Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties COUNTY OF JEHYSH AN] I~S BOUNDARY WTH NOT" NGHAMSHHE LOCAL GOVEHHlfEHT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOR EMC LAND

REPORT -599 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton

MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr C W Smith

Professor K Young Hotelnghan.BC

THE RT RON MICHAEL HESELTINE HP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES THE COUNTY OF : BOUNDARY WITH

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

1. On 2 September 1986 we wrote to Derbyshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the county under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities and constituent parishes in Derbyshire and in the surrounding counties of Cheshire, , Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire; to the National and the County Associations of Local Councils, to the Members of Parliament with constituency interests, and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities, water authorities, and electricity and gas boards which might have an interest; and to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. To enable the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Section 60(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, we requested the County Councils, in co-operation as necessary with other local authorities, to insert a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers to give wide publicity to the start of the review in the areas concerned. We also asked the County Councils to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those services, such as the police and the administration of justice, in respect of which they had a statutory function. 3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their detailed views on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable; and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would best meet the criterion of effective and convenient local government as prescribed by Section 47(1) of the 1972 Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US

4. In response to our letter of 2 September 1986, we received representations from Derbyshire County Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, a number of other local authorities and a Member of Parliament, as well as from various organisations and bodies in the area. These are listed in Schedule 1 to this report. We also received individual representations from 40 members of the public.

5. The submissions made included several suggestions for change to Derbyshire's boundary with Nottinghamshire. These were essentially for minor rectification to take account of residential or industrial developments or changes in natural features such as the course of the . They ranged from Steetley in the north, towards the South Yorkshire boundary, to Attenborough in the south. Details of these, and of our conclusions regarding them, are set out in the paragraphs below.

6. Suggestions for changes to Derbyshire's boundaries with Cheshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire have already been considered in the context of the reviews of those counties. Reports concerning the boundaries with Cheshire (No 562), Leicestershire (No 577) and Staffordshire (No 582) have been sent to you separately. Derbyshire's boundaries with Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire are still under review and reports on them will be sent to you on completion. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES AND OUR INITIAL PROPOSALS

(a) Attenborough to

7. Derbyshire County Council proposed realignment of the boundary, where necessary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash from Attenborough through , Sidings and to Trowell. Nottinghamshire County Council's proposals corresponded with those of Derbyshire as they affected Toton . Sidings and Stapleford and the Council supported the remainder of Derbyshire County Council's proposals which affected Attenborough, Long Eaton and Trowell. Erewash Borough Council and Sandiacre Parish Council supported these suggestions. Sandiacre Parish Council commented that the current boundary, which had become less clear due to the altered course of the River Erewash, had been a source of contention resulting in duplication of services between Sandiacre (in Derbyshire) and Stapleford (in Nottinghamshire). The Parish Councils of and Trowell objected to any boundary change.

8. Most of the local authorities affected supported the proposed realignment of the boundary. We considered that, because Ockbrook parish was not coterminous with any part of the county boundary, the suggested changes would not directly affect that parish, and that any effect upon 'the parish of Trowell would be minimal. We concluded that the new course of the River Erewash would provide a clearly identifiable boundary between the two counties from Attenborough to Trowell and we therefore decided to adopt Derbyshire County Council's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(b) Lanaley Mill/Eastwood

9. Derbyshire County Council suggested that the part of Eastwood, west of the A610, should be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire, on the grounds that even the new course of the River Erewash no longer significantly separated the communities of and Eastwood. This would involve the transfer of a number of industrial premises and estate plots, a public house, and some residential properties in Mewmanleys Road, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. The County Council's suggestion was supported by and Langley Mill Parish Council. Nottinghamshire County Council and Eastwood Town Council opposed the suggestion on the grounds that the river-was a natural boundary; that the residents of Newmanleys Road looked to Eastwood for their services and shopping; and that if the suggestion was accepted it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of services. Two residents of Eastwood also expressed opposition to Derbyshire County Council's suggestion.

10. Although we considered the A610 was currently a substantial barrier between the two communities, we also accepted that residents 'of Newmanleys Road probably looked to Eastwood for their immediate requirements because of its easy access. We therefore decided to adopt as our draft proposal Derbyshire County Council's suggestion, but in part only. Our revision involved realignment of the boundary to follow the A610 from where it crossed the River Erewash, north of Eastwood, and as far south as the point where Anchor Road ran west from the A610. This route incorporated a minor technical amendment suggested by Ordnance Survey. We also considered that the River Erewash, south of Anchor Road, was no longer suitable as a boundary. We believed that the , where it flowed between Anchor Road and the existing boundary to the south, would serve better as the county boundary and this realignment was included in our draft proposal.

(c) Lanalev Mill to Wharf

11. Derbyshire County Council suggested that its boundary with Nottinghamshire, from Langley Mill to Pinxton Wharf, be realigned where necessary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash. This would effectively transfer several small parcels of land between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Nottinghamshire County Council suggested a similar adjustment to the boundary but extended their suggestion to include the course of the river from Stapleford to Pinxton Wharf. (We explain our boundary proposals affecting the River Erewash between Stapleford and Langley Mill in paragraphs 17-10 above).

12." We noted that the river no longer followed the boundary at places where it had either altered course or had been diverted. We considered that the course of the river, from Langley Mill to Pinxton 'Wharf, would provide a clear natural boundary, and in view of the local agreement, we decided to adopt Derbyshire County Counci1' s suggestion as our draft, proposal.

(d) Pinxton i

>13. Derbyshire County Council, supported by District i Council and Pinxton Parish Council, proposed realignment of its , boundary with Nottinghamshire where the parish of Pinxton formed part of the county boundary. This realignment would follow the mineral railway line, the base of the eastern embankment of the Ml i and Maghole Brook. This would transfer from Nottinghamshire to i Derbyshire residential and industrial premises east of Town Street and Beaufit Lane; residential properties in the part of Pinxton Green that lay between the Ml and Maghole Brook; and properties along the part of Station Road that lay between the mineral railway line and the River Erewash.

14. Nottinghamshire County Council and Council each suggested that only the properties between Town Street and the Ml should be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. They considered the remainder of the boundary at Pinxton to be adequate and easily identifiable and that properties affected in Station Road had strong ties with . Ashfield District Council said that if the Ml were to be considered a suitable boundary beyond the part that would be affected by the transfer of the properties east of Town Street, then consideration should also be given to extending the boundary further north along the motorway and eastward along the A38. 15. We noted that all the relevant local authorities agreed that the affected properties east of Town Street.looked to Pinxton for schools and medical services. The existing boundary divides industrial development on both sides of Beaufit Lane and we considered that it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to unite the industrial estate in one county. We considered that the properties affected in Pinxton Green were sufficiently separated from Pinxton by the Ml. There appeared to be no advantage in extending the proposed boundary further along the Ml and the A38. We decided, therefore, to adopt Derbyshire County Council's suggestion as our draft proposal but incorporating an amendment to align the proposed boundary along the eastern edge of the M!, rather than the base of its embankment, as far as the existing county boundary. This suggestion would retain the residential properties in Pinxton Green within Nottinghamshire.

(e)

16. Nottinghamshire County Council observed that the existing boundary between Warsop and Shirebrook meandered across the railway lines and was totally indistinguishable on the ground. District Council supported its proposal for the boundary with Derbyshire, between Warsop and Shirebrook, to be adjusted to follow the railway line, the east side of the adjoining allotment gardens (which would thus be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire) and an embankment parallel to the railway lines. Ordnance Survey suggested a minor technical adjustment to Nottinghamshire County Council's suggestion so as to align part of the proposed boundary, north of the allotment gardens, to the eastern perimeter of the railway property rather than along the embankment.

17. Following discussions with Nottinghamshire County Council, Derbyshire County Council withdrew its original proposal for the transfer of a larger part of the parish of Warsop from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire in favour of Nottinghamshire County Council's suggestion. Council supported this suggestion. We considered the realignment proposed by •Nottinghamshire County Council to provide a clearly identifiable 'boundary and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal, incorporating ,the technical adjustment suggested by Ordnance Survey.

(f)

18. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council each proposed that those parts of the village of Nether Langwith, and , Portland Road which is adjacent to the village of Thorns in Derbyshire, together with part of the parish of Holbeck in the 'district of Bassetlaw, should all be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. The Councils considered that the pattern of community life and operation of local government services would be improved if those settlements were placed wholly within Derbyshire. The suggestion provided for the transfer of a hospital and grounds, 140 , houses, two farmsteads, a public house, a club, a recreation ground, ! a burial ground and a sewage works. i

19. Nottinghamshire County Council, Council and Nether Langwith Parish Council all-opposed the suggestion. They and Parish Council accepted that the properties in Portland Road were properly part of . Bassetlaw District Council's support for Derbyshire County Council's suggestions was limited to the transfer of Portland Road . only. In opposing Derbyshire County Council's proposal affecting the parish of Holbeck, Bassetlaw District Council preferred the alternative of transferring Grange from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire by realigning the boundary to follow the A60, from Wallingbrook Wood to its junction with the B6042. Were the latter course to be adopted, Nottinghamshire County Council proposed the inclusion of the allotment gardens and recreation ground, running immediately north

of Portland Road/ in the transfer to Derbyshire with Portland Road.

20. Both Nottinghamshire County Council and Bassetlaw District Council indicated that local residents would oppose the transfer of Portland Road from Nottinghamshire and this view was supported by the results of Nether Langwith Parish Council's two referenda amongst its residents. These showed that 29 out of 38 residents of Portland Road, and 112 out of 125 residents of Nether Langwith, wished to remain in Nottinghamshire. Only one resident from each area wanted a transfer to Derbyshire.

21 - The parish councils of Scarcliffe and Nether Langwith each suggested the transfer of the allotment gardens to the north of Portland Road, and the parish council sports ground at Hartington Street, Langwith, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. Scarcliffe Parish Council opposed part of Nether Langwith Parish Council's suggestion, involving the transfer of the former Langwith pit head baths complex and land at Pit Hill Street, from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. Nether Langwith 'Parish Council also asked the Commission to consider, as an alternative, the desirability of creating two new parishes of Whaley Thorns and Langwith and realigning the county boundary to place the villages of Whaley Thorns and Nether Langwith wholly within Nottinghamshire.

22. The parish councils of , Holbeck and Welbeck, Norton Parish Meeting, Nottinghamshire County Council Education Department, Mr Joe Ashton HP (Bassetlaw), a County Councillor and a District Councillor, the Head Teacher of Cuckney Primary School and the Nottinghamshire Federation of Womens' Institutes, all objected to Derbyshire County Council's proposal. They supported those who wanted to remain in Nottinghamshire. We received 39 letters from residents of Holbeck, Nether Langwith and Portland Road all of whom wanted to remain in Nottinghamshire as they were satisfied with local government services. Many of them, together with the relevant Nottinghamshire local authorities, were also concerned that the removal of Nether Langwith from Nottinghamshire, and consequently about 18 children who attended Cuckney Primary School, would place that school in danger of review and, possibly, subsequent closure.

23. Whilst the existing boundary did not split properties, it did. separate properties in Portland Road from Whaley Thorns to which, we considered, they belonged. We could see no advantage in transferring any part of the parish of Holbeck from Nottinghamshire . to Derbyshire, nor of Belph Grange from Derbyshire to ^Nottinghamshire. We considered that the different style and character of properties between the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire parts of Nether Langwith were pronounced and that the two halves were well separated by the existing boundary. We noted that Whaley Thorns was well separated from Nether Langwith and it seemed to us that there was no case for extensive change affecting the village of Nether Langwith. We concluded that Nottinghamshire County Council's suggestion (paragraph 19) was the most satisfactory for securing effective and convenient local government in- the area and we decided to adopt it as our draft proposal, incorporating a minor technical adjustment proposed by Ordnance Survey.

(g) Creswell

24. Derbyshire County Council proposed realignment of the boundary at Creswell Crags to follow the altered course of Millwood Brook. Nottinghamshire County Council and Bolsover District Council supported this proposal involving the transfer of seven small parcels of land between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

25. The existing boundary, where it follows the old course of Millwood Brook, divides a water reclamation works on the south side of the new course of the brook at Creswell Crags. The proposed realignment would effectively place the works wholly within Nottinghamshire. We considered that the new course of the brook would form a natural, identifiable boundary, and decided to adopt Derbyshire County Council's suggestion as our draft proposal, incorporating a minor technical adjustment suggested by Ordnance Survey.

INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

,26. We received suggestions for changes, and one for no change, to the boundary at four further areas. We took interim decisions to make no proposals in respect of these areas as follows: (a) Junction

27. Derbyshire County Council proposed realignment of the boundary at Ilkeston Junction away from the River Erewash to follow, instead, the railway line. It additionally proposed realignment to the River Erewash, where the river had changed course at three small places immediately north of Ilkeston Junction. This would have provided for the transfer of 13 industrial and two business premises, a Post Office and 50 houses from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire, together with three small areas of grazing land between the two counties. Derbyshire County Council considered the River Erewash, at Ilkeston Junction, no longer to be a prominent or logical boundary due to the extent of development on either side of its course. The suggestion was supported by Erewash Borough Council.

28. Nottinghamshire County Council objected to the suggestion. It maintained that Ilkeston Junction was adequately separated from Derbyshire by the River Erewash. Parish Council submitted information about a survey it had organised of the residents involved. This indicated that 36 out of 50 households wished to remain in Nottinghamshire. There was no response from the remaining 14 households.

29. We noted that the majority of householders affected wanted to remain in Nottinghamshire. There appeared to us no positive reason for change, other than to provide a better defined boundary. We were satisfied that Ilkeston Junction was sufficiently separated from Derbyshire by the River Erewash. We, therefore, decided to propose no change to the existing boundary.

(b) New Sidings

30. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council each proposed realignment of the boundary at New Hucknall Sidings, to follow the line of the dismantled railway, which would provide a more identifiable boundary. This would transfer approximately 14 hectares of land from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire

10 County Council opposed the suggestion on the grounds that the existing boundary along Cartwright Lane was more clearly identifiable than the path of the dismantled railway.

31. We noted that the existing boundary followed Cartwright Lane, iimmediately north of the A38, and that the remainder was undefined. 'We considered that the ground features of the dismantled railway .would not provide a significantly clearer boundary than those to ,which the existing boundary was aligned. We were also satisfied that ]no benefits would be gained, in terms of effective and convenient i local government, by this alteration and decided to propose no change to the existing boundary. i ! (c) Pleaslev Vale

32. Derbyshire County Council proposed no change to the boundary at Vale, even though industrial development had taken place over the , which formed the boundary; Nottinghamshire i County Council and Bolsover District Council supported this. Pleasley Parish Council objected to any proposal to transfer the i parish of Pleasley from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire.

33. We noted that identification of the existing boundary was made , difficult by industrial premises straddling the river Meden, but that these were derelict and proposals to redevelop them were to be considered. We concluded that there would currently be no great advantage in a change to the present boundary and decided to make no proposal.

(d) Steetlev Wood

34. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council, supported by Whitwell Parish Council, proposed the transfer of Steetley colliery yard and works, in the district.of Bassetlaw, from Nottinghamshire to unite them with the colliery tipping area in Derbyshire, and to provide for 'more effective planning control. This would realign the boundary to follow Steetley Lane, Spring Lane

11 and the railway line and place the whole complex in Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire County Council, Bassetlaw District Council and Steetley Refractories Ltd opposed this on the grounds that Steetley Works had more affinity with Nottinghamshire, and its workforce was drawn mainly from Nottinghamshire. Derbyshire County Council objected to a proposal made by Bassetlaw District Council, supported by Nottinghamshire County Council, to transfer the colliery tipping area from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire, by realigning the boundary to follow the A619 between the railway and Steetley Lane, and north along Steetley Lane as far as the existing boundary.

35. We considered that, although the existing boundary was only partially defined, the adoption of either suggestion would not achieve any significant benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore proposed no changes to the existing boundary.

PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

36. We published our draft proposals and interim decisions on 15 August 1988 in a letter to Derbyshire County Council; this letter was copied to all those who had received our letter of 2 September 1986, and to those who had made representations to us. We asked Derbyshire County Council to arrange, in conjunction with Nottinghamshire county Council, the publication of a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions, and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. We also asked the County Councils to place copies of our draft proposals letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for eight weeks, and invited comments by 7 October 1988.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS AND FORMULATION OF FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

37. We received 26 representations in response to our draft proposals and interim decisions letter. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils, many of the other relevant local

12 authorities and 13 members of the public submitted comments. A list of respondents is in Schedule 2 to this report.

38. Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires us to consider the representations made to us. In the light of those representations,we decided to modify one of our draft proposals relating to Attenborough to Trowell (Toton); withdraw two of our interim decisions,relating to Nether Langwith and Ilkeston Junction; and to issue further and additional draft proposals relating to Nether Langwith (Portland Road), Ilkeston Junction and Steetley Wood. We also decided to confirm the remainder of our draft proposals and interim decisions relating to Langley Mill/Eastwood, Langley Mill to Pinxton Wharf, Pinxton, Shirebrook, Creswell, New Hucknall Sidings and Pleasley Vale, Our conclusions concerning each area are set out in the following paragraphs.

(i) Responses leading to our modified and further draft proposals,

(a) Attenborouah to Trowell CToton^ rparaqraphs 7-81

39. Derbyshire County Council generally supported our draft proposal. Broxtowe Borough Council commented that our draft proposal, if implemented, would transfer from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire part of Manor Farm Recreation Ground, which it owns and manages, at Toton. The Borough Council suggested realignment of part of the proposed boundary to follow the River Erewash by-pass channel, from a point where it crosses the existing county boundary to a point where it joins the River Erewash at Toton Arches, in order to retain the recreation ground wholly in Broxtowe. Nottinghamshire County Council supported this suggestion, but otherwise supported the remainder of our draft proposal.

40. We observed that the use of the by-pass channel as the county boundary would also transfer a small area of land from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. We considered it logical and in the interests

13 of effective management to retain the recreation ground in the area of one authority and decided, therefore, to adopt Broxtowei Borough Council's suggestion as a modification to our draft proposal.

(b) Nether Lanowith (paragraphs 18-231

41. Nottinghamshire County Council supported our draft proposal. Derbyshire County Council and Scarcliffe Parish Council accepted our draft proposal, but also asked us, as did Nether Langwith Parish Council, to look again at the boundary adjacent to the allotment gardens and the sports ground east of Hardwick Street, on the basis that Scarcliffe Parish Council owns and manages those two sites which Langwith residents alone use.

42. The residents of Nether Langwith asked their Parish Council to convey to us their objections to the proposed transfer of Portland Road from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. The Parish Council asked, us to consider holding a local meeting to discuss the residents' objections before reaching a final decision. The Parish Council said that it did not object to the remainder of our draft proposal, but felt that it would be logical to include, in the proposed transfer to Derbyshire, the graveyard adjoining the complex of open land west of Cockshut Lane and north of Portland Road.

43. We also received 13 representations from Portland Road residents, objecting to the proposed transfer of their properties to Derbyshire, on the grounds that they preferred the services delivered by the Nottinghamshire local authorities.

44. We did not consider that those objecting to the proposed transfer of Portland Road had brought to light any new factors to cause us to change our draft proposal. We considered that Portland Road is distinct and separate from Nether Langwith and that we had accumulated sufficient evidence to make a local meeting unnecessary. We therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal for Portland Road.

14 ,45. Following enquiries we learned that Nottinghamshire County Council was not responsible for the graveyard north of Portland Road, ; and that the County Council would not object to its transfer to Derbyshire. The graveyard's transfer to Derbyshire, together with the allotment gardens and the sports ground east of Hardwick Street, appeared logical and we issued further draft proposals accordingly.

(c) Ilkeston Junction (paragraphs 27-291

46. Nottinghamshire County Council and Broxtowe Borough Council supported our interim decision. Derbyshire County Council repeated , its suggestion to unite Ilkeston Junction with the remainder of Ilkeston in Derbyshire, and drew our attention to the splitting of industrial premises at Digby Street and Newton's Bridge by the existing boundary at a point where the course of the River Erewash had changed.

47. We reconsidered the boundary at Ilkeston Junction in the light of Derbyshire County Council's comments. We felt it undesirable to leave the industrial premises split by the existing boundary. Nottinghamshire County Council had originally suggested the altered course of the River Erewash as a possible new boundary, but, after further review, we considered it not to be as robust a feature as the nearby railway line. it seemed to us that Ilkeston Junction would be better separated from Nottinghamshire by the railway line, than from Derbyshire by the river. We decided, therefore, to withdraw our interim decision and to adopt instead Derbyshire County Council's suggestion to transfer Ilkeston Junction from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire, as our further draft proposal.

(d) Steetlev Wood (paragraphs 34-35^

48. Derbyshire County Council repeated its suggestion to transfer the colliery yard and works at Steetley Wood, from Nottinghamshire, to unite them with the tipping area in Derbyshire.

15 49. We noted that the major part of the works was actually located in Nottinghamshire, and that planning control of the colliery would be more effective if the whole site were to be situated within one county. We therefore considered that it would be best placed wholly within Nottinghamshire, and decided, in consequence, to withdraw our .interim decision and to issue a further draft proposal. This was based,, in part, on Bassetlaw District Council's suggestion to follow the A619, but slightly modified to avoid the creation of a narrow salient of Derbyshire and to remove another from Nottinghamshire. This provided for the boundary to follow Scratta Lane, rather than Steetley Lane, as far as Nottinghamshire's boundary with South Yorkshire. This draft proposal is linked with another draft proposal for a change to the boundary of South Yorkshire which, if implemented, would transfer part of what is now South Yorkshire to Derbyshire and another part to Nottinghamshire. A report on the review of South Yorkshire will be sent to you in due course.

(ii) Response to the remainder of our draft proposals and interim decisions.

(a) Attenborouah to Trowell fStaplefordl (paragraphs 7-81

50. Stapleford Town Council objected to a part of our draft proposal concerning realignment of the boundary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash between the parishes of Sandiacre (Derbyshire) and Stapleford (Nottinghamshire). The Town Council expressed concern that the consequent transfer of houses in Grove, Station Road and Westminster Avenue, and businesses in Cross Street and Gas Street, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire would adversely affect its parish rate. The Council said that the residents and business operators there had a close affinity with Nottinghamshire and that there should be a referendum to ascertain their wishes.

51. After reconsideration, we remained of the view that the existing boundary between Sandiacre and Stapleford was unsatisfactory. it split houses and industrial premises, all of which were situated on

16 Derbyshire's side of the river. This did not seem to us to be conducive to effective and convenient local government and we decided to adhere to our draft proposal that the boundary should- follow the i altered course of the River Erewash.

, (b) Langley Mill/Eastwood fparagraphs 9-10^

52. Derbyshire County Council supported our draft proposal, but i Nottinghamshire County Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Eastwood : Town Council all opposed it. They expressed concern that the provision of services to the area, under the new proposal, would result in confusion and disruption because the proposed boundary would depart from the River Erewash to follow canal and road 1 features. They said that a realignment of the boundary to follow the new course of the river would not offend against the criteria of effective and convenient local government.

53. Since no new facts had been presented since we originally considered this proposal, we remained of the view that the A610 and the Erewash Canal provided a more effective separation of the communities of Langley Mill and Eastwood than the River Erewash. In the absence of any new evidence or other objections, we decided to adhere to our draft proposal.

(c) Lanalev Mill to Pinxton Wharf (paragraphs 11-12T

54. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils both supported our draft proposal. Selston Parish Council opposed it on the grounds that three pockets of land would be transferred from and Selston wards.

55. We considered that these pockets of land were very small and that their transfer to Derbyshire would have no significant effect on Jacksdale and Selston wards' electoral arrangements. In the absence of any other objections we decided to adhere to our draft proposal to realign the boundary, where necessary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash.

17 (d) Pinxton fparagraphs 13-151

56. Derbyshire County Council supported our draft proposal. Although Nottinghamshire County Council did not object to the proposed transfer of the affected properties east of Town Street, it was their view that the boundary between Pinxton Wharf and Beaufit Lane should be realigned to follow the new course of the River Erewash, rather than the railway, on the grounds that it was a predominant and consistent natural boundary. Ashfield District Council reaffirmed its initial suggestion to transfer properties on the east side of Town Street to Derbyshire and to extend the boundary further north along the Ml and east along the A38. Selston Parish Council (Nottinghamshire) objected to the proposed transfer of five pockets of'land to Derbyshire, one of which included an industrial unit and a number of residential properties.

57. There was no opposition to transferring the properties affected, east of Town Street, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. We considered the River Erewash, where it flows between Selston and Pinxton, no longer to be a suitable county boundary and that the railway line dominated the river area. The five pockets of land to which Selston Parish Council referred are very small. We considered that their transfer, including the industrial unit and residential properties to Derbyshire, would not substantially affect the viability of the Parish Council in terms of loss of rate income as they had suggested. We therefore decided to adhere to our draft proposal.

(e) Shirebrook (paragraphs 16-171

58. As Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils and Warsop Parish Council accepted our draft proposal, which was based upon agreement between the local authorities concerned, and there had been no objections, we decided to adhere to it.

18 (f) Creswell fparagraphs 24-25^

59.. As Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council , accepted our draft proposal, and .no objections were received, we decided to adhere to it. i (g) New Hucknall Sidings and Pleasley Vale fparagraphs 30-331

60. Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council endorsed our interim decisions to make no change to the boundary at New Hucknall Sidings and Pleasley Vale and, in the absence of any objections, we decided to confirm our decision. i i FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS i 61. After we had confirmed the draft proposals and interim decisions i described in paragraphs 37 to 60 above, but before publication of our • further draft proposals letter, Nottinghamshire County Council . forwarded a petition to us on behalf of Stapleford residents who 1 objected to the proposed transfer of their properties from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. We also received further representations from Nottinghamshire County Council, Bassetlaw i District Council, County Councillor Radstone and District Councillor Miss Stokes, on behalf of the residents of Portland Road, Nether Langwith. We decided to take account of these additional representations when considering responses to our further draft proposals.

PUBLICATION OF OUR MODIFIED AND FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

62. We published our modified and further draft proposals in a letter of 4 August 1989 to Derbyshire County Council. Copies were sent to all those who had received our letter of 15 August 1988, and to those who had made representations to us. Derbyshire County Council, in conjunction with Nottinghamshire County Council, were

19 asked to make the same arrangements for publicity and consultation as described in paragraph 36. Comments were invited by 12 October 1989.

RESPONSE TO OUR MODIFIED AND FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

63. We received 16 representations in response to our further draft proposals letter. They included comments from Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils and other affected local authorities, together with representations from a Member of Parliament, three companies and two organisations. We also received one representation from a member of the public. These are listed in Schedule 3 to this report.

64. We considered these representations as required by Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with the representations to which we referred in paragraph 61, Our conclusions in the light of those representations concerning each area, and our final proposals, are set out in the following paragraphs.

(a) Attenborouah to Trowell fTotonl (paragraphs 39-401

65. Nottinghamshire County Council and Broxtowe Borough council supported the proposed modification to our draft proposal, to realign part of the proposed boundary to follow the River Erewash by-pass channel. Derbyshire County Council and Erewash Borough Council did not object to it.

66. In the absence of any objections we adhere to our modified draft proposal.

(b) Attenborouah to Trowell fStapleford) fparagraphs 50-51)

67. Stapleford Town Council opposed the transfer of parts of Stapleford to Derbyshire because its residents felt a strong affinity with their area and wanted to remain in Nottinghamshire.

20 68. Shortly after we decided to confirm our draft proposal, to realign the boundary between Sandiacre and Stapleford, to follow the new course of the River Erewash, but prior to publication of our further draft proposals letter, 35 residents signed and sent a petition to us. .They objected to the proposed transfer of their properties from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire as they were satisfied with Nottinghamshire's services.

69. We re-examined this length of the. boundary in the light of these representations but we still considered the existing boundary to be unsatisfactory because it divides numerous properties on Derbyshire's side of the River Erewash. We therefore decided to adhere to our draft proposal, which we considered to be in the best interests of effective and convenient local government.

(c) Nether Langwith (paragraphs 41-451

70. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council supported our further draft proposal to transfer Portland Road from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire, and to include in the transfer the allotment gardens and the sports ground east of Hardwick Street, together with an area of open land and the graveyard west of Cockshut Lane. They also drew our attention to the omission of a small butcher's shop, situated in Cockshut Lane at the south end of Portland Road and intended for transfer with the rest of Portland Road to Derbyshire; and to a small section of the existing boundary at French Terrace, leading into Kitchener Terrace, that would require realignment to the southern edge of the highway so that highway maintenance would fall clearly within the responsibility of one authority, namely Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire County Council considered our proposal would produce a more meaningful boundary.

71.. Nether Langwith Parish Council also supported our revised proposal affecting the allotment gardens, the sports ground, and the grave yard, but continued to oppose the transfer of Portland Road to Derbyshire. The residents had asked the Council to put forward their continuing objections to the proposal and to express their concern

21 about the manner in which our decision was made. The Parish Council referred to the 1987 referendum of Portland Road residents, and stated that our course of action was contrary to the democratic wishes of those who desired to remain in Nottinghamshire; and that the transfer of Portland Road to Derbyshire could have no meaningful impact on the effective operation of local government services. The Parish Council asked us to hold a local meeting to discuss residents' objections. One resident of Portland Road wrote to us. He considered that Nottinghamshire's services were superior to Derbyshire's and that he believed the community charge in Bassetlaw to be less than that in Bolsover.

72. •'' Prior to the issue of our further draft proposals, we had received further representations objecting to our draft proposal. Nottinghamshire County Council, and Bassetlaw District Council had supported the concerns of Portland Road residents. Nottinghamshire County Council referred to the alternative boundary suggested by Nether Langwith Parish Council which, if adopted, would keep Portland Road in Nottinghamshire. The County Council did not consider service provision to Portland Jtoad caused difficulties under current arrangements. Bassetlaw District Council said that Portland Road traditionally related to Nether Langwith and that the residents did not consider they had any community of interest with Whaley Thorns in Derbyshire.

73. Nottinghamshire County Councillor Radstone supported those residents who were opposed to the proposed transfer of Portland Road on the grounds that Cockshut Lane which starts in Nottinghamshire would pass into Derbyshire and then back into Nottinghamshire at different points and this, in turn, would affect road maintenance services. Bassetlaw District Councillor Miss Stokes explained that a number of residents were elderly and that their roots and affinity had always been in, and with, Nottinghamshire and that the affected properties were built before any of those in Whaley Thorns.

22 74. There were no objections to our proposals to transfer the allotment gardens and the sports ground east of Hardwick Street, and the area of open land and the grave yard west of Cockshut Lane, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire.

75. -Nottinghamshire County Council now supported Nether Langwith Parish Council's earlier suggestion for an alternative boundary, to include within Derbyshire the cemetery and recreation ground west of Cockshut Lane and the recreation ground and allotments off Hartington Street. We had based our draft proposal, to transfer Portland Road on Nottinghamshire County Council's original suggestion, which we felt to be the most satisfactory realignment of the boundary.

76. Whilst recognising the strength of local feeling, we felt that Portland Road was separate from Nether Langwith and formed part of the inhabited area of Whaley Thorns, Derbyshire. No new evidence had been submitted regarding our proposal, which was based on considerations of effective' and convenient local government. We were satisfied that we had sufficient information to make a local meeting unnecessary.

77. Before reaching a final decision, we asked Nottinghamshire County Council about the small section of undefined boundary at French Terrace/ Kitchener Terrace. The County Council said that, .if we confirmed our proposals, it would not object to the realignment of the boundary to follow the southern edge of the highway. Derbyshire County Council agreed to accept responsibility for the highway maintenance of the section of boundary we proposed to transfer to Derbyshire.

78. The proprietors of the butcher's shop in Cockshut Lane, consideration of which had been inadvertently excluded from the initially proposed transfer of other properties, notified us after inquiry that they wished their shop to remain in Nottinghamshire. In view of this, and the separation of the shop from Portland Road, we decided not to propose its transfer to Derbyshire.

23 79. We decided, after careful consideration, to adhere to our draft and further draft proposals, incorporating the minor amendment affecting the boundary at French Terrace/Kitchener Terrace.

(d) Ilkeston Junction (paragraphs 46-471

80. Derbyshire County Council did not object to our further draft proposal, but suggested realignment of the boundary immediately north of Ilkeston Junction, to follow the new course of the River Erewash, or, preferably, realignment to the eastern side of the main railway line as far as Bennerley Junction so as to transfer the access to industrial premises at that junction from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. Erewash Borough Council noted Cossall Borough Council's canvassing of the residents affected by our further draft proposal and did not want to go against the wishes of the majority of the people to remain in Nottinghamshire.

81. Nottinghamshire County Council and Broxtowe Borough Council objected to our further draft proposal. The County Council, supported by the Borough Council, reiterated its original suggestion to realign the boundary to follow the new course of the River Erewash, so as to keep Ilkeston Junction within Nottinghamshire, and to unite the only industrial premises currently split by the existing boundary, wholly within Nottinghamshire. The County Council considered that the adoption of the railway line as the new boundary fundamentally affected industrial units at Ilkeston Junction, since they have been developed on either side of the railway line, and that our further draft proposal would split two adjacent and related sites. Three companies affected also made this point.

82. Three companies, Alsta Marketing Ltd, MCG Venus Packaging and Teltex, who opposed our further draft proposal, referred to the overwhelming desire of the residents and business operators to remain in Nottinghamshire. They expressed the view that withdrawal of our interim decision would be illogical and that the River Erewash formed a well recognised and long established boundary. MCG Venus Packaging also explained that it owned the only property that is split by the

24 existing boundary, and that although 80% of it lay in 1 Nottinghamshire, and the remainder technically in Derbyshire, the 1 entire premises lay to the east of the River Erewash. The company said the existing boundary caused no difficulties.

83. Cossall Parish Council held a well attended public meeting where residents and industrialists were unanimous that Ilkeston Junction should remain in Nottinghamshire, and that they were satisfied with the services provided by the Nottinghamshire local authorities. The Parish Council also forwarded responses to a questionnaire which it had circulated to 50 householders in the area asking whether they • wished to remain in Nottinghamshire. The results showed that the majority of them wished to do so. Mr Jim Lester HP supported Broxtowe Borough's and Cossall Parish Council's proposals.

1 84. We took all these comments into account, but we nevertheless concluded that any links across the railway were not strong enough to over-ride the physical attachment of the area, east of the i railway, to the town. We also considered that the suggested realignment of the boundary immediately north of Ilkeston Junction would achieve very little in terms of effective and convenient local 1 government. We, therefore, decided not to propose this minor change 1 and to adhere instead to our further draft proposal to transfer Ilkeston Junction entirely to Derbyshire, using the eastern side of , the railway line as the boundary.

I (e) Steetley Wood (paragraphs 48-49^

85. Nottinghamshire County Council supported our further draft ! proposal to unite Steetley colliery in Nottinghamshire, on the basis that it would produce a more meaningful and acceptable boundary. i 86. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council opposed our further draft proposal. They reiterated their view that the whole of Steetley works and colliery complex should be included in Derbyshire. In the event of our confirming our draft proposal, they asked for it to be varied, to retain the whole of the Steetley

25 Conservation Area and hamlet in Derbyshire. They explained that although our proposal was also intended to avoid the creation of a narrow salient of Derbyshire, and to remove another from Nottinghamshire, it would, when taken in combination with the proposal to transfer a further and adjacent area from Rotherham to Derbyshire, create another salient of Derbyshire between Rotherham and Nottinghamshire. The councils requested no change to the existing boundary between Shire Oak and Scratta Lane, and the transfer of the north western salient of Nottinghamshire to Rotherham; and alignment of the new boundary to the eastern side of Scratta Lane to assist highway maintenance.

87v •• Whitwell Parish Council said that if Steetley Wood were transferred to Nottinghamshire it would no longer be able to support financially the voluntary environmental groups operating in its area. The Council urged us to reconsider adoption of the railway line as the new boundary. *

88. The Whitwell Wood Natural History Group and the Derbyshire Ornithological Society opposed our further draft proposal. The Natural History Group, who monitor the quarry on behalf of the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, argued that Steetley should remain in Derbyshire to allow the group to continue its programme. The Ornithological Society explained that quarry wildlife was studied by naturalists from Derbyshire and that negotiations were underway with the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust to establish a nature reserve there.

89. Opposition to our further draft proposal was based largely on the proposed transfer from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire of the Steetley Conservation Area, comprising Grade I and Grade II listed buildings, and Armstrong Quarry which is of particular concern to Derbyshire-based wildlife and conservation groups who receive local authority support.

26 90. Following our enquiries, Steetley Refractories Ltd confirmed • that the open-cast mine to the south of its works and the mine to the west, were no longer operational, and that it had no strong views i about where the boundary should be.

,91. We considered that, on the basis of the evidence before us, the conservation area and the quarry should remain in Derbyshire and, therefore, proposed a reduction in the area for transfer from < * ! Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. As this met the wishes of the ' relevant local authorities in Derbyshire, and of local wildlife and conservation groups, we did not consider it necessary to issue an additional draft proposal. Part of our amended further draft , proposal links with another draft proposal .for change to the boundaries" of South Yorkshire with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. ; If these proposals are implemented, they would create a salient of Derbyshire between Rotherham and Nottinghamshire which, whilst undesirable is, however, unavoidable. We therefore decided to amend , our further draft proposal to cater for the new arrangement.

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS

(a) Pinxton (paragraphs 13-151

92. Bolsover District Council suggested that, in the interests of highway maintenance, the boundary should run along the base of the embankment of the Ml rather than the edge of the carriageway as we had proposed.

93. We considered that the District Council's suggestion to be sensible and decided to vary our draft proposal to incorporate it.

(b) Hardwick Inn and Millwood Brook

94. Derbyshire County Council and Bolsover District Council suggested realignment of additional small sections of undefined

27 boundary at Hardwick Inn and Millwood Brook to follow a nearby stream and the new course of Millwood Brook, immediately west of Creswell Crags.

95. We considered these boundary anomalies to be very minor; that alteration would achieve little in terms of effective and convenient local government; and that the anomalies did not warrant the-cost and delay that additional draft proposals would entail.

ELECTORAL CONSEQUENTIALS

96. There are no substantial changes to the district and county electoral arrangements. Such changes as there are, are illustrated at Annex B.

OUR FINAL PROPOSALS

97. The proposed boundary and consequential electoral changes are illustrated at Annexes A and B; a textual description of the boundary changes is at Annex C. We are satisfied that all the changes set out in the preceding paragraphs are apt for securing effective and convenient local government and we commend them to you.

PUBLICATION

98. We are sending a separate letter enclosing copies of this report to Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils, asking them to deposit copies of it at their main offices for inspection for a period of six months. We are also requesting the County Councils to put notices to this effect on public notice boards. Separate arrangements are underway for a public notice to appear in the local press for the areas affected. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter

28 and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than six weeks from the date they are submitted to you. We are also sending copies of this report to those who received our consultation letters and to those who made comments.

29 L S

Signed G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

PROFESSOR K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Secretary

February 1991

30 SCHEDULE 1

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING OUR LETTER OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1986 ANNOUNCING THE START OF THE REVIEW:-

1. Derbyshire County Council 2. Nottinghamshire County Council 3. Ashfield District Council 4. Bassetlaw District Council 5. Bolsover District.Council 6. Erewash Borough Council 7. Council 8. District Council 9. City Council 10. Aldecar and Langley Mill Parish Council 11. Cossall Parish Council 12. Cuckney Parish Council 13. Eastwood Town Council 14. Holbeck and Welbeck Parish Council 15. Nether Langwith Parish Council 16. Norton Parish Meeting 17. Ockbrook Parish Council 18. Pinxton Parish Council 19. Pleasley Parish Council 20. Sandiacre Parish Council 21. Scarcliffe Parish Council 22. Trowell Parish Council 23. Whitwell Parish Council 24. Nottinghamshire County Council Education Department 25. Mr Joe Ashton MP 26. County Councillor Radstone 27. District Councillor Miss Stokes 28. The Head Teacher - Cuckney Primary School 29. Derbyshire Family Practitioner Committee 30. Nether Langwith Women's Institute 31. Nottinghamshire Federation of Women's Institutes 32. Steetley Refractories Ltd

31 33. Anglian Water Authority 34. Yorkshire Electricity Board 35. 40 members of the public

32 SCHEDULE 2 i ! REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS LETTER OF 15 AUGUST 1988

I. Derbyshire County Council i i 2. Nottinghamshire County Council 3. Ashfield District Council 4. Bassetlaw District Council , 5. Bolsover District Council i ( 6. Broxtowe Borough Council 7. • Eastwood Town Council ; 8. Nether Langwith Parish Council (2 letters) i 9. Scarcliffe Parish Council ' 10. Selston Parish Council II. Stapleford Town Council 12. Warsop Parish Council 13. 13 members of the public i

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED AFTER CONFIRMATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS BUT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS.

1. Nottinghamshire County Council 2. Bassetlaw District Council 3. County Councillor Radstone 4. District Councillor Miss Stokes 5. Petition signed by 35 residents affected in Stapleford

33 SCHEDULE 3

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS LETTER OF 4 AUGUST 1989

1. Derbyshire County Council 2. Nottinghamshire County Council 3. Bolsover District Council 4. Broxtowe Borough Council 5. Erewash Borough Council 6. Cossall Parish Council 7. Nether Langwith Parish Council 8. Stapleford Parish Council 9. Whitwell Parish Council 10. Mr Jim Lester MP 11. Alsta Marketing Ltd 12. Teltex 13. MCG Venus Packing Ltd 14. Whitwell Wood Natural History Group 15. Derbyshire Ornithological Society 16. 1 member of the public

34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

DERBYSHIRE AFFECTING NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary Proposed County Boundary — —— Other Boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM MAP

MAP 2 MAP 3 DERBYSHIRE MAP 3a

MAP 4

MAP 8 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE MAP 9

MAP 10

MAP

MAP 12 MAP 13 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE DERBYSHIRE

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE :' ^g'i.ok) II C x r,:-'•/7. v-/ >•—m" fl a-s ai

^,y^

DERBYSHIRE

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

I; J. \«*« n-*4~ DERBYSHIRE

— M Whalcy Thorns

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

MAP 3d NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE

MAP 4 DERBYSHIRE

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE

Crown Copyright 1991 DERBYSHIRE

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE DERBYSHIRE

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE 5? NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ^^\ *>v'^ t-_^.,ZW:~v. v^j".v>"ro—^T?:WMJL.-i [VA^IJ

RBYSHIRE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Bolsover District Bassellaw District Bassetlaw District BoUover DUtrlct A Whit well CP Shlreoaks CP Nether Langwlth CP S cordiff e CP Whitwell Word North West Word Welbeck Ward ScorcWfe East Ward ED Worksop West ED Worksop South East and Scarcflffe ED I Wctbeck ED Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Bossetlaw District ' Boliover District Bossetlaw District Derbyshire BoUover District B Shire oak * CP WhJtwotl CP 3a Nether Langwlth CP Workiop North West Ward Whltwefl Ward AB Welbeck Ward Scarciffe CP Scarcllffe North Ward Worksop West ED Elmton ED Worksop South East and Scarclffe ED Wetoeck ED Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Bolsover District Bossetlaw DUtrlct Mansfield District Bolsover DUtrlct ABC Whitwell CP Hoibeck CP A Warsop CP Scarclffo CP Whitwell Ward Wefceck Ward Meden Word Scarclffe East Word Elmton ED Worksop South East and Worsop ED Scarclffe ED Wo back ED 4 Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Bassellaw District Mansfield DUtrlct BoUover DUtrlct BoUover District Warsop CP Shlrebrook CP Hoibeck CP Whitwell CP B D Welbeck Word Meden Word Shlrebrook East Ward Whltwell Word Warsop ED Shlrebrook ED Worksop South East and Elmton ED Welbeck ED Nottinghamshire Derbyshire 2 Ashfleld District BoUover DUtrlct Non-porUhed area Derbyshire Nottinghamshire A Phuton CP Klrkby In Ashfleld Central Ward Bolsover DUtrlcl Bossetlaw DUtrlct Plruton Ward EG Elmton CP Hofceck CP Klrkby-ln-Ashfleld South ED ED Etmton-with-Creswel Word Wefceck Ward Eknton ED Worksop South East and Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Welbeck ED Ashfleld DUtrlct BoUover District 5 B Non-parUhed area Plruton CP V Nottinghamshire Woodhouse Ward Plruton Ward \ Bassetlaw District BoUover District Kkkby-h-AshfMd South ED South Normanton ED 5 F Hoibeck CP Elmton CP \ Welbeck Word Elmton-wlth-Creswel Word Derbyshire Worksop South East and Nottingham* hire Etmton ED A*hfUU DUtrlcl BoUover District 3 CtoG StUton CP Pkuton CP SeUton Word Pkuton Word j»j S«Uton ED South Normanton ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF.

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Ashfleld District District Amber Volley District A Selston CP CP A Eastwood CP Aid* re or and Langley MUI CP Selston Word Somercotes Ward Eastwood North Ward Aldercor Ward Selston CD Somer cotes ED Eastwood and Brlnsley ED ED

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire AshfWd District Amber VoOey District Borough of Broxtowe Amber Volley District 6 BD S«lston CP IronvB* CP 8 B Eastwood CP Aldercar and Langley MID CP Jacks dale Word Ridding* Ward Eastwood South Ward Aldercar Ward Selston ED Somercotes ED Eastwood and Brlnsley ED Loscoe ED

Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Amber Valley District AshfUld District Amber Valley District Borough of Broxtowe c Ironvllle CP Selslon CP C Shipley CP Eastwood CP Ridding* Ward . Jocksdale Ward Shipley Park Ward Eastwood South Word Somercotes ED Selston ED Horsky ED Eastwood and Brlnsley ED

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Broxlowe Amber Valley District Broxtowe District Erewash District AtoD Brlnsley CP Aldercar and Langley MLB CP 9 A Cossol CP Non-parlshed area Brlnsley Ward Aldorcar Ward and CossaU Ward Hwton Central Word Eastwood and Brlnsley ED Loscoe ED Klmbtrtoy and Trowell ED Bkeston ED

Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Amber Volley District Borough of Broxlowe Borough of Braxtowe FtoK Alder car and Longley MUI CP Brlnstay, CP A Non-parlshed area Cossafl CP Alder car Word Brlnsley Word flkeston Central Ward Awsworlh and Cossall Ward Loscoe ED Eastwood and Brlnslay ED Bkeston ED Klmberley and Trowell ED 7 Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Broxtowe Amber Valley District Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe E Eastwood CP Aldcrcar and Langley Mill CP 10 B Non-parlshed oreo Trowel CP Eastwood North Ward Aldercar Ward Old Pork Word Strelley and Trowell Ward Eastwood and Brlnsley ED Loscoe ED Ukeston ED Klmberley and Trowell ED Derbyshire Nottinghamshire r n Notllnghomihlre Derbyshire Amber Valley District Borough of Braxlowe u u Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash L Aldercar and Longley MUI CP Eastwood CP Trowtl CP Non-parlshed area Alder car Ward Eastwood North Ward h h Streftey and Trowel Ward Ilk as ton South Word Loscoe ED Eastwood and Brlnsley ED Klmberley and Troweil ED Kirk Hotlom ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF NO. REF. Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowa Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Ere wash AB CP Trowell CP AB Slopleford CP Sandiacre CP Ward Strelley and Trowell Ward Stapleford West Ward Sandiacre South Ward Sandiacre ED Klmberley and Trowell ED Stapleford North and West ED Sandiacre ED

Derbyshire No Kingdom shire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash C Sandiacre CP Slapteford CP C Non-parlshed area Sandiacre CP Sandiacre North Ward Stopleford North Ward • Toton Ward Sandiacre South Ward Sandiacre ED Stapleford North and West ED Toton and Attenborough ED SandJacre ED

Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Erowosh Borough of Broxlowe Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe DEF Sandiacre CP Stapleford CP D Sandlacre CP Non-parUhed area Sandiacre North Ward Stopleford West Ward Sandiacre South Ward Toton Ward Sandiacre ED Stapleford North and Wesl ED Sandiacre ED Toton and Attenborough CD 12 Nottingham* hire Derbyshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe II G Trowel! CP Stanton By Dale CP EFG Non-parlched area Non-parUhed area Strelley and Trowel! Ward Dale Abbey Ward Nottingham Road Ward Toton Ward Klrnberley and Trowel! ED Sandiacre ED Long Eaton ED Toton and Attenborough ED

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash H Stapleford CP Stonton By Dale CP H Non-parfshed area Non-parUhed area Stoplelord North Ward Dole Abbey Ward Toton Ward Nottingham Road Word Stopleford North and West ED Sandiacre ED Toton and Attenborough ED Long Eaton ED

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Broxtowa Borough of Erewosh Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe J Stapleford CP Sondlacre CP J Non-parlshed area Non-parlshed area Slapleford North Ward Sondlocre North Wrd Nottingham Road Ward Toton Ward Stapleford North and West ED Sandiacre ED Long Eaton ED Toton and Attenborough ED

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Broxlowe Borough of Erewash LK Staplflford CP Sandiacre CP Stapleford Weft Ward Sandiacre North Ward Stapleford North and Weal ED Sandiacre ED * CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe J Non-parlshed area Non-parlshed area Nottingham Road Ward Totan Ward Long Eaton ED Toton and Altenborough ED :

Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Erewash K Non-porlfthed area Non-parlshcd area Toton Ward Nottingham Road Ward Toton and Attenborough ED Long Eaton ED 13 Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Borough of Broxtowe Borough of Ere wash LN Non-parlshed area Non-parl&hed area Attenborough Ward Nottingham Road Ward Toton and Attenborough ED Long Eaton ED

Derbyshire Nottinghamshire Borough of Erewash Borough of Broxtowe MP Non-parlshed area Non-parl&hed area Nottingham Road Ward Attenborough Ward Long Eaton ED Toton and Attenborough ED

• ' /]

SUMMART OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES;

Attenborough to Re-alignment of boundary Paragraph) Trowell to follow centre course 39 and 50. of River Erewash and Maps 10-13. Erewash by-pass channel and to transfer a small part of Stapleford from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire.

Ilkeston Junction Re-alignment of boundary Paragraphs to follow railway line so 27, 46 and as to unite Ilkeston 80. Junction with Ilkeston Map 9. in Derbyshire.

Langley Mill/Eastwood Re-alignment of boundary Paragraphs 9 to follow the Erewash and 52. Canal and the A610. Map 8.

Langley Mill to Re-alignment of boundary Paragraphs Pinxton Wharf to follow centre course 11 and 54. of the River Erewash. Maps 5-7.

Pinxton Re-alignment of boundary Paragraphs to follow the railway lines 13 and 56. and eastern embankment of Map 5 . Ml so as to transfer part of Ashfield from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire.

Shirebrook Re-alignment of" boundary Paragraphs to follow mineral railway 16 and 58. line, east side of Map 4. allotment gardens and an embankment parallel to the railway lines so as to transfer part of Mansfield from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. Nether Langwith To transfer from Notting- Paragraphs hamshire to Derbyshire the 18, 41 and following: 70. Maps 3-3a. i) the sports ground and allotment gardens east of Hardwick Street.

ii) a small section of highway between Kitchener Terrace and French Terrace

iii) Portland Road and the allotment gardens east of Cockshut Lane and the recreation ground and grave yard west of Cockshut Lane.

Creswell Re-alignment of boundary Paragraphs to follow the new course 24 and 59. of Millwood Brook. Map 2.

Steetley Wood Re-alignment of boundary to Paragraphs follow Scratta Lane and 34, 48 and around the north side of 85. Armstrong Quarry so as to Map 1. transfer land to and from Derbyshire and Notting- hamshire and to unite Steetley Work's complex wholly within Nottinghamshire