County Council

31 October 2012

Revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies in Durham

Report of Colette Longbottom, Head of Legal and Democratic Services Councillor Simon Henig, Leader of the Council

Purpose of the Report 1 To inform the Council of the next stage of the consultation procedure in relation to the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals for new parliamentary constituency boundaries in .

Background 2 The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial non- departmental public body which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The Commission is currently conducting a review on the basis of new rules laid down in Parliament, which must be adhered to when considering boundary reviews. These rules involve a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England (from 533 to 502), and requires that every constituency (apart from two specified exceptions) must have an electorate that is between 72,810 and 80,473 in size – that is 5% either side of the electoral quota of 76, 641.’ Legislation also states that when deciding on boundaries, the Commission may take into account:

a) ‘Special geographical considerations, including the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; b) Local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010; c) Boundaries of existing constituencies; and d) Any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies.’

3 Following the publication of the initial proposals, the Council, at its meeting held on 21 March 2012, authorised the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Electoral Review Working Group to prepare and submit a response to the initial proposals.

4 The Electoral Review Working Group met on 11 November 2011, where consideration was given to the initial proposals for constituency boundaries. The group debated the proposals at length and produced a list where there was broad areas of support, which included:

• general support for the inclusion of the and Dipton Electoral Division in the proposed Chester-le-Street Constituency;

• retention of the constituency name ‘North Durham’ rather than Chester- le-Street;

• no support at all for the proposed and constituency;

• support for the retention of the North West Durham Constituency with the inclusion of the Chopwell and Rowlands Gill Ward because of the historical link with Durham, rather than the Haltwhistle and South Tynedale Wards;

• support for the retention of the Constituency, to include both East and Shildon West Electoral Divisions;

• no support for linking with the Ingleby Barwick area;

• support for the inclusion of the five wards with Sedgefield;

• retention of the constituency name City of Durham for the proposed Durham constituency.

5 The group agreed that the Leader of Council raise these issues at a meeting with the Assistant Commissioner on 17 November 2011, as part of a series of public meetings.

6 A further meeting of the Electoral Review Working Group was held on 25 November 2011 where consideration was given to a number of alternative proposals, with general cross-party support for the North Durham, City of Durham, Bishop Auckland and North West Durham constituencies. Two different options for the Sedgefield and Easington areas emerged which both carried support. The group agreed that both options be submitted to the Boundary Commission for consideration. The Conservative Group produced a separate submission for consideration by the Electoral Working Group which the group failed to reach a consensus on and indicated that they would make a separate submission.

7 The Council submitted a written response to as part of the consultation process which is attached at Appendix 2.

8 On 6 March 2012, the Commission published all of the representations they received during the initial consultation period for comments (stage three). Their initial proposals attracted over 22,000 written representations and 1,100 oral representations at public hearings. Comments could be made to the Commission in relation to these representations received.

9 The Boundary Commission are now consulting on revised proposals (stage four) for an eight week period, from 16 October 2012 to 10 December 2012. This will be the final opportunity for anyone to make representations before recommendations are made to the Government.

Summary of revised changes affecting

10 The publication of the revised proposals is not too dissimilar from the Council’s submission. The main changes are as follows:

North Durham Constituency The proposed constituency is the current North Durham area with the addition of the Burnopfield and Dipton electoral division. The Commission are also recommending the retention of name ‘North Durham’ as opposed to Chester-le-Street.

City of Durham Constituency The revised proposal is for the Deerness Valley electoral division to remain in the existing City of Durham constituency. The Commission are also recommending the retention of the name ‘City of Durham’ as opposed to Durham.

North West Durham Constituency The Boundary Commission initially proposed a Consett and Barnard Castle constituency over a large geographic area stretching from the town of Barnard Castle in the south across Weardale and would include the wards of Haltwhistle and South Tynedale in Northumberland (also comprised of areas from the current North West Durham, Bishop Auckland, and Hexham areas). The revised proposal is for the existing North West Durham constituency to be retained with the addition of Chopwell and Rowlands Gill wards from Gateshead and the transfer of Burnopfield and Dipton electoral division to North Durham constituency.

Bishop Auckland Constituency The existing Bishop Auckland constituency is to be retained with the addition of Chilton and Shildon East electoral divisions (to prevent the two Shildon electoral divisions being separated into different constituencies).

Easington Constituency The proposed Easington constituency is to include the electoral division but not the Blackhalls electoral division, which is proposed to transfer to the constituency. This option was not the preferred alternative proposed in the Council’s submission, but was however, submitted as a second alternative given the potential positioning of the Trimdon electoral division.

Stockton North and Aycliffe The Commission’s initial proposals proposed a Sedgefield and Yarm constituency running north–south from the towns of Sedgefield and in County Durham, through the wards of and Whessoe, and in , to Yarm and other areas in Stockton-on-Tees.

It is apparent that there has been much debate with regard to the Sedgefield, Yarm, Stockton and Billingham areas which has resulted in a revised proposal of a Stockton and Billingham constituency which would include ten wards from the existing Stockton North constituency, together with Sedgefield, Aycliffe East, Aycliffe North, and Aycliffe West electoral divisions and be named ‘Stockton North and Aycliffe’. The Commission are of the opinion that two existing Stockton constituencies and the existing Sedgefield constituency better reflect existing local government boundaries.

Recommendation 11 That the Council delegate responsibility to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to submit a response to the revised proposals, if appropriate, in consultation with the Electoral Review Working Group.

Background papers

The Boundary Commission for England – North East Initial proposals for Parliamentary boundaries.

Report to Council – March 2012

Contact: Colette Longbottom Tel: 0191 383 5363

Appendix 1: Implications

Finance None

Staffing None

Risk None

Equality and Diversity / Public Sector Equality Duty None

Accommodation None

Crime and Disorder None

Human Rights None

Consultation None

Procurement None

Disability Issues None

Legal Implications None

APPENDIX 2

Durham County Councils’ alternative proposals

In relation to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Chester-le-Street constituency, Members were minded to agree with the overall layout, however they felt North Durham should be retained as the name for the constituency.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the North Durham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed North Durham Constituency (BC proposed Chester-le-Street Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Annfield Plain Durham 6,102 Burnopfield and Dipton Durham 6,378 Chester-le-Street North and Durham 6,747 East Chester-le-Street South Durham 6,683 Chester-le-Street West Durham 6,066 Central Craghead and South Moor Durham 5,790 Lumley Durham 5,961 Ouston and Durham 6,190 Pelton Durham 6,616 Durham 5,329 Stanley Durham 6,646 Tanfield Durham 6,829 75,337

In relation to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Durham constituency, Members were in agreement that the Deerness Valley ward with 7,494 electors should be removed from the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency and included in the proposed Durham constituency. In return Members agreed that the Trimdon ward with 5,960 electors should be removed from the proposed Durham constituency and included in either the Sedgefield or Easington constituency, however this will be discussed in further details when addressing the two alternative proposals for these two constituencies. Members also felt City of Durham should be retained as the name for the constituency, for historic reasons.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the North Durham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed City of Durham Constituency (BC proposed Durham Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Belmont Durham 5,074 Brandon Durham 7,453 Durham 5,444 Durham South Durham 5,183 Deerness Valley Durham 7,494 Elvet Durham 7,685 Durham 7,424 Durham 7,860 Gilesgate Durham 5,964 Neville’s Cross Durham 7,035 Newton Hall Durham 6,175 Sherburn Durham 7,292 80,083

There are a number of proposed changes to be made to the Boundary Commission’s proposed Bishop Auckland constituency. The first change would see the proposed Durham constituency take the Deerness Valley ward with 7,494 electors, from the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency. The second change would see the Barnard Castle East ward with 6,929 electors, the Barnard Castle West ward with 6,553 electors and the Evenwood ward with 6,623 electors moved to the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency from the proposed Consett and Barnard Castle constituency. In return the proposed Consett and North West Durham constituency would take the Crook North and ward with 5,922 electors, the Crook South ward with 6,666 electors and the Willington ward with 7,140 electors, from the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency. In all of these cases the Commission should note that as a result of our proposals, wards will remain within existing parliamentary constituencies therefore preserving established local ties.

The third change would see the Shildon East ward with 6,799 electors moved from the proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency to prevent the two Shildon wards from being separated into different constituencies, which would preserve community links. Therefore the proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency will have a total of 78,845 electors within the constituency.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Bishop Auckland constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Bishop Auckland Constituency (BC proposed Bishop Auckland Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Barnard Castle East Durham 6,929 Barnard Castle West Durham 6,553 Bishop Auckland Town Durham 6,230 Chilton Durham 7,105 Coundon Durham 5,342 Evenwood Durham 6,623 Shildon East Durham 6,799 Shildon West Durham 5,615 and Durham 7,631 Middlestone Moor Tudhoe Durham 7,224 Durham 6,498 Woodhouse Close Durham 6,296 78,845

Members felt that the inclusion of Haltwhistle and South Tyndale in this constituency would create a large geographic area with no logical connection between these towns and the towns of Consett and Barnard Castle. Members feel there is no historic connection between these towns and the creation of this large constituency will bring together different communities with no common interest or cultural ties. Members also wish to raise the lack of transport and community links between these towns, which would be extremely challenging for an MP to serve.

There are two proposed changes to be made to the Boundary Commission’s proposed Consett and Barnard Castle constituency. The first change would see the Haltwhistle ward with 3,868 electors, and the South Tynedale ward with 3,956 electors moved back to proposed Hexham constituency. In return the proposed Consett and North West Durham constituency would take the Chopwell and Rowlands Gill ward with 7,269 electors, from the proposed Hexham constituency.

The second change would see the Barnard Castle East ward with 6,929 electors, the Barnard Castle West ward with 6,553 electors and the Evenwood ward with 6,623 electors moved to the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency. In return the proposed Consett and Barnard Castle constituency would take the Crook North and Tow Law ward with 5,922 electors, the Crook South ward with 6,666 electors and the Willington ward with 7,140 electors, from the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency. Members also felt due to the removal of the Barnard Castle Wards from this constituency, North West Durham should be retained as the name for the constituency.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the North West Durham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed North West Durham Constituency (BC proposed Consett and Barnard Castle Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Benfieldside Durham 5,203 Consett North Durham 6,787 Crook North and Tow Law Durham 5,922 Crook South Durham 6,666 Delves lane and Consett Durham 8,788 South Esh Durham 5,186 Lanchester Durham 6,154 Leadgate & Medomsley Durham 7,694 Weardale Durham 6,842 Willington Durham 7,140 Chopwell and Rowlands Gill Gateshead 7,269 73,651

In relation to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Hexham constituency, Members proposed that the Haltwhistle ward with 3,868 electors and the South Tynedale ward with 3,956 electors would move back to proposed Hexham

constituency. In return the proposed Consett and North West Durham constituency would take the Chopwell and Rowlands Gill ward with 7,269 electors, from the proposed Hexham constituency as Members felt Durham had greater historical links and boundaries with this ward.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Hexham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Hexham Constituency (BC proposed Hexham Constituency)

Consequent upon the proposals for North West Durham

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Crawcrook and Greenside Gateshead 6,764 Ryton, Crookhill and Stella Gateshead 6,399 Bellingham Northumberland 3,277 Bywell Northumberland 3,558 Corbridge Northumberland 3,477 Haltwhistle Northumberland 3,868 Haydon and Hadrian Northumberland 3,517 Hexham Central and Acomb Northumberland 3,237 Hexham East Northumberland 3,435 Hexham West Northumberland 3,539 Humshaugh Northumberland 3,772 Ponteland North Northumberland 3,488 Ponteland South with Northumberland 3,560 Heddon Ponteland West Northumberland 3,359 Prudhoe East Northumberland 4,454 Prudhoe West Northumberland 3,760 Rothbury Northumberland 4,157 South Tynedale Northumberland 3,956 Stocksfield and Northumberland 3,915 Broomhaugh 75,492

Alternative proposal one for the Easington and Sedgefield constituencies

In the first alternative proposal for the proposed Easington and Sedgefield constituencies, Members made no changes to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Easington constituency.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Easington constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Easington Constituency (BC proposed Easington Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electo rate Blackhalls Durham 6,203 Durham 5,340 Deneside Durham 5,553 Easington Durham 6,150 Horden Durham 6,478 Murton Durham 6,087 East Durham 5,897 Peterlee West Durham 5,669 Durham 6,949 Shotton Durham 7,172 Thornley Durham 5,740 Wingate Durham 8,361 75,599

In relation to the proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency, Members propose to make a number of changes to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal. The first change would see the Shildon East ward with 6,799 electors moved to the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency to prevent the two Shildon wards from being separated into different constituencies, which would preserve community links.

The second change would also see the Trimdon ward with 5,960 electors moved from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Durham constituency to the County Council’s proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency.

The third change would see the Ingleby Barwick East ward with 7,498 electors, the Ingleby Barwick West ward with 7,457 electors and the Parkfield and Oxbridge ward with 4,953 electors moved to the proposed Stockton and Billingham constituency. In return the proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency would take the Billingham Central ward with 5,267 electors, the Billingham East ward with 5,321 electors, the Billingham South ward with 4,972, the Billingham West ward with 4,828 electors and the Northern Parishes ward with 2,695 electors, from the proposed Stockton and Billingham constituency.

Members felt strongly that Trimdon should be included in the Sedgefield and Billingham constituency as there is stronger community and transport links with this area. In addition to this, the provision of schooling and health care in Trimdon is also provided in the Sedgefield area, therefore concluding that it should be included in the Sedgefield constituency, rather than the proposed Durham or Easington constituencies.

Members also felt that as a large part of this constituency now includes Billingham, the name of the constituency should be changed to the Sedgefield and Billingham constituency to reflect this.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Sedgefield and Billingham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Sedgefield and Billingham Constituency (BC proposed Sedgefield and Yarm Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Middleton St George Darlington 3,514 Sadberge and Whessoe Darlington 1,625 Aycliffe East Durham 5,042 Aycliffe North Durham 6,338 Aycliffe West Durham 5,666 Sedgefield Durham 5,644 Trimdon Durham 5,960 Billingham South Stockton-on-Tees 4,972 Billingham East Stockton-on-Tees 5,321 Billingham West Stockton-on-Tees 4,828 Billingham Central Stockton-on-Tees 5,267 Stockton-on-Tees 8,288

Northern Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,695 Western Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,630 Yarm Stockton-on-Tees 7,756 75,546

Proposed Stockton Constituency (BC proposed Stockton and Billingham Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree Stockton-on-Tees 5,304 Fairfield Stockton-on-Tees 4,837 Grangefield Stockton-on-Tees 5,324 Hardwick Stockton-on-Tees 4,842 Hartburn Stockton-on-Tees 5,480 Ingleby Barwick East Stockton-on-Tees 7,498 Ingleby Barwick West Stockton-on-Tees 7,457 Newtown Stockton-on-Tees 4,954 Norton North Stockton-on-Tees 5,036 Norton South Stockton-on-Tees 4,896 Norton West Stockton-on-Tees 5,206 Parkfield and Oxbridge Stockton-on-Tees 4,953 Roseworth Stockton-on-Tees 5,156 Stockton Town Centre Stockton-on-Tees 4,206 75,149

Alternative proposal two for the Easington and Sedgefield Constituencies

In the second alternative proposal for the proposed Easington and Sedgefield constituencies, Members proposed to make two changes to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Easington constituency. The first change would see the Blackhalls ward with 6,203 electors moved to the proposed Hartlepool constituency.

The second change would see the Trimdon ward with 5,960 electors moved from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Durham constituency to the County Council’s proposed Easington constituency.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Easington constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Easington Constituency (BC proposed Easington Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Dawdon Durham 5,340 Deneside Durham 5,553 Easington Durham 6,150 Horden Durham 6,478 Murton Durham 6,087 Peterlee East Durham 5,897 Peterlee West Durham 5,669 Seaham Durham 6,949 Shotton Durham 7,172 Thornley Durham 5,740 Trimdon Durham 5,960 Wingate Durham 8,361 75,356

In relation to the proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency, Members propose to make a number of changes to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal. The first change would see the Shildon East ward with 6,799 electors moved to the proposed Bishop Auckland constituency to prevent the two Shildon wards from being separated into different constituencies, which would preserve community links.

The second change would see the Billingham North ward with 7,324 electors moved from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Hartlepool constituency to the County Council’s proposed Sedgefield and Billingham constituency.

The third change would also see the Billingham Central ward with 5,267 electors, the Billingham East ward with 5,321 electors, the Billingham South ward with 4,972, the Billingham West ward with 4,828 electors and the Northern Parishes ward with 2,695 electors, moved from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Stockton and Billingham constituency to the County Council’s proposed Sedgefield and Billingham constituency. In return the Boundary Commission’s proposed Stockton and Billingham constituency would take the Ingleby Barwick East ward with 7,498 electors, the Ingleby Barwick West ward with 7,457 electors and the Parkfield and Oxbridge ward with 4,953 electors, from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Sedgefield and Yarm constituency.

Members also felt that as a large part of this constituency now includes Billingham, the name of the constituency should be changed to the Sedgefield and Billingham constituency to reflect this.

The table below shows the County Council’s proposal for the Sedgefield and Billingham constituency, including the wards and the number of electors to be contained within that constituency:

Proposed Sedgefield and Billingham Constituency (BC proposed Sedgefield and Yarm Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Middleton St George Darlington 3,514 Sadberge and Whessoe Darlington 1,625 Aycliffe East Durham 5,042 Aycliffe North Durham 6,338 Aycliffe West Durham 5,666 Sedgefield Durham 5,644 Billingham North Stockton-on-Tees 7,324 Billingham South Stockton-on-Tees 4,972 Billingham East Stockton-on-Tees 5,321 Billingham West Stockton-on-Tees 4,828 Billingham Central Stockton-on-Tees 5,267 Eaglescliffe Stockton-on-Tees 8,288 Northern Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,695 Western Parishes Stockton-on-Tees 2,630 Yarm Stockton-on-Tees 7,756 76,910

In relation to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal for the Hartlepool constituency, Members proposes that the Blackhalls ward with 6,203 electors be moved to the Hartlepool constituency from the Boundary Commission’s proposed

Easington constituency, otherwise the electorate for this constituency would be below the Commission’s stipulated levels.

Proposed Hartlepool Constituency (BC proposed Hartlepool Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Blackhalls Durham 6,203 Brus Hartlepool 4,895 Burn Valley Hartlepool 4,120 Dyke House Hartlepool 3,523 Elwick Hartlepool 1,700 Fens Hartlepool 4,068 Foggy Furze Hartlepool 3,845 Grange Hartlepool 4,127 Greatham Hartlepool 1,690 Hart Hartlepool 5,262 Owton Hartlepool 4,116 Park Hartlepool 4,672 Rift House Hartlepool 4,742 Rossmere Hartlepool 4,871 St Hilda Hartlepool 4,353 Seaton Hartlepool 5,323 Stranton Hartlepool 3,998 Throston Hartlepool 4,705 76,213

Proposed Stockton Constituency (BC proposed Stockton and Billingham Constituency)

Ward Districts/boroughs/city/county Electorate Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree Stockton-on-Tees 5,304 Fairfield Stockton-on-Tees 4,837 Grangefield Stockton-on-Tees 5,324 Hardwick Stockton-on-Tees 4,842 Hartburn Stockton-on-Tees 5,480 Ingleby Barwick East Stockton-on-Tees 7,498 Ingleby Barwick West Stockton-on-Tees 7,457 Newtown Stockton-on-Tees 4,954 Norton North Stockton-on-Tees 5,036 Norton South Stockton-on-Tees 4,896 Norton West Stockton-on-Tees 5,206 Parkfield and Oxbridge Stockton-on-Tees 4,953 Roseworth Stockton-on-Tees 5,156 Stockton Town Centre Stockton-on-Tees 4,206 75,149