Durham County Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL Stage 5: Future Electoral Boundaries County Durham Submission to the Local Government Boundary Committee for England July 2011 ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL Submission to the Boundary Committee for England 1. The Council’s response to the Boundary Commission’s further draft recommendations is set out in the attached Appendices. The figures in brackets denote variances from the County average Member/Elector ratio. The Council has received no representations in respect of the Local Government Boundary Commission’s further draft recommendations for those Electoral Divisions identified in Appendix A with one amendment to rename the Pelton Electoral Division ‘Beamish Electoral Division. The Council therefore believes that this reflects a general acceptance that these proposals meet with local approval and local needs. The Council would wish to be consulted further should the Commission propose to change these recommendations further. 2. Appendix B sets out those Electoral Divisions where further proposed changes have been made to the Boundary Commission’s further draft recommendations. 3. Please note that the old polling districts are shown in Capitals without brackets and the new polling districts are shown in Capitals within brackets: Old polling district code new polling district code CA (NWDOA) 4. References are made within this submission to support not only from local councillors, but from parish councils and community associations. Reference to support from these bodies is made to evidence community identity. APPENDIX A Boundary Review Areas where the Council supports the recommendations of the Boundary Commission 1. Pelton to be renamed ‘Beamish’ 3 Members 2. Chester-le-Street North 1 3. Chester-le-Street East 1 4. North Lodge 1 5. Chester-le-Street South 2 6. Lumley 2 7. Annfield Plain 2 8. Craghead and South Moor 2 9. Burnopfield and Dipton 2 10. Stanley 2 11. Tanfield 2 12. Leadgate and Medomsley 2 13. Benfieldside 2 14. Consett North 2 15. Consett South 1 16. Delves Lane 2 17. Barnard Castle East 2 18. Barnard Castle West 2 19. * Evenwood 2 20. * West Auckland 2 21. Woodhouse Close 2 22. Bishop Auckland Town 2 23. Coundon 1 24. Chilton 1 25. Spennymoor 3 26. Tudhoe 2 27. Ferryhill 3 28. Bishop Middleham and Cornforth 1 29. Sedgefield 2 30. Peterlee East 2 31. Peterlee West 2 32. Passfield 1 33. Blackhalls 2 34. Horden 2 35. Wingate 1 36. Dawdon 2 37. ** Deneside (Seaham) 2 38. Easington 2 39. Murton 2 40. Seaham 2 41. Weardale 2 42. Belmont 3 43 Elvet and Gilesgate 2 44 Brandon 2 45 Aycliffe North and Middridge 3 46 Aycliffe West 2 47 Aycliffe East 2 48 Shildon and Dene Valley 3 49. Lanchester 2 * The Council notes that in the LGBCE's further draft recommendations for the proposed Evenwood and West Auckland Electoral Divisions that the Electoral Division Boundary is coterminous with that of the Parish Boundary of Etherley and West Auckland Parish Council's. This boundary splits approximately 26 properties from a housing estate that sits within the West Auckland Electoral Division (namely properties on Oakley Cross, Coniston Avenue, Derwent Avenue, Grasmere Avenue, Thirlmere Grove and Ullswater Avenue). Following the completion of the Electoral Review, the Council will seek to undertake a small Community Governance Review in the area with a view to move the existing Parish Boundary. We are aware that there is a desire in this area to undertake this small modification. As part of this review we would recommend that the Electoral Division boundary be moved to coincide with that of a new proposed parish boundary, dependent upon the outcome of the small Community Governance Review. ** The addition of (Seaham) after the word Deneside for clarity. Local residents are familiar and prefer to be recognised as Deneside, however, the addition of the word Seaham would further clarity for people outside the area. APPENDIX B Boundary Review 1. Tow Law 1 2. Sacriston 2 3. Chester-le-Street West Central 2 4. Esh and Witton Gilbert 2 5. Shotton and South Hetton 2 6. Nevilles Cross 2 7. Framwellgate and Newton Hall 2 8. Coxhoe 3 9. Durham South 1 10. Willington 2 11. Crook 3 12. Ushaw Moor and Bearpark renamed Deerness 3 13. Trimdon and Thornley 3 14. Sherburn 2. ELECTORAL DIVISIONS TOW LAW ELECTORAL DIVISION This proposal links all the hilltop villages and meets the requirements of the Tow Law Town Council and local residents with the ability to elect a representative to serve their rural environment. The villages to be linked have a predominantly rural culture as against that of the residents in the urbanised area of Crook. The Division will have identifiable boundaries and although the projected electorate is slightly above the acceptable variance level, this is considered to be the most appropriate solution for the area. The proposal has the support of the Tow Law Town Council and local County Councillors for the area, P Jopling, J Bailey, E Murphy and E Tomlinson. Tow Law - 1 Member Draft recommendation 6036 Cornsay CA (NWDOA) - 69 Cornsay Colliery CB (NWDOB) -135 part BH (NWDVC) -1528 Fir Tree BQ (NWDTA) - 250 East Hedleyhope CD (NWDOD) - 159 Satley CE (NWDOE - 242 3653 (+11.8%) SACRISTON ELECTORAL DIVISION The proposal is to link the three adjoining areas covered by Sacriston Parish Council, Edmondsley Parish Council, and Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Parish Council. The Division reflects community identities with identifiable boundaries and the projected electorate is within the acceptable tolerance. The proposal has the support of Sacriston Parish Council and Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Parish Council and by the current County Councillors for the area LA Wright and A Turner. Sacriston Division Sacriston NDEA (U) 234 Sacriston NDEB (V) 3816 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth NDDA (W) 877 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth NDDB (X) 263 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth NDDC (Y) 318 Edmondsley NDFD (AS) 472 5980 (-8.5%) CHESTER-LE-STREET WEST CENTRAL ELECTORAL DIVISION It is acknowledged that this proposal differs from our submission made in response to the previous consultation document. Further research of electorate numbers and community soundings have led to the view that Edmondsley would fit more appropriately with the Sacriston Electoral Division with which it has closer links. Chester-le-Street West Central Division Draft recommendation 6611 (+1%) Edmondsley NDFD (AS) - 472 6139 (-6%) ESH AND WITTON GILBERT ELECTORAL DIVISION The proposal links the Parish Council areas of Witton Gilbert; Esh; East Hedleyhope; and the polling districts of Cornsay and Cornsay Colliery that are situated Cornsay Parish Council. These proposed changes better reflect community identity, accessibility of services and provide electoral equality within the acceptable tolerance that will secure and maintain convenient effective local government. Villages with the same cultural backgrounds and community identities are linked and the Division will have clear and easily identifiable boundaries. This proposal will keep Esh Quality Parish intact. The proposal has the support of Esh Parish Council; Witton Gilbert, Satley and Cornsay Parish Councils; Langley Park Community Association; the residents of Cornsay Colliery; the residents of Cornsay Village; local County Councillors J Armstrong and M Campbell. Tow Law Town Council and their County Councillors have been consulted. In supporting the proposal, they agree that Cornsay Colliery and Cornsay Village have no social, economic, educational or cultural ties, or public transport links to Tow Law and the hill top villages. Esh and Witton Gilbert Division Witton Gilbert DMB (DW) 2182 Esh NWDNA (FC) 295 Willow Park NWDNB (FD) 89 Langley Park East NWDNC (FA) 1247 Langley Park West NWDND (FB) 1954 Ushaw NWDNE (FE) 57 Quebec NWDNF (FF) 169 Cornsay NWDOA (CA) 69 Cornsay Colliery NWDOB (CB) 135 Satley NWDOE (CE) 242 6439 (-1.5%) SHOTTON AND SOUTH HETTON – 2 Members The proposal is to transfer polling districts of Haswell Plough from Trimdon and Thornley to Shotton and South Hetton. This would coinside with the Councils alternative proposal for Trimdon and Thornley areas. The local Members for Shotton and South Hetton support this proposal as do Haswell Parish Council. The latter will be providing separate representation in this respect. Draft recommendation 7034 (+8%) Haswell Plough (EEA) +335 7369 (+12.7%) NEVILLE’S CROSS ELECTORAL DIVISION AND FRAMWELLGATE MOOR AND NEWTON HALL ELECTORAL DIVISION The proposal is to relocate the boundary between the two divisions to follow the road from Aykley Heads roundabout to the Police Headquarters. To achieve this, a number of properties in the Aykley Vale area (part of polling district DCA (AC) will move from the Neville’s Cross Division into the Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall Division. This suggested minor modification would strengthen the boundary and link the community as one. Neville’s Cross 2 Members Draft recommendation 7268 Part of DCA (AC) Aykley Vale area - 72 7196 (+10.1%) Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall 2 Members Draft recommendation 10867 Part of DCA (AC) Aykley Vale area + 72 10939 (+11.6%) COXHOE AND DURHAM SOUTH ELECTORAL DIVISION The Council would again suggest the transfer the Cape Site at Bowburn from the Durham South Electoral Division to the Coxhoe Electoral Division, for reasons identified at previous stages of the review. Coxhoe 3 Members Draft recommendations 9466 Part DLB (DN) Cape Site +255 9721 (- 0.8%) Durham South 1 Member Draft recommendations 3319 Part DLB (DN) Cape Site - 255 3064 (-6.2%) WILLINGTON ELECTORAL DIVISION The proposal is to transfer the Helmington Row Polling District from neighbouring Crook area. The proposal will improve the electoral equality of the Willington Division and the proposed Crook Electoral Division. The proposal is acceptable to the local County Councillors for the area, Councillors B Myers, P Jopling, J Bailey, E Murphy and E Tomlinson, and to Greater Willington Town Council. Willington – transfer BW (NWDWC) from Crook 2 Members Draft recommendation 5947 BW (NWDWC) +298 6245 (-4.4%) CROOK ELECTORAL DIVISION This proposal will link all of the properties in the town area of Crook and the proposed Hunwick Division included in the draft recommendations to form, a 3 Member Division.