Councillor submissions to the County Durham electoral review This PDF document contains 18 submissions by councillors. Some versions of Adobe 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. Durham County Council Review-Submission on the DCC divisional boundaries of the former Teesdale District (excluding Evenwood Division) by the four County Cllrs for the Barnard Castle East & West Divisions Introduction The four County Cllrs for the divisions made informal enquiries of local residents before the County Council put in its proposal at the previous consultation. The DCC proposal was (is) based on much objective evidence as to the most convenient and effective way of delivering local government giving the best fit with local community identity. This evidence is detailed below. In their travels since the draft recommendations came out in October, the CCllrs are more convinced than ever that the County Council proposal is the right one for the residents of the dale. The present configuration of Barnard Castle East & West divisions (BCE and BCW) dates only from 2005, when Eggleston was transferred to BCE and Ovington & adjacent parishes to BCE. It is more of a north/south than an east/west split. It does not reflect as well as it might how people live and work. DCC’s submission for revised BCE and BCW boundaries has been well researched and we believe fully satisfies the tests of electoral equality, community links, and convenient governance & administration. It seeks to restore and build upon the pre-2005 boundaries, and in consultations through October/November 2009, it has found widespread support from individuals and Parish Councils, of which some 15 out of 17 favour DCC’s proposals. Comments on the County Council’s Proposals for Barnard Castle East & West The DCC proposal is to split the dale east/west at Barnard Castle, into 2*2 member divisions, with western Barnard Castle, everything north of the Tees from Marwood west, and everything south of the Tees from Startforth west, forming a new Barnard Castle West division. The town of Barnard Castle would be split by main roads, ie. The Staindrop road, Bede Road, Galgate, Market Place and Newgate. Much of this town boundary is as at present. Marwood Parish would be split by the Staindrop road. Their parish council is comfortable with that provided that the actual parish boundary with the town does not change as a result. Community Links The mains roads up the dale, west from Barnard Castle, are the B6278 which goes via Eggleston to Middleton, and the B6277 which goes via Cotherstone to Middleton. These roads converge on Barnard Castle, and it is the town which should be regarded as the east/west hinge of the dale and a natural cut off point. Communities on both sides of the river are serviced by the same Doctors (Middleton and Barnard Castle), primary schools and secondary school, police team, voluntary groups/churches, and fire stations. They share the same DL12 0 postcode. The new division will permit the journey between Barnard Castle and Middleton to be accomplished within one division by either road. At parish level, Eggleston works with Mickleton/Cotherstone in the mid Tees partnership. What is being proposed by DCC is a fairly modest change on the borders up to 2005. Eggleston used to be in Barnard Castle West until the last boundary review, and its residents still come to the BCW Cllrs with their problems. They never understood why they were moved. Similarly Ovington & neighbours used to be in Barnard Castle East The communities in the proposed new divisions are similar in character as well as from where they are serviced, and it is submitted the new divisions proposed by DCC reflect community identity much better. West of Barnard Castle the communities on both sides of the River Tees are very similar. Villages such as Romaldkirk/Mickleton and Eggleston are of a similar character. People from both sides of the river look to Middleton as the ‘capital’ of the upper dale, for shops, banks, Drs, schools etc. The farming west of Barnard Castle is livestock, not arable, with much hill farming. The upland communities of Holwick, Lunedale, Bowes and Baldersdale on the south of the Tees, are similar with Harwood, Forest, Newbiggin, and Eggleston on the north bank. There is a distinct ‘upper dale’ identity that is palpable to villager and farmer alike. Grouping together communities of similar type makes for convenient and effective local government because the issues are similar and therefore can be tackled effectively. Recent examples for these communities mentioned above have included Ambulance emergency cover & response times; post-16 school transport, winter gritting & snow clearance, and concessionary travel for those away from bus routes. In these examples these upland communities have benefited from being covered by the same Cllrs. The upland communities south of the river have nothing in common with the lowland farming and commuter parishes of Ovington & Barforth. The A66 across Bowes Moor is effectively a motorway and because of limited access points does little to facilitate local traffic south of the Tees. Most local traffic from Bowes goes down the A67 to Barnard Castle. East of Barnard Castle the farming changes to arable, and the villages are commuter villages. Into this category would fall Winston, Gainford, Ovington, Barningham and Hutton Magna. Though they may be on different sides of the river, they share a travel to work pattern down the A67 or A66 to Darlington and Teesside. Once again it is submitted that such similar communities will benefit from being covered by the same Cllrs. It follows that if the Boundary Committee draft recommendation is followed then Upper Teesdale with its distinct identity and issues will be split, as will Lower Teesdale. It would split very similar communities such as Romaldkirk/Eggleston, Holwick/Forest, and Middleton/Mickleton. All of these look to Middleton as the service centre of the upper dale, for shops, banks, Drs, schools, Fire, Police etc. It would be harder to get good representation by our Cllrs as they would be split by the river. The following sections give the evidence in support of these assertions: Convenient & Effective Local Government The broad preference expressed by DCC for 2 member wards is particularly appropriate in Teesdale. The town of Barnard Castle is too big for one Cllr but too small for two. There is a large rural hinterland to service. There are 30+ parishes and most of them have councils, which rightly expect to get attention from their CCllrs. The current pattern of 4 Cllrs covering this area has worked well hitherto and is desired to be continued. A particular weakness of the single member wards in the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendation is the fact that one Cllr has a fairly easy wicket, representing a compact area of Barnard Castle town, with only one Town Council, leaving only 3 to service all the rural areas. The South Tees ward will be particularly difficult to service in terms of area and parish councils. These assertions are evidenced in subsequent sections, where it is shown how the public services conform with the divisions suggested by DCC. Public Transport Network - Buses The point: the bus service network focuses on Barnard Castle as the start and end of routes. There is a good bus service within each of the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East and West wards. There is no bus service connecting the Boundary Committee’s South tees Ward. Even changing at Barnard Castle, getting from Hutton Magna to Holwick would seem to be an impossibility. It is helpful for effective local government to link communities which have a natural affinity, which is assisted by good bus links. Source: Bus companies and Passenger Transport Section, DCC Evidence & Detail There is a good bus service connecting the villages of DCC’s proposed Barnard Castle West ward with Barnard Castle town. Arriva runs a service (95, 96) between Barnard Castle and Middleton in Teesdale via Cotherstone, Romaldkirk, Mickleton and Eggleston. In detail, 95/96 B Castle - Cotherstone - Romaldkirk- Mickleton- Middleton - Eggleston - Romaldkirk - Cotherstone - B Castle (96 runs opposite direction round the outer loop ie Eggleston - Middleton - Mickleton): Combined frequency 1 per hour 72 Barnard Castle - Bowes. 4 journeys per day 71 Barnard Castle town service (various legs, inc Startforth). 4 journeys on Startforth and Harmire legs, 9 on Green Lane leg per day Alston Road Garage; runs between Langdon Beck and Barnard Castle (Monday to Saturday) and has some ’demand responsive’ elements where passengers can pre- book or make a request to the driver. There is a good bus service connecting the villages of DCC’s proposed Barnard Castle East ward with Barnard Castle town. Arriva runs a service (75, 76) from Darlington to Barnard Castle, either via Staindrop or Winston. In detail, 75 / 76 Darlington - Gainford - Staindrop(75 only) - B Castle. Combined frequency 2 per hour one per hour continues across BCastle to/from service 95 or 96: Additionally 70 Barnard Castle - Whorlton - Staindrop - Darlington . every 2 hours. 79 Barnard Castle - Barningham - Richmond. 5 journeys per day Compass Royston operate a service between Barnard Castle and Darlington (Monday to Saturday) via Whorlton, South Cleatlam, Staindrop, Ingleton and Gainford. Hodgsons operate a service, on Wednesdays only, from Eppleby to Barnard Castle and return. There is only one bus on the day but it does go through Ovington and Hutton Magna. Hodgsons also operate a service from Barnard Castle to Richmond (Monday to Saturday) via Eggleston Abbey, Greta Bridge and Barningham. Durham Constabulary The point: the Police are organised in a way that is close to the proposed DCC Barnard Castle East/West wards.