Local Government Boundary Commission For England 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 DERBYSHIRE 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 Bakewell 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 Calver 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 Tideswell 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 Wheston should form a single- member ward to be known as Tideswell* He also considered that the parishes of Eyam and Stoney Middleton had very close ties and that with the addition of the adjacent Foolow 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 Great Hucklow and Grindlow 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, Curbar 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 Little Hucklow; 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, Hassop, Little Longstone, Rowland, Sheldon and Wardlow.