BOUNDARY COMMITTEE FOR ENGLAND ELECTORAL BOUNDARY REVIEW: DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL Durham City Liberal Democrats wish to submit the following proposals for consideration as amended electoral divisions for the new Unitary Council. Context The proposals are based on the following criteria: The number of councillors will remain at 126. Wherever possible the divisions will have two members, though one and three member wards may be created to satisfy other criteria (see below). The electorate of each division will normally be within a tolerance of plus or minus 10% of the County average of 6,373 electors i.e. from 5,738 to 7,010. Data is derived from County projections for 2013 plus the corrected student numbers (see below). Division boundaries will respect parish boundaries and where they are not co- terminus will follow parish ward boundaries. Exceptionally, new parish wards may be created. Natural communities to form the basic building blocks of the divisions. Proposals for Durham City The proposals for Durham City satisfy the above criteria more closely than other suggestions. Change is kept to a minimum, numerical anomalies evened out, and an even stronger sense of community is delivered than with the existing boundaries. A brief commentary is provided after each Divisional description. Student Adjustments The projections to 2013 in some central polling districts are affected by changes in the rules for voter registration which removed registration from members of a household that failed to reconfirm after 12 months. Durham University is a powerful presence in the City’s housing market. The majority of student rented houses appear to have been significantly affected by this ruling, resulting in significant reductions in registration numbers between 2004 and 2008 (e.g. around 1200 voters in Neville’s Cross alone). This should have been a one off alteration to the registration method. Unfortunately, County data projections, have, in error, continued this as a trend. So, for example, between 2008 and 2009 there was no further change. This has been confirmed by the University to officers of the County Council working on this current review. All now accept that the related trend calculations made by the County Council are in error. This factor is evident in all the polling districts marked with an asterisk in the divisions below. We have, therefore, used the more accurate 2008 data rather than the 2013 predictions for those affected divisions, resulting in the adjustments as shown. This assumption is robust as there is evidence that the number of student properties has plateaued with few incidents of such houses reverting to family accommodation. (2 members) Belmont Belmont 5047 Add West Rainton from Sherburn 1791 6838 (+7.3%) Belmont’s numbers require a significant addition. The two obvious candidates are Pittington (as per Labour’s proposal) and West Rainton (our suggestion). Both are equally valid, lying a short distance from Belmont, and with connections for shopping and schooling. Unfortunately, choosing Pittington means that West Rainton has to join Framwellgate Moor, with which it has no meaningful relationship, and is separated by the A1(M) motorway. The separation of these two communities is demonstrated by the fact that it takes almost 15 minutes by minor roads to go from one to the other, if travelling by car, or up to an hour by public transport. It also crosses the major boundary of the River Wear. (2) Gilesgate Gilesgate 5082 Add Hild/Bede College from Elvet 444 Adjust for student data for PD AE* 60 Adjust for student data for PD AH* 121 5707 (-10.5%) Both Labour and Liberal Democrats agree on this minor amendment. The difference between our numbers and theirs is simply due to the student adjustments. (2) Elvet Elvet 6621 Remove Hild/Bede College -444 Remove St Aidan’s College -381 Adjust for student data for PD AG* 291 Adjust for student data for PD AN* 58 6145 (-3.6%) Both Labour and Liberal Democrats agree on this minor amendment. The difference between our numbers and theirs is simply due to the student adjustments. (2) Neville’s Cross Neville’s Cross 4947 Add St Aidan’s College from Elvet 381 Adjust for student data for PD AM* 307 Adjust for student data for PD AP* 202 5837 (-8.4%) Both Labour and Liberal Democrats agree on this minor amendment. The difference between our numbers and theirs is simply due to the student adjustments. (2) Newton Hall Newton Hall 6193 Add DT from Framwellgate Moor 395 6588 (+3.4%) The addition of Brasside (DT) makes the numbers right for Framwellgate Moor without jeopardising those of Newton Hall. Brasside is adjacent to Newton Hall and utilises the latter’s shopping facilities and schools. Residents regard this as a natural fit. (1) Framwellgate Moor Framwellgate Moor 7862 Remove Bearpark (DR) -1773 Remove Witton Gilbert (DW) -2153 Remove DT -395 3541 (+11.1%) The separation of Framwellgate Moor, Witton Gilbert, and Bearpark is logical. The three communities are separated geographically, with few overlapping areas of interaction. Both Witton Gilbert and Bearpark have been placed in divisions that not only fit the key criteria but would feel more natural to the residents. This is also agreed by the local councillors. Brasside (DT) is a ‘satellite’ village that sits better with Newton Hall (see above). (3) Esh Winning, Esh, and Bearpark Esh 5120 Add Bearpark (DR) 1773 Add HH from Deerness 1216 Add HI from Deerness 1167 Add HJ from Deerness 412 9688 (1.3%) Esh Division is seriously under-numbered and the addition of Esh Winning is logical and helpful. The previous separation of Esh Winning and Hamsteels, effectively co-joined communities sharing all facilities, was a matter of expedience (because of former district council boundaries) that is no longer required. Our proposal brings this and other adjacent communities into one natural community, without damaging the credibility of other divisions. The addition of Bearpark transforms a too big two member ward into a well proportioned three member ward. Bearpark’s most natural “partner’ is Ushaw Moor, but no proposal has been able to make the numbers work for these two communities. The next most natural solution for Bearpark is to join Esh through its close connection with Langley Park. This has not been possible previously because of former district council boundaries. (2) Brandon Brandon 7147 Remove Meadowfield (HB) -1570 Remove Langley Moor (HA) -982 Add New Brancepeth (HG) 828 Add Brancepeth (GA) 340 5763 (-9.6%) The existing division of Brandon is significantly over-numbered. There appear to be no options to keep its adjacent communities to the east (Langley Moor and Meadowfield) in either a three member division or two 2 member divisions. The inclusion of two smaller adjacent communities (Brancepeth and New Brancepeth) to the west solves this problem. The boundary between Brandon and the combination of Langley Moor and Meadowfield is strengthened by being the track of a former railway and now public footpath. The northern boundary of the HG polling district is clearly delineated by a river. (1) Ushaw Moor (new seat) Add Ushaw (HD) 807 Add Ushaw Moor (HE) 1503 Add Broom Park (HF) 1053 3363 (+5.5%) The three components of this division form a very recognisable single community with shared community facilities and schools. In the recent past it has also been a discrete district council ward. (2) Durham South Durham South 4844 Add Meadowfield from Brandon 1570 Add Langley Moor from Brandon 982 Remove Shincliffe -1412 5984 (-6.1%) Durham South has always been a slightly awkward geographical area including a string of villages running east/west across the southern boundary of Durham City. Most focus inwards (not east/west) into the City and have relatively little in common with most of the other villages concerned. However, like other proposals, there appear to be no alternatives that do not disrupt several other divisions. Our proposal brings the co-joined communities of Langley Moor and Meadowfield into Durham South which allows Shincliffe and Sherburn Hospital to move into Sherburn Division where they sit more naturally. As in previous reviews this is the division that allows other divisions to work well. Our proposal ensures improvement from the current situation in that all the communities in this division now have strong links with some other villages in the Division and are able to have their voice heard. Sherburn and Coxhoe (two options) (2) Sherburn – Option 1 Sherburn 7072 Remove Ludworth to Thornley -521 Remove West Rainton to Belmont -1791 Add Shincliffe and Sherburn Hospital from Durham South 1412 6172 (-3.2%) (2) Coxhoe – Option 1 Coxhoe (unchanged) 5361 (-15.9%) (2) Sherburn – Option 2 Sherburn 7072 Remove Ludworth to Thornley -521 Remove Shadforth to Coxhoe -362 Remove West Rainton to Belmont -1791 Add Shincliffe and Sherburn Hospital from Durham South 1412 5810 (-8.8%) (2) Coxhoe – Option 2 Coxhoe 5361 Add Shadforth from Sherburn 362 5723 (-10.2%) Sherburn’s electorate is slightly outside the plus 10% guideline but includes some communities that sit more naturally elsewhere now that the District Council boundary has been taken out of the equation. There are two options that are more natural and have fewer negative consequences than Labour’s proposal. Both Labour and Liberal Democrats agree that Ludworth should move to Thornley (which needs additional voters). We also agree that the peripheral community of West Rainton should be moved. However, we strongly disagree that it should be moved to Framwellgate Moor. This proposal has no logic whatsoever especially when it can join Belmont ‘down the road’ (see above). To ‘replace’ the voters lost from West Rainton we include Shincliffe and Sherburn Hospital allowing Sherburn to remain as a two member division.