Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.218 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO.218. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton GCB KB£ DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Professor Michael Chisholm Mr R R Thornton CB DL Sir Andrew Wheatley CBE : To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees, MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE 1* We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of North East Derbyshire, in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that district. 2, In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 19 August 1974 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the North East Derbyshire District Council, copies of which were circulated to Derbyshire County Council, Clerks to the Parish Councils, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties* Copies were also sent to the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3. The North East Derbyshire District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. When doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972, and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the Council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. The Council had passed a resolution under Section ?U)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 requesting the Secretary of State to provide for a system of whole council elections. 5* On 9 January 1975* North East Derbyshire District Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the area of the district into 24 wards each returning 1, 2 or 3 members to form a council of 53. 6. We considered the draft scheme submitted by the Council, the comments which had been made on it and an alternative scheme which had been submitted. Taking account of the alternative proposals suggested in the comments for various areas of the district, we decided to adopt the District Council's proposed wards for the parish of Dronfield, but to give the parish of Uhstone separate representation) thus reducing the. number of councillors for Dronfield to twelve. We decided to separate the parish of Stretton from the Clay Cross South ward and as a consequence reduced the representation of Clay Cross to 5 councillors. We decided to regroup some of the parishes and parish wards in the south-eastern area of the district to include the parish of Stretton with this area and in order to achieve a greater equality of representation. Subject to these modifications, which had the overall effect of reducing the number of councillors for the district to 52, we adopted the Council's draft scheme as our draft proposals. 7. On 3 November 1975 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make the draft proposals,, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from members of the public and interested bodies. We asked for comments to reach us by 29 December 1975. 8. The District Council accepted our modifications to their draft scheme with and one exception. They opposed our proposed Pilsey and North Wingfield Central wards/ aaked for the adoption of their proposal to include the Waterloo ward of the parish of North Wingfield in the Pilsey ward. PiIsley Parish Council asked for separate representation with two members* Other comments proposed alternative arrangements for the wards in the south east of the district * 9. In view of these comments, we felt we needed more information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, and at our request, Mr ff.Lane was appointed as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and report to us* 10. Notice of the meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented on them, and was published locally* 11. The Assistant Commissioner held the meeting at the Council House, Saltergate on 1 December 1976 and visited the areas which were the subject of comment. A copy of his report is attached at Schedule 1 for your information. 12. In the light of the discussion at the meeting and his inspection of the area, the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the draft proposals should be confirmed* 13* We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that the recommendations made by the Assistant Commissioner should be accepted. We confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals. 14. Details of these proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and on the attached map* Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the attached map* PUBLICATION 15, In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to North East Derbyshire District Council and will be available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without map ) are being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. A detailed description of the proposed ward boundaries as shown on the map is set out in Schedule 3 to this report. L.S. Signed EDMDND COMPTOK (CHAIRMAN) JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) PHYLLIS BOWDEN J T BROCKBANK MICHAEL CtGSHOLM R R THOSNTON ANDREW WHEATLEY N DIGNEY (Secretary) 10 Msirch 1977 SCHEDULE 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REUIEld OF ELECTORAL ARRANGOTENTS : NORTH-EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT REPORT BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER : U E LANE As announced in the Derbyshire Times of 15 and 22 October 1976, a meeting open to anyone interested was held at the Council House, Saltergate, Derbyshire, on 1 December 1976 to enable me to hear local views on the proposed arrangements for the MiIs ley, North Uingfield Central, Hasland, Sutton, Morton, Ashover and Shirland wards. Appendix A contains a list of the names and addresses of those attending the meeting and the interests they represented. A number of those present were members of interested bodies other than those they formally represented. All present were invited to give their views on the wards listed above, other wards affected by their proposals or indeed any other aspect of the electoral arrangements for the District. The meeting was conducted informally so that everyone had the opportunity of expressing their views and commenting on the views of others. i I subsequently made a detailed inspection, as requested at the meeting, of ell the wards and parishes under discussion, with particular reference to features mentioned at the meeting. Ihe District Council's draft scheme, submitted on 9 January 1975, provided for 24 wards each returning 1f 2 or 3 councillors to make a council of 53. The Commission considered the various objections made to this scheme and on 3 November 1975, published their draft proposals which basically adopted the District Council's scheme but introduced modifications, producing 27 wards and a council of 52. The electorate totalled 67,456 in 1974 and was estimated realistically to reach 76,855 in 1979. The average electorate per councillor is, therefore:- in 1974 in 1979 Council of 53 1272 1450 Council of 52 ' ' 1297 1477 The "entitlement" of a ward, referred to later in this report, means the number of councillors to which the ward would be entitled on the basis of one councillor for the average electorate quoted above, varying, of course, between 1974 and 1979 and between a council of 53 and 52. Ihere mere 5 written objections to the Commission's proposals:* Objector ward concerned 1 District Council Pileley } Notth wingfield Central ) 2 Pilsley Parish Council Pilsley 3 Temple N0rmanton P.c. Hasland 4 Sutton-cum-Duckmanton P.C. Sutton 5 Brackenfield P.C. Ashouer ) supported by Stretton P.C. morton ) Shirland ) •No other objections were raised at the meeting. , Each of the objections was discussed in turn, the two concerning Pilsley being taken together. The District Council made it clear that ^e) they accepted all the Commission's proposals modifying their scheme, with the exception of that concerning Pilsley and North Ulingfield Central to which they had objected, and the change in control of the Council which had occurred between the time of making their representations to the Commission and this meeting had not affected the Council's views;- both groups supported the views expressed on behalf of the Louncil at the meeting.