Boundary Commission constituency review

We are writing to make representation on the Boundary Commission English constituencies review

We strongly object to the inclusion of Billingham North Ward into the proposed new parliamentary constituency and regard the proposal as totally unacceptable. We will state why this is the case and offer an alternative proposal which is far more suitable and should be adopted instead.

Introduction

The current Hartlepool parliamentary constituency does not meet the Governments quota of electorate (between 72,810 and 80,473) for the new parliamentary boundary legislative requirements. The Boundary Commission’s (BC) “solution” is that they propose to add 7,324 Electors from the Billingham North Ward of the town of Billingham currently located in the Stockton- on-Tees Borough to the existing 70,010 electors of the current Hartlepool parliamentary constituency to form an expanded Hartlepool parliamentary constituency comprising 77,334 electors. It also proposes that the remainder of the Billingham Electoral wards should be included in the new proposed constituency of Stockton and Billingham.

This proposal is totally unacceptable and should be rejected. Included is an alternative proposal in this representation which meets the requirements of the legislation and also has far more sensible geographical and local governance considerations which have been taken into account. I have also observed an arithmetical error in one of the spread sheets (which we will report later in this submission) that the BC have published which in my view casts doubts on the quality of the work and the processes used to manipulate and check data.

Flaws and adverse consequences of the Boundary Commissions proposed Hartlepool parliamentary constituency

1) It isolates Billingham North Ward from the other four Billingham Wards of the town seemingly for no sensible purpose other than for the sake of convenience to make up electoral quotas.

2) Billingham has a population of ca. 35,000 and it makes no sense to annexe one of its wards into a different parliamentary constituency, when the remainder the wards are served by a different local authority.

3) Residents from Billingham North Ward would have to travel to Hartlepool to attend the MP’s surgery whereas those living a few tens of metres away in adjacent Billingham Wards would travel to Stockton or Billingham.

4) North Billingham Residents Association’s area of benefit would extend over two parliamentary constituencies.

5) Billingham North Ward would be totally isolated from the remainder of the wards of the town of Billingham. Some residents would be confused and would inevitably approach the elected member for the Stockton and Billingham Constituency as they live in Billingham and are served by Stockton Borough Council rather than the member for the Hartlepool constituency.

6) There are no historical, geographical or Local Government connections between Hartlepool and Billingham North Ward whereas Billingham North Ward is totally integrated with the other Billingham Wards via local geography, governance and service provision from its principal authority, Stockton Borough Council and its own Billingham Town Council. 7) It would appear that since the existing Hartlepool Constituency falls short of the required number of electorate under the new Government constituency requirements, the BC have simply added Billingham North Ward because it is convenient for their purposes to achieve required quotas and have paid no regard whatsoever to Local Governance and legislative geographical considerations which have been laid down.

(8) The downloadable spread sheet BCE-Initial-proposals-North-East-Annex.xls from the Boundary Commission website contains the following arithmetical error about the Hartlepool Constituency:

NORTH EAST REGION PROPOSED CONSTITUENCY

ELECTORATE TABLE 2011 Difference from 2011 EQ

Hartlepool BC 77,334 693 0.90%

The actual difference from 2011 is 77,334 minus 70,010 which is 7,324 NOT 693 as quoted. This miscalculation may well have impacted on other calculations made by the Commission which led to the current constituency boundary reorganisations. As stated previously it raises doubts on the quality of your work and the processes you employ to manipulate and check data.

Alternative proposal for Billingham North Ward and adjoining constituency areas

The following information and data sources have been utilised for this proposal.

(1) The Boundary Commission’s webpage http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/whats-proposed/north-east/

(2) The 2011 electoral data used for the 2013 Review. (downloadable spread sheet holding this data as per hyper link below:

http://rr-bce-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/2011_09_08_North_East_Region_Initial_Proposalsv2.xls?9d7bd4

(3) Spread sheet BCE-Initial-proposals-North-East-Annex.xls from the Boundary Commission website

We propose that the following amendments be made to the existing Boundary Commission proposals for following North East constituencies in terms of the wards that they will be comprised of:

Durham CC: Remove Coxhoe and transfer to Easington

Easington CC: Remove Blackhalls and transfer to Hartlepool

Hartlepool BC: Remove Billingham North and Transfer to Stockton and Billingham BC

Stockton and Billingham BC: Remove Fairfield and Hartburn and transfer to Sedgefield & Yarm

Sedgefield and Yarm CC: Remove & and transfer to

Darlington BC: Will gain Middleton St George & Sadberge wards as stated above.

Benefits of alternative proposed constituency reorganisation

Billingham North Ward would be served by the same MP, principle Local Authority and Town Council as the rest of the Wards in the town of Billingham, delivering consistent Governance and parliamentary representation for the whole town.

Middleton St George & Sadberge will also be served by the same MP and Local Authority as all the other Darlington Wards in the Darlington constituency.

Sedgefield and Yarm CC will be served by two instead of three Local Authorities simplifying governance for the constituency.

The relatively small borough of Stockton-on-Tees would only be divided between three constituencies instead of four as currently proposed.

Conclusion

Our alternative parliamentary compositions shown in Annexe 1 not only meets the legislative quota requirements but also addresses the flaws of the existing proposals with regard to Billingham North Ward and offers the benefits stated above.

We therefore urge you to adopt these proposals in place of your current proposals which are significantly flawed and wish to have your response as soon as possible.

Annexe 1 Revised constituency composition Local authority wards and principle authorities and total electorates

Durham CC 73,105

Belmont DURHAM 5,074 Brandon DURHAM 7,453 Durham South DURHAM 5,183 Elvet DURHAM 7,685 Ferryhill DURHAM 7,424 Framwellgate Moor DURHAM 7,860 Gilesgate DURHAM 5,964 Neville's Cross DURHAM 7,035 Newton Hall DURHAM 6,175 Sherburn DURHAM 7,292 Trimdon DURHAM 5,960

Easington CC 74,840

Coxhoe DURHAM 5,444 Dawdon DURHAM 5,340 Deneside DURHAM 5,553 Easington DURHAM 6,150 Horden DURHAM 6,478 Murton DURHAM 6,087 Peterlee East DURHAM 5,897 Peterlee West DURHAM 5,669 Seaham DURHAM 6,949 Shotton DURHAM 7,172 Thornley DURHAM 5,740 Wingate DURHAM 8,361

Hartlepool BC 76,213

Blackhalls DURHAM 6,203 Brus HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,895 Burn Valley HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,120 Dyke House HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 3,523 Elwick HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 1,700 Fens HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,068 Foggy Furze HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 3,845 Grange HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,127 Greatham HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 1,690 Hart HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 5,262 Owton HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,116 Park HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,672 Rift House HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,742 Rossmere HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,871 St Hilda HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,353 Seaton HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 5,323 Stranton HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 3,998 Throston HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH 4,705

Sedgefield and Yarm CC 78,388

Aycliffe East DURHAM 5,042 Aycliffe North DURHAM 6,338 Aycliffe West DURHAM 5,666 Sedgefield DURHAM 5,644 Shildon East DURHAM 6,799 Fairfield STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,837 Hartburn STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,480 Eaglescliffe STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 8,288 Ingleby Barwick East STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 7,498 Ingleby Barwick West STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 7,457 Parkfield and Oxbridge STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,953 Western Parishes STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 2,630 Yarm STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 7,756

Stockton and Billingham BC 75,331

Billingham Central STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,267 Billingham East STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,321 Billingham South STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,972 Billingham West STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,828 Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,304 Grangefield STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,324 Hardwick STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,842 Newtown STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,954 Northern Parishes STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 2,695 Norton North STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,036 Norton South STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,896 Norton West STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,206 Roseworth STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 5,156 Stockton Town Centre STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 4,206 Billingham North STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOROUGH 7,324

Annexe 2: Photographic examples highlighting some of the fundamental flaws of the proposal

Footpath in Billingham west of Marsh House Avenue. The houses on the left are in Billingham Central Ward and would be in the proposed Stockton & Billingham Constituency. Those on the right are in Billingham North Ward and would be in the proposed Hartlepool Constituency.

The entrance to Bede Sixth form will be in the Stockton and Billingham Constituency. The houses opposite which are further west would be in the Hartlepool Constituency. If somebody wants to speak to their MP about an issue concerning the college, which MP would you want to speak to if you lived opposite?

Marsh House Avenue, Billingham facing west. The houses in the background would be in the Stockton and Billingham Constituency. The house opposite in the foreground would be in the Hartlepool Constituency.