APPENDIX 1

DURHAM UNITARY AUTHORITY ELECTORAL REVIEW

STAGE 1 - COUNCIL SIZE

SUBMISSION BY DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

Background to the Review

1. In December 2007 the Government accepted the County Council's Proposal for a future unitary local government structure for County Durham. The County Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008 implements that proposal with effect from 1 April, 2009 by providing that, as from that date, the County Council will be the sole principal authority for County Durham.

2. In the Proposal, the Council’s initial suggestion was that an authority of between 90 and 110 councillors representing electoral divisions in the region of 4,000 electors would be in order .

3. The Council acknowledged that the Electoral Commission would need to determine an appropriate level of future representation in the County. However, in the expectation that the Commission might not be in a position to undertake such a review before the new unitary authority was established, it was suggested that the new council could operate on the basis of two councillors per existing County electoral division. This would provide a phased transition based on a geography which electors had generally become familiar with since the last major reorganisation in 1974.

4. On 17 January 2008 the Electoral Commission formally directed the Boundary Committee for England to undertake an electoral review of the proposed new unitary authority for County Durham. The Boundary Committee for England formally announced the start of the Durham Unitary Authority Electoral Review on 15 July 2008.

5. Stage 1 of the Review invites submissions of views on what might be the most appropriate number of councillors for the Unitary Authority.

The Council's Approach to Stage 1

6. The Boundary Committee’s guidance emphasises the following key factors in relation to future Council size:

• effective and efficient governance arrangements;

• electoral equality; and

REVIEW/WMC18 7 • effective community representation, engagement and empowerment.

7. Against this background, the Council has carefully assessed all the various councillor roles and resultant workloads expected within the new Unitary Authority and has used the resulting information to inform its consideration of optimum council size.

8. As part of these deliberations, in addition to the Boundary Committee's own key factors listed in Paragraph 6 above, the Council has also taken account of the following matters:

• the significant additional demands that will be placed on councillors with the transfer of the current District Council functions;

• the need to reflect the unique nature of County Durham's settlement pattern, demography and socio-economic profile;

• the need to secure stability in the early years of the new Authority;

• the need to be in a position to embrace all of the additional expectations being placed on local authorities and their councillors by Government;

• the significant overall reduction in elected representation that will be experienced in the County when the District Councils cease to exist;

• the need to effectively represent the Unitary Authority and through it the County on a wide range of local, regional and national organisations; and

• the ability to work effectively with partner organisations such as Parish and Town Councils, Fire and Police, Health Authorities and the Business, Community and Voluntary Sectors.

9. The Council will be one of a small number of flagship unitary authorities created in this round of local government reorganisation. The expectations are high, both from central government, stakeholders and communities. It is critical to ensure that there is adequate Councillor capacity to meet these expectations.

County Durham's Settlement Geography and Socio Economic Conditions

10. The transition to unitary local government will result in the creation of a very large authority, both in terms of electorate/population and area. This needs to be reflected in the size of the new council.

11. County Durham covers an area of 222,600 hectares and has a unique settlement pattern, unlike any other shire. In total, there are 264 identifiable settlements within the County.

REVIEW/WMC18 8 12. In terms of both settlement pattern and socio-economic conditions, the County's most similar comparators tend to be the South Wales Valleys, for example, Rhondda, Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent.

13. Within these considerations, it is instructive to examine the elector/member ratios that are currently operational within these Welsh unitaries.

Authority Pop. Electors No. of Electors Members per Member Rhondda, Cynon, Taff 69,300 53,299 42 1,269 Merthyr Tydfil 55,500 42,764 33 1,296 Blaenau Gwent 233,900 172,826 75 2,304

14. In contrast, County Durham's population and electorate (500,096 and 394,940 respectively in 2008) suggests that a council size well in excess of 100 Members will be necessary to deliver effective representation in an area affected by the combined issues of sparsity and deprivation.

15. The Maps attached at Appendices 1 and 2 illustrate the rural/urban classifications within the County and the measure of deprivation.

16. Some 44% of adult residents of the County live in areas which could be classified as being rural. Whilst equality of representation in terms of elector to Member ratio is important, so too is the electorate's equality of access to political representation. Accordingly, the County’s rurality should have a significant bearing in the determination of council size.

17. Appendix 2 demonstrates that many parts of the County have high levels of deprivation. Approximately 45% of the population live in areas which are judged amongst the 30 per cent most deprived nationally. The following chart illustrates that County Durham is by some measure the most deprived shire county.

REVIEW/WMC18 9 ID2007 overall scores for the shire counties

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15 ID2007 score ID2007

0.10

0.05

0.00 Durham Lancashire Cumbria Northumberland Nottinghamshire CornwallandIslesScillyof Derbyshire EastSussex Norfolk Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Cheshire Kent Worcestershire Staffordshire Suffolk Gloucestershire Warwickshire Essex Somerset Devon Bedfordshire NorthYorkshire Dorset WestSussex Oxfordshire Hampshire Shropshire Cambridgeshire Hertfordshire Leicestershire Wiltshire Buckinghamshire Surrey

18. Whilst the County Council and its partners have made great strides in recent years to improve its socio economic conditions, it is inevitable that there will be more demands for services placed upon the new unitary council and its elected representatives than in many other parts of the country where such levels of deprivation do not exist.

Governance Structure

19. The new Unitary Authority's governance structure is under development. Relevant factors likely to impact on the new structure are as follows:

Full Council

Full Council will remain at the centre of corporate governance, responsible for overall strategic direction, setting the policy framework, approving priorities and budgets. The Council meeting also provides the forum where all councillors come together to debate and determine these key issues.

Full Council meetings provide an opportunity for the public and organisations to engage directly in the democratic process and for the Council to be visible and accountable for its actions. There is a reasonable expectation that the new Council will increase the present frequency of meetings with a consequential impact on councillor workload.

REVIEW/WMC18 10 Cabinet

The Council's Interim Governance Structure provides for a Cabinet of 10 councillors (including the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council) together with up to 10 additional councillors providing essential support to portfolio holders.

Current District Council functions such as Housing Strategy, Environmental Health and Leisure will inevitably impact further on Cabinet workloads.

Regulatory Committees

The most significant change for the Regulatory Committees will be to assume current District Council responsibilities for local planning and licensing.

Between the seven District Councils in the County, there were in 2007/08 a total of 128 Planning and 60 Licensing Committee meetings dealing with in total some 3,190 applications and other items of business. Whilst inevitably there will be some degree of rationalisation within the unitary authority, the implications of absorbing this additional Member workload are considerable.

Overview and Scrutiny

Overview and Scrutiny presents a developing picture to reflect its changing and enhanced role, set within a partnership framework.

The Council believes that one size does not fill all in this context and Overview and Scrutiny will establish arrangements that not only deal with strategic, county-wide issues but also respond to the diversity of our area, reflecting communities in coastal, urban and rural areas with a variety of socio-economic problems linked to poor health, crime and so on. The Council is very keen to make sure that the excellent local scrutiny projects already in place will continue in the future.

The recent White Paper "Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power" confirms that Overview and Scrutiny will have an enhanced role as a vehicle for involving local people in addressing issues that affect their lives. An example of this will be responding to Councillor Calls for Action. Overview and Scrutiny is well placed to consider appeals when petitioners are not satisfied with the local authority response.

There are currently about 280 Members undertaking the Overview and Scrutiny role across the eight local authorities in County Durham. The new Unitary Authority needs to maintain this level of commitment from what will be a much smaller Member cohort.

REVIEW/WMC18 11 Standards Committee

In addition to its new responsibilities for local assessment of Member conduct complaints, this Council Body will assume the role of Standards Committee for all of the County's Parish and Town Councils (currently 108). In 2007/08, Parish Members nationally accounted for 50% of the allegations referred by the Standards Board for England for investigation.

Whilst at present not all of the County is parished, (see paragraph 34) the Council has a long standing policy of encouraging and supporting the parishing of unparished areas and as this policy is brought to fruition through future community governance reviews, the resulting workload increase for the Council’s Standards Committee will be considerable. The size and composition of the Committee will need to be reviewed to make sure it has the capacity to effectively handle these functions.

Local Area Arrangements

In the Unitary Structure Proposal, we envisaged introducing structures aligned to the principal natural communities of the County to provide a positive opportunity to directly involve local communities in shaping the way that the new council works from the outset through the creation of Area Action Partnerships (AAPs).

Local people are presently being consulted on how many AAP’s are needed, which areas they might serve and their detailed role and functions.

Whatever, the final outcome, Unitary Council Members will be expected to play an active and high profile role in these new arrangements.

The Unitary Council might also wish to develop in due course some form of Area Regulatory Committee Structure.

Member Roles and Workloads in General

20. The Council's governance represents only one aspect of Member roles and workloads. Attached at Appendix 3 are the current Member Role Descriptions embodied in the Council's Interim Constitution. Whilst these will need to be reviewed for the Unitary Authority they do provide an important reference point in assessing Member workloads.

21. There will inevitably be a significant growth in enquiries, requests for assistance etc. from the public to individual Members in relation to functions/services currently provided by the District Councils.

REVIEW/WMC18 12 22. A snapshot amongst the current eight authorities reveals that on average Members spend 18 hours per week on this constituency caseload . This will increase for Unitary Members from 1 April 2009.

23. The notion of community champion heralded in the Local Government White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities” will place yet further expectations on Members.

24. The more recent White Paper announces further policy developments which will inevitably impact on the role and workload of Members: a duty to promote democracy, a duty to involve, petitions, councillor calls for action, and engaging with and empowering citizens.

25. There will be an increasing need for all councillors to be aware of and play into the role of partnerships as it is through this form of governance that a great deal of the new place-shaping agenda will be expected to be delivered.

26. As well as a significant role for Unitary Council Members in the final configuration and remit of our Area Action Partnerships, we also anticipate Members devoting considerable time to leading/facilitating community involvement at neighbourhood level.

27. The Council appoints Member representatives to a wide range of local, regional and national organisations. In many respects, the same is true for the present District Councils.

28. Between the 8 authorities, we currently make almost 900 Member appointments to over 500 organisations.

29. Whilst there will be some degree of rationalisation of this position within the new council, we must not underestimate the scale of this issue in terms of the demands it makes on Members' time/capacity or its importance for the Council's community leadership role.

30. Often overlooked in these types of exercise are the less formal networking/liaison arrangements that take place between locally elected representatives and a wide range of local organisations such as parish and town councils, community groups and residents associations.

31. Elected Members remain a key source of both recruitment and support for school governing bodies.

32. Much has been made in recent years, evidenced again in the report from the Councillors Commission, of the importance of attracting and retaining councillors from all backgrounds and age groups and providing them with a reasonable work-life balance. These objectives will not be achieved if there are insufficient Members to effectively carry the workload involved.

REVIEW/WMC18 13 Democratic Deficit

33. At present in the County there are 312 District Councillors and 126 County Councillors.

34. The reduction from the present 438 principal authority councillors to whatever figure is finally determined for the Unitary Council will be significant.

35. Whilst almost 94% of the County is parished, this covers only 77% of the population at present. For the remainder, at least for now, the Unitary Authority councillor will be their only locally elected representative. This factor is also relevant in terms of Member workloads.

Electorates, Population and Member/Elector Ratios

36. Appendix 4 details previous (to 2001), current and predicted (to 2013) electorate and population figures for the County. Our own population projections are a little more cautious than those produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). This might in part at least be a reflection of the different methodologies used. However, we are confident in the robustness of our own statistics which are based on many years of local analysis.

37. These figures illustrate a stable/modestly increasing position for both the electorate and the population overall.

38. For illustrative purposes only at this stage, the Council’s current size, i.e. 126 Members, produces a member/elector ratio of 1:3,134 based on the 2008 electorate and on the 2013 electorate projection this would increase to 1:3,187.

39. These ratios are in stark contrast to those referenced in Paragraph 13. In addition, the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations in Shropshire propose a Unitary Council with a ratio of 1:3,121.

Single/Multi-Member Divisions

40. The County Council’s Unitary proposal initially suggested single Member divisions as the basis of a new electoral scheme.

41. Having considered this issue in greater depth, there are now varying views within the Council between single and multi-Member divisions. Against this background, the Council will determine its final position on this particular issue when making its submission at Stage 3 of the Review (Electoral Arrangements).

REVIEW/WMC18 14 Consultation

42. The County Council has undertaken a major consultation exercise to seek peoples’ views on its future local area arrangements. Included in that consultation was a specific question about what people might consider to be the most appropriate number of councillors for the Durham Unitary Authority.

43. The majority of respondents who expressed a view were keen to at least maintain the current number of councillors, with a large proportion of people saying that this should be increased. Some of the comments included:

• Fewer councillors would struggle to adequately represent the communities they serve. (Real concerns over the workloads councillors are having to take on). • More councillors are needed to adequately represent communities in the large rural areas of County Durham. • Should maintain the current number of councillors but in single wards. • More collective working between Councillors is necessary. • Councillors need to be accessible to people so there should be no reduction in numbers. • Numbers should be decided on by need not by cost. • One size does not fit all and mix and match approach is needed as some areas may be alright with single member representation but others may need more than one councillor. • Distances between communities in large rural areas need to be considered. • The fewer councillors there are the greater the workload. This would better suit retired people and could be a barrier to encouraging younger people to become councillors.

• Do not need less as the numbers of councillors will substantially reduce come 1 April 2009. People are concerned about adequate representation and the loss of experience from existing councillors. (What happens if a councillor is ill or on holiday?).

44. In contrast, minority views were expressed which included the desire for less councillors, in part to save money, the need to look at proportional representation and a preference for single member divisions.

45. Consultation has also taken place on the issue of council size with the Borough/District Councils in the County, the Parish and Town Councils via the County Association and the Fire and Police Authorities.

46. The Borough/District Council’s have endorsed our expressed view on council size.

47. The Durham Association of Local Councils (Parish and Town Councils) have indicated that the council size should be increased to 189, on the REVIEW/WMC18 15 grounds of the additional demands that will be placed on the Unitary Authority and the need for effective representation.

48. The Chairman of Durham Police Authority has endorsed our expressed view on council size and indicated that 126 is the minimum council size required for a fit for purpose new Unitary Authority whilst meeting the interests of Durham Police Authority.

49. The County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority have yet to formally respond and their comments will be forwarded in due course.

50. The Council will share its views at a forthcoming meeting with County Members of the House of Lords and Members of Parliament.

Conclusion

51. Notwithstanding the lack of clarity at this moment in time around the Council’s new governance structure (including any new area arrangements) this submission demonstrates the very considerable demands that will be placed upon Members from April, 2009. As such, the Council is of the view that its present size, i.e. 126 Members, is the minimum requirement for a ‘fit for purpose’ unitary authority for County Durham.

52. The Council will reserve its judgement on a final figure until it assesses the best fit with the new electoral divisions when these are developed in the next stage of the Review.

REVIEW/WMC18 16 The National Rural-Urban classification for County Durham at the SOA level (Categories 1 and 2 do not occur in the County)

3 : Village and Hamlet - very sparse 4 : Urban - attached to settlements > 10k population 5 : Town and fringe areas - less sparse 6 : Village and hamlet - less sparse

Produced by CR&I/CEO

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey large scale digital mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings - Durham County Council LA 100019779 2008 1 1 Rural - Urban Classification: Non-Urban areas in County Durham mapped against Multiple-deprivation

Non-urban SOAs SOAs ranked within the 30% most needy SOAs nationally Urban SOAs

Produced by CR&I/CEO

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey large scale digital mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings - Durham County Council LA 100019779 2008 REVIEW/WMC18 2 1 How the electorate is predicted to change in number within County Durham over the period 2008-2013

DCC 2006-based population projection ONS 2006-based population projection DCC 2007-based electoral projection Year Number Change on 2008 % change Number Change on 2008 % change Number Change on 2008 % change

2001 493,472 - - 493,500 - - 390,119 - - 2002 493,888 - - 493,600 - - 390,396 - - 2003 492,790 - - 494,600 - - 391,448 - - 2004 493,326 - - 496,100 - - 391,515 - - 2005 490,411 - - 498,400 - - 392,542 - - 2006 497,780 - - 500,700 - - 390,834 - - 2007 497,712 - - 502,500 - - 397,223 - - 2008 500,096 - - 504,700 - - 394,111 - - **2008 ------394,940 - - 2009 501,414 1,318 0.26 506,900 2,200 0.44 397,609 2,669 0.68 2010 502,566 2,470 0.49 509,300 4,600 0.91 398,841 3,901 0.99 2011 503,436 3,340 0.67 511,600 6,900 1.37 399,765 4,825 1.22 2012 504,532 4,436 0.89 513,900 9,200 1.82 400,615 5,675 1.44 2013 505,278 5,182 1.04 516,200 11,500 2.28 401,525 6,585 1.67

** The annual electoral figures ares date referenced as the 1st January each year, but for 2008 the district EROs have also supplied a figure for end of June.

1 1 MEMBER ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

Frontline Councillor

Community leadership roles

As the democratically mandated local community leader, Frontline Councillors will engage different communities and bring local interests together to help resolve issues and shape future provision. In particular they will:

• be recognised as a local community champion and leader for the area, helping to provide direction, resolve local concerns and reconcile competing views and interests;

• encourage the involvement of local people in policy development, service planning and decision-making;

• be key members of any future action partnership;

• be responsible for the spending of budgets devolved for dealing with local matters and targeting resources effectively;

• promote effective relationships with public, private, voluntary and community organisations in their area;

• be the Council’s link with existing town and parish councils and play a key role in supporting local campaigns or groups looking to establish new town and parish councils in their area;

• assist in brokering local agreements such as the local area charter or mini-LAA in which ‘added value’ service provision could be negotiated and agreed with service providers;

• monitor the performance of local public services in their area, hold poor performers to account and help plan improvements to local services;

• promote both the principles and practices of community cohesion, social inclusion and equality and diversity;

• keep in touch with constituents, through regular surgeries, meetings, phone, letter, e- mail and personal contact so as to know and understand their views and concerns;

• speak freely in support of their area in order to influence Council decision-making, including the consideration of issues such as planning and licensing;

• promote and contribute to the Council’s vision for sustainable communities.

1 Corporate roles

As a member of the Full Council, the Frontline Councillor has a significant role to play, for example:

• agreeing the Council’s overall mission, strategic aims, objectives and priorities;

• deciding on revenue and capital budgets and council tax levels;

• agreeing and reviewing the Council’s Constitution;

• appointing committees and sub-committees;

• being involved in appointing the Council’s Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive);

• promoting and preserving the integrity of the Council;

• representing the Council on other bodies;

• making, amending and revoking bylaws;

• making sure the Council meets its obligations as a corporate parent.

Frontline Councillors, will together be a key component in delivering the Council’s regulatory responsibilities for such matters as highways, licensing and planning. In so doing they will:

• act fairly and judiciously;

• act in accordance with all relevant legislation;

• make reasonable decisions based on relevant matters, excluding irrelevant matters;

• ensure that local views and perspectives from area action partnerships and local town and parish councils were brought to the table;

• ensure proceedings were carried out in an open and transparent way.

REVIEW/WMC18 2 As a member of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees, the Frontline Councillor will:

• play a major role in policy development and review;

• question the Executive’s actions, decisions and assess the performance of the Council. Scrutiny members should use performance information to hold the Executive to account, allowing performance to be assessed from the perspective of customers and citizens;

• scrutinise the effectiveness and performance of partnerships e.g. CDRP, and partner organisations e.g. NHS in delivering measurable outcomes within the context of the County Durham Strategic Partnership and Local Area Agreement;

• scrutinise the performance as appropriate of the third sector (voluntary and community) as a service provider;

• respond to community calls for action where required;

• contribute to regional scrutiny arrangements as appropriate, such as NHS, regional agencies

REVIEW/WMC18 3 Executive Councillor

• As a member of the decision-making Executive, an Executive Councillor will be responsible for making key decisions on a wide range of issues which affect and shape quality of life in the County. In particular they will:

• be a publicly recognisable and accountable ‘key decision-maker’ with whom the ‘buck stops’ for Council performance;

• collectively provide strong and fair executive leadership and clear political guidance to other Councillors and Officers;

• develop with partners a clear vision for what County Durham needs and develop policies and take decisions which respond to local peoples’ needs and aspirations;

• take tough and strategically driven decisions on competing priorities;

• champion the vision and interests of the council and the County on the regional and national stage;

• be instrumental in building and nurturing local and thematic partnerships, leading and integrating the County Durham Strategic Partnership and Local Area Agreement Executive Board and related thematic partnerships;

• provide leadership and direction within the Council for designated portfolio areas;

• hold senior officers within the Council to account for the performance of services, allowing performance to be assessed from the perspective of customers and citizens;

• develop the financial and investment strategies to fulfil the Council’s commitments to the sustainable community strategy for the County, working with partners in the public, business, voluntary and community sectors;

• ensure that there is proper support for Frontline Councillors in their various roles, responding to them when they raise issues and ensuring that their local knowledge is brought to bear when developing policy

REVIEW/WMC18 4 Chairman of Council

The Chairman of the Council will:

• provide strong, fair and visible civic and ceremonial leadership to the Council and in relation to citizens, stakeholders and partners.

• attend or be represented at such civic and ceremonial functions as the Council or he/she determines appropriate.

• be an ambassador for the Council and the County, both at home and abroad

• promote public involvement in the Council’s activities.

• uphold and promote the Council’s Constitution and interpret the Constitution when necessary.

• preside over meetings of the Council so that its business can be carried out efficiently and with regard to the rights of Councillors and the interests of the community.

• request such additional meetings of the Council as may be considered necessary or appropriate.

• ensure the Council meeting is a forum for the debate of matters of concern to the local community and a place at which Members who are not on the Executive can hold the Executive to account.

• be consulted on any matter in relation to which consultation with the Chairman of the Council is required under the Constitution.

• determine any matter referred to him/her under the urgency provisions of the Access to Information Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules in the Council’s Constitution.

REVIEW/WMC18 5 Leader of the Council

The Leader of the Council will:

• provide strong, fair and visible political leadership and direction to the Council and in relation to citizens, stakeholders and partners in the co-ordination of Council policies, strategies and service delivery.

• lead the Council's efforts to achieve its Mission for County Durham.

• lead in promoting the aims and core values of the Council.

• lead the development of local, regional, national and European policy and strategic partnerships.

• assume overall responsibility for guiding the development and formulation of corporate priorities and strategic policy direction and for presenting those policies to the Council and the wider community, acting as the principal political spokesperson on corporate and strategic issues.

• provide political guidance to the Chief Executive and the Corporate Management Team on the implementation of the Council's priorities and objectives and revenue and capital budgets.

• appoint Executive Councillors to form a Cabinet.

• chair and manage the business/work programme of the Cabinet, ensure a coordinated and coherent approach is taken to policy development and the delivery of services and also where relevant, and taking into account any advice from the Chief Executive, the Council's Monitoring Officer or Chief Finance Officer, ensure that proposals are made to the County Council for decision within appropriate timescales, and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework of the Council and all legislative and procedural requirements.

• determine the frequency and timing of meetings of the Cabinet and placing items on its agenda as he/she thinks appropriate.

• ensure the development of effective corporate policies reflecting the Council's commitment to continuous improvement and co-ordinate the work of the Cabinet in:

o developing corporate policies and programmes; o delivering high quality services to the people of County Durham; o monitoring performance; o preparing and monitoring revenue and capital budgets; o reviewing the effectiveness of the Council's organisation and management processes; o developing policies to promote the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the County.

REVIEW/WMC18 6 • delegate executive functions to any individual member of the Cabinet and establish protocols for consultation between Cabinet Members and Officers in such circumstances .

• ensure that decisions are taken properly, openly and, where appropriate, publicly and that key decisions are properly programmed and subject to effective public consultation.

• involve local people and communities in the business and activities of the Council as fully as possible.

• encourage scrutiny of the Council's policies and service delivery and the input to policy by all Councillors.

• ensure that Members are treated responsibly and responsively in representing their constituents.

• maintain and promote the highest standards of conduct in the Council's affairs and in the appointment of its staff.

• chair the Chief Officer Appointments Committee

• be consulted on any matter in relation to which consultation with the Leader is required under the Constitution.

• represent the Council at all levels, liaise with government and other relevant agencies where appropriate and act as the principal ambassador for the County Council in advocating and explaining its roles and functions and promoting it as a listening and accessible organisation.

• consider learning and development needs of all Members and arrange suitable briefing and learning opportunities to take place through appropriate mechanisms.

REVIEW/WMC18 7 Chairman of a Committee

Committee Chairmen will:

• provide leadership and direction for the Committee.

• chair and manage the business of the Committee, ensuring effective engagement by all Committee Members.

• request such additional meetings of the Committee as may be considered necessary or appropriate.

• promote the role of the Committee both within and outside the Council.

• represent the Council and the Committee on relevant external bodies as required.

• guide Members through those functions delegated by the Council to the Committee.

• be consulted on matters of business between meetings.

• ensure that the Committee takes balanced decisions based on all relevant evidence, always with impartiality and fairness.

• ensure, where appropriate, that there is full consultation with and participation by all interested parties on issues to be considered by the Committee.

• ensure that Committee decisions are properly recorded with full justifications.

• liaise and consult with relevant officers wherever appropriate.

• consider learning and development needs of Members and arrange suitable briefing and learning opportunities to take place through appropriate mechanisms.

REVIEW/WMC18 8 Vice-Chairman of a Committee

Committee Vice-Chairman will:

• provide a full deputising role in the absence of the Chairman.

• undertake specific tasks and responsibilities as requested by the Chairman.

• share and support in general the full workload range of the Chairman.

• work actively with the Chairman to co-ordinate the work of the Committee.

REVIEW/WMC18 9 Corporate Parenting Panel Members

• to understand, accept and carry out the function of the Corporate Parent as outlined in the DfES guidance “if this were my child”. Specifically:-

o Accept responsibility for children in the care of Durham County Council. o Make their needs a priority. o Seek for them same outcomes any good parent would want for their own children.

• to ask appropriate questions to seek reassurance about the safety and wellbeing of such children.

• to ask questions about how well the County looks after these children through membership of formal systems such as Fostering and Adoption Panels.

• to work with officers in assessing the quality of care provided through processes such as Regulation 33 visits alongside independent officers.

• to assess the effectiveness of service delivery through receiving regular reports about a range of provisions as set out in the Corporate Parenting Panel’s Annual Business Plan.

• to promote the role of Corporate Parent amongst other Councillors.

• to raise any concerns about the safety and wellbeing of young people for whom there is a Corporate Parenting responsibility with appropriate officers and/or Chair of Corporate Parenting Panel.

• to work with relevant officers and members in ensuring the effective delivery of the Corporate Parenting Panel business.

REVIEW/WMC18 10 APPENDIX 1 continued

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

ELECTORAL REVIEW STAGE 1

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION

1. Background

In September 2008 the Council made its Stage 1 (Council Size) submission to the Boundary Committee for England (BCE). After further discussions with representatives of the BCE and following the conclusion of work on the Council’s new governance structure and area working arrangements in readiness for Vesting Day on 1 April 2009, this additional submission to Stage 1 of the Electoral Review seeks to provide further evidence and reasoning on Member workload, including expectations around their community leadership and engagement role, which ultimately influence future council size.

2. Member Roles

In order to assess Member workload, their various roles have been analysed and detailed in the following paragraphs, concluding with an assessment in each case of the time commitment. The Table at the end of this submission provides further explanation of these assessments.

(a) Frontline Councillor

• Political Representative Connecting with all parts of the community, to represent everyone fairly and to balance local concerns with the demands of their political group manifesto

• Community Advocate Being a skilled advocate for people from different backgrounds, cultures, and values; speaking freely and constructively challenging the Council

• Community Leader Exercising community development skills – supporting local projects and initiatives, educating people about local participation and involving them in policy development, service planning and decision-making

• Service Transformer Understanding the complex business of local government and services provided both by the Council and others; holding service providers to account for performance/delivery (including developing local area charters or mini-local area agreements)

Place Shaper Being a local figurehead/role-model that people feel they can turn to; being able to shape the very local environment – providing direction, having the ability to identify priorities, working with officers and service providers to address public realm problems

1 • Knowledge Champion Being the primary source of local intelligence flowing between the community and the Council

84 hours per month (4 weeks)

(b) Area Action Partnerships

In the Council’s new Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) a defined role for Members has now been identified

Area Action Partnerships will be the primary interface between the Council and local communities. The focus will be on 4 themes; Engagement, Empowerment, Local Action and Performance.

AAPs will provide a means to:

• Encourage local people to engage with the local democratic process and to be involved in shaping their communities

• Involve local people in the way local services are planned and delivered and to assist partners meet their duty to involve people in decisions, policies and services that may affect them or be of interest to them

• Dialogue with Council Services and Members with regard to influencing use of their delegated budgets

• Monitor public sector performance in the AAP area

15 hours per month (4 weeks)

(c) Overview and Scrutiny

The Councils Overview and Scrutiny (OS) function focuses on contributing to policy development, policy review and service improvement in a partnership context. It has a vital role to ensure that local government services and services from across a range of other agencies under provisions shortly to be brought into force better meet the needs of our communities. It provides challenge and holds to account.

Councillors are the primary members of OS throughout all of its committees and working arrangements. Co-opted representatives are recruited onto OS who represent communities of interest.

The key principles of OS are:

• To act as a critical friend, • To enable the voice of the community to be heard, • To be an independent minded governor, • To drive improvements in public service.

8 hours per month (4 weeks)

REVIEW/WMC18 2 (d) Corporate Governance

All Members contribute to the Council’s corporate governance

• Full Council The Council remains the principal decision-making body, the main forum for debate and a vehicle for engagement with the public and other stakeholders

• Cabinet The Cabinet's workload in the new unitary council will be very significant, being responsible for all functions not specifically delegated to other parts of the Council or to Officers

• Appeals and Complaints Committee The Committee determines appeals made against any decision made by or on behalf of the Council

• Audit Committee The Committee advises the Council and the Executive on audit and governance issues

• Highways Committee The Committee discharges and oversees the Council's non-executive functions in relation to highways and public rights of way and provides a forum whereby the public can make representations direct to Members.

• Human Resources The Committee discharges the Council's functions relating to Local Government Pensions and oversees Member Development and Support

• General Licensing and Registration Committee & Sub Committees (3) The Committee is responsible for reviewing and making policy recommendations to the Council. The Sub-Committees discharge specified licensing and registration functions

• Statutory Licensing Committee & Sub-Committee The Committee is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Council on policies in relation to licensing matters under the Licensing Acts 2003 and 2005. The Sub-Committee discharges all the functions of the Committee except policy development.

• Pension Fund Committee The Committee exercises powers and duties arising from the Superannuation Act 1972 and regulations made there-under

• County Planning Committee & Area Planning Committees (3) The Committees exercise the Council's functions relating to town and country planning and development control

• Standards Committee The Committee is responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct both for the Council and all of the Parish and Town Councils in the County

REVIEW/WMC18 3 • Corporate Parenting Panel The Panel has responsibility to monitor and ensure the quality of services to children and young people for whom the Council has a corporate parenting responsibility

22 hours per month (4 weeks)

A further breakdown of this particular assessment is attached at Appendix 1.

(e) Linkage with Local Councils

The County Council’s unitary bid placed great emphasis on working with local councils and we wish to strengthen this relationship to ensure that the local council has clear routes into the new unitary authority.

Many Unitary Members are also Parish or Town Councillors. Whether or not they have this dual membership, there is a hope and expectation that all Unitary Members will be able to regularly attend their local council meetings to provide this vital link between the strategic and local levels.

There are 109 Parish and Town Councils in County Durham with the number set to increase. It is the Council’s long-established policy to support and encourage the full parishing of the County.

3 hours per month (4 weeks)

Based upon a Council size of 126, the time commitment for Members to undertake these varied roles effectively is 132 hours per month or 33 hours per week.

3. Other Relevant Factors and Issues

There are a number of other relevant factors and issues which will have a bearing on Member workload and time commitments but where it would be very difficult to identify time values. These were referenced in the Council’s earlier submission and are detailed again below;

Outside Bodies

In addition to the roles identified above, the Council appoints Members to represent its interests on many national, regional and local bodies. Whilst these appointments are currently being reviewed and rationalised, this area of work will continue to represent a significant commitment for many of our Members.

Working Groups

Internally within the organisation, Members are often involved in working groups with officers to develop policies, work programmes and other Council initiatives.

Cabinet Support

The Council has recently bolstered support in this area with the appointment of up to 10 Executive Support Members, providing support to both the Cabinet in general and individual

REVIEW/WMC18 4 portfolio holders. As yet, the additional workload for these Members is unmeasured, but is potentially considerable.

Members Holding Senior Positions

Where Members hold senior positions within the Council, for example, Leader, Committee Chairman, Cabinet Portfolio Holder or Opposition Group Leader, this inevitably involves significant demands on their time for briefings and consultations (some of which are formally embodied within the Constitution for the exercise of officer delegations). As the Civic Head, the Chairman of the Council (and the Vice-Chairman) have numerous diary engagements which are set to increase from 1 April with the cessation of Borough/District Councils.

Geography and Socio-Economic Conditions

As emphasised in our first submission, the transition to unitary local government will result in the creation of a very large authority, both in terms of electorate/population and area. This needs to be reflected in the size of the new council.

County Durham covers an area of 222,600 hectares and has a unique settlement pattern, unlike any other shire, i.e., many post-industrial large settlements. Some 44% of adult residents in the County live in areas classified as being rural according to the Government’s urban/rural classification system. The County’s rurality should not be ignored in the determination of council size.

Many parts of the County have high levels of deprivation; County Durham is by some distance the most deprived shire county in England. This will inevitably impact on the workload of Members.

The workload/time assessments referenced earlier make no allowance for travel associated with council responsibilities.

Other Considerations

In its first submission, the Council also emphasised the following points:

• the significant additional demands that will be placed on Members with the transfer of the current District Council functions

• the need to secure stability in the early years of the new Council;

• the need to be in a position to embrace all of the additional expectations being placed on local authorities and their Members by Government

• the significant overall reduction in elected representation that will be experienced in the County when the District Councils cease to exist; and

• the need to work effectively with partner organisations such as Fire and Police, Health Authorities and the business, community and voluntary sectors.

REVIEW/WMC18 5 4. Support Measures

The new Council has invested heavily in additional support measures for Members: • a comprehensive learning and development programme; • direct support staff and workspace accommodation both at the Council Headquarters and in localities; • Area Action Partnership Coordinators and support staff; and • a full range of ICT facilities both at the Council and at home, with dedicated technical support. The Council’s new Constitution will include a revised scheme of officer delegations. These measures will support and enable Members to concentrate their time and effort to effectively deliver their role as an elected representative, both in terms of the needs of the organisation and the expectations of the communities they represent. 5. Recruitment and Retention and Work-Life Balance

Much has been made in recent years, including the work and findings from the Councillors Commission, of the importance of recruiting and retaining Members from all backgrounds and age groups, providing them with an attractive and meaningful role which at the same time offers a reasonable work-life balance. These objectives will not be achieved if there are insufficient Members to effectively carry the workload involved.

Testing Other Council Sizes

In the unitary council bid, a suggestion was made on council size of between 90 and 110 councillors.

In Appendices 2 and 3 we have assessed the implications and impacts of reduced council sizes of 90 and 110 councillors in terms of their frontline roles.

In both cases, we firmly believe the resultant increased workload (resulting in 40 and 36 hours per week in total respectively) would be an unreasonable burden and both community representation and the effectiveness of the Council would suffer as a result.

6. Conclusion

The Council will be one of a small number of flagship unitary authorities created in the latest round of local government reorganisation. The expectations are high, both in terms of the local electorate/population and the Government. It is critical to ensure that there is adequate Member capacity to meet these expectations. This additional submission, in conjunction with the original made in September 2008, demonstrates the very considerable demands that will be placed upon Members from April, 2009. As such, it reinforces the Council’s previous view that its present size, i.e., 126 Members, is the minimum requirement for a fit for purpose unitary authority for County Durham.

REVIEW/WMC18 6 Table

Role Hours Basis Political Representative 2 x councillor attending 6 To link issues to services 12 (each) Monthly (each) x community and highlight the decision partnership or group making ‘route’ in achieving meetings per month change

Following up and initiating 6 (each) Monthly action within services. Community Advocate 2 x councillor attending 1 To link issues to services An Monthly (each) meeting of local and and highlight the decision average of /or county-wide ‘diversity making ‘route’ in achieving 2 hours strand’ forums change

Following up and initiating action within services Community Leader See Area Action Partnerships Service Transformer 2 x councillor attending 3 x To work internally and at 6 (each) Monthly service and community joint service and meetings/working groups community meetings to (joint) effect positive change in service delivery or work 2 x councillors attending programme development 6 (each) Monthly 3 x service meetings (potentially 1 to 1)

Following up and initiating 6 (each) Monthly action within services Place Shaper 2 x councillor attending To work within joint service 6 (each) Monthly 3 x joint developmental and community meetings working group meetings on to effect positive change in public realm, sustainability the local public and regeneration environment

2 x councillors attending Contribute to the vision 3 x joint service and and area plan, debating 6 (each) Monthly community meetings in local priorities (link to AAP) detailed design, and delivery of work programmes

Following up and initiating 6 (each) Monthly action within services

REVIEW/WMC18 7 Role Hours Basis Knowledge Champion 2 x councillor attending To be an accessible, 16 (each) Monthly surgeries, answering calls, listening and responding receiving and writing councillor in addressing letters - the individual and group community/constituent concerns interface

Following up and initiating ‘Chasing’ internally 12 (each) Monthly action within services answers to questions Area Action Partnerships To deliver through an 7 x councillors in each effective leadership and An Monthly AAP (98 councillors) facilitation role better average of undertaking their AAP role outcomes for communities 15 hours effectively throughout its in areas structures and processes.

Further 28 councillors performing the same function without decision making powers available at formal AAP board meetings Overview and Scrutiny 105 councillors involved in To ensure communities 8 (each) Monthly improving standards of better effect O&S in their public services through the role in improving services scrutiny structures and and to ensure the council functions. and its statutory partners receive positive challenge Increasing demand for in there desire for ‘community based scrutiny’ continuous improvement. which will increase or alter To gather evidence, scrutiny structures to meet analyse and inform this agenda scrutiny of results of investigations. Corporate Governance All councillors are involved To support the Council in A Monthly throughout the governance performing its duties combined structure of the Council to effectively through the 22 (each) a greater or lesser degree. governance structure. Undertaking all these roles within the structure requires a high level of

commitment and time [[[[

Town and Parish Council 2 x councillors attending a To fulfil a ‘link’ role 3 (each) Monthly monthly meeting of between the local and T & P C unitary council TOTALS 132 Monthly 33 Weekly

REVIEW/WMC18 8 Appendix 1

Governance Structure Assessment (excluding Overview and Scrutiny)

The Council's new governance structure is now almost complete (but subject still to final approval).

Full Council

The Council remains the principal decision-making body, with responsibilities for the Constitution, policy framework and budget, key appointments and the highest profile vehicle both for Members debate and engagement with the public and other stakeholders.

The Council will meet 10 times a year. Allowing for both attendance and preparation and based upon the existing Council size of 126 Members this would translate into approximately 525 hours of work per month.

Cabinet

The Cabinet's workload in the new unitary council will be very significant, being responsible for all functions not specifically delegated to other parts of the Council or Officers. Allowing for attendance and preparation at 10 formal, briefing and agenda-setting meetings as well as liaison and work for portfolio holders with their services this would translate into approximately 1,230 hours per month (based upon a Cabinet of 10).

Appeals and Complaints Committee

The Committee determines appeals made against any decision made by or on behalf of the Council. From a membership of 20, most of the actual business is conducted in relatively small groups and based upon most recent experience this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 18 hours per month.

Audit Committee

The Committee advises the Council and the Executive on audit and governance issues to provide an independent assurance over the adequacy of the Council's risk management framework and associated control environment. Based on a combination of formal meetings and focus groups numbering 10 per year and a membership of five, this would translate with attendance on preparation into approximately 25 hours per month.

Highways Committee

The Committee discharges and oversees the Council's functions in relation to highways and public rights of way. Based upon past experience of meetings frequency and membership of 20, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 30 hours per month.

Human Resources

The Committee discharges the Council's functions relating to Local Government Pensions and oversees Member Development and Support. Based on past experience of meetings

REVIEW/WMC18 9 frequency and membership of 20, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 20 hours per month.

General Licensing and Registration Committee

The Committee is responsible for reviewing and making policy recommendations to the Council and discharging specified licensing, registration and regulatory functions. The membership of 40, meeting quarterly, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 65 hours per month.

Area General Licensing and Registration Sub-Committees (3)

These area based Sub-Committees will discharge the functions of the Committee (other than policy development). Each meeting on a three weekly cycle, with a membership of 8, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 118 hours per month.

Statutory Licensing Committee

The Committee is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Council on policies in relation to licensing matters under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Statement of Licensing Policy. Assuming at least four meetings a year, with a membership of 15 this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 25 hours per month.

Statutory Licensing Sub-Committee

This Sub-Committee will discharge all the functions of the Statutory Licensing Committee except policy development. Meeting weekly with a rotating membership of 3, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 50 hours per month.

Pension Fund Committee

The Committee exercises powers and duties arising from the Superannuation Act 1972 and regulations made thereunder. With 11 Elected Members and meeting quarterly, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 18 hours per month.

County Planning Committee

The Committee exercises the Council's functions relating to town and country planning and development control. Meeting on a three weekly cycle, with a membership of 16, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 90 hours per month.

Area Planning Committees (3)

These area based Committees will discharge certain functions relating to town and country planning and development control. Each meeting on a three weekly cycle, with a membership of 16, this would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 340 hours per month.

Standards Committee

REVIEW/WMC18 10 The Committee is responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct both for the Council and all of the Parish and Town Councils in the County. The Committee includes 12 Elected Members and meets on a quarterly cycle. However, the Committee will also be responsible for Local Assessment and Determination of complaints against Members, including Parish Members. In total, with attendance and preparation, the assessment is approximately 28 hours per month.

Corporate Parenting Panel

The Panel has responsibility to monitor and ensure the quality of services to children and young people for whom the Council has a corporate parenting responsibility. The Panel has 40 Members and meets monthly, together with rota visits. This would translate with attendance and preparation into approximately 160 hours per month.

REVIEW/WMC18 11 DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

ELECTORAL REVIEW STAGE 1

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION – APPENDIX 2

Implications and Impacts of Reduced Number of Durham County Councillors

Example 1 – 90 Councillors (71% of current)

For comparative purposes we have highlighted the implications and the impact of a reduced number of councillors in their frontline role and in this example we look at a figure of 90 councillors, which is 71% of the current number (126).

Political Representative

Highlighted in the table in the additional submission is the amount of community activity in a given Electoral Division. If there was a reduction of 29% of councillors to undertake this role, there will be two implications/impacts:

(1) The communities will not be given an equal opportunity to access their councillors and the councillor may need to give preference to different groups.

(2) The councillor will have to add over 5 hours extra time to their workload to be effective in this role.

5 hours increase

Community Advocate

To fulfil this role takes a lot of understanding and to some degree training and a knowledge of the diverse communities in which the councillor plays an advocacy role. To be skilled in both advocacy and in fully understanding and representing correctly the diverse communities is a challenging role. The implications/impacts on a 29% reduction in councillors able to undertake this role effectively are:

(1) Communities of different culture, interest and need within the general County Durham population may remain on the margins and not be able to meet their aspirations through a fragmented community voice

(2) The councillors will have to increase their time spent here by 1.5 hours.

1.5 hours increase

Community Leader (inc AAPs)

The community leadership role is the primary role for local councillors in delivering the ‘community’ agenda for local government. Working through the adopted governance structures for County Durham – Area Action Partnerships - the councillor has arguably their most important role to play here to better connect the Council with the communities it serves. The councillor plays a high profile role which is very active and visual and which is at the

REVIEW/WMC18 12 forefront of decision-making at a local level. There are significant impacts and implications in a reduction of such a scale (29%) within this primary role:

(1) Durham County Council will fail its communities in not effectively addressing issues at a neighbourhood and area level within the Authority. The ‘action’ anticipated by all will be ineffective, without strong leadership and direction and the voice of the community will be weak and ineffective. Only councillors can fully take the issue through the Council to effect real change and a missing link between areas and the Council’s decision making centre will fracture the future process for devolved power.

(2) Councillors time needed to undertake an effective role here will need to be increased by 4 hours.

4 hours increase

Service Transformer

This role comes to the fore where action is going to be formulated and communities begin to see some positive change in transferring what they recognise as issues into addressing them effectively. The councillors play a vital facilitation role in bringing together the community and officers and services at a very practical level. Through working together, the culture of trust is built up and the Council will show its ability to listen and respond through the pivotal role of the frontline councillor. The implications/impacts are:

(1) To be effective in addressing a recognised community need, a facilitated space in which communities and councils can connect on practical areas of development and work can make the difference between raising issues and having something done about them. The councillor as the leader in terms of ensuring this happens plays the pivotal role here.

(2) A lot of time is required both physically in facilitating these interface meetings but also in delivering promises and action to be taken. An additional 5 hours would be required by each councillor if the numbers were reduced by 29%.

5 hours increase

Place Shaper The focus, particularly in the most deprived areas of County Durham, will be on the environment, regeneration and sustainability of public realm, economic centres in towns and villages and in the general public space people desire or would desire to use now and in the future. This role is of a similar nature to the service transformer. However, this focuses more on the areas in towns and villages and not on the change in services within the Council. Therefore the same process is used to facilitate this interface between communities and services (not just Council). The implications/impacts are:

(1) A reduction in councillors will delay and make this process less effective and again community aspirations may not be realised. (2) Like the service transformer, the time increase would be the same if they were to play an effective role now and in the future with an increased community focused remit.

REVIEW/WMC18 13 5 hours increase

Knowledge Champion Being an accessible responsive councillor requires availability and effectiveness in addressing the issues presented by constituents and in more formal community meetings and partnerships. The knowledge held matched with an ability to make a difference is key if the role as a knowledge champion is to meet the needs of communities. Implications/Impacts are:

(1) This is what is often referred to as the ‘bread and butter’ role of the councillor. It is the relationship between the communities they represent and the Council that can assist. All the tasks in communicating with and between the public and the Council and in addressing very local needs and aspirations are greatly assisted where there is a councillor to perform this role in transferring and sharing their knowledge with those affected.

(2) The councillor will have to follow up on increased activity generated through the other roles and be more productive in organising themselves, in communications and in ensuring they keep their knowledge current and transferable. A 29% increase in workload here would be anticipated (8.5 hours more) 8.5 hours increase In total if Durham County Council were to reduce the number of councillors from 126 to 90 (by 29%), there would be a practical increase in time required to undertake their frontline/community councillor role effectively by 29 hours per month (over 6 hours a week)

* Monthly 161 hours * Weekly 40 hours *NB These figures include working hours assessed for Overview and Scrutiny, Corporate Governance and Town and Parish Council links.

REVIEW/WMC18 14 DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

ELECTORAL REVIEW STAGE 1

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION – APPENDIX 3

Implications and Impacts of Reduced Number of Durham County Councillors

Example 2 – 110 Councillors (87% of current)

For comparative purposes we have highlighted the implications and the impact of a reduced number of councillors in their frontline role and in this example we look at a figure of 110 councillors, which is 87% of the current number (126).

Political Representative

Highlighted in the table in the additional submission is the amount of community activity in a given Electoral Division. If there was a reduction of 13% of councillors to undertake this role, there will be two implications/impacts:

(1) Some communities will not be given an equal opportunity to access their councillors and the councillor may need to give preference to different groups.

(2) The councillor will have to add over 2 hours extra time to their workload, to be effective in this role.

2.25 hours increase

Community Advocate

To fulfil this role takes a lot of understanding and to some degree training and a knowledge of the diverse communities in which the councillor plays an advocacy role. To be skilled in both advocacy and in fully understanding and representing correctly the diverse communities is a challenging role. The implications/impacts on a 13% reduction in councillors able to undertake this role effectively are:

(1) Communities of different culture, interest and need within the general County Durham population may not be adversely effected, providing a focus is given to these communities equally with those based in areas

(2) The councillor will not have to increase their time expedentially provided they can still balance an increased workload

Negligible time

Community Leader (inc AAPs)

The Community Leadership role is the primary role for local councillors in delivering the ‘community’ agenda for local government. Working through the adopted governance structures for County Durham – Area Action Partnerships - the councillor has arguably their most important role to play here to better connect the Council with the communities it serves.

REVIEW/WMC18 15 The councillor plays a high profile role which is very active and visual and which is at the forefront of decision-making at a local level. There are still significant impacts and implications in a reduction of such a scale (13%) within this primary role:

(1) Durham County Council will be restricted in not effectively addressing issues at a neighbourhood and area level within the Authority. The ‘action’ anticipated by all will be hampered, without strong leadership and direction and the voice of the community will be weaker and less effective. Only councillors can fully take the issue through the Council to effect real change and a missing link between areas and the Council’s decision making centre will fracture the future process for devolved power.

(2) Councillors time needed to undertake an effective role here will need to be increased by a further 2 hours.

2 hours increase

Service Transformer

This role comes to the fore where action is going to be formulated and communities begin to see some positive change in transferring what they recognise as issues into effecting service changes on the ground. The councillors play a vital facilitation role in bringing together the community and officers and services at a very practical level. Through working together, the culture of trust is built up and the Council will show its ability to listen and respond through the pivotal role of the frontline councillor. The implications/impacts are:

(1) To be effective in addressing a recognised community need, a facilitated space in which communities and councils can connect on practical areas of development and work can make the difference between raising issues and having something done about them. The councillor as the leader in terms of ensuring this happens plays the pivotal role here.

(2) A lot of time is required both physically in facilitating these interface meetings but also in delivering promises and action to be taken. An additional two and a quarter hours would be required by each councillor if the numbers were reduced by 13%.

2.25 hours increase

Place Shaper The focus, particularly in the most deprived areas of County Durham, will be on the environment, regeneration and sustainability of public realm, economic centres in towns and villages and in the general public space people desire or would desire to use now and in the future. This role is of a similar nature to the service transformer. However, this focuses more on the areas in towns and villages and not on the change in services within the Council. Therefore, the same process is used to facilitate this interface between communities and services (not just Council). The implications/impacts are:

(1) A reduction in councillors will delay and make this process less effective and again community aspirations may not be realised. (2) Like the service transformer, the time increase would be the same if they were to play an effective role now and in the future with an increased community focused remit.

REVIEW/WMC18 16 2.25 hours increase

Knowledge Champion

Being an accessible, responsive councillor requires availability and effectiveness now in addressing the issues presented by constituents and in more formal community meetings and partnerships. The knowledge held matched with an ability to make a difference is key if the role as a knowledge champion is to meet the needs of communities. Implications/Impacts are:

(1) This is what is often referred to as the ‘bread and butter’ role of the councillor, it is the relationship between the communities they represent and the Council that can assist. All the tasks in communicating with and between the public and the Council and in addressing very local needs and aspirations are greatly assisted where there is a councillor to perform this role in transferring and sharing their knowledge with those affected.

(2) The councillor will have to follow up on increased activity generated through the other roles and be more productive in organising themselves, in communications and in ensuring they keep their knowledge current and transferable. A 13% increase in workload here would be anticipated (3.5 hours more)

3.5 hours increase

In total if Durham County Council were to reduce the number of councillors from 126 to 110 (by 13 %), there would be a practical increase in time required to undertake their frontline/community councillor role effectively by 12.25 hours per month (3 hours a week)

* Monthly 145 hours * Weekly 36 hours *NB These figures include working hours assessed for Overview and Scrutiny, Corporate Governance and Town and Parish Council links.

REVIEW/WMC18 17 PROPOSED NEW ELECTORAL PATTERN

1 Appendix 2

Proposed New Electoral Pattern

CHESTER-LE-STREET AREA

Chester-le-Street North and East

The current Division comprises the communities of Chester-le-Street Town Centre and South Pelaw. Whilst electoral equality is good, the Council believes that the current arrangements do not reflect community identity. These arrangements are a consequence of the last boundary review which saw the North Lodge area (formerly linked with Chester-le-Street Town) transferred to the Pelton Division. This alignment has not worked as the North Lodge area has stronger geographical affinity with Chester-le-Street Town as well as communication and educational links. The Council proposes therefore to transfer the North Lodge area back into Chester-le-Street North and East. The Council understands this move would have the overwhelming support of people in the area.

This move alone, however, would have a major impact on the electoral equality of the Division. The Council therefore proposes to transfer out of the current Division and into the Pelton Division the South Pelaw area which is geographically closer to Pelton and has good communication and educational links.

These proposals would have clear geographical boundaries and achieve good electoral equality for both the Chester-le-Street North and East, and Pelton Divisions.

To address electoral equality in the Chester-le-Street West Central Electoral Division the Council also proposes a transfer of electorate from the Chester-le-Street North and East Division.

2008 2013

Electorate 6598 (+ 5.3%) 6505 (+ 2%)

Transfer to Pelton Polling District B 2361 2287

Add from Pelton North Lodge Polling Districts AP 1888 1806 AR 560 540

Transfer to Chester-le-Street West Central Part of Polling District (to Clifford Terrace) Z 525 525 6160 (- 1.7%) 6039 (- 5.3%)

REVIEW/WMC18 2 *Chester-le-Street South

This Division has clear community interest and well established boundaries. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 6538 (+ 4.3%) 6404 (+ 0.5%)

*Chester-le-Street West Central

Whilst the Division has a clear identity, its electorate is marginally too small and that situation is projected to worsen. In response, the Council proposes a transfer of electorate from the Chester-le-Street North and East Division (part of Polling District Z, i.e. those properties north of and including Clifford Terrace). This proposal restores a former Electoral Division boundary and the area has a stronger association with the Chester-le-Street West Central Division. The resultant electoral equality is good.

2008 2013

Electorate 5458 (- 12.9%) 5244 (- 17.7%)

Add from Chester-le-Street North and East Part of Polling District (to Clifford Terrace) Z 525 525

5983 (- 4.5%) 5769 (- 9.5%)

*Lumley

This Division comprises the clearly identifiable communities of Great Lumley, Bournmoor and Woodstone Village. Whilst electoral equality is acceptable in 2008 it is projected to fall marginally below the normal tolerance in 2013. However, the Council believes that any further boundary revisions in this area would be problematic for the overall electoral pattern given its position adjacent to the Sunderland City Council area and its other very strongly defined boundaries.

2008 2013 Electorate 5818 (-7.2%) 5582 (-12.4%) *Ouston and Urpeth This Division comprises the settlements of Ouston, Urpeth, Beamish, West Pelton and Grange Villa. Electoral equality is acceptable and the Council believes that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 5896 (-5.9%) 5876 (- 7.8%)

REVIEW/WMC18 3 Pelton

The current Division comprises the communities of Pelton and North Lodge. The proposal for this Division reflects the comments made previously in relation to the Chester-le-Street North and East Division. Electoral equality would remain good.

2008 2013

Electorate 6504 (+ 3.8%) 6344 (- 0.5%)

Transfer to CLS North & East North Lodge Polling Districts AP 1888 1806 AR 560 540

Add from CLS North & East Polling District B 2361 2287 6417 (+ 2.4%) 6285 (- 1.4%)

*Sacriston

The current Division is too small in electoral terms and that situation is projected to worsen. In response the Council has taken advantage of no longer being restricted by District Council boundaries and proposes the transfer of electorate from Witton Gilbert Parish (currently in the neighbouring Framwellgate Moor Division) which is more readily identifiable as having long established and close links with its neighbouring Sacriston community. The resultant electoral equality is just acceptable, but much improved.

2008 2013 Electorate 4926 (- 21.4%) 4839 (- 24%)

Add from Framwellgate Moor Witton Gilbert Parish Polling District DW 2073 2153 6999 (+ 11.7%) 6992 (+ 9.7%)

REVIEW/WMC18 4 DERWENTSIDE AREA

*Annfield Plain

This Division comprises the clearly identifiable communities of Annfield Plain and Catchgate and their smaller associated villages. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions. 2008 2013 Electorate 6421 (+2.4%) 6567 (+3.0%)

*Benfieldside

The current Division is too small in electoral terms and that situation is projected to worsen. In response, the Council proposes a transfer of electorate from Shotley Park, East Law and the St Mary’s Hill area of Blackhill (currently part of the neighbouring Leadgate and Medomsley and Consett North Divisions) which are more readily identifiable as having links to the Benfieldside community. The resultant electoral equality would be acceptable.

2008 2013 Electorate 5266 (- 16%) 5150 (- 19.2%)

Transfer from Leadgate to Benfieldside Polling District MG 602 606

Transfer from Leadgate Part - Polling District (East Law) MA 91 91

Transfer from Consett North to Benfieldside Polling District OB 609 589 Polling District OC 324 336

6892 (+ 9.9%) 6772 (+ 6.2%)

*Craghead and South Moor

The Division clearly reflects these two communities. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions. 2008 2013 Electorate 6079 (-3.0%) 6361 (-0.2%)

REVIEW/WMC18 5 *Consett North

Although electoral equality in this Division is currently acceptable, the Council proposes a transfer of some electorate with more natural community links to the Benfieldside area (see Benfieldside Division for more detail) to improve electoral equality in that Division. Electoral equality in Consett North would remain acceptable and is projected to improve.

2008 2013 Electorate 6712 (+ 7.1%) 7101 (+ 11.4%) Transfer from Consett North to Benfieldside Polling District OB 609 589 Polling District OC 324 336

5779 (- 7.8%) 6176 (- 3.1%) *Consett South

The current Delves Lane and Consett South Division is excessively large in terms of electorate. The proposal to create a new single Member Division reflects the recognised community of Moorside and the Grove which is geographically separated from other parts of its former Division and lacking in any other identifiable links.

Although this proposal initially produces an electorate outside the normal tolerance, this is set to regularise in the projection as the area is the subject of a major regeneration project.

(NB This proposal would result in one additional Member in this area) .

2008 2013 Transfer from Delves Lane and Consett South Polling District QA 1193 1210 Polling District QB 1376 1722

2569 (- 18%) 2932 (- 8%) New Single Member Division

*Burnopfield and Dipton

This Division comprises the clearly identifiable communities of Burnopfield and Dipton and their smaller associated villages. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 6225 (- 0.7%) 6167 (- 3.2%)

REVIEW/WMC18 6 *Delves Lane

The excess imbalance of electorate in this Division is addressed by the earlier proposal for a new Consett South Division. The remainder of the Division is strong on community identity. On current figures electoral equality would be good and although the resultant projected electorate is marginally outside the normal tolerance, any further transfer of electorate from this Division would not reflect community identity and would result in boundaries without any real geographical reasoning. It is suggested this Division be re-named Delves Lane .

2008 2013 Electorate 8645 (+ 38%) 9968 (+ 56.4%)

Transfer from Delves Lane and Consett South to New Consett South Division Polling District QA 1193 1210 Polling District QB 1376 1722 6076 (- 3%) 7036 (+ 10.4%) Esh

The current Division is too small in electoral terms and that position is set to worsen. To address this situation the Council proposes to take advantage of the removal of former District Council boundaries to transfer Bearpark from the current Framwellgate Moor Division. The realignment of Bearpark with the current Esh Division brings together two communities that share the same geographic and socio-economic background and future challenges and as such reflects a stronger community of interest. Communication links between the communities are effective. Although the realignment initially produces an electorate marginally outside the normal tolerance this is set to improve in the projection.

2008 2013 Electorate 5293 (- 15.6%) 5120 (- 19.7%) Transfer from Framwellgate Moor to Esh Bearpark Polling District DR 1681 1773 6974 (+ 11.3%) 6893 (+ 8.1%) *Lanchester

The Division largely comprises the settlements of Burnhope, Castleside and Lanchester and these three villages have enjoyed a long and close association together. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 6088 (- 2.9%) 6068 (- 4.8%)

REVIEW/WMC18 7 *Leadgate and Medomsley

The excessive imbalance of electorate in this Division is addressed by the transfer of electorate from the Shotley Park and East Law areas to the proposed Benfieldside Division (see Benfieldside Division for further details).

Although the proposal initially produces an electorate outside the normal tolerance, this is set to regularise in the projection. Any additional transfer of electorate to neighbouring Divisions to try and achieve even better electoral equality would not in the Council’s view reflect community identity and would create artificial boundaries.

2008 2013 Electorate 7784 (+ 24.2%) 7730 (+ 21.3%)

Transfer from Leadgate to Benfieldside Polling District MG 602 606

Transfer from Leadgate to Benfieldside Part - Polling District (East Law) MA 91 91

7091 (+ 13.1%) 7033 (+ 10.3%) *Stanley

This Division comprises the clearly identifiable community of central Stanley and electoral equality is good. In the circumstances, the Council believes the Division does not need any boundary revision.

2008 2013 Electorate 6700 (+ 6.9%) 6545 (+ 2.7%)

*Tanfield

This Division comprises the clearly identifiable and linked communities of Tanfield Village, Tanfield Lea and Tantobie. Electoral equality is good and in the circumstances the Council proposes no change to this Division.

2008 2013 Electorate 6749 (+ 7.7%) 6848 (+ 7.4%)

REVIEW/WMC18 8 DURHAM CITY AREA

Many of the natural communities in the Durham City area are large in number and so establishing new Electoral Divisions which are also strong in terms of reflecting community identity has been a significant challenge. In the circumstances, and consistent with the general thrust of the Council's submission, electoral equality has been the primary objective.

Belmont

The current electorate in this Division is significantly low and the position is set to worsen in the projection. The Council's solution is to transfer electorate from the Sherburn Division. The transfer comprises the two neighbouring communities of Pittington and Littletown, both with effective communication links to the rest of the Belmont Division. The resultant electoral equality is very strong.

2008 2013 Electorate 5049 (- 19.4%) 5047 (- 20.8%)

Transfer from Sherburn to Belmont Pittington & Littletown Polling Districts DH 1104 1080 DHH 115 116 6268 (0.0%) 6243 (- 2.1%) Brandon The current Brandon Division electorate is marginally excessive and that position is set to continue. The Council proposes a realignment of this Division which importantly assists changes in two neighbouring Divisions. The transfer of Meadowfield to the Durham South Division corrects a significant imbalance in the electorate of the latter and these two areas share communication and other relevant links. The transfer of Brancepeth Village from the Deerness Valley Division to the Brandon Division helps to restore the balance of electorate in the latter and produces a much better alignment of Division boundaries in this area. The resultant electoral equality would be acceptable.

2008 2013 Electorate 7129 (+13.7%) 7147 (+ 12.1%)

Transfer from Deerness Valley to Brandon Brancepeth Village Polling District GA 342 340

Transfer from Brandon to Durham South Meadowfield Polling District HC 1609 1570 5862 (- 6.5%) 5917 (-7.2%)

REVIEW/WMC18 9 Coxhoe

The present Coxhoe Division electorate is excessively low and this situation is set to continue. The Council's solution is to transfer Shadforth from the neighbouring Sherburn Division. There is a communication link between the two communities.

The resultant electorate (and projected electorate) is marginally outside the normal tolerance. However, with all of the other changes proposed in this area it is difficult to identify any further realignments which could assist the situation.

2008 2013 Electorate 5242 (-16.4%) 5361 (- 15.9%)

Transfer from Sherburn to Coxhoe Shadforth Polling District DJ 344 362 5586 (- 10.9%) 5723 (-10.2%)

Deerness Valley

The marginally excessive electorate in this Division is addressed by the transfer of Brancepeth Village to the Brandon Division as referenced above. The resultant electoral equality would be acceptable.

2008 2013 Electorate 7097 (+13.2%) 7326 (+ 14.9%)

Transfer from Deerness Valley to Brandon Brancepeth Village Polling District GA 342 340 6755 (+ 7.8%) 6986 (+ 9.6%)

Durham South

To address the excessively low electorate in this Division the Council proposes the transfer (as referenced earlier) of Meadowfield from the Brandon Division. In addition, and once again taking advantage of the removal of former District Council boundaries, the transfer of a relatively small group of electorate in the Thinford Lane/Metal Bridge Polling District in the current Ferryhill Division not only establishes good electoral equality in the Durham South Division but also assists proposals in the former Sedgefield area.

2008 2013 Electorate 4910 (- 21.7%) 4844 (-24.0%)

Transfer from Brandon to Durham South Meadowfield Polling District HC 1609 1570

REVIEW/WMC18 10 Transfer from Ferryhill to Durham South Thinford Lane/Metal Bridge Polling District CC 76 92 6595 (+ 5.2%) 6506 (+ 2.1%)

*+ Elvet

The Council proposes to use a proportion of the Elvet electorate to bolster the neighbouring Gilesgate and Neville's Cross Divisions and the changes represent natural extensions of these latter two Divisions. These changes are not detrimental to the Elvet Division electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 6979 (+ 11.3%) 6621 (+ 3.9%) Transfer from Elvet to Gilesgate College of St Hild and St Bede and St Hild's Lane Polling District - Part AG 434 434 Transfer from Elvet to Nevilles Cross St Aidan's College Polling District - Part AN 388 388 6157 (- 1.8%) 5799 (- 9%)

Framwellgate Moor

The electorate in this Division is currently excessive and is projected to continue. However, the Council's earlier proposals transfer Witton Gilbert to the Sacriston Division and Bearpark to the Esh Division. To compensate for these transfers, the Council proposes the addition of West Rainton from the neighbouring Sherburn Division. Although Framwellgate Moor and West Rainton are distinct communities in their own right, there are communication links for the elected representatives and this proposal needs to be viewed as part of the overall re-configuration of many of the Durham City area Divisions. The resultant electoral equality for this Division would be acceptable.

2008 2013 Electorate 7625 (+21.6%) 7862 (+ 23.3%)

Transfer from Framwellgate Moor to Sacriston Witton Gilbert Polling District DW 2073 2153

Transfer from Framwellgate Moor to Esh Bearpark Polling District DR 1681 1773

Transfer from Sherburn to Framwellgate Moor West Rainton REVIEW/WMC18 11 Polling District DI 1811 1791

5682 (- 9.3%) 5727 (- 10.1%)

*+ Gilesgate

As referenced earlier, the Council's solution to the low electorate in the Gilesgate Division is to transfer part of the Polling District in the area of the College of St Bede and St Hild and St Hild's Lane from the Elvet Division. Resultant electoral equality would be acceptable.

2008 2013 Electorate 5468 (- 12.8%) 5082 (- 20.2%)

Transfer from Elvet to Gilesgate the College of St Hild & St Bede and St Hild's Lane Polling District - Part AG 434 434 5902 (- 5.8%) 5516 (- 13.5%)

+Neville's Cross

Once again, as indicated earlier the Council proposes to re-align the Elvet Division boundary and transfer to the Neville's Cross Division part of a Polling District comprising St Aidan's College to address the low electorate in the latter. The resultant electoral equality on current figures would be good.

2008 2013 Electorate 5617 (- 10.4%) 4947 (- 22.4%)

Transfer from Elvet to Nevilles Cross St Aidan's College Polling District - Part AN 388 388 6005 (- 4.2%) 5335 (- 16.3%)

*Newton Hall

This Division currently comprises an area with clear boundaries and a strong, identifiable community identity. Electoral equality is very strong and is projected to continue. The Council believes there is no need to make any boundary revisions to this Division.

2008 2013 Electorate 6207 (- 1.0%) 6193 (-2.8%)

REVIEW/WMC18 12 Sherburn

Importantly, the Council's proposals for the Durham City area have utilised electorate in the current Sherburn Division to modify and improve three other neighbouring Divisions.

The Council further proposes to transfer Ludworth to the Thornley Division in the Easington area (for further details see Easington Area proposals). The remaining electorate, comprising Sherburn Village and Sherburn Hill, is very closely aligned in terms of community identity and is an ideal size for a new single Member Division.

2008 2013 Electorate 7031 (+12.2%) 7072 (+ 10.9%)

Transfer from Sherburn to Framwellgate Moor West Rainton Polling District DI 1811 1791

Transfer from Sherburn to Belmont Pittington & Littletown Polling Districts DH 1104 1080 DHH 115 116

Transfer from Sherburn to Thornley Ludworth Polling District DJJ 500 521

Transfer from Sherburn to Coxhoe Shadforth Polling District DJ 344 362 3157 (+ 0.7%) 3202 (- 0.5%)

New Single Member Division

(NB The proposals in the Durham City area represent a reduction of one Member).

+ Student Adjustments - the majority of Durham University students who currently live in Colleges are as a matter of course annually block entered by their respective College on the local electoral register. The remainder (and a significant proportion), living in private households, are either ineligible to vote (foreign nationals), use the postal vote option for either their home or college residence, register locally or do not bother to register.

On the basis of recent discussions with and information provided by the University, it would seem that a considerable number of this latter group of students are presently uncounted as potential voters on the electoral register in Durham.

REVIEW/WMC18 13 In addition, the more recent practice of data cleansing the register has meant that every student household has to be identified regularly rather than staying on the register for a number of years, irrespective of whether or not an electoral return has been received.

The Council was asked to provide the Boundary Committee with electoral projections to 2013 on the basis of recent trends and incorporating where possible information on committed developments and clearances.

There is clearly a problem within these three City Electoral Divisions in that the trend projection for a decline in the electorate is not reflected by an actual fall in the population but it is unclear at present how this situation will develop in future years.

This problem is likely to affect all towns and cities that contain a large university population and the Council would ask the Committee to also consider student under enumeration as a relevant factor in electoral reviews.

In the circumstances, perhaps the best way forward at present is to evaluate these three Divisions on the 2008 electorate alone and wait and see how registration develops. The Council's proposed changes for these three Divisions produce 2008 electorates all well within the normal tolerance.

REVIEW/WMC18 14 EASINGTON AREA

*Blackhalls

The current Division has good electoral equality. However, electorate in the neighbouring Division of Wingate is excessive and this is projected to continue. In response to the situation in Wingate (and as part of a more extensive re-configuration referenced later), the Council proposes a transfer of electorate to Blackhalls from the Castle Eden area. The community of Castle Eden is self contained and easily identifiable with relevant communication links. The Blackhalls Division, however, will continue to have good electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 6034 (- 3.7%) 6047 (- 5.1%)

Transfer from Wingate Castle Eden Polling District AE 487 621 6521 (+ 4.0%) 6668 (+ 4.6%)

*Dawdon

This Division, along with the Deneside and Seaham Divisions constitute the Seaham Town area as a whole. The current Division is too small in electorate terms and that situation is projected to continue. In response, the Council proposes a transfer of electorate from the Seaham Harbour Parish North Ward (currently part of the neighbouring Seaham Division). The Seaham Division is projected to expand considerably to a position which will exceed an acceptable tolerance for electoral equality. The electoral equality which results from the proposal for the Dawdon Division will be good.

2008 2013 Electorate 5215 (- 16.8%) 5324 (- 16.5%) Transfer from Seaham to Dawdon (Seaham Harbour Parish North Ward) Polling District BE 894 895 6109 (- 2.5%) 6219(- 2.4%)

*Deneside

The current Division is also currently too small in electorate terms and that situation is projected to worsen. The Council proposes a transfer of the Seaton Park, Melrose Crescent and Mildale areas (currently part of the Seaham Division). The electoral equality which results from the proposal is acceptable.

There is a desire across all parties within the Council to retain as discreet the area of Seaham Town as a whole.

REVIEW/WMC18 15 In the circumstances, any further modifications to these three Divisions are not proposed. (See also Seaham Division).

2008 2013 Electorate 5401 (- 13.8%) 5335 (- 16.3%)

Transfer from Seaham to Deneside Seaton Park 20 20 Melrose Crescent 238 238 Mildale 37 37 Polling District - Part BA 5696(- 9.1%) 5630 (- 11.7%)

*Easington

The current Division has clear geographical boundaries and community identity. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 6082 (-3%) 6327 (-0.7%)

*Horden

The current Division has clear geographical boundaries and community identity. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 6466 (+3.2%) 6475 (+1.6%)

*Murton

The current Division has clear geographical boundaries and community identity. Electoral equality is acceptable and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 5775 (-7.9%) 5919 (-7.1%)

Peterlee East/Peterlee West/Passfield

A significant proportion of the current Wingate Division electorate is taken from the Passfield area of Peterlee Town. The Council's proposals aim to draw together the electorate of the Town as a whole in the Peterlee East, Peterlee West and newly proposed Passfield Divisions. The Council would like the Boundary Committee to consider two options to achieve this objective. The first option better reflects community identity, the second is stronger on electoral equality.

REVIEW/WMC18 16 Option 1

Peterlee East

The current Division has clear geographical boundaries and reflects community identity. Electoral equality is acceptable and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 5724 (-8.7%) 5849 (-8.2%)

Peterlee West

Whilst this Division currently has clear boundaries and reflects community identity, its electoral equality borders on the normal tolerance. The proposal for this Division involves a transfer of electorate from part of Passfield (currently within the neighbouring Division of Wingate). The resultant electoral equality for the Division would be good.

2008 2013 Electorate 5657 (- 9.7%) 5731 (- 10.1%)

Transfer from Wingate to Peterlee West Part Passfield Polling District Y3 700 693 6357 (+ 1.4%) 6424 (+ 0.8%)

Passfield

The proposal for a new single Member Division of Passfield from the transfer of electorate in the current Wingate Division facilitates the move to a more recognisable Peterlee Town area. The Council recognises that this would result in an elector/Member ratio which is above the normal variance. However, this proposal more clearly reflects the community identity of the area.

2008 2013 Transfer from Wingate Polling Districts Y 2621 2454 Y1 740 847 Y2 456 371 3817 (+ 21.8%) 3672 (+ 15.2%) New Single Member Division

REVIEW/WMC18 17 Option 2

Peterlee East

The current Division has clear geographical boundaries and reflects community identity. Electoral equality is acceptable and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 5724 (-8.7%) 5849 (-8.2%)

Peterlee West

In order to improve the elector/Member ratio in the new Passfield Division, a further small transfer of electorate into the Peterlee West Division is proposed in this option. Peterlee West is seen as the natural Division to accept this further transfer. Electoral equality would remain strong.

2008 2013 Electorate 5657 (- 9.7%) 5731 (- 10.1%)

Transfer from Wingate to Peterlee West Tweed Close ) Part Polling Forth Close ) District Moray Close ) Y1 169 169 Avon Road )

Transfer from Wingate to Peterlee West Part Passfield Polling District Y3 700 693 6526 (+ 4.1%) 6593 (+ 3.4%)

Passfield

By transferring some further electorate into the Peterlee West Division, the new Passfield Division is improved from the point of view of electoral equality.

2008 2013 Transfer from Wingate Polling Districts Y 2621 2454 Part Y1 678 678 Y2 456 371 3755 (+ 19.8%) 3503 (+ 9.9%)

New Single Member Division

REVIEW/WMC18 18 *Seaham

This Division, along with Dawdon and Deneside, constitute the Seaham Town area as a whole. Whilst the current Division is acceptable in terms of electoral equality, it is projected to expand considerably because of new developments, the result of which would be to take the electoral equality beyond the normal tolerance. As both of the neighbouring Divisions have smaller electorates, the Council proposes to transfer electorate from the Seaham Harbour Parish North Ward to the Dawdon Division and Seaton Park, Melrose Crescent and Mildale area to the Deneside Division. The electoral equality for the residual area will improve to good in the projection. Any further changes for the Seaham Town area are seen as problematic.

2008 2013 Electorate 6675 (+ 6.5%) 7445 (+ 16.8%)

Transfer to Dawdon Polling District BE 894 895

Transfer to Deneside Seaton Park 20 20 Melrose Crescent 238 238 Mildale 37 37

5486 (- 12.5%) 6255 (- 1.9%)

*Shotton

This Division currently represents the communities of Shotton and Haswell. The size of the electorate for the Division is on the limit of acceptance but the position is expected to worsen.

The nearby Thornley Division is presently low in terms of electoral equality and the Council proposes to transfer the discreet area of nearby Haswell Plough to Thornley to improve this situation. The proposal results in a Shotton Division with acceptable electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 6920 (+10.4%) 7369 (+ 15.6%)

Transfer Haswell Plough from Shotton to Thornley Polling District L 341 352

6579 (+ 5.0%) 7017 (+ 10.1%)

REVIEW/WMC18 19 *Thornley

The current Division comprises the communities of Thornley and Wheatley Hill. The Division is low in terms of electoral equality and is projected to slightly worsen. To address this imbalance the Council proposes to transfer Ludworth (currently in the Sherburn Division) which has close association with the Thornley and Wheatley Hill communities. In addition, to further improve electoral equality both for this Division and the neighbouring Division of Shotton, the Council also proposes the transfer of the discreet area of Haswell Plough to Thornley. The resultant Thornley Division would have good electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 5301 (- 15.4%) 5299 (- 16.9%)

Transfer from Shotton Haswell Plough Polling District L 341 352

Transfer from Sherburn Ludworth Polling District DJJ 500 521 6142 (- 2%) 6172 (- 3.2%) *Wingate The current and projected electorate in this Division is excessive. In order to bring together the Peterlee Town area as a whole the Council has earlier proposed the transfer of the Passfield area partly into the Peterlee West Division with the balance used to create a new single Member Passfield Division. This transfer, together with that of Castle Eden to the Blackhalls Division, results in a new single Member Division for Wingate which is strong in terms of both electoral equality and community identity.

2008 2013 Electorate 8025 (+ 28%) 8165 (+ 28.1%)

Transfer to Peterlee West from Wingate Part Passfield Polling District Y3 700 693 Transfer to New Passfield Division from Wingate Polling Districts Y 2621 2454 Y1 740 847 Y2 456 371

REVIEW/WMC18 20 (See also Option 2 for Peterlee West/Passfield Divisions) Transfer from Wingate to Blackhalls Castle Eden Polling District AE 487 621 3021 (-3.6%) 3179 (- 0.25%) New Single Member Division

REVIEW/WMC18 21 SEDGEFIELD AREA

Aycliffe

Like elsewhere in the County, the Council has expressed a clear desire to encompass all of the Aycliffe Town in one discreet grouping of electoral Divisions.

The new Aycliffe Electoral Divisions which are proposed have clear, identifiable boundaries and all have acceptable electoral equality.

*Aycliffe 1 (3 Member Division)

2008 2013 Transfer from Shildon East Polling Districts DJ 274 270 DL 1276 1248 DK 1124 1161 DN 1099 1133 EX2A 372 387 CQ3 4421 4672 8566 (- 8.9%) 8871 (- 7.2%)

(Re-name Aycliffe North, the Dales and Middridge Division) *Aycliffe 2 (2 Member Division)

2008 2013 Polling Districts DM 597 620 EX1 626 759 EX2 430 431 EX3 1861 1769 EU 1423 1436 Part EW 862 862 5799 (- 7.5%) 5877 (- 7.8%)

(Re-name Aycliffe Central Division) *Aycliffe 3 (2 Member Division)

2008 2013 Polling Districts EV 2630 2676 ES 774 783 ET 1543 1405 EY 604 563 Part EW 764 764 6315 (+ 0.7%) 6191 (- 2.9%)

(Re-name Aycliffe East Division)

These proposals effectively result in one additional Member in this area.

REVIEW/WMC18 22 Chilton/Ferryhill The Chilton Division is currently on the limit of acceptance in terms of electoral equality and that position worsens in the projection. The Ferryhill Division electorate is excessive and is set to continue at about the same level.

Transfers are proposed from both the Chilton and Ferryhill Divisions to assist with the re-design of the neighbouring Divisions of Coundon and Durham South as referenced elsewhere in the submission.

Further exchanges of electorate are then proposed from Ferryhill to Chilton to achieve either good or acceptable electoral equality in both Divisions. These are not seen as significantly detrimental in any way in terms of both community identity or effective and convenient local government. Chilton 2008 2013 Electorate 6919 (+ 10.4%) 7137 (+ 12%)

Transfer from Chilton to Coundon Polling District FH 903 919

Transfer from Ferryhill to Chilton Polling District - Part CD 276 276

Transfer from Ferryhill to Chilton Polling District - Part CE 126 126 6418 (+ 2.4%) 6620 (+ 3.9%) Ferryhill

2008 2013 Electorate 7292 (+ 16.3%) 7451 (+ 16.9%)

Transfer from Ferryhill to Durham South Polling District - Part CC 76 92

Transfer from Ferryhill to Chilton Polling District - Part CD 276 276

Transfer from Ferryhill to Chilton Polling District - Part CE 126 126 6814 (+ 8.7%) 6957 (+ 9.1%)

REVIEW/WMC18 23 *Sedgefield

The Division has clear geographical boundaries and strong community identity. Electoral equality at present is marginally beyond the normal tolerance although the position is set to improve significantly in the projection. The Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revisions.

2008 2013 Electorate 5531 (- 11.8%) 6017 (- 5.6%)

Shildon Area

The Council has also expressed a clear desire to encompass all of the Shildon area and associated communities together and this is directly related to the Aycliffe Town proposals where current electoral arrangements mix the communities of the two Towns.

The two new Divisions have clear, identifiable boundaries and strong community identity. The proposal results in a reduction of one member for this particular area. Although electoral equality is marginally beyond the normal tolerance the Council would maintain that the strong community identity which results is more than sufficient justification and any further adjustments would be problematic.

Shildon East 2008 2013 Electorate 6713 (+ 7.1%) 6596 (+ 3.5%)

Transfer from Shildon East to Aycliffe Polling Districts DJ 274 270 DL 1276 1248 DK 1124 1161 DN 1099 1133 EX2A 372 387

Add Polling Districts from current Shildon West DF 754 1037 DH 1499 1564 DG 190 189 DC 1492 1467 DA 486 456 6989 (+ 11.5%) 7110 (+ 11.5%)

(Re-name Shildon Division)

REVIEW/WMC18 24 Shildon West 2008 2013 Electorate 5706 (- 9.0%) 5898 (-7.5%) New Configuration Polling Districts CO 748 829 CP 282 314 CQ 218 240 CL 444 429 CK2 233 237 CK3 336 288 DI 305 281 DB 980 904 3546 (+ 13.1%) 3522 (+ 10.5%) New Single Member Division

(Re-Name Dene Valley Division)

Spennymoor and Middlestone

This Division's electorate is excessive and the position is set to marginally worsen. In response, the Council proposes a transfer of electorate to assist electoral equality in the neighbouring Coundon Division and then in turn a transfer in of electorate from the Tudhoe Division to address an imbalance in the latter. This proposal achieves good electoral equality in three Divisions and is not seen as detrimental in terms of community identity or effective and convenient local government.

2008 2013 Electorate 7482 (+ 19.4%) 7715 (+ 21%)

Transfer to Coundon Polling District - (Part) FG 1146 1146

Transfer to Coundon Polling District FI 669 687

Transfer from Tudhoe Polling District FE2 865 842 6532 (+ 4.2%) 6724 (+ 5.5%)

*Trimdon

The current Division has clear, identifiable boundaries and strong community identity. Electoral equality is acceptable and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary reviews.

2008 2013 Electorate 5783 (- 7.7%) 5861 (- 8.0%)

REVIEW/WMC18 25 Tudhoe

As referenced above, the Council proposes a realignment of electorate from this Division to neighbouring Spennymoor and Middlestone to address electorate imbalance. This package of measures also assists the nearby Division of Coundon.

2008 2013 Electorate 7136 (+ 13.8%) 7134 (+ 11.9%)

Transfer from Tudhoe to Spennymoor Polling District FE2 865 842 6271 (0.0%) 6292 (- 1.3%)

REVIEW/WMC18 26 TEESDALE AREA

*Barnard Castle East ) *Barnard Castle West )

Community identity within the Town of Barnard Castle and its associated surrounding villages and settlements is very strong.

However, a number of relatively minor exchanges of electorate are proposed between the two Divisions to achieve more identifiable boundaries that clearly delineate the East/West split of the Town and to provide for a more even distribution of electorate. Both Divisions would remain within the electoral equality tolerance.

Barnard Castle East 2008 2013 Electorate 6863 (+ 9.5%) 7126 (+ 11.8%)

Transfer from Barnard Castle West to Barnard Castle East Polling Districts Barforth BO3 69 79 Ovington BO2 123 127 Wycliffe BO5 78 85 Hutton BO4 96 97 Rokeby GR2 73 73 Barningham BO1 148 149 Brignall GR1 49 50 Scargill BO7 23 20 Eggleston Abbey GR4 14 17 Hope BO6 15 18

Transfer from Barnard Castle East to Barnard Castle West Polling Districts Eggleston EG1 380 404 Marwood Rural EG2 160 170

Properties between Middleton Road and Staindrop Road - Part BCN1 297 297 6714 (+ 7.1%) 6970 (+ 9.4 %)

Barnard Castle West 2008 2013 Electorate 6450 (+ 2.9%) 6717 (+ 5.4%)

Transfer from Barnard Castle West to Barnard Castle East Polling Districts

REVIEW/WMC18 27 Barforth BO3 69 79 Ovington BO2 123 127 Wycliffe BO5 78 85 Hutton BO4 96 97 Rokeby GR2 73 73 Barningham BO1 148 149 Brignall GR1 49 50 Scargill BO7 23 20 Hope BO6 15 18 Egglestone Abbey GR4 14 17

Transfer from Barnard Castle East to Barnard Castle West Polling Districts Eggleston EG1 380 404 Marwood Rural EG2 160 170 Properties between Middleton Road and Staindrop Road Polling District - Part BCN1 297 297

6599 (+ 5.3%) 6873 (+ 7.8%)

Evenwood

A number of minor changes are proposed in this Division, either to address the linkage of areas with a shared community identity or to produce a more identifiable boundary in a particular area. The net affect of the proposals on electoral equality is minimal, which remains within the accepted tolerance.

2008 2013 Electorate 6766 (+ 7.9%) 6885 (+ 8%)

Transfer from Evenwood to West Auckland Properties - Oakley Cross 14 Coniston Avenue 13+16 Derwent Avenue 14 Grasmere Avenue 8 Thirlmere Grove 1,24 + 25 Ullswater Avenue 38, 40, 42-49, 51, 53, 55, 57 59, 61, 63, 65

Electors 72 72 Transfer from Evenwood to West Auckland a number of Farm Properties Polling District Part ET3 10 approximately 10 approximately 6684 (+ 6.6%) 6803 (+ 6.7%)

REVIEW/WMC18 28 WEAR VALLEY AREA

*Bishop Auckland Town

This Division has clear geographical boundaries and strong community identity. Electoral equality is good and the Council believes therefore that the Division does not need any boundary revision.

2008 2013 Electorate 6431 (+2.6%) 6901 (+8.3%)

Coundon

The current Division is relatively week in terms of electoral equality and this situation is projected to continue. The Council proposes a transfer of electorate from the Division to help establish the new Dene Valley Division referenced earlier and then to compensate a transfer of electorate from the Spennymoor and Middlestone and Chilton Divisions. These proposals are not seen as detrimental in terms of community identity and convenient and effective local government and the new Coundon Division would have good electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 5471 (- 12.7%) 5554 (- 12.9%)

Transfer to Dene CO 748 829 Valley CK3 336 288 CK2 233 237 CP 282 314 CL 444 429 CQ 218 240

Transfer ) F1 669 687 from Spennymoor )Part FG 1146 1146 from Chilton ) FH 903 919

5928(- 5.4%) 5969 (- 6.4%)

*Crook North

The current Division has acceptable electoral equality and this is projected to improve. However the neighbouring Division of Willington has excess electorate which is projected to increase further. The Council proposal is to transfer the North Bitchburn and High Grange areas from Willington to assist electoral equality between the two Divisions. The proposed transfer is seen as sensible in terms of community identity.

REVIEW/WMC18 29 In addition the Council proposes to transfer a small amount of electorate in the Thornley area to the Weardale Division to restore a previous, stronger boundary which better reflects community identity.

2008 2013 Electorate 5825 (- 7.1%) 6315 (- 0.9%)

Transfer from Willington Polling Districts BT 327 386 BU1 139 151

Transfer to Weardale Polling Districts DL 43 42 DP 96 110 6152 (- 1.8%) 6700 (+ 5.1%)

*Crook South

This Division has clear geographical boundaries and strong community identity. The electoral equality in the Division is currently good and whilst it is projected to increase slightly above the normal tolerance, the Council believes that the Division should remain the same.

2008 2013 Electorate 6522 (+4%) 7045 (+10.5%)

*Weardale

The current Division has acceptable electoral equality and strong community identity. However, the Council proposes the transfer of a relatively small number of electorate in the Thornley area (currently part of the Crook North Division). This would restore a previous, stronger boundary which better reflects community identity without being detrimental to electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 6595 (+ 5.2%) 6825 (+7.1%)

Transfer from Crook North Polling Districts DL 43 42 DP 96 110 6734 (+ 7.4%) 6977 (+ 9.5%)

REVIEW/WMC18 30 West Auckland

This Division currently has good electoral equality. A number of small exchanges of electorate with the neighbouring Divisions of Evenwood and Woodhouse Close are proposed either to address linkages of areas with a shared community identity or to produce a more identifiable boundary. The net affect of the proposals on electoral equality is minimal.

2008 2013 Electorate 6333 (+ 1%) 6770 (+ 6.2%)

Transfer area from Evenwood to West Auckland 72 72 Transfer from Woodhouse Close to West Auckland Polling District Tindale Crescent Area Polling District CBB 278 278 Polling District (Part) GG 6 6

Transfer from West Auckland to Woodhouse Close Rush Park Estate and Middlehope Grove Polling District (Part) CDD 269 269

Transfer from Evenwood a number of farm properties from Polling District (Part) ET3 10 approximately 10 approximately 6430 (+ 2.6%) 6867 (+ 7.7%)

*Willington

As referred earlier, to address excess electorate in this Division the Council proposes a transfer of electorate to the neighbouring Crook North Division. The transfer is seen as sensible in terms of community identity and is not detrimental to electoral equality.

2008 2013 Electorate 6960 (+ 11%) 7555 (+ 18.5%)

Transfer to Crook North Polling Districts BT 327 386 BU1 139 151

6494 (+ 3.6%) 7018 (+10.1%)

REVIEW/WMC18 31 Woodhouse Close

Whilst electoral equalilty is currently good in this Division, as referenced earlier, the Council proposes a modest exchange of electorate with the West Auckland Division to better link areas of shared interest or improve existing boundaries.

2008 2013 Electorate 6195 (- 1.2%) 6077 (- 4.7%) Transfer from Woodhouse Close to West Auckland Polling District Tindale Crescent Area CBB 278 278 Polling District (Part) CG 6 6

Transfer from West Auckland to Woodhouse Close Rush Park Estate and Middlehope Grove Polling District - (Part) CDD 269 269 6180 (- 1.4%) 6062 (- 4.9%)

REVIEW/WMC18 32