Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Labour Group Boundary Review Submission 16 April 2018

Table of Contents:

Covering Letter 2

Summary of the Labour Group’s consultation response 3

The Labour Group’s 2017 Warding Arrangement Submission 4

The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent Group’s 2017 proposals 5

The Labour Group’s Comments on the Draft Recommendations 2018 6

Greater Eston – General Points 7

Greater Eston – The Labour Group’s Revised Proposals 8

Greater Eston – Data 9

South Bank Ward 10

Eston Ward 14

Normanby Ward 15

Teesville Ward 16

Grangetown Ward 17

Ormesby Ward 18

Redcar – General Points 19

Redcar – Data 20

Coatham 21

Dormanstown 22

Kirkleatham 24

Mickledales 25

West Dyke 27

Zetland 28

Marske, New Marske and Saltburn 29

East Cleveland 30

Conclusion 31

Appendix One – Redcar and Cleveland Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015 32

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Deputy Leader of the Council Councillor Christopher Massey, PhD Redcar and Cleveland Leisure and Community Heart Ridley Street Redcar TS10 1TD Email:

Via Email: 08 April 2018 [email protected]

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council – Boundary Review Draft Recommendations – Comments from the Labour Group

Dear Secretary of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England,

Please find attached maps and a portfolio of evidence from Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council’s Labour Group.

We have made comments on the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations across the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland. We have indicated the areas where we agree with the Commission’s findings. In addition, where the Labour Group’s position diverges from the Commission’s we have provided evidence for your consideration.

Our proposals maintain electoral equality across Redcar and Cleveland and ensure that each ward has a strong community identity. We have actively engaged with our local communities in formulating this response and have strongly encouraged local groups to also take part in the consultation.

Redcar and Cleveland Labour Group is the largest political group on the Council representing 28 members. This number of councillors is more than double any other political group. We are the only political group who have representatives across the three areas of Redcar and Cleveland: Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland. As such, we believe our proposals accurately reflect the views of every community in the Borough and we commend them to the Boundary Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Christopher Massey, Deputy Leader of the Council

Summary of the Labour Group’s Consultation Response The following proposals and our attached maps reflect the views of the 28 councillors of the Labour Group and give priority to both electoral equality and community identity. We have agreed with many areas of the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals and have no substantive changes to make to the Commission’s proposals for: Ormesby, St. Germains, Longbeck, Satlburn, Loftus, Brotton, Guisborough, Hutton, Belmont, Skelton East, Skelton West or Lockwood. However, we believe the existing distribution of Councillors across the three sub areas of Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland is broadly right. The draft proposal disrupts this arrangement and shifts councillor resource from Greater Eston into Redcar. This has the effect of taking resources from our most disadvantaged wards and giving them to those areas with fewer problems. Our main areas of divergence centre on the wards of South Bank and Dormanstown. We believe that these two wards should not be reduced in size or reduced in councillor numbers. This is because they are both priority wards suffering from significant deprivation1 with services aligned to existing boundaries and councillors working to capacity to resolve multiple complex issues alongside community activists. So we are proposing returning both Dormanstown and South Bank to three member wards. This leads to changes in the boundaries for: Eston, Teesville, Grangetown and Normanby within Greater Eston, and The Ings (West Dyke), Zetland, Coatham, Mickledales and Kirkleatham in Redcar. In all cases we have kept community identity at the centre of our proposals and for this reason we have deleted the Newcomen Ward where our evidence tells us that there is little sense of community identity or place. We have provided detailed maps and evidence below for these proposals.

1 See Appendix One attached at page 32. 4

The Labour Group’s first Warding Arrangement Proposal 2017 The aim of the Labour Group’s initial proposal to the Boundary Commission and this further response to the consultation report New Electoral Arrangements was and is to ‘keep the number of electors population are all within the tolerance thresholds stipulated by the LGBCE.’2 We recognise that whilst our previous submission met the ‘main rules’ of the commission, our evidence base could have been improved. We had hoped that our mapping exercise on its own, which was undertaken from scratch over a number of days, would showcase our local knowledge and the robustness of our plans. However, in light of the comments of the Commission that the Labour Group provided ‘limited supporting evidence’ we have now prepared this detailed narrative which we believe provides the additional evidence you need to support our new proposals. Our new proposals continue to ensure that that ‘each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members in the authority’ and that ‘ward patterns reflect community identities.’3 We feel that the weight of the Labour Group’s proposals due to the large number of Councillors our Group represents should be noted during the Commission’s consultation phase. It should be noted that the 28 councillors of the Labour Group are by far the largest number on Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council.4 Most importantly, the Labour Group is also the only political group which has representatives in each of the three areas of Redcar and Cleveland: Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland. Our councillors know their wards and their communities and as our Group has substantially more representatives than any other and has representation in each of the three geographic regions of the Borough, we believe we can accurately reflect ‘the interests and identities of local communities.’5

2 Labour Group, ‘Boundary Review – Redcar and Cleveland BC – Submission from Borough Council Labour Group’, 29 November 2017, p.1. [http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/37002/LabourGroup‐PG‐RandC‐2017‐12‐ 04_Redacted.pdf] 3 Local Government Boundary Commission for England, How to Propose a Pattern of Wards [http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25694/Proposing‐new‐wards‐guidance‐2015‐08‐04.pdf] 4 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ‘Political Composition’, [http://www.redcar‐ cleveland.gov.uk/rcbcweb.nsf/web+full+list/2bf7a46764e2f0d880256c330035abd9] 5 LGBCE, How to Propose a Pattern of Wards. 5

The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent Group’s first Warding Arrangement Proposals 2017 We strongly contend that the supposed ‘similarity’6 between the proposals from other groups you received was not a reflection of unanimity but was the result of these political groups using the same template prepared by Council officers as their starting point. From this template only a few changes were made by each group, and the supportive evidence received from the Independent Group and Conservative Group was limited. Whilst the Liberal Democrat Group entered a detailed submission, their map still did not differ greatly from either the Conservative or Independent Group’s. In effect, by choosing to largely base the ‘draft recommendations on elements of the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals’,7 the Commission – in the view of the Labour Group – is proposing to adopt new ward boundaries that were never intended to be anything but a starting point for deliberation by the political groups. These boundaries were not discussed with members, nor was there any rationale for them beyond a very basic numerical calculationhas effectively implemented the view of one council officer, with only minor amendments, and not the view of the majority of councillors on Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. Clearly, the Labour Group’s ‘significantly different proposals’ were not aligned with the other groups because we did not use this officer template.8 Therefore we have again submitted an independently created map. This time, however, we have accepted many areas of the Boundary Commission’s findings based on our community knowledge and engagement across the Borough and our deep understanding of the issues our residents face, as the only group with representation in all three geographic areas. It is these important issues, that were never taken into account in that starting point map, that inadvertently appear to have had such an influence on the draft proposals.

6 LGBCE, New Electoral Arrangements, p. 6. 7 Ibid., p. 7. 8 Ibid., p. 6. 6

The Labour Group’s Comments on the Draft Recommendations 2018 In light of the comments made in the draft recommendations, the Labour Group below have provided an evidenced based, rational argument to go along with our mapped submission. This is intended to supplement the attached maps. Our comments on the draft recommendations and our maps meet the Boundary Commission’s three criteria. Firstly, they ‘deliver electoral equality’ because all wards are within the 10% threshold of electors per councillors.9 Secondly, they ‘reflect the interests and identities of local communities’ because they actively engage with and reflect upon the needs of local groups. Finally, they ‘promote effective and convenient local government’ because they maintain equality and representation across the three geographical areas of Redcar and Cleveland. We are not seeking through our consultation response to completely redraw the new map the Commission has produced for Redcar and Cleveland. We have reflected on the new arrangements and accepted many of the Commission’s proposals as both fair and sensible. However, our response to this consultation does differ in some areas, particularly in Redcar and Greater Eston. Our main amendment is to return a third councillor back to both the South Bank ward and the Dormanstown Ward. We have, on reflection, accepted the Commission’s arguments about a new Mickledales Ward, but argue that this makes this geographic area overrepresented. To correct this imbalance we have deleted the Newcomen ward as we do not feel that it has a strong community identity or any community facilities or community centre. In addition, very few properties in the area use the name ‘Newcomen.’ The two former seats in Newcomen have been moved into the surrounding areas. This has had the effect of reducing one seat in Redcar, which we have returned back to Greater Eston for reasons explained in detail below. This re‐establishes the current distribution of councillors across the three sub areas On East Cleveland, we have few comments to make and we largely accept the Boundary Commissions proposals without major amendment. We trust that the commission will consider the Labour Group’s recommendations and believe we have provided strong justification for ‘amending the scheme [as we believe] an alternative pattern of wards would better meet the statutory criteria.’10

9 Ibid. p. 3 10 ‘Local Government Boundary Commission for England to Amanda Skelton’, 6 February 2018, [http://s3‐eu‐ west‐2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/North%20East/Redcar%20and%20Cleveland/RandC‐Draft‐CEX‐Letter‐ 2018‐02‐06.pdf] 7

Greater Eston – General Points regarding the reduction of one member: We believe that the Commission proposal significantly disadvantages the voters of Greater Eston by reducing the number of Councillors in the area from 17 to 16. The currently number (17) is already the lowest number of councillors of any of the three distinct sub areas of Redcar and Cleveland. In particular, Greater Eston contains the two most deprived areas in Redcar and Cleveland in Grangetown and South Bank and we believe that the Boundary Commission’s proposals will have a negative impact on local democracy, local communities and service organisation and delivery in these areas. These wards encounter a number of problems which are clearly, as evidenced by the IMD statistics, not experienced in the same concentrations in the rest of Redcar and Cleveland. Consequently, the councillors – and council services – in these wards are plainly relied upon more heavily than in others. Whilst we recognise completely the need for ‘electoral equality’ across the Borough, we believe that our new proposals better reflect such equality because they return a member to the South Bank area, and the variance across Greater Eston (by 2023) we are proposing is less than the Boundary Commission’s current proposals. Moreover, whilst we understand and accept the rationale for having a roughly equal number of electors per councillor, it must also be accepted that different wards have different needs, and more particularly, wards which suffer from greater levels of deprivation often have far greater needs than more affluent counterparts. Thus, whilst we are not advocating anywhere near exceeding the 10% threshold anywhere in the Borough, we are putting forward strong arguments as to why Greater Eston should retain 17 councillors and have ensured that every ward in our new proposals meets the plus or minus 10% threshold. The major impact of the Commission’s draft recommendations for Greater Eston is that South Bank loses one councillor and the surrounding wards – largely Grangetown and Teesville pick up former areas of the now two member South Bank ward. We have encountered strong local opposition to these proposals. The South Bank Moving Forward Community Group, South Bank Green Group and South Bank and Teesville Labour Parties as well as individual residents have all objected to this proposal and are sending their own responses to the consultation. Their objections speak not only to the reduction of a councillor, but also to the areas within the former South Bank ward which have been given to Teesville and Grangetown – which residents feel is incorrect as these areas are part of South Bank. The Commission states that ‘the best evidence of community identity is that which comes from interactions taken from outside the contest of electoral review. For example, long‐standing resident’s associations.’11 We believe that the views of these entirely independent groups, particularly the South Bank Moving Forward group and the South Bank Green group which, should be given strong weight.

11 Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Electoral Reviews: Technical Guidance, (2014), p. 29. 8

Greater Eston – The Labour Group’s revised proposals Due to the reasons articulated above, the Labour Group’s response – detailed further on the attached maps which showcase our specific adjustments to the consultation boundaries ‐ to the Greater Eston proposals made by the Boundary Commission are somewhat divergent from the New Arrangements document produced by LGBCE. Our main argument surrounds the South Bank ward and because of our changes to this ward, this has also had an impact on other surrounding wards (particularly Grangetown and Teesville). On the current boundaries only Grangetown was a potential issue with its 2017 variance being slightly over (‐12%) the allowed 10%.12 This suggests to us that the majority of wards in Eston do not need remapping – beyond small changes where local opinion has been expressed. However, we recognise that Grangetown is below the variance threshold and have supported the inclusion of some new properties within this ward accordingly. Due to the fact that we strongly contend that South Bank should be a three member ward due to the issues above and the community feeling we have encountered about the streets which have ‘moved’ into Teesville and Grangetown ‐ which has expressed that these streets should remain in South Bank ‐ we have enlarged the South Bank boundaries in our revised proposals. This has also had an impact across Greater Eston.

12 LGBCE, ‘Redcar and Cleveland Electoral Proforma’ 9

Data for the Greater Eston area The Labour Group’s proposals, detailed below, are all comfortably within the 10% plus or minus variance data for 2023. The mean average variance for our ward patterns in this area is 4.6% for the six wards in question. The mean average variance for the Commission’s consultation proposals is 5% across the six wards.

LGBCE proposals Labour Group Consultation Response No. of Cllrs Variance 2023 No. of Cllrs Variance 2023 Eston 3 4% 3 ‐5.80% Grangetown 2 7% 2 ‐2.30% Normanby 3 8% 3 ‐2% Ormesby 3 ‐4% 3 ‐3.90% South Bank 2 0% 3 ‐6% Teesville 3 ‐7% 3 ‐8%

Mean variance 5% 4.60%

Thus, we feel that our proposals fairly reflect the needs of the communities in Greater Eston, whilst at the same time we have agreeing with many of the Commission’s findings.

South Bank Ward:

We fully agree with the Commission’s decision to extend the geographical area of South Bank to include the South Tees Development Corporation within the ward. We have returned the area around Sycamore Crescent and the Avenue, through to Station Road, to the South Bank Ward. This area is the site of the former South Bank Primary School, and has strong attachment to the South Bank area. In addition, we have returned the area around Fabian Road back to the South Bank Ward. Teesville Cemetery has always served as the divide between South Bank and Teesville Wards and we believe that this should continue to be the case. The former Eston Park School and the current Hillsview Academy, alongside the City Learning Centre all clearly identify as South Bank properties. Although it is recognised that the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals maintain these properties within the South 11

Bank ward, it makes logical sense that the immediate surrounding areas should also be in South Bank – both the Avenue/Caithness Road estate, and the Fabian Road estate. Particularly, the Fabian Road estate belongs in South Bank, as highlighted by the fact that the former entrance to the school (when it was Eston Park School) was situated (and still is situated) on Burns Road – a road the commission have now placed within the Teesville Ward.

Our evidence for South Bank to remain a three member ward: In our view no convincing explanation is given for the rationale to reduce South Bank ward from a three councillor ward, to a two councillor ward. In the Commission’s own electorate proforma figures, South Bank was clearly within the variances both in 2017 and in the projected 2023 figures described by LGBCE thus ‘ensuring electoral equality.’ In 2017 South Bank was ‐8% under the variance threshold, but by 2023 this gap had substantially reduced to ‐6%.13 Moreover, there are new housing projects built, being built and in the pipeline for South Bank – some of which project out beyond 2023 and some of which were not included in the projections provided. The Conservative Group’s proposals state that South Bank and Grangetown are in both in a ‘deprived area’ and that ‘the number of councillors in each ward has been reduced to two’.14 The latter statement is factually incorrect as Grangetown was already a two member ward. But, more importantly, we contend that by reducing South Bank to a two member ward and by increasing the boundaries of Teesville and Grangetown to accommodate this change, the Commission are greatly disadvantaging the most deprived area in Redcar and Cleveland. We also argue strongly that the Liberal Democrat proposal, reflected in the Boundary Commission’s final report, does not ‘create a ward more representative of the community of South Bank’15 and in fact will have the opposite effect – as demonstrated by the community feeling we have encountered. The Commission noted the comments from a local resident that ‘South Bank is generally considered to be to the area to the north of the trunk road and that it should be a two councillor ward.’16 It must be noted that, firstly, this resident was not ‘local’ as he lives in

13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England, ‘Redcar and Cleveland Electorate Proforma Revised Figures’, 22 January 2018 [http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/North%20East/Redcar%20and%20Cleveland/RedcarClevelandElectoratePro forma‐revised‐figures‐2018‐01‐22.xlsx] 14 Conservative Group, ‘Submission on Ward Boundaries in the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland’, p. 2. [http://s3‐eu‐west‐2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/37000/ConservativeGroup‐PG‐ RandC‐2017‐12‐04_Redacted.pdf] 15 Liberal Democrat Group, ‘Submission to the Boundary Commission review of electoral arrangements in Redcar and Cleveland Borough 2017. 16 Ian Swales to LGBCE, ‘Council Wards Boundary Review – Redcar and Cleveland’, 23 November 2017 [http://s3‐eu‐west‐2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/37011/A‐Z.pdf] 12

Redcar and not South Bank (as noted on his submission17), and secondly it must be noted that this resident is the former Liberal Democrat MP for Redcar, Ian Swales, and as such it is not surprising that both his evidence and the Liberal Democrat group were, in your own words, ‘broadly similar’.18 Whilst the latter point is a matter for your interpretation, the former point is more fundamental to our argument. Mr. Swales has a great deal of knowledge about the Redcar area, but he does not live in South Bank – nor do any of his former colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Group. We hope that the Commission attach great weight to the views of the three local South Bank councillors and the South Bank community, alongside the views of the Labour Group – which is the only party with elected representation in South Bank. We recognise that the new two member South Bank ward proposed by the Boundary Commission has a predicted 0% variance by 2023. As previously highlighted this figure does not include the Low Grange Housing estate, within South Bank, which secured planning permission for 1,250 homes in March 2016 (Application reference R/2014/0372/OOM.)19 These homes are not in the planning department’s data for the South Bank ward, despite this permission and despite the fact that they are included in the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan.20 We believe that this is a serious oversight. The success of the High Farm Estate and the Fabian Place Estate, both built within the last five years, highlights the demand for housing within the area. Moreover, these new estates were built by major developers: Taylor Wimpey and Gleesons, respectively, showcasing national interest in house building in South Bank. In addition, the High Farm development has recently gained approval for reserved matters for an extra 130 houses – to be built by Keep Moat ‐ again showing demand in South Bank. In short, we believe this evidence indicates that homes on Low Grange Farm will be built by 2023. Our main argument, however, is not that South Bank is, in the Commission’s proposals, at a 0% variance by 2023, but is centred on both the loss of a councillor in South Bank and the knock on effect on another deprived ward – Grangetown. South Bank and Grangetown are two of the most deprived wards in the country and are by some distance the two most deprived wards in Redcar and Cleveland. Data from the 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation published by the Tees Valley Combined Authority showcases that both South Bank and Grangetown (and Eston – another ward enlarged by your proposals) are within the top 10% most deprived wards in the country.21 Grangetown is predicted to be the sixth most deprived ward in the whole country, whereas South Bank is

17 Ibid. 18 LGBCE, New Electoral Arrangements, p. 9. 19 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, R/2014/0372/OOM, [https://www.redcar‐ cleveland.gov.uk/rcbcweb.nsf/947248D494D64EF980257F7D00308892/$FILE/REPORT%20Land%20at%20Low %20Grange%20Farm%20South%20Bank.pdf ]; see also ‘Scheme for 1,250 homes on land near South Bank Tesco recommended for approval’, Teesside Gazette, 22 March 2016, [https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside‐news/scheme‐1250‐homes‐land‐near‐11078512] 20 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Publication Local Plan, (September, 2016), [http://www.redcar‐ cleveland.gov.uk/rcbcweb.nsf/7265BE9ED13D3F6580256F6A003F1D97/$FILE/Publication%20Local%20Plan%2 0%28November%202016%29.pdf], p. 116 21 See also Appendix one 13

the 182nd most deprived.22 Regarding Super Output Area, Redcar and Cleveland has 11 (out of 97) areas which are within the top 3% of the most deprived in the country, 5 of these are in Grangetown or South Bank. Moreover, 4 areas in these two wards are within the top 5 most deprived in the Borough, which places them within the bottom 0.67% of the country.)23 We believe that the Commission’s proposal to increase the area of housing within Grangetown substantially fails to take account of the needs of this clearly deprived area. Again, these are the two most deprived wards in Redcar and Cleveland and we believe that the Boundary Commissions proposals are denying these residents proper electoral representation. Whilst we fully understand the need for ‘electoral equality’ across Redcar and Cleveland, we do not feel that a convincing case has been made to deprive the second poorest ward of the Borough (and the 182nd poorest in the country) of a councillor when neither the 2017 data, nor the projected 2023 data indicates that South Bank is below the 10% threshold. The knock on effect of reducing a councillor within South Bank would not only reduce representation of the second most deprived area in Redcar and Cleveland, but it would also place more pressure on Councillors and Council services in the most deprived ward in Redcar and Cleveland: Grangetown ‐ which in the draft recommendations is projected to have a +7% variance.

Eston Ward

22 Tees Valley Unlimited, ‘Index of Multiple Deprivation – Borough Level Results’, [https://teesvalley‐ ca.gov.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2016/03/4.‐imd_borough_report_2015.pdf] 23 Redcar and Cleveland Council, ‘Deprivation’, [https://www.redcar‐cleveland.gov.uk/pdf/Area‐ profile/Data%20Tables/Indices%20of%20Deprivation%202007.xls] 14

We do not agree with the move of one side of Birchington Avenue into the Eston Ward from Teesville. Ruswarp Close, Sleights Crescent, Grosmont Road and Sansend Road have always been in the Teesville ward and residents there identify as such. No local resident expressed support for these proposals. It is recognised that our past and current proposal splits the Whale Hill area24, but this has always been the case and there is a historical justification for this. The roads in question border the Teesville Recreation Ground, a strong community green space in the ward. However, we completely agree with the Commission’s view on Eston Square – that this area should sit within the Eston Ward Normanby Ward

24 LGBCE, New Arrangements, p. 9. 15

We do not agree that Smith’s Dock Park should be in the Normanby Ward. We see Ormesby Road as a clear divide between Normanby and Teesville and propose that Smith’s Dock Park and the surrounding estate should be in the Teesville Ward. This has been reflected on our revised submission.

Teesville Ward 16

Smith’s Dock Park and the surrounding estate should be in the Teesville Ward as Ormesby Road provides a natural boundary between Teesville and Normanby (and this estate is an anomaly which breaks this natural boundary). We believe that parts of the Tawney Road estate should be in Teesville as their community identity sits within this ward, along with the nearby Teesville allotments. Ideally we would like to include the whole of Tawney Road in the Teesville Ward, everything to the side of the path which splits Grangetown and Teesville. This is a clear divide between the two wards and should be respected. However, we note the Commission’s strive for electoral equality and to include this whole estate would have proven difficult. We also believe, linked with the South Bank comments, that the Caithness/Avenue estate should not be in the Teesville ward as they clearly identify with South Bank. The school they face onto and that many of their children attend is in South Bank, and the City Leaning Centre (formally a temporary Town Hall for the authority) is also in South Bank. Thus, these streets have an identity within the South Bank Ward and not Teesville Ward.

Grangetown Ward

We do not agree that both sides of Wilton Way should be included in the Grangetown ward. This has the effect of moving only one row of houses in an entire block of housing into a different ward than its immediate neighbours. We believe that the Commission’s draft, which places a variance of +7% by 2023 on the Grangetown Ward, unnecessarily enlarges the ward beyond its community boundaries. We believe a knock on effect of these proposals (brought about because of the reduction of a member in South Bank), will place great strain on council resources and councillors within the Grangetown ward, which is the most deprived ward in the Borough and is within the top 1% nationally of deprived areas.

Ormesby Ward We have no comments to make on the proposed outline for Ormesby other than to express general support. We accept the points about our previous suggestion of including parts of the Guisborough Parish in Ormesby Ward were not persuasive. This was suggested noting that Ormesby is under the variance threshold for 2017 – and we did not see a strong rationale for moving houses across a well defined boundary between Normanby and Ormesby (the only other logical suggestion.) However, we recognise that that there is large scale building in the Ormesby area which will take the area to an acceptance variance by 2023. Thus we accept the Commission’s proposals in Ormesby without amendment.

Redcar – General Points Redcar and Cleveland Borough is split into three distinct geographical areas: Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland. Whilst the Council recognises ‘greater’ Redcar to be all the wards extending from Dormanstown to Saltburn,25 for the purposes of this consultation response we have investigated the ‘Redcar’ area along the lines proposed by the Commission. Thus, our comments below relate to the wards of Coatham, Dormanstown, Kirkleatham, Mickledales, Newcomen, The Ings (West Dyke) and Zetland only. Even though our Council incorporates Longbeck, Saltburn and St. Germains within the ‘Redcar’ area, for the purposes of this report, we are commenting along the lines proposed by the Commission. The main comments to make about the Commission’s Redcar proposals are as follows. The Labour Group did not previously propose a new ward in the Mickledales area, however we recognise that colleagues in other political groups and indeed the Commission itself all now accept the rationale for this new ward. did propose such a ward. Although again, we contend that this was the ‘idea’ of single councillor officer which was then accepted without major amendment by each of the other political groups, we recognise after a detailed study of the New Arrangements document the rationale for including such a ward. Our greatest issue with the Redcar proposals is the loss of a councillor from the Dormanstown area and thus we are proposing reinstatement of this councillor. In the Labour Group’s consultation response we have returned a third councillor to this area. This has resulted in redrawing the boundaries of the wards surrounding Dormanstown. We recognise that with the addition of a Mickledales Ward and the return of a third member in Dormanstown, that Redcar would be overrepresented in terms of councillors. To correct this imbalance we are proposing the deletion of the Newcomen ward. Newcomen is a ward with very little local identity, no community facilities and would be hard for any resident to pinpoint on a map. With the emerging identity of the Mickledales ward due to the large scale house building in the area, and the historical identity of Dormanstown, alongside the issues of disadvantage providing a strong rationale for three councillors, we believe that this is the most appropriate proposal for the central Redcar area to ensure electoral equality.

25 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ‘Neighbourhoods’, [http://www.redcar‐ cleveland.gov.uk/rcbcweb.nsf/web+full+list/2a95ad6e7e1851b980257a0e004f2321] 20

Data for the Redcar area The Labour Group’s proposals for central Redcar, detailed below, are all comfortably within the 10% plus or minus variance data for 2023. The mean variance of our proposals is 7.21%, however, as seen below the Boundary Commission’s proposals mean variance is also high with an average of 4.5%. The variance is high due to large scale house building within Redcar, of which it is still unclear to what extend all areas will be completed by 2023. Either way our proposals still maintain electoral equality because they are under 10% variance in all areas.

LGBCE Recommendations Labour Group Consultation Response No. of cllrs 2023 Variance No. of cllrs 2023 Variance Coatham 2 5% 2 5.60% Dormanstown 2 1% 3 9.20% Kirkleatham 3 2% 3 7.60% Mickledales 3 2% 3 9.20% Newcomen 2 8% DELETED DELETED The Ings (West Dyke) 2 ‐7% 2 9.40% Zetland 2 ‐6% 2 2.30%

Coatham

We have included the streets off Birdsall Row into the Coatham Ward as we believe this better reflects the pattern of the ward. We have also included Sacred Heart School and the surrounding houses in the Coatham Ward. We agree completely with the Commission’s decision to include Coatham Sands, as suggested in our original draft.

Dormanstown (and Newcomen)

Our main issue in the Redcar area concerns the reduction of Dormanstown from three councillors to two councillors and the knock on impact this has had in removing streets from the Dormanstown Ward which clearly identify as Dormanstown. Dormanstown is one of the poorest wards in Redcar and Cleveland, coming within the top 20% of wards nationally.26 Moreover, some of Dormanstown Super Output Areas are within the top 10% nationally.27 Again, as stated in our arguments for the South Bank Ward, we believe the proposals as they stand take councillor resources from a deprived area. The historical Dormanstown community boundary, which is well known and identifiable, has been lost in the Commission’s proposals. Consequently, the boundaries of Dormanstown have been redrawn to accommodate this. We have therefore redrawn the boundary to bring part of Newcomen Ward into Dormanstown Ward as we believe this better reflects the local community. We have deleted the Newcomen ward entirely. Outside of Newcomen Primary School (which is not even part of the current Newcomen ward), and Newcomen Methodist Church nothing with the name Newcomen exists. There is no community identity and no community facilities. Moreover, the church also serves the Dormanstown area (with the,

26 Tees Valley Unlimited, ‘IMD data’, p. 11 27 Ibid., p. 3. 23

older, Dormanstown Methodist church demolished in 1997 due to the building of the new church in Newcomen.) A former Newcomen Labour councillor noted to us after their election that the first thing they wanted to do in the ward was petition to change the boundaries because of a lack of community identity and facilities. We believe that many of the streets in the Commission’s proposed Newcomen ward would be better served as part of an enlarged Dormanstown Ward. These include the streets off Thames Road, Waveney Road, and Cotswold Drive in our enlarged Dormanstown Ward. We recognise entirely that there has to be a ‘knock on’ impact of the new Mickledales, three member ward. As noted below, we have – on reflection – accepted the rationale for creating a new Mickledales Ward. However, this new ward has had the knock on effect of removing councillors from both Dormanstown and Longbeck. Whilst we agree with the removal of one councillor from Longbeck (as Longbeck directly borders the new Mickledales Ward), we do not agree with the removal of a councillor from the Dormanstown Ward. Whilst we contend that Newcomen has no local identity, beyond a primary school which (on current boundaries) does not even sit within the ward, Dormanstown is steeped with community identity and history. Dormanstown has recently celebrated its 100 year anniversary and is synonymous with Redcar’s industrial past, having been named after the Dorman Long steelworks. Dormanstown is one of Redcar and Cleveland’s most important towns. It contains within its borders one of Redcar and Cleveland Council’s main offices and main depot: Fairway House. It is also the site of Arriva North East’s main bus depot, and has the central offices of the Borough’s major social landlord, Coast and Country Housing. In addition to these major buildings, Dormanstown has a strong sense of community with Dormanstown Cricket Club, Dormanstown Library, Dormanstown Post Office, Dormanstown Primary School, Dormanstown Junior Football Club, Ennis Square Social Club, the British Steel Dormanstown Club, and Dormanstown Youth Club. Newcomen has no such facilities and in our view should be deleted, with the ward divided up between Dormanstown on the map’s left edge, Kirkleatham to the bottom, and West Dyke to the right. We believe that all these wards have greater community involvement and history than the Newcomen ward, and thus we are proposing Newcomen’s deletion. The Dormanstown Neighbourhood Action Partnership, a community group made up of residents, the police, the fire authority, social housing providers, and council representatives, have let it be known that they will not be supporting the Commission’s decision to reduce the representation of Dormanstown from three councillors to two. The three Dormanstown councillors are also powerfully objecting to the Commission’s proposals. Our evidence shows that the residents of the streets we have included in our re‐enlarged Dormanstown Ward all use these facilities. The deletion of Newcomen and the reinstatement of a three member Dormanstown ward, alongside Kirkleatham and a newly named Ings Ward (previously West Dyke) will much better and more accurately reflect the communities as they really are. 24

Kirkleatham

We have noted the Commission’s comments about placing Kirkleatham within the Kirkleatham Ward and accept this rationale. We also accept the argument that Yearby village would be better served by Kirkleatham than by Dormanstown (our original proposal). We have included sections of the former Newcomen ward in our Kirkleatham map. The shops and facilities on Roseberry Road are clearly the main facilities for the residents of Kirkleatham and as such we believe that the boundary we have proposed up to Troutbeck Road better reflects the needs of these residents. Moreover, as reflected upon earlier, Kirkleatham is a ward rich in history with strong community identity. This is true of the section of the former Newcomen ward (up to Troutbeck Road) that we have put in the Kirkletham Ward. 25

Mickledales

On careful reflection we recognise the requirement for a new Mickledales Ward, noting the large scale housing development in the area. We have also taken note of residents’ feedback to the Commission’s consultation supporting the inclusion of the Mickledales estate in a Mickledales ward. We do however have some small changes to the proposed boundaries. We believe that the Boundary of this ward should extend upwards to include Rye Hills School and the streets to the right of the school (when looking at the map). We feel that the Commission’s proposals have the effect of cutting off these streets from the bottom part of Mickledales. We have made some small changes to the left of the ward, moving Wincanton Road into the newly named Ings (West Dyke) Ward as we note that our submission has a high variance of 26

9%. On this we have two comments: Firstly, we contend that the projections for further house building in this area by 2023 are optimistic; Secondly, we emphasise that although the variance is 9% this is still under the 10% threshold (whereas areas such as Loftus in the Commission’s draft are over this 10% plus or minus threshold).

The Ings (previously West Dyke)

We are proposing to rename this ward the Ings Ward. We have placed areas at the top of Thrush Road into the Coatham Ward because we believe that these residents strongly identify with the Coatham area. West Dyke, a bit like Newcomen, has very little Community identity beyond ‘West Dyke Road’. No buildings, shops or clubs exist bearing this name. It is our experience that many of the areas to the top of West Dyke Ward (and to an extent also Zetland Ward) have much greater affinity with Coatham, particularly being so close to the sands.

Zetland

We have made only minor amendments to the Zetland Ward, extending its left edge to include Murial Street and Alfred Street to balance out the electoral equality of the central Redcar area.

Marske, New Marske and Saltburn ‐ Longbeck, St. Germains and Saltburn Wards Although we regard these areas as part of the Redcar area and not as separate entities, the Labour Group agrees with the Commission’s proposals for these wards. We agree with the reduction of one councillor from the Longbeck ward – and as noted in the above section, on reflection, we understand the rationale for a new Mickledales ward separate from the rural Longbeck ward. The transfer of this estate into a new ward thus means that Longbeck has been reduced to a two councillor ward. We now support these proposals. We recognise that there is a problem with the high negative variance for Saltburn, but note the difficulty of moving small villages into the ward due to the parish boundaries. Thus, we accept the Commission’s map for this area.

East Cleveland – Brotton, Loftus, Skelton, Lockwood, Guisborough, Belmont and Hutton We have no substantive comments to make about these areas other than to express our support for the Commission’s findings in East Cleveland, with just one concern over the ward of Loftus. We agree on reflection with the proposal to split the Skelton ward in two, noting the large scale of house building in this area. We note the problem of Loftus being over variance both now and in the future, but our previous proposals to include Skinningrove and/or Moorsholm in the Loftus wards were dismissed. We do feel that Skinningrove has much stronger ties to the Loftus area than Brotton but have not pursued this further in this response. We have abandoned our attempts to increase the size of the Loftus ward, although we are concerned that it is the only ward in the Borough with a variance over 10%, both now and in the 2023 projections. One option we considered was potentially removing one councillor in Loftus. We have not worked up these proposals due to the potential impact on the other areas of our map, but we invite the Commission to investigate the possibility of Loftus being a two councillor ward.

Conclusions We believe that we have presented strong, evidenced proposals for the whole of the Redcar and Cleveland Borough. We have noted the findings of the Commission and have expressed our support for the proposals in many areas. We accept the Commission’s recommendations across East Cleveland and also accept the new warding arrangements for Marske, New Marske, Saltburn and Ormesby. The main areas of divergence between our revised proposals and the Commission’s surround the South Bank and Dormanstown Wards. We believe that the deprivation levels of these two wards, particularly South Bank, present a strong case for a rethink of the decision to reduce councillors in the two areas. South Bank is the second most deprived ward in Redcar and Cleveland and is in the bottom 10% of all wards nationally. Not only do we believe that the decision to reduce the numbers of councillors in South Bank is a mistake owing to the deprivation statistics, we also believe that the streets surrounding the Avenue/Caithness Road and Fabian Road have strong community links with South Bank and should not be moved into the Teesville area. Due to our decision to return South Bank to a three member ward this has had a small impact on the boundaries of its neighbouring wards in Greater Eston, but we believe that these changes better reflect the nature of these wards. Dormanstown is a historic town, borne out of the industrial might of the area. It has strong links with local industry and a deep rooted local identity. The removal of a councillor from this ward, and the removal of many streets, we believe should be reinvestigated. Due to our decision to return Dormanstown to a three member ward, this has had some impact on the surrounding wards. We believe that the deletion of the Newcomen ward, an area with little community identity, better reflects the boundaries and needs of the Redcar area and allows for a new Mickledales Ward alongside a three councillor Dormanstown ward. We commend this report to the Commission and we hope that in the spirit of the Commission’s letter to our Chief Executive that the Commission keep ‘an open mind about amending the scheme if an alternative pattern of wards would better meet the statutory criteria.’28

28 ‘Local Government Boundary Commission for England to Amanda Skelton’, 6 February 2018, 32

Kingsley, Paul

From: Massey, Christopher (Cllr) Sent: 16 April 2018 10:15 To: reviews Cc: Kingsley, Paul; Kearney, David; Pearson, Alison Subject: Consultation on Draft Recommendations - Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council - Labour Group Submission Attachments: LB_GROUP_201804.zip; Boundary Commission - Labour Group Submission FINAL.DOCX

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached Redcar and Cleveland Labour Group’s response to the Boundary Commission’s consultation on the proposed new pattern of wards in our Borough.

Our submission includes both a narrative submission (and evidence), and also a set of maps for the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland which we believe take on board the majority of the Commission’s comments, but which suggest some small changes to the proposed boundaries based on the local evidence our group has received.

I hope you find the attached submissions useful in your deliberations.

For your information, below is an explanation of the columns in the mapping dataset:

No_of_coun = Members EL_23 = The target electoral number for 2023 SUM_ELECTO = The predicted number of electors for 2023* Deff_per = the % above / below the 2023 target

*The 2023 electoral dataset used for the estimation is the same dataset already provided to LGBCE.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr. Christopher Massey, PhD Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources, Eston Ward, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Email: christopher.massey@redcar‐cleveland.gov.uk Twitter: @cmmassey Tel: 07557540627

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the named recipient and may contain sensitive, confidential or protectively marked material up to the central government classification of "RESTRICTED" which must be handled accordingly. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e‐mail and delete from your system, unless you are the named recipient (or authorised to receive it for the recipient) you are not permitted to copy, use, store, publish, disseminate or disclose it to anyone else.

E‐mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error‐free as it could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses and therefore the Council accept no liability for any such errors or omissions.

1 Unless explicitly stated otherwise views or opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Council and are not intended to be legally binding.

All Council network traffic and GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, Redcar & Cleveland House, Kirkleatham Street, Redcar, TS10 1RT, Tel: 01642 774 774, Website: www.redcar‐cleveland.gov.uk