Councillors, Mps and Political Groups' Submissions to the Durham County

Councillors, MPs and political groups’ submissions to the Durham County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 31 submissions from councillors, MPs and political groups in County Durham.

Some versions of Adobe Acrobat allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

From: Beaty Bainbridge Sent: 31 July 2011 15:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham Review

Dear Sir/Madam,

As one of the Councillors for the current Chester‐Le‐Street North & East I have recently received a copy of Durham County Council’s latest submission with regard to the boundary review being carried out. Upon reading the submission I felt it only correct that certain remarks within the document did not reflect an accurate scenario. I would therefore like to point out what I believe you should be aware of.

“The Council has stated that they have received no representations in respect of the Local Government Boundary Commission’s further draft recommendations for those Electoral Divisions identified in Appendix ‘A’.”

This statement is not quite correct, the Council was notified of a wish to remove the three wards of, Chester‐Le‐Street North, Chester‐Le‐Street East and North Lodge from Appendix ‘A’ and place them into Appendix ‘C’ as it was obvious that these wards in their proposed form did not have full support of the people and did not have all party support within the County Council. The request was refused and subsequently an amendment was tabled at Full Council on the 27th July 2011 requesting the three aforementioned wards be transferred from Appendix ‘A’ to Appendix ‘C’ to enable a debate on the proposals. This amendment was voted down by the majority group, however it should be noted that 28.4% of the County Councillors agreed that those wards should be removed from ’Appendix ‘A as it was providing the Boundary Review with an inaccurate list for consideration.

With regard to an alternative to the proposed three single member wards, I would urge you, as numerous local residents have, revert to your previous proposal as shown in the September 2009 document, that a three member ward be implemented. The three member ward would not have any effect on other boundaries within the area, it would take in the extremity boundaries of Chester‐Le‐Street North, Chester‐Le‐Street East and North Lodge and would only require the internal boundaries to be removed

I hope that this information will assist you in your deliberation and I am sure that you will not take it for granted that Appendix ‘A’ reflects a true picture.

Thanking You as always.

Thanking you Cllr Beaty Bainbridge Tel:

incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.

-----Original Message----- From: Jim Cordon [mailto:] Sent: 26 July 2011 09:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: New Electoral Arrangements for County Durham Local Elections

For Review Officer - County Durham

Dear Sir/Madam, It has been proposed that a new 3 member ward be created in the northern part of Co Durham, comprising of Pelton, Ouston, and Urpeth. Further, I understand the name of of "BEAMISH" has been suggested to describe this new arrangement. Whilst I agree with the formation, as making good sense,I disagree with the name Beamish. Beamish is a tiny settlement lying some 2 miles to the west of Pelton Ouston and Urpeth. Local people in these areas will find this description very odd indeed. Beamish comprises if a single small main street, with a few side streets. The settlement comprises of approximately 100 houses, if that. I would like to suggest a better title, "CHESTER RURAL NORTH" be used to describe the collection of Pelton, Ouston, and Urpeth. This title connects us to Chester -le-Street, our main market town, the three locations ARE rural, and we ARE located on the northern edge of Chester -le - streetm I would be most grateful if consideration could be given to my suggestion. Yours sincerely, Regards Jim

Durham County Councillor [email protected]

Home 0191 4820006 Mobile 07500 125281

Pelton, Newfield, Perkinsville, Blind Lane, Park Road North area, Picktree Village, Picktree Lodge, Lombard Drive area, Long Dean Park, North Road, Wear Lodge , Kingsmere and local area.

From: Ossie Johnson Sent: 05 July 2011 17:20 To: Reviews@ Cc: Richie Young Subject: Durham Boundary Review

Dear Sir With reference to the draft recommendations for the Lanchester Division in NW Durham I would like to support the Commission’s proposals for the following reasons:

1) Lanchester division is a parished area encompassing five parish councils who historically are linked with the largest Quality Parish Council of Lanchester. The local communities represented by these parishes, whilst having their own unique identities, share common goals and ambitions working together to solve common problems. 2) Accepting that the division would have a variance of 7% fewer electors per councillor it would be hoped that the commission would accept that the geographical area covered by the division, stretching from the Northumberland border to within four miles of Durham City, is a considerable rural area to be covered by two councillors. 3) With regards to the name of Lanchester for the division , the communities in the division historically associate themselves with the largest village in the division which is Lanchester so the name is correct for this division. I am commenting on these proposals as one of the two councillors representing this division and have consulted with my colleague Richard Young who is in agreement with the sentiments which I have expressed. I am a Labour councillor and Richard is an Independent councillor we work closely together and this is the only way we can cover the work of representing the citizens of our division if we were to be spread any more thinly it would result in a poorer service to our communities. I hope that my comments will assist you in your final decisions. Regards Ossie Johnson.

From: Peter May [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2011 12:11 To: Reviews@ Cc: Stephen Hann Subject: Boundary Review (County Durham) areas of Pelton ,Ouston and Urpeth - suggested division name of Beamish

Dear Sirs

I wish to object to the Boundary Commissions recommendations in their latest draft document that :Pelton, Ouston and Urpeth will form a new division to be called Beamish. The villages within this catchment area including Newfield have very little in common with the village called Beamish, which is picturesque, very small and considered an affluent community. Whilst there are many other areas of quality within the proposed new division, there are also areas of financial need. My concern is that by association with Beamish in the “Electoral Division Name “ needy areas will miss out on any governmental help.

I would like to suggest that the name Beamish be removed from the suggested title and be replaced by “Chester Le Street Rural North West” which is an accurate description of the area.

Regards

Peter

Peter May Durham County Councillor Pelton and North Lodge Areas 01913880572 07500125339 council mobile 07720372841 personnal mobile

Pelton, Newfield, Perkinsville, Blind Lane, Park Road North area, Camperdown Avenue, Picktree Village, Picktree Lodge, Lombard Drive area, North Road, Wear Lodge , Kingsmere and local area.

Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept respons bility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.

From: John Shiell Sent: 06 July 2011 18:00 To: Reviews@ Cc: Colin Turnbull Subject: Electoral Review of County Durham

Dear Sir Thank you for your letter of 24th May 2011. I wish to confirm that I continue to support the proposals concerning the Chester-le-Street area, ie 3 single councillor divisions covering Chester-le-Street North, Chester-le-Street East, and North Lodge. I remain convinced that the residents of these areas identify much more with their localities than the wider area. I find that as time has elapsed there is even greater support from residents for this option. Many thanks Cllr John Shiell Chester-le-Street North and East Division

-----Original Message----- From: Mark Wilkes Sent: 08 June 2011 15:47 To: Reviews@ Cc: Rev Crooks; John Wilkinson Subject: DURHAM - ELECTORAL REVIEW FRAMWELLGATE MOOR DIVISION

Dear Sirs

As one of the elected County Councillors for the Framwellgate Moor Division of Durham County Council I would like the following to be taken into account in your final consultations regarding the Electoral Boundary Review for County Durham.

The Framwellgate Moor Division is to be split in three directions.

Framwellgate Moor Parish: (Covering Brasside, Finchale Abbey Village, Pity Me, Framwellgate Moor)

I broadly support your proposals for a three member Newton Hall & Framwellgate Division as more geographically sensible proposal, bringing part of Framwellgate Moor currently in Newton Hall division back into the same area in respect of County Divisions.

Witton Gilbert: I am uncomfortable with your proposals for this village. The proposals for three member Division including Witton Gilbert, Sacriston and Langley Park, would not fit well with ensuring representation. Each village is of a different size and potentially all three Councillors could end up being from Sacriston to the detriment of Witton Gilbert and Langley Park. That said, I understand that the deviation of placing Witton Gilbert with Sacriston is too great when using the 10% margin of error. It is clear that creating electoral balance should not always be the most important factor, and so I would prefer to see one one member and one two member division for this area.

Bearpark: I am strongly against your proposals for a three member division for Bearpark

It is clear that with it not being possible for Bearpark to remain with Framwellgate Moor, it is necessary to create the best option for the village. I believe that Bearpark under a new boundary will be better served being with New Brancepeth, Broompark and Ushaw Moor which geographically are within a mile of each other. Equally many residents in Bearpark have an affinity with Ushaw Moor. This area would be a two member division with an electoral deviation of only +5.6%

The Villages of Esh Winning and Waterhouses would then form a one member division with an electoral deviation of +7.6%, well within your margins.

It concerns me that at present both County Councillors are from Esh Winning in the current Division (which excludes Bearpark). If this were to happen again then even more villages would have no councillor living in the area, damaging your intentions to ensure electoral balance and improve democracy. Also Esh Winning is around 3 miles from the other villages.

There is no sensible reason for creating a three member division for this area.

Please accept these comments as my submission in relation to your review.

Kind regards Mark

County Councillor Mark Wilkes

Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.

From: Carol Woods Sent: 14 June 2011 12:57 To: Reviews@ Subject: Durham County Council - Sherburn ward

Further to my previous comments on the review for Durham County Council – Sherburn Ward, I would like to confirm that the proposals that the Commission has put forward in the last draft published at the end of May for Sherburn Ward are by far the best option.

I am grateful to the Commission for responding to representation from local members and parish councils. The proposals allow a group of villages that have many links to stay in one ward and will make communication and the job of the county councillors representing them more effective.

I hope that this is the final option for Sherburn.

Best wishes Carol Woods

Cllr Carol Woods

31st July 2011

Dear Sir

Re: Durham County Council Boundary Review‐ Chester‐le‐Street

You will shortly be getting the DCC response to the latest phase of the review. It will state that the Council supports your most recent recommendations for 3 single member wards.

2. Chester‐le‐Street North 1 3. Chester‐le‐Street East 1 4. North Lodge 1

I wrote in at the previous stage stating that I did not agree with this proposal.

I would like to make it clear that the Council’s support for this option is that of the majority group, and that the Conservative Group continues to oppose this option, believing that it does not reflect the identities and interests of local Communities.

The Conservative Group urges the Boundary Commission to finalise the 3 member division of Chester North East ( Option 2 ) from your February 2010 Draft Further clarification of electoral division boundaries in Chester North.

We submit that the 3 member ward is very supportive of community links because the whole town shares services; North Lodge has no facilities of its own. In particular:

The principal shopping facilities are centred in Front Street and down at the market place. There is a convenience shop in South Pelaw but no PO and no shops in North Lodge. The difficulties of parking in order to go shopping and maintaining bus routes are common to all residents in Chester North.

The two doctors surgeries that serve all residents are both near the south end of Front Street, one at Middle Chare and one at Bridge End by the market, again with parking problems and traffic congestion. The only hospital is also within the Chester North East Division.

The only Leisure Centre in Chester‐le‐Street near Low Chare serves all residents.

The Community Centre on Newcastle Road is used by all residents and community groups such as youth clubs and the elderly from all of northern Chester‐le‐Street. • Four Residents Associations cover the whole area of the town..

The only places of worship in the Town are central and serve the whole town. the Bethell United Reform Church, the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church in Ropery Lane, the Salvation Army at Low Chare Road, the Evangelist Church at Coronation Terrace and the historic parish church of St Mary’s and St Cuthbert’s in Middle Chare all within Chester NE division.

The schools and the areas they serve do not support single member wards‐ primary children go to Cestria School at Church Chare, Red Rose near Ropery Lane, South Pelaw Juniors and Infants and the CatholicSchool in Ropery Lane. Children then go to Park View Community School in North Lodge, from homes in South Pelaw, Riverside, North Lodge and North End, and to the Park View secondary school site in Middle Chare or the Hermitage School, proving strong links across the Chester North East Division for families with children of all ages, moving between schools.

Public rights of way and footpaths support a larger three member ward. For children to get to all the schools, across from South Pelaw by Northlands roundabout, from North End up Newcastle Road across Blind Lane to Park View Community School, and Hermitage School to the south. All within the division.

If you study the access roads for the housing estates built since the 1970s, it is seen that North Lodge is but a suburb and in no sense has the geography of a self‐contained cohesive community.

Since the residents became aware of the proposal to carve up Chester‐le‐Street into single member wards with artificial and disruptive boundaries, we have been struck by how concerned people are about this prospect.

The above points show that there is considerable evidence of this strong community identity for the 3 member division of Chester North East ( Option 2 ) from your Draft Proposals.

We, the DCC Conservative Group, request you to make this the final boundary.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Richard Bell

Leader, DCC Conservative Group

From: Richard Bell Sent: 29 July 2011 20:53 To: Reviews@; Jessica Metheringham Subject: DCC Boundary Review - Sherburn Division

You will shortly be getting the DCC response to the latest phase of the review. It will state that the Council supports moving the village of Ludworth into Sherburn.

I would like to make it clear that the Council’s support for this option is that of the majority group, and that Opposition Groups oppose this option, believing that it does not reflect the identities and interests of local Communities.

We support the proposal in the May 2011 draft for the new Sherburn division together with the transfer of Ludworth village to Thornley and Trimdon. We oppose the County Council proposal to retain Ludworth in the Sherburn division as the numerical discrepancies of over 15% that this would cause cannot be justified on any rational grounds.

In community terms, Ludworth, while part of the Shadforth Parish, is distant from the other two villages in this parish council area and has easier direct links with Thornley supporting the case for the draft recommendation. ‐‐‐‐‐‐

Regards, Richard Bell County Cllr, Barnard Castle West Division, Durham County Council, Conservative Group Leader

Patrick Conway Durham City Labour Party CLP Secretary The Miners’ Hall Redhills, Flass Street Durham DH1 4BD T: (0191) 383 2094

Review Officer 30 July 2011 Durham Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Laydon House 76 -86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir/Madam

This Constituency Labour Party has carefully considered the further draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Durham County Council. At its meeting last night the General Committee agreed to support the views contained in Durham County Council’s submission relating to divisions in this parliamentary constituency, apart from those relating to Belmont and Elvet & Gilesgate electoral divisions

We were pleased to see in February 2010 that the Commission had been able to accommodate our wishes: that historic Gilesgate should not be excluded from the proposed Gilesgate Division but should instead be included in the proposed 2 member ‘Cathedral Division’ which would be better named as Elvet & Gilesgate Division.

The Boundary Commission’s latest recommendations have had to deal with the County Council’s significantly revised population estimates and forecasts for Durham City. It is puzzling that the County Council forecasts a loss of 357 electors in Belmont in the next 5 years – we wonder which housing areas are expected to be demolished. Nevertheless, the Commission has decided to accept the Council’s electorate projections as the best estimate that can reasonably be made at this time, such that “a two-member Elvet & Gilesgate would currently contain 29% more electors and would contain 30% more electors than the average by 2016.”

This is a huge upwards revision in the estimates and follows an exercise between the County Council and the University of Durham to track down and register all students. It appears about 1,700 additional students have been registered. It is also apparent that the University’s expectations about the future of student numbers has changed, given that the electorate was previously expected to fall by 92 and now is expected to increase by 319 by the year 2016.

The Commission overcomes this revision by transferring 1,500 electors from Elvet & Gilesgate to Belmont, in effect by transferring out what is known here as ‘the Gilesgate Estate’. We are distressed by this suggestion. The Gilesgate Estate belongs in Gilesgate, not Belmont. Also, the reduced Elvet & Gilesgate Electoral Division would be so dominated by student voters that it becomes a University Rotten Borough and might as well be called University ED.

So we propose a similar solution, but with the transfers being the other way. Our proposal comprises 3 elements: (1) that the Gilesgate Estate stay in Gilesgate, thereby reclaiming these 1,500 electors; (2) that we retain the 1,450 electors of the Pelaw Ward that the Commission proposes to transfer to Belmont; and (c) to transfer in about 720 electors in the Kepier Crescent/Pilgrims Way section of Gilesgate Moor (see attached map). This added area from the Gilesgate Moor ward of Belmont Parish Council consists of the two blocks of streets Kepier Crescent/Whitwell Court/Sharp Crescent/Wilson Crescent and Pilgrims Way/Deans Walk/ Prebends Field/Abbots Row/Friars Row/Nuns Row/Monks Crescent. This has the added virtue of including Gilesgate Secondary School in Gilesgate rather than Belmont Division having both Gilesgate and Belmont Secondary Schools.

The resulting electorates and ratios to Councillors are in the following table.

Divisio Number Electora Number Varianc Electora Numbe Varian n name of te of e te r of ce councill (2011) electors from (2016) elector from ors per average s per averag councill % council e % or lor

30Elvet & 3 10,465 3,488 +8% 10,784 3,595 +10% Gilesgate 7Belmont 2 7,213 3,607 +12% 6,862 3,437 +5%

TOTALS 5 17,678 3,536 +9% 17,646 3,529 +8%

County 3,234 3,268 average

We appreciate that a 10% variance in 2016 is not ideal, but other recommended Electoral Divisions for Durham City are in the same class – Framwellgate Moor & Newton Hall ED and Nevilles Cross ED both have 11% variance in 2016.

We trust that this proposal finds favour in achieving good electoral equality and at the same time improving the historic and community integrity of the new electoral divisions in this part of County Durham.

Yours sincerely

Patrick Conway

CLP Secretary.

THE LABOUR PARTY North Durham Constituency

c/o The Fulforth Centre Sacriston Co. Durham DH7 6JQ

31 July 2011 Review Officer Durham Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir/ Madam

FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

I write in response to the above electoral review, which will affect the local electoral divisions within North Durham constituency.

The Constituency Labour Party (CLP) is supportive of the proposals suggested for Stanley, with the existing two member wards being retained, as the current boundaries strike a good balance between recognising distinct communities and also ensuring something close to electoral equality.

In Chester-le-Street, the CLP welcomes the changes proposed to the electoral divisions at the north end of town, where three single member wards would be created. Particularly in the case of North Lodge, which has a strong sense of community identity distinct from neighbouring parts of the town, We believe a single member ward would be welcomed. It would also be preferable to both the previously suggested, enlarged, three-member North and East division, and, indeed, the current boundary linking with the village of Pelton. Similarly, the CLP would agree with the proposal to move Pelton into a new ward with Ouston and Urpeth, on the grounds that they have stronger community ties, and also more obvious geographical and communication links.

The CLP is not supportive of the proposed change to the Sacriston division.

 Sacriston has no affinity with Langley Park.  The distance between the two villages is 3 miles with poor public transport links between the two.  Langley Park has like for like amenities and facilities with Sacriston and the residents of Witton Gilbert and Langley Park do not tend to use the amenities and facilities in Sacriston.  The ward would be too large geographically.  The boundary would cross 3 constituencies

As an alternative the CLP is supportive of Durham County Councils proposal that Sacriston is joined with Edmondsley for the following reasons:

 The proposal from Durham County Council is co-terminus with the polling districts  The proposal is supported by County Councillors Allen Turner and Anne Wright, Sacriston Community & Sports Trust, Sacriston Parish Council, Kimblesworth Parish Council, Kevan Jones MP and North Durham Constituency Labour Party.  Edmondsley and Sacriston have a natural affinity.

Yours faithfully

Heather Liddle North Durham CLP Secretary THE LABOUR PARTY Sacriston, Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Branch

31 July 2011 Review Officer Durham Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir/ Madam

FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

Introduction

It has been proposed by the Boundary Commission that the Sacriston, Kimblesworth and Plawsworth ward be joined with Witton Gilbert and Langley Park. The Sacriston branch of North Durham Constituency Labour party does not support the Boundary Commissions proposal for the following reasons:

Instead we support Durham County Councils proposal that Sacriston is joined with Edmondsley for the following reasons:

Further comments to support the request to join Sacriston, Kimblesworth and Plawsworth with Edmondsley:

Like for Like Facilities Edmondsley does not have any of the amenities and facilities that Sacriston has. Residents from Edmondsley tend to either walk or bus into the Sacriston to access services rather than travelling the extra short distance to Durham or Chester-le-Street to access services.

Public Transport Links - Buses Both Sacriston and Edmondsley jointly form part of the bus route to the North/South and East/West of the north east. The outcome of a feasibility study and value for money exercise resulted in buses through Sacriston from Langley Park/Witton Gilbert being drastically decreased to once per hour, none after 8pm and none on weekends. The service was severely underused because residents from Witton Gilbert and Langley Park do not travel to or through Sacriston.

THE LABOUR PARTY Sacriston, Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Branch

Community Links The main road to Durham and Stanley is the B6532 which connects both villages together.

Communities in both Sacriston and Edmondsley are serviced by the same Medical Centre; police team secondary school, voluntary groups, churches and fire station.

Secondary School Edmondsley falls within the catchment area of Fyndoune Community College and is within a safe walking distance for pupils when pupils who attend Edmondsley Primary move into year 7. Edmondsley Primary is part of the same local schools cluster and Fyndoune in Sacriston.

Durham Constabulary The police team based at Sacriston & Chester-le-Street police station also cover Plawsworth, Kimblesworth and Edmondsley. Witton Gilbert and Langley Park’s policing team is based elsewhere.

The local PACT (Police and Communities Together) meeting for the above villages is held jointly and centrally at the Fulforth Centre in Sacriston.

Medical Centre Sacriston Medical Centre is the registered GP and dental practice for residents of Sacriston, Kimblesworth, Plawsworth and Edmondsley. The health visitors, midwives and other healthcare professionals provide support and advice to parents and carers who primarily live in either Sacriston, Edmondsley, Kimblesworth or Plawsworth. Parents and carers in Witton Gilbert and Langley Park tend to access these services in Framwellgate Moor or Lanchester.

I would be grateful if you could consider the above comments.

Yours faithfully

Simon Wilson Branch Secretary Durham County Council Boundary review City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats wish to make the following comments about the draft proposals published in May 2011. Number of seats allocated to Durham City The final recommendations of May 2100 were made necessary because of previous significant under-registration of voters in Durham City, mainly from unregistered student houses. As a result of a great deal of effort by Council officer, for which they should be congratulated, the December 2010 registration appears to be as complete as might reasonably be possible. The result has been an increase of almost 4,000 in the electoral register for the City of Durham constituency, equivalent to more than an additional member on the quantum being used. While the new divisions no longer have to respect former district council boundaries, and several of the proposed new divisions do cross those old boundaries, nonetheless, it is possible to analyse the excesses over part of the City area with striking results. Consider the following table for the four ‘City area’ divisions: Members 2011 2016 Belmont 3 10883 10532 Elvet & Gilesgate 2 6795 7114 Framwellgate & Newton Hall 3 10457 10867 Neville's Cross 2 7031 7268 Totals 10 37177 37797

Quantum 3234 3268 Aggregated quantum 32340 32680

Excess 4837 5117 Excess/quantum 1.50 1.57

It must be noted that these four proposed divisions are contiguous and that the cumulative excess shows that this small area of the County is under-represented by more than one seat. If the area considered is widened to include Brandon, Durham South, Ushaw Moor & Bearpark, and Sherburn, the cumulative excess rises to 6485 (2.10 seats) in 2011 and 7239 (2.22 seats) in 2016. Again all form a contiguous whole. We find this an unacceptable state of affairs. Clearly, there will always be a swings- and-roundabouts effect with excesses and deficiencies across any structure of divisions over County Durham as a whole, but in this case we see one relatively compact area that is under-represented by at least one and arguably two seats. We are therefore extremely disappointed that the draft proposals failed to recognise this situation, especially as the risk of this happening should have been obvious from the large increase in registered voters in the old Durham District between December 2009 and December 2010. If the number 126 of seats overall for the Council is unchangeable, then we appreciate that to add one or two additional seats at this stage of the process would have a very large impact across the rest of the county. We would therefore propose that the number of seats be increased to 127 and that the area covered by the four proposed divisions of Belmont, Elvet and Gilesgate, Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall, and Neville’s Cross be redrawn into divisions containing a total of 11 seats and not 10. We do not make any specific proposals for this redrawing, but believe that given the nature of the area and the communities across the City, this would not be a difficult task. If, however, the Boundary Committee is not agreeable to this way forward then in the following we have set out a number comments on the proposed divisions in the May 2011 draft made in the context that the overall number of seats remains at 126. Proposed Ushaw Moor and Bearpark Division We support the proposal made by Councillor John Wilkinson that this three member division be split into a single member Esh Winning division and a two member Ushaw Moor and Bearpark division. The three member proposal covers a large area with poor transport links between several areas (e.g. between Bearpark and Esh Winning). On the other hand the area of Esh Winning, Waterhouses, Hamsteels and East Hedley Hope covers a well- defined area that has common links such as the provision of primary schooling in Esh Winning. We also oppose the proposal made by the County Council. Proposed Durham South Division While we support the creating of a single member division covering Shincliffe Parish and the colleges on the east side of South Road, Durham City, there is an emerging anomaly close to Bowburn caused by the current area covered by Shincliffe Parish. The previous submission from the County Council (with all party support) proposed to deal with the anomaly by recommending that the new housing development on the former Cape Asbestos site should be placed in the Coxhoe Division, not Durham South. The case for this is very strong and there was general surprise to find this not accommodated in your recent proposal, and disappointment that no reason was given for this. Again all parties support this proposal as do the local members. Shincliffe Parish Council have also agreed to this and accepted the potential consequence that this area be moved from Shincliffe Parish to Cassop-Cum-Quarrington Parish. The new estate is almost completed and many houses are already occupied. Altogether there will be more than 200 properties. In all senses of community this site is part of Bowburn, not Shincliffe. So logically this area should be part of the new Coxhoe division and not South Durham. In addition, the rapid projected increase in housing and population of this site will cause the electorate of the South Durham division to rise considerably over the norm. On the other hand this increase, when applied to the Coxhoe numbers which are under quantum, will have no appreciable impact. Finally, the projected electorate of the Cape site will provide a viable ward for the Shincliffe Parish or even for the Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish should a Community Governance Review decide that this area be transferred between parishes. This proposal is supported by the County Council. Proposed Neville’s Cross and Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall Divisions While broadly supporting the proposals for these two divisions, there is a small anomaly on the boundary between the two which ought to rectified. At Aykley Heads, the current boundary runs along the line of an old stream (now culverted) that runs along the centre of a cul-de-sac called Aykley Vale (22 properties divided 13:9 across the boundary). An alternative boundary is the access road from the Aykley Head roundabout towards Police Headquarters and then along an established footpath towards Newton Hall. This alternative is much stronger and is sustainable against future proposed development of that area. The number of properties involved is only 30 and around 70 electors. This is a minor change that would tidy up finally a set of anomalies in boundaries in this part of Durham City. This proposal is supported by the County Council. Sherburn Division We support the proposal in the May 2011 draft for the new Sherburn division together with the transfer of Ludworth village to Thornley and Trimdon. We oppose the County Council proposal to retain Ludworth in the Sherburn division as the numerical discrepancies that this would cause cannot be justified on any rational grounds. In community terms, Ludworth, while part of the Shadforth Parish, is distant from the other two villages in this parish council area and has easier direct links with Thornley supporting the case for the draft recommendation. Belmont Division No comment. Brandon Division No comment. Coxhoe Division No comment. Sacriston Division and consequential areas We are content to support the proposals of the County Council for the areas covered by Sacriston, Witton, Gilbert, Langley Park, Esh, Crook etc.

Nigel Martin and David Stoker, on behalf of City of Durham and Easington Liberal Democrats

28 July 2011

North Durham Conservative Association

Review Ofcer Durham Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Laydon House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG email: [email protected]

20th July 2011

Dear Sir/Madam,

Proposed Changes to Chester-le-Street North in the Boundary Commission’s “ Further Draft Recommendation for New Electoral Arrangements for Durham County Council” dated May 2011.

The North Durham Conservative Association supports the 3 member division of Chester North East from your original Option 2 recommendation.

We object strongly to the proposed single member divisions of North Lodge, Chester-le-Street North and Chester-le-Street East and urge the Boundary Commission to ﬁnalise the 3 member division of Chester North East from your original Draft Further Clariﬁcation of February 2010.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Lucille Nicholson

Chairman North Durham Conservative Association NORTH WEST DURHAM Constituency Labour Party

Vice Chair Joe Buckham

The Review Manager (Durham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House

76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Divisions within North West Durham

The Constituency Labour Part of NW Durham wish to support the Division structure published by the Boundary Commission with the following exceptions based on a comprehensive assessment involving the relevant local bodies;

We have discussed the amended Boundary Commission proposals with the persons listed below who represent the Langley Park, Esh, Witton Gilbert and Sacriston areas and with Members of Parish Councils and opposition Members from Tow Law.

Ann Wright, Alan Turner, Jean Chaplow, Pat Jopling & John Bailey. Esh Parish, Tow Law Town & Cornsay Parish councils.

They are all in general agreement with the proposals, and feel that these proposals represent the best for communities of interest and for electoral equality.

Sacriston Electoral Division

Sacriston NDEA (U) 234 Sacriston NDEB (V) 3816 Kim & Plaws NDDA (W) 877 Kim, & Plaws NDDB (X) 263 Kim & Plaws NDDC (Y) 318 Edmondsley NDFD (AS) 472 5980 (-8.5%)

Chester-le-Street West Central

Edmondsley NDFD (AS) -472 6139(-6%)

Witton Gilbert and Langley Park

Witton Gilbert DMB (DW) 2182 Esh NWDNA (FC) 295 Willow Park NWDN13 (FD) 89 Langley Park East NWDNC (FA) 1247 Langley Park West NWDND (FB) 1954

From: allan walker Sent: 19 June 2011 20:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham Reviews

Hi, We fully endorse your proposed submissions of 3 Elected County Councillors for the SHILDON/DENE VALLEY AREA of the Durham County Council. It is probably the only combination that would meet the criteria.

We would have liked to see the tidying up of the local Council Boundaries, ie : SUNNYDALE/BYERLEY Wards in Shildon Where using roads as natural boundaries would balance the numbers.

Allan Walker, Secretary, Sunnydale/Byerley Branch Labour Party. 19‐6‐11