Final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Durham County Council

Electoral review

November 2011

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

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

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2011 Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 5

2 Analysis and final recommendations 7

Submissions received 7 Electorate figures 8 Council size 8 Electoral fairness 9 General analysis 9 Electoral arrangements 10 Crook and Bishop Auckland 10 Durham City and the surrounding villages 13 South of Durham City 16 Chester-le-Street and the surrounding area 17 North west County Durham 19 South west County Durham 20 East and south east County Durham 21 Conclusions 23 Parish electoral arrangements 24

3 What happens next? 31

4 Mapping 33

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 35

B Code of practice on written consultation 39

C Table C1: Final recommendations for Durham County 41 Council

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of County Durham to ensure that the unitary authority has appropriate electoral arrangements that reflect its functions and political management structure. The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same.

The Boundary Committee for England commenced the review in 2008. On 1 April 2010 the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee and it therefore falls to us to complete the review. The review period has been significantly longer than usual as a consequence of uncertainties about the reliability and impact of electoral forecasts following recent changes in legislation. The reasons are explained within this report.

This review has been conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description Council Size 15 July 2008 Submission of proposals to the Boundary Committee and its analysis and deliberation on council size One 17 March 2009 Submission of proposals on wider electoral arrangements Two 8 June 2009 Boundary Committee’s analysis and deliberation Three 15 September 2009 Publication of initial draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 7 December 2009 Analysis of submissions received

Consultation 12 February 2010 Further consultation in particular areas

Five 24 May 2011 Publication of further draft recommendations and consultation on them Six 2 August 2011 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

The Commission proposed a council size of 126 members comprising a mixed pattern of single-, two- and three-member divisions. The further draft recommendations were based on the evidence received in the course of previous periods of consultation undertaken throughout the review. The further draft recommendations would provide good levels of electoral equality.

1 Submissions received

During Stage Five, we received 218 representations on our further draft recommendations, including a county-wide submission from Durham County Council. Most submissions focused on the further draft electoral arrangements for Bearpark, Chester-le-Street, Crook, Esh Winning, Sacriston, Tow Law and Ushaw Moor. We received smaller numbers of submissions for other areas. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

At the start of the review, Durham County Council submitted electorate forecasts for December 2013, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 1.6% over the period from 2008 to 2013.

Following changes in legislation in 2009, we also need to have regard to a five-year forecast from the date of the publication of the final recommendations. The Council provided projected forecasts, which differed significantly from the original figures provided, particularly in the area of Durham City. As a consequence, in agreement with the Council, the review was put into abeyance until the 2010 canvass had been completed. In early 2011 the Council provided electorate forecasts for 2016, which took into account changes in the student electorate in the centre of Durham City and developments across the county. The electorate is projected to increase by approximately 1% over the period from 2011 to 2016. The Commission is content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time and we therefore accept the Council’s latest electorate forecasts as the basis of our final recommendations.

General analysis

Throughout the review process, the primary consideration has been to achieve good electoral equality, while seeking to reflect community identities and securing effective and convenient local government. Having considered the submissions received during Stage Five, we have moved away from the further draft recommendations in a small number of areas including Crook, Esh Winning, Sacriston and Tow Law. We have made more modest changes in a few additional areas. In all other areas we confirm our further draft recommendations as final.

Our final recommendations for Durham are that the Council should have 126 members with 63 mixed-pattern single-, two- and three-member divisions. Only seven divisions will have an electoral variance of greater than 10% by 2016.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Durham County Council. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements for the Council to be implemented at the next elections in 2013.

2 We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the review through expressing their views and advice. The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

3 4 1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted for Durham County Council following its establishment as a unitary authority in 2009. The Electoral Commission was of the view that an electoral review of County Durham should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity and directed the Boundary Committee to commence a review which began on 15 July 2008.

2 On 1 April 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee and took responsibility for the ongoing review of Durham County Council.

3 We had been scheduled to complete this review in 2010. However, a change in legislation required that we must have regard to an electorate forecast five years from the completion of the review. As a result, revised forecasts were requested from the Council. These revealed significant electoral variances from those used as the basis of the Boundary Committee’s original draft recommendations. With the agreement of the Council, we therefore decided to suspend the review until the completion of the 2010 annual canvass to allow the Council more time to produce further, reliable, forecasts. These have been received and we are now content that these are the best available and should form the basis of our final recommendations.

4 As the revised forecasts necessitated change to a number of divisions across the county, and some time had elapsed since the Boundary Committee published its draft recommendations, we decided to undertake further consultation rather than publishing final recommendations at Stage Five.

5 All submissions received throughout all stages of the review informed our Further draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Durham County Council, which were published on 24 May 2011. We then undertook a further period of consultation which ended on 1 August 2011.

What is an electoral review?

6 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

7 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents, reflecting community identity and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 Why are we conducting a review in Durham?

8 In December 2007, the Government approved a bid from Durham County Council for a unitary authority to take over the responsibility for all local government services in those areas in County Durham formerly provided by the County Council and the six district councils. A Statutory Instrument was subsequently approved by Parliament on 25 February 2008, establishing a new County Durham unitary authority from 1 April 2009. The Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review. However, following the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) assuming the functions of the Boundary Committee in 2010, the LGBCE is now conducting the review. It therefore falls to us to complete the work of the Boundary Committee.

How will the recommendations affect you?

9 Our recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the council. They will also decide which electoral division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your division name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. If you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

10 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

6 2 Analysis and final recommendations

11 We have now finalised our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Durham County Council.

12 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Durham is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular - the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable - the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

13 Legislation also requires that our recommendations are not based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but reflect estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the end of the review. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward.

14 The achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that, in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. We aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five- year period.

15 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Durham County Council or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

16 Prior to, and during the initial stages of the review, members and officers of the Boundary Committee visited Durham and met with officers, members and parish councils. During these initial stages of the review, 33 representations were received on the consultation on council size, 58 representations during Stage One and 243 during Stage Three.

17 At Stage Three, new electoral schemes were received that had not previously been considered. As a result, further limited consultation took place in seven areas

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7 across the county which generated an additional 139 submissions. Publication of further draft recommendations at Stage Five led to a further 218 submissions.

18 All submissions may be inspected at both our offices and those of Durham County Council or viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

19 As part of this review, Durham County Council initially submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2013, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 1.6% over the five-year period from 2008 to 2013.

20 Following changes in legislation, we need to have regard to a five-year electorate forecast from the date of the publication of our final recommendations. We therefore requested that the Council provide forecasts for 2015 and 2016. It became clear that revised forecasts provided by the Council would have resulted in significant electoral variances across the county based on the Boundary Committee’s original draft recommendations. We therefore decided to suspend the review until the completion of the 2010 annual canvass to allow the Council sufficient time to produce a robust forecast.

21 The revised forecasts provided by the Council project an increase in the electorate of approximately 1% over the five-year period from 2011 to 2016. We are satisfied with the revised electorate forecasts provided by the Council and that they should form the basis of our final recommendations.

Council size

22 The County Durham (Structural Change) Order (‘the Order’) provided electoral arrangements for the new unitary Council. The authority is currently operating with a council size (the term we use to describe the total number of councillors elected to any authority) of 126 members.

23 At the beginning of the electoral review, the Boundary Committee consulted locally on the most appropriate council size for the authority and received 33 submissions. Overall, there was a lack of consensus in the proposals received during this stage and six different council sizes were put forward. The proposals ranged from 85 to 189 elected members. Several respondents proposed a council size of 126 (as provided by the Order).

24 The Council proposed a council size of 126, a size also supported by eight parish councils and by Kevan Jones MP (North Durham). In general, however, the submissions provided little evidence to support any of the proposed council sizes. Following a meeting between the Boundary Committee and councillors and officers at the authority in December 2008, the County Council made an additional submission in February 2009 and provided further evidence in support of its proposal for a council size of 126 elected members.

25 Subsequently, during Stage One the Boundary Committee invited representations on division arrangements based on a council size of 126. No additional comments on council size were received during subsequent consultation 8 on division arrangements. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, we are content that a council size of 126 members would provide for effective and convenient local government in the context of the new Council’s internal political management structure and will facilitate the representational role of councillors.

Electoral fairness

26 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

27 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The county average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the county (407,527 in 2011 and 411,788 by 2016) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 126 under our final recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 3,234 in 2011 and 3,268 by 2016.

28 Under the final recommendations, seven of our proposed 63 divisions will have electoral variances of more than 10% from the average for the county by 2016. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for Durham.

General analysis

29 During Stage One the Boundary Committee received 58 submissions, including a county-wide scheme from the Council. The Council’s proposals were primarily focused on achieving good electoral equality. The remaining submissions focused on specific areas within Durham. The Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations sought to reflect these views, particularly where representations provided good evidence of community identities and interests. Where the draft recommendations moved away from the Council’s scheme, it was to provide for divisions which were more geographically compact and able to provide for more effective and convenient local government.

30 At Stage Three, 243 submissions were received. Many of the submissions voiced concerns not raised at Stage One and three entirely new schemes were received which had not previously been considered. The Council submitted a proposal similar to that provided at Stage One but in a number of cases considered that our draft recommendations better reflected community identities and interests.

31 As a result of the submission of three new county-wide schemes at Stage Three, the Boundary Committee decided to undertake limited further consultation on specific areas across the county including: Chester-le-Street, Crook, Durham City, Great Aycliffe, Shildon, Tow Law and Trimdon. In total 139 submissions were received as a result of this limited further consultation, including a further representation from Durham County Council.

9 32 On 1 April 2010 the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee and took responsibility for the completion of this review of Durham. As a result of the time lapse following the further limited consultation, at Stage Five, we decided to publish and consult upon further draft recommendations.

33 At Stage Five we received 218 submissions, including representations from Durham County Council, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, three Members of Parliament, local councillors, town and parish councils and local residents. Most submissions received at this stage concerned our further draft recommendations for Bearpark, Chester-le-Street, Crook, Esh Winning, Sacriston, Tow Law and Ushaw Moor.

34 After careful consideration of this further evidence, we have moved away from our further draft recommendations in the Bearpark, Crook, Esh Winning, Sacriston, Tow Law and Ushaw Moor areas. We have also made several more modest amendments in and around the city of Durham and Chester-le-Street.

35 Our final recommendations for Durham are for 11 single-member, 41 two- member and 11 three-member divisions. We consider our final recommendations will ensure good electoral equality while providing an accurate reflection of community identities and interests where we have received such evidence throughout all stages of consultation.

36 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table C1 (on pages 41–7) and Map 1.

Electoral arrangements

37 This section of the report details the submissions we have received, our consideration of them, and our final recommendations for each area of Durham. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

 Crook and Bishop Auckland (pages 10–13)  Durham City and the surrounding villages (pages 13–15)  South of Durham City (page 16)  Chester-le-Street and the surrounding area (pages 17–19)  North west County Durham (pages 19–20)  South west County Durham (pages 20–2)  East and south east County Durham (pages 21–3)

38 Details of the final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 41–7 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Crook and Bishop Auckland

39 The area of Crook and Bishop Auckland lies to the south-west of Durham City and includes the settlements of Bishop Auckland, Crook, Tow Law and Willington.

10 Crook and Tow Law

40 Our further draft recommendations for Crook and Tow Law provided for two two-member divisions with 7% fewer and 8% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. Twenty-nine of the submissions received concerned the further draft recommendations for this area.

41 We received 20 submissions objecting to the split of Crook town between two divisions and, in particular, combining the west of the town with Tow Law. Durham County Council proposed a revised division pattern comprising a single-member Tow Law division and a three-member Crook division incorporating Hunwick and the surrounding villages. The Council’s proposal was endorsed by eight respondents including Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, Pat Glass MP (North West Durham), the North West Durham Constituency Labour Party, the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats and Councillor Armstrong (Esh division).

42 However, the County Council Conservative Group, the Hunwick Community Association, Councillor Brunskill (Willington division) and two local residents objected to the Council’s proposal to combine rural Hunwick and the surrounding villages in a division with Crook, citing evidence of disparate community interests and a potential loss of effective rural representation.

43 On the basis of the evidence received, we have examined a division pattern that unites the town of Crook without the village of Hunwick. An alternative arrangement based on the Council scheme places the village of Hunwick in a two-member division with Willington (see paragraphs 47–50), whilst the villages of High Grange, North Bitchburn and Helmington Row are united in a three-member Crook division. We note that the main road from Hunwick leads to Willington whilst the main road from High Grange and North Bitchburn leads to Crook. Bus routes from these villages also link to these respective towns.

44 Placing High Grange, North Bitchburn and Helmington Row into a division with Crook has the benefit of uniting the town of Crook with the outlying villages that look to it for amenities and facilities. We have therefore decided to move away from our further draft recommendations and propose as our final recommendation a three- member Crook division which would have an equal number of electors per councillor compared with the average for the county by 2016.

45 We note that the Council’s alternative proposals for Tow Law would result in a single-member division for Tow Law but would require the inclusion of a detached area containing the Hill Top villages to the north of Crook town. We are not persuaded that the creation of a detached division would provide for effective and convenient local government. As set out in our guidance, we believe that detached electoral areas should only be created in exceptional circumstances. A submission from Tow Law Town Council suggested a similar pattern to that proposed by Durham County Council but with the inclusion of properties on Elm Park Terrace from the proposed Weardale division. Although this would unite these areas in a contiguous division, it would necessitate the creation of a parish ward with few electors, which we are not persuaded would provide for viable parish electoral arrangements. However, a revised pattern that incorporates most of the parish ward of Thornley, currently located in a division with Tow Law, enables a viable single-member Tow

11 Law division. To ensure this revised pattern has uninterrupted road access between Wolsingham and Witton-le-Wear in the Weardale division, the proposed boundary between Tow Law and Weardale has been amended to run north of the A689 and south of the settlement of Thornley.

46 We have therefore decided to move away from our further draft recommendations and propose a single-member Tow Law division as part of our final recommendations which would have 8% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

Willington & Hunwick

47 Our further draft recommendations for Willington and Hunwick provided for a two-member Willington division and a single-member Hunwick division with 9% fewer and 11% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

48 Six submissions were received regarding the further draft recommendations for the proposed two-member Willington division. The Durham County Council Conservative Group and Councillor Brunskill (Willington division) supported the draft recommendations. Brancepeth Parish Council objected to the proposals, citing lack of community links between Brancepeth and Willington. However, the alternative of transferring Brancepeth to Brandon division is not viable given that the electoral variance in Brandon division is already 15% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

49 Durham County Council, Pat Glass MP (North West Durham) and North West Durham Constituency Labour Party supported the further draft recommendations for Willington but put forward a minor boundary amendment to incorporate Helmington Row in Willington division in order to facilitate a three-member Crook division as discussed above.

50 However, as noted in paragraph 43, the village of Hunwick has clear links with Willington, including road access and bus links. The submission from Councillor Brunskill (Willington division) noted the close links between Hunwick and Willington. Keeping Helmington Row in Crook division enables a three-member division for that area and enables Hunwick to be placed in a two-member division with Willington. We have therefore decided to move away from our further draft recommendations and propose a two-member Willington & Hunwick division as part of our final recommendations. This division would have 9% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

Weardale and Bishop Auckland Town

51 Our further draft recommendations for Weardale and Bishop Auckland Town provided for two two-member divisions with 2% more and 3% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

52 Durham County Council supported the further draft recommendations for Weardale division. As discussed in paragraph 45, we propose transferring most of the parish ward of Thornley into Tow Law to enable a single-member division in that

12 area. As a result we have decided to amend our further draft recommendations and propose a two-member Weardale division, excluding the parish ward of Thornley, as part of our final recommendations. The revised Weardale division would have an equal number of electors per councillor compared with the average for the county by 2016.

53 Two submissions, including a representation from Durham County Council, were received in support of the further draft recommendations for Bishop Auckland Town division. We have therefore decided to confirm as final our further draft recommendations for a two-member Bishop Auckland Town division with 3% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

Durham City and the surrounding villages

54 This area includes Durham City and the outlying villages. It includes the parishes of Bearpark, Belmont, Brandon & Byshottles, Cornsay, Esh, Framwellgate Moor, Satley and Witton Gilbert.

North and west of Durham City

55 Our further draft recommendations for the north and west of Durham City provided for a three-member Framwellgate & Newton Hall division and a two-member Neville’s Cross division, both with 11% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

56 Three submissions were received supporting the further draft recommendations for these areas. However, two of these submissions, from Durham County Council and the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats, suggested a minor boundary amendment to include all properties in the Aykley Vale area within our proposed Framwellgate & Newton Hall division. Noting that all houses are part of the same development, we propose to adopt this minor amendment as part of our final recommendations. As a result of this change our three-member Framwellgate & Newton Hall division and two-member Neville’s Cross division would have 12% more and 10% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

Belmont and east of Durham City

57 Our further draft recommendations for the centre and east of Durham city were for a three-member Belmont division and a two-member Elvet & Gilesgate division with 7% more and 9% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

58 Six submissions were received regarding the further draft recommendations in this area. Three submissions, including those from the City of Durham Constituency Labour Party and Whinny Hill Community Group, argued that the majority of the Gilesgate estate lay outside of our proposed Elvet & Gilesgate division. Further concerns were raised regarding the high proportion of students in Elvet & Gilesgate which, it was argued, could disenfranchise resident voters in the division. It should be noted that this is not a consideration we can take account of as part of our final recommendations. Any individual on the electoral register, regardless of their length

13 of residency in an area, has the right to fair representation for the purposes of local government electoral arrangements. An alternative proposal was put forward for a boundary realignment between the two divisions which would encompass more, but not all, of the Gilesgate estate and result in a three-member Elvet & Gilesgate division and a two-member Belmont division. We consider that such a proposal would divide communities in Belmont and would neither reflect community identities nor provide for effective and convenient local government.

59 Three submissions, including representations from Durham County Council and Belmont Parish Council, supported the further draft recommendations. Belmont Parish Council welcomed the fact that the parish would not be divided between divisions but had concerns over the projected decline in electorate provided by the Council.

60 Noting the conflicting arguments in these submissions, we consider that community identity is best reflected by confirming the further draft recommendations. We also consider that they provide for a stronger division boundary than the alternatives put forward. Submissions also made reference to division names. However, we note that the name was amended to include ‘Gilesgate’ based on representations from previous periods of consultation as the division includes the majority of the Gilesgate estate. In light of this we have decided to retain the name Elvet & Gilesgate as part of our final recommendations.

61 We have therefore decided to confirm as final our further draft recommendations for a three-member Belmont division and a two-member Elvet & Gilesgate division. These divisions would have 7% more and 9% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

Brandon

62 Our further draft recommendations for Brandon provided for a two-member division with 15% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016. During consultation two submissions, from Durham County Council and Brandon & Byshottles Parish Council, supported our proposal. We have therefore decided to confirm the further draft recommendations in this area as final.

Esh and Witton Gilbert

63 Our further draft recommendations for this area placed the parishes of Cornsay and Satley in Tow Law division, Witton Gilbert in Sacriston division and Esh in Ushaw Moor & Bearpark division. A large number of submissions were received objecting to these divisions, including 29 for Tow Law (and Crook), 21 for Sacriston and 12 for Ushaw Moor & Bearpark. No submissions were received in support of the further draft recommendations in these areas.

64 Durham County Council proposed alternative electoral arrangements that combined these four parish councils, less the Hamsteels estate, in a single division of Esh & Witton Gilbert. Evidence of local consultation on the proposals was received and 16 submissions, including those from Pat Glass MP (North West Durham), North West Durham Constituency Labour Party, the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats, Cornsay Parish Council, Esh Parish Council and Satley Parish Council

14 supported the Council’s proposals, citing evidence of strong community links between the four parishes. Witton Gilbert Parish Council did not make a direct representation but was a named supporter of the proposal within the County Council’s submission.

65 Given the evidence received, the strength of support from the respective parish councils, and our final recommendations in the neighbouring areas of Tow Law (paragraphs 45–6), Deerness (paragraphs 66–9) and Sacriston (paragraphs 85–8), we have decided to move away from our further draft recommendations in this area and propose a two-member Esh & Witton Gilbert division as part of our final recommendations. The new division would have 1% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

Esh Winning, Bearpark and Ushaw Moor

66 Our further draft recommendations for Esh Winning, Bearpark and Ushaw Moor provided for a three-member Ushaw Moor & Bearpark division with 6% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016. During consultation, we received 14 submissions objecting to our further draft recommendations in this area.

67 Durham County Council submitted revised electoral arrangements and proposed combining Hedleyhope parish with Ushaw Moor & Bearpark, and transferring the town of Esh and outlying villages to the newly proposed Esh & Witton Gilbert division (see paragraphs 63–5). The proposed Deerness division comprises the parishes of Bearpark and Hedleyhope and the settlements of Ushaw Moor and Esh Winning together with the adjoining Hamsteels estate. This proposal, which cited evidence of strong community links, was supported by eight submissions, including those from Pat Glass MP (North West Durham), Bearpark Parish Council, Cornsay Parish Council, Hedleyhope Parish Council and the Hamsteels Community Association.

68 Five respondents, including the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats, opposed the County Council’s submission and put forward alternative division arrangements in this area. They proposed a two-member Ushaw Moor & Bearpark division and single-member Esh Winning division. The evidence for this proposal related to the disparate nature of communities in the Council’s proposed Deerness division and that councillors are likely to represent only one or two of the proposed division’s seven villages. However, we did not consider this evidence persuasive and we note that most of County Durham’s rural divisions comprise numerous towns and villages, some in quite sparsely populated areas of the county. Additionally, this proposal would result in a single-member Esh Winning division with 12% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

69 In light of the evidence received from Durham County Council, we have decided to move away from our further draft recommendations in this area and propose a three-member Deerness division as part of our final recommendations based on the County Council’s proposals. This division would have 2% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

15 South of Durham City

70 This area includes the settlements of Coundon, Coxhoe, Ferryhill, Shincliffe and Spennymoor.

Coxhoe and Durham South

71 Our further draft recommendations for Coxhoe and Durham South provided for a three-member Coxhoe division and a single-member Durham South division with 3% fewer and 2% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

72 Two submissions were received relating to the division arrangements for this area. Whilst generally supportive, both Durham County Council and the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats suggested the transfer of the Cape Site residential development from Durham South into Coxhoe as the development will clearly form part of the settlement of Bowburn once completed. There are currently 44 electors resident on this site and the Council expects the development to progress at a rate of 30 dwellings per annum. By 2016 there will be 160 homes, and some 255 electors. The Council has confirmed that there is no planned development expected to take place beyond the boundary of the Cape Site.

73 We are persuaded by the evidence that the development will be an integral part of Bowburn village and have therefore decided to adopt the proposed amendment as part of our final recommendations. Taking account of this change, a three-member Coxhoe division and single-member Durham South division would have 1% fewer and 6% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

Bishop Middleham & Cornforth and Ferryhill

74 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for a three-member Ferryhill division and single-member Bishop Middleham & Cornforth division with 6% fewer and 3% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. Two submissions, from Durham County Council and Ferryhill Town Council requested a minor boundary amendment between the two divisions by transferring the settlement of Mainsforth from Bishop Middleham & Cornforth to Ferryhill. However, to do so would not provide for viable parish electoral arrangements. In light of this, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Bishop Middleham & Cornforth and Ferryhill as final.

Chilton, Coundon, Spennymoor and Tudhoe

75 We received two submissions, including a representation from Durham County Council, supporting our further draft recommendations for a three-member Spennymoor, two-member Tudhoe and single-member Chilton and Coundon divisions (which would have 8% fewer, 4% more, 1% fewer and 3% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016). In light of this, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations in this area as final.

16 Chester-le-Street and the surrounding area

76 This area includes the town of Chester-le-Street and the surrounding parishes, including the settlements of Great Lumley, Ouston, Pelton and Sacriston.

Chester-le-Street East, Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge

77 Our further draft recommendations for the north and east of Chester-le-Street town were for three single-member divisions of Chester-le-Street East, Chester-le- Street North and North Lodge with electoral variances of 4% fewer, 3% fewer and 3% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

78 During consultation we received 103 submissions regarding the proposed single-member division pattern for the north and east of Chester-le-Street. Of these, 76 submissions, including representations from Durham County Council Conservative Group, the North Durham Conservative Association, Martin Callanan MEP (North East), Councillor Bainbridge (Chester-le-Street North & East), and the Chester-le-Street North End Residents Association, objected to the single-member division pattern in this area. Objections focused predominately on concerns of less effective representation and voters’ perceived lack of choice over elected members from single-member divisions. A few submissions identified the homogenous nature of communities in Chester-le-Street north and east and therefore considered that single-member divisions would create arbitrary division boundaries in the town. We noted that a significant number of the dissenting submissions were completed template letters and contained little in the way of substantive evidence.

79 Conversely, 25 submissions, including representations from Durham County Council, the North Durham Constituency Labour Party and Kevan Jones MP (North Durham), as well as local councillors and local residents, supported a single-member division pattern in this area. They cited as evidence the distinct character of communities in Chester-le-Street, South Pelaw and North Lodge which would be more accurately reflected in a single-member division pattern.

80 When taking into consideration a division pattern for Chester-le-Street, we have had regard for the weight of evidence taken from all periods of consultation undertaken during the electoral review of County Durham. Overall, we consider that the weight of this evidence supports the further draft recommendations for a single- member division pattern for Chester-le-Street north and east in providing for a better reflection of our statutory criteria.

81 A minor amendment to the boundary between Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge was proposed by 16 of the representations supporting a single-member division pattern, including North Lodge Parish Council and Councillor May (Pelton division). It was proposed that properties on the Northlands Estate be moved from North Lodge division into Chester-le-Street North division to better reflect community identities in this area. We agree with the rationale for this modification, which will also provide for a stronger division boundary between Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge. As a result of this change, our final recommendations are for the three single- member divisions of Chester-le-Street East, Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge which would have 4% fewer, 4% more and 5% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

17 Chester-le-Street South and Chester-le-Street West Central

82 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for the two-member divisions of Chester-le-Street South and Chester-le-Street West Central with 2% fewer and 1% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

83 During consultation, six submissions were received regarding our further draft recommendations for Chester-le-Street West Central. Councillor Marshall (Chester- le-Street West Central division) supported the draft recommendations. However, five submissions outlined objections to the further draft recommendations. Edmondsley Parish Council proposed that the parish ward of Edmondsley, which includes Edmondsley town, be transferred to Chester-le-Street South although it provided little substantive evidence in terms of community links. Durham County Council, North West Durham Constituency Labour Party and Councillor Henig (Chester-le-Street West Central division), proposed that Edmondsley parish ward be transferred to a modified Sacriston division and argued that this would better reflect community identities in this area. Of the evidence received, we were most persuaded by the arguments put forward for linking Edmondsley parish ward with Sacriston. We note that the community of Edmondsley is located close to Sacriston and that they share strong road links. As a consequence, we have decided to transfer Edmondsley parish ward out of Chester-le-Street West Central division (see paragraphs 85–8).

84 Durham County Council supported the further draft recommendations for Chester-le-Street South. As a result of the change to Chester-le-Street West Central, we recommend as final two two-member divisions of Chester-le-Street South and Chester-le-Street West Central which would have 2% fewer and 6% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

Sacriston

85 Our further draft recommendations for Sacriston were for a three-member division with 11% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

86 We received 21 submissions, including representations from Durham County Council, Kevan Jones MP (North Durham), Pat Glass MP (North West Durham), the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats, the North West Durham Constituency Labour Party, community groups and local residents objecting to the proposed Sacriston division. In particular, there was opposition to the inclusion of the settlements of Sacriston, Langley Park and Witton Gilbert in a single division.

87 Durham County Council proposed a revised Sacriston division, comprising Sacriston Parish, Kimblesworth & Plawsworth Parish and Edmondsley parish ward from Edmondsley Parish which was previously in Chester-le-Street West Central division (see paragraph 83). The Council cited strong community links between the settlements of Sacriston and Edmondsley and the surrounding villages as evidence for this revised division. We received 16 submissions that supported the Council’s proposals for this area.

88 Having considered the evidence received, we note that Sacriston and Langley Park do not share strong community ties and consider the County Council’s

18 proposed division arrangements for Sacriston better reflect our statutory criteria. Moreover, these proposals enable further changes to be made to the west of Durham City, including our proposed Esh & Witton Gilbert division (see paragraphs 63–5). We have therefore decided to move away from our further draft recommendations for this area and propose a revised Sacriston division, based on the Council’s proposals, as part of our final recommendations. Under the final recommendations our two-member Sacriston division will have 9% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

Pelton and Lumley

89 Our further draft recommendations for Pelton were for a three-member division with 12% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

90 We received 21 submissions in response to our further draft recommendations for this area. Whilst all submissions supported our proposed division boundaries, three submissions, including those from Durham County Council and Urpeth Parish Council, requested that the division be renamed Beamish as a neutral name to better represent all settlements in the division. However, 13 submissions, including those from Pelton Parish Council, the Pelton Residents Association, the Newfield and Pelton Lane Ends Residents Association and the Ouston Villagers Association, opposed the name Beamish as not representative of communities in the division and argued that the division be named Chester-le-Street Rural North or Chester-le-Street Rural North West.

91 We are not persuaded that the proposed division name of Beamish would accurately reflect all communities in this area. Moreover, in respect of the other suggested division names, we note that there are already two divisions with the word ‘north’ in their name in this area of Durham (Chester-le-Street North and North Lodge). In order to avoid confusion, we have decided to retain the name Pelton as the town is the single largest settlement in the proposed division. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for a three-member Pelton division, with 12% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016, as final.

92 Durham County Council supported the proposed two-member Lumley division which would have 8% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016. We received no other representations about this division. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Lumley as final.

North west County Durham

93 The area of north west County Durham includes the towns of Consett and Stanley. It also comprises the parishes of Burnhope, Greencroft, Healeyfield, Lanchester, Muggleswick and Stanley.

Annfield Plain, Craghead & South Moor, Stanley and Tanfield

94 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for the two-member divisions of Annfield Plain, Craghead & South Moor, Stanley and Tanfield which would have 3% fewer, 8% fewer, 9% more and 5% fewer electors per councillor

19 respectively than the average for the county by 2016. Five submissions, including representations from Durham County Council, Kevan Jones MP (Durham North), North Durham Constituency Labour Party and a local councillor, were received in support of the further draft recommendations for this area. Stanley Town Council had no comment to make on the proposals. On the basis of the evidence received, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Burnopfield & Dipton and Leadgate & Medomsley

95 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for two two-member divisions of Burnopfield & Dipton and Leadgate & Medomsley which would have 6% fewer and 7% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. A single submission from Durham County Council was received in support of our further draft recommendations. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Benfieldside, Consett and Delves Lane

96 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for the two-member divisions of Benfieldside, Consett North and Delves Lane, and a single-member Consett South. These divisions would have 4% fewer, 4% fewer, 4% more and 11% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. A single submission from Durham County Council was received in support of our further draft recommendations. We therefore confirm our further draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Lanchester

97 Our further draft recommendations for Lanchester were for a two-member division which would have 7% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016. We received submissions from Durham County Council, Pat Glass MP (North West Durham), Burnhope Parish Council, Greencroft Parish Council, Healeyfield Parish Council, Lanchester Parish Council, Councillor Johnson (Lanchester division), and a local resident in support of our further draft recommendations. On the basis of the evidence received, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Lanchester as final.

South west County Durham

98 South west County Durham centres on the settlement of Barnard Castle and includes the rural parishes in the south west of the County.

Barnard Castle

99 Our further draft recommendations for Barnard Castle and the surrounding villages were for two two-member divisions of Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West with 3% more and 2% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

20 100 During consultation we received 14 submissions relating to Barnard Castle. Staindrop Parish Council and a local resident objected to the further draft recommendations arguing for single-member divisions in the area. However, there was little evidence to justify the adoption of single-member divisions in Barnard Castle. Barnard Castle Town Council expressed disappointment that we did not establish a two-member division solely for the town but did not provide alternative proposals for our consideration. One submission from a member of the public supported our recommendations but argued for the divisions to be renamed Southern Parishes & Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle & Teeside Parishes respectively. However, we consider these names cumbersome and potentially confusing. No further objections to Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West were received.

101 We received representations from Durham County Council, Eggleston Parish Council, Mickleton Parish Council, Middleton-in-Teesdale & Newbiggin Parish Council, Romaldkirk Parish Council and several local residents supporting our further draft recommendations. Given the weight of supporting submissions and lack of substantive evidence opposing them, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Barnard Castle as final.

Evenwood and West Auckland

102 Our further draft recommendations for Evenwood and West Auckland were for two two-member divisions both with electoral variances of 1% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

103 Two submissions were received in support of our further draft recommendations for the Evenwood and West Auckland divisions, although Durham County Council proposed a minor amendment to move 26 properties on Ullswater Avenue from Evenwood to West Auckland. However, to do so would create an unviable parish ward in Etherley parish. We note that the Council intends to complete a Community Governance Review to address this anomaly. Our view in this instance is that it would not be appropriate for us to anticipate the outcome of that review.

104 One submission was received from a member of the public recommending that Evenwood be renamed Hamsterly. However, no other submission opposed the name Evenwood, which is the largest settlement in the division. We therefore confirm the further draft recommendations for Evenwood and West Auckland as final.

Woodhouse Close

105 Two submissions, including a representation from Durham County Council, were received in support of the proposed two-member division of Woodhouse Close with 11% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Woodhouse Close as final.

East and south east County Durham

106 This area of County Durham comprises the area to the east and south east of Durham City and includes the coastal town of Seaham in addition to the settlements of Easington, Newton Aycliffe, Peterlee and Sedgefield.

21 Sherburn, Shotton, Trimdon and Thornley

107 Our further draft recommendations in this area were for a three-member Trimdon & Thornley division and the two two-member divisions of Sherburn and Shotton & South Hetton. The proposed divisions would have 5% more, 7% more and 8% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016.

108 During consultation eight submissions were received regarding our further draft recommendations in this area. Durham County Council proposed transferring the village of Haswell Plough from our Trimdon & Thornley division to Shotton & South Hetton. It also proposed transferring the entirety of Ludworth parish from Trimdon & Thornley to Sherburn. This last proposal was opposed by four submissions, including the City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats and Durham County Council Conservative Group. Adopting the Council’s proposals would create electoral variances of 13% more electors per councillor in Shotton & South Hetton and 15% more electors per councillor in Sherburn.

109 We were not persuaded by the evidence to make the proposed changes to these divisions and note the high electoral variances that would result. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Sherburn, Shotton & South Hetton and Trimdon & Thornley divisions as final.

Dawdon, Deneside, Easington, Murton, Peterlee and Seaham

110 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for seven two-member divisions of Dawdon, Deneside, Easington, Murton, Peterlee East, Peterlee West and Seaham and the single-member Passfield division with 3% fewer, 11% fewer, 3% fewer, 7% fewer, 12% fewer, 2% more, 3% fewer and 1% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. During consultation, only one representation was received in respect of these divisions from Durham County Council, which supported our proposals. However, the Council proposed that Deneside division be renamed Deneside Seaham.

111 As Deneside division is adjacent to Seaham, we consider the Council’s proposed name change to Deneside Seaham could cause confusion. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Blackhalls, Horden and Wingate

112 Our further draft recommendations for this area were for the two two-member divisions of Blackhalls and Horden and a single-member Wingate division with 2% more, 2% fewer and 5% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. During consultation only one submission was received from Durham County Council in support of the proposed divisions. We therefore confirm our further draft recommendations for this area as final.

22 Sedgefield

113 Our further draft recommendations for this area was for a two-member Sedgefield division with 7% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

114 Three submissions were received regarding the further draft recommendations for Sedgefield. Two submissions, from Durham County Council and Sedgefield Town Council, supported the proposals. Fishburn Parish Council objected to linking Fishburn with Sedgefield in the same division and requested that the parish be transferred to Trimdon & Thornley division. However, to do so would create an unacceptably high electoral variance of 26% fewer electors per councillor in Sedgefield and 27% more electors per councillor in Trimdon & Thornley. In light of this, we have decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Sedgefield as final.

Aycliffe and Shildon

115 Our further draft recommendations for Aycliffe were for a three-member Aycliffe North & Middridge division and two two-member Aycliffe East and Aycliffe West divisions with 10% fewer, 2% more and 8% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the county by 2016. During consultation, four submissions, including a representation from Durham County Council, were received in support of the proposed divisions for Aycliffe. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for this area as final.

116 Our further draft recommendations for Shildon were for a three-member Shildon & Dene Valley division which would have 10% more electors per councillor than the average for the county by 2016.

117 Durham County Council and Shildon Town Council supported the proposed Shildon division. One submission, from the Sunnydale and Byerley Branch Labour Party, felt that our division boundaries for the town should follow major local roads in the area. However, our further draft recommendations for Shildon use parish boundaries and to move away from this division pattern would result in the creation of unviable parish wards. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft recommendations for Shildon & Dene Valley as final.

Conclusions

118 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 41–7, and illustrated on a number of large maps we have produced to accompany this report. The outline map shows our final recommendations for the whole authority. It also shows a number of boxes for which we have produced more detailed maps. These maps are also available to be viewed on our website.

119 Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2011 and 2016 electorate figures.

23 Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations 2011 2016 Number of councillors 126 126 Number of electoral divisions 63 63 Average number of electors per councillor 3,234 3,268 Number of divisions with a variance more 7 7 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Final recommendation Durham County Council should comprise 126 councillors serving 63 divisions, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

120 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

121 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, Durham County Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

122 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, Brandon & Byshottles, Cornsay, Dalton-le-Dale, Edmondsley, Great Aycliffe, Haswell, Marwood, Peterlee, Seaham, Shadforth, Shincliffe, Spennymoor, Stanley and Wolsingham.

123 The parish of Barnard Castle is currently represented by 12 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Barnard Castle parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

24 Final recommendation Barnard Castle Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Barnard Castle East parish ward (returning six parish councillors) and Barnard Castle West parish ward (returning six parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5b.

124 The parish of Bishop Auckland is currently represented by 11 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Bishop Auckland parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Bishop Auckland Town Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing four parish wards: Bishop Auckland Town parish ward (returning two parish councillors), Cockton Hill parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Henknowle parish ward (returning three parish councillors) and Woodhouse Close parish ward (returning three parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 10b.

125 The parish of Brandon & Byshottles is currently represented by 21 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Brandon & Byshottles parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Brandon & Byshottles Parish Council should comprise 21 councillors, as at present, representing six parish wards: Central parish ward (returning four parish councillors), East parish ward (returning three parish councillors), North parish ward (returning three parish councillors), South parish ward (returning three parish councillors), West parish ward (returning four parish councillors) and Ushaw Moor parish ward (returning four parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 7.

126 The parish of Cornsay is currently represented by 11 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Cornsay parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Cornsay Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Cornsay parish ward (returning three parish councillors) and Hamsteels Estate parish ward (returning eight parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5a.

25 127 The parish of Dalton-le-Dale is currently represented by nine councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Dalton-le-Dale parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Dalton-le-Dale Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Dalton Urban parish ward (returning five parish councillors) and Dalton Village parish ward (returning four parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 6.

128 The parish of Edmondsley is currently represented by 11 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Edmondsley parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Edmondsley Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Edmondsley parish ward (returning 10 parish councillors) and Twizell parish ward (returning one parish councillor). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 4.

129 The parish of Great Aycliffe is currently represented by 30 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Great Aycliffe parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Great Aycliffe Town Council should comprise 30 councillors, as at present, representing eight parish wards: Aycliffe Central parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Aycliffe Village parish ward (returning one parish councillor), Byerley Park, Horndale & Cobblers Hall parish ward (returning six parish councillors), Neville parish ward (returning two parish councillors), Shafto St Marys parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Simpasture parish ward (returning two parish councillors), West parish ward (returning six parish councillors) and Woodham parish ward (returning six parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 14.

130 The parish of Haswell is currently represented by nine councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Haswell parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

26 Final recommendation Haswell Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Haswell Plough parish ward (returning two parish councillors) and Haswell Village parish ward (returning seven parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 9.

131 The parish of Marwood is currently represented by seven councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Marwood parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Marwood Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Marwood Rural parish ward (returning three parish councillors) and Marwood Urban parish ward (returning four parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5b.

132 The parish of Peterlee is currently represented by 22 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Peterlee parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Peterlee Town Council should comprise 22 councillors, as at present, representing five parish wards: Acre Rigg parish ward (returning five parish councillors), Dene House parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Edenhill parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Howletch parish ward (returning four parish councillors) and Passfield parish ward (returning five parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 10a.

133 The parish of Seaham is currently represented by 21 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Seaham parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Seaham Town Council should comprise 21 councillors, as at present, representing six parish wards: Dawdon parish ward (returning five parish councillors), Deneside parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Seaham Central parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Seaham Harbour parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Seaham North parish ward (returning four parish councillors) and Westlea parish ward (returning two parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 6.

27 134 The parish of Shadforth is currently represented by 12 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Shadforth parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Shadforth Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing three parish wards: Ludworth parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Shadforth parish ward (returning three parish councillors) and Sherburn Hill parish ward (returning five parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 9.

135 The parish of Shincliffe is currently represented by seven councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Shincliffe parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Shincliffe Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Shincliffe parish ward (returning six parish councillors) and Bell parish ward (returning one parish councillor). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 8.

136 The parish of Spennymoor is currently represented by 22 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Spennymoor parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Spennymoor Town Council should comprise 22 councillors, as at present, representing six parish wards: Byers Green parish ward (returning one parish councillor), Low Spennymoor & Tudhoe Grange parish ward (returning six parish councillors), Merrington parish ward (returning one parish councillor), Middlestone parish ward (returning four parish councillors), Spennymoor parish ward (returning six parish councillors) and Tudhoe parish ward (returning four parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 13.

137 The parish of Stanley is currently represented by 20 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Stanley parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

28 Final recommendation Stanley Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing seven parish wards: Annfield Plain parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Catchgate parish ward (returning two parish councillors), Craghead & South Stanley parish ward (returning two parish councillors), Havannah parish ward (returning three parish councillors), South Moor parish ward (returning three parish councillors), Stanley Hall parish ward (returning four parish councillors) and Tanfield parish ward (returning three parish councillors). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 3.

138 The parish of Wolsingham is currently represented by 11 councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Wolsingham parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Wolsingham Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards: Wolsingham parish ward (returning ten parish councillors) and Thornley parish ward (returning one parish councillor). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 11.

29 30 3 What happens next?

139 We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Durham County Council. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements which will come into force at the next elections for Durham County Council in 2013.

31 32 4 Mapping Final recommendations for Durham

140 The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for Durham County Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Durham.

 Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed divisions in Consett.

 Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed divisions in Stanley.

 Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed divisions in Chester-le-Street.

 Sheet 5, Map 5a illustrates the proposed divisions in Esh Winning and Cornsay.

 Sheet 5, Map 5b illustrates the proposed divisions in Barnard Castle.

 Sheet 6, Map 6 illustrates the proposed divisions in Seaham.

 Sheet 7, Map 7 illustrates the proposed divisions in Brandon and Ushaw Moor.

 Sheet 8, Map 8 illustrates the proposed divisions in City of Durham and Durham South.

 Sheet 9, Map 9 illustrates the proposed divisions in Shadforth and Haswell.

 Sheet 10, Map 10a illustrates the proposed divisions in Peterlee.

 Sheet 10, Map 10b illustrates the proposed divisions in Bishop Auckland.

 Sheet 11, Map 11 illustrates the proposed divisions in Tow Law.

 Sheet 12, Map 12 illustrates the proposed divisions in Crook.

 Sheet 13, Map 13 illustrates the proposed divisions in Spennymoor.

 Sheet 14, Map 14 illustrates the proposed divisions in Great Aycliffe.

33 34 Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the County Council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

35 Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council, the number, names and boundaries of parish wards and the number of councillors for each ward

36

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management The Local Government and Public arrangements Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories, a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or county council

37

38 Appendix B

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 November 2008, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

Table B1: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning We comply with this process for a policy (including legislation) or service from requirement. the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what We comply with this questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise We comply with this as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at requirement. most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

Documents should be made widely available, with the We comply with this fullest use of electronic means (though not to the requirement. exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered We consult at the start of the responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks review and on our Final should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. recommendations. Our consultation stages are a minimum total of 16 weeks.

39

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly We comply with this analysed, and the results made widely available, with an requirement. account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, We comply with this designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the requirement. lessons are disseminated.

40 Appendix C

Table C1: Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

1 Annfield Plain 2 6,127 3,064 -5% 6,344 3,172 -3%

2 Aycliffe East 2 6,723 3,362 4% 6,652 3,326 2%

Aycliffe North & 3 3 8,573 2,858 -12% 8,782 2,927 -10% Middridge

4 Aycliffe West 2 6,161 3,081 -5% 6,002 3,001 -8%

Barnard Castle 5 2 6,804 3,402 5% 6,738 3,369 3% East Barnard Castle 6 2 6,711 3,356 4% 6,689 3,345 2% West

7 Belmont 3 10,883 3,628 12% 10,532 3,511 7%

8 Benfieldside 2 6,443 3,222 0% 6,255 3,128 -4%

Bishop Auckland 9 2 6,281 3,141 -3% 6,318 3,159 -3% Town

41 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor % Bishop 10 Middleham & 1 3,170 3,170 -2% 3,179 3,179 -3% Cornforth

11 Blackhalls 2 6,731 3,366 4% 6,636 3,318 2%

12 Brandon 2 7,495 3,748 16% 7,534 3,767 15%

Burnopfield & 13 2 6,397 3,199 -1% 6,159 3,080 -6% Dipton Chester-le- 14 1 3,088 3,088 -5% 3,139 3,139 -4% Street East Chester-le- 15 1 3,236 3,236 0% 3,412 3,412 4% Street North Chester-le- 16 2 6,226 3,113 -4% 6,430 3,215 -2% Street South Chester-le- 17 Street West 2 6,089 3,045 -6% 6,139 3,070 -6% Central

18 Chilton 1 3,240 3,240 0% 3,227 3,227 -1%

19 Consett North 2 6,303 3,152 -3% 6,267 3,134 -4%

42 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

20 Consett South 1 2,681 2,681 -17% 2,906 2,906 -11%

21 Coundon 1 3,195 3,195 -1% 3,159 3,159 -3%

22 Coxhoe 3 9,286 3,095 -4% 9,721 3,240 -1%

Craghead & 23 2 5,799 2,900 -10% 5,996 2,998 -8% South Moor

24 Crook 3 9,813 3,271 1% 9,844 3,281 0%

25 Dawdon 2 6,397 3,199 -1% 6,357 3,179 -3%

26 Deerness 3 9,675 3,225 0% 9,966 3,322 2%

27 Delves Lane 2 6,250 3,125 -3% 6,775 3,388 4%

28 Deneside 2 5,558 2,779 -14% 5,814 2,907 -11%

29 Durham South 1 3,128 3,128 -3% 3,064 3,064 -6%

43 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

30 Easington 2 6,162 3,081 -5% 6,346 3,173 -3%

Elvet & 31 2 6,795 3,398 5% 7,114 3,557 9% Gilesgate Esh & Witton 32 2 6,363 3,182 -2% 6,439 3,220 -1% Gilbert

33 Evenwood 2 6,631 3,316 3% 6,596 3,298 1%

34 Ferryhill 3 9,231 3,077 -5% 9,216 3,072 -6%

Framwellgate & 35 3 10,457 3,486 8% 10,939 3,646 12% Newton Hall

36 Horden 2 6,509 3,255 1% 6,398 3,199 -2%

37 Lanchester 2 6,308 3,154 -2% 6,060 3,030 -7%

Leadgate & 38 2 7,024 3,512 9% 7,014 3,507 7% Medomsley

39 Lumley 2 5,965 2,983 -8% 5,983 2,992 -8%

44 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

40 Murton 2 6,097 3,049 -6% 6,064 3,032 -7%

41 Neville’s Cross 2 7,031 3,516 9% 7,196 3,598 10%

42 North Lodge 1 2,974 2,974 -8% 3,119 3,119 -5%

43 Passfield 1 3,671 3,671 14% 3,223 3,223 -1%

44 Pelton 3 10,326 3,442 6% 10,932 3,644 12%

45 Peterlee East 2 5,914 2,957 -9% 5,783 2,892 -12%

46 Peterlee West 2 6,567 3,284 2% 6,689 3,345 2%

47 Sacriston 2 5,819 2,910 -10% 5,980 2,990 -9%

48 Seaham 2 6,079 3,040 -6% 6,311 3,156 -3%

49 Sedgefield 2 6,688 3,344 3% 6,966 3,483 7%

45 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

50 Sherburn 2 6,818 3,409 5% 6,996 3,498 7%

Shildon & Dene 51 3 10,370 3,457 7% 10,829 3,610 10% Valley Shotton & South 52 2 6,852 3,426 6% 7,034 3,517 8% Hetton

53 Spennymoor 3 8,514 2,838 -12% 8,994 2,998 -8%

54 Stanley 2 6,665 3,333 3% 7,121 3,561 9%

55 Tanfield 2 6,847 3,424 6% 6,186 3,093 -5%

56 Tow Law 1 3,547 3,547 10% 3,541 3,541 8%

Trimdon & 57 3 10,497 3,499 8% 10,328 3,443 5% Thornley

58 Tudhoe 2 6,372 3,186 -1% 6,806 3,403 4%

59 Weardale 2 6,757 3,379 4% 6,540 3,270 0%

46 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Durham County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2016) councillor % councillor %

60 West Auckland 2 6,525 3,263 1% 6,617 3,309 1%

Willington & 61 2 7,036 3,518 9% 7,125 3,563 9% Hunwick

62 Wingate 1 3,312 3,312 2% 3,420 3,420 5%

Woodhouse 63 2 6,341 3,171 -2% 5,847 2,924 -11% Close

Total 126 407,527 – – 411,788 – –

Average – – 3,234 – – 3,268 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Durham County Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

47