Under a Council size of 64, Bolsover is allocated six councillors, with each division entitled to an average of 5% more electors than the county average by 2029.

Hardwick, Shirebrook & Pleasley and South Normanton & Pinxton

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council, Conservative Group and Labour Group, with the Council and Labour Group providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. Councillor Barron (Derbyshire County Council), North Derbyshire Conservative Federation, Councillor Wood (Bolsover District Council) and a member of the public also expressed general support for the draft recommendations.

In light of no other significant comments, we are confirming our draft recommendation for these divisions as final.

 Barlborough & Clowne, Bolsover and Elmton with Creswell & Whitwell

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council, Conservative Group and Labour Group, with the Council and Labour Group providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. Councillor Barron (Derbyshire County Council) expressed support for the Council’s comments on the draft recommendations, with particular support for a single division covering Bolsover Town. North Derbyshire Conservative Federation, Councillor Wood (Bolsover District Council) and a member of the public also expressed general support for the draft recommendations.

In light of no other significant comments, we are confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Under a Council size of 64, Chesterfield is allocated eight councillors, one fewer than it currently has, with each division entitled to an average of 2% fewer electors than the county average by 2029.

Brimington, Staveley, Staveley North & Whittington

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council and Labour Group, with both providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. North Derbyshire Conservative Federation and the Conservative Group also expressed support for the draft recommendations.

Councillor Bingham (Derbyshire County Council) expressed support for the Staveley North & Whittington division, noting it reflects the links between Staveley North and Whittington and avoids linking Whittington with Dunston. A member of the public objected to the draft recommendation to transfer an area to the west of the A61 to Brimington division, arguing that there are few community links and links around transport are ‘tenuous’.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the support for the draft recommendations. We also note the concerns of a member of the public about a division that transfers an area to the west of the A61 to Brimington. We considered this would form a strong boundary when we were considering our draft recommendations, but rejected a proposal to use the A61 as a boundary, noting it resulted in a Brimington division with 15% fewer electors than the average for the county by 2029. In light of the qualified support for the draft recommendations, no significant new evidence and the poor electoral equality that would result from using the A61 as a boundary, we are not persuaded to move away from the draft recommendations. We are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to create a division in a more suburban area with this poor level of electoral equality. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Dunston, Hasland & Rother, Linacre & Loundsley Green, Spire and Walton, Brampton & Boythorpe

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council and Labour Group, with both providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. North Derbyshire Conservative Federation and the Conservative Group also expressed support for the draft recommendations.

Councillor Mihaly (Derbyshire County Council) expressed support for Walton, Brampton & Boythorpe division. A member of the public argued that Linacre & Loundsley Green division should be renamed Linacre & West, and another member of the public argued that Linacre & Loundsley Green division should include Ashgate in the name.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the general support for the draft recommendations. We note the suggestions for a change to the Linacre & Loundsley Green division name, but also note that there was no agreement on an alternative name and general support for the proposals. We are therefore not adopting a name change and are confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Following the completion of Derbyshire Dales’ electoral review in January 2022, Derbyshire Dales District Council carried out a Community Governance Review. On 3 October 2022 it made The Derbyshire Dales District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2022. This Order transferred an area of Oaker & Snitterton parish ward (covering the Matlock Spa development) of South Darley parish to Matlock Bank & Sheriff Fields parish ward of Matlock parish.

Derbyshire Dales District Council subsequently requested that the Commission make a related alteration to ensure that the district wards of Bonsall & Winster and Matlock West are revised so that they are coterminous with the revised parish boundaries. This would mean the Matlock Spa development remains in Matlock West district ward, but the Oaker & Snitterton parish ward of South Darley parish is moved to Bonsall & Winster district ward, so that it is in the same district council ward as the rest of South Darley parish.

This order was made in April 2024. The final recommendations for Derbyshire take account of these changes to the parish boundaries and changes to the district wards.

 Bakewell, Derwent Valley, Matlock and Wirksworth

In response to the draft recommendations we received a mixture of support and objections to these divisions. The Council proposed a number of amendments to the draft recommendations, including the transfer of Stoney Middleton parish from Bakewell division to Derwent Valley division, Winster parish from Derwent Valley division to Wirksworth division and Matlock Bath parish from Wirksworth Division to Matlock division. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s proposals. The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations and provided arguments against the Council’s proposed amendments.

The Council proposed transferring Stoney Middleton parish from Bakewell Division to Derwent Valley division. It argued that while this reduces coterminosity with Hathersage ward, it improves electoral equality in Bakewell division from 9% more than the county average by 2029, to 5%. It added that Stoney Middleton is currently in the Derwent Valley division. Councillor Hobson (Derbyshire County Council) supported the Council’s amendment, including the improved electoral equality, but added that it would also reflect working on shared issues around highways and flooding.

 The Labour Group and Councillor Butcher (Derbyshire Dales District Council) expressed support for the draft recommendations. They also objected to the Council’s proposals, noting that while they improve electoral equality, they worsen coterminosity. While they accepted that Stoney Middleton parish has some shared interests with Calver parish in Derwent Valley division, it also has links to Eyam and Bakewell, which is a centre for jobs, shopping and leisure facilities.  

The Council and Councillor Murphy (Derbyshire County Council) also argued for transferring Matlock Bath parish from Wirksworth division to Matlock Division providing good evidence of road and community links between the two areas. They argued that residents in Matlock Bath look to Matlock for a large range of community facilities and services, including tourism – with the areas being promoted together. While they acknowledged that this would worsen coterminosity in Cromford & Matlock Bath ward, they argued that Cromford has different priorities, with a focus on mining, with residents looking to Wirksworth for services.

The Council also proposed transferring Winster parish to Wirksworth division, offsetting the transfer of Matlock Bath parish to Matlock division. It acknowledged that this retained a three-way split of Bonsall & Winster ward, but argued that it reduced the ‘severity of the split’, keeping Bonsall and Winster parishes in the same division.

The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations which kept Matlock and Matlock Bath separate, providing objections to the Council’s proposals. It acknowledged community and tourism links between Matlock and Matlock Bath parishes, but argued that the links between Matlock Bath and Cromford parishes should also be recognised. It argued that Matlock Bath and Cromford sit within the UNESCO World Heritage Site and therefore share significant tourism links, as well as the same train and road links that Matlock shares with Matlock Bath.

The Labour Group also rejected the Council’s proposal to transfer Winster parish to Wirksworth division. They argued that this was only required to secure electoral equality given the Council’s proposal to transfer Matlock Bath parish to from Wirksworth division to Matlock division. They argued that Winster has better transport links to Darley Dale, within the Derwent Valley division, with children attending secondary school in Wensley and Darley Dale.

Councillor Burfoot (Derbyshire County Council) expressed support for the draft recommendations for Matlock division, including the inclusion of the Morledge estate and part of Matlock Spa Development area. A number of residents also supported the inclusion of the Matlock Spa Development area in Matlock division.

Finally in this area, we received support for the inclusion of the whole of South Darley parish in Derwent Valley division from Councillor Higham (South Darley Parish Council) and a number of members of the public. They noted that this reflected its rural nature, which is distinct from the more urban Matlock.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the support for our draft recommendations, but also the alternative proposals from the Council and a number of other respondents. We note the Council’s proposal for including Stoney Middleton parish in Derwent Valley division. However, while this improves electoral equality in Bakewelll division, given their proposal to transfer Winster parish to Wirksworth division, it does not improve electoral equality in Derwent Valley division. Our visit to the area suggested that while Stoney Middleton has links to Calver parish in neighbouring Derwent Valley division, it also has links to Eyam and into Bakewell in the Bakewell division. When taken into consideration with the worsening of coterminosity with Hathersage ward, which the Council acknowledges, and limited community evidence, we are not persuaded by this change.

We are also not persuaded by the Council’s proposal to include Matlock Bath parish in Matlock division, while also transferring Winster parish to Wirksworth division. While it provided some good community evidence for the transfer of Matlock Bath, the evidence for transferring Winster is less persuasive – indeed we consider the Labour argument that Winster has stronger links to Darley Dale in Derwent Valley division is more persuasive. In addition, we note that the Labour Group provided counter arguments against the transfer of Matlock Bath parish to Matlock division. It argued that Matlock Bath also has shared community interest with Cromford parish, particularly around tourism and the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Derwent Valley Mills. It also objected to the worsening of coterminosity that would result from separating Matlock Bath from the Cromford & Matlock Bath ward. Our visit to the area confirmed the links between Matlock and Matlock Bath, but also between Matlock Bath and Cromford. Therefore, we are not persuaded to remove Matlock Bath from Wirksworth division and transfer it to Matlock division.

On balance, while there is some rationale to the Council’s proposals, we consider that the draft recommendations provide a stronger division pattern across this area. We are therefore confirming them as final.

 Ashbourne South and Dovedale & Ashbourne North

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council, Conservative Group and Labour Group, with the Council and Labour Group providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. A member of the public objected to the Dovedale & Ashbourne North division, arguing that the northern area is very different from Ashbourne.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the general support for the draft recommendations. We note the objection from a member of the public, but also note they have not put forward alternative proposals. We have been unable to identify a division pattern that avoids linking parts of Ashbourne to areas to the north. We are therefore confirming the draft recommendations as final.

Under a Council size of 64, Erewash is allocated nine councillors, with each division entitled to an average of 3% fewer electors than the county average by 2029.

Ilkeston Central, Ilkeston North and Ilkeston South & Kirk Hallam

In response to the draft recommendations the Council objected to the draft recommendations, arguing in favour of its original proposals based on the existing divisions. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s proposals. The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations.

The Council objected to moving away from the existing east/west split of the Ilkeston area, citing differences in housing type and deprivation, arguing that their proposed divisions reflect this. They also argued that the draft recommendations move away from recognised boundaries like Heanor Road, while placing Bath Street in a single division means the town centre would no longer be ‘championed by two voices’. They also rejected the argument for placing Kirk Hallam in a single division, arguing that the existing split between two divisions ‘allows an area of high deprivation to receive representation by two members which would better support the higher workload and more complex cases coming from that community’. Finally, they argued that while the draft recommendations have better coterminosity than their original proposals, their original proposals secure better electoral equality.

The Ilkeston Branch of Erewash Conservatives expressed support for the existing divisions. A number of members of the public also expressed support for the existing divisions, including arguing in favour of the existing east/west split. They stated that the area to the east reflects its history as a ‘market town founded on industry’, with community facilities reflecting this, while the west is newer estates developed west of Heanor Road as well as larger properties.

The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations for these divisions, noting the high degree of coterminosity compared to the existing divisions. They also supported the inclusion of the whole of the town centre and Kirk Hallam in a single division. They rejected the Council’s argument in favour of their original proposals, rebuffing the argument that housing type and deprivation are better at reflecting community identity and interests than school catchments and church parishes. They also rejected the Council’s argument that splitting Kirk Hallam enables it to be represented by two councillors, instead arguing that their proposals reflect a community being divided. They added that the Council has not used the same argument for dividing the east area, noting that this has higher deprivation than Kirk Hallam.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received for this area, noting the arguments for and against the draft recommendations. We do not consider that the Council has put forward strong community evidence for why their original proposal better reflects community, beyond arguments about housing types and levels of deprivation. While there may be some logic to the Council’s argument that running boundaries along the high street and through the Kirk Hallam area enables the high street to be represented by two councillors, we think the benefits of a community being represented by a single councillor, particularly in Kirk Hallam, outweigh that in this instance. While the Council uses the existing division, which divides Kirk Hallam, we note that Kirk Hallam is separate from the rest of Ilkeston and consider it would be best served in a single division.

While the Council’s original proposals have slightly better electoral equality, we note that only one of the seven wards in the area would be coterminous with the division boundaries. This compares to the draft recommendations where six of the seven wards are conterminous, and electoral equality is within the levels we consider good. Although the Labour Group have  [PN1]  also not provided particularly strong community evidence, when taken into consideration with the concerns about dividing the Kirk Hallam area and significantly better coterminosity, we consider the draft recommendations provide the strongest division pattern. We are therefore confirming the draft recommendations as final.

Breadsall & West Hallam and Breaston

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council and Labour Group, with both providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s proposals. Draycott & Church Wilne Parish Council expressed general support for the draft recommendations. Dale Abbey Parish Council expressed support for the existing divisions.

In light of no other significant comments, we are confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Long Eaton North, Long Eaton South, Sandiacre and Sawley

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council and Labour Group, with both providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s proposals. The Labour Group supported the inclusion of the Pennyfields Estate in Petersham division, arguing it is a discrete community and doing so helps secure electoral equality across the Long Eaton area.

 Councillor Corbett (Erewash Borough Council), Councillor Hall-Evans (Erewash Borough Council), Councillor Everett (Erewash Borough Council), Councillor Howard (Erewash Borough Council), Councillor Maginnis (Erewash Borough Councillor) and a number of members of the public objected to the inclusion of the Pennyfields Estate (also known as Wilsthorpe Meadows) in Petersham division, arguing that it is part of the Wilsthorpe community and should be in Sawley division, along with the rest of Wilsthorpe ward. They argued that residents in Pennyfields use a wide range of facilities in Sawley, with links to the Dales Estate to the south, including Dovedale Primary School. They argued that while there are road connections, there is also a footpath linking these areas, reflecting the good connections between the areas. They argued that residents do not look to the Petersham Estate as this is further away and means crossing a main road. Some respondents also argued that keeping this area in Sawley would improve coterminosity by keeping the whole of Wilsthorpe ward in a single division.

 Councillor Howard also argued that the transfer of the Pennyfields Estate could be offset by transferring the Springfield Avenue area to the Petersham division, making it coterminous with the Derby Road West ward boundary.

 A member of the public expressed support for the inclusion of the Pennyfields Estate in Petersham division from an electoral equality perspective, but had concerns that it does not reflect communities.

 Councillor Howard and Councillor Everett also objected to the Petersham and Long Eaton division names, arguing that Petersham is only a small area of the proposed division, which actually covers part of Long Eaton. They therefore proposed renaming the divisions as Long Eaton North and Long Eaton South, respectively.

 Councillor Bryan (Derbyshire County Council) expressed general support for the draft recommendations for these divisions, but put forward similar arguments against the Petersham name. He proposed renaming Petersham and Long Eaton division as Long Eaton West and Long Eaton East, respectively. This was supported by a member of the public. Another member of the public supported renaming Petersham as Long Eaton West.

 We have given careful consideration the evidence received, noting the support and objections to our draft recommendations, particularly around the inclusion of the Pennyfields Estate in a Petersham division. While there was general support for the draft recommendations we note the strong objections to the inclusion of the Pennyfields Estate in Petersham, with respondents providing good community identity evidence for retaining the area in Sawley division. Our visit to the area confirmed that while the area is self-contained (as the Labour Group argue) with road access north into Petersham, it also has good road access south to Sawley. In addition, we acknowledge the footpath link into the Dales Estate. We note the argument that including the Pennyfields Estate in Sawley also improves coterminosity.

 This good community evidence and improved coterminosity is compelling. However, it must be balanced against the fact that transferring this area would worsen electoral equality in the Petersham division to 13% fewer electors than the county average by 2029. We note that Councillor Howard argued that the Springfield Estate could be transferred to the Petersham division. This would improve coterminosity, but move away from the parish boundary of Sandiacre parish, while also worsening electoral equality in Sandiacre division to 13% fewer than the average.

 Our visit to the area suggested that the Springfield Avenue area could sit well in either the Sandiacre or Petersham division, with a division boundary following either the parish boundary or ward boundary. On balance, although transferring this area to Petersham worsens electoral equality in Sandiacre, it improves it in Petersham division, offsetting the transfer of the Pennyfields Estate to Sawley division. When taken into consideration with the improved coterminosity we are persuaded to transfer the Pennyfields Estate to Sawley division and the Springfield Avenue area to Petersham.

 We also note the objections to the Petersham division name, and acknowledge this only reflects a small part of the division. We note that while respondents agree that Petersham and Long Eaton division should be named Long Eaton, there was no agreement on whether they should be east/west or north/south. On balance, we are using the Long Eaton North and Long Eaton South names.

 Our final recommendations are for single-councillor Long Eaton North, Long Eaton South, Sandiacre and Sawley divisions. These divisions would have 8% fewer, 10% fewer, 13% fewer and 7% more electors than the county average, respectively, by 2029.

Under a Council size of 64, High Peak is allocated eight councillors, with each division entitled to an average of 8% fewer electors than the county average by 2029. As stated in the draft recommendations, it should be noted that this high average variance makes it somewhat harder to secure a division pattern that secures good electoral equality, as small changes to the average in one division can have a knock-on effect in the remaining divisions.

Buxton North & East and Buxton South & West

We received a mixture of support and objection to the draft recommendations for this area. The Council, Conservative Group, Robert Largan MP (High Peak) and Councillor Grooby (Derbyshire County Council), while supporting elements of the Buxton North & East and Buxton South & West divisions, objected to the boundary between the divisions. They argued that the Lismore Road area is separated from the Buxton North & East division by Pavilion Gardens and has stronger links to the Buxton South & West division. They also argued that the Corbar Road and Sheraton Way area has stronger links to the Buxton North & East division.

The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations for these divisions and rejected the Council’s amendment. They argued that the draft recommendations keep the whole of the town centre in a single division which keeps the heart of a major tourist destination together, which would help with possible future regeneration.

Wormhill & Green Fairfield Parish Council requested that it remain in a Buxton division.

We have considered the evidence received and while there is an argument for keeping Pavilion Gardens and the Opera House with the rest of the town centre, we acknowledge that Lismore Road is cut off from its neighbours, directly affecting the electors there. In addition, the inclusion of this area disrupts the north/south links within Buxton South & West division. The evidence for the inclusion of the Corbar Road and Sheraton Way area is less compelling, although we note the area links on to Lightwood Road. However, on balance, given the concerns around Lismore Road we are moving away from our draft recommendations in this area and adopting the amendment put forward by the Council and others.

Finally, we note the request from Wormhill & Green Fairfield Parish Council. However, it did not provide any evidence to support this. In addition, we note that this is not possible, while securing good levels of electoral equality for the area as a whole. Therefore, we are not moving away from our draft recommendations.

Our final recommendations are for single-councillor Buxton North & East and Buxton South & West divisions with 9% fewer and 10% fewer electors than the district average, respectively, by 2029.

New Mills & Hayfield and Whaley Bridge

In response to our draft recommendations we received support for these divisions, particularly not to include an area of New Mills parish in a Whaley Bridge division. The Council, Conservative Group, Labour Group, Robert Largan MP and New Mills Town Council expressed support for the draft recommendations. There was also support for the New Mills & Hayfield division name.

Chinley, Buxworth & Brownside Parish Council expressed support for the Whaley Bridge division, including the division name. Councillor George (Derbyshire County Council) and Whaley Bridge Town Council expressed support for the draft recommendations, retaining the existing Whaley Bridge ward. They also supported retaining Combs village in the division. They did, however, argue that the division should be renamed Whaley Bridge & Blackbrook, to include the names of both wards in the division. A number of local residents expressed concern that Combs village could be included in a Buxton division, rejecting any links there.

Finally, a member of the public argued that there are a number of roads in Whaley Bridge division that would be better served in Chapel & Hope Valley division as they are part of Chapel-en-le-Firth.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the general support for the draft recommendations. We note the comments about Combs village, and confirm that we rejected any proposal to put this in a Buxton division and it will remain in the Whaley Bridge division. We also note the comments about the boundary between Whaley Bridge and Chapel & Hope Valley divisions. However, this follows the boundary between Blackbrook and Chapel West wards, and moving away from it would reduce coterminosity and require the creation of a small parish ward. We do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to do this, so are not making this amendment.

Finally, we note the support for the New Mills & Hayfield name, but differing views on the Whaley Bridge division. We note that some respondents argued for the inclusion of ‘Blackbrook’ in the name. However, while this reflects the ward of that name, it does not reflect the constituent parishes, so we are not persuaded it makes a clearer name, unlike the New Mills & Hayfield name that reflects both parishes in the ward. Therefore, we are retaining the Whaley Bridge name.

 We are confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

 Chapel & Hope Valley, Ethrow, Glossop North and Glossop South

In response to our draft recommendations we received a mixture of support, but also some significant objections to these divisions, particularly Chapel & Hope Valley and Glossop North & Bamford.

The Council was broadly supportive, but noted the draft recommendations for Chapel & Hope Valley and Glossop North & Bamford division separated Thornhill parish from Bamford parish. They pointed out that this is a joint parish council and in order to provide for effective and convenient local government the parishes should be in the same division, and that Thornhill parish should be added to the Glossop North & Bamford division. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s response. Robert Largan MP was also broadly supportive of the draft recommendations, while noting that the inclusion of Bamford parish in the Glossop North & Bamford division was a ‘regrettable necessity’ to secure electoral equality. However, he also argued for the inclusion of Thornhill parish in the Glossop North & Bamford division, noting its status as part of a joint parish council with Bamford parish. Mr Largan MP also proposed a number of division name changes to provide clearer names. He proposed renaming Ethrow division as Gamesley, Hadfield & Tintwistle and Glossop South division to Glossop South & Charlesworth.

 The Labour Group were also broadly supportive of the draft recommendations, noting that while its preference would be to keep the centre of Glossop in a single division, it accepts this isn’t possible while reflecting the statutory criteria. It stated that it had ‘no strong view’ on the Council’s amendment to move Thornhill parish. It also observed that as well as close links with Bamford parish, Thornhill parish has links to neighbouring Ashton parish. It noted that if Thornhill parish is included in Glossop North & Bamford division it would leave Brough & Shatton parish with no direct access into the Chapel & Hope Valley division as its access is via the A6187, which runs through Thornhill parish. It rejected any argument to also include Brough & Shatton parish in Glossop North & Bamford.

 Councillor Grooby stated that Thornhill parish should be in Glossop North & Bamford division along with Bamford parish.

 There were significant objections to the inclusion of Bamford parish in a Glossop North & Bamford division, along with objections to the inclusion of Derwent and Hope Woodlands parishes in the same division. Bamford with Thornhill Parish Council and Parish Councillor Kleine (Bamford with Thornhill Parish Council) objected to the draft recommendation to place Bamford and Thornhill parishes in different divisions, noting that they are one community in the same parish council. Their principal argument was not to divide the parishes, but they also argued that they did joint working on various issues with the Hope Valley parishes, but have no such links with Glossop, which is a ‘de facto Manchester suburb’.

 Councillor Farrell (High Peak Borough Council), Councillor Collins (Edale Parish Council), Castleton Parish Council and over 80 members of the public also objected to the draft recommendations, providing a range of arguments, against splitting Bamford and Thornhill parishes and/or stressing their links to Hope Valley and not Glossop. Arguments included that Bamford should remain in Hope Valley rather than being grouped with Glossop due to its geographical remoteness from Glossop and the rugged geography driving over A57 (Snake Pass), which is sometimes closed in bad weather, and lacks a direct bus service. They argued that Bamford residents have community links and use facilities, including schools, in Hope Valley and share common tourism-related concerns. They noted that Bamford is with the National Park, unlike suburban Glossop, which looks towards Manchester. They argued that including Bamford in a Glossop division would diminish its voice due to its smaller size and different community needs. Keeping Bamford in Hope Valley ensures better representation and maintains its strong local ties and rural character. A number of respondents also cited links out of the district, to Hathersage in neighbouring Derbyshire Dales.

 Councillor Gourlay (Derbyshire County Council) argued against splitting Bamford and Thornhill parishes, but stated that he had no preference as to which division they should be in, noting that whichever it was, they would be a long distance from the population centres of the division.

 Derwent & Hope Woodlands Parish Council and a number of members of the public objected to the inclusion of Derwent and Hope Woodlands parishes in Glossop North & Bamford division. They put forward similar arguments to those opposing the inclusion of Bamford parish in Glossop North & Bamford division, emphasising the similar shared interests to Bamford and the Hope Valley and a lack of physical or community links to Glossop.

 A member of the public objected to the division of Chapel-en-le-Firth parish between divisions, arguing it should be represented by a single councillor. We note this comment, but it is not possible to secure a division pattern for the wider area without dividing Chapel-en-le-Firth, which is reflected in the existing divisions and the proposals we received during this review. Therefore, we are not moving away from the draft recommendations. Another member of the public stated that Glossop should be represented by a single councillor. However, this would result in a division with 132% more electors than the county average by 2029, so we are not adopting this proposal.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the mixture of support and objections to our draft recommendations. We note the arguments that Bamford and Thornhill parishes should not be separated and concur with this. However, we also note the opposing arguments about the best way to resolve the issue. We note the argument for uniting Bamford and Thornhill in the Glossop North & Bamford division. This will retain good levels of electoral equality, with Chapel & Hope Valley and Glossop North & Bamford divisions with 8% fewer and 7% fewer electors than the county average by 2029, respectively.

However, this does not reflect the significant evidence arguing for the inclusion of Bamford parish in Chapel & Hope Valley on community identity grounds. This argument is very compelling and it is clear that Bamford does not have good links to Glossop. Our visit to the area confirmed this. We also noted that Derwent and Hope Valley parishes share similarly poor access to Glossop, with all three parishes having stronger connections into the Hope Valley. This evidence must be balanced against the fact that the inclusion of Bamford parish in Chapel & Hope Valley division would leave the remainder of the Glossop North & Bamford division with 18% fewer electors than the county average by 2029, while Chapel & Hope Valley would have 4% more electors than the average.

We been persuaded by the strong community evidence to include Bamford and Thornhill parishes in a Chapel & Hope Valley division. This would result in a Glossop North & Bamford division with 18% fewer electors than the county average by 2029. Having agreed to do this we considered the remaining rural parishes of Derwent and Hope Woodlands, currently in our Glossop North & Bamford division also have very similar links and concerns as Bamford parish. We note that these parishes have very small populations. Moving them has a small impact on electoral equality, worsening electoral equality in Glossop North & Bamford by a further 1% to 19% fewer. On balance, however, we are persuaded that having reflected the evidence around Bamford and Thornhill we should also transfer Derwent and Hope Woodlands parishes to Chapel & Hope Valley division.

With the additional inclusion of Derwent and Hope Valley parishes in Chapel & Hope Valley division, the remainder of the Glossop North & Bamford division will have 19% fewer electors than the county average by 2029, while Chapel & Hope Valley would have 4% more.

We recognise that this is a relatively poor level of electoral equality, but this must be balanced against the strong evidence of community links and also the very specific geography that leaves Bamford, Derwent and Hope Woodlands very isolated from draft recommendations for a Glossop North & Bamford division. On balance, we consider that our final recommendations should reflect this community identity evidence, noting that it also improves effective and convenient local government by creating a coterminous boundary with Hope Valley ward, uniting Bamford and Thornhill parishes, and that it has much better internal links making it easier to represent.

We are therefore modifying Chapel & Hope Valley division to include Bamford, Derwent and Hope Woodlands parishes. As a result, we would rename Glossop North & Bamford division as Glossop North. We have considered whether to modify the boundary between Glossop North and Glossop South, to improve the variance of 19% fewer electors that results from this change to Glossop North division. However, this would move away from the clear boundary we have drawn through the centre of Glossop. Therefore, we have decided to retain the boundary set out in our draft recommendations between the two Glossop divisions.

We note the proposed name changes from Robert Largan MP and while there may be some merit in his argument, we have had no other evidence to support these name changes, so cannot be sure of their local support. We are therefore retaining the Ethrow and Glossop South division names. As a result of our changes to the Glossop North & Bamford division, we are renaming this Glossop North.

Under a Council size of 64, North East Derbyshire is allocated eight councillors, with each division entitled to an average of 3% more electors than the county average by 2029.

Dronfield & Unstone, Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton, Eckington & Coal Aston and  Killamarsh & Renishaw

In response to the draft recommendations we received general support for these divisions from the Council and Labour Group, with both providing qualified commentary on how they relate to their original proposals. The North Derbyshire Conservative Federation and Councillor Lacey (North East Derbyshire District Council) also expressed general support for the draft recommendations. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s response.

Dronfield Town Council expressed support for the draft recommendations’ division boundaries, but requested changes to the parish wards, to simplify them (parish wards are discussed in the Parish Electoral Arrangements section below).  Wingerworth Parish Council and a number of members of the public objected to the draft recommendations which divided the parish along Longedge Lane, placing the north area in a Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton division, while the south area is in Shirland & Wingerworth South division. They argued that this divides ‘well connected’ parts of the village, with them being represented by different councillors, including some residents being in a division with Dronfield, while others are in division with residents in Shirland & Higham. It expressed support for retaining the existing divisions.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the general support for the draft recommendations for these divisions. We also note the objections from Wingerworth Parish Council to be divided between two divisions. However, the spread of the electorate in this area and the geography of wrapping around Chesterfield and Derbyshire Dales to the west limit the options in this area for also securing electoral equality. To secure electoral equality across the district we have found it necessary to transfer the north of Wingerworth to a northern division, and that retaining the existing divisions is not possible.

We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Clay Cross & Tupton, North Wingfield, Pilsley & Morton, Shirland & Wingerworth South and Sutton

In response to the draft recommendations we received a mixture of support and objections for these divisions. The Council put forward a revised version of their original proposals for this area (with the exception of Sutton division), providing evidence to support it. North Derbyshire Conservative Federation expressed support for the Council’s revised proposals, putting forward similar evidence. The Conservative Group expressed support for the Council’s response. The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations and also argued against the Council’s revised proposals. Councillor Lacey (North East Derbyshire District Council) expressed general support for the draft recommendations.

The Council and North Derbyshire Conservative Federation expressed concern that the draft recommendations have poor electoral equality, with Clay Cross & Tupton division having 10% more electors than the county average by 2029, while neighbouring North Wingfield, Pilsley & Morton division would have 2% fewer. They argued that their proposals have better electoral equality, with a Clay Cross North & Tupton and Clay Cross South & North Wingfield with variances of 2% more and 7% more, respectively.

While they accepted that part of Wingerworth has to be transferred to Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton division, they were concerned that our Shirland & Wingerworth South division has poor coterminosity since it divides Clay Cross North, Tupton and Shirland wards. They also noted that our Shirland & Wingerworth South division contains parts of five wards.

They rejected arguments for not dividing parishes at the expense of dividing wards. For example, they rejected the argument for not dividing Wingerworth parish between more than two divisions, noting that it is divided between three district wards as part of our draft recommendations, which they argued reflects established splits in the parish while also securing better coterminosity and electoral equality.

They argued that the Adlington and The Avenue areas of Wingerworth parish do not identify ‘as strongly’ with the rest of the parish and look to Tupton and Clay Cross for secondary schools, leisure and retail facilities. They added that while there is a desire for the new housing in Clay Cross around the Biwaters Estate to be linked to the rest of Clay Cross, there is also an argument for linking it to the development in Wingerworth around The Avenue, noting school links.

They noted that while the Mill Lane area is part of Wingerworth parish, it is in Clay Cross North ward, reflecting residents’ stronger links to Clay Cross than to Tupton and Wingerworth. They argued that our Clay Cross & Tupton division does not reflect this, separating the area from Clay Cross and putting it in Shirland & Wingerworth South division, which also worsens coterminosity.

They also argued that while the rationale for keeping the whole of Clay Cross parish in a single division is understandable, this does not enable a pattern for the wider area that secures good electoral equality or coterminosity. They noted that the current split of Clay Cross parish between divisions (and wards) is long standing and also enables it to be represented by two councillors. They also noted that other towns are split between divisions, including Ashbourne, Ilkeston, Swadlincote, Glossop and Buxton.

They argued that our North Wingfield, Pilsley & Morton division separates Mickley from its parish of Shirland & Higham and also divides Shirland ward, thus reducing coterminosity. They acknowledged that their proposal separates Morton parish from Pilsley & Morton ward, reducing coterminosity there, but argued that it is a separate parish, which is preferable to our proposal which divides Shirland & Higham parish between divisions. They also argued that their revised proposals enables the Mill Lane area of Wingfield parish to be in a ward with part of Clay Cross. They argued that their revised proposals addressed the concerns they set out.

The North East Derbyshire Liberal Democrats also objected to the draft recommendations and argued for a division comprising Tupton and Wingerworth parishes, providing evidence of community identity links. They stated that Tupton is ‘not a suburb of Clay Cross’. They also argued that Clay Cross and Shirland & Higham parishes should be in a division together.

Councillor Cupit (Derbyshire County Council and North East Derbyshire District Council) expressed support for the Council’s revised proposals. Her arguments built on many of those put forward by the Council. She expressed concern about the proposal to separate Mickley from Shirland & Higham parish, noting that it has strong community links with the rest of the parish and that separating it would require a parish ward. She also argued for the retention of the Mill Lane area in a Clay Cross division, while also arguing that Clay Cross itself should continue to be served by two councillors reflecting that the town is made up of different communities. She added that Danesmoor has links to Pilsley, while Old Tupton and Holmgate link to Tupton and Wingerworth.

A number of members of the public also argued that the Mill Lane area should be in a Clay Cross division.

The Labour Group expressed support for the draft recommendations and put forward objections to the Council’s revised proposals. It supported our proposal to remove the existing split of Clay Cross parish between divisions, arguing this will give the whole town a single voice. It also acknowledged that North Wingfield parish needs to be divided to secure electoral equality, but that the proposed divide is much more sensible than the existing division which splits the village centre. It also expressed support for the division of Wingerworth parish between two divisions, rather than three under the Council’s proposals, noting that a single-councillor pattern is ‘almost impossible’ without splitting Wingerworth parish.

The Labour Group also provided specific objections to the Council’s revised proposal. It noted that the geography and spread of the electorate in this area leads one to choose between using parishes or wards as the building blocks for divisions. It acknowledged the Council’s argument that residents in the Mill Lane area look to Clay Cross for services, but said this should be balanced against the fact residents in the south of Clay Cross also look to Clay Cross for services, with the main services being in the north of the parish. As such, it argued that there is a stronger case for keeping the whole of Clay Cross in a division, than for dividing it so that the Mill Lane areas can be included, thus keeping the parish together, but at the expense of coterminosity.   

 It rejected the Council’s concerns about electoral equality, arguing the variances of the draft recommendations are within acceptable levels. It acknowledged that while the draft recommendations divide Mickley from Shirland & Higham parish and Shirland ward, the Council’s proposals separate Morton parish from Pilsley & Morton ward. They also argued that the Council had not given evidence for links between the south of Clay Cross parish and other areas in its Clay Cross South & North Wingfield division, while arguing that the other areas actually look to the north of Clay Cross where the facilities and services are located. They also argued that the Council’s proposals to split Wingerworth parish between three divisions would require three county councillors to attend its meetings, while the draft recommendations would only require two to attend.

 It accepted the argument that residents from Wingerworth and Tupton use facilities in Clay Cross, but as said above, argued that so do residents from all surrounding communities. It argued that the areas to the north of Clay Cross will also look to Chesterfield for services, which lies just to the north. Finally, it added that while the parts of Wingerworth parish are split between Tupton and Wingerworth wards, with the A61 running through the area, being in a single division means better representation on traffic and transport issues.

 Councillor Gillott (Derbyshire County Council) put forward detailed evidence to support the draft recommendations for including Clay Cross parish in a single division. His arguments built on many of those put forward by the Labour Group, including that Clay Cross is a growing community and a hub for retail, leisure and essential services. As such, the issues that it faces would be better served by a single councillor. He acknowledged that the Mill Lane area looks to Clay Cross, but that it is in the interests of those residents that Clay Cross has the best representation it can, which is being served by a single councillor, and that they sit within Wingerworth parish. He also acknowledged that Clay Cross parish does not have sufficient electors to be a division in its own right and therefore linking it with Tupton is an acceptable solution, while reflecting Tupton is a separate parish, as its residents look to Clay Cross for services.

 Councillor Gillott also supported the inclusion of North Wingfield and Pilsley in a division, noting they share similar concerns around road and public transport connections, while Pilsley and Morton are rural villages that share concerns around the provision of services and therefore reliable transport links to access services. He stated that if North Wingfield must be split, then the draft recommendations use a sensible boundary. Finally, he acknowledged that Stretton parish has limited links to North Wingfield, but does have some links with Morton around road and transport links, as well as both looking to Clay Cross for services – the north area where the services are, not the south area.

North Wingfield Parish Council expressed support for the draft recommendations stating that while its preference would be for the parish to remain in a single division, it accepts to secure electoral equality this is not possible. It argues that the new split in the village is more logical than the existing one, noting that it keeps the village centre and its facilities together in a single division. It also accepted the inclusion of an area to the east of the parish in Sutton division, noting it shares links with Holmewood. It stated that while residents use facilities in Clay Cross, these links are to the north where the facilities are, not the south area of Clay Cross (Danesmoor or Clay Lane) – this is reflected in the public transport links. Finally, it cited its links to Pilsley, including the local primary school.

As outlined in the Dronfield & Unstone, Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton, Eckington & Coal Aston and Killamarsh & Renishaw section, Wingerworth Parish Council and a number of members of the public objected to the draft recommendation which divided the parish along Longedge Lane, placing the north area in a Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton division, while the south area is in Shirland & Wingerworth South division.

Councillor Adlington-Stringer (North East Derbyshire District Council) expressed concern that the draft recommendations would create confusion stating that ‘There […] are several layers of representation in Wingerworth, none of which overlap in any meaningful or coherent way’.

Clay Cross Parish Council and Councillor Cooper (Tupton Parish Council) expressed support for the draft recommendations, putting forward elements of the Labour Group and Councillor Gillott argument.

St Bartholomew’s and St Barnabas churches, Clay Cross argued that Stretton and Handley are traditionally linked to Clay Cross not North Wingfield. They also argued that the draft recommendations omit a number of properties around Coney Green Road from their natural community in Clay Cross.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the conflicting evidence, bought about in part by the difficulty in securing a pattern of divisions for this area. This is made more complicated by the spread of the electorate, the complicated geography and finding a balance between reflecting the wards and parish boundaries.

The comments from Councillor Adlington-Stringer reflect these issues and we acknowledge that the parish and ward boundaries in this area may create confusion when new division boundaries are also being proposed. In the case of Wingerworth, while some respondents have argued that it is important to keep coterminosity with the district wards, we also note that this leads to some of the confusion as Wingerworth parish is already divided between three wards. We consider that our draft recommendations minimise this by only dividing the parish between two divisions. We acknowledge that the transfer of an area to Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton division is not ideal – however, this is unavoidable in seeking a pattern that also secures reasonable levels of electoral equality. While the Council’s revised proposal is coterminous with the ward boundaries in Wingerworth area, it divides Wingerworth parish between three divisions, which we think adds to the confusion creating less clear effective and convenient local government. This is one argument in favour of our draft recommendations.

We also note the arguments around the division of Clay Cross, which is in part linked to which neighbouring areas should be linked to Clay Cross. We note the argument that the Mill Lane area has links to Clay Cross and that these are reflected in the ward boundaries. However, linking this area to Clay Cross, as the Council and others suggest, in part leads to the need to divide Clay Cross parish between wards. We consider there to be good evidence not to do this, with good arguments for representing the whole of Clay Cross parish with one councillor. Indeed, our visit to the area suggested that the south area abuts the centre of town and residents share clear links in the use of facilities and services there. We note the argument that other towns are divided to secure a division pattern. However, in most of the cases quoted, the towns are too large to be in a single division, while in others, towns are divided where we have been unable to identify an alternative pattern. In the case of Clay Cross, we consider there to be a sensible option that doesn’t divide the town.  

We also note the argument from North Wingfield Parish Council that its residents look to the north of Clay Cross for service and facilities and not to the south (which has no services or facilities), which the Council scheme includes them with. Our visit to the area confirmed that the links are to the north area. Finally, in Clay Cross, we note the conflicting argument about the links between Tupton to Clay Cross and/or to Aldington and The Avenue part of Wingerworth parish. Our visit to the area suggests these areas may link to both, but it is clear that residents in Tupton will look to Clay Cross for many services and facilities. While the Aldington and The Avenue area may look to Tupton and on to Clay Cross for the same services and facilities, it also has reasonable links into the rest of Wingerworth parish. On balance, we consider the draft recommendations provide a reasonable reflection of this.

While it is correct that the draft recommendations divide Mickley from Shirland & Higham parish and Shirland ward, the Council’s proposals separate Morton parish from Pilsley & Morton ward, so neither proposal secures coterminosity in this area. We note the argument that Mickley should be kept with the rest of Shirland & Higham parish. However, if it was retained in our Shirland & Wingerworth South division this would worsen electoral equality there to 16% more electors than the county average by 2029. We are not persuaded that this level of electoral equality can be justified in this area, when there are options to link it with neighbouring rural villages, including Morton and Stretton, albeit in different parishes. Therefore, we are not adopting this amendment.

We note the comments and proposals from the Liberal Democrats and while they provide some evidence for an alternative pattern, their proposal for a division comprising Clay Cross and Shirland & Higham parishes would have 23% more electors than the county average by 2029. Notwithstanding this poor level of electoral equality, this also does not take into account the knock-on effect on the rest of the area. Therefore, we are not persuaded to adopt this amendment.

We also note the comments about Coney Green Road, but this reflects the parish and ward boundaries. To transfer these areas would require amending these boundaries which we cannot do as part of this review.

We note the comments about the levels of electoral equality and while the Council’s proposals provide slightly better levels of electoral equality, those of our draft recommendations are still within acceptable levels. We have also considered concerns about the levels of coterminosity with district wards, noting that the Council’s proposals would divide three of the eight wards in this area and the draft recommendations would divide five of those wards.

As stated above, the spread of the electorate, the complicated geography and finding a balance between reflecting the wards and parish boundaries makes it difficult to draw division boundaries in this area. While the situation is finely balanced, the draft recommendations reflect many of the comments received about community links, avoid dividing the Clay Cross parish and only divides Wingerworth parish between two divisions. We consider that this balance of factors outweighs concerns about differences in coterminosity and electoral equality. Given the transfer of part of Wingerworth parish to Dronfield Woodhouse & Walton division, we consider that avoiding dividing the rest of the parish between divisions will serve it better. We acknowledge the draft recommendations do not reflect all community links, particularly those around the Mill Lane area and Mickley, but again we consider that the draft recommendations provide the best balance of the statutory criteria, securing electoral equality, avoiding the division of some parishes and reflecting other community evidence. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.