Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East Contents

Summary 3

1 What is the Boundary Commission for ? 5

2 Background to the 2018 Review 7

3 Revised proposals for the North East 13

The sub-region split 13

Northumberland 15

Newcastle upon Tyne, , , 17 , , and County Durham

Cleveland (Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and 24 Redcar) and Darlington

4 How to have your say 31

Annex A: Revised proposals for constituencies, 33 including wards and electorates

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 1 Summary

Who we are and what we do initial proposals in the first and second consultations, and the conclusions we The Boundary Commission for England have reached as to how those proposals is an independent and impartial should be revised as a result. The annex non‑departmental public body, which is to each report contains details of the responsible for reviewing Parliamentary composition of each constituency in our constituency boundaries in England. revised proposals for the relevant region; maps to illustrate these constituencies can The 2018 Review be viewed on our website or in hard copy at a local place of deposit near you. We have the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all the Parliamentary What are the revised proposals constituencies in England. We are currently for the North East? conducting a review on the basis of new rules laid down by Parliament. These We have revised the composition of rules involve a significant reduction in the 20 of the 25 constituencies we proposed number of constituencies in England (from in September 2016. After careful 533 to 501), resulting in the number of consideration, we have decided not to constituencies in the North East reducing make any revisions to the composition by four, to 25. The rules also require that of the remaining five. every constituency – apart from two specified exceptions1 – must have an Under our revised proposals, three electorate that is no smaller than 71,031 constituencies in the North East would and no larger than 78,507. be the same as they are under the existing arrangements. How did we conduct the 2018 Review? As it was not always possible to allocate whole numbers of constituencies to We published our initial proposals for individual counties, our initial proposals new boundaries in September 2016 and grouped together all the local authority consulted on them. We received written areas in the North East. It was also comments and oral submissions at public necessary to propose some constituencies hearings held in each region. We published that cross county or unitary authority all the comments we received and we held boundaries. Following consideration of a second consultation exercise in relation the representations made on our initial to them in March 2017. We are very grateful proposals, our revised proposals divide for all the comments that these two the region into two sub-regions, as shown consultation exercises have generated. in the table overleaf. We have now completed the next stage of the review process and we are now publishing our revised proposals. For each region, the revised proposals report sets out our analysis of all the responses to our

1 The specified exemptions in England to the rules on constituency size are the two constituencies in the Isle of Wight.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 3 Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under our revised proposals 4 3 , County Durham, 25 22 Darlington, and Cleveland

In our initial proposals we proposed three How to have your say constituencies wholly contained within the County of Northumberland and one cross- We are consulting on our revised proposals county constituency with Tyne and Wear – for an eight-week period, from 17 October North West. In our 2017 to 11 December 2017. We encourage revised proposals we have proposed three everyone to use this final opportunity constituencies wholly contained within a to contribute to the design of the new separate Northumberland sub-region. The constituencies – the more public views we Ponteland East and Stannington ward is no hear, the more informed our decisions will longer included in a Newcastle upon Tyne be when we make recommendations to North West constituency but is included in the Government. a Hexham and Cramlington constituency. We ask everyone wishing to contribute In our initial proposals we allocated to the design of the new constituencies 21 constituencies entirely contained to first look at the revised proposals within Tyne and Wear, County Durham, report, and accompanying maps, before Darlington, and Cleveland (Hartlepool, responding to us. The best way to respond Middlesbrough, Redcar, and Stockton) to our revised proposals is through our and one cross-county constituency consultation website: www.bce2018.org.uk. with Northumberland (see above). Given numerical constraints, and the allocation of three constituencies to the County of Northumberland, we have decided to treat the rest of the North East region as one sub-region and propose it contains 22 constituencies. Our revised proposals have changed 17 of the initial proposals in this sub-region, and retained five of them unchanged.

In our revised proposals we have proposed four cross-county constituencies: Billingham and Sedgefield, , Hartlepool, and Houghton and Seaham. In all instances, cross-county constituencies have been necessary to maintain local ties or due to numerical constraints.

4 Boundary Commission for England 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England?

1.1 The Boundary Commission for 1.3 Our consultation website at www. England (BCE) is an independent and bce2018.org.uk contains all the information impartial non-departmental public needed to view and comment on our body, which is required by Parliament revised proposals. You can also contact to review Parliamentary constituency us with any general enquiries by emailing boundaries in England. We conduct a information@boundarycommissionengland. review of all the constituencies in England gov.uk, by calling 020 7276 1102, or by every five years. Our role is to make writing to: recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries. We also make The Secretary to the Commission recommendations for any changes in the Boundary Commission for England names of individual constituencies. 35 Great Smith Street London 1.2 The Chair of the Commission is SW1P 3BQ the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he or she does not participate in the formulation of the Commission’s recommendations, nor in the conduct of the review. The Deputy Chair and two further Commissioners take decisions on what recommendations to make for new constituency boundaries. They are assisted in their task by 21 assistant commissioners (two or three allocated to each of the nine ). Further information about the Commissioners and assistant commissioners can be found in the ‘About us’ section of our corporate website.2

2 http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review

2.1 There are four Boundary 2.4 This is a significant change to the Commissions covering the UK with old rules under which Parliamentary separate Commissions for Scotland, Wales boundary reviews took place, where and Northern Ireland. The Parliamentary achieving as close to the average number Constituencies Act 1986 states that they of electors in each constituency was an must conduct a review of Parliamentary aim but not an overriding legal necessity. constituency boundaries, and make For example, in England, the largest recommendations to Government, every constituency currently has around twice as five years. Under the current review, we many electors as the smallest. Achieving a must report in September 2018. The more even distribution of electors in every four Commissions work separately, and constituency across England, together this report covers only the work of the with the reduction in the total number of Boundary Commission for England and, constituencies, means that a significant in particular, introduces our revised scale of change to the existing map of proposals for the North East. constituencies is inevitable.

2.2 Parliamentary boundaries are 2.5 If implemented, the important, as they define the area in recommendations that we will make in which voters will elect a Member of September 2018 will be the first set of Parliament. If our recommendations are boundaries to be defined under the new accepted, they would be used for the first rules. While there has to be a significant time at the next General Election following amount of change across the country, their acceptance. we will, where possible, try to limit the extent of such change, having regard 2.3 The legislation we work to states to the statutory factors. Under the that there will be 600 Parliamentary Act, we have a challenging job to do constituencies covering the UK – a in conducting a review of constituency reduction of 50 from the current number. boundaries that is necessarily going to For England, that means that the number result, in many places, in a pattern of of constituencies must reduce from 533 constituencies that is unfamiliar to the to 501. There are also new rules that public. Nevertheless the review has been the Commission has to adhere to when one that we have conducted in a rigorous conducting the review – a full set of rules and thorough fashion. can be found in our Guide to the 2018 Review of Parliamentary constituencies 2.6 The revised proposals that we set (‘the Guide’),3 published in the summer out in this report, and in the reports for of 2016, but they are also summarised the other eight regions across England, later in this chapter. Most significantly, are made on the basis of the evidence we the rules state that every constituency received during two consultation exercises, we recommend (with the exception of two the careful consideration of our assistant covering the Isle of Wight) must contain commissioners and the best judgement between 71,031 and 78,507 electors. of the three Boundary Commissioners.

3 Available at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 7 We are confident that these revised greater understanding of the rules and proposals strike the best balance constraints placed on the Commission, between the statutory factors and, having especially if they are intending to comment consulted twice already, we are close to on our revised proposals. settling on a pattern of constituencies to recommend to Parliament next year. The rules in the legislation There may be particular areas across the country where our judgement has been 2.8 The rules contained in the legislation a balanced and marginal one between state that every constituency in England competing alternatives, and in such (except two covering the Isle of Wight) cases we have made clear that we are must have an electorate of between 71,031 looking for further evidence before we and 78,507 – that is, 5% either side of the finalise our recommendations. In many electoral quota of 74,769. The legislation areas we are persuaded by the evidence also states that, when deciding on we have received thus far, and we would boundaries, the Commission may also take therefore require new and significantly into account: stronger arguments to make us depart from our revised proposals. If it exists, • special geographical considerations, such new and compelling evidence would including the size, shape and be welcome. However, we will not be accessibility of a constituency assisted by repetition of arguments that • local government boundaries as they have already been made, and which we existed on 7 May 2015 have already considered. The requirement • boundaries of existing constituencies to keep constituencies within the permitted • any local ties that would be broken by range of electors is strict, but otherwise we changes in constituencies. have sought to balance often conflicting considerations. Our proposals must 2.9 It is essential to understand that also be comprehensive. We are acutely none of the factors mentioned in the list conscious that very often a change in above overrides the necessity to achieve one constituency necessarily requires an electorate in each constituency that an alteration in another and sometimes is within the range allowed, as explained the consequential alterations reverberate previously. In relation to local government through a whole chain of constituencies. boundaries in particular, it should be noted that we are obliged to take into account 2.7 The Guide contains further detailed local government boundaries as they background, and explains all the policies existed in May 2015. Our initial proposals and procedures that we are following in for the region and the accompanying maps conducting the review, in greater depth were based on the wards as they existed than in this consultation document. We in May 2015, and our revised proposals encourage anyone wishing to be involved contained within this report continue to in the review to read the Guide, to enable be based on those boundaries. The Guide

8 Boundary Commission for England outlines further our policy on how, and to The use of the regions used what extent, we take into account local for European elections government boundaries that have been amended since 2015. 2.12 Our proposals are based on the nine regions used for European elections. 2.10 In our initial proposals, we took This report relates to the North East. into account the boundaries of existing There are eight other separate reports constituencies so far as we could, and containing our revised proposals for the tried to retain existing constituencies where other regions. At the very beginning of the possible, so long as the other factors could 2018 Review we decided, in agreement also be satisfied. As mentioned earlier with all the main political parties, to use in this chapter, because of the scale of these regions as a basis for working out change required to fulfil the obligations our initial proposals. You can find more imposed on us by the new rules, this details in the Guide and on our website. proved difficult. Our initial proposals We stated in our initial proposals report retained 10% of the existing constituencies that, while this approach does not prevent in the North East – the remainder were new anyone from making proposals to us that constituencies (although in a number of cross regional boundaries, we would need cases we were able to limit the changes to to have compelling reasons provided to us existing constituencies, making only minor to persuade us to depart from the region- changes as necessary to enable us to based approach. comply with the new rules). 2.13 In response to the consultations on 2.11 Among the many arguments we our initial proposals, we did not receive heard in response to the consultations sufficient evidence across the country to on our initial proposals was the need suggest that we should depart from the to have particular regard to this factor regional approach to this review. Therefore, of the rules to which we work. While this report, and all other regional reports, some respondents put a higher value on continues to use the regional boundaries retaining existing constituency boundaries as a basis for proposals for constituencies. over the other factors in the rules, it is the Commission’s task to balance all the factors. As we set out in the course of this report, our revised proposals retain three (10%) of the existing 29 constituencies in the North East.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 9 Timetable for the review Stage three – consultation on representations received Stage one – initial proposals 2.16 The legislation requires us to 2.14 We began this review in February publish all the representations we received 2016 by publishing breakdowns of the on our initial proposals, and to allow electorate for each ward, local government people to send us comments on them authority and existing constituency, which for a four-week period. We published the were prepared using electorate data representations on 28 February 2017 and provided by local authorities and the Office invited comments on them until 27 March for National Statistics. These are available 2017. We received more than 7,500 unique on the data pages of our corporate written representations across the country website.4 The Commission spent a number as a whole during those four weeks. of months considering the factors outlined above and drawing up our initial proposals. Stage four – publication of We published our initial proposals for revised proposals consultation for each of England’s nine regions on 13 September 2016. 2.17 As we outline in chapter 3, having considered the evidence presented to us, Stage two – consultation on we have decided that the evidence is such initial proposals that it is appropriate to revise our initial proposals in some areas. Therefore, as we 2.15 We consulted on our initial are required to do (under the legislation), proposals for 12 weeks, from on 17 October 2017, we are publishing 13 September 2016 to 5 December 2016. this report – Revised proposals for new This consultation period also included constituency boundaries in North East – holding 36 public hearings, at which alongside eight others, one for each of people had the opportunity to make oral the other regions in England. We are representations. We received more than consulting on our revised proposals for 18,000 unique written representations the statutory eight-week period, which across the country as a whole, closes on 11 December 2017. Unlike the including more than 950 unique written initial consultation period, there is no representations relating to the North provision in the legislation for further East. We also heard more than 50 oral public hearings, nor is there a repeat of representations at the two public hearings the four-week period for commenting on in the North East. We are grateful to all the representations of others. Chapter 4 those who took the time and trouble to outlines how you can contribute during this read and respond to our initial proposals. consultation period.

4 http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/data-and-resources

10 Boundary Commission for England Stage five – final recommendations

2.18 Once the consultation on revised proposals has closed on 11 December 2017, we will consider all the representations received at this stage, and throughout the review, before making final recommendations to the Government. The legislation states that we must do this during September 2018. Further details about what the Government and Parliament must do to implement our recommendations are contained in the Guide.

2.19 At the launch of each stage of consultation, we have taken – and are continuing to take – all reasonable steps to publicise our proposals, so that as many people as possible are aware of the consultation and can take the opportunity to contribute to our review of constituencies.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 11 3 Revised proposals for the North East

3.1 In July 2016, we arranged for 3.4 A tabular summary of the revised the appointment of two assistant constituencies we now propose appears commissioners for the North East – Eileen at Annex A to this report. Brady and Adele Baumgardt – to assist us with the analysis of the representations 3.5 Throughout this chapter, where received during the first two consultation we refer to a respondent’s response periods. This included chairing public we also include the reference number, hearings held in the region to collect oral i.e. BCE‑12345. This reference number evidence, as follows: corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website • Newcastle: 14 – 15 November 2016 at www.bce2018.org.uk. All representations • Darlington: 17 – 18 November 2016 received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this 3.2 We asked the assistant website. The representations received in commissioners to consider all the written response to these revised proposals will be and oral representations, and to make published at the end of the review. recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, 3.6 The term ‘ward’ used throughout in light of evidence provided in the this document should be taken to representations. It is important to stress mean electoral division in reference to that the assistant commissioners had no Northumberland and County Durham. involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial The sub-region split proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open 3.7 In developing our initial proposals to viable alternative proposals supported we decided to review the North East as by evidence. We are incredibly grateful for one region and not divide it into sub- the thorough and methodical approach regions when formulating Parliamentary the assistant commissioners have taken constituencies. We considered that to their work. this would provide us with the greatest amount of flexibility in creating a pattern 3.3 What follows in this chapter is: of constituencies across the whole region that were within 5% of the electoral quota. • a brief recap of our initial proposals In developing the initial proposals we • a description of the counter-proposals were also mindful of the need to respect put forward during the consultations natural boundaries and the external • the assistant commissioners’ analysis boundaries of local authorities as far as of the strength of the arguments we could. As a result, we proposed a for adoption of any of those pattern of constituencies whereby only counter‑proposals one constituency crossed the • our decision on whether or not to within the Tyne and Wear metropolitan make changes to our proposals in the area, to the west of Newcastle upon Tyne given area. and Gateshead, and only one constituency crossed the River Tees.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 13 3.8 A number of respondents proposed 3.10 A Northumberland sub-region would a different sub-regional framework. The be entitled to three whole constituencies. Conservative Party (BCE-30304) and Our assistant commissioners considered Aaron Fear (BCE-36097), among others, that there was considerable merit to the suggested that we should consider suggestions to treat Northumberland Northumberland as a sub-region in separately because it would then allow us its own right. The rationale behind the to create constituencies that did not cross Conservative Party’s proposals were ‘that the county boundary between Newcastle as a vast rural county Northumberland is upon Tyne and Northumberland. They very different to the urban area of Tyne and therefore recommended to us that we Wear and should be reviewed separately’. treat Northumberland as a separate sub-region as this would allow for more 3.9 There was also significant opposition cohesive constituencies in the entire to our proposed constituency of Newcastle region. We accept their recommendation upon Tyne North West. The main reason and, as a result, we have therefore for this opposition was the inclusion of decided to adopt this configuration and the ‘orphan ward’5 of Ponteland East and treat Northumberland on its own. The Stannington in this constituency, which proposed Northumberland sub-region crossed the county boundary between would therefore comprise the existing Tyne and Wear (the City of Newcastle constituencies of Berwick-upon-Tweed, upon Tyne) and Northumberland. We Hexham, Wansbeck, and Blyth Valley. considered the numerous representations Among the counter-proposals, most objecting to the inclusion of the ward in the broadly supported the treatment of constituency and whether the objections Northumberland as a separate sub-region. with regard to this ward were compelling enough to warrant revising our initial 3.11 In the next sections of our report, proposals and to consider Northumberland we consider each sub-region in turn, as a separate sub-region. In considering summarising our initial proposals the representations we noted the followed by the responses and counter- submission from Christine Caisley (BCE- proposals received, before setting out 25649), who, in detailing the local ties that our recommendations on the basis of the would be broken and ‘the adverse effect evidence received and in accordance with on geographical considerations including the statutory rules for the 2018 Review. size, shape and especially accessibility’, The North East region, although the also said, ‘Newcastle North West ward smallest in England, presented particular is in an urban area whilst Ponteland challenges in having, proportionately, East ward along with Stannington, and the largest reduction in constituencies. Whorlton are primarily rural areas with The geographic nature of the region, different needs and considerations’. split between an urban east and south and a rural north and west, gave us and the assistant commissioners significant challenges in addressing the obvious

5 ‘Orphan ward’ refers to a clear minority of wards (usually just one ward) from one local authority, in a constituency where the overwhelming majority of wards are from another local authority.

14 Boundary Commission for England areas of objection, particularly in the rural the constituency within the permitted hinterlands around urban areas. Inevitably, electorate range, wards from the towns there are compromises that we must of Bedlington, Sleekburn, and Stakeford accept, given the statutory rules relating to were included in our proposed Blyth Valley the electorate size of each constituency – constituency. we have seen this in the North East region around the City of Durham and 3.14 We received some support for our the communities to the east and south. initial configuration of constituencies in However, we consider that our revised Northumberland from the Labour Party proposals better reflect the overall balance (BCE-33280) and Adam Gray (BCE‑16526). of the evidence and the statutory factors The Labour Party supported our proposals than the initial proposals. in the main; however, they called for the Stakeford ward to be included in Northumberland our proposed Berwick and Ashington constituency given its strong ties to 3.12 Of the four existing constituencies Choppington. Adam Gray stated ‘I broadly in Northumberland, all have electorates support the Commission’s proposed that are currently more than 5% below division of the county.’ However, he went the electoral quota. In developing our on to express reservations about a cross- initial proposals we constructed three county Newcastle upon Tyne North West constituencies that were wholly contained constituency and suggested an alternative within the county boundaries: Berwick and arrangement for this constituency. Ashington, Blyth Valley, and Hexham and Morpeth, and one cross-county boundary 3.15 We received representations constituency, Newcastle upon Tyne from the Liberal Democrat Party North West. (BCE‑28281) and Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE‑28618) which suggested that parts 3.13 As the electorate of the existing of the town of Ponteland be included in a Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency was constituency with Newcastle upon Tyne only 55,548, we had included in the wards. Our assistant commissioners constituency wards that comprise the considered that both proposals had merit, towns of Ashington and Newbiggin‑by‑ particularly as they avoided the creation the Sea from the existing Wansbeck of a constituency that crossed the River constituency. This change brought the Tyne in the Newcastle upon Tyne area. new Berwick and Ashington constituency However, as it was possible to create within the permitted electorate range. To three constituencies wholly contained compensate for the inclusion of the towns within the County of Northumberland, our of Berwick and Ashington in our proposed assistant commissioners agreed that we Berwick and Ashington constituency, we should reject this proposal as they also included the Rothbury and Longhorsley considered that the urban and rural mix of wards, and the three wards of Morpeth the proposed constituency would cause Kirkhill, Morpeth North, and Morpeth unnecessary disruption to existing local Stobhill in our proposed Hexham and ties. We agree with their recommendation Morpeth constituency. In order to bring to reject this counter-proposal.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 15 3.16 The Green Party (BCE-30227) 3.18 It was suggested that the revised proposed a pattern of constituencies in Hexham and Cramlington constituency Northumberland that combined parts of should contain all four Ponteland wards, north-west Newcastle upon Tyne with thus avoiding the inclusion of any ‘orphan the town of Cramlington. However, our wards’ in the constituency. A number of the assistant commissioners noted that there representations had expressed concern is no physical connection between the that Ponteland East and Stannington ward Castle and Cramlington West wards as would become an ‘orphan ward’ in the they are detached from each other by the proposed constituency of Newcastle upon Ponteland East and Stannington ward. In Tyne North West and it was suggested view of this, our assistant commissioners that there were more closely established agreed that the Green Party’s scheme for links between Ponteland and Hexham. the Northumberland sub-region should be On day one of the Newcastle upon Tyne rejected. We agree. public hearing Councillor Eileen Armstrong (BCE-28380) said, ‘links to Hexham are far 3.17 The majority of respondents more accommodating in terms of travel preferred to link the towns of Berwick with time and expense’. Councillor Armstrong Morpeth, and Ashington with Blyth and additionally expressed her reservations create a constituency which combined over the potential relationship between the the towns of Hexham and Cramlington. rural Ponteland East and Stannington ward The Conservative Party (BCE-30304), Alex and the urban Newcastle upon Tyne area. Stannard (BCE-28426), Aaron Fear (BCE- 36097), Oliver Raven (BCE-39493) and Paul 3.19 Our assistant commissioners Tinnion (BCE-16370) all suggested that considered that the evidence provided this alternative pattern of constituencies by Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) was more would better reflect local community ties. persuasive than the counter-proposals In his representation David Hilton (BCE- submitted by the Labour Party (BCE- 36064) said, ‘Morpeth has much better 33280) and Adam Gray (BCE-16526), links with Alnwick and Berwick than it and, in view of the strong support for an does with Hexham. Rothbury has strong alternative pattern of constituencies in links with Alnwick, Morpeth and Wooler, Northumberland, they agreed that linking and has no direct public transport or even Berwick with Morpeth, Ashington with good road links with Hexham.’ David Hilton Blyth, and Hexham with Cramlington would also maintained that Ashington has very better reflect local ties. This view was little in common with Berwick and has supported by representations and by the much closer cultural links with Blyth. This Member of Parliament for Berwick-upon- position was supported by Aaron Fear Tweed, Anne-Marie Trevelyan (BCE-32805), who said: ‘Ashington, with its coal mining who considered that this configuration heritage, seems to me a closer fit with would ‘see Northumberland having three Blyth than with Berwick upon Tweed.’ natural constituencies comprised of like- minded communities that use the same

16 Boundary Commission for England services’. In Aaron Fear’s proposal, the East region, but it was their view that the constituency of Berwick and Morpeth recommended constituency allowed for would include the wards of Bellingham, more cohesive constituencies in the rest of Rothbury, Longhorsley, Choppington, the sub-region. and Stakeford. The wards of the town of Cramlington would be included in a 3.23 Our assistant commissioners constituency that included Hexham and considered that the counter-proposal all four Ponteland wards. The towns of presented by Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) Ashington and Newbiggin‑by‑the‑Sea maintained local ties and caused the least would be included in a Blyth disruption as it avoided the division of the Valley constituency. towns of Cramlington and Ashington. They therefore recommended to us that we 3.20 Having analysed the evidence adopt Aaron Fear’s counter-proposal for all submitted, it was evident to the assistant the constituencies in the Northumberland commissioners that Ashington has much sub-region. closer ties to Blyth than it does to Berwick- upon-Tweed. Likewise, transport links 3.24 We accept the assistant connecting Berwick and Morpeth were commissioners’ recommendations considered to be better than those linking for Northumberland. Hexham and Morpeth. Newcastle upon Tyne, 3.21 Our assistant commissioners Gateshead, North Tyneside, noted the counter-proposal submitted South Tyneside, Sunderland, by the Conservative Party (BCE-30304), and County Durham which maintained three constituencies wholly within the county boundaries 3.25 Of the nine existing constituencies of Northumberland. However, they in the local authorities of Newcastle upon considered that the division of the Tyne, North Tyneside, Gateshead and towns of Cramlington and Ashington South Tyneside, only North Tyneside and was unnecessary and would result in are currently within 5% of the significant disruption. electoral quota. Both constituencies were retained unchanged in our initial proposals. 3.22 Our assistant commissioners Within the local authorities of Sunderland advised us that a revised solution and County Durham, only Sunderland that combines Berwick with Morpeth, Central was within 5% of the electoral Ashington with Blyth, and Hexham with quota. We also retained this constituency Cramlington best reflects local ties in unchanged in our initial proposals. Where the area, given the constraints on the possible, we attempted to minimise electorate size of each constituency. changes to existing constituencies. They were aware that a constituency that However, given the electoral constraints, includes Hexham and Cramlington is not some constituencies experienced ideal as its geographical extent stretches significant changes to their configuration. east to west across much of the North

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 17 3.26 In developing our initial proposals 3.27 The Conservative Party we considered the River Tyne, particularly (BCE‑30304), the Labour Party in central Newcastle upon Tyne, to (BCE‑33280) and Alex Stannard (BCE- be a significant geographical barrier. 28426) all proposed crossing the River We were also cognisant of the views Tyne further west in Blaydon. We received expressed during the discontinued a number of representations that objected 2013 Review, where concerns were to our initial proposals in which we had raised regarding the possibility of the crossed the River Tyne in the Blaydon re‑creation of a cross‑Tyne constituency. constituency. Pat McGee (BCE-16122) A number of respondents such as the said, ‘there has formerly been a cross Green Party (BCE-30227), Adam Gray Tyne constituency, called Tyne Bridge. This (BCE-16526), Paul Tinnion (BCE-16370), faced similar problems which the current Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) and Oliver proposals will face. The historic division Raven (BCE‑39493) suggested in their between Gateshead and Newcastle is one representations the construction of a thing, but my main concern is the result cross‑Tyne constituency that included which would have some wards taking parts of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne issues to Newcastle Council, and some to with communities from the Borough Gateshead.’ Elizabeth Flint (BCE-29084) of Gateshead. It was claimed in these said, ‘The proposal for the new Blaydon counter-proposals that there are constituency which includes significantly more transport links and and Scotswood is split by the river. It crossings at this point of the river than means that most of our newly proposed there are further west in Blaydon. Adam constituency would be south of the River Gray drew attention to the fact that, Tyne and would have different interests following regeneration of the riverfront, to those of us who live in Benwell and there are more reasons for people to Scotswood … Our links to areas such as travel across from one side of the river , Wingrove, Elswick and , to the other, and by implication, that which are north of the river, are much objections might not be as strong as stronger and our needs are similar to they had been in the past. However, a theirs. We consider ourselves to reside number of representations contradicted in the west end of the city of Newcastle this viewpoint. The Labour Party upon Tyne and consider ourselves to be (BCE‑33280) said that the proposed Tyne part of the city and not part of the more Bridge constituency in the 2013 Review rural area south of the river ... Benwell ‘was unpopular in that it put together and Scotswood should be included in the two communities which were distinct new constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne and separate’. North West and should NOT be assigned to the proposed Blaydon constituency.’

18 Boundary Commission for England 3.28 As we had noted, the Liberal observed and considered to be a notable Democrat Party (BCE-28281) did not geographical barrier separating the two propose crossing the Tyne at any point communities either side of it. As a result, in Newcastle upon Tyne. However, this our assistant commissioners agreed that configuration of constituencies had the constituencies of Newcastle upon Tyne a significant knock-on effect on their North West and Newcastle upon Tyne East proposals for Northumberland in which should both be bound by the River Tyne to they created a Newcastle upon Tyne North their south. The revised Newcastle upon West constituency containing the two Tyne East constituency would be very Northumberland wards of Ponteland East similar to the existing constituency plus and Stannington, and Ponteland South the inclusion of the two wards. with Heddon. The Liberal Democrats We agree. considered that this configuration would prevent any danger of Ponteland East and 3.31 The assistant commissioners noted Stannington being an ‘orphan ward’ in the objections to crossing the River Tyne the proposed constituency. The presence in our proposed Blaydon constituency and of ‘strong connections between much considered the objections articulated by of Ponteland and the North & West of individuals such as Brian Tate (BCE‑30110) Newcastle’ was also cited as justification and Councillor Rob Higgins (BCE-28369). for this proposal. A number of alternatives were examined. However, given that the recommendations 3.29 In Newcastle upon Tyne, apart to consider Northumberland as a separate from the reuniting of the two Gosforth sub-region in its own right had been wards (East and West) and the unchanged agreed with three constituencies wholly constituencies of North Tyneside and contained within the county, the numerical Tynemouth, our assistant commissioners and geographical constraints meant that a considered that there was no consistent constituency that crossed the River Tyne pattern of constituencies counter-proposed somewhere was unavoidable. by respondents. 3.32 Our assistant commissioners 3.30 Our assistant commissioners acknowledged the ties that the wards considered evidence, both written and oral, of Elswick, and Benwell and Scotswood that had been received. Despite a number shared with other Newcastle upon Tyne of representations that proposed the wards, as expressed, among others, by re‑creation of a Tyne Bridge constituency, Councillor Ann Schofield (BCE-28114), they concluded that such a proposal who said, ‘Elswick currently is in close should not be adopted. The assistant geographical proximity on or near the river commissioners considered that this point with the Newcastle Wards of Benwell & had been reinforced following their visit Scotswood, Fenham, Wingrove, Westgate to the area where the River Tyne was and parts of Blakelaw often known as

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 19 the ‘Inner West’ area of the city. This 3.34 Our initial proposals in the South provides a working logic for collaboration Shields area were largely opposed, between these wards that is cost saving particularly with regard to the inclusion of and meaningful across public, voluntary Simonside and Rekendyke ward, and the and private sectors providing services.’ Boldon Colliery ward, in the and We also received a petition with 304 constituencies respectively. signatures on behalf of the Black Asian Local residents of Simonside and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities from Rekendyke argued that they have closer Councillor Habibur Rahman (BCE-29058). ties with the South Shields constituency Our assistant commissioners considered than they do with Jarrow. Vic Young (BCE- that this, and the other evidence that had 30997), in his representation said: ‘I am been submitted regarding this issue, was a local businessman of over 40 years’ persuasive and that these links should standing in South Shields and currently be retained where possible. However, employ nearly 90 staff within my car sales they concluded that it would not be and repair business, the majority of whom possible to also include the Benwell and are local residents. My business is based Scotswood ward in the Newcastle upon within the Simonside and Rekendyke Tyne North West constituency in the ward. I am also proud to have been born context of their recommendations for and raised in South Shields. I believe that the other constituencies elsewhere. For your initial proposals to move Simonside that reason, our assistant commissioners and Rekendyke into Jarrow are flawed considered including the Elswick ward and deeply unpopular. The riverside in the proposed Newcastle upon Tyne communities of , Holborn, North West constituency and the Benwell Rekendyke and Simonside have always and Scotswood ward in the Blaydon been part of South Shields and all of these constituency. To compensate for this residents regard themselves as proud change, they recommended that the ‘Sand-dancers’.’ ward also be included in the Blaydon constituency given that the ward 3.35 We received a counter-proposal lay adjacent to the Denton ward. We agree. petition from South Tyneside Council (BCE- 33254 and BCE-36813) with 409 signatures 3.33 Both our proposed North Tyneside which asked for the return of the Simonside and Tynemouth constituencies received and Rekendyke ward to South Shields and widespread support in the representations. the Boldon Colliery ward to Jarrow. To Our assistant commissioners compensate for these changes to our initial recommended that keeping these two proposals, the petition proposed that the constituencies unchanged would be Bede ward be split, with the LC (Brockley more compliant with the statutory criteria. Whins) polling district being included in the We agree. South Shields constituency with the rest of the Bede ward remaining in the Jarrow constituency. The counter-proposal stated that the Commission’s initial proposals

20 Boundary Commission for England showed ‘no knowledge or understanding polling districts LC and LD of Bede ward. It of the historical and social cohesion they was further observed that the A1300 John cut through’. South Tyneside Council Reid Road was a significant barrier that said that its proposal would ‘retain strong clearly separated the communities of Bede cohesive community links’ and urged the ward, and Simonside and Rekendyke ward. Commission to adopt it. The Green Party The assistant commissioners considered (BCE-30227) representation suggested an that, in the absence of compelling identical treatment of the Bede ward in its evidence, they could not recommend counter-proposal for the area. splitting the Bede ward in order to address the local ties issues. However, 3.36 Our assistant commissioners the assistant commissioners encouraged carefully considered the evidence received us to specifically invite further evidence from the district council and local residents on this issue as part of the revised regarding the Simonside and Rekendyke, proposals consultation. and Boldon Colliery wards. They acknowledged the strength of feeling, and 3.38 They therefore recommended a noted that the only counter-proposals that South Shields constituency as proposed in would address these two issues, which our initial proposals, with the three wards did not result in either a Tyne crossing of Castle, Redhill, and Washington North between Newcastle and Gateshead or being included in a revised Washington significant disruption to the Sunderland and Sunderland West constituency constituencies, resulted in the splitting of (see below) rather than in a Jarrow the Bede ward. Noting that the evidence constituency. Our assistant commissioners to split a ward had to be ‘exceptional and recommended a proposed enlargement of compelling’, our assistant commissioners the Jarrow constituency by including the did not consider that there was persuasive four wards of Felling, High Fell, and evidence to justify the resulting break Heworth, and and Whitehills, in community ties in the area. This was to the west of the constituency. A revised confirmed by their observations on the site Gateshead West constituency would visit they carried out. comprise five wards from the existing Blaydon constituency and seven wards 3.37 Our assistant commissioners noted from the existing Gateshead constituency. that was a small, tightly Our assistant commissioners were aware knit residential estate containing facilities that this configuration had not been and services used by residents from suggested in the counter-proposals, but polling districts LC and LD – for example, they considered that it was an appropriate the social club the Red Hackle. They solution in the area and a consequence of considered that the proposal to split Bede resolving issues elsewhere in the region. ward and transfer polling district LC to the We agree. South Shields constituency would break the established community ties between

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 21 3.39 In Wearside, the majority of the 3.41 The evidence received by the counter-proposals agreed with our Members of Parliament for Washington approach to retain the existing Sunderland and Sunderland West, Sunderland Central constituency unchanged. Central, and Houghton and Sunderland A substantial number of respondents South, as well as members of the public, proposed variations to the existing regarding Washington and Sunderland Washington and Sunderland West was examined and thoroughly considered. constituency. The Conservative Party The Conservative Party (BCE-30304) (BCE-30304), Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) and Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) suggested and Oskar Avery (BCE-29234) proposed a revised constituency of Washington that the existing constituency should be and Sunderland West which would be augmented by the inclusion of the Sandhill the same as the existing constituency ward. Some respondents included the plus the addition of the Sandhill ward. town of Washington in a constituency The assistant commissioners considered with the town of Chester-le-Street. There that this proposal would keep all the was significant opposition to the town Washington wards together while also of Washington being split, such as from respecting existing constituencies where Katie D’Arcy (BCE-24013) who stated ‘this possible. A revised Houghton and Seaham proposed change concerns me. I live in constituency was suggested by the Washington, an area which already feels assistant commissioners that included neglected by its local authority and MPs the wards of Dawdon, Deneside, and as the feeling is that attention is focused Seaham to compensate for the inclusion on rather than of the Sandhill ward in the Washington the outlying areas. This proposal splits and Sunderland West constituency that Washington in two, with Washington Village they agreed should be revised. The A690 which is in reality the centre of Washington and A19 roads were considered to be sitting right on the edge of the constituency accessible transport routes that would with the whole area of the town north serve the entire constituency. They were of the boundary being pushed into the also aware that Dawdon, Deneside, and Jarrow area.’ Despite various patterns of Seaham look towards the Easington and constituencies for Wearside, the majority of Murton wards, but numerical constraints the counter-proposals received included all meant that these wards could not also be five wards of the town of Washington in a included in the same constituency. We single constituency. agree with these recommendations.

3.40 In view of the degree of support for the unchanged Sunderland Central constituency, the assistant commissioners did not consider that any changes to this constituency would be necessary. We agree.

22 Boundary Commission for England 3.42 In County Durham, most 3.44 Our assistant commissioners respondents included the two Barnard considered that there were no specific Castle wards of Barnard Castle East and features to prevent the ward of Barnard Castle West in a constituency with Framwellgate and Newton Hall being Bishop Auckland. It was claimed this would added to the proposed North Durham be a naturally cohesive constituency given and Chester-le-Street constituency, which that the transports links ran west‑east was confirmed by their site visit. They along the A688. In the City of Durham, were not convinced of any overriding the majority of the representations need to keep that ward with the City of broadly agreed with our initial proposals Durham. The assistant commissioners by including the wards of Brandon, and acknowledged that the inclusion of that Deerness in a constituency with the City ward in the North Durham and Chester- of Durham. The Liberal Democrat Party le-Street constituency was untested, and (BCE‑28281) proposed the inclusion of considered that further evidence on this the City of Durham in a constituency issue should be invited on this aspect of with Chester-le-Street suggesting that the revised proposals. We agree. both city and town were connected via the A1 corridor. Conversely, the 3.45 In order to achieve the best Conservative Party (BCE-30304) proposed balance between the evidence and the a constituency linking the City of Durham statutory criteria across the region, it is with Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield. acknowledged that the City of Durham constituency requires considerable change 3.43 Our assistant commissioners from the initial proposals. The assistant considered a proposal for a North Durham commissioners advised us that, for that and Chester-le-Street constituency that reason, it was necessary to combine the is the same as the existing North Durham City of Durham with the coastal towns to constituency plus the inclusion of the its east of Easington and Peterlee. They ward of Framwellgate and Newton Hall. acknowledged that the links between the They noted that the electorate of the City of Durham and these coastal towns existing North Durham constituency was were not the most obvious nor established. just below the permitted electorate range Furthermore, they acknowledged that and that the addition of one ward would the town of Easington may look more bring it within 5% of the electoral quota. towards Dawdon and Deneside while the In formulating this revised constituency, City of Durham had more established ties the assistant commissioners considered with the surrounding wards of Brandon, that the proposal submitted by the Coxhoe, and Framwellgate and Newton Liberal Democrat Party had some merit, Hall. However, it was their view that this in that Framwellgate and Newton Hall configuration allowed a better pattern was well connected to Chester-le-Street of constituencies across the North East via the A167. It was considered that region as a whole. They recommended this would act as an essential transport combining four wards of the proposed City link for constituents. of Durham constituency, namely Belmont, Durham South, Elvet and Gilesgate, and Neville’s Cross with the towns of Easington,

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 23 Horden, Murton, Peterlee, Sherburn, local community. Ian Moorhouse, writing and Shotton. This revised constituency on behalf of the Partnership said: ‘it seems would be called City of Durham and a divisive step to split Barnard Castle into Easington. We challenged the assistant two constituencies. This, our nearest town, commissioners on this constituency, given is a united community and it is difficult to its unusual make-up and the fact that this imagine any benefit accruing either to it or composition was not extensively consulted to the area from your current proposals.’ A on. They replied that, in order to address revised Bishop Auckland constituency was the issues to the north and south of this therefore proposed which was the same as area (discussed elsewhere), the best the existing constituency plus the addition balance between the statutory factors of the ward of Willington and Hunwick. for the whole region would be achieved The existing constituency was therefore by recommending this constituency. We maintained as best it could be, with the accept their recommendations. assistant commissioners agreeing that the evidence provided by Richard Child 3.46 Our assistant commissioners (BCE-19737) was particularly relevant. considered that the existing North He said, ‘the main road links tend to run West Durham constituency should west-east in Teesdale rather north-south be maintained as far as possible, and and I consider Teesdale to be the region suggested only minimal changes. The covered by the two Barnard Castle wards.’ wards of Burnopfield and Dipton, and The A688 was considered to be a vital road Willington and Hunwick were included in link as it connected the town of Barnard the revised Blaydon and Bishop Auckland Castle to Bishop Auckland. The assistant constituencies respectively (see below). commissioners considered the evidence They also recommended that the wards of submitted and recommended a revised Brandon, Deerness, and Esh and Witton Bishop Auckland constituency. We agree. Gilbert be included in the revised North West Durham constituency from the Cleveland (Middlesbrough, proposed City of Durham. We agree with Stockton, Hartlepool and their recommendations. Redcar) and Darlington

3.47 There were a large number of 3.48 Of the seven existing constituencies representations from respondents that in the Cleveland and Darlington area, proposed the ‘reuniting’ of the Barnard Stockton South is the only constituency Castle East and Barnard Castle West currently within 5% of the electoral wards, and our assistant commissioners quota. The constituencies of Darlington, examined ways in which this could be Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Middlesbrough achieved. The evidence submitted by South and East Cleveland, Redcar, and the Mid Teesdale Project Partnership Stockton North are all below the permitted (BCE-24953) persuaded the assistant electorate range. In developing our initial commissioners that dividing the town of proposals, we proposed changes to all the Barnard Castle between constituencies existing constituencies in this area. would be divisive and damaging to the

24 Boundary Commission for England 3.49 In our initial proposals, we 3.51 There were two main patterns of proposed a Hartlepool and Billingham constituencies that were proposed for constituency comprising nine wards from the Hartlepool local authority. A number the Hartlepool local authority, and four of of respondents suggested only minor the five Billingham wards. The Billingham changes to our proposed Hartlepool and West ward was included in a proposed Billingham constituency. These changes Stockton West constituency. The majority involved including all five Billingham wards of residents objected to this proposed in a constituency with Hartlepool and constituency on the basis that the towns consequently placing the ward in of Hartlepool and Billingham shared very a constituency with parts of East Durham. little commonality and were geographically The second alternative put forward for distinct. Stuart Cowling (BCE-18596) said, the Hartlepool area, by individuals such ‘The proposed constituency would result as Adrian Bailey (BCE-30239) and Aaron in an 8 mile distance between Billingham Fear (BCE-36097), suggested a Hartlepool and Hartlepool centres and, indeed, 2 constituency containing the entirety of the clear miles of “green belt” at their closest Hartlepool local authority, together with the points.’ Further objections came from Durham wards of Blackhalls and Wingate. Councillor Chris Clough (BCE-22897), who stated, ‘Hartlepool and Billingham are 3.52 The counter-proposals from very different communities, which have the Conservative Party (BCE-30304), little or nothing in common and have no Liberal Democrat Party (BCE-28281) and cross cultural links that can be identified. Oskar Avery (BCE-29234) suggested the The centres are separated by 5 miles of inclusion of all five Billingham wards in open country. To move the majority of a constituency with Hartlepool. All three Billingham into Hartlepool has nothing to made the point that the Billingham West recommend it.’ ward would be in a separate constituency to the rest of the town. Alternatively, some 3.50 Respondents also expressed counter‑proposals looked to include the concern over the Billingham West ward entire town of Billingham in a constituency being included in a different constituency with Sedgefield. Edward Carlsson-Browne to the rest of the town under our initial (BCE-28618), Paul Tinnion (BCE-16370), proposals. It was submitted by Richard Alex Stannard (BCE-28426) and Adrian Radley (BCE-17230) that the new A19 Bailey (BCE-30239) were among those who bypass would be a more suitable boundary suggested such a configuration. which would allow all five wards that formed the town of Billingham to remain 3.53 Our assistant commissioners together. Furthermore, Councillor Ann were mindful that, if the proposals to McCoy (BCE-16929) said that ‘splitting one reunite all five Billingham wards in a of the Billingham Wards from the rest will single constituency were to be adopted, break up the community identity that the it would not be possible to accommodate people of Billingham value.’ the counter-proposals received from Oliver Raven (BCE-39493) or Pete

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 25 Whitehead (BCE-28665) who had not become orphans and detached from their included this aspect in their proposals. established communities. They will be Oliver Raven included two Billingham isolated outliers in a new constituency.’ wards in a Stockton constituency and On the basis of this evidence, which the three Billingham wards in a constituency assistant commissioners considered to with Hartlepool, while Pete Whitehead be persuasive, they recommended to us placed the Billingham West ward in a a Hartlepool constituency containing the Stockton constituency. whole of the Hartlepool local authority plus the two Durham wards of Blackhalls and 3.54 Our assistant commissioners Wingate. They acknowledged that these considered there was merit in both the wards may not look to Hartlepool, but Conservative Party (BCE-30304) and elsewhere to the north and west, but they the Liberal Democrat Party (BCE-28281) considered that the numerical constraints counter‑proposals. Both combined the five in constructing appropriate constituencies Billingham wards in a single constituency, meant that the options before them and the three Norton wards of Norton were limited. The revised Hartlepool West, Norton North, and Norton South constituency would be similar to the also in a single constituency. However, existing constituency with the addition of both counter-proposals also combined the two aforementioned wards. We agree the towns of Billingham and Hartlepool in with this recommendation. the same constituency. Furthermore, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal 3.56 Having reluctantly included Democrat Party removed the Jesmond Hartlepool in a constituency with parts ward from the proposed Hartlepool of Durham, the assistant commissioners and Billingham constituency. Given its looked to avoid the splitting of the town location, the assistant commissioners of Billingham and to retain all five of its believed Jesmond was an integral part wards in a single constituency. Therefore, of the town of Hartlepool and that such a they recommended that the town of constituency would fail to meet the needs Billingham be included in a constituency of the local community. with Sedgefield. They identified the A689 and A177 as essential transport 3.55 Our assistant commissioners links that would connect one end of the carefully considered the representations Billingham and Sedgefield constituency received that objected to the proposed to the other. Our assistant commissioners Hartlepool and Billingham constituency, proposed that this constituency be called and sought alternative solutions. Billingham and Sedgefield. While, again, Respondents pointed to the fact that in we have reservations about the natural fit the initial proposals the two Hartlepool of these communities, we note that this wards of Hart and De Bruce would be constituency allows for a better pattern included in a constituency with large parts overall. We therefore agree. of east Durham. This was outlined by Stephen Allison (BCE-21845) who claimed that ‘the Hart and De Bruce wards will

26 Boundary Commission for England 3.57 Our initial proposals for the West and Stockton East constituency, Darlington constituency meant that and the Ladgate ward was included in the the constituency boundaries would be proposed Middlesbrough North East and coterminous with the borough boundary. Redcar constituency. This configuration received widespread support from local residents; however, 3.59 The initial proposals for we received some representations that Middlesbrough North East and Redcar suggested alterations to our initially constituency included six wards from the proposed Darlington constituency, Middlesbrough local authority. Three wards among them the Labour Party (BCE- of the existing Redcar constituency (Eston, 33280) and Oliver Raven (BCE-39493). Normanby, and Ormesby) were included Our assistant commissioners took the in the proposed Middlesbrough South and view that, given the constituency would East Cleveland constituency. Our proposed now be coterminous with the borough Stockton West constituency comprises boundary under their recommendations, wards forming the existing Stockton North the constituency would be more compliant and Stockton South constituencies and with the statutory factors. They also noted our initially proposed Middlesbrough the widespread support this constituency West and Stockton East constituency received in the initial proposals, for was comprised of some wards from the example from Councillor Pauline Culley existing Stockton North, Stockton South, (BCE-22406) who said: ‘I am in favour Middlesbrough, and Middlesbrough South of the proposed boundaries as they will and East Cleveland constituencies. ensure that the rural wards of Heighington, Middleton St. George, Sadberge and 3.60 We received some support for parts Hurworth, which are included in Darlington of our initial proposals in the Cleveland for local government purposes, are area, namely the inclusion of Yarm and aligned at last to the central government Eaglescliffe in the same constituency, for boundaries.’ They considered that the example, from the Conservative Party counter-proposals would cause significant (BCE-30304), Paul Tinnion (BCE-16370), and unnecessary disruption to the local Adrian Bailey (30239) and Alex Stannard area. They therefore recommended to us (BCE-28426). This was reiterated by that the proposed Darlington constituency David Oliver (BCE-40283) who said, should be retained and, in light of the ‘Yarm & Eaglescliffe have a long tradition match to local authority boundaries, we of close collaboration reflecting their agree with them. close proximity. They are geographically and historically a ribbon development 3.58 Our initial proposals for the of Stockton and quite distinct from Middlesbrough South and East Middlesbrough as well as some distance Cleveland constituency retained the five from it.’ We have additionally received a Middlesbrough wards of Coulby Newham, local campaign (BCE-37268) led by the Marton East, Marton West, Nunthorpe, then Member of Parliament for Stockton and Park End & Beckfield with 11 Redcar South, James Wharton, urging us to keep and Cleveland wards. The Hemlington, both Yarm and Eaglescliffe together. and Stainton & Thornton wards were included in our proposed Middlesbrough

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 27 3.61 A counter-proposal from Graeme constituencies, could not be adopted Robertson (BCE-20061) on behalf of the as suitable options. They were of the North Billingham Residents Association view that such a configuration for the suggested the inclusion of the three wards area would unnecessarily break existing of Yarm, Stainton & Thornton, and Loftus, local ties. This was underlined by Lisa in different North Yorkshire constituencies. Taylor (BCE‑38704) and Shirley Bond We had agreed with our assistant (BCE‑41167) during the second period commissioners to reject this proposal of public consultation. The assistant as the respondent did not consider the commissioners therefore recommended knock-on effects this proposal would to us that we reject counter-proposals that have on otherwise largely undisturbed place the wards of Yarm and Eaglescliffe constituencies in North Yorkshire. As a in different constituencies. The assistant result, we had decided that the North East commissioners recommended Yarm and regional boundary should not be crossed Eaglescliffe be included in a Stockton and with any other region. Yarm constituency. We agree.

3.62 The Labour Party’s (BCE-33280) 3.64 The majority of representations counter-proposal returned the Stockton received expressed concern over Town Centre ward to a Stockton the division of the local authorities of constituency. It was claimed this would Middlesbrough and Stockton between provide the proposed Stockton West three constituencies. John Stuart constituency with a focal point for the (BCE‑26303), representing Middlesbrough community as it would contain the town Borough Council, said that the local centre. However, a large number of authority ‘would be the minority authority’ respondents voiced their objection to in the proposed constituencies for the area. the Labour Party’s proposal to place the There was also objection to the centres Yarm and Eaglescliffe wards in separate of both Middlesbrough and Stockton constituencies. Furthermore, the Labour being included in the same constituency Party’s counter-proposal kept the local in our initial proposals. On day two of authorities of Middlesbrough and Stockton the public hearing held in Darlington, split across three different constituencies Councillor Matthew Storey (BCE-32885) and left the town of Billingham divided. objected to our initial proposals on the basis of the existing demographics and 3.63 Our assistant commissioners related socio‑economic issues, saying, considered the evidence that had been ‘for a Member of Parliament to have to received. In view of the overwhelming represent both of those conurbations level of support to include both the would be particularly problematic and Yarm and Eaglescliffe wards in the same difficult. Also, it just does not make sense constituency, our assistant commissioners for Stockton’s main economic centre and considered that the proposals from Middlesbrough’s main economic centre the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat to be in one parliamentary constituency. Party (BCE-28281), Adam Gray (BCE- That to us did not really seem to make a 16526) and Oskar Avery (BCE-29234), lot of sense.’ which placed them in separate

28 Boundary Commission for England 3.65 A number of counter-proposals 3.66 The assistant commissioners were received which included the Stockton carefully considered the evidence Town Centre ward in a predominantly submitted by local residents regarding Stockton constituency. This was to avoid the division of Middlesbrough across both Middlesbrough and Stockton town three constituencies. We received multiple centres being included in the same representations claiming there were few constituency, as highlighted above. links that existed between Middlesbrough These counter-proposals came from and Redcar. This was outlined by local the Labour Party (BCE-33280), Liberal resident Ian Blades (BCE-16284) who Democrat Party (BCE-28281) and Oliver stated: ‘Middlesbrough has its own Raven (BCE-39493) among others. Our identity, the people of Middlesbrough have assistant commissioners also noted no association with the people of Redcar’. two emerging themes in the counter- The assistant commissioners also noted proposals for the constituencies in the that the industrial area in the Dormanstown Redcar area: representations from the ward appeared to provide a divide between Conservative Party (BCE-30304), and the Middlesbrough and Redcar areas. Aaron Fear (BCE-36097) proposed that They agreed that the evidence provided parts of Middlesbrough should be included by Ian Blades, among others, was more in a constituency with the coastal town persuasive than the evidence submitted of Redcar, while others suggested they by the Conservative Party (BCE-30304), should be included in a Redcar and the Labour Party (BCE-33280) and Aaron Guisborough constituency, for example Fear (BCE-36097), who each called for Adam Gray (BCE-16526), who said, ‘I different variations of a Middlesbrough have never really understood the point East and Redcar constituency. The of combining remote rural wards with assistant commissioners considered that parts of the town of Middlesbrough. a constituency that contained both the Instead I have combined the Cleveland towns of Redcar and Guisborough would parts of the constituency that used to allow for Middlesbrough to be divided be known as Langbaurgh (and before across two different constituencies that Cleveland and Whitby) with Redcar.’ instead of three. Furthermore, they Lin Pilling (BCE‑23383) also stated, considered that a Redcar and Guisborough ‘the village of Marske-by-the-Sea and constituency would be more cohesive than its town, Redcar, have much more in a Middlesbrough and Redcar constituency common with Saltburn‑by-the-Sea and as it would be more closely aligned with the East Cleveland area than with East the local authority boundary of Redcar Middlesbrough. The areas it was previously and Cleveland. linked to.’

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 29 3.67 Having examined the evidence 3.68 Our assistant commissioners submitted, the assistant commissioners believed these counter-proposals considered the counter-proposals put had considerable merit and therefore forward by Alex Stannard (BCE‑28426) proposed three constituencies in this and Adrian Bailey (BCE-30239). They area: Middlesbrough South and Thornaby, noted that these counter-proposals Middlesbrough and Eston, and Redcar acknowledged the existing links between and East Cleveland. We agree. the Yarm and Eaglescliffe wards and additionally combined all five Billingham wards in a single constituency. Moreover, these alternatives managed to include the Stockton Town Centre ward in a Stockton constituency as well as rejoin all three Norton wards in the same constituency. Although in both configurations the local authority of Middlesbrough is divided across two constituencies, we considered that this is an improvement on the initial proposals which divided Middlesbrough across three constituencies. Both proposals also avoid the construction of a constituency which stretches from Middlesbrough to the coastal town of Redcar.

30 Boundary Commission for England 4 How to have your say

4.1 We are consulting on our revised 4.3 When responding, we ask people to proposals for an eight-week period, from bear in mind the tight constraints placed 17 October 2017 to 11 December 2017. on the Commission by the rules set by We encourage everyone to use this last Parliament and the decisions we have opportunity to help finalise the design taken regarding adoption of a regional of the new constituencies – the more approach and use of local government public views we hear, the more informed wards discussed in chapter 2 and in the our decisions will be before making final Guide. Most importantly: recommendations to Government. • We cannot recommend constituencies 4.2 While people are welcome to write to that have electorates that are more us on any issue regarding the constituency than 5% above or below the electoral boundaries we set out in this report and quota (apart from the two covering the the accompanying maps, our main focus Isle of Wight). during this final consultation is on those • We are obliged by law to use the constituencies we have revised since our Parliamentary electorate figures as initial proposals. While we will consider they were in the statutory electoral representations that comment again on the register published by local electoral initial proposals that we have not revised, it registration officers between is likely that particularly compelling further December 2015 and February evidence or submissions will be needed 2016. We therefore cannot base our to persuade us to depart at this late stage proposals for this constituency review in the review from those of our initial on any subsequent electorate figures. proposals, which have withstood intensive • We are basing our revised proposals scrutiny of objections in the process of on local government ward boundaries consultation and review to which they have (at May 2015) as the building blocks already been subject. Representations of constituencies. Exceptional and relating to initial proposals that we have not compelling evidence needs to be revised and that simply repeat evidence or provided to persuade us that splitting arguments that have already been raised a ward across two constituencies is in either of the previous two consultation necessary or appropriate. stages are likely to carry little weight with • We have constructed constituencies the Commission. within regions, so as not to cross regional boundaries. Particularly compelling reasons would need to be given to persuade us that we should depart from this approach.

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 31 4.4 These issues mean that we What do we want views on? encourage people who are making a representation on a specific area to bear 4.7 We would like particularly to ask two in mind the knock-on effects of their things of those considering responding counter-proposals. The Commission on the revised proposals we have set out. must look at the recommendations for First, if you support our revised proposals, new constituencies across the whole please tell us so, as well as telling us region (and, indeed, across England). where you object to them. Past experience We therefore ask everyone wishing to suggests that too often people who agree respond to our consultation to bear in mind with our proposals do not respond in the impact of their counter-proposals on support, while those who object to them neighbouring constituencies, and on those do respond to make their points – this can further afield across the region. give a distorted view of the balance of public support or objection to proposals. How can you give us your views? Second, if you are considering objecting to our revised proposals, do please use the 4.5 We encourage everyone to make use resources available on our website and at of our consultation website, the places of deposit (maps and electorate www.bce2018.org.uk, when contributing to figures) to put forward counter-proposals our consultation. That website contains all which are in accordance with the rules to the information you will need to contribute which we are working. to the design of the new constituencies, including the revised proposals reports 4.8 Above all, however, we encourage and maps, all the representations we have everyone to have their say on our revised received so far during the review, the initial proposals and, in doing so, to become proposals reports and maps, the electorate involved in drawing the map of new sizes of every ward, and an online facility Parliamentary constituencies. This is the where you can instantly and directly final chance to contribute to the design submit to us your views on our revised of the new constituencies, and the more proposals. If you are unable to access views we get on those constituencies, our consultation website for any reason, the more informed our consideration in you can still write to us at 35 Great Smith developing them will be, and the better we Street, London SW1P 3BQ. will be able to reflect the public’s views in the final recommendations we present in 4.6 We encourage everyone, before September 2018. submitting a representation, to read our approach to data protection and privacy and, in particular, the publication of all representations and personal data within them. This is available in our Data Protection and Privacy Policy, at:

http://boundarycommissionforengland. independent.gov.uk/freedom-of- information-and-data-protection

32 Boundary Commission for England Annex A: Revised proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

1. Berwick and Morpeth CC 77,026 Alnwick Northumberland 7,449 Amble Northumberland 3,408 Amble West with Warkworth Northumberland 3,318 Bamburgh Northumberland 3,450 Bellingham Northumberland 3,050 Berwick East Northumberland 3,215 Berwick North Northumberland 3,146 Berwick West with Ord Northumberland 2,943 Choppington Northumberland 3,442 Druridge Bay Northumberland 3,936 Longhorsley Northumberland 3,201 Longhoughton Northumberland 3,286 Morpeth Kirkhill Northumberland 4,015 Morpeth North Northumberland 3,650 Morpeth Stobhill Northumberland 3,502 Norham and Islandshires Northumberland 3,440 Pegswood Northumberland 3,833 Rothbury Northumberland 3,957 Shilbottle Northumberland 3,962 Stakeford Northumberland 3,505 Wooler Northumberland 3,318

2. Billingham and Sedgefield CC 78,205 Aycliffe East Durham 6,240 Aycliffe North and Middridge Durham 7,790 Aycliffe West Durham 5,403 Bishop Middleham and Cornforth Durham 2,937 Chilton Durham 2,970 Coxhoe Durham 9,280 Ferryhill Durham 8,151 Sedgefield Durham 6,274 Billingham Central Stockton-on-Tees 5,136 Billingham East Stockton-on-Tees 4,935 Billingham North Stockton-on-Tees 6,943 Billingham South Stockton-on-Tees 4,671 Billingham West Stockton-on-Tees 4,521 Northern Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,954

3. Bishop Auckland CC 71,135 Barnard Castle East Durham 6,492 Barnard Castle West Durham 6,319 Bishop Auckland Town Durham 5,947 Coundon Durham 3,010 Evenwood Durham 6,231 Shildon and Dene Valley Durham 9,384 Spennymoor Durham 8,444 Tudhoe Durham 6,079 West Auckland Durham 6,375 Willington and Hunwick Durham 6,822 Woodhouse Close Durham 6,032

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 33 Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

4. Blaydon CC 76,791 Burnopfield and Dipton Durham 5,962 Blaydon Gateshead 6,953 and Gateshead 6,954 and Greenside Gateshead 6,659 Ryton, Crookhill and Stella Gateshead 6,818 Winlaton and High Spen Gateshead 6,702 Benwell and Scotswood Newcastle upon Tyne 8,020 Denton Newcastle upon Tyne 7,356 Newcastle upon Tyne 7,030 Newcastle upon Tyne 6,894 Westerhope Newcastle upon Tyne 7,443

5. Blyth and Ashington CC 78,241 Ashington Central Northumberland 3,181 Bedlington Central Northumberland 3,483 Bedlington East Northumberland 3,130 Bedlington West Northumberland 3,577 Bothal Northumberland 3,420 College Northumberland 3,368 Cowpen Northumberland 3,050 Croft Northumberland 2,883 Hartley Northumberland 3,883 Haydon Northumberland 3,486 Hirst Northumberland 3,113 Holywell Northumberland 3,966 Isabella Northumberland 3,102 Kitty Brewster Northumberland 4,009 Lynemouth Northumberland 3,207 Newbiggin Central and East Northumberland 3,378 Newsham Northumberland 3,179 Plessey Northumberland 3,283 Seaton with Newbiggin West Northumberland 3,425 Seghill with Seaton Delaval Northumberland 4,146 Sleekburn Northumberland 3,180 South Blyth Northumberland 3,579 Wensleydale Northumberland 3,213

6. City of Durham and Easington CC 77,002 Belmont Durham 10,115 Durham South Durham 1,619 Easington Durham 5,559 Elvet and Gilesgate Durham 4,081 Horden Durham 5,809 Murton Durham 5,820 Neville’s Cross Durham 6,502 Passfield Durham 3,539 Peterlee East Durham 5,484 Peterlee West Durham 6,119 Sherburn Durham 6,531 Shotton and South Hetton Durham 6,413 Trimdon and Thornley Durham 9,411

7. Darlington BC 74,929 Bank Top and Lascelles Darlington 4,550 Brinkburn and Faverdale Darlington 4,553 Cockerton Darlington 4,534 College Darlington 3,288 Eastbourne Darlington 4,571 Harrowgate Hill Darlington 4,809 Haughton and Springfield Darlington 4,733 Heighington and Coniscliffe Darlington 3,276

34 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

Hummersknott Darlington 3,168 Hurworth Darlington 2,867 Mowden Darlington 3,102 North Road Darlington 4,231 Northgate Darlington 2,453 Park East Darlington 4,488 Park West Darlington 3,282 Pierremont Darlington 4,233 Red Hall and Lingfield Darlington 2,548 Sadberge and Middleton St. George Darlington 4,598 Stephenson Darlington 2,474 Whinfield Darlington 3,171

8. Gateshead West BC 75,965 Birtley Gateshead 5,984 Bridges Gateshead 5,316 Chowdene Gateshead 6,892 Gateshead 6,371 Dunston Hill and East Gateshead 6,586 Dunston and Teams Gateshead 5,823 Gateshead 6,963 Lobley Hill and Gateshead 6,860 Gateshead 6,910 Saltwell Gateshead 5,470 Whickham North Gateshead 6,307 Whickham South and Sunniside Gateshead 6,483

9. Hartlepool CC 77,215 Blackhalls Durham 6,101 Wingate Durham 2,913 Burn Valley Hartlepool 5,903 De Bruce Hartlepool 5,597 Fens and Rossmere Hartlepool 7,003 Foggy Furze Hartlepool 6,286 Hart Hartlepool 6,731 Headland and Harbour Hartlepool 5,358 Jesmond Hartlepool 6,179 Manor House Hartlepool 7,188 Rural West Hartlepool 5,815 Seaton Hartlepool 6,693 Victoria Hartlepool 5,448

10. Hexham and Cramlington CC 77,181 Bywell Northumberland 3,457 Corbridge Northumberland 3,353 Cramlington East Northumberland 2,751 Cramlington Eastfield Northumberland 3,840 Cramlington North Northumberland 4,015 Cramlington South East Northumberland 3,738 Cramlington Village Northumberland 3,445 Cramlington West Northumberland 3,737 Haltwhistle Northumberland 3,583 Haydon and Hadrian Northumberland 3,321 Hexham Central with Acomb Northumberland 3,235 Hexham East Northumberland 3,228 Hexham West Northumberland 3,177 Humshaugh Northumberland 3,244 Ponteland East and Stannington Northumberland 3,297 Ponteland North Northumberland 3,644 Ponteland South with Heddon Northumberland 3,351 Ponteland West Northumberland 3,275 Prudhoe North Northumberland 4,112 Prudhoe South Northumberland 3,739

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 35 Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

South Tynedale Northumberland 3,831 Stocksfield and Broomhaugh Northumberland 3,808 11. Houghton and Seaham CC 75,771 Dawdon Durham 5,868 Deneside Durham 5,280 Seaham Durham 5,270 Copt Hill Sunderland 8,767 Doxford Sunderland 7,563 Hetton Sunderland 8,632 Houghton Sunderland 9,016 Sunderland 9,719 Silksworth Sunderland 8,109 St. Chad’s Sunderland 7,547

12. Jarrow BC 74,770 Felling Gateshead 5,586 High Fell Gateshead 5,895 Pelaw and Heworth Gateshead 6,373 Wardley and Leam Lane Gateshead 5,972 Windy Nook and Whitehills Gateshead 7,065 Bede South Tyneside 5,956 Fellgate and Hedworth South Tyneside 5,835 North South Tyneside 6,930 Hebburn South South Tyneside 6,234 Monkton South Tyneside 6,307 Primrose South Tyneside 6,293 Simonside and Rekendyke South Tyneside 6,324

13. Middlesbrough and Eston BC 76,979 Acklam Middlesbrough 4,288 Berwick Hills & Pallister Middlesbrough 5,879 Brambles & Thorntree Middlesbrough 5,418 Central Middlesbrough 4,953 Linthorpe Middlesbrough 4,266 Longlands & Beechwood Middlesbrough 6,171 Newport Middlesbrough 5,012 North Ormesby Middlesbrough 1,570 Park Middlesbrough 6,383 Park End & Beckfield Middlesbrough 5,625 Eston Redcar and Cleveland 4,928 Grangetown Redcar and Cleveland 2,879 Normanby Redcar and Cleveland 5,589 Ormesby Redcar and Cleveland 4,575 South Bank Redcar and Cleveland 4,604 Teesville Redcar and Cleveland 4,839

14. Middlesbrough South and Thornaby BC 73,457 Ayresome Middlesbrough 3,988 Coulby Newham Middlesbrough 6,366 Hemlington Middlesbrough 4,386 Kader Middlesbrough 4,413 Ladgate Middlesbrough 3,860 Marton East Middlesbrough 4,066 Marton West Middlesbrough 4,210 Nunthorpe Middlesbrough 3,891 Stainton & Thornton Middlesbrough 1,844 Trimdon Middlesbrough 3,573 Ingleby Barwick East Stockton-on-Tees 7,467 Ingleby Barwick West Stockton-on-Tees 8,184 Mandale and Victoria Stockton-on-Tees 7,267 Stainsby Hill Stockton-on-Tees 4,740 Village Stockton-on-Tees 5,202

36 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

15. Newcastle upon Tyne East BC 72,409 Newcastle upon Tyne 7,074 Dene Newcastle upon Tyne 7,083 East Gosforth Newcastle upon Tyne 6,874 North Heaton Newcastle upon Tyne 6,746 North Jesmond Newcastle upon Tyne 5,945 Newcastle upon Tyne 6,283 South Heaton Newcastle upon Tyne 5,636 South Jesmond Newcastle upon Tyne 5,561 Walker Newcastle upon Tyne 7,297 Newcastle upon Tyne 6,782 West Gosforth Newcastle upon Tyne 7,128

16. Newcastle upon Tyne North West BC 71,031 Blakelaw Newcastle upon Tyne 7,696 Castle Newcastle upon Tyne 8,578 Elswick Newcastle upon Tyne 6,495 Newcastle upon Tyne 7,035 Fenham Newcastle upon Tyne 7,521 Kenton Newcastle upon Tyne 7,498 Parklands Newcastle upon Tyne 7,562 Westgate Newcastle upon Tyne 5,039 Wingrove Newcastle upon Tyne 6,086 Newcastle upon Tyne 7,521

17. North Durham and Chester-le-Street CC 74,985 Annfield Plain Durham 5,670 Chester-le-Street East Durham 2,919 Chester-le-Street North Durham 2,999 Chester-le-Street South Durham 5,937 Chester-le-Street West Central Durham 5,825 Craghead and South Moor Durham 5,177 Framwellgate and Newton Hall Durham 10,175 Lumley Durham 5,527 North Lodge Durham 2,828 Pelton Durham 9,889 Sacriston Durham 5,357 Stanley Durham 6,187 Tanfield Durham 6,495

18. North Tyneside BC 76,427 Battle Hill North Tyneside 7,985 Benton North Tyneside 7,622 Camperdown North Tyneside 7,711 North Tyneside 7,717 North Tyneside 8,087 North Tyneside 7,845 Northumberland North Tyneside 6,580 Riverside North Tyneside 7,805 North Tyneside 7,425 Weetslade North Tyneside 7,650

19. North West Durham CC 74,154 Benfieldside Durham 6,180 Brandon Durham 7,146 Consett North Durham 5,761 Consett South Durham 2,886 Crook Durham 8,995 Deerness Durham 9,018 Delves Lane Durham 6,026 Esh and Witton Gilbert Durham 6,192 Lanchester Durham 5,871 Leadgate and Medomsley Durham 6,440

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 37 Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

Tow Law Durham 3,233 Weardale Durham 6,406

20. Redcar and East Cleveland CC 72,951 Brotton Redcar and Cleveland 5,151 Coatham Redcar and Cleveland 3,598 Dormanstown Redcar and Cleveland 4,951 Guisborough Redcar and Cleveland 5,512 Hutton Redcar and Cleveland 5,841 Kirkleatham Redcar and Cleveland 5,397 Lockwood Redcar and Cleveland 1,509 Loftus Redcar and Cleveland 4,586 Longbeck Redcar and Cleveland 5,355 Newcomen Redcar and Cleveland 3,124 Saltburn Redcar and Cleveland 4,664 Skelton Redcar and Cleveland 5,641 St. Germain’s Redcar and Cleveland 4,835 West Dyke Redcar and Cleveland 5,943 Westworth Redcar and Cleveland 3,436 Zetland Redcar and Cleveland 3,408

21. South Shields BC 71,143 Beacon and Bents South Tyneside 6,735 Biddick and All Saints South Tyneside 6,429 Boldon Colliery South Tyneside 7,358 and East Boldon South Tyneside 6,954 Cleadon Park South Tyneside 5,695 Harton South Tyneside 6,775 Horsley Hill South Tyneside 7,114 West Park South Tyneside 6,205 Westoe South Tyneside 5,568 Whitburn and Marsden South Tyneside 5,781 Whiteleas South Tyneside 6,529

22. Stockton and Yarm CC 75,818 Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree Stockton-on-Tees 5,023 Eaglescliffe Stockton-on-Tees 7,912 Fairfield Stockton-on-Tees 4,535 Grangefield Stockton-on-Tees 5,133 Hardwick and Salters Lane Stockton-on-Tees 4,813 Hartburn Stockton-on-Tees 5,256 Newtown Stockton-on-Tees 4,771 Norton North Stockton-on-Tees 4,767 Norton South Stockton-on-Tees 4,517 Norton West Stockton-on-Tees 5,062 Parkfield and Oxbridge Stockton-on-Tees 5,117 Roseworth Stockton-on-Tees 4,922 Stockton Town Centre Stockton-on-Tees 3,971 Western Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,634 Yarm Stockton-on-Tees 7,385

23. Sunderland Central BC 71,232 Barnes Sunderland 8,501 Fulwell Sunderland 8,984 Hendon Sunderland 7,538 Millfield Sunderland 6,920 Sunderland 7,202 Sunderland 7,964 Southwick Sunderland 7,885 St. Michael’s Sunderland 8,157 St. Peter’s Sunderland 8,081

38 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authorities Electorate

24. Tynemouth BC 74,618 Chirton North Tyneside 7,771 Collingwood North Tyneside 8,096 North Tyneside 7,424 North North Tyneside 6,869 Monkseaton South North Tyneside 7,427 Preston North Tyneside 6,587 St. Mary’s North Tyneside 6,844 Tynemouth North Tyneside 8,201 Valley North Tyneside 8,301 North Tyneside 7,098

25. Washington and Sunderland West BC 74,961 Castle Sunderland 8,332 Redhill Sunderland 8,107 Sandhill Sunderland 7,976 St. Anne’s Sunderland 8,084 Washington Central Sunderland 8,654 Washington East Sunderland 8,801 Washington North Sunderland 8,183 Washington South Sunderland 7,846 Washington West Sunderland 8,978

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the North East 39