New Electoral Arrangements for Redcar and Cleveland Borough

New electoral arrangements for Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Final recommendations June 2018 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: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2018 Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Redcar & Cleveland? ...... 1 Our proposals for Redcar & Cleveland ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 4 2 Analysis and final recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations consultation ...... 7 Final recommendations ...... 8 Eston ...... 10 Redcar ...... 16 Marske, New Marske and Saltburn ...... 22 Brotton and Loftus ...... 24 Skelton and Lockwood ...... 26 Guisborough ...... 28 Conclusions ...... 30 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 30 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 30 3 What happens next? ...... 33 Equalities ...... 33 Appendix A ...... 34 Final recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council ...... 34 Appendix B ...... 36 Outline map ...... 36 Appendix C ...... 37 Submissions received ...... 37 Appendix D ...... 39 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 39

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed • How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called • How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Redcar & Cleveland?

4 We are conducting a review of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Redcar & Cleveland. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Redcar & Cleveland

• Redcar & Cleveland should be represented by 59 councillors, the same number as there are now. • Redcar & Cleveland should have 24 wards, two more than there are now. • The boundaries of all but two wards should change.

We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Redcar & Cleveland.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

5 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament1.

6 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair) • Susan Johnson OBE • Peter Maddison QPM • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

7 This electoral review was carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Redcar & Cleveland are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

What is an electoral review?

8 Our three main considerations are to:

• Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government

9 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

Consultation

10 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Redcar & Cleveland. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

11 This review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 September 2017 Number of councillors decided 26 September 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards

4 December 2017 End of consultation, we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 6 February 2018 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 16 April 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 5 June 2018 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

2 Analysis and final recommendations

13 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

14 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

15 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2017 2023 Electorate of Redcar & 104,847 107,029 Cleveland Number of councillors 59 59 Average number of 1,777 1,814 electors per councillor

16 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All but one of our proposed wards for Redcar & Cleveland will have electoral equality by 2023. Loftus ward will have 11% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023.

17 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

18 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Electorate figures

19 The Council submitted electorate figures, including forecast electorate for 2023, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2018. During the course of drawing up warding proposals we noticed some small anomalies with the Council’s figures. We queried this with the Council who then submitted slightly revised figures for the existing electorate. We generally seek to

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5 avoid amendments to the electorate figures. However, in this instance we have accepted the Council’s request to use more up to date figures. The Council’s figures predicted an increase in the electorate of around 2% by 2023.

20 In response to the draft recommendations Councillor Bendelow stated that approximately 1,200 properties on the Low Grange Farm site in our proposed South Bank ward had not been taken into account by the published electoral forecasts. The Labour Group also stated that there were several housing developments, including the Low Grange Farm site, proposed for the South Bank ward that had not been taken into consideration, although they acknowledged that some were scheduled to take place outside of the five-year window. We have queried these with the Council who were clear that they had considered the developments in their forecasting. In their view the first completions on the Low Grange Farm site would not occur before 2025. The Council further stated that this ‘assumption has not been disputed by Taylor Wimpey, or their agents and has not been queried by the Local Plan inspector in his final report’. We have not therefore amended the forecast figures for these areas.

21 The Labour Group also commented that the proposed house building figures for the proposed Wheatlands ward were optimistic. However, they did not provide a specific argument to support this, or an alternative figure that they felt to be more appropriate. In addition, even if the scale of development was optimistic and fewer or indeed no houses were built, the proposed ward would still have good electoral equality therefore we have not amended the forecast figures for this area.

22 The Commission remain on balance, satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council currently has 59 councillors. We looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will ensure the Council can continue to carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

24 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 59 councillors – for example in a mix of one-, two-, and three- councillor wards.

25 We received no significant comments about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns or draft recommendations. We have therefore based our final recommendations on a 59-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 28 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included four detailed borough-wide proposals from the Conservative, Independent, Labour, and Liberal Democrat groups on the Council.

The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent group proposals were identical in parts of Eston, Redcar and Marske and with broad similarities in other parts of Eston, Redcar and Saltburn. There were more significant differences in Brotton, Guisborough, Loftus and Skelton. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups provided some evidence to support their proposals. The Independent Group provided limited evidence to support its proposals. The Labour Group put forward significantly different proposals from the other groups across the borough, also with limited supporting evidence.

27 The four borough-wide schemes each provided for a mixed pattern of one-, two- or three-councillor wards for Redcar & Cleveland. All four borough-wide proposals secured generally good levels of electoral equality. The remaining submissions made comments across the borough, with several respondents putting forward comments about a number of areas.

28 We carefully considered the proposals received and noted the areas of similarity between the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals and the evidence provided to support them. We had a few concerns about the location of boundaries proposed by the Labour Group, particularly in Guisborough and Skelton, and parts of Eston and Redcar. In addition, limited evidence was provided to support these proposals. On that basis, whilst we were mindful of the Labour Group’s proposals we largely based our draft recommendations on elements of the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals. We also considered the other evidence received, while reflecting the statutory criteria. In addition, we visited Redcar & Cleveland to look at the various proposals on the ground. This visit helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed during consultation.

29 Our draft recommendations were for 12 three-councillor wards, 11 two- councillor wards and one one-councillor ward. We consider that our draft recommendations provided for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation

30 We received 50 submissions during the consultation on our draft recommendations. The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent groups put forward general support for our recommendations across the authority. The Tees Valley Mayor and Simon Clarke MP also wrote in support of our draft recommendations.

31 The Labour Group provided the Commission with a detailed submission in response to our draft recommendations. They expressed support for some parts of the draft recommendations, particularly in the more rural areas, however, they strongly contested our proposals for two-councillor South Bank and Dormanstown wards citing the high levels of deprivation that exist in these ‘priority’ areas that consequentially generate significant caseloads for their elected members.

32 They proposed to address the allocation of councillors in these wards by dissolving our proposed Newcomen ward and transferring the councillors to South Bank and Dormanstown to give the wards three councillors each. They also proposed a series of consequential changes to the wards in the Redcar and Eston areas arguing that the boundaries proposed in these areas were not reflective of the local communities.

33 We have carefully examined the submissions received for this area, as the evidence provided within them was robust. We have also revisited both the warding patterns and electoral figures to see if elements of the proposed warding pattern could be accommodated in other ways. However, on balance the Commission are not minded to adopt the Labour Group’s proposed amendments to the recommendations in these areas.

34 We also received several submissions relating to specific smaller boundary and ward name changes for Redcar & Cleveland. We have carefully considered each of these responses and have adopted changes where we see merit in the proposals.

Final recommendations

35 Pages 10 - 29 detail our final recommendations for each area of Redcar & Cleveland. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government

36 Our final recommendations are for 12 three-councillor wards, 11 two-councillor wards and one one-councillor ward. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

37 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on pages 34 - 35 and on the large map accompanying this report.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 8

Eston

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Eston 3 4% Grangetown 2 7% Normanby 3 8% Ormesby 3 -4% South Bank 2 0% Teesville 3 -7%

South Bank 38 We received a significant number of objections to our draft recommendations for the South Bank ward. However, the Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative groups, the Mayor and Simon Clarke MP also wrote in support for our proposed ward.

39 The Labour Group objected to the creation of a two-councillor South Bank ward. They argued, as with our proposed Dormanstown ward, that by moving away from a three-councillor South Bank ward, the draft recommendations would have the effect of taking resources from one of the most ‘disadvantaged’ wards in Redcar & Cleveland. The group added that these are ‘priority wards’ with significant deprivation and high councillor workloads. They proposed that South Bank should be returned to a three-member ward by redistributing the electors from our proposed Newcomen ward to the surrounding wards and reallocating the councillors to the South Bank and Dormanstown wards. They also proposed a number of consequential amendments to the Eston, Grangetown, Teesville and Ormesby wards.

40 Councillor Bendelow, Councillor Massey, Councillor Norton, Councillor McCormack, South Bank & Teesville Branch of the Redcar Labour Party, two local organisations and seven residents also objected to the loss of a councillor from the South Bank ward, putting forward similar arguments to Labour Group.

41 We note the objections to the two-councillor South Bank ward. We have read and very carefully considered the arguments put forward for the creation of a three- councillor South Bank ward in these representations as they provide good detail regarding the strength of local community as well as highlighting some of the challenges that councillors face in representing both the local electorate and population as a whole for this area.

42 However, we have several concerns with this proposal. Firstly, we note that although the Labour Group’s proposals give a three-councillor South Bank ward with 6% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average, it would actually result in a three-councillor Dormanstown ward with 9% more electors per councillor than the borough average. In light of concerns about councillor workload in these areas, a ward with 9% more electors than the borough average may place a greater strain on the councillors, even with three elected members than as under the draft recommendations for a two-councillor ward with 1% more electors than the borough average.

43 In addition, while we acknowledge the respondents’ concerns about deprivation and its potential impact on councillor workload, the legislation makes no provision to enable us to consider this outside of our three statutory criteria. We hear arguments from both sides; that urban areas should have proportionately more councillors than rural areas because urban areas present the more complex issues; and that rural areas should have proportionately more councillors because rural populations are more dispersed, and therefore harder to contact. Each ward brings its own unique set of characteristics and the Commission must carefully balance these against the needs of the authority and the legal requirements set out by the statutory criteria.

44 The Labour Group’s proposal was such that it proposed to alter the allocation of councillors between the Eston and Redcar areas – reducing Redcar from 16 councillors to 15, while increasing the number of councillors in Eston from 16 to 17. Our calculations anticipate that the Eston and Redcar areas will have 29,359 and 29,255, electors by 2023 respectively. The Redcar figure includes the Mickledales area which the Labour Group has accepted should be included in this area.

45 A council size of 59, means giving each area 16 councillors would ensure the best level of electoral equality, with each area having an average variance of 1% more electors than the borough average by 2023. Under the Labour Group proposals, with Redcar and Eston allocated 15 and 17 councillors respectively, the average variance for Redcar would be 8% more electors than the borough average by 2023 and 5% fewer overall for the Eston area. These are worse levels of electoral equality than proposed by the Commission as part of its draft recommendations and indicates that the Labour proposals represent a less good allocation of councillors between the two areas.

46 Therefore, given the overall worsening of electoral equality in the Eston and Redcar areas, an overall poorer allocation of councillors, and the fact that a three- councillor Dormanstown ward would have worse electoral equality than as set out in the draft recommendations, we do not consider that the Labour Group proposal to transfer a councillor from the Newcomen ward to create a three-councillor South Bank ward is adopted.

47 The Commission have however, based on the strength of feeling and evidence received re-examined whether any elements of the proposed boundaries changes for this area might be incorporated into our final recommendations.

48 We have examined whether it would be possible to create a three-councillor South Bank ward by reducing our proposed Teesville ward from three to two councillors. We considered the argument that the areas around The Avenue and Fabian Road should be moved from Teesville to South Bank, however following a tour of the area the Commission remain of the view that the A1085 Trunk Road represents a substantial boundary, and that generally the areas south of this road would be better placed in a Teesville ward. It has however been necessary to transfer a limited number of roads from this area to South Bank to provide for better levels of electoral equality.

49 We do acknowledge the Labour Group argument that residents in the properties around The Avenue and Fabian Road use the Hillsview Academy and that the former Eston Park Academy site accesses on to Fabian Road. We are therefore moving the school sites from the South Bank to the Teesville ward. This amendment does not move any electors.

50 Finally, as also discussed below in the Dormanstown section (paragraphs 67 – 82), we note there were several objections to the inclusion of the steel works site in the South Bank ward. We have considered the argument for retaining the steel works in the Dormanstown ward but note that there has been support during both rounds of consultation for including the whole of the South Tees Development Corporation site in the South Bank ward. We note that the site contains not only the

12 steel works, but also the port area and agree that the site should not be split between wards to help ensure that clear lines of communication can be established between the councillors representing the area and the development corporation. Therefore, the Commission intend to retain this whole area in the South Bank ward as part of the final recommendations.

51 Subject to the transfer of the Hillsview Academy and the former Eston Park Academy sites from the South Bank to the Teesville ward we are confirming our draft recommendations for South Bank ward as final.

Teesville 52 We received support for this ward from the Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative Groups, the Mayor and Simon Clarke MP in response to our consultation on the draft recommendations. However, we also received several objections to our proposals here.

53 The Labour Group proposed significant amendments to this ward to accommodate their proposal for a three-councillor South Bank ward. The Commission are not minded to adopt the Labour Group’s proposals for South Bank but have, as discussed above, considered whether any elements of community argument could be incorporated into the final recommendations.

54 While the Commission are not persuaded to move the properties along The Avenue and Fabian Road from Teesville to South Bank, we do acknowledge the Labour Group’s argument that residents in the properties around these roads use the Hillsview Academy and that the former Eston Park Academy site accesses on to Fabian Road. We are therefore proposing to move the school sites into the Teesville ward. This amendment does not move any electors.

55 We have also examined the Labour Group’s proposal to transfer the part of the Whale Hill area to the west of Birchington Avenue, from the Eston ward into Teesville. The Group suggest that this area could be considered to be part of Teesville. However, we also received support for our draft recommendations here which included the whole of the Whale Hill area including Birchington Avenue in the proposed Eston ward. Our tour of the area suggested that Birchington Avenue represents the focus of the community in Whale Hill including both the community centre and social club. Our draft recommendations also keep the Whale Hill Primary School in the Whale Hill area. The Commission are not persuaded on the strength of the evidence received to alter the boundary between these two wards and do not propose to adopt this amendment as part of our final recommendations.

56 We also considered Labour Group’s proposal to transfer part of the Tawney Road estate from the Grangetown ward to the Teesville ward. The Labour Group acknowledged that ‘ideally’ the whole estate would be in the Teesville ward; however, this would result in a Grangetown ward with 18% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023. We do not consider that dividing this area, which is bounded by Fabian Road, Church Lane and Caedmon Primary School would reflect the local community. In light of the fact this proposal would either result in a ward that split the Tawney estate, or create a ward with very poor electoral equality, we are not minded to adopt this amendment.

57 We have also considered but not adopted, as described in the Ormesby and Normanby section below, the Labour Group’s proposal to transfer Smith’s Dock Park and the properties around Skipper’s Lane from Normanby ward to the Teesville ward.

58 We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Teesville as final subject to the transfer of the Hillsview Academy and Eston Park Academy site from the South Bank to the Teesville ward.

Grangetown 59 We received support for this ward from the Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative groups, the Mayor and Simon Clarke MP. However, we also received some representations that objected to our proposals in this area.

60 The Labour Group proposed that all or part of the Tawney Road estate be transferred from Grangetown to the Teesville ward. The Commission considered this proposal but rejected it, as described in the Teesville section above, on the grounds that it would either create a Grangetown ward with very poor levels of electoral equality or split an established community. We are not proposing to adopt this scheme and are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Grangetown as final.

Eston 61 We received a mixed response to our draft recommendations for the Eston ward with support from the Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative groups, the Mayor and Simon Clarke MP and objections from others including the Labour Group.

62 The Labour Group put forward a proposal, as discussed in the Teesville section of this report above, to remove part of the Whale Hill area from the Eston ward into the Teesville ward. The Commission have not been persuaded by the evidence received to adopt this proposal as we consider that the draft recommendations provide for more clearly identifiable boundaries that better reflect community identity in the area. We therefore propose to confirm our draft recommendations as final for Eston ward.

Ormesby and Normanby 63 We received support for both our Ormesby and Normanby wards following the consultation on our draft recommendations.

64 The Labour Group proposed an amendment to the draft recommendations in this area that transferred Smith’s Dock Park and the properties around Skipper’s Lane from the Normanby ward into the Teesville ward, arguing that Ormesby Road is a ‘clear’ divide between Normanby and Teesville wards.

65 We were not persuaded by their argument and note that the properties around Skipper’s Lane lie somewhat separate from Teesville, being separated by Smith’s Dock Park, and while Ormesby Road does provide access into Teesville, it also provides access into Normanby.

66 One resident proposed that Ormesby along with a number of other wards be transferred into Middlesbrough; a process which is outside of the scope of this review. On balance, and in light of the support for the draft recommendations, we are confirming these wards as final.

Redcar

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Coatham 2 5% Dormanstown 2 1% Kirkleatham 3 2% Newcomen 2 8% West Dyke 3 -6% Wheatlands 2 5% Zetland 2 -6%

Dormanstown, Kirkleatham and Newcomen 67 Our consultation on the draft recommendations received a mixed response in terms of both support and objections to the proposed ward boundaries in these areas. The Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative groups, the Mayor and Simon Clarke MP wrote in support of our proposals.

68 The Labour Group objected to the creation of a two-councillor Dormanstown ward. They argued, as with South Bank, that by moving away from a three-councillor ward the draft recommendations had the effect of taking resources from one of the most ‘disadvantaged’ wards in Redcar & Cleveland and increasing the pressure on councillors where caseloads were already known to be high. Their proposals argued for the reinstatement of three councillors in both the Dormanstown ward and the South Bank ward as described earlier in the report (paragraphs 38 – 51).

69 Councillor Goddard, Councillor Massey, Councillor Norton, Councillor McCormack, Dormanstown Neighbourhood Action Partnership and several residents also objected to loss of a councillor from the Dormanstown ward.

70 Respondents argued that our proposed Newcomen ward included areas that are considered locally to form part of Dormanstown and proposed that the Newcomen ward be dissolved. The councillors from Newcomen should then be re- allocated to the proposed Dormanstown and South Bank wards, giving them each three-members and the electorate be transferred between the Dormanstown and West Dyke wards.

71 We have read and very carefully considered the evidence put to us regarding two and three-member wards for South Bank and Dormanstown and the relevance of our proposed Newcomen ward. The Commission, whilst acknowledging the pressure that councillors may face in representing the local communities in these areas, are not persuaded that the dissolution of our proposed Newcomen ward and the overall worsening electoral equality created by reallocating councillors (as described in the South Bank section of the report above) is justified.

72 The Commission have examined whether any of the other elements of the proposed boundary changes put forward in this area might be incorporated into our final recommendations.

73 We received evidence that the steel works after which Dormanstown was named should be retained in a Dormanstown ward citing strong historical ties and ongoing issues such as flooding which are linked to the site. The Commission have considered these arguments and others put forward during both rounds of consultation that propose that the whole of the South Tees Development Corporation site be kept together in a single ward, namely South Bank. We are not minded to adopt the proposal to split the site and place the steel works in the Dormanstown ward.

74 Several respondents stated that our proposed Newcomen ward had very little local identity and no community facilities. They noted that Dormanstown had many community facilities and that residents from our proposed Newcomen ward would be most likely to use these.

75 The Labour Group proposed that the area east of Kirkleatham Lane including Outwood Academy Redcar and Newcomen Primary School should be in a Dormanstown rather than Newcomen ward as proposed by our draft recommendations. However, our tour of the area indicated that Kirkleatham Lane provided for a good boundary between the two proposed wards.

76 The presence of the Newcomen Primary School, Newcomen Methodist Hall and shops along Thames Road would suggest that our proposed Newcomen ward would have its own community facilities. We also note that many of the facilities cited as being in Dormanstown lie to the west of Kirkleatham Lane, and would, therefore remain in a two-councillor Dormanstown ward.

77 We have looked to see whether it would be possible to create a three-councillor Dormanstown ward, whilst also providing for good electoral equality and strong boundaries between the neighbouring wards. If, for example, we were to create a three-councillor Dormanstown ward by reducing the number of councillors in Newcomen by one to a create a single-councillor ward then we would have a Dormanstown ward with 7% fewer electors than the average and a Newcomen ward with 39% more electors that the average for the borough by 2023. This is well above the level of electoral equality than the Commissions considers to be acceptable.

78 We also considered splitting Newcomen by moving the area west of Mersey Road between Roseberry Road to the south and Corporation Road to the north into a three-councillor Dormanstown as proposed by the Labour Group. Consequentially the remaining area of Newcomen ward, east of Mersey Road, would need to be moved into the West Dyke ward to create an enlarged three-councillor West Dyke ward. The resultant West Dyke ward would have 8% more electors than the borough average by 2023, which is an acceptable level of electoral variance. However, we do not consider this reflects the communities ties or provides for convenient and effective local government as the Newcomen area of the ward would be totally cut off from the centre of West Dyke by Redcar racecourse.

79 A three-councillor Dormanstown ward and a single-councillor Newcomen ward could be created by taking in a larger part of the Newcomen ward to the south of Troutbeck Road and west of Westmorland Road into Dormanstown. Dormanstown would have 9% more electors and Newcomen 9% fewer electors than the average for the borough by 2023. However, the Commission are not of the opinion that this offers the best reflection of local community ties, and the Dormanstown ward would have a high electoral variance that may lead to an increased workload for councillors. In addition, given our concern about the extent that a Dormanstown ward should cover the Newcomen area, we do not consider that further enlarging Dormanstown would reflect local communities. Finally, the three-councillor Dormanstown wards would have more electors than the borough average, which may lead to higher workload. Therefore, we are not recommending this proposal. On balance, we are confirming a two-councillor Dormanstown ward as final.

80 Councillor Quartermain and two residents proposed that Locke Park be transferred from the Dormanstown ward into Coatham ward arguing that Coatham has limited public parks and that residents utilise the park. However, we note that the

18 park is separated from Coatham by the railway line and sits opposite the houses on Corporation Road which have direct access to it. Therefore, we are retaining this in the Dormanstown ward.

81 Another respondent proposed that the Kirkleatham Business Park be transferred from the Dormanstown ward to Kirkleatham ward, however we remain of the opinion that the A1042 provides a clearer boundary. Therefore, we are not minded to adopt this proposal. Furthermore, in the light of our decision to retain a two-councillor Dormanstown and a two-councillor Newcomen ward we are not able to adopt the Labour Group’s proposed modifications to this ward.

82 On balance of all the evidence received and our statutory criteria the Commission are confirming the two-councillor Dormanstown, two-councillor Newcomen and three-councillor Kirkleatham wards as proposed at draft recommendations as final and without modification.

Coatham, Wheatlands, West Dyke and Zetland 83 The Commission have not been persuaded by the evidence received to adopt the Labour Group’s proposals in the Newcomen ward. Therefore, we are also unable to adopt their proposals for the West Dyke and Mickledales (now Wheatlands) wards. The Labour Group as part of their proposal for this area also suggested that the housing around Aintree Road be split between the West Dyke and Wheatlands wards, however we are not of the opinion that this is the best reflection of the local community. The estate appears as a cohesive unit bounded by the racecourse to the west and Redcar Lane to the east; we have therefore not adopted their proposals for these wards.

84 Two respondents argued that the Mickledales ward would be better named as Wheatlands, reflecting the fact that the proposed ward contains more than just the Mickledales estate. On balance, we are persuaded to adopt this name change.

85 We also received comments regarding the ward name choice of West Dyke. Respondents to the consultation on our draft recommendations suggesting that the name Ings might be more appropriate, however during the warding consultation we had also received a suggestion for Borough Park ward. Considering the lack of agreement, and that the area is currently referred to as West Dyke we propose to retain the West Dyke name.

86 Our draft Wheatlands and West Dyke wards received support as three and two- councillor wards respectively. However, the Liberal Democrat Group put forward further argument in favour of a two-councillor Wheatlands and a three-councillor West Dyke ward. They argued that the houses around Aintree Road have better links to the north, with Borough Park, the shops on Warwick Road and the Ings Farm Primary School and would therefore be more appropriately placed in the West Dyke ward. They also argued that Greenstone Road provided for a stronger boundary in the area.

87 In light of the evidence received we have revisited our decision in drawing up the boundary between the Wheatlands and West Dyke wards as proposed in the draft recommendations. The decision about where the boundary should lie was finely

19 balanced, but we have been persuaded by the new evidence received to modify our warding pattern for this area. We understand that separating the Aintree estate from the area to its north would have a greater impact on this community than using the Greenstone Road further south as the boundary. Our earlier tour of the area had lead us to conclude that because the properties on either side of Greenstone Road all accessed out onto the road that it acted as a community focus. However, the new evidence makes it clear that the properties are all inward facing, therefore Greenstone Road makes for a suitable boundary, with minimal impact on the communities either side. We are therefore modifying the draft recommendations in this area to create a two-councillor Wheatlands and a three-councillor West Dyke ward.

88 Councillor Quartermain objected to the inclusion of Brookbank Avenue, Easson Road and Westfield Avenue in a Coatham ward as the residents do not consider themselves to be part of Coatham. He argued that Corporation and Thrush Road would provide for a more natural boundary between the Coatham and West Dyke wards area. We acknowledge these concerns, however in our opinion Brookbank Avenue, Easson Road and Westfield Avenue would probably be best placed in the Newcomen ward. This would result in a Newcomen ward with very poor electoral equality at 23% more electors than the borough average by 2023. We do not consider this level of electoral equality to be acceptable.

89 We have considered whether these roads could be transferred from Coatham to West Dyke, however we are not persuaded by the evidence received that this would reflect the local community. The roads would be separated from the rest of the West Dyke ward by the Redcar Racecourse and Tesco’s supermarket. In addition, we are not persuaded that Thrush Road provides a stronger boundary than the railway line to the north. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these modifications to the boundaries in this area.

90 We received a submission stating that Locke Park and Coatham marshes should be placed within the Coatham ward. However as discussed previously in the report (paragraph 80) Locke Park has stronger access from our proposed Dormanstown ward. The Coatham marshes make up part of the South Tees Development Corporation site and this site is to be retained within a single ward. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these modifications to the boundaries of Coatham ward.

91 Finally, to the south of Zetland ward a respondent argued that the rugby football club should be in the Zetland ward rather than Longbeck ward, reflecting its access and community ties. We consider that this amendment would provide for a stronger boundary and are therefore adopting it as part of our final recommendations.

92 The final recommendations will therefore change the name of the Mickledales ward to Wheatlands, move the boundary between the West Dyke and Wheatlands wards further south, retain the Coatham ward as described by the draft recommendations and make a minor alteration to the southern boundary of the Zetland ward to accommodate the rugby football club.

Marske, New Marske and Saltburn

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Longbeck 2 5% Saltburn 3 -9% St Germain’s 3 5%

Longbeck, Saltburn and St Germain’s 93 We received general support for all three of these wards, although some concern was expressed about the relatively low level of electoral equality in the Saltburn ward. The Marske Community Partnership’s submission stated that the whole of Marske should be in St Germain’s ward.

94 Our recommendations for both Saltburn and Marske provide for the best balance of our statutory criteria. The proposed wards secure reasonable levels of electoral equality, while reflecting the parish boundaries and geographical separation. We acknowledge that part of the Marske area is split between the St Germain’s and Longbeck wards. However, to have included the whole of Marske in a St Germain’s ward would have resulted in a two-councillor Longbeck ward with 21% fewer electors than the borough average and a three-councillor St Germain’s ward with 22% more than the average by 2023. We do not consider that such poor levels of electoral equality are justifiable.

95 We also note Councillor Foggo’s proposal to transfer around 20 properties from Skelton ward to the Saltburn ward to better reflect community links. However, as stated in the draft recommendations we were unable to make a number of small boundary changes such as this as they would have required the creation of very small parish wards with too few electors, which we do not consider to be viable.

96 We are, however, adopting a very minor amendment put forward by the Council to ensure that Tofts Bungalow remains with Tofts Farm in Saltburn ward – this does not require the creation of a parish ward.

97 Subject to this amendment, we are confirming our draft recommendations for Longbeck, Saltburn and St Germain’s wards as final.

Brotton and Loftus

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Brotton 3 -4% Loftus 3 -11%

Brotton and Loftus 98 The Labour and Liberal Democrat groups both expressed concern about the creation of a Loftus ward with 11% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023. The Liberal Democrat Group supported retaining Skinningrove and Carlin How in a single ward, while the Labour Group reiterated its view that Skinningrove should be in a Loftus ward, possibly with one less councillor.

99 We note the comments from the Labour Group but creating a two councillor Loftus ward would require a split in the Loftus parish which we do not consider would reflect the community in this area. We also note their comment about linking Skinningrove to the Loftus ward. However, moving Skinningrove from Brotton to Loftus would create a Brotton ward with 10% fewer electors than the borough average by 2023 and a Loftus ward with 5% fewer. Although this brings the variance to 10% for Loftus, we consider that the community argument for retaining Skinningrove and Carlin How in a single ward outweighs the reduction in the electoral imbalance and note that the Liberal Democrat comments that support the ward as is.

100 It should be noted that transferring both Skinningrove and Carlin How to Loftus would create leave Brotton ward with 24% fewer electors than the average. Therefore, we consider that the draft recommendations provide the best balance between electoral equality and community identity and are confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Skelton and Lockwood

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Lockwood 1 4% Skelton East 2 -5% Skelton West 2 -1%

Lockwood, Skelton East and Skelton West 101 Councillors Kay and Kingham provided us with full and detailed support for our draft recommendations particularly in relation to the Lockwood ward. The Liberal Democrats expressed concern about the creation of a single-councillor Lockwood ward, but expressed support for the draft recommendations for Skelton.

102 We note the comments received and would point out that the creation of a single-councillor Lockwood ward enables us to create the strongest warding pattern.

103 A couple of residents expressed support for the proposals, although one stated that the Skelton wards could be divided by a stronger boundary, for example Saltburn Lane.

104 We acknowledge the comments about the boundary between the Skelton wards, but it is not possible to secure good levels of electoral equality using Saltburn Lane. Our proposed boundary provides the clearest boundary, while also securing good electoral equality. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

Guisborough

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Belmont 2 -1% Guisborough 3 6% Hutton 3 2%

Belmont, Guisborough and Hutton 105 The Liberal Democrat Group argued that the Guisborough ward name was confusing, risking confusion with the parish of Guisborough. It proposed that the ward should be renamed Guisborough North.

106 We acknowledge the Liberal Democrat Group’s concern, but do not consider that adding a cardinal direction to only one of the wards creates a sound naming convention. We are therefore proposing to retain the Guisborough ward name.

107 Otherwise, we received general support for these wards and confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

Conclusions

108 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2017 and 2023 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2017 2023

Number of councillors 59 59

Number of electoral wards 24 24

Average number of electors per councillor 1,777 1,814

Number of wards with a variance more 1 1 than 10% from the average

Number of wards with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Final recommendation Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council should be made up of 59 councillors serving 24 wards representing one single-councillor, 11 two-councillor wards and 12 three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in the table and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Redcar & Cleveland Borough. You can also view our final recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

109 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 ward it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each

30 parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

110 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 warding arrangements. However, Redcar & Cleveland Borough 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.

111 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Guisborough, Saltburn, Marske & New Marske and Skelton & Brotton parishes.

112 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Guisborough parish.

Final recommendation Guisborough Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Belmont 4 Guisborough 6 Hutton 6

113 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Saltburn, Marske & New Marske parish.

Final recommendation Saltburn, Marske & New Marske Parish Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Longbeck 5 Mickledales 1 St Germain’s 6 Saltburn 6

114 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Skelton & Brotton parish.

Final recommendation Skelton & Brotton Parish Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Annandale Park 2 Brotton East 4 Brotton West 3 New Skelton & Hollybush 3 North Skelton & Layland 1 Old Skelton 3 Skelton Green 1

3 What happens next?

115 We have now completed our review of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2019.

Equalities

116 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

Appendix A

Final recommendations for Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % 1 Belmont 2 3,657 1,829 3% 3,599 1,800 -1%

2 Brotton 3 5,276 1,759 -1% 5,222 1,741 -4%

3 Coatham 2 3,749 1,875 5% 3,794 1,897 5%

4 Dormanstown 2 3,544 1,772 0% 3,668 1,834 1%

5 Eston 3 5,760 1,920 8% 5,660 1,887 4%

6 Grangetown 2 3,923 1,962 10% 3,866 1,933 7%

7 Guisborough 3 5,661 1,887 6% 5,771 1,924 6%

8 Hutton 3 5,147 1,716 -3% 5,569 1,856 2%

9 Kirkleatham 3 5,558 1,853 4% 5,527 1,842 2%

10 Lockwood 1 1,895 1,895 7% 1,884 1,884 4%

11 Loftus 3 4,770 1,590 -11% 4,839 1,613 -11%

12 Longbeck 2 3,548 1,774 0% 3,816 1,908 5%

13 Newcomen 2 3,906 1,953 10% 3,912 1,956 8%

15 Ormesby 3 4,886 1,629 -8% 5,232 1,744 -4%

16 Saltburn 3 4,853 1,618 -9% 4,973 1,658 -9%

17 Skelton East 2 3,473 1,737 -2% 3,443 1,721 -5%

18 Skelton West 2 3,323 1,662 -7% 3,606 1,803 -1%

19 South Bank 2 3,511 1,756 -1% 3,620 1,810 0%

20 St Germain's 3 5,786 1,929 9% 5,693 1,898 5%

21 Teesville 3 5,033 1,678 -6% 5,086 1,695 -7%

22 West Dyke 3 5,098 1,699 -4% 5,108 1,703 -6%

23 Wheatlands 2 3,474 1,737 -2% 3,821 1,910 5%

24 Zetland 2 3,497 1,749 -2% 3,424 1,712 -6%

Totals 59 104,847 – – 107,029 – –

Averages – – 1,777 – – 1,814 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix B

Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-east/redcar- cleveland/redcar-and-cleveland

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-east/redcar-cleveland/redcar-and- cleveland

Local Authority

• Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council GIS team • Tees Valley Mayor

Political Group

• Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Conservative Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Independent Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Labour Group • Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Liberal Democrat Group • South Bank & Teesville Labour Party

Councillors

• Councillor Bendelow • Councillor Foggo • Councillor Goddard • Councillor Higgins • Councillor Holyoakes • Councillors Kay & Kingham • Councillor Massey • Councillor McCormack • Councillor Norton • Councillor Ovens • Councillor Quartermain

Member of Parliament

• Simon Clarke MP

Local Organisations

• Dormanstown Neighbourhood Action Partnership • Marske Community Partnership • South Bank Green Group • South Bank Moving Forward

Local Residents

• 27 local residents

Appendix D

Glossary and abbreviations

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 inequality 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

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

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

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 borough, 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 borough council

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 14th floor, Millbank Tower Government and political parties. It is London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1P 4QP committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Email: Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk areas. Twitter: @LGBCE