North West Leicestershire final recommendations

Kegworth

Kegworth North & Daleacre Hill and Kegworth South

The Council and one of the current councillors for the Kegworth area supported our proposals for this part of the district, in particular noting the minimal changes to the current arrangements. They also supported both ward names. A local resident also stated that our Kegworth South ward looked ‘logical’ and had no objections.

A local resident opposed the division of Kegworth into two separate wards. However, this review aims to establish a uniform pattern of single-councillor wards in line with the request from the District Council. We consider that insufficient evidence has been received to warrant moving away from this approach in Kegworth.

We also received a submission from a local resident who opposed the inclusion of Lockington-Hemington parish in Kegworth North & Daleacre Hill ward and expressed a preference for the parish to be linked with Castle Donington. However, the exclusion of the parish from this ward would result in a forecast electoral variance of -37%, which is considerably higher than we would normally accept given the evidence received. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Kegworth North & Daleacre Hill and Kegworth South wards as final.

Breedon, Belton, Long Whatton and Worthington

Breedon & Long Whatton and Worthington & Belton

The Council supported our Breedon & Long Whatton and Worthington & Belton wards. One of the current councillors for the Kegworth area also supported our Breedon & Long Whatton ward, as it helped ‘focus the representation of the proposed Isley Woodhouse development at the heart of this proposed ward’. A local resident also expressed support for Worthington & Belton ward.

However, two local residents raised concerns about these wards. They argued that they lacked geographical coherence, with limited links between the constituent communities. Both expressed a preference for Worthington & Breedon and Belton & Long Whatton wards, citing the geographical proximity and good transport links (such as footpaths and cycle routes) between the constituent parishes.

We carefully considered these submissions given the mixture of support and opposition received concerning these two wards. However, we have concluded that our draft recommendations continue to provide the best balance of our statutory criteria based on the evidence received across both rounds of consultation and our previous visit to the area. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these two wards as final.

Ashby de la Zouch

Ashby Blackfordby

We received mixed feedback regarding the proposed name for this ward. The current Blackfordby ward councillor and a local resident expressed a preference for omitting the Ashby prefix, emphasising Blackfordby village’s distinct identity from the town of Ashby de la Zouch. Conversely, four other ward councillors and the current Ashby Woulds ward councillor supported retaining the Ashby prefix.

After thorough consideration, we have decided to retain the ward name Ashby Blackfordby in line with our draft recommendations. We found the latter submissions to be more persuasive, which argued that the Ashby prefix highlights the strong connections Blackfordby village shares with the nearby communities of Ashby de la Zouch and Ashby Woulds.

A local resident suggested Norris Hill be included in Ashby Woulds ward, as it forms part of Ashby Woulds parish. They also argued Norris Hill shares stronger links with Moira village. However, implementing this change would lead to electoral variances of -43% and 47% for our proposed Ashby Blackfordby and Ashby Woulds wards, respectively. We consider these variances too high to accept. In any case, we also maintain the view that, based on our tour of the area, Blackfordby village has strong links with Norris Hill.

Two local residents supported our decision to not link Blackfordby village in a ward with the built-up area of Ashby de la Zouch. Having considered all the evidence received, we have decided to confirm our proposed Ashby Blackfordby ward as part of our final recommendations.

Ashby Castle, Ashby Ivanhoe, Ashby Money Hill and Ashby Willesley

The Council and Ashby de la Zouch Town Council supported our proposals for these four wards, and for the town council area as a whole. A local resident also supported the boundary between Ashby Ivanhoe and Ashby Hastings ward which runs along Burton Road, while another local resident stated these two wards were ‘very sensible’. With no further submissions received pertaining to these wards, we have decided to confirm them as final.

Ashby Hastings and Ashby Holywell

Five local residents and the Council supported the creation of our proposed Ashby Hastings ward. It was suggested by one local resident that this ward would provide for better community representation for a relatively new residential development that was previously split between wards.

Two submissions opposed the name of Ashby Hastings, with one stating that the ward should be named Ashby Holywell instead, with the latter ward also being renamed. However, we were not persuaded that the evidence received for alternative ward names was sufficient to move away from our proposed names.

Appleby, Ashby Woulds, Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe

Appleby and Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe

During consultation, we received five submissions regarding these two wards. Oakthorpe, Donisthorpe & Acresford Parish Council, Councillor Gelder (of the same parish council), Councillor Ball and two local residents opposed our decision to move the hamlet of Acresford, which is part of the parish council area, into Appleby ward. They argued that this change would harm local community interests and disrupt effective and convenient local governance by dividing the parish between two wards.

We have carefully considered this feedback and recognise that placing Acresford in Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward would lead to a forecast electoral variance of -14% for Appleby ward by 2030. Despite this relatively high variance, we have decided to adopt this proposal as we agree with the evidence received that our draft recommendations would not provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. We consider that a Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward that is fully contiguous with Oakthorpe, Donisthorpe & Acresford Parish Council will better reflect local community identities and promote effective and convenient local government.

Ashby Woulds

Councillor Ball and the Council requested that we examine transferring Donisthorpe Lane, Park Road, Poplar Avenue, Shortheath Road, Measham Road and School Street from Ashby Woulds ward into Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward. Councillor Ball stated that these roads share more in common with communities in the latter ward, despite being in Ashby Woulds parish and the current Ashby Woulds district ward. However, we had decided not to adopt this proposal, as we prefer to align the ward boundary with the current parish boundaries, where possible. We consider that different boundaries for district and parish elections can be confusing for electors and an impediment to effective and convenient local government.

Coleorton, Heather, Measham, Packington and Ravenstone

Coleorton, Heather & Packington

The Council supported our proposed Coleorton, Heather & Packington ward. However, Councillor Dillon of Coleorton Parish Council and a local resident opposed this arrangement, arguing that the A511 road acts as a natural boundary and that Coleorton parish lacks strong social or geographical ties to Heather and Packington. Instead, they proposed a ward that linked Coleorton parish with Worthington, Belton, and surrounding smaller parishes north of the A511, to better reflect shared community connections, such as schools, churches and recreational facilities.

While we recognise the community-based evidence provided, moving Coleorton parish from our proposed Coleorton, Heather & Packington ward to Worthington & Belton ward would result in forecast electoral variances of -29% for the former ward and 42% for the latter. These variances are too high if we are to provide an effective balance of our statutory criteria. As a result, we are confirming our draft recommendations for Coleorton, Heather & Packington ward as final.

Measham North and Measham South

The Council supported our wards for Measham. A local resident questioned why Measham is divided into two wards and suggested that ‘Measham East’ and ‘Measham West’ would be more appropriate names. However, this review aims to establish a uniform pattern of single-councillor wards. We consider there is insufficient evidence to deviate from this approach in the Measham area. Furthermore, we propose that ‘Measham North’ and ‘Measham South’ remain appropriate ward names, as we consider that the proposed boundary through Measham parish splits the town on a north/south basis.

Ravenstone

The Council supported our proposed Ravenstone ward, and a local resident also endorsed our decision to split the existing Ravenstone & Packington ward by placing Packington parish in a separate ward with similar rural communities. As no further submissions were received, we are confirming our draft recommendations for Ravenstone ward as final.

Ibstock and Ellistown

Ellistown East, Ellistown West, Ibstock East and Ibstock West

The Council fully supported our recommendations for these four wards, which were based upon the Council’s initial proposals. However, while one local resident expressed approval for our proposed Ibstock East and Ibstock West wards, we received submissions from two local residents who were opposed to our decision to include part of Ibstock in Ellistown West ward.

However, as outlined in our draft recommendations, electoral equality in this part of the district cannot be achieved without subdividing Ibstock parish into three separate wards, as it is too large to accommodate two district councillors. It also remains the case that Ellistown & Battleflat parish will not contain enough electors by 2030 to form two single-councillor wards with good electoral equality. We therefore concluded that our draft recommendations to incorporate part of Ibstock parish in an Ellistown West ward to be the best solution to minimise electoral variances in the Ellistown and Ibstock areas.

Neither of these two submissions were able to provide us with an alternative proposal that would allow for reasonable levels of forecast electoral equality. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Ellistown East, Ellistown West, Ibstock East and Ibstock West wards as final.

A local resident also opposed the division of Ibstock between wards. However, this review aims to establish a uniform pattern of singlecouncillor wards. We consider that insufficient evidence has been received to justify moving away from this approach in the Ibstock area.

Hugglescote & Donington-le-Heath

Hugglescote Sence, Hugglescote St John’s and Hugglescote St Mary’s

The Council recognised that we had largely adopted its proposals here and expressed support for our draft recommendations for the Hugglescote & Doningtonle-Heath area. Additionally, two local residents supported the creation of an additional ward in the area to address electoral equality concerns resulting from significant residential development.

Councillor Johnson requested that Dennis Street, St John’s Close, Old Church Close, 2-24 Grange Road, 1-82 Ashburton Road, 2-68 Central Road, Holly Bank and Peggs Grange be transferred to Hugglescote St John’s ward. They argued that excluding these roads and St John’s Church from Hugglescote St John’s resulted in a ward that did not contain the church from which it derives its name. A similar point was raised by a local resident, who also stated that our proposals appeared to divide the village. They suggested that the boundary of Hugglescote Sence ward instead follow the old railway line and that the Ellistown East ward be consequently adjusted.

We have carefully considered these two submissions, noting the community evidence supplied to support these suggestions. However, both proposals would result in an electoral variance of over 20% for Hugglescote St John’s ward. We consider such a variance from the average too high to accept and we therefore have not incorporated either proposal into our final recommendations. We also propose no name change to Hugglescote St John’s ward, in the absence of a well-evidenced alternative name.

A local resident suggested including the northern part of Manor Road in Hugglescote Sence ward to unify the entire road and the Donington-le-Heath area in a single ward. However, we have not adopted this proposal, as it would create a parish ward with very few electors, which would not support effective and convenient local governance. This is due to the county division boundary, which follows the existing district ward boundary. If a parish is divided between district wards, we are legally required to create parish wards that lie wholly within a single district ward. Additionally, we must reflect existing county division boundaries to ensure each parish ward lies within a single district ward and county division.

One local resident opposed the name ‘Hugglescote Sence’, suggesting ‘Sence Valley’ as an alternative. However, we have decided not to adopt this suggestion, as Sence Valley Forest Park is not located within the ward, and we consider that using this name could cause confusion locally.

We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Hugglescote Sence, Hugglescote St John’s and Hugglescote St Mary’s wards as final.

East of Coalville

Bardon and Greenhill

The Council supported our decision to largely adopt its proposals for these two wards in our draft recommendations. However, it requested that Greenhill Playing Fields be moved from Bardon ward to Greenhill ward arguing that the playing fields are considered part of the Greenhill estate and that this transfer would better reflect local community identities. As this change does not affect any electors, we are content to adopt this modification as part of our final recommendations, as it will better reflect local community interests.

Broom Leys and Castle Rock

The Council also supported our decision to largely adopt its proposals for these two wards. As no further submissions were received during consultation, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

West of Coalville

Coalville, Snibston North and Snibston South

The Council supported our decision to broadly base our draft recommendations for these three wards on its proposals. Having received no further submissions concerning these wards, we are confirming them as part of our final recommendations.