High Peak Borough Council Boundary Proposals from MP

As the Member of Parliament for the High Peak Constituency, the boundary of which is co- terminus with the boundary of High Peak Borough Council, I wish to submit proposals for ward boundaries.

Having represented the High Peak for over three and a half years as the Member of Parliament, with 7 years prior to that as the parliamentary candidate, in addition to 12 years previous experience as a Councillor on High Peak Borough Council, as well as having lived in the High Peak all my life, I believe I am well qualified to comment on where communities are based across the High Peak, and how best to represent those communities in terms of Borough Council ward boundaries.

The first thing to note is that there are four distinct areas of the High Peak. There is the area around and ; the area around ; the central area of the High Peak which includes Chapel-en-le-Frith, , , , Hayfield, and other smaller villages and settlements; and the Hope Valley area, which includes Castleton, Hope, and other smaller settlements, and is mostly very rural.

The current boundaries do a good job of marking the boundaries between these four areas, and I don’t propose anything which would change this. Indeed, for convenience, my proposals are grouped into these four areas.

Glossopdale proposals

Summary of Glossopdale Proposals

Dinting Old Total 1639 Transfer from Simmondley 70 Transfer from Howard Town 146 New Total 1855 New variance: +5.1%

Gamesley Old Total 1792 Transfer from Hadfield South 76 New Total 1868 New variance: +5.84%

Hadfield North (2 seat) (Create new 2 seat ward) Old Total 1530 Transfer from 354 Transfer from Hadfield South 1626 New Total 3510 New variance: -0.57%

Hadfield South (Create new 1 seat ward) Old Total 3606 Transfer to Hadfield North 1626 Transfer to St John’s 80 Transfer to 76 New Total 1824 New variance: +3.34%

Howard Town (2 seat) Old Total 3696 Transfer to Dinting 146 Transfer to Whitfield 3 Transfer from Old Glossop 159 New Total 3706 New variance: +4.99%

Old Glossop (Create 1 new seat ward) Old Total 3945 Transfer to Shirebrook 1899 Transfer to Howard Town 159 Transfer to Whitfield 25 Transfer to St. John’s 8 New Total 1854 New variance: +5.04%

Padfield Old Total 2111 Transfer to Hadfield North 354 Transfer from 62 New Total 1819 New variance: +3.06%

Shirebrook (Create new 1 seat ward) Old Total 0 Transfer from Old Glossop 1899 New Total 1899 New variance: +7.59%

Simmondley (2 seat) Old Total 3889 Transfer to Whitfield 89 Transfer to Howard Town 70 New Total 3730 New variance: +5.67%

St. John’s Old Total 1729 Transfer from Hadfield South 80 Transfer from Old Glossop 8 New Total 1817 New variance: +2.95%

Tintwistle Old Total 1842 Transfer to Padfield 62 New Total 1780 New variance: +0.85%

Whitfield Old Total 1711 Transfer from Simmondley 89 Transfer from Howard Town 3 Transfer from Old Glossop 25 New Total 1828 New variance: +3.57%

Detail of Glossopdale Proposals

It is clear that to satisfy electoral equality, there are a number of changes required to boundaries in the Glossop area. However, I also believe there are a number of strange boundary arrangements in Glossopdale – some of them longstanding – and now would be a good opportunity to rectify them.

1. St. John’s

Starting with the largest ward, this ward includes part of Glossop Road in Gamesley, and to improve electoral equality, I propose that the rest of Glossop Road, including Copper Beech Drive and Orchard Drive (total of approx. 80 electors) be transferred from Hadfield South ward into St. John’s ward. This would help improve community cohesion, as they would then be in the same ward as the rest of the road. It also helps to address an arbitrary boundary in this area.

Elsewhere in St. John’s ward, the boundary follows the National Park boundary in a circle around Glossop itself, and on the boundary with Old Glossop ward there are two small areas which are disadvantaged because of this. The first is the Jumble Farm area just off Level. This is contained in Old Glossop ward, despite having no links to it. I propose to move the 4 electors in that area into St. John’s ward, as that is the ward which the access road comes out into. Slightly further north, there are 4 electors on Derbyshire Level who are just outside the National Park boundary, leaving them in a different ward (Old Glossop) to their immediate neighbours. It seems to be to be obvious that they should also be moved into St. John’s ward.

2. Gamesley

Gamesley estate has some of the strongest community ties in the High Peak, but Gamesley ward doesn’t include all of the estate, because the estate is – at the moment – too large to be a complete ward. However, I propose moving 76 electors on Bank, Edale Close, Edale Fold, Litton Bank, Litton Fold, Litton Gardens and part of Calow Green from their current ward of Hadfield South to Gamesley ward. This would not increase electoral equality too much, but the positive effect it would have on community cohesion would greatly outweigh this, and having as much of Gamesley estate as possible represented by the same councillor would, I believe, ensure better and more effective representation for the residents.

3. Padfield and Tintwistle

I believe Padfield ward works very well as a single-seat ward, however it’s obvious that it is far too large. Fortunately, it is easy to remove from it areas of the ward that are in Hadfield, bringing it down to size. The first area contains 286 electors on Station Road, Bankbottom, Albert Street, Hazelwood Close, Waterside, Jones Street and Osborne Place. The second area contains 68 electors on Church Street, Gladstone Street and Queen Street. I believe that both should be moved out of the ward into an expanded Hadfield North ward (see section 4 below). This would help the communities in that area, as residents would be in their more natural ward of Hadfield North.

I also propose to rectify the arbitrary boundary between Padfield and Tintwistle wards, by moving the boundary that currently runs up the middle of Brosscroft so that the whole of Brosscroft is contained in Padfield ward. This would move 62 electors from Tintwistle to Padfield, ensuring that the whole of the road is in one ward, rather than split between them. This would also more evenly equalise the numbers between Tintwistle and Padfield.

4. Hadfield North and Hadfield South

In my work as an MP, is it obvious to me that Hadfield has two separate and distinct areas – a northern part and a southern part. However, it is also obvious to me that the current boundary between them is arbitrary and does not in any way reflect the two parts of Hadfield. In my experience, a more logical and cohesive boundary would be more to the south, and would be ideally based on the river running between Lower Barn Road and Higher Barn Road. This is an obvious geographical feature, and I believe it is a far more natural boundary than the current one, which splits two sides of a road.

Running a boundary along here would transfer approximately 1626 electors from Hadfield South to Hadfield North, and would result in Hadfield North becoming a two-seat ward, with Hadfield South becoming a single-seat ward. The roads which would transfer would be as follows:

Bankswood Close Hawthorn Bank Queen Street

Barleycroft Higher Barn Road Stanyforth Street

Beech House Hordern Close The Avenue

Brookside Close Ivycroft The Grove

Burnside Littlebrook Close The Rushes

Castle Street Newlands Drive Thorncliffe Road

Church Street Newshaw Lane Walker Street

Cross Street North Brook Road Wheatcroft Goddard Road Peak View Woolley Bridge Green Lane (part of) Pear Tree Close Woolley Bridge Road Hadfield Road I believe that this would be a better arrangement for local residents, and would be more in line with the local communities. This is in addition to the changes proposed in section 1 (80 electors transferred from Hadfield South to St. John’s), section 2 (76 electors transferred from Hadfield South to Gamesley) and section 3 (a total of 354 electors transferred from Padfield to Hadfield North).

5. Simmondley and Whitfield

With Simmondley currently having too many electors, I propose two changes to make it more electorally equal. Both changes would also improve community cohesion in the affected areas.

My first proposal is to move 70 electors in the Dinting Vale area (on Dinting Lane and Dinting Vale) from Simmondley into Dinting. Simmondley is a fairly self-contained estate, and Dinting Vale is not part of that estate, so to move it into Dinting ward itself will help improve community cohesion in that area.

Similarly, my second proposal is to move 89 electors in the Charlestown area (including Chunal Lane and Charlestown) from Simmondley to Whitfield. This area is quite far from Simmondley itself, and would find a better sense of community were it to be included in Whitfield.

Turning to Whitfield, I also propose to move 25 electors from Old Glossop and 3 electors from Howard Town into Whitfield, in the area of Cliffe Road/Cross Cliffe/Lower Bank/Lower Barn Farm. The25 electors in this area who are currently in Old Glossop ward have nothing to do with that ward, are cut off from that ward, and would have their interests better served if they were in Whitfield instead. This is the same for the 3 electors currently in Howard Town.

6. Old Glossop

Further to my proposals for Old Glossop in sections 1 (8 electors transferred to St. John’s) and section 5 (25 electors transferred to Whitfield), I also propose to transfer 159 electors on the western edge of the ward (on Corn Street, King Edward Avenue, Riverside Close, Jordan Street and High Street East) from Old Glossop to Howard Town. These electors have more in common with electors in Howard Town than in Old Glossop, and this would rectify an anomalous and arbitrary boundary.

I also believe that Shirebrook estate, in the southern part of Old Glossop ward, should be represented as a separate single-seat ward, as it is distinct from the rest of the Old Glossop ward. I concede that this was not always so – less than ten years ago the estate was still being built, and there was only a dirt track between the two halves of the estate. However, the estate is now complete, and is recognised locally as Shirebrook – a separate and cohesive area, and wholly distinct from the rest of Old Glossop ward.

The recognised boundary of the estate is Hurst Brook, which the two roads to get in and out of the estate both cross. There are enough electors on the estate to form a single seat ward, so I propose that the whole of Shirebrook Estate (1899 electors) be moved out of Old Glossop ward and a newly created single-seat ward. The roads which would move are as follows:

Appleton Drive High Bank Road Plover Close

Ashbourne Court Hillwood Drive River Bank Way

Bracken Way Holly Bank Rushmere

Bramble Bank Hurst Close Sandiway

Buttercup Close Hurst Crescent Scotty Brook Crescent

Carr Bank Hurstbrook Close Shirebrook Drive

Carr Farm Close King Cup Close Shropshire Drive

Cross Rise Langley Drive Slant Close Derwent Close Larch Way South View Road Dovedale Court Leicester Drive Stafford Close Furness Close Linacre Way Warwick Close Gloucester Way Lincoln Way Wiltshire Drive Gorse Way Lynne Close Wingfield Grove Hampshire Close Mayflower Close Winnats Close Hathersage Drive Millersdale Court Worcester Grove Hebden Drive Partington Court Yorkshire Way Heron Close Peveril Court

This would leave Old Glossop ward as a single-seat ward with 1854 electors. I believe that doing this would not only help the sense of community in both areas, but that they would also be better represented as single-seat wards, given the differences between the two areas.

7. Howard Town and Dinting

To balance out the 159 electors moved into Howard Town from Old Glossop (see section 6 above), I propose to move 146 electors from Fauvel Road, Lord Street, Fitzalan Street, Talbot Street and Norfolk Street from the northern part of Howard Town into Dinting. This would help electoral equality in both wards, and would also be better for residents on the affected roads, as they are close to focal points within Dinting such as the Army Cadet ground on Fauvel Road, and likewise, with Glossop Library currently being right on the boundary of Talbot Road, Lord Street, Spire Hollin and Fauvel Road, moving the boundary in this area would help give a greater sense of community identity.

This is in addition to the changes proposed in sections 5 (70 electors transferred from Simmondley to Dinting, and 3 electors transferred from Howard Town to Whitfield).

Buxton Proposals

Summary of Buxton Proposals

Burbage Old Total 2091 Transfer to Corbar 275 New Total 1816 New variance: +2.89%

Corbar (2 seat) Old Total 3131 Transfer from Corbar 275 Transfer to Limestone Peak 5 Transfer to Temple 93 New Total 3308 New variance: -6.29%

Cote Heath (2 seat) Old Total 3255 Transfer to Temple 10 New Total 3245 New variance: -8.07%

Limestone Peak Old Total 1918 Transfer from Corbar 5 New Total 1923 New variance: +8.95%

Temple Old Total 1551 Transfer from Corbar 93 Transfer from Cote Heath 10 New Total 1654 New variance: -6.29%

Barms No Change

Buxton Central No Change (other than name)

Stone Bench No Change

Detail of Buxton Proposals

In the Buxton area, I am in agreement with the council proposals, which change the boundaries of Temple, Corbar and Burbage wards to provide more equal electoral variance in those wards.

1. Burbage, Corbar and Temple

In Burbage, these proposals would involve moving 275 electors on Gadley Lane, Otterhole Close, Riverside Court, Wyehead Close, Wyelands Close, Springdale and St. Johns Road from Burbage into Corbar ward. This change, along with moving 93 electors on Macclesfield Road, Wye Grove and part of Burlington Road from Corbar into Temple, neatly reduces the electoral inequality in all three wards.

Furthermore, I believe each area to be transferred would be better suited in the new ward, especially given that most of the boundary between Temple and Corbar would become the Wye River, which is a natural feature and therefore an obvious boundary.

In addition, there are 10 electors in Fern Farm and Fern House who are currently in Cote Heath ward, despite having no connection to it. These would be better off moved into Temple ward, which would be better for their sense of community.

One final change which I would advocate on grounds of community is transferring 5 electors from Corbar into Limestone Peak, in the area of Blake Edge Farm. These electors are only in Corbar through a quirk of the boundaries, and are absolutely nowhere near the rest of the population of Corbar.

2. Cote Heath, Central, Stone Bench, Barms and Limestone Peak

Other than the small changes to Cote Heath and Limestone Peak which I have already outlined, I do not believe that there should be any further changes to ward boundaries in Buxton. The variances for them may not be ideal, but I strongly believe that community cohesion would be damaged by changes made solely to satisfy electoral equality.

A good example of this is Limestone Peak ward. The ward currently contains , , Small Dale, Upper Dale, Wormhill, along with other small hamlets. They all have quarries close to them and live with the consequences of that on a daily basis. There is no way to reduce the ward size without removing electors who form part of the community, and to do so would therefore greatly damage the sense of community in this ward.

One final change I will propose, however, is a slight renaming of Central ward so that it is called Buxton Central. This is what it is generally known as, and I believe it would be a sensible move to change it to the name it is known as locally.

Central Proposals

Summary of Central Proposals

Blackbrook No change

Chapel East No change

Chapel West No change

Hayfield No change

New Mills East No change

New Mills West No change

Sett No change

Whaley Bridge No change

Detail of Central Proposals

In the Central area, I am again in agreement with the council proposals that there should be no changes. The electoral equality in the eight wards is sufficient to keep the boundaries the same, and I do not believe that changing them would do anything to improve community cohesion in the wards. Indeed, in the case of some wards, it would only harm the sense of community.

A case in point is Whaley Bridge. Whilst I am against 3-seat wards in general, Whaley Bridge ward has co-terminus boundaries with Whaley Bridge Town Council, and it seems to me that community cohesion would be damaged if the boundaries were changed at this time.

I could make the same case for each of the Central area wards – there is no need to change any of the boundaries for electoral equality reasons, and I believe that the current boundaries are the best they can be at this moment in time.

Hope Valley Proposals

Hope Valley No change

I also propose no change to the Hope Valley. This area is quite different to the rest of the High Peak, as it generally looks more towards – with Sheffield postcodes and Sheffield telephone dialing codes. It is its own cohesive area, with the main towns of Hope and Castleton closely surrounded by numerous small villages and hamlets. Each share the common factor of rurality, with the entire area often almost cut off during bad weather, and I believe that a two-seat ward works very well here.