Town and parish council submissions to the Durham County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 34 submissions from town and parish councils in .

Some versions of Adobe Acrobat allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

From: Marion Wilson Sent: 21 July 2011 14:28 To: Reviews@ Subject: Co. Durham Boundary Changes/ Bearpark

RE: CO.DURHAM BOUNDARY CHANGES.

BEARPARK

Dear Sir,

Bearpark Parish Council would welcome a change in the electoral arrangements whereby Bearpark would be incorporated into the Deerness Ward as local amenities and services (such as schools and bus routes) and strong community links are shared by residents within the electoral division.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs. Marion Wilson

Chair

Bearpark Parish Council

From: JOHN IRVINE Sent: 04 July 2011 00:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: Suggested boundary changes-, Co Durham

Hello,

I have been asked to write on behalf of Fishburn Parish Council, but I also write as a resident of Fishburn myself, to object strongly to the proposals that link Fishburn in with as opposed to the Trimdons.

In the first draft of proposed changes, no suggestion was made that Fishburn would be affected. As a result of and West wanting change, Fishburn suddenly gets moved, as it has on several occasions in the past. Fishburn people are generally unaware that this change is about to happen, and I notice no-one from Fishburn commented on the first or second draft of proposals. This is probably because the amount of publicity in the village has been negligible, and I myself received no notification whatsoever about the second draft proposal, either by e-mail or letter, hence no comment from the Parish Council before now.

Fishburn people associate themselves with the Trimdons, as they generally feel they have more in common with them than with Sedgefield. Many of the residents of Fishburn are from and still have family there. Fishburn is the 'poor' neighbour when it is compared with Sedgefield in terms of housing, shops and community groups. We have been extremely well represented by our councillors from Trimdon in the past 3 or 4 years and would like this situation to continue. To see that Ludworth is linked with Trimdon and we are not makes very little sense in terms of the distance between the villages. We are about 1 and a half miles from Trimdon Village and nearly 3 from Sedgefield. Ludworth is about 5 or 6 miles the other side of Trimdon.

On a second point, we notice that the Sedgefield Parliamentary constituency could be dissolved, and Fishburn could find itself in with Stockton North, which is not even in the same county!!

Fishburn people always think that this village is the last to be considered for anything, and moves like those proposed just go to show that we are a moveable commodity that can be shifted to suit others. This is just not good enough, and I urge you to reconsider. At the very least you should have publicised these proposals more and taken the opportunity to seek more views. Fishburn has only recently published its first newsletter, which was distributed before this news had a chance to go in. I can imagine that there would be many more people objecting if they knew what was about to happen.

John F Irvine Parish Clerk Fishburn Parish Council

From: Lucy Stephenson Sent: 27 July 2011 20:28 To: Reviews@ Subject: Review of Boundaries in County Durham - Parish Council

Dear Sir / Madam,

Following debate at a recent Parish Council meeting, Members were pleased to learn that there were no proposed changes to the boundaries or County Council representation of the Lanchester Division of which Healeyfield Parish Council and Castleside form part of. Therefore I would be most grateful if you would please accept this email as formal acknowledgement of the Parish Council's agreement to the 'no change' proposal for this area. The Parish Council feel that the present boundary as it exists takes care of the interests of the communities in which our two local County Councillors represent, both of which have our communities interests high on their agenda.

Kindest Regards

Lucy Stephenson Clerk to Healeyfield Parish Council.

From: Mickleton Pc Sent: 29 July 2011 13:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

Dear Sirs

BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS FOR DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL DIVISIONAL (WARD) BOUNDARIES

With reference to the Boundary Commissions recommendations for Durham County Council, Mickleton Parish Council agrees with the draft recommendations for East and West for Durham County Council's proposal for two twomember divisions with an East/West split of Teesdale at Barnard Castle.

Yours faithfully Mickleton Parish Council

Northh Lodge o e ParishPa s Council ou Clerk: Mr D Murrell,

e-mail: [email protected] 19th July 2011

Durham County Council Electoral Boundary Review North Lodge Parish Council [NLPC] response to the Local Government of Boundary Commission [LGBCE] Further Draft Recommendations for Chester-le-Street.

After appropriate consideration at its June and July meetings, North Lodge Parish Council resolved to support the Commission’s further draft recommendations for the formation of the three single-councillor electoral divisions of Chester-le-Street East, Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge, except in that NLPC proposes that Northlands, with its electorate of 119 [2011 figure] should be transferred from North Lodge ED to Chester-le-Street North ED, thus acknowledging Northlands’ integral position and community links within Polling Division NDLA and retaining Northlands’ community links with South Pelaw in Polling Division NDLB.

The reasons and evidence for the proposed transfer of Northlands to Chester-le-Street North ED are:

1. Electoral Equality The following is evidence that the transfer of Northlands’ electorate of 119 (2011) to Chester-le-Street North ED from North Lodge ED distinctly improves electoral equality in making Chester-le-Street North ED and North Lodge ED each within 1% variance from the Durham County average number of electors by 2016.

Position with Northlands electorate of 119 transferred to Chester-le-Street North ED from North Lodge ED Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate electors per from Electorate electors per from Division Name councillors (2011) councillor average % (2016) councillor average % Chester-le- 15 Street North 1 3225 3225 0% 3294 3294 1%

41 North Lodge 1 2985 2985 -8% 3237 3237 -1%

2. Community Links The following extract from the “euVue Chester-le-Street” website is evidence that: • Residents of the major housing development extension to Highfield Rise, carried out by Miller Homes on the former Highfield Hospital site, have an abiding community interest in the new Northlands play area, through the Section 106 funding of £33,000 for the public artwork. • Residents in the South Pelaw area, in which the two schools mentioned sit side by side, have an abiding community interest in the new Northlands play area. • Residents of Northlands, with some of its housing shown in the background to the photograph, have an abiding community interest in the new Northlands play area.

From www.euvuechester-le-street.co.uk/ ______

Throwing a party for playtime in Chester-le-Street (4 July 2011)

Chester-le-Street’s Roman past is helping put the fun back into playtime at the new Northlands play area. The revamped facility now incorporates 16 giant dice carved from stone boulders to represent Roman dice, reflecting the history of the town and the theme of play. Vice chair of Durham County Council, Linda Marshall, joined youngsters and local residents to celebrate the completion of the public artwork created by North East artist Andrew Mckeown,

To help the party go with a swing there was a musical performance by Black Bottom Brass, a seven-piece brass band from Japan visiting County Durham as part of Durham County Council’s international festival – BRASS.

Artist Andrew began work on the project last year, running design workshops with pupils at South Pelaw Infant School and Chester-le-Street Junior School followed by a series of consultation events with local residents.

He said: “After visiting the Northlands site and consulting with the local community, I felt that a large number of smaller, randomly-placed sculptures would work better than one large sculpture in the middle of the playing field.

“The dice are designed to look old and worn, like those that would have been used in games played by Roman soldiers stationed at Congangis or passing through on their way to Hadrian’s Wall.

“Their informal arrangement spread over the play area is intended as a kind of visual pun to invoke the impression of the sculptures having been cast into position as if they had been rolled.”

The project, which has cost a total of £33,000, has been paid for by Miller Homes, which set the money aside as a condition of planning permission for a housing development on the former Highfield Hospital site.

______

It follows from the above evidence that Northlands is best transferred to Chester- le-Street North ED so that community links through the Northlands play area are preserved with respect to Highfield Rise and South Pelaw in particular.

-----Original Message----- From: Alan Wake Sent: 25 June 2011 21:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham electoral review

Re: consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to express my dismay that Ouston has been absorbed into a district entitled "Pelton ED". I and the council wish to support Cllr Colin Carr's suggestion that the district instead be named "Beamish ED" which is a badge the electors of Ouston can wear with pride.

Best regards,

Alan Wake, Chair Ouston Parish Council

From: Mike Sekowski Sent: 28 July 2011 15:57 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: REVIEW OF COUNTY DURHAM - FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Madam

Pelton Parish Council do not have any objection to the proposed changes to the Pelton/North Lodge Division boundaries. However, they do object to the proposed name of "Beamish Division" as proposed by Parish Council. It is acknowledged that Urpeth PC suggested the proposed name as a neutral name that would not give prominence to either of the main settlements of Pelton, Ouston or Urpeth. However, Pelton PC considers the name "Beamish" to be wholly inapproriate for the new Division because:-

- Beamish is a small village in the context of the area as a whole and most people in the Division would not identify with it, particularly as that village is geographically located on the western fringes of the area.

- Beamish is a relatively affluent area and does not typify the socio-economic characteristics of the area as a whole. It is considered that using this name would be detrimental when the Parish Council or other organisations within the Division applies for grants, for example.

- Using the name of any settlement could be construed as giving preference to that settlement and could have the detrimental effect of organisations ( such as schools, churches etc), and a whole host of agencies relating to that settlement rather than the Division as a whole.

The area is semi-rural in nature and indeed formed part of the former Chester-le-Street Rural District Council's area. Accordingly, Pelton Parish Council suggest that the new Division be given the name of

"CHESTER-LE-STREET NORTH-WEST RURAL DIVISION. They consider that this reflects the geographical location of the Division and the inclusion of the word "Rural" would help preserve the distinctive local history of the area. please would you acknowledge receipt of these representations.

Yours faithfully, Mike Sekowski Clerk to Pelton Parish Council

From: Kathryn Towler Sent: 29 July 2011 13:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

Dear Sirs

BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS FOR DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL DIVISIONAL (WARD) BOUNDARIES

With reference to the Boundary Commissions recommendations for Durham County Council, we agree with the draft recommendations for Barnard Castle East and West for Durham County Council's proposal for two two member divisions with an East/West split of Teesdale at Barnard Castle.

Yours faithfully PARISH COUNCIL

From: Gavin Clark Sent: 22 July 2011 11:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of County Durham

Dear Sir or Madam

ELECTORAL REVIEW - PARISH

At the Parish Council meeting held on Tuesday 19 July 2011 the 7 Councillors of Satley Parish Council (Polling District NWDOE (CE) Electorate 242 ) voted unanimously to join Esh and Electoral Division to be included with Witton Gilbert, Esh, Willow Park, Langley Park East, Langley Park West, Ushaw, Quebec, , and Cornsay Colliery.

The proposed total electorate would therefore be 6,439.

Yours sincerely

Gavin Clark Parish Clerk

From: Lesley Swinbank (Sedgefield Town Council) Sent: 20 June 2011 11:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: New electoral Arrangements for Durham

Dear Colleague

Sedgefield Town Council has considered the draft recommendations for Durham County and in particular feel that the alternative option of a 2 member Sedgefield division which includes Fishburn is appropriate.

Regards Lesley Swinbank

Lesley K. Swinbank Town Clerk

From: TC - Mick Waterson Sent: 17 June 2011 11:23 To: Reviews@ Subject: New electoral arrangements for Durham County Council

Dear Sirs

The latest draft recommendations for the above were considered by the Resources Committee of the Town Council at is meeting held on 13th June 2011 and it was recommended that the proposal for a single three member electoral division for Shildon and be supported.

Mick Waterson

From: Russell Morgan Sent: 26 July 2011 14:25 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Cc: Subject: Durham CC Boundary Review

Dear Jessica, Further to my previous email (below) Sent: 16 July 2011 13:30, please note that the matter was discussed at the ‘Ordinary’ meeting of Stanley Town Council dated the 12th July 2011.

Whilst I hope a full extract of the relevant section of the resultant (draft) Minutes is of interest and assistance – see below – I can confirm that the process detailed at RESOLUTION 9.5.2 has been concluded, and as a consequence, the Town Council has no further comment to make regarding the LGRC recommendations, as written in the most recent related report titled “Durham CC Boundary Review”. However, given the contents of (draft) Minute 9.5.1, it may be worth re‐visiting matters for your own records and ‘belt ‘n’ braces’ etc. ______Extract from 12/7/11 reads as follow: 9. Local Government Boundary Review – Recommended Changes to Stanley Hall and Craghead & South Stanley Wards

9.1. At the invitation of the Chair, the Clerk referred those present to a “Document J, Item 9 of 12/7/11” consisting of three (3) pages which had been pre-circulated within the meeting papers. The document was a ‘hard’ copy of an email (14.42 hrs of the 27th June 2011) from J. Metheringham-Owlett (i.e. Review Officer, Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) for England), regarding the affect of the “Durham CC Boundary Review” on the (Town) Council.

9.2. As alluded to in the document, the review proposed to retain an overall complement of twenty (20) town councillors representing seven (7) town council wards.

9.3. However, due to the review’s recommendation that slight changes ought to be made to the boundaries of some of the four (4) unitary Council electoral divisions that cover the Town Council’s designated area, and the convention that parish/town council wards to not span principal authority ward boundaries, it was also being recommended that simultaneous changes be made to two (2) of the Town Council’s wards.

9.4. The proposed changes entailed the reduction of the number of Town Councillors representing the Craghead & South Stanley ward by one (1) from three (3) to two (2), and; a corresponding increase of Town Councillors representing the adjoining Stanley Hall ward by one (1) from three (3) to four (4). Accordingly, for information and courtesy purposes, the Clerk had already circulated all correspondence regarding this matter to the six (6) sitting Members for the wards concerned.

9.5. The LGBC’s position is that with the aforesaid changes, the convention of parish/town and principal council ward boundary alignment would be maintained.

9.5.1 However, Cllr Walker and others suspected that this convention ceased to apply several years ago in the case of, for example, the Havannah and Tanfield Town Council versus the Tanfield unitary Council ward/electoral division boundaries.

9.5.2 Given the question-mark over the above; the invitation within the document for the (Town) Council “to suggest a different pattern of town council wards”, and; in light of the fact that the deadline for responses was the 2nd August 2011 (i.e. a week before the next Ordinary meeting), it was RESOLVED that: - 9.5.2.1 The Clerk be instructed to Circulate the web-link/s to the Boundary Review document/s to all Members as soon as possible; 9.5.2.2 That any Member/s wishing to comment, do so by means of an email to the Clerk by no later than 12.00 hrs on Friday the 22nd July 2011; 9.5.2.3 That after the stated deadline the Clerk reviews any/all comments and: 9.5.2.3.1 If able to find a consensus/collective position, is delegated with the authority to set out the (Town) Council’s position to the LGBC, or conversely; 9.5.2.3.2 If unable to discern a consensus/collective position, bring the matter back before a subsequent ordinary meeting for further discussion.

End of extract from 12/7/11.

Kind regards.

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Sent: 13 July 2011 10:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: electoral review in county durham

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red dear sir proposal for electoral division 56 trimdon and thornley the parish council has considered your proposal for this division and is of the opinion that ludworth and haswell plough have much greater and stronger affiliations with sherburn and shotton.

it is therefore proposed that these communities should be transferred to those elctoral divisions.

my council beleives that this proposal will not in any way affect the representation figures and at the sam etime provide better and more apprpriate representation for both those communities.

yours faithfully

les oliver clerk to trimdon parish council

1

From: Paul Turnbull Sent: 20 July 2011 19:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Ward changes in Crook, Co Durham

I live at and the planned changes to council wards would place me in ward. I live 0.8 miles from Crook town centre and having lived all of my life in Crook and use Crook for almost all of my needs. The change of ward to Tow Law would group me with a community 4.1 miles from my home with which I have no connection whatsoever. The new boundary would remove many people who like me regard themselves as Crook people in a ward where the local councillor would have to try to represent two totally different communities which have no natural connection.

Crook residents must be represented by councillors with a responsibility for Crook, please use common sense and keep my area in a Crook ward and not change boundaries to fit a numerical model that may give equality in numbers but makes no sense to the people who live there.

Paul Turnbull