Local Government Boundary Commission For Report No. 175 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO.175 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB,KBE« DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Mr J M Rankin,QC.

MEMBERS The Countess Of Albemarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chisholm, Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE'ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried

out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of

West Derbyshire, in accordance with the requirements of section 6? of, and

Schedule 9 to, .the Local Government Act 1972» present our proposals for the

future electoral arrangements for that district.

2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the

1972 Act, notice was given on 19 August 197^ that we were to undertake this

review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the

West Derbyshire District Council, copies of which were circulated to Derbyshire

County Council, Clerks to the Parish Councils, Chairmen of the Parish

Meetings, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of the Local

Government press, "Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from

interested bodies.

3. The West Derbyshire District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. When doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government

Act 1972, and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the Council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity

for local comment. 4, The Council have not passed a resolution under section 7(*0(b) of the

Local Government Act 1972. The provisions of Section ?(6) will therefore apply and the electionsof all district councillors will be held simultaneously.

5- On 14 January 1975» West Derbyshire District Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the area of the district into 25 wards each returning 1, 2 or 3 members to form a council of ^0.

6. We considered the draft scheme submitted by the Council, the comments which had been made upon it and an alternative scheme which had been submitted.

We found that the Council s scheme complied with the rules set out in .

Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines set out in our Report No 6, with the exception of the wards in the most northerly part of the district. Having examined the alternative proposals.for this area, we decided to substitute wards proposed in the alternative scheme for this area, thereby reducing the size of council to 39- We also decided to grant a request that Over Haddon Parish should be grouped with Youlgreave parish rather than with parish. Subject to these modifications and two minor boundary realignments suggested to us by Ordnance Survey to secure lines which were more readily defined, we adopted the Council's draft scheme as our draft proposals.

7. On 5 September 1975 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make the draft proposals, and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 31 October 1975. 8. We received comments objecting to our draft proposals for the wards in the north of the district, on the grounds that they would break local ties.

9« With the exception of Eyara Woodlands Parish Council which wished the existing ward to be retained, all the parishes who objected to our draft proposals expressed a preference for the wards which had been suggested in the district council's, draft scheme.

10. In view of these comments, we felt we needed- more information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the 1972 Act, and at our request, Mr S Astin, MBE was appointed as an

Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and report to us.

11. Notice of the meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented on them, and was published locally.

12. The Assistant Commissioner held the meeting at the T!own Hall, Katlock on 23 June 19?6 and visited the areas which were the subject of comment. A copy of his report is attached at Schedule 1 for your information.

13. In the light of the discussion at the meeting and his inspection of the area, the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be confirmed with the exception of four of our proposed wards in the north of the district. In the first instance, he felt that the parishes of and Litton had much in common, were linked geographically and would share the same industrial future. In view of this, he recommended that these two parishes together with the parish of should form a single- member ward to be known as Tideswell* He also considered that the parishes of and had very close ties and that with the addition of the adjacent parish they should form a single-member ward known as Eyam and Stoney Middleton. The third alteration concerned our single-member Bradwell ward, where, as the result of his recommendations concerning the adjacent Tideswell and Eyam and Stoney Middleton wards the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the parishes of and should become part of the Bradwell ward as in the existing arrangements. The final alteration^concerned.our single-member Calver ward. The Assistant Commissioner in his second recommendation expressed the opinion that the parish of Storey Middleton should be joined with the parish of Eyam and therefore that Stonay Middleton be excluded from the Calver ward. He recommended that the parishes of Calver, and Froggatt - which he felt had strong ties - should together form the single-member Calver ward.

1*t. We considered our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and the report of the Assistant Commmissioner. We concluded that the recommendations made by the Assistant Commissioner should be accepted. Subject to these modifications we confirmed our draft proposals as our final proposals. ,

15- Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and on the attached maps. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the attached maps.

PUBLICATION 16. In accordance with Section 60(5>(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the maps are being sent to West Derbyshire District Council and will be available for public inspection at the Town Hall, Matlock, Derbyshire. Copies of this report (without maps) are being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. A description of the proposed wards as shown on the maps

is set out in Schedule 3 to this report.

L.S.

Signed

EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN)

JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)

DIANA ALBEMARLE

T C BENFIELD

MICHAEL CHISHOLM

ANDREW WHEATLEY

N DIGNEY (Secretary)

-14 October 1976

5F

SCHEDULE 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION • ' Review of Electoral Arrangements - West Derbyshire District

In accordance with the instructions contained in the Commission's letter of the 14th May '1976, I conducted a Local Meeting as Assistant Commissioner at the Town Hall, Matlock, Derbyshire, on Wednesday, 23rd June 1976, to hear and discuss representations with regard, to the future electoral arrangements for the District of West Derbyshire, these representations relating mainly to Wards in the northern part of the District. ATTENDANCES I attach as Appendix "A1 a list showing the names and addresses of the persons who attended the meeting and the interests they represented.- COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS The Commission's draft proposals for the West Derbyshire District set out in the Commission's letter to the District Council of the 5th September 1975 proposed 25 Wards returning 39 Councillors (6 Wards each returning 3 Councillors, 2 Wards each returning 2 Councillors and 17 Wards each returning 1 Councillor). In formulating the draft proposals the Commission had adopted as the basis of such proposals the scheme submitted by the West Derbyshire District Council on the 14th January 1975 but with the following modifications:- (1) The following Wards were formed comprising Parishes as detailed:- Bradwell Ward comprising the Parishes of Bradwell, Hazlebadge and ; Tideswell Ward comprising the Parishes, of Tideswell and Wheston; Litton and Eyam Ward comprising the Parishes of Eyam, Foolow, Great Hucklow, Grindlow and Litton; Galver Ward comprising the Parishes of Calver, Curbar, Froggatt and Stoney Middleton; and Ashford and Longstone Ward comprising the Parishes oi Ashford in the Water, Great Longstone, , , Rowland, Sheldon and . (These Wards were suggested to the Commission by the West Derbyshire District Council Conservative Group) (2) The transfer of the Parish of Over Haddon from the originally proposed three members Bakewell Ward to the single member Toulgreave Ward. The effect of these amendments was to reduce the size of the Council to 39 Councillors from the 40 Councillors proposed in the-draft scheme originally submitted by the West Derbyshire District Council. The Commission had also accepted two minor boundary realignments in the former urban district of Matlock which had been suggested by Ordnance Survey in order .to secure more readily identifiable boundaries. OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS receiyed before Local Meeting - From the West Derbyshire District Council asking that their scheme comprising 25 Wards and 40 members should be re-instated as the final proposals, although accepting the transfer of the Parish of Over Haddon from the Bakewell Ward, to the Youlgreave Ward. - From the Calyer Parish Council asking that the Parish of Stoney Middleton be excluded from the Calver Ward, so reverting to the District Council's draft scheme. - From the Stoney Middleton, Parish Council asking that the Parish be excluded from the Calver Ward and joined with the Eyam Parish and Foolow Parish to form an Eyam and Stoney Middleton Ward, as proposed in the draft scheme submitted by the District Council. - From the Eyam Woodlands Parish Council asking that the Parisn be excluded from the Ward and Joined with the Calver area. - From the Eyam Local Council asking to be separated from the Litton Parish and joined only with Stoney Middleton Parish and Foolow Parish to form a Ward. - From the Litton Parish Council asking that the Parish be joined with Tideswell as proposed in the District Council's draft scheme, and not joined with Eyam as in the Boundary Commission's proposals. - From the Tideswell Parish Council asking to be in a two members Ward with the Parishes of Litton, Wardlow, Wheston, Great Hucklow, Grindl'ow and Little Hucklow, as proposed in the draft scheme submitted by the District Council. - From Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, Member of Parliament for the West Derbyshire Constituency, supporting the representations of the Tideswell Parish Council. Representations submitted by the West Derbyshire Conservative and Unionist League in conjunction with the Conservative.Group on the West Derbyshire District Council had been withdrawn before the Local Meeting. SUBMISSIONS made at the Local Meeting (1) After preliminary introductions, I invited Mr. D.G. Hodgkinson, Director of Administration of the West Derbyshire District Council and representing that Council, to make a short general statement as to the relevant action taken by his Council in the procedure for the review of electoral arrangements under the Local Government Act 1972. Mr. Hodgkinson said that the West Derbyshire District Council commenced its review of electoral arrangements of the District in mid-197^ and,in fact, had already set up a working party to deal with this matter prior to the receipt of the Boundary Commission's letter of the 19th August 1974. A timetable was set for the Working Barty to submit provisional proposals to the Policy and Resources Committee giving then full opportunity for public views-, to be obtained before any final decision and report was submitted to the Council. In September and October 1974 contact was made with members of the Council, Parish Councils, Parish Meetings and Trade Unions and Staff Associations and also views sought from the Derbyshire. County Council. He said that as a result of discussions and representations received at this stage^f the consideration,

- 2 - certain preliminary end provisional proposals were amended, and finally a report went to the Policy and Resources Committee for their final decision on the 7th January and the final decision of the Council, approving the draft scheme, was taken at a meeting on the 9th January 1975» "the Council's draft scheme then being immediately submitted to the Boundary Commission. On 5th September 1975 the Boundary Commission published its draft proposals for the West Derbyshire District and these contained amending proposals for five Wards in the northern part of the District. The draft proposals were formally placed on deposit' and subsequently, as was known, representations were, made to the. Boundary Commission which, in the main,supported the Council's proposals for Ward- arrangements in the northern part of the District (and did not support the Boundary Commission's proposals). The receipt of these representations had led to the Local Meeting being held today. (2) I then referred to- Section 78 of the Local Government Act 1972 and also to Schedule 11 of the Act which set out the rules to be complied with in formulating warding arrangements for the. District. 'I emphasised the importance of paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 11 which stated that "the ratio of the number of Local Government electprs. to the number of Councillors to be elected shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every Ward of the. District" (and it was obvious that this rule had created difficulties to the District Council in the formulation of their draft scheme) and I said that it was also important that note should be taken of paragraph 5(5) which stated that "in considering the electoral arrangements., regard should be had to (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries.which were, and would remain easily identifiable; and (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary". I then said that the problem to be discussed at the Local Meeting appeared to be .a complex one and was in relation to the northern part of the District (probatly the northern-most six Wards). The Wards proposed in the District Council's scheme were- shown on a map exhibited at the Local Meeting as also were the six Wards proposed by the Local Government Commission in their draft proposals and for the purpose of this report I set out the six,. Wards, with the Parishes; comprising each Ward, in the District Council's scheme together with details of 1981 electorate and Councillor entitlement and also a comparable list of six Wards with the Parishes comprised therein with their 1981 electorate and Councillor representation figures as proposed in the Boundary Commission's draft proposals. These are as fallows:- DISTRICT COUNCIL'S BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S . DRAFT SCHEMEDRAFT PROPOSALS (Proposed Council of 40 Members (Proposed Council of 59 Members. - Average 1344 Electors per - Average 1578 Electors per Member) . . Member) BRADWELL WARD BRADWELL WARD Parishes, ofi Parishes of: Bradwell 1248 Bradwell Hazlebadge 25 Hazlebadge Little Hucklow 1271 154-9 Entitlement 0.95 Entitlement 0-97 1 Member 1 Member TIDESWELL WARD TIDESWELL WARD Parishea ofJ: Parishes, of: Wheston 23,; Wheston Tideswell 1349 Tideswell Little Hucklow , 78 Great Hucklow 117 1372 Grindlow 23 Litton 445 Wardlow 70 Entitlement 0.99 2105 1 Member Entitlement 1.57 2 Members EYAM and STONEY MIDDLBTON WARD LITTON and. EYAM WARD Parishes of: Parishes of: Foolow 93 Litton Eyam 780 Great Hucklow Stoney Middleton 382 Grindlow Foolow 1255 Eyam Entitlement 0.93 1458 1 Nember Entitlement 1,05 1 Member CALVER WARD CALVER. WARD Parishes of: Parishes of: Calver 510 Stoney Middleton 382 Gurbar 4-64 Calver 510 Froggestt;: 175 Curbar 464 Fro'ggatt 175 1149 1531' Entitlement 0.85 Entitlement 1.11 1 Member 1 Member ASHFORD IN THE WATER ASHFORD and* LONGSTONE WARD and GREAT LONGSTONF"WARD Parishes of : Parishes of: Great Longstone 623 Wardlow Little Longs.tone- 91 Great Longstone Sheldon 68 Little Longstone Ashford in the Water 471 Sheldon Rowland 23. Ashford in the Water Hsssop 76 Rowland Hassop 1352 1422

Entitlement 1.01 - Entitlement 1.04 1 Member 1 Member HATHERSAGE WARD HATHERSAGE WARD Parishes of: Parishes of: Out seats 406 Out se at s Offerton 8 Offerton Abney and Abney and Abney Grange 31 Abney Grange Highlow 23 Highlow Eyam Woodlands 365 Eyam Woodlands Hathersage 1225 Hathersage Nether Padley 213 Nether Padley Stoke 46 Stoke 2317 . 2317

Entitlement 1.72 . Entitlement 1.68 2 Members • 2 Members,

I pointed out that in relation to the area comprising the six Wards, both in the Council scheme and in the Boundary Commission's proposals, -there, was a projected electorate, for 1§81 of 9,4-4-9 and, on tho^asis of the calculations under the Council's scheme for a Council with a membership of 40 Councillors, the. entitlement for these six Wards in total was for 7.05 members, and yet in the Council's scheme these six.Wards had been given 8 Councillors. For the remaining 25'Wards in the Council's scheme with a projected electorate of 44,291, there was an entitlement, of 32.95 Councillors and yet in the Council's scheme they had been allotted only 32 Councillors. In the Boundary Commission's draft proposals, six Wards had been formed in this northern area with the electorate of 9,449 and the Boundary Commission's proposal .was for a Council of 39 Councillors. This gave the six Wards an entitlement of 6.85 Councillors and they had been allotted seven Councillors. The other 25 Wards with their projected electorate of 44,291, showed an entitlement of 32.15 Councillors and had been given 32 Councillors* Furthermore, in individual Wards-the entitlement, and electorate figures were more satisfactory in the Boundary Commission's proposals than in the District Council's scheme. So it was. clear that the Boundary Commission's proposals: more nearly met the requirement of the Local Government Act 1972 that the representation of Councillors to electors, should be as nearly as may be the saine in every Ward of the District. This-- was of first importance but it appeared from the various', representations received tnat the Boundary Commission's proposals may have suggested Wards which involved the breaking of close ties and affinity between various Parishes. It was therefore now necessary to consider the representations already received and to hear representations made at the Local Meeting to see if a satisfactory solution to the complex problem could be found. (3) I then invited Mr. Hodgkinson to present the representations; of the West Derbyshire District Council. He first said that his Council agreed with the suggestion of the Boundary Commission that the Parish of Over Haddon should be taken out of the Bakewell Ward and included in the Youlgreave Ward along with the Parishes of .Youlgreave, Middleton and Smerrill and Harthill, He pointed out that the Boundary Commission had, in respect of the major part of the District, followed the recommendations of his Council as included in the draft scheme but had formed five different Wards in the northern part of the District. He formally submitted the representations., of his Council that in making their final decision the Boundary Commission should also follow the District Council's suggestions forthe Wards in the northern part of the District for, whilst agreeing that -the Boundary Commission's proposals gave a better numerical pattern, he believed that there. would be some serious mistakesmade if that pattern were, followed for some strong ties between adjacent Parishes that had been - linked together for many years would be broken. He again referred to the consideration of Warding arrangements by the Working Party and the discussions and enquiries which had been made of Parish Councils, Parish Meetings, Trade Unions and Trade Associations, the Derbyshire County Council and also with members of the District Council. He said that the Working Party had at one time considered that there- ought to be a Tideswell Ward comprising the Parishes of Tideswell and Wheston only; that there. should be a Litton and Eyam Ward; .and that there. sJaould be a ' Calver Ward which included the Parish of Stoney Middleton with the Parishes of Calver, Curbar and Froggatt, but it had become very clear, following the discussions and representations at that stage late in 19?4, that ideas of Mard arrangements on these lines would make definite breaks-, of local ties. Therefore? he submitted, the. draft scheme put forward by the District' Council made proposals. for Wards which more satisfactorily met local ties and affinities of this part of the District. The 'West Derbyshire District was comprised of 104- Parishes and the area of the former Urban District of Matlock. The Council had tried to make calculations of electorate for each Ward to fit the figures required but 'they had felt that in the District there were very significant ties and affinities, and quite unashamedly they had followed these considerations. I then suggested that the Meeting might first look at the Tideswell Litton and Eyam area. Mr. Hodgkinson submitted that it would be a nonsense to divide Litton from Tideswell. These two villages were very close together and although they had separate Parish Councils there was a local kinship. The two Parishes were similar geographically and in environment and background and he felt that it could be said that Tideswell needed Litton for labour resources. He also referred to the possibilities of future industrial development in the area and he felt sure that the Parishes of Litton and Tideswell should be in the same Ward. He appreciated that this might present a difficult numerical picture but he felt that it would be wrong to sever these two Parishes. Mr. E.W. Simpson, the Chairman of the Tideswell Parish Council, said that the Tideswell Parish Council wished to make strong representations against the proposals of the Boundary Commission which severed the village of Tideswell from the village of Litton. The Parish Council wished to recommend that the Boundary Commission should adopt the proposals which the West Derbyshire District Council had put forward in January 1975 which formed a Ward linking Tideswell with Litton, Wheston, Wardlow, Great Hucklow, Grindlow and' Little Hucklow and they felt that .;• this Ward should be represented by two Councillors. He then referred to the future industrial development which seemed possible in Tideswell area. He said that "this matter had recently been considered by the Peak Park Planning Board and that proposals had 'gone forward from the Planning Board to the Department of the Environment for new industrial uses to be set up in the area. He handed to me a copy of a report which showed that the Planning Board recognised that Tideswell would continue as a service centre for a number of nearby villages. and that Tideswell was an important settlement that deserved supp.ort from the Development Commission to regain its economic health and stability. The report went on to say that the Local Authority had taken steps to create conditions that wouldallow industrial growth arid . Mr. Simpson said that there now was a proposal foiTthree factory units to be set up in the Tideswell area and at the same time the West Derbyshire District Council had allocated ..substantial areas of _ land for housing (although it was admitted that the effect of this housing development would not.be felt until some little time

- 6 - after 1981). Mr. Simpson said that this development for the installation of three factory units in the area made it more than ever important that civic affairs should link Litton with Tideswell for they were jointly concerned with the future development of this area. He said that he had contacted many local people as to the Ward proposals put forward by the District Council and the alternative proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission and he informed me that there, was a very strong feeling that the close ties, which existed between Litton and Tideswell should be. maintained. They should be joined together in one Ward and he added he felt that the Parish of Wardlow should be in the same Ward. He then listed a number of services, which he claimed jointly served the two Parishes of Litton and Tideswell and, finally, he referred to representation on the Derbyshire County Council for if Tideswell Parish and Litton Parish were, in separate District Wards there was a possibility that they would be in separate electoral divisions of the Derbyshire County Council. I had to observe that this appeared to be a somewhat remote possibility, but perhaps still a possibility. At this point I took note of the representations submitted to the Boundary Commission by Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, Member of Parliament for West Derbyshire, in which he strongly supported the views expressed by the Parish Council of Tideswell to link that Parish with Litton Parish (rather than Litton Parish being linked in the same Ward with Eyam). Mrs. D.C. Redshawi the Clerk to the Litton Parish Council, then referred to the4?epresehtations submitted, by her Council recommending the adoption of proposals which would link Litton with Tideswell in the same Ward. She said that Litton and Tideswell were in extremely close proximity to each other having the same sewerage and water systems and both were in the same Ecclesiastical Parish and both villages worked together as a community. She pointed out that Litton Parish Council also served Cressbrook and Litton Mill and again these villages had a strong lasting connection with Tideswell as previously stated. She submitted that to separate Litton and Tideswell would be to take a retrograde step, and local ties would be broken. She said that the existing Ward comprised Wheston, Tideswell, Litton and Wardlow and she felt that the status quo should remain. Litton and Tideswell hacMhany interests in common and she supported Mr. Simpson who had spoken previously on the joint interests. She went on to speak very strongly against the proposals that the Litton Parish should be joined to form a Ward with the Parish of Eyam for, she said, Litton would- be isolated in joining with Eyam. There was no transport between the two villages and this isolation would be most acute in the case of Cressbrook, Litton Mill and Litton Slack, which would be many miles from Eyam. She said that Cressbrook Mill had recently closed down and Litton Mill had reduced its work forc'e by some 40$. It was therefore most important for the Litton area that the industrial redevelopment in the Tideswell area should go forward and that Litton should have some part in this industrial revival. Finally, she also referred to the representation on the Derbyshire County Council and to the possibility that if Litton and Tideswell were in separate Wards they could also possibly be in separate electoral divisions for the election of County Councillors. Mr. Hodgkinson for the West Derbyshire District Council said that it was only in the/Last four weeks that confirmation had been received that the Development Commission were supporting a scheme for some additional industrial units in the Tideswell arga. He stressed that it was somewhat unusual for industrial development to be encouraged in the national park area and that therefore this was an important proposal. He went on to say

- 7 - that there, had been discussions with the Derbyshire County Council as to the acquisition of sites for the industrial units and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CSIRA) were dealing with the financing of the building of the units and also letting arrangements. I then questioned him about the compilation Of the figures of estimated electorate for 1981 and he said that these were compiled with knowledge of the hopes of some industrial expansion in Tideswell. On furthe:pdiscussion with him on this point it appeared that new industrial units, would perhaps do no more than make good the loss of industrial uses in recent years and, therefore, it did not seem to point to a radical increase in population and electorate. At this stage Mr. A. ViL Adam, the Agent for the West Derbyshire Conservative Party, indicated that Mr. James Scott- Hopkins, the Member of Parliament for West Derbyshire, had been inundated with representations from local people that Tideswell should continue to be linked with Litton. He said that he thought it was very important to note^fchat the Peak Park Planning Board were supporting the setting up of the three industrial units in the Tideswell area. He said that at one time the Conservative Group of Councillors on the West Derbyshire District Council hao^ropased that Tideswell and Wheston should make a separate Ward and that Litton should be joined with Great Hucklow, Grindlow, Foolow and Eyam to form another Ward but this view was not now supported and the Conservative Group on the West Derbyshire District Council now supported the District Councills original scheme which formed a Ward embracing both Litton and Tideswell. (5) 1 then sought some information from the meeting as to the ties and affinities affecting other smaller Parishes to the east and north of the. Tideswell/Litton area, and Mr* B. Walker, the Clterk of the Bradwell Parish Council (who said He was also at the meeting representing Little Hucklow Parish Council) said that there, was a unanimous view in Little Hucklow tnat that Parish should be linked with Bradwell and in the Brgidwell Ward. (In the District Council scheme Little Hucklow had been included in the Tideswell Ward whereas in the Local Government Boundary Commission proposals Little Hucklow had been included in the Bradwell Ward). Mr. C. Bradwell, the Chairman of the Bradwell Parish Council and also a West Derbyshire District Councillor, referred to the Parish of Abney. and Abney Grange and said that this Parish had no affinity with Bradwell, rather did it look east to Hathersage or south to Great Hucklow. Mr. J.A. Shuttleworth, the Chairman of the Hathersage Parish Council, referring to the Parish of Abney and Abney Grange, said that at the last District Council election this Parish had been linked with Bradwell but up to that time historically it had always been with Hathersage. Mr. F.H. Hall, a West Derbyshire District Councillor, referred to the Parish of Foolow and said that this Parish always looked to Eyam and not westwards to Litton and Tideswell. Mr. P.E. Maurer, a Councillor of the Tideswell Parish Council, Mr. S. Lythgoe, a Tideswell Parish Councillor, and Mrs. J. Haylor, a West Derbyshire District Councillor, spoke about the local ties linking Litton with Tideswell and also referred to the Parish of Wardlow which was linked in the same existing Ward. Mr. Lythgoe specifically said that he thought the people of '.vardlow would look to Tideswell for shopping, etc. Mrs. Naylor felt that the Parish of Great Hucklow looked to Tideswell as also did Grindlow. (In my later visits to the various villages I had to observe that Wardlow was not in any way so closely linked with Tideswell as was Litton and in fact could look south towards Bakewell or north to Bradwell or east to Eyam, and/L was later informed that Wardlo.w was in the Ecclesiastical Parish of Great Longstone. In the case of Great Hucklow I also felt that there could be the same affinity with Bradwell as with Tideswell.) (6) I then invited the Meeting to consider the Ward arrangements around the Parish of Eyam and Mr. Hodgkinson for the West Derbyshire District .Council again reiterated that, in formulating their final proposals, they had sought the views of local people and representative bodies. The Working Party had thought at first of linking the Parish of Litton with Eyam in order to effect a more equal representation so far as the numbers were concerned (and also to link Stoney Middleton with Calver, Gurbar and Froggatt). The District Council, however, had taken note of local views and had amended their proposals for, although numbers speak for themselves, so also did countours and geographical features. Mr. J.A. Carnall, the Chairman of the Eyam Parish Council, said that he believed that Litton and Tideswell had been married 'a long time and he did not think this was a case for a divorce. He was sure that the Litton Parish should stay with Tideswell for if Litton were to be joined with Eyam to form a Ward the seat of representation for Litton would be affected. He believed, also, that in forming a Ward around Eyam, that Ward should comprise the Parishes of Foolow, Eyain and Stoney Middleton, Mr. F.H. Hall, a West Derbyshire District Councillor and Vice Chairman of the Eyam Parish Council, said that Eyam, Stoney Middleton and Foolow had been together for a long time and these three Parishes comprised the existing Ward. He said that it would be very difficult for any Councillor to represent both Litton and Eyam for they were so far apart. At this stage reference was made to the two letters received by the Boundary 'Commission from the Eyam Local Council. These were dated the 2$rd September 1975 and 4th June 197&. The letters stated that the Council strongly opposed the Boundary Commission's proposal for Eyam to be linked with Litton, basing the Council's objections on the geographical difficulties of providing adequate representation for such a scattered area. The Council favoured a Ward comprising the Parishes of Eyam, Foolow and Stoney Middleton. ' As no representative of Stoney Middleton Parish Council was present at the meeting, I then read the letter of16th September 1975 received by the Boundary Commission from the Stoney Middleton Parish Council. This expressed disapproval of •the Stoney Middleton Parish being included in the Calver Ward and pointed out that there was no affinity between Stoney Middleton and the Parishes of Calver, Curbar and Froggatt - whereas the Parish had always had a very satisfactory working relationship with the Eyam District. (7) I then suggested that the Meeting might look at the Hathersage and Calver areas. Mr. John Bradwell, the Clerk of the-Calver Parish Council, referred to the representations submitted by his Council to the Boundary Commission on the 4th December 1975 strongly

- 9 - opposing the idea of Stoney Middleton Parish being linked with the Parishes of Calver, Curbar and Froggatt to form a Calver Ward. He said that Calver Parish had really no affinity with the Stoney Middleton Parish, but there was a much more intimate relationship environmentally and in other spheres of activity between the Parish of Calver and Curbar and Froggatt Parishes. Outstanding examples of this were (a) the joint interest and control which the three Parishes shared in administering the burial arrangements for the three Parishes; (b) the usage in common of the Cirbar County Primary School, which served exclusively as ttfe communal educational facility for the three Parishes, and in fact from which Parishes the local representatives on the Board of Governors of the School were entirely drawn; and (c) the shared ecclesiastical resources in the form of the Anglican Parish Church of Curbar which commonly served and was supported solely by the three constituent Parishes. He pointed out that the Parish of Stoney Middleton was not allied in any way with these activities of the other three Parishes and indeed he felt taat Stoney Fliddleton was more likely to have affinity with the other nearby northerly Parishes. Mr. J.M.-T. Levesley, representing the Eyam Woodlands Parish Council, referred to the representations submitted by the Parish Council to the Boundary Commission on the 7th September 19755 making strong objection to the proposals of both the District Council and the Boundary Commission that the Eyam Woodlands Parish should be included in a large Hathersage Ward with two Councillor representatives. The Parish Council had agreed unanimously their view that the Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Nether Padley and Stoke should remain as in the existing Ward with the Parishes of Calver, Curbar and Froggatt to form a Calver Ward. He went on to point out that thetiaree Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Nether Padley and Stoke formed the greater part of the village of and if these were to be included in the Hathersage Ward* the electorate of the Hree Parishes would be "swallowed up" by'the other Parishes in the Ward, and the electorate in Eyam Woodlands, Nether Padley and Stoke would hardly be able to make their presence felt. He said that, although Grindleford and Hathersage were in close proximity geographically, there was in fact very little natural affinity with each other. There was much more contact between Grindleford and the Calver/ Curbar/Froggatt area. I then pointed out to Mr, Levesley that, even if it were decided that the Stoney Middleton Parish should be linked with Foolow and Eyam Parishes to form an Eyam Ward, leaving only the Parishes of Calver, Curbar and Froggatt in a Calver Ward, there would then be 1,14-9 electors, and that, if there were-- to be added into that Ward Eyam Woodlands Parish with 565 electors, Stoke Parish with 46 electors, Nether Padley with 213 electors, this would make a very large Ward with some 1,773 electors with a Councillor/electorate entitlement of 1.29. Such an arrangement would also have the effect of reducing the electorate of the proposed Hathersage Ward'by 624 electors, so bringing the electorate down to 1,793 with a Councillor/electorate, entitlement of 1.3 and thereby reducing the representation of that Ward from 2 Councillors, to 1 Councillor. I said, however, that I appreciated the point as to the satisfactory representation of the Grindleford area and on posing further questions I was later informed that the area of Grindleford was made up of the Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley and an area called Upper Padley which was part of. the Hathersage Parish. Then Mr. P.L.. Duffield, representing the Nether Padley Parish Council, referred to the area of Grindleford and the

- 10 - area of Upper Padley which was comprised in the'-Hathersage Parish. He claimed that the area of • Grindleford'-'had no real direct connection with Hathersage and he*was afraid that the views of the electorate in Grindleford would be swamped by the votes of the remainder of the electorate in the Hathersage Ward. He said that he would like to see a Ward made comprising the area .of. Grindleford. I then had to point out the requirement of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 11 of the Local Government' Act 1972 which said "(c) In a district every parish or community which is not divided into parish or community wards shall lie wholly within a single ward of the district"; 'This meant that, as at present the Hathersage Parish was not a warded Parish, it was not possible to take separately that part of Hathersage Parish comprising Upper Padley and join it with the Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley to form a separate Ward of the District. Furthermore, the electorates of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley totalled only about 624- and therefore did not warrant those three Parishes being made a separate Ward. Mr. W.G. Massey, representing the Eyam Woodlands Parish Council, also expressed the v-iew that the Eyam Woodlands, Nether Padley. arid Stoke Parishes would be very happy to have a Ward to themselves but I think he then realised that the Parishes would not be able-to show a large enough electorate for a Ward on these lines. Mr. J.A. Shuttleworth, the Chairman of the Hathersage Parish Council, acknowledged the problems of the outer Parishes and said that he would be more than delighted with the idea of a Warding Order for the Hathersage Parish, so making a separate Parish Ward for the Upper Padley and Longshaw area of "that Parish. I then asked to be informed of the number c£ electors in the Upper Padley and Longshaw area of the Parish of Hathersage . but was informed that these totalled only 120 and I had to 4 conclude and so .inform the meeting that' even if the 120 electors were added to the 624, which was the. total electorate of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley Parishes, there would not be sufficient electors to form a separate Ward. At this stage I had to refer to a note of a telephone message received that morning from Mr. Tiddy, a member and former Chairman of the Curbar Parish Council. Mr. Tiddy regretted that he was unable to attend the Meeting personally but expressed the wish that the views of the Parish Council' be put to the Meeting. The note said that the Curbar Parish Council supported the views of the Boundary Commission in the formation of the Calver Ward including Curbar, for this made sense geographically as the populated areas of the four Parishes were all'adjacent, whereas the Parish of Nether Pa&ley was remote. He said that the four Parishes comprised the area of the Ecclesiastical Parish, that is it was served by the same Vicar, and the formation of .these four Parishes as, a Ward would give a good cross-section of the community, As Mr. Tiddy was not present-at the Meeting it was difficult-to question him as to the statement made in the note but the Meeting authorised me. with Mr. Hodgkinson, to question Mr. Tiddy later that day. (On further questioning later Mr. Tiddy agreed that Curbar would be happy with a Ward comprising only Calver, Curbar and Froggatt, but in effect would prefer a Ward of Calver, Curbar, Froggatt and Stoney Middleton instead of joining with the Parishes to the north, Nether Padley, etc.) Mr., Hodgkinson, for the West Derbyshire District Council, then said that the Meeting had shown the many difficulties presented in the problem of forming satisfactory Wards in the Hathersage area, and he felt that the Meeting had shown that

- 11 - the proposals for the Hathersage Ward, as included in the draft scheme by the District Council, and as included in the draft proposals by the Boundary Commission, was the best solution for the area. (8) I then informed the Meeting that although we had now had a fairly lengthy discussion of the problems of the Warding of this northern area of West Derbyshire District, I was still . left with many problems and difficulties. I had taken note of representations made to me of strong ties which it was felt would be broken if (particularly in the proposed Tideswell Ward, the proposed Litton and Eyam Ward and the proposed Calver Ward) the proposals of the Boundary Commission were followed. Nevertheless, the disparity of the ratio of Councillor/electorate, representation still remained in the proposals in the District Council's draft scheme and a better numerical representation should be found. (9) I then asked the Meeting to look again at the Bradwell area and the Tideswell area for I said that perhaps the Bradwell Watfd could be increased in size and the Tideswell Ward reduced but still to include the Parish of Litton. I askec|£bout the Parishes of Little Hucklow, Great Hucklow and Grindlow. Little Hucklow had been included in the proposed Bradwell Ward by the Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission although placed in the Tideswell Ward by the District Council. As> to Great Hucklow and Grindlow tney seemed to have affinity with Tideswell but were at present in a Ward with Bradwell, Little Hucklow, Hazlebadge and indeed Abney and Abney Grange, This was, pointed out to me by Nr. J.A. Shuttleworth, the Chairman of the Hathersage Parish Council, and Mr. E.W. Simpson, the Chairman of the Tideswell Parish Council, referred to existing Wards ancj^ueried why there should be any change. Mr. Hodgkinson, for the West Derbyshire District Council had then to point out that the existing Warding scheme had been compiled rather hurriedly and his Council felt that some improvements, could "be&ade from that existing scheme. At the same time he had^to admit that there.was no really ideal answer to the problem; Mr. John S. Morton, of the Eyam Woodlands Parish Council, also referred to the existing Ward scheme and suggested that this would.be suitable to the Eyam Woodlands Parish Council, for that Parish, in the£xisting scheme, was linked with Calver, Curbar, Froggatt, Stoke and Nether Padley. (10) During the Meeting I was handed a note signed by seven members of the Hartin^ton Nether Quarter Parish Council stating that at a special Parish Council Meeting on the 22nd June 1976, the Parish Council wished to place on record to the Boundary Commission their wholehearted support of one member Ward representation in the.area of the West Derbyshire District. The note stated that the membe'rs believed that the recent reorganisation of Local Government carried with it the danger of detachment of Council members from their electors, and that one member Wards would minimise this danger. On receipt of this note, I stated to the Meeting that whilst I would make a note of the submission, it was not always possible to fix one member Wards. For example, it was not possible in large electorate Parishes where no Warding Orders had been made to divide the Parishes into Wards. In these cases it was necessary to make Wards returning two members or three members in order to ensure that the electorate had adequate and satisfactory representation.

- 12 - (11) Finally, I said that although perhaps I had not a ready answer with a wholly satisfactory pattern of Wards, I felt that I had a good picture of the problem and an understanding of the representations submitted in respect of local affinities and ties of the various Parishes. I informed the meeting that I intended to make an extensive tour of the area, for I was sure that, in this beautiful part of Derbyshire, geography played a particular part in the affinity of villages and Parishes.•• , The Meeting was then brought to a close, by Mr. Hodgkinson, on behalf of the West Derbyshire District Council, making his final submission to me in support of the proposals in the District Council's scheme. He said that his Council had submitted proposals which they thought would serve the local people the better, rather than proposals for Wards which simply met the mathematical requirements of the Local Government Act 1972. 5. VISITS On the afternoon of the day of the Public Meeting and also on the following day, I made an extensive tour of the northern part of the West Derbyshire District and particularly visited Calver, Curbarj Proggatt, Stoke, Nether Padley, Upper Padley, Eyam Woodlands.., Abney, Foolow, Eyam, Stoney Middleton, Ashford, Great-Longstone, Wardlow, Grindlow , Great Hucklow, Hazlebadge, Bradwell, Little Hucklow, Tideswell, Litton Mill, Litton and Cressbrook. 6. ASSESSMENT OF ARGUMENTS In marshalling the various facts and thoughts affecting this Warding problem, it seems necessary first to restate, the rules in Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act. First - that- the ratio of the number of local Government electors.to the number of Councillors to be elected shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every Ward of the District; and second - that, subject to the above, regard shall be/had to any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary. On this perhaps I should make the first observation that it would appear that the District Council and the Parish Council representatives, and perhaps, the electorate generally, do not consider the requirement as to equality of the ratio of the number of electors to each Councillor to be quite so important as do the Boundary Commission. Nevertheless, as I stated to the Meeting, the six northern Wards comprised a total electorate of 9,44-9 (1981 figures) and in the Distract Council's Scheme (for a total Council Membership of 40), this gave an entitlement of 7*05 members - whereas. 8 members had been allotted. In the Boundary Commission's proposals (for a Council of. 39) the electorate of 9,449 gave an entitlement of 6.85 members and 7 members had been allotted. Now to assess the argument as to ties between various communities and Parishes. Tideswell and Litton -. There is no doubt that these: two Parishes are in close proximity. In the past they have been in the same Ward and in the same County Council electoral division. Geographically they are together and, what is more important to my mind, their industrial future is very much a joint concern. I was asked specifically to visit Litton Mill, a small hamlet in the southern part of the Litton Parish. It is almost geographically isolated. In order to go from Litton to Litton Mill one had to go a considerable distance via part of Tideswell. I must say that, if Tideswell and Litton were to be in separate Wards, there would be a definite break of very strong ties. It must also be said that, whilst not infringing the provisions of the 1972 Act, to form new ties between Litton and Eyam would provide a Ward which would create great difficulties. There is certainly no link at the present time, no transport between the two areas and, as was said to me, the Council representative for that proposed Ward would have the greatest difficulty in fulfilling satisfactorily his Councillor functions. The idea of Litton Mill and Cressbrook having adink with Eyam. seems to me to be quite impossible. Eyam and Stoney Pliddleton These two Parishes- were linked together in a War^as suggested by the District. Council but placed in separate Wards in the proposals of the Boundary Commission. These two villages are certainly very much linked together, they are now in the same Ward in-the existing arrangements and they are linked by the industry which lies' between the two. (A visit to this area very much strengthened this conviction.) I am firmly" of the opinion that putting these, two Parishes in separate Wards would make a retrograde break and, although Stoney Middleton is comparatively near Calver, putting Stoney Middleton with Eyam, and not with Calver, would not cause any significant break of ties. Wardlow Parish This Parish was included in a Ward with Tideswell and Litton in the District.Council's scheme but was placed with Great Longstone in the Ashford and Longstone Ward in the Boundary Commission's proposals. Although I received evidence that this Parish looks to Tideswell for most things, it is somewhat isolated and is included in the Ecclesiastical Parish of Great Longstone. It seems to me that there would certainly be no undue hardship and'certainly no significant break of ties, if this Parish were, included eitherin the Tideswell Ward or the Ashford and Longstone Ward. Little Hucklow Parish This was included in the Tideswell Ward in the District Council's scheme and in the Bradwell Ward in the Boundary Commission's, proposals. I received quite definite evidence that this Parish looks to Bradwell. It is in the existing Bradwell Ward and I came to the. view that this Parish should quite definitely be in the Bradwell Ward. Parishes, of Great Hucklcw and Grindlow Perhaps in some respects these. Parishes, though small in electorate (Great Hucklow 11? and Grindlow 23) are key Parishes in the jigsaw puzzle. They were included in the Tideswell Ward in the District Council's scheme and placed in the Litton and Eyam Ward in the Boundary Commission's proposals and yet these Parishes are in the existing Bradwell Ward. I received evidence that the Parishes looked to Tideswell perhaps more than to Bradwell, but communications with both these village centres are good. In my view these Parishes should certainly not be in a Litton and Eyam Ward but, without undue hardship and without any breaking of ties, could be placed-either with Tideswell or with Bradwell. Parishes of Eyam Woodlands and Stoke and Mether Fadley These Parishes were placed in the Hathersage Ward (a large Ward returning 2 Councillors) in both the District Council scheme and also the proposals of the Boundary Commission, although they are now in an existing Ward with Calver, Curbar and Froggatt. Whilst it is quite clear that Calver, Curbar and Froggatt are linked in ecclesiastical, civic ancfcfeeographical ways, there is- not the same linkage between those three Parishes and Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley. There, is a definite geographical division between Stoke:and Froggatt. The River Berwent flows in the valley between the two and the access to Froggatt is via Calver. I heard evidence that Eyam Woodlands, would like to be linked with the Parishes to the south but I had a distinct impression that for many things the people of that Parish look to Hathersage. I came to the view that the ideal solution might be to form two separate Wards out of the proposed Hathersage Ward as set out in the District Council's scheme and the Boundary Commission's proposals (this, of oourse, if suitable geographical boundaries could be found and the electorate/ Councillor ratio proved satisfactory). As will be seen, however, from earlier in my report, I investigated at the Meeting the possibility of forming a Ward around, the various Parishes and that part of Hathersage Parish (Upper Padley and Longshaw) which made up the area of Grindleford. That would entail the making of a Warding Order for the Parish of Hathersage and, even if that were done, it would produce a very unsatisfactory and impossible Ward around Grindleford with an electorate of no more than 744 (entitlement 0-54). The other Ward would have an electorate of some 1573 (entitlement 1.13). I felt on balance', therefore, that to leave the Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke.- and Nether Padley in the Hathersage Ward would cause no serious break of ties and would make a Hathersage Ward of sufficient size and electorate to warrant two Councillors. Perhaps at some future date there may be development in the Hathersage area which would warrant the consideration of a Warding Order and so bring about a division of that Ward into two Wards. This, however, does not seem practicable at the present time. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend: 1. That the West Derbyshire District Council comprise 39 members. 2. That in the Warding arrangements.: (a) the Parishes, of Litton and Tideswell be in the same Ward; • (b) the Parishes of Eyam and Stoney Middleton be in the same Ward; (c) the Parishes of Little Hucklow, Great Hucklow and Grindlow be in the Bradwell Ward; and (d) the Parishes of Eyam Woodlands, Stoke and Nether Padley be in the Hathersage Ward. 3,. That consequently Wards be formed as follows:- RECOMMENDED WARDS (Proposed Council of 59 Member - Average 1378 Electors, per Member) BRADWELL WARD CALVER WARD Parishes of: Parishes of: Bradwell Salver 510 Hazlebadge Curbar 4-64 Little Hucklow Froggatt 175 Great Hucklow • Grindlow 114-9

1489 (Entitlement Q. 83) (Entitlement 1.08) 1 Member 1 Member. TIDESWELL WARD ASHPQRD and LONGSTONE WARD Parishes, of: Parishes of: Wheston Wardlow 70 Tideswell Great Longstone. 623 Litton . Little Longstone 91 . Sheldon . 68 181? Ashford in the Water 4-71 Rowland 23 (Entitlement 1.32) Hassop 76 1 Member 1422

(Entitlement 1.O4) 1 Member EYAM and STONEY MIDDLETON HATHERSAGE WARD Parishes of: Parishes of: Foolow 93 Outseats Eyam 780 Offerton Stoney Middleton 382 Abney and Abney Grange 1255 Highlow Eyam Woodlands (Entitlement 0.91) Hathersage Nether Padley 1 Member Stoke 2317

(Entitlement 1.68) 2 Members 8.. APPENDICES The following supporting documents are appended:- Appendix, 'A1 -- Names and addresses of Persons present at the Meeting Appendix 'B' Map of the northern part of the West Derbyshire District showing edged blue the Wards now recommended and also showing the. 1981 projected electorate and Councillor entitlement figures and circled the number of Councillors allocated to each Ward.

- 16 - APPENDIX 'A1

ATTENDANCE LIST

Town Hall, Matlock - 23rd June, 1976

Name Representing D. G. Hodgkinson Ll.B. Director of Administration -West Derbyshire D.C S. Pollard Ll.B. Articled Clerk - West Derbyshire D.C. A. W, Adam, M.A. James Scott-Hopkins, M.P. & West Derbyshire Conservative Association B. Walker Bradwell Parish Council - Clerk C. Bradwell Bradwell Parish Council - Chairman and District Councillor, West Derbyshire Miss M.A. Hutchinson Beeley Parish Council - Clerk A. E. Kerridge Sudbury Parish Council - Chairman B. W. Holmes Ratepayer K. A. Priestnall Matlock Labour Party - Chairman Andrea North Ratepayer John S. Norton Eyam Woodlands Parish Council A. P. Jacques Eyam Woodlands Parish Council - Clerk K. L. Jacques Eyam Woodlands - Ratepayer T. H. Preston Eyam Woodlands - Ratepayer J. A. Shuttleworth Hathersage Parish Council - Chairman P. L. Duffield Nether Padley Parish Council W. G. Massey Eyam Woodlands Parish Council J. M. T. Levesley Eyam Woodlands Parish Council Mrs. Mona Gillan District Councillor - West Derbyshire J. A. Carnall Eyam Parish Council - Chairman F. H. Hall District Councillor - West Derbyshire Vice Chairman Eyam Parish Council Mrs. Jean Naylor District Councillor - West Derbyshire Mrs. Dorothy C. Redshaw District Councillor - West Derbyshire & Clerk to Litton Parish Council P. E. Maurer Tideswell Parish Council E. W, Simpson Tideswell Parish Council - Chairman Elsie K. L. Frost Tideswell Parish Council J. Lythgoe Tideswell Parish Council E. F. Swain Derbyshire Times John Bradwell Calver Parish Council - Clerk SCHEDULE 2

MEMORANDUM OP ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PUHURE ELECTION OP COUNCILLORS FOR THE DISTRICT OP WEST DERBYSHIRE

HAMS OP WARD HO. OF COUNCILLORS ALL SAINTS 3 ASKBOURNE . 3 ASHPOHD AND LONGSTONE 1 BAKEffELL 3 , 1 BRADffELL 1 BRAILSPORD . . 1 BHASS1HGTON AHD PAHWICH . 1 CALVER 1 CLIFTON AND BRADLEY 1 DABLEY TUT.tt 3 DOVERIDGE 1 ETAM AND STONY MIDDLETON 1 HARTINGTON AND DOVEDALE 1 HATHERSAGE . 2 HULLAND 1 MAS30N ' 2 NOHBURY 1 SAirypT GILES AND TANSLEY 3 STANTON • 1 TADDINGTON 1 TIDES'iTELL 1 WINSTER AND SOUTH DARLEY 1 WIRKSffORTH 3 YOULGREA7E - 1

The proposed ward boundaries are shown on maps which can be inspected at the Council's offices. For the benefit of those unable to inspect the maps a description of the boundaries of the proposed wards as defdned on the maps is attached at Schedule 3,

DISTRICT OF WEST DERBRUUHU SCHEDULE 3 DESCBJPTION OF PBOPOSED VAB D BOUNDARIES Notes Where the boundary la described as following a rood, railway, river, canal or nlprllnr feature, it should be deemed to follow the centre line of the feature unless otherwise stated* 0AHIHT BAUB Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of the District meets the boundary between Farley Moor and Matlook Moor, thence southveatwards along last oentioned boundary and the southeastern boundaries of Parcel Hoc 9291,

8984, 3475, 7660, 69t9t te& and 6024 on Ordnance Survey 1»2500 plan SK 28/2961 Be vision of 1966, and northweatwarda along the southwestern boundary of last mentioned parcel and Parcel No 51^5 to the eastern boundary of the properties known as Ard Choile, Robertewood and 292 Smedley

Street Weatt thenoe southwestwards along said boundary to said street, thence northwestwards along said street to the road known as Hurds Hollow thence southeastward* along said road to a point opposite the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 210? thence southwestwards to and along said boundary and southeastwards along the western boundary of said parcel to the western boundary of Parcel No 1500 and the western boundary of Parcel No 1500 on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plan SK 28/2960 Bevision of 1966 thence southwest- wards along said boundary to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 0006, thence southwestwards along said boundary and eastern boundary of Parcel No 0290 to the southern boundary of the last mentioned parcel, thence westwards along said boundary and the southern boundaries of Parcel Noe 9890 and 9292 to the southeastern boundary of Parcel Ho 8800, thenee eouthvestwards along said boundary, crossing Bakewell Boad and continuing along the southwestern boundary of the '"H"""** property to the south of Parcel No 7^88 crossing the railway and continuing along the eastern boundary of Faroe! Nos 7178 and in continuation to the Hiver Derwent, thenoe northwestwards and following said river and the eastern boundaries of Stanton CP and Rowsley CP to a point opposite the stream between parcel Nos 2038 and 1621 on Ordnance Survey 1 12500 plan SK 26/2765 Edition of 1970, thenee eastwarda to and along said ) stream to the western boundary of Copy Wood, thence northwestwards along said boundary and northeastwards and following the northern boundary of said wood to the unnamed road between Little Rowsley and Chesterfield, 2 thence northeastwards and following said road and the southern boundary of Beelfly CP to the eastern boundary of the district, thence southwards and following said district boundary to the point of commencement.

ALL SAINTS WARD , Commencing at a point where . Chesterfield Road meets the eastern boundary of the District, thence southwestwards along said road, the road known as Steep Turnpike and Causeway Lane to Matlock Bridge, thence south* westwards along said bridge to the River Derwent, thence southeastwards and following said river to the footbridge between Pic Tor lane and Dale Road, thence, westwards along said footbridge to said road, thence southwards along said road to a point opposite the northern boundary of the properties known as St John's Terrace thence westwards along said boundary and continuing in a straight line to the eastern boundary of parcel No 5164 as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SK 28/2939 Revision of 1966, thence southeastwards along said boundary and continuing southeastwards and southwestwards along the southern boundary of parcel Nos 5257 and *kS4? to St John*a Road, thence eouthwestwards along said road to .the path that leads to Great Hasson Cavern, thence eouthwestwards along said path to the southern boundary of Parcel No 1477 as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plan SK 28/2956 Revision of 1968, thence southwestwards along said boundary and the southern boundaries of Parcel Nos 0774,, 967N 8965* 8266 and 7967; . to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 6?67« thence northeastwards along said boundary and northwest- w^rds along the northeastern boundary of said parcel and parcel Nos 637**, 6286 and 49QO and continuing along the northeastern boundaries of Parcel Nos 4900, \ 3800, 33i5i 3026, 2831 and the northeastern and northern boundaries of Parcel No 2137 as shown on Ordnance Survey 1)2500 plan SK 28/2959 Revision of 1966, crossing Nailor Lane and continuing northwestwards along the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 0055 on Ordnance Survey U2500 plans SK 28/2959 and SK 2672759 Revision of 1966 and 196? to the eastern 3 boundary of Jughole Wood, thence northwards and following said boundary the eastern boundary of Parcel No 9573 and the southern boundary of Parcel No 0001 and the southern boundaries of Parcel Noe 0001 and 1100 as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plan SK 28/2959 Edition of 196? to the eastern boundary of the last mentioned parcel, thence northwards along said boundary and the eastern boundary of the Parcel No 2000 and the eastern boundaries of Parcel Noe 2000, 1100 and I522 ae shown on Ordnance Survey 1i2500 plan SK 28/2960 Revision of 1%o to the southern boundary of Parcel No 2027* thence northeastwards along said boundary and southern boundaries of Parcel NOB 3628, 5034 and 6434 to the most easterly corner of the last mentioned parcel, thence northeastwards in a straight line to the southernmost point of Ward, thence continuing northeastwards along the southeastern boundary of said ward to the eastera boundary of the district, thence southeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement. . : i i ST GILES AND TANSLSY WARD Commencing at a point where the northern boundary of Parcel No 0051 on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plan SK 32/3357 Edition of 1968 meets the eastern boundary of the district, thence westwards along said northern boundary and the northern boundaries of parcel Nos 0051 and 0044 on Ordnance Survey U2500 plan SK 30/J157 Mition of 1970 and southeastwards along the eastern boundary of last mentioned parcel to the northern boundary of Parcel No 4839, thence westwards along said boundary, northwestwards along the eastern boundaries of Parcel Nos 2235 and 2243 and westwards along the northern boundary of last mentioned parcel to Hearthstone Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the northern boundary of Parcel NoCcJJjJr thence westwards to, along and following *Aid boundary,and the northern boundaries of Parcel Noe 8659, 6874, 5981, 6473 and 5478 to the eastern boundary-of Parcel No 3800, thence southwards along said boundary to the access road to Woods©ate Farm, thence north- westwards along eaid road to Wi lie relay Road, thence northwards along said road to a point opposite the-northern boundary ^f Uillersley Road Plantation, thence southwestwards to, along and following said boundary and continuing along the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 9200 on Ordnance Survey 1i2500 plan SK 28/2957 Edition of'1969, the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 9200 on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 plan SK 28/2958 Edition of 1969 and northwestwards along the western boundaries, of parcel No 0002, 0015, 82**0, 8660 to the path and footbridge that lead; to Dale Road, thence southwest wards along said path and footbridge to the River Derwent, thence northwestwarde and following said river to the southeastern boundary of All Saints Ward, thence northwards and following said boundary to the eastern boundary of the District, thence southeastward and following said District boundary to the point of commencement.

MAfiSON WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Ivonbrook Grange CP meets the northeastern boundary of Ible CP, thence northwards and following said eastern boundary and the eastern boundary of Winstar CP to the northern boundary of Parcel No 8984 as shown on Ordnance Survey 1i2500 plan SK 2V2559 Revision of 196?. thence southeastward along said boundary and the northern boundaries of Parcel Noe '9882, 0681 and 20?8 to Bonsall Lane, thence generally eastwards along said lane to a point opposite the western boundary of Parcel No 5772 on Ordnance Survey 1i2500 plan 'Bit 26/2759 Revision of 1%7, thence northwards to and northeastwards along the southern boundary of eaid parcel and the southern boundaries of Parcel Noa 7582, 1200, 1173, e460, 765^, 8553 and 9^5^ to the southern boundary of All Saints Ward, thence generally southoaatwards and northeastwards along said boundary and generally southwards and southeastwarda along the southern boundary of St Giles and Tansley Ward to the eastern boundary of the District, thence 5 southwestwards and following said boundary to the northern boundary of CP, thence southeastwards and following said boundary to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 2*0** aa shown on Ordnance Survey U2500 plan SK 28/2935 Revision of 1968, thence northeastwards along said boundary and the southeastern boundary of. Parcel No 3035 to the western boundary of Parcel No *t360, thence northwestwards and northeastwards and again northwestwards along said boundary to the Dismantled Railway known as The High Peak Trail, thence southwestwards along said railway to the northern boundary of tfirkeworth CP, thence westwards and following said boundary and the northeastern boundary of Xble CP to the point of commencement.

.WIRKSWORTH WARD - . The parish of Wirksworth and that area bounded by a line commencing at grid reference SK 288**155l*6l thence northeastwards and following the southern boundary of Masson Ward to the northern boundary of Wirksworth CP thence northwestwards along said boundary to the point of commencement*

WINSTiS AND SOUTH DARLJtf WARD The parishes of Winster" and Ivonbrook Orange and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the northern boundary of Winster CP meets the eastern boundary of Birchover CP, thence northeastwards along said eastern boundary and generally eastwards along the southern boundary of Stanton CP to the southwestern boundary of Darley Dale Ward, thence southvastwards along said boundary to the western boundary of All Saints Ward, thence eouthweetwarda along said boundary to the northern boundary of Haseon Ward, thence westwards along said boundary to the eastern boundary

» of Winstar CP, thence northwestwards and following said boundary to the point of commencement. 6

STANTON WARD . : The parishes of Nether Baddon, Rovsley, Stanton, Birchorer, Elton and Grattoa and that area bounded ty a line commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Rowaley CP meets the southern boundary of Beeley CP, thence southeastwards along eald southern boundary to the northern boundary of Darley Dale Ward, thence southvectwards along said boundary to the eastern boundary of Rowaley CP, thence northwards and following said boundary to the point of commencement*

HATHERSAGE WARD The parishes of: Abney and Abney Grange Eyam Woodlands Hathersage Hi^ilow Nether Padley . Offerton Outseats Stoke

BRADWELL WARD . Tho parishes of: Bradwell Great Hucklow Grindlow" HazelbaAgar. . . Uttle Hucklow

TIDE3WELL WARD The parishes of . Idtton ^ Tidesvell Vheston EYAM AND STONEY MIDDLETOK Ifre parishes oft

Foolov Stoney Middleton

CALVER WARD The pariahes ofi Calver Curbar Froggatt

BASLOW WARD The parlebeo ofi Baslow and Bubnell

Beelegr Chatavorth Edeneor PUaley

ASBPORD AND UMiOSTCaffi VABD The parishea oft Aflhford ia the Water Great

Little Loagotone Bovland Sheldon Wardlow 8 TADDINOTON WAHD of i

Bruafafield Chelmorton

Hartington Middle Honyaeh Taddlngton

BAKEWELL WAHD lite pariah of i

IOUKJHEAVE VARD The parishes oft

Hlddletoo and Smerrill

Toulgreave Ov«r Baddcm

BBASSIRaTON AND PAEWICH WARD ardJboe of: Aldwaric Ballidon Bradboume Braaaiagton Caraington Hop ton Ible Ktaivetoa HARTEfOTON AND DOVEDAI£ WARD The parishes of: Eaton and Alaop Fanny Bentley Hartingtoa Nether Barter Hartington Town Quarter Lea Hall

Mapleton Newton Orange Hiorpe ... . .- Tisaington

HOLLAND WABD Th* poriflhes of: Atlotf Biggin Callow Hognacton

Vnrd Kirk Ir»ton

AHD BRADICT WARD The parishes of: Bradley Clifton add CeBpton Edlastco and tftraMoa Of f cote aad Dbdcrwood Oaaaston Yeldersley

ASBBOUHN£ WABD The pariah of i Ashbourne 10

BRAHSPOED WAHD The parishes of : Braileford

Longford Her cast en Shirley

NORBURY WARD The parishes of: ; Alkmonton ' Boylestone Cubley Hungry Marston Montgomery Norbury and Rocton Rodsley Snalsten . leaveley DOVERIDGE WARD pairlfih«a of i

Somerset Eerb«rt

Sudbury