Owen, David

From: Roger Harrison-Topham Sent: 15 January 2018 15:29 To: reviews Subject: Richmondshire District Council

Review Officer (Richmondshire), The Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir,

1. I am writing to you on behalf of the parish meeting of Caldbergh with East Scrafton which in your provisional recommendations is included in the two councillor Leyburn ward. I have also been the County councillor (16 years) for the Middle Dales and a district councillor for Middleham. I was an appointee of the county council on the National Park Authority. I am a governor of the Wensleydale school, the secondary school for the area.

2. I was surprised to find that your report does not include any reference to the National Park Authority. That Authority carries out a number of functions, particularly planning which are otherwise the responsibility of the District Council. The National Park Authority also has a general duty under the Environment Act to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park. As a practical matter, it is undoubtedly the case that warding arrangements impact on the interrelationship between district councils and the National Park Authority. For example, a councillor representing a ward where only a small minority of the electorate are within the National Park boundary would be unlikely to give as much attention to the interests of that minority as they would to the majority. In particular, while they might familiarise themselves thoroughly with the Local Plan of the District Council they would be unlikely to do the same with the different Local Plan of the

1 National Park. The provisional recommendations would create precisely this situation with regard to the National Park parishes both in the proposed Leyburn ward (Coverham with Agglethorpe, Caldbergh with East Scrafton, and West Scrafton) and in the proposed lower Wensleydale ward (East Witton). There must clearly be doubt as to whether this is in accord with the statutory criteria of reflecting community interests and identities and even more that of providing for effective and convenient local government.

3. By way of specific example, there is a proposal which is likely to come before the Richmondshire district Council in the next few weeks to authorise the Council to investigate the possibility of second homes within the National Park area being subject to a penal rate of council tax, five times the norm has been discussed. Leaving merits and (the many) demerits to one side, such a proposal can clearly give rise to conflicts of interest. The allocation of housing related funds similarly gives rise to conflicts.

4. The proposal to join Middleham and Leyburn in a single ward is questionable in terms of reflecting community interests and identities. The River Ure flows between the two communities and the bridge over it has unfortunately been closed a number of occasions, sometimes for several months, most recently for three days last week. The ecclesiastical parish of Middleham also includes Coverdale, East Witton and Thornton. Steward, but, notably not Leyburn, Middleham has its own primary school which draws on Coverdale, while Leyburn also has its own primary school which does not draw children from the rest of the proposed Leyburn ward. In terms of community facilities, Middleham has a large and recently built complex of rooms and halls known as the Key Centre. The people of Coverdale tend to make use of another recently built village hall in Carlton, which is particularly used by local groups such as the mother's union and Women's Institute. Carlton in Coverdale has a particularly vibrant sense of community and recently raised more than £300,000 to fund the purchase of a community pub. Leyburn is the nearest service centre of size but is a beast of a very different sort.

5. I am keenly aware of the difficulties involved in creating new warding arrangements against the background of a very heavily reduced number of councillors (to my mind excessively reduced). However, Commissioners should be aware that Coverdale is sometimes referred to, with a degree of bitterness, as the "forgotten Dale". In this context it is very unfortunate that the Dale has had to be split between the proposed Leyburn and the Bolton Castle wards. The result is not quite so incongruous as that represented by the former Penn Hill ward which from end to end by road was 17 miles, but it still breaks the golden rule that communities in the Dales are defined by watersheds. Dales people attach special importance to being represented by persons who are neighbours, knowledgeable about their problems and their ways. A large two member non-homogeneous ward is the worst possible answer for them.

6. It is difficult to overemphasise the difference between the nature of the communities in Leyburn itself and those in the Coverdale part of the proposed ward. Leyburn has seen a very large housebuilding programme, which is still actively going forward and 2 attracting very properly a significant number of people, particularly retired people, from outside the area. By contrast, Coverdale has numerous families which have been resident for many generations and have been involved in farming and, formerly, mining over the centuries. New housing is, of course, restricted in the National Park. There are important links between rural Coverdale and Middleham, particularly in terms of racehorse training stables which are found, since the medieval period, both in Middleham itself and, in lower Coverdale. Moreover, there are family linkages between the two.

7. I hope it will prove possible for the Commissioners’ final proposals to reflect at least some of these comments.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Harrison-Topham

3