw our draft proposal and instead to adopt, as our further draft proposal, the suggestion from Bolsover and Derbyshire to realign the boundary to an overflow channel at the northwestern end of Pebley Reservoir, subject to a modification to unite the reservoir within Derbyshire.

Final Proposal

77. Derbyshire supported our further draft proposal but Rotherham objected on technical grounds to the use of the bank of the reservoir.

78. Harthill with Woodall Parish Council objected to our draft proposal, arguing that Pebley Reservoir was one of a group of ponds which belong naturally together, and which for management purposes should be retained as an amenity in Rotherham. The Parish Council suggested an alternative boundary which would unite the Reservoir in Rotherham but would also retain Crabtree Wood and the surrounding parts of the Barlborough Conservation Area within Bolsover.

79. We considered these views but concluded that the reservoir bank provided a well defined and visible boundary feature. As the great majority of the Reservoir is already in Derbyshire and there seemed to be no suitable alternative boundary, we have decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.

18 Woodall Common

Draft Proposal

80. Rotherham suggested a realignment of the currently defaced boundary using Road to provide a more readily identifiable boundary. Derbyshire objected to Rotherham's suggestion on the grounds that the existing boundary was satisfactory.

81 , We noted that in this area Mansfield Road and Rotherham Road currently pass through two counties and are administered by three local authorities. We concluded that there would be benefits if nighway maintenance was simplified and decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as our draft proposal. i Final Proposal

82. Both Rotherham and Bolsover supported our draft proposal. i We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

ROTHERHAM'S BOUNDARY WITH NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE, IN DERBYSHIRE

83. Following our review of the Metropolitan Borough of Sheffield, we decided to confirm, as final, our interim decision not to transfer from North East Derbyshire to Sheffield (Report No. 614, paragraphs 36-38 and 80). During that review we also considered the possibility of transferring Killamarsh to Rotherham, as well as minor amendments to the boundary between Rotherham and North East Derbyshire. These are reported below in paragraphs 86 to 89.

19 Killamarsh

Interim Decision

84. Following a large number of representations from residents who wished to remain outside South Yorkshire, we decided not to propose the transfer of Killamarsh and adjacent areas to Rotherham, and took an interim decision to make no proposal for change.

85. Both Derbyshire County Council and North East Derbyshire District Council supported our interim decision to make no proposal for major change to Rotherham's boundary with North East Derbyshire. Our interim decision was also supported by Mr Harry Barnes MP, the Chairman of Killamarsh Parish Council and 10 Killamarsh residents. We received no other representations and have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

County Dyke

Draft Proposal

86. Rotherham suggested realigning the currently defaced boundary to the course of County Dyke. We decided to adopt this suggestion as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

87. Neither Rotherham nor Derbyshire objected to the draft proposal. We received no other representations and have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

Killamarsh Pond

Draft Proposal

88. As the boundary is currently defaced in this area, we issued

20 a draft proposal to unite the pond in North East Derbyshire.

Final Proposal i 89. Neither Rotherham nor Derbyshire objected to our proposal. We received no other representations and have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ROTHERHAM AND SHEFFIELD

Rother Valley Country Park

Draft Proposal I 90. Rotherham, supported by Sheffield, suggested the unification of the Rother Valley Country Park in Rotherham in order to i simplify maintenance which currently involves co-ordination between a number of authorities.

91. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987, Derbyshire and North East Derbyshire suggested realigning the boundary to the current courses of County Dyke and the River Rother. They also said that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements for maintaining the Country Park and opposed any suggestion to unite it within one authority. Killamarsh Parish Council also opposed Rotherham's suggestion.

92. We concluded that the present boundary did not appear to facilitate good management of the Country Park. We decided therefore to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as the basis for our draft proposal but to use the eastern side of the Rotherham- Chesterfield railway line, in order to provide a more identifiable boundary, (albeit at the expense of a small part of the Country Park remaining in Sheffield).

21 Final Proposal

93. Rotherham supported our decision to unite the majority of the Park in its authority but suggested realigning the boundary to a railway line further to the west. Sheffield also supported the draft proposal.

94. Derbyshire opposed our proposal on the grounds that the area proposed for transfer to Rotherham was used primarily by residents of Killamarsh in Derbyshire. It resubmitted its original suggestion for realigning the boundary to the County Dyke and the River Rother. North East Derbyshire said that it had no objections to our draft proposal.

95. We had previously considered both Councils' suggested alternatives and, as no further evidence to support them had been provided, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Retford Road to (Orgreave)

Draft Proposal

96. Rotherham suggested a number of minor changes to the boundary including a realignment to the Road and the Sheffield- railway line in order to unite properties in Rotherham and to provide a more readily identifiable boundary.

97. Sheffield made a wider suggestion that would transfer the Coalbrook Estate in Orgreave from Rotherham into its area. It argued that the River Rother and its adjacent fields provided a clear break between the urban areas of Rotherham and Sheffield. It suggested that, historically, the Coalbrook Estate had more affinity with Sheffield than with Rotherham. Under Sheffield's proposal, the present Parish of Orgreave would be almost completely depopulated with the transfer to Sheffield of Highfield Lane and the Coalbrook Estate.

22 98. Orgreave Parish Council opposed both Sheffield and Rotherham's suggestions and said that it opposed any break up of the Parish.

99. We also received many representations objecting to Sheffield's suggestion including 70 letters and three petitions, containing 582 signatures, from Orgreave parishioners. Nevertheless, we agreed that the Coalbrook Estate in Orgreave appeared to be more closely associated with Sheffield than with Rotherham.

100. Sheffield had said that, in the event of Orgreave transferring to its area, it would maintain its status. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to transfer the whole of Orgreave to Sheffield, using a modified boundary and with a recommendation that the status of Orgreave parish should be maintained. In making this proposal, we also acknowledged that there could be counter-arguments for uniting the adjacent Woodhouse Mill area with Orgreave in Rotherham.

Further Draft Proposal

101. Sheffield supported our draft proposal but commented that it would prefer the area to be transferred to be limited to the Coalbrook Estate. In response to our comment that there could be an argument for transferring Woodhouse Mill to Rotherham, Sheffield said that it had conducted a survey of residents in the area and the results had demonstrated strong links between Woodhouse Mill and Sheffield. i

102. Rotherham opposed our draft proposal on the grounds that the affinities of Orgreave Parish were with Rotherham rather than Sheffield. It also expressed concern that residents in adjoining areas remaining in Rotherham would be deprived of representation on Sheffield bodies who would become responsible for the environmental control of certain sites in Orgreave. Its particular concern was the uncertain future of the Orgreave i ; 23 Colliery and Tip following proposals by British Coal Opencast for a substantial reclamation scheme involving the British Steel coking and chemical works. Rotherham suggested that Woodhouse Mill and land to its south should be transferred to Rotherham by using the railway as a boundary southwards as far as Killamarsh at the southern end of the Rother Valley Country Park.

103. Orgreave Parish Council opposed the draft proposal on the grounds that there were few affinities or links between the two communities of Woodhouse Mill and Orgreave. It considered that the wishes of the people involved had not been properly taken into account. It disputed Sheffield's assertion that the River Rother and its valley formed a barrier between the estate and the rest of Rotherham. The Parish Council's submission included detailed information on community and service links between Orgreave and the rest of Rotherham. It submitted an alternative suggestion, identical to Rotherham's revised suggestion, to realign the boundary to the railway line southwards as far as Killamarsh.

104. A total of 154 Orgreave residents wrote to us objecting to the proposed transfer to Sheffield. They provided detailed accounts of their community links with Rotherham, and referred to the high quality of services provided by Rotherham, which they felt they would lose were they to be transferred to Sheffield.

105. We acknowledged the strong opposition to our draft proposal from Orgreave Parish Council and many local residents, and the fact that many people had argued that there were close links and a community of interest between Orgreave, Aston and Swallownest in Rotherham. In the light of this, together with the possibility that British Coal Opencast's reclamation scheme could result in the early defacement of the proposed boundary in this area, we decided to withdraw our draft proposal and to consider alternative suggestions.

24 106. Rotherham and Orgreave Parish Council had suggested a realignment which would unite Orgreave and Woodhouse Mill- in Rotherham. However, the results of Sheffield1s survey of Woodhouse Mill residents had shown that they considered that their links were with Sheffield, rather than with Rotherham. Orgreave Parish Council had also argued that the two communities had few affinities or links.

;107. We therefore decided to adopt as our further draft proposal a realignment of the boundary along the Sheffield Parkway (A630) from the new Airport Link Road, westwards as far as the Sheffield-Worksop railway, then southwards following the western side of the railway as far as Retford Road, then east along Retford Road to meet the existing boundary. \ i Final Proposal

108, Sheffield again said that it considered the Coalbrook Estate and adjacent recreation ground should be transferred to its area. Whilst it saw a number of options for the boundary, it still saw merit in our original draft proposal to transfer the whole of Orgreave Parish to Sheffield. However, Sheffield also suggested an alternative realignment of the boundary to follow rough tracks along the southern and western perimeter of Orgreave Colliery Tip, the eastern boundary of the Sheffield-Worksop Railway Line, and the southern boundary of Sheffield Parkway to the Catcliffe Junction.

109. Sheffield emphasised that Woodhouse Mill was an integral part of Sheffield and added that, if we were to adopt its alternative proposal to transfer the Coalbrook Estate and the Woodhouse Lane Recreation Ground to Sheffield, it would be appropriate for the boundary to be realigned a little further northwards along the Chesterfield-Rotherham railway line to the point where it is in very close proximity to the River Rother. i This would bring the Woodhouse Mill Sewage Works into Sheffield.

25 110. It also sought the transfer to Sheffield of a toxic waste factory near Heighten since residents were concerned about its possible adverse effects. As the factory is nearer to Sheffield's residential area than Rotherham's, Sheffield considered that the area should come under its authority.

111. Both Rotherham and Orgreave Parish Council supported our further draft proposals. A resident of the Coalbrook Estate also supported them, commenting on Orgreave residents' support for the efficient services provided by Rotherham and the allegiances of mining communities in and near Orgreave to Rotherham.

112. We considered that the central issue was the Coalbrook Estate in Orgreave. It still seemed to us that the area was physically continuous with Woodhouse Mill and that, as there were no local facilities on the estate, residents needed to cross the Retford Road to Woodhouse Mill for local facilities. However, we concluded that the strength of the responses from Rotherham, Orgreave Parish Council and the residents themselves demonstrated that their community links and allegiances lay with Rotherham. We also considered that the effects on planning and environmental health of the toxic waste factory at Heighten were likely to concern Sheffield and Rotherham equally. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.

Sheffield Parkway to

Draft Proposal

-t 113. Rotherham and Sheffield made identical suggestions to realign the currently defaced boundary along a planned slip road to the proposed Sheffield City Airport.

114. Whilst we agreed that the current boundary was defaced, we considered that it was premature to adopt the proposed line of the new slip road. We decided therefore to issue a draft proposal based upon Rotherham's suggestion but using existing

26 physical features.

Further draft proposal

115. Both Rotherham and Sheffield opposed our draft proposal on the grounds that the proposed realignment would be affected by the development of Sheffield Airport. Rotherham again suggested 'a realignment to the Airport Link Road which had now been completed. Sheffield submitted a more radical suggestion to 'realign the boundary to Sheffield Parkway (A630) and the eastern 'side of the railway marshalling yard site which would transfer the whole airport site and a marshalling yard to Sheffield.

116. We considered that both Councils' suggestions had merit but i felt that the newly completed Airport Link road would form an easily identifiable boundary. We therefore decided to adopt i Rotherham's suggestion as our further draft proposal.

[Final Proposal i '117. Rotherham supported our further draft proposal. Sheffield lalso supported it but suggested a minor amendment realigning the 'boundary to the north side of the M1 motorway westwards from , rather than to the south side.

118. We considered this but concluded that Sheffield's suggested modification to our further draft proposal offered no significant advantages. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.

Wood Lane to Meadow Hall

Draft Proposal

119. Rotherham suggested aligning the currently defaced boundary to Road Sports Ground, along Chapel Flat Dike and round the Fitzwilliam works at Templeborough. Sheffield proposed minor

27 change along Chapel Flat Dike.

120. We agreed that the present boundary was not clearly defined along the whole of this section. We noted that both local authorities had proposed the use of the M1 Motorway as a boundary between Meadow Hall and Hood Hill and that the Tinsley area of Sheffield appeared to be cut off from the rest of Sheffield. We decided therefore to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary to the M1 Motorway thereby transferring Tinsley from Sheffield to Rotherham where it seemed that its main affinities lay.

Further draft proposal

121. Our draft proposal was supported by the Sheffield Family Practitioner Committee and four members of the public. We also received a letter of support containing nine signatures. However, it was opposed by Rotherham, Sheffield and several local organisations/ including the Tinsley Forum, a local pressure group. We also received representations from 27 local residents and petitions containing a total of 78 signatures, all opposing our draft proposal.

122. Both Rotherham and Sheffield said that Tinsley's affinities lay with Sheffield. Rotherham pointed out that the area is separated from other areas in Rotherham by the flood plain of the River Don, and that the draft proposal would leave a small part of the Tinsley community to the west of the Motorway isolated in Sheffield. It also said that part of the proposed new boundary had already been defaced by the dismantling of a railway line and reclamation of part of the land.

123. Sheffield said that the sizeable Asian community in Tinsley was concerned about the possible transfer of the area to Rotherham. It added that many of the facilities in Tinsley were used by residents of other parts of Sheffield and it therefore felt that there should be only minor amendments to the current

28 boundary.

124. The local residents and groups who made representations to us opposing the draft proposal all stressed Tinsley's links with Sheffield. The Tinsley Forum provided detailed information concerning the community's links with Sheffield which was working with local groups to improve the area and its facilities. The Forum was concerned that the high level of community support services currently provided by Sheffield should be maintained.

125. We noted the strong opposition to our draft proposal from Rotherham, Sheffield and from several local organisations and residents, all of whom considered Tinsley to be a single community with strong links to Sheffield. We therefore decided to withdraw our draft proposal, and to adopt as our further draft proposal/ Sheffield's suggestions for minor realignments to remove anomalies in the existing boundary.

Final Proposal

126. Both Rotherham and Sheffield supported our further draft proposal as did the Tinsley Forum and the Park House School in Bawtry Road. Rotherham also suggested certain modifications south of Bawtry Road and between Sheffield Road and Meadow Hall because the boundary had become defaced or completely unidentifiable. One of Rotherham1 s suggestions was to realign the boundary to the centre course of the River Don which would transfer the Blackburn Meadow Nature Reserve, a Sheffield i project, into Rotherham. However, Sheffield said that the Nature Reserve was one of the City Council's projects funded under the Urban Programme to promote regeneration in the area and that it lay entirely within Sheffield's boundary. It added that, on the southern side of the nature reserve, further land was being sold by Rotherham to Sheffield and would be incorporated into the Nature Reserve at some future date. Sheffield suggested the transfer of this additional land from Rotherham to Sheffield so as to unite the Nature Reserve in Sheffield. i i; 29 127. We considered that it would be premature to transfer the additional land to Sheffield as negotiations over the sale of the land have not yet been finalised. We also concluded that Rotherham's suggestion offered few advantages in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.

Meadow Hall to Hood Hill

Draft Proposal

128. Rotherham suggested realigning the currently defaced boundary to the western side of the M1 Motorway which would unite the village of Thorpe Hesley in Rotherham. Sheffield supported the proposal but suggested realigning the boundary along the centre line of the M1 . Ecclesfield Parish Council, having consulted its residents about the proposed boundary changes, said that a small majority of respondents preferred Rotherham's suggestion, although some objections had been received from companies .based in the area.

129. We agreed that the present boundary was unclear and that Rotherham's suggestion would achieve a clear boundary and unite the community of Thorpe Hesley. We therefore decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as our draft proposal.

Further draft proposal

130. Both Rotherham and Sheffield supported our draft proposal. Sheffield suggested that the boundary should follow the eastern side of the Motorway and the eastern side of the Meadow Hall Interchange.

131. We accepted that the motorway viaduct and the Meadow Hall interchange should be united in one authority. In view of the withdrawal of our draft proposal for the Tinsley area, we concluded that they should be united in Sheffield. We therefore

30 decided to adopt as our further draft proposal a realignment of the boundary to the eastern side of the M1 Motorway.

Final Proposal I 132. Sheffield supported our further draft proposal and Rotherham raised no objections. Three residents of Thorpe Hesley supported our further draft proposal but two residents objected to the transfer of Thorpe Hesley to Rotherham on the grounds that they preferred the services provided by Sheffield. i

133. We considered these objections but concluded that they did not outweigh the benefits for effective and convenient local government that the further draft proposal would provide. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final. i ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES

134. Details of electoral changes we recommend as consequential to our proposals are attached at Annex B. Only a minimal number t of electors are affected by the changes and we do not expect any adverse effect on electoral representation at either district or county level.

CONCLUSIONS

135. We believe that our final proposals, which are summarised in Annex C, are in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and we commend them to you.

PUBLICATION

136. A separate letter is being sent to Sheffield City Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Doncaster and Barnsley, the Counties pf Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and the districts of Bassetlaw, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire, asking them to deposit copies

31 of this report at their main offices for inspection for six months. They are also being asked to put notices to that effect on public notice boards. Arrangements have been made for similar notices to be inserted in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in this matter and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, thought not earlier than six weeks from the date of our final proposals submitted to you. Copies of this report, with maps attached at Annex A illustrating the proposed changes are being sent to all those who received our consultation letters and to those who have made written representations.

32 Signed: K F J ENNALS (Chairman)

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Commission Secretary 16 July 1992 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW i ROTHERHAM MB AFFECTING DONCASTER MB, IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY, , NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT IN DERBYSHIRE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SHEFFIELD. FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other boundary divisions

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM

BARNSLEY MB

DONCASTER MB

ROTHERHAM MB

NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE BASSETLAW DISTRICT DISTRICT

Map 13 BOLSOVER DISTRICT

Iff'*! DONCASTER MB NON-PARISHED AREA

ROTHERHAM MB NON-PARISHED AREA W

c) Crown CopyrlghJ 1992 cii) '••--Tiir.,'.Di 5n lr">.•" m—JJ-nn^2^i?'WpU n-rrM/i**->- .-^\

DONCASTER MB1-'.':

ROTHERHAM MB

ci Crown Copyright 1992 ROTHERHAM DONCASTER ROTHERHAM

DONCASTER

CJ Crown CopyrtaM (992 DONCASTER MB

SRAVENFIELD CP

f/mlilBRMTHWELL CP uEUABY BROO/r

ROTHERHAM MB BRAMLEY

c) Crown Copyright 1992 ^ DONCASTER MB STAINTON CP

Grange Quarter

ROTHERHAM MB NON-PARISHED AREA

Crown Copyright 1992 DONCASTER MB STAINTON CP '-—-

ROTHERHAM . NON-PARISHED AREA ^ -- DONCASTER MB

ROTHERHAM MB

cj Crown Copyright 1992 DONCASTER MB

ROTHERHAM MB

*•'" I . . Sheepcoifl Meidow c) Crown Copyright 1992 DONCASTER

ROTHERHAM MB BASSETLAW DISTRICT

/] NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY

cj Crown Copyright 1992 ROTHERHAM

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ROTHERHAM MB

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY ROTHERHAM MB

XV.- -«u OJa "q*^^ QOQ / /

& • M °So ******' °So ^-?o //oq? WNhMlWood. qWX-*" Oq^ Q "^ «' *1; / ^I'^o/^o °s° Q °f° Y^ /^ 3§s&g&yst'8°Z «

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY

ROTHERHAM

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT

ROTHERHAM MB

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY

BOLSOVER DISTRICT

a 0 J*MI-•£&'»*- *».-.? —" . - —.O- A-A 0-*p*a tj °

BAKLB©R©UGH/ CP DERBYSHIRE COUNTY NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT ;; KILLAMARSH CP

ROTHERHAM MB HARTH1LL WITH WOODALL CP

Crown Copyright 1992 ROTHERHAM

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY

Crown Copyright 1992 1 11 VII'J+f' 1 \ * ' •* Recreation Ground

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

ROTHERHAM MB

RETFORD ROAD

CITY OF SHEFFIELD ROTHERHAM MB

: .t Si Coolbrook Estate

WOODHOUSE M Area AM*5 ^i-:

CITY OF SHEFFIELD ROTHERHAM MB CITY OF SHEFFIELD

ROTHERHAM MB ROTHERHAM MB

CITY OF SHEFFIELD CITY OF SHEFFIELD

CATCLIFFE CP

ROTHERHAM MB

|i (C). Crown Copyright 1992 ROTHERHAM MBJX

CITY OF SHEFFIELD Map 25

>* ltr

ROTHERHAM MB \\ Ft«pt«b0reugh SI *•I Work* Map 26

CITY OF SHEFFIELD

ROTHERHAM MB

C) CT.OT Copyright 1992 \ T emp I t b. r . u o Map 27

CITY OF SHEFFIELD

I^^^^^^L^: CONCORD PA R K

CITY OF SHEFFIELD ROTHERHAM MB

OF SHEFFIELD | ROTHERHAM MB

Area Ct

CITY OF SHEFFIELD

&'.'?•&••* ,-r" ' ~ .^i'^^T^

Oft £tCA*'!'\("~ *o • t ° »" O/ w^ | , B

CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: A B Rotherham MB Doncaster MB Swinton Ward Mexborough Ward Ooncaster MB Rotherham MB Denaby CP Non-parished Area Ward Swinton Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB A C Denaby CP Hooton Roberts CP Conisbrough Ward Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Thrybergh Ward Rotherham MB Doncaster MB B Hooton Roberts CP Denaby CP Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Conisbrough Ward Thrybergh Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB D E Non-parished Area Hooton Roberts CP Conisbrough Ward Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Thrybergh Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB Conisbrough Parks CP Hooton Roberts CP Southern Parks Ward Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Thrybergh Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB A C Conisbrough Parks CP Hooton Roberts CP Southern Parks Ward Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Thrybergh Ward Rotherham MB Doncaster MB B Hooton Roberts CP Conisbrough Parks CP Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Southern Parks Ward Thrybergh Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Hooton Roberts CP Conisbrough Ward Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Thrybergh Ward Rotherham MB Doncaster MB Hooton Roberts CP Non-parished Area Dalton, Hooton Roberts and Conisbrough Ward Thrybergh Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

- MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: .~ Doncaster MB Rotherham MB 5 A Braithwel 1 CP Ravenfield CP Southern Parks Ward Bramley, Ravenfield and Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB A C Stainton CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward Rotherham MB Doncaster MB B Non-parished Area Stainton CP Maltby Ward Southern Parks Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB A Stainton CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward 7 Rotherham MB Doncaster MB B Non-parished Area Stainton CP Maltby Ward Southern Parks Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB A Stainton CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB B Tickhill CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward Doncaster MB Rotherham MB 9 B Tickhill CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO:

A D Doncaster MB Rotherham MB E G Tickhill CP Non-parished Area Southern Parks Ward Maltby Ward

B C Rotherham MB Doncaster MB i F M Non-parished Area Tickhill CP Maltby Ward Southern Parks Ward

South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District H Non-parished Area Styrrup with Oldcotes CP ' Maltby Ward Blyth Ward — Blyth and ED

Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County 10 Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB J Styrrup with Oldcotes CP Non-parished Area Blyth Ward Maltby Ward Blyth and Harworth ED —

South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District K Non-parished area Styrrup with Oldcotes CP Maltby Ward Blyth Ward — Blyth and Harworth ED

South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District i L CP Hodsock CP St John's Ward Hodsock Ward 1 — Blyth and Harworth ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB Hodsock CP Letwell CP Hodsock Ward St John's Ward Blyth and Harworth ED South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District Letwell CP Hodsock CP St John's Ward Hodsock Ward Blyth and Harworth ED

South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District Letwell CP Carlton in Lindrick CP St John's Ward Carlton Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED 11 Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Basset law District Rotherham MB Carlton in Lindrick CP Letwell CP Carlton Ward St John's Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB Carlton in Lindrick CP GiIdingwelIs CP Carlton Ward St John's Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB Wallingwells CP GiIdingwelIs CP Carlton Ward St John's Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB 1 A Wallingwells CP Woodsetts CP Carlton Ward Anston and Woodsetts Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED — i South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District B Woodsetts CP Wai lingwel Is CP Anston and Woodsetts Ward Carlton Ward i - Worksop North and Carlton ED 1i 5f>. Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB C Non-parished Area Woodsetts CP ( Worksop North Ward Anston and Woodsetts Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED i — Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB D Non-parished Area North and South Anston CP p Worksop North Ward Anston and Woodsetts Ward Worksop North and Carlton ED — Derbyshire County South Yorkshire County A C Bolsover District Rotherham MB Whitwell CP Thorpe Salvin CP E H WhitweH Ward Ward ED - 11 TO B D South Yorkshire County Derbyshire County 1 F G Rotherham MB Bolsover District L Thorpe Salvin CP Whitwell CP Kiveton Park Ward Whitwell Ward ' . — Elmtpn ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: South Yorkshire County Nottinghamshire County Rotherham MB Bassetlaw District A D Thorpe Salvin CP CP Kiveton Park Ward Worksop North West Ward — Worksop West ED Nottinghamshire County South Yorkshire County Bassetlaw District Rotherham MB B C Shireoaks CP Thorpe Salvin CP Worksop North West Ward Kiveton Park Ward Worksop West ED — Derbyshire County South Yorkshire County Bolsover District Rotherham MB E H Whit we 11 CP Thorpe Salvin CP Whitwell Ward Kiveton Park Ward Elmton ED — South Yorkshire County Derbyshire County F G Rotherham MB Bolsover District Thorpe Salvin CP Whitwell CP J Kiveton Park Ward Whitwell Ward - Elmton ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: South Yorkshire County Derbyshire County Rotherham MB Bolsover District A D Harthill with Woodhall CP Barlborough CP Kiveton Park Ward Barlborough Ward Clowne ED — Derbyshire County South Yorkshire County Bolsover District Rotherham MB B C Barlborough CP Harthill with Woodhall CP Barlborough Ward Kiveton Park Ward Clowne ED —

1 South Yorkshire County Derbyshi re County Rotherham MB North East Derbyshire District E Harthill with Woodhall CP Kil lamarsh CP Kiveton Park Ward Killamarsh East Ward - Killamarsh ED Derbyshi re County South Yorkshire County North East Derbyshire District Rotherham MB F Killamarsh CP Harthill with Woodhall CP Killamarsh East Ward Kiveton Park Ward Killamarsh ED — Derbyshire County South Yorkshire County A C North East Derbyshire District Rotherham MB E G Killamarsh CP Harthill with Woodall CP J Killamarsh East Ward Kiveton Park Ward 16 Killamarsh ED — South Yorkshire County Derbyshire County B D Rotherham MB North East Derbyshire District F H Harthill with Woodall CP Ki 1 lamarsh CP Kiveton Park Ward Killamarsh East Ward Ki 1 lamarsh ED — • City of Sheffield Rotherham MB A Non-parished Area Wales CP Ward Kiveton Park Ward

11 71 Derbyshire County South Yorkshire County \ B North East Derbyshire District Rotherham MB Kil lamarsh West Ward Wales CP Killamarsh ED Kiveton Park Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

.MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Orgreave CP Handsworth Ward Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward 18 City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Aston Cum Aughton CP Handsworth Ward Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Orgreave CP Handsworth Ward Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward 19 Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Orgreave CP Non-parished Area Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward Handsworth Ward Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Orgreave CP Non-parished Area Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward Ward 20 City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Orgreave CP Darnall Ward Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward

Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Catcliffe CP Non-parished Area BMnsworth, Catcl if fe and Darnall Ward Treeton Ward 21 City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Catcliffe CP Darnall Ward Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Treeton Ward

Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Brirfsworth CP Non-parished Area Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Darnall Ward Treeton Ward 22 Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Catcliffe CP Non-parished Area Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Darnall Ward Treeton Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Brinsworth CP Non-parished Area Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Darnall Ward Treeton Ward Rotherham MB City of Sheffield D F Catcliffe CP Non-parished Area Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Darnall Ward Treeton Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB 23 C E Non-parished Area Catcliffe CP Darnall Ward Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Treeton Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Orgreave CP Darnall Ward Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Orgreave CP Non-parished Area Aston, Orgreave and Ulley Ward Darnall Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB A C Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Darnall Ward Boston Ward 24 Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Boston Ward Darnall Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Darnall Ward Boston Ward 25 Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Boston Ward Darnall Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Darnall Ward Boston ward 26 Rotherham MB City of Sheffield Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Boston Ward Darnall Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM: TO: Rotherham MB City of Sheffield 27 A Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Kimberworth Ward Darnall Ward Rotherham MB City of Sheffield A Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Kimberworth Ward Darnall Ward 9ft Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Kimberworth Ward BMghtside Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB A Ecclesfield CP Non-parished Area South Wortley Ward Thorpe Hesley Ward Rotherham MB City of Sheffield B Non-parished Area Non-parished Area Kimberworth Ward Brightside Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB A Ecclesfield CP Non-parished Area South Wortley Ward Thorpe Hesley Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB 30 B Ecclesfield CP Non-parished Area Chapel Green Ward Thorpe Hesley Ward City of Sheffield Rotherham MB C Ecclesfield CP Wentworth CP Chapel Green Ward Brampton, Melton and Wentworth Ward ANNEX C

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROTHERHAM AND DONCASTER, CITY OF SHEFFIELD, THE DISTRICT OF BASSETLAW IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND THE DISTRICTS OF BOLSOVER AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE IN DERBYSHIRE

Boundary between Rotherham and Doncaster

Mexborough Curve Realignment of Map 1 boundary to eastern embankment of the Mexborough Curve. Fox Well to Hill Top Realignment of Map 2 boundary to unite property and its grounds in Doncaster and follow an identifiable line. Firsby Lane Realignment of Map 3 and 4 boundary to western side of Firsby Lane and uniting Toll Bar House in Doncaster.

Braithwell Common to Realignment of Maps 5,6 and 7 Scotch Spring Lane boundary between Stainton Lane north of Grange Quarter to junction of Scotch Spring Lane and Tickhill Road. Realign boundary to Common Lane and Hellaby Lane. Scotch Spring Lane to Realignment of Maps 7 and 8 Saridbeck Lane boundary to transfer area encompassed by Tickhi 11 Road and Sandbeck tane to Rotherham.

North Walk Minor realignment of Map 9 boundary. River Torne Realignment of Map 10 boundary to the current course of the River Torne. The Boundary between Rotherham and Bassetlaw

River Tome to Maltby Realignment of Map 10 Road boundary to track and field boundaries to the west of Oldcotes Village. The Rotherham Realignment of Map 10 Doncaster Bassetlaw boundary to the north Boundary side of Styrrup Lane. Haven Hill Realignment of Map 10 boundary to Haven Hill. Dyscarr Wood to Realignment of Map 11 Langold Lake boundary along wallingwells Lane Owday Lane Realignment of Map 12 boundary to Owday Lane. Gatef ord to Shire Oak Realignment of Map 14 boundary to stronger physical features. Doncaster-Bassetlaw Realignment of Map 14 Bolsover Boundary boundary to north side of Dumb Hall Lane.

The Boundary between Rotherham and Bolsover Shire Oak to Winney Realignment of Maps 13 and 14 Lane boundary along Bondhay Dyke. Pebley Reservoir Realignment of Map 15 boundary to reservoir bank. Woodall Coioiaon Realignment of Map 15 boundary to Mansfield Road. The Boundary between Rotherham and North East Derbyshire

County Dyke Realignment of Map 16 boundary to County Dyke

Killamarsh Pond Realignment of Map 16 boundary to unite Killamarsh Pond in North East Derbyshire

The Boundary between Rotherham and Sheffield

Rother Valley County Realignment of Map 17 Park boundary to eastern side of Rotherham- Chesterfield railway line.

Retford Road to Realignment of Maps 18-20 and 23 Sheffield Parkway boundary to Sheffield Parkway from new Airport Slip Road westwards as far as the Worksop-Sheffield railway then southwards following the western side of the railway as far as Retford Road then east along Retford Road to meet the existing boundary. Sheffield Parkway to Realignment of Map 21 - 23 Ml Motorway boundary to newly completed airport link road. Wood Lane to Meadow Minor realignment of Map 24-28 Hall boundary where anomalies occur.

Meadow Hall to Hood Realignment of Map 28 - 30 Hill boundary to eastern side of Ml Motorway to unite Thorpe Hesley in Rotherham.