North Yorkshire draft recommendations

Harrogate and Knaresborough

Bilton & Nidd Gorge

The Council and the Liberal Democrats both proposed identical Bilton & Nidd Gorge divisions, which included transferring the Old Barber estate into the neighbouring Bilton Grange division. However, in our draft recommendations, we propose retaining the existing division. This is because the current division is forecast to have good electoral equality, and we consider Knox Lane to provide a clearer and more identifiable boundary than the one proposed by the Council and the Liberal Democrats.

Bilton Grange

The Council and the Liberal Democrats each proposed a division based on the Bilton Grange area, with slight differences in their suggested boundaries. Our draft recommendations align more closely with the Liberal Democrats’ proposal, as we consider the use of Skipton Road and Ripon Road to provide clearer and more identifiable boundaries than those put forward by the Council. Additionally, we have adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposed name of Bilton Grange. However, we welcome feedback on whether the Council’s suggestion to include ‘Knox’ in the division name would be more appropriate.

Birstwith & Pannal

For the parishes that lie west of Harrogate, we propose to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Birstwith & Pannal division. This proposal helps achieve a division pattern that reflects the topography and community interests of the surrounding areas of Harrogate, Wharfedale and Nidderdale. Furthermore, it links the larger villages of Pannal and Birstwith in a division with other smaller villages west of Harrogate. We consider these areas are likely to share similar concerns and interests, and therefore should be contained in the same division.

Duchy & Valley Gardens and Harrogate Central

The Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed variations of the existing Coppice Valley & Duchy and Valley Gardens & Central Harrogate divisions, both of which would straddle the A61. However, based on our virtual tour of Harrogate, we consider the A61 to be a clear and logical boundary. We also determined that there was merit in creating a Harrogate Central division that primarily reflects the identities and interests of electors within the town’s commercial centre. We are therefore recommending a Harrogate Central division defined by distinct and identifiable boundaries, following the A61, A59 and A6040 roads.

In light of our decision to establish a Harrogate Central division, we propose combining the Duchy and Valley Gardens areas into a single division. We consider that this approach provides an appropriate balance between our statutory criteria, grouping communities west of the town centre in a division centred around the Valley Gardens open space.

We also consider that the name ‘Duchy & Valley Gardens’ most accurately represents the communities the division encompasses, based on evidence provided by a local resident. However, we would welcome feedback on these two divisions during the current consultation period.

Granby

Our proposed Granby division is based on the Council’s division, which also closely aligns with the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. Both proposals link communities either side of the A59 in a single division. We are satisfied that this division achieves a good balance of the statutory criteria, based on the community evidence provided by the Council. This evidence highlights that the division falls within the area historically recognised as Granby and includes key local landmarks such as Harrogate High School (formerly Harrogate Granby) and the Granby Care Home (previously the Granby Hotel). Additionally, we note the Council’s evidence that the proposed boundaries broadly reflect those of the former Granby ward, which existed in the former Harrogate Borough Council prior to its final electoral review in 2018.

Harlow

The Liberal Democrats supported the Council’s proposed Harlow division, which is largely based on the existing Harlow & St George’s division. The Council’s modifications included the exclusion of electors around Swinton Court and Harlow Oval to establish a clearer boundary along Otley Road, and the transfer of the Rossett School area into its proposed Oatlands & Rossett division. We consider these adjustments to create a well-defined division centred on the Harlow Hill area, with good projected electoral equality. As a result, we consider this division aligns well with the statutory criteria and propose adopting it as part of our draft recommendations.

A local resident stated that a housing estate which straddles the boundary between Beckwithshaw and Harrogate parishes should be located entirely in a Harlow division. They argued that splitting it between urban and rural divisions would not reflect the differing needs of residents. We agree that the current boundary is not particularly clear, and we have allocated the estate to our proposed Harlow division. 

Jennyfield

We received differing proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats regarding the north-western part of Harrogate. The Council suggested dividing the Jennyfield and King Edwin Park areas between divisions to align its Oakdale and Lower Nidderdale divisions with the Harrogate and Killinghall parish boundary. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed placing the entirety of the Jennyfield and King Edwin Park areas in a single-councillor Jennyfield division.

After reviewing the area through a virtual tour, we have based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. We found that the Harrogate and Killinghall parish boundary is not clearly defined, and using it as a division boundary would divide the Jennyfield and King Edwin Park communities between divisions. We concluded that this approach would not effectively reflect community identities or interests, and that the Liberal Democrats’ proposal provided for a more coherent division. In particular, it keeps the Jennyfield and King Edwin Park areas together in the same division, ensuring clear community representation and reflecting local community links.

Knaresborough East and Knaresborough West

The proposals for Knaresborough varied significantly between the Council and the Liberal Democrats. The Council proposed dividing the Knaresborough parish area across three divisions: Knaresborough Castle, Knaresborough East and Knaresborough Scriven. Under these proposals, Knaresborough East and Knaresborough Scriven would combine parts of urban Knaresborough with surrounding rural parishes. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed a two-division pattern, dividing Knaresborough on an east-west basis, and keeping the divisions predominantly urban and separate from rural parishes.

Having considered the evidence received, we have decided to base our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for two divisions in Knaresborough. We consider that this approach provides the best balance of the statutory criteria by ensuring that the Knaresborough divisions remain primarily urban and focused on the town itself. In comparison, we determined that the Council’s proposal to link urban Knaresborough with rural parishes would not provide as strong a reflection of community identities and interests.

However, we propose to include the areas of Calcutt, Forest Moor and Thistle Hill, which are within Knaresborough parish, in our proposed Knaresborough East division. The Liberal Democrats had included these areas in their proposed Stray & Woodlands division. We consider that aligning our Knaresborough East division with the Harrogate and Knaresborough parish boundary will better reflect community identities and support effective and convenient local government.

Lower Nidderdale

We received differing proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats regarding the composition of Lower Nidderdale division. The Council’s proposed division included the parishes of Hampsthwaite, Killinghall, Nidd, Ripley and South Stainley with Cayton. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats suggested a geographically larger division that incorporated these parishes but extended further west. They also proposed dividing Killinghall parish, with its urban section allocated to Jennyfield division and its rural area included in the more rural Lower Nidderdale division.

After careful consideration, we have based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for Lower Nidderdale division. We were persuaded by their argument that the Jennyfield community’s identity and interests would be best represented in a division that bears its name. Additionally, we believe that the rural parishes of Brearton, Farnham, Ferrensby, Scriven and Scotton align more closely in terms of community interests with the rural Lower Nidderdale division, rather than the more urban Knaresborough Scriven division as proposed by the Council.

Our recommended Lower Nidderdale division also includes electors in the Nidd Gorge area, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats. While this area falls within the Knaresborough parish boundary, we agree that it is distinct from the more urban parts of Knaresborough and is therefore better suited to the more rural-based Lower Nidderdale division. This arrangement also helps to ensure that our proposed Knaresborough West division achieves good electoral equality by 2030.

Oatlands & Rossett

The Liberal Democrats supported the Council’s proposed Oatlands & Rossett division. This division primarily consists of the northern part of the current Oatlands & Pannal division, incorporating the Rossett School and Tewit Well Road areas while excluding Pannal village.

We find that this division provides an effective balance of our statutory criteria with good forecast electoral equality by 2030. Therefore, we propose adopting it as part of our draft recommendations.

Starbeck

Our proposed Starbeck division is largely based upon the Council’s proposal, which is very similar to the former Starbeck division of the now abolished North Yorkshire County Council. We also note the Council’s observation that, by moving the current boundary from the railway line to Kingsley Road and Wedderburn Road, it brings it in line with the ‘Starbeck’ road signs. This adjustment ensures that the division boundary better reflects the established community identity and interests of the Starbeck area. We are content that the proposed division will have a good electoral equality by 2030, while reflecting the identities and interests of local communities.

Stray & Woodlands

We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed Stray & Woodlands division. The proposed division largely retains the existing boundaries of the current Stray, Woodlands & Hookstone division, with the exception of transferring the Tewit Well Road area into an Oatlands & Rossett division. The Council argued that this adjustment would improve electoral equality and better reflect the community interests of residents in the Tewit Well Road area by aligning them with the Oatlands community. The proposed division would also follow a stronger boundary by running along the railway line rather than Leeds Road.

However, we propose a small modification to the Council’s proposals and have incorporated the Hornbeam Business Park in this division to ensure the railway line serves as the boundary up to the Harrogate parish boundary, and to reflect road access routes from the business park.

Skipton

Aire Valley and Glusburn, Cross Hills & Sutton-in-Craven

We received differing proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats regarding the two divisions south of Skipton. The Council suggested creating a South Craven division that would link Sutton parish with Cross Hills, but placed Glusburn within an Aire Valley division. This would divide Glusburn & Cross Hills parish across divisions. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed including Sutton parish in an Aire Valley division, thereby grouping the Glusburn and Cross Hills communities in the same division.

After careful consideration, we have decided to retain the existing Glusburn, Cross Hills & Sutton-in-Craven division, which aligns more closely with the Council’s proposals. This is because we consider Cross Hills and Sutton-in-Craven to share strong community ties and that they should thus remain within the same division. Additionally, we propose keeping Glusburn in a division with these areas, thereby preventing the separation of Glusburn & Cross Hills parish across divisions.

We were also persuaded to base our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for an Aire Valley division. We believe this division effectively balances our statutory criteria, linking similar rural parishes to the south of Skipton in the same division.

Skipton East, Skipton North & Embsay-with-Eastby and Skipton West

The Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed significantly different division arrangements for the Skipton area. We were not persuaded to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Skipton East, Skipton North & West and Skipton South & Rural divisions, as we were concerned that their Skipton South & Rural division did not effectively balance our statutory criteria. Specifically, it combined parishes north of Skipton, such as Embsay-with-Eastby, in a division with those to the south, including Bradleys Both. We considered this to be an unsuitable arrangement as it would link disparate communities together in the same division.

Our draft recommendations for Skipton therefore more closely align with the Council’s proposals, with several key modifications. We recommend that Draughton parish be excluded from Skipton East division, as we consider it a more rural community better suited to our proposed Wharfedale division. Similarly, we propose that Carleton parish be included in our Aire Valley division rather than the Council’s proposed Skipton West division, also to reflect its more rural character and interests. .

Additionally, we propose including the parishes of Broughton, Elslack, Stirton with Thorlby and Thornton in Craven in our Skipton North & Embsay-with-Eastby division, rather than the Council’s proposed Mid Craven division. This adjustment ensures that Skipton North & Embsay-with-Eastby division will have good electoral equality by 2030. We also consider that these parishes have strong road connections (via the A56, A59 and A65) and reasonable community links with the north of Skipton and Embsay-with-Eastby parish. We are therefore satisfied that this division provides an effective balance of our three statutory criteria.

Yorkshire Dales

Bentham & Ingleton

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed similar divisions for the westernmost part of North Yorkshire. The Council suggested a North Craven division that largely followed the existing Bentham & Ingleton division boundaries but transferred the parishes of Lawkland and Austwick to a Settle division. The Liberal Democrats proposed the same changes, with the additional transfer of Clapham cum Newby parish into their Settle & Penyghent division.

In our draft recommendations, we propose a Bentham & Ingleton division based on the boundaries suggested by the Liberal Democrats. Their proposal secures slightly better electoral equality for both this division and the adjacent Settle division. However, we welcome feedback on where the community identities and interests of Clapham cum Newby lie, given that reasonable electoral equality can be achieved whether it is included in Bentham & Ingleton division or Settle division.

Furthermore, we have decided not to adopt the division names North Craven or Bentham, as proposed by the Council and the Liberal Democrats, respectively. We consider the current name, Bentham & Ingleton, to be the most representative of the division’s composition, as it reflects its largest constituent communities.

Leyburn & Lower Wensleydale

A near identical division was proposed by the Council and the Liberal Democrats for Leyburn and the surrounding parishes. In both proposals, the existing Leyburn & Middleham division was extended eastward to incorporate the Lower Wensleydale area from the current Scotton & Lower Wensleydale division. The only difference between the proposals was the placement of Hunton and Patrick Brompton parishes: the Liberal Democrats included both in their Leyburn division, while the Council assigned them to a Catterick Village & Crakehall division.

We have decided to base our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Leyburn division, as it helps provide for electoral equality in both this division and the adjacent Swale division. However, we propose to adopt the name Leyburn & Lower Wensleydale, as suggested by the Council, as we consider it more reflective of its constituent communities.

Constable Burton & Finghall Parish Council expressed support for the current Scotton & Lower Wensleydale boundary. However, we consider that our proposed division effectively reflects the community interests and identities of the Lower Wensleydale community, and we are therefore content it provides a good balance between our three statutory criteria.

Mid Craven

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed a Mid Craven division, although their configurations differed. The Council’s proposal extended the existing division southwards to include the parishes of Broughton, Elslack, Martons Both and Thornton in Craven. We decided not to adopt the Council’s division, as we have placed the parishes of Broughton, Elslack and Thornton in Craven in our Skipton North & Embsay-with-Eastby division. The reasoning for this is explained in the Skipton section of this report.

We have therefore decided to base our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Mid Craven division, which includes the parishes of Halton West and Wigglesworth from the current Settle division, along with Cracoe, Hetton-cum-Bordley and Rylstone parishes from the existing Wharfedale division. This division is forecast to have an electoral variance of -6% by 2030. We are satisfied that it reflects community identities, noting that the some of the smaller parishes share reasonable road and community links with the more populous settlements along the A65, such as Gargrave, Hellifield and Long Preston.

Pateley Bridge & Nidderdale and Wharfedale

During consultation we received several submissions opposing the Council’s proposed divisions for the Nidderdale and Wharfedale areas. Respondents expressed concerns that its proposal to divide Pateley Bridge across two divisions would not adequately reflect community interests, nor support effective and convenient local government. Further concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of the Upper Nidderdale Grouped Parish Council in a Wharfedale division.

Buckden Parish Council stated that the most logical way to achieve electoral equality for Upper Wharfedale was for it to be in the same division as Upper Nidderdale. However, well-evidenced submissions from Bewerley Parish Council, Dacre Parish Council, Darley & Menwith Parish Council, Pateley Bridge Town Council, the Nidderdale National Landscape Joint Advisory Committee and several local residents argued that this arrangement would undermine existing community ties. It was argued that, under such a division arrangement, the Upper Nidderdale area would be geographically isolated from the majority of the Upper Wharfedale area by extensive moorland.

In response, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Wharfedale division that extended the existing division further south. They also suggested that the current Pateley Bridge & Nidderdale division incorporate the parishes of Bishop Thornton, Shaw Mills & Warsill, Hartwith cum Winsley and Clint cum Hamlets. Their proposals also mirrored a submission made by a local resident, who also suggested the existing Wharfedale division be enlarged.

We therefore propose to base our Pateley Bridge & Nidderdale and Wharfedale divisions on the Liberal Democrats’ proposals as part of our draft recommendations. We consider that their proposals better reflect the topography, community identities and local interests of this area, based on the evidence received from a relatively wide range of respondents in this area.

Settle

Our proposed Settle division is based on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Settle & Penyghent division. Their configuration was similar to the existing Settle division, but included Clapham cum Newby parish and excluded Halton West and Wigglesworth parishes. Conversely, the Council proposed that Clapham cum Newby parish be included in a division with Bentham and Ingleton, while Halton West and Wigglesworth parishes would remain within a Settle division.

However, we consider that Halton West and Wigglesworth parishes are geographically closer to Hellifield and Long Preston and are likely to share stronger community links with these villages. Therefore, in line with the Liberal Democrats’ proposal, we have placed these parishes within our Mid Craven division. Additionally, we consider that including Clapham cum Newby parish in our Settle division achieves a better balance of our statutory criteria, as outlined in the Bentham & Ingleton section of this report.

While we have adopted the Liberal Democrats’ boundary proposals, we have decided to use the Council’s proposed division name of Settle, rather than Settle & Penyghent, as suggested by the Liberal Democrats. We nonetheless welcome views during the current consultation on whether the mountain should be included in the division name.

Our proposed Settle division unites the parishes of Settle and Giggleswick in the same division, aligning with a local residents’ submission that describes them as ‘basically the same place’. This supports our assessment that our Settle division will reflect community identities and interests in this area.

Upper Dales

The Council proposed expanding the current Upper Dales division to include the parishes of Carperby-cum-Thoresby, Castle Bolton with East & West Bolton, Redmire and Preston-under-Scar. These parishes would move from the existing Leyburn & Middleham division, in order to achieve electoral equality for Upper Dales division. The Council also argued that these parishes share strong community ties with the rural communities in the northern part of the Yorkshire Dales. This proposal was supported by the Liberal Democrats and by a local resident, with the latter expressing a preference for the parish to be included in the Upper Dales division.

We have decided to adopt the Council’s Upper Dales division as part of our draft recommendations. The inclusion of the above-named parishes will provide for an Upper Dales division with good electoral equality which will also reflect the identities and interests of its communities, based on the evidence received.

Ripon

Boroughbridge and Dishforth & Dalton

The Liberal Democrats proposed a Boroughbridge division that linked Boroughbridge parish with the surrounding parishes of Kirby Hill, Milby, Langthorpe and Roecliffe. Councillor Merson, of Kirby Hill Parish Council, also requested that these parishes, which they stated form part of the broader Boroughbridge community, should be in the same division. We agree that these communities share strong connections with Boroughbridge and should therefore be included in a Boroughbridge division.

The Council also proposed incorporating these parishes in a Boroughbridge division but extended it further north to include Cundall with Leckby, Ellenthorpe, Humberton, Norton-le-Clay and Thornton Bridge parishes. However, we were not persuaded to adopt this approach, as we consider these parishes to be more appropriately placed in the more rural-based division of Dishforth & Dalton, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

We consider that the Liberal Democrats’ Dishforth & Dalton division provides the best balance of the statutory criteria for the area north of Boroughbridge. We were persuaded by evidence presented by Liberal Democrats that indicated this division will reflect community interests, as it will predominantly consist of similar rural villages situated between the A1(M) and A19.

Sessay Parish Council and a local resident requested that Sessay parish not be included in the Council’s proposed Hillside & Raskelf division, preferring to remain linked with Topcliffe and Sowerby. While we understand these concerns, we recommend placing Sessay parish in Dishforth & Dalton division. We consider that this approach reflects the parish’s rural identity by placing it within a largely rural division, while also ensuring electoral equality for Dishforth & Dalton division. Furthermore, this recommendation aligns with evidence from another local resident who argued that Sessay parish should be part of a more rural division rather than be linked with the more urban Sowerby area.

Masham & Fountains

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed a Masham & Fountains division, though their boundaries differed slightly.

Our draft recommendations for Masham & Fountains division reflects a combination of these proposals, which both involved transferring several parishes in the south of the existing division. We were particularly persuaded by the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to include the parishes of North Stainley with Sleningford and West Tanfield. We note that both parishes share strong connections with Masham via the A6108.

Additionally, we have decided to include Markenfield Hall and Markington with Wallerthwaite parishes in this division, as proposed by the Council. We consider that these areas will share greater identities and interests with communities in a predominantly rural division rather than being included in a more built-up division with the south of Ripon, as suggested by the Liberal Democrats.

Azerley Parish Council and a local resident expressed concerns that any proposed boundary changes would not adequately reflect local communities and identities. They were concerned that the resulting divisions would encompass large areas, potentially having a negative impact on effective local representation. While we acknowledge these concerns, we are satisfied that our proposed Masham & Fountains division strikes an appropriate balance between our three statutory criteria. This division links comparable rural communities along the eastern edge of the Yorkshire Dales, which we consider are likely to share common community interests, challenges and opportunities.

Ripon Canal & Ure, Ripon Cathedral & Spa and Ripon South

As acknowledged by both the Council and the Liberal Democrats, the city of Ripon is too large to be represented solely by two single-councillor divisions. Consequently, part of the city must be included in a division with surrounding areas to ensure good electoral equality across this area.

Our draft recommendations are based on the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. We consider their approach to creating a division focused on the eastern part of Ripon and the adjacent rural parishes to be logical given their proximity to the Ripon Canal and River Ure. In contrast, we found on our virtual tour of Ripon that the Council’s proposal to place the Clotherholme area in a large, rural Masham & Fountains division may not reflect the community identities of electors residing in the Clotherholme area. Additionally, we determined that the boundary suggested in that area was not clearly defined.

We also decided not to adopt the Council’s proposal of adding to this division an area of Littlethorpe parish adjacent to West Lane. This area would incorporate new residential development into a Ripon South division and we were concerned that would require the creation of a parish ward that might have only very few electors by the time of the first parish election in 2027. We determined that this would not provide for effective and convenient local government, but would welcome further evidence from the Council, Ripon Town Council and Littlethorpe Parish Council as to whether we should adopt this proposal in our final recommendations.

Richmond

Brompton & Scorton, North Richmondshire and Richmond

The town of Richmond is too large, in terms of electorate, to be represented by a single-councillor division. Therefore, part of the town must be included in an adjacent division alongside some rural parishes. The Council proposed that most of Richmond be combined with the parishes of Aske and Gilling with Hartforth & Sedbury to form a Richmond & Gilling West division. Meanwhile, the eastern part of the town would be grouped with several adjoining parishes in a Richmond East & Scotch Corner division. The Council’s proposed North Richmondshire division largely mirrored the existing boundaries but excluded the parishes of Aske, Gilling with Hartforth & Sedbury, Middleton Tyas, Moulton and Skeeby.

The Liberal Democrats, with the support of the Richmond & Northallerton Liberal Democrats, proposed an alternative arrangement. They provided evidence suggesting that the Council’s proposal did not adequately reflect community identities, local interests, or the area’s geography. Instead, they proposed a reconfigured North Richmondshire division, a revised Richmond division, and the creation of a new Brompton & Scorton division.

After careful consideration, we have largely based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposals for Richmond and the surrounding area, as we determined from our virtual tour of the area that they better align with our statutory criteria. The community-based evidence they provided persuaded us that their proposed boundaries would create well-connected divisions with shared amenities. Additionally, we agree that their Brompton & Scorton division is defined by key transport routes and natural features, effectively linking communities with common challenges and opportunities.

The Richmond & Northallerton Liberal Democrats suggested that Brompton & Scorton division be named Swale & Tees. However, we recommend the name Brompton & Scorton, as we consider it more accurately reflects the primary communities within this division.

Hipswell & Colburn

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed largely maintaining the existing Hipswell & Colburn division. Both proposed we transfer St Martin’s parish to a Richmond-focused division. We agree with this approach and have included St Martin’s parish in Richmond division as part of our draft recommendations.

The primary difference between the two proposals related to the treatment of Colburn parish. The Council proposed retaining the split of Colburn parish across divisions, while the Liberal Democrats suggested placing the entire parish within their proposed Colburn division.

After careful consideration, we have concluded that including the whole of Colburn parish within our proposed Hipswell & Colburn division would better reflect community identities and interests, as well as ensuring effective and convenient local government. We have therefore adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposal in this respect.

We have decided to retain the name ‘Hipswell & Colburn’, as suggested by the Council. While the Liberal Democrats proposed shortening the name to ‘Colburn’, we consider the current name to be more appropriate, reflecting the constituent communities of the proposed division.

Stokesley

Great Ayton

We received identical proposals from the Council and the Liberal Democrats for Great Ayton division. Both suggested we expand the current division westward to include the parishes of Great & Little Boughton and Kirkby. This adjustment was to address the anticipated over-representation within the existing Great Ayton division. While two local residents opposed Great & Little Boughton being linked with Great Ayton rather than Stokesley, we agree with the Council that their approach to achieving good electoral equality for the broader Stokesley and Great Ayton area is the most logical. We have therefore decided to adopt this arrangement as part of our draft recommendations.

However, our proposed Great Ayton division differs from the one submitted by the Council and the Liberal Democrats because we have decided to transfer Bilsdale Midcable parish to our Helmsley & Ampleforth division. This change is intended not only to minimise the electoral variance of the division, but also to reflect the area’s topography. We noted on our virtual tour that Bilsdale Midcable parish is somewhat isolated from the communities within our Great Ayton division due to significant elevation changes. We therefore consider it is more appropriately placed within a division comprising other rural parishes in the North York Moors National Park.

Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske

A nearly identical Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske division was proposed by the Council and the Liberal Democrats. The only difference between the two was in respect of which division to place the parish of Danby Wiske with Lazenby. The Council included it in its Swale division, while the Liberal Democrats placed it in a Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske division.

However, we have decided to include Danby Wiske with Lazenby parish in our Northallerton North & Brompton division. This is because it ensures a better level of electoral equality in our proposed Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske and Northallerton North & Brompton divisions. We also consider the parish shares good links with Northallerton and Brompton.

Rudby Parish Council objected to the Council’s and Liberal Democrats’ proposals as both divided their grouped parish council – comprising Hutton Rudby, Rudby, Middleton-on-Leven and Skutterskelfe parishes – across two divisions. Under both proposals, Hutton Rudby and Rudby parishes were placed in Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske division, while Middleton-on-Leven and Skutterskelfe were included in a Stokesley division. Rudby Parish Council therefore requested that the grouped parish council be placed entirely in one division. This was supported by the Richmond & Northallerton Green Party.

We were persuaded by Rudby Parish Council’s well-evidenced argument that this arrangement would negatively impact on community identities and interests, as well as its ability to provide for effective local governance. As a result, we propose including Middleton-on-Leven and Skutterskelfe parishes in our Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske division, ensuring the grouped parish council remains within a single division.

Stokesley

The Council, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, suggested the current Stokesley division incorporate parishes to the west of Stokesley parish, while transferring the parishes of Great & Little Boughton and Kirkby into a Great Ayton division. The Council stated that these changes were necessary to ensure good electoral equality in the wider area.

We have broadly based our draft recommendations on these proposals as we are satisfied that the parishes included in the Stokesley division have good community links with Stokesley parish. However, our proposed Stokesley division does not include Middleton-on-Leven and Skutterskelfe parishes, for the reasons outlined above.

Thirsk and Northallerton

Aiskew & Bedale and Swale

We received contrasting division proposals for the Aiskew, Bedale and Catterick areas from the Council and the Liberal Democrats. Additionally, the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party submitted proposals relating to Aiskew and Bedale.

The Council proposed three divisions: Bedale & Aiskew, Catterick Village & Crakehall and Swale. However, we had concerns about this arrangement as it divided Aiskew & Leeming Bar parish across two divisions. We concluded that this approach would neither facilitate effective and convenient local government nor sufficiently reflect the identities and interests of the Aiskew & Leeming Bar community.

Consequently, we have based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed divisions for this area. The proposal ensures that Aiskew & Leeming Bar parish remains within a single division, which we consider preferable to the Council’s plan. The Thirsk & Malton Labour Party also supported linking Aiskew, Bedale and Leeming Bar in a division. Furthermore, we found that Crakehall parish has strong connections with Aiskew and Bedale, warranting its inclusion within the same division. In contrast, the Council’s proposal had placed Crakehall in a division with Catterick.

Additionally, we determined that the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Swale division provides for a more appropriate balance of the statutory criteria than the Council’s Swale division. This is because, by bringing together parishes along the River Swale – from Catterick to Morton-on-Swale – into a single division, the Liberal Democrats’ proposal more effectively reflects local community identities and interests. 

Northallerton North & Brompton, Northallerton South and Romanby

The Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed nearly identical Northallerton North & Brompton, Northallerton South and Romanby divisions, with the only difference being the placement of the boundary between Northallerton North & Brompton and Northallerton South divisions. Our recommendations align more closely with the Liberal Democrats’ proposals, as we find their boundary, which runs east of Friarage Hospital and along the southern perimeter of Northallerton School and Sixth Form, to be clearer and more easily identifiable.

However, we recommend incorporating the parishes of Danby Wiske with Lazenby and Yafforth into Northallerton North & Brompton division. This adjustment enhances the level of electoral equality for this division and the adjacent Hutton Rudby & Appleton Wiske division. Additionally, we consider that these parishes have strong connections to Northallerton and Brompton, both in terms of community ties and transport links.

Brompton Town Council supported the retention of a Northallerton North & Brompton division, stating that the current arrangement works well. Our draft recommendations maintain the link between Brompton and the northern part of Northallerton, reflecting Brompton Town Council’s preferences. We are therefore satisfied that our Northallerton North & Brompton division effectively balances the statutory criteria.

A local resident suggested incorporating the recently developed Castlegate housing estate into a Romanby division to improve electoral equality across divisions. However, we have decided not to adopt this proposal, as we consider that the estate has stronger road connections with communities in our Northallerton North & Brompton division.

South Swale Villages

For the parishes located between Aiskew, Bedale and Thirsk, we propose basing our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed boundaries, which we consider effectively connect similar rural parishes. Additionally, we note that the proposed boundaries closely resemble those of the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party’s suggested South Swale Villages division. We propose adopting the name proposed by the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party, as we consider it more appropriate than the Liberal Democrats’ choice of ‘Leeming Lane’. However, we welcome feedback on this decision as part of this consultation process.

The Council’s proposal for this area involved dividing it into three divisions: Bedale & Aiskew, Swale and Thirsk. However, we were not persuaded to adopt this arrangement, as we were concerned that the Council’s proposed Swale division would split Aiskew & Leeming Bar parish between two divisions. We determined that this could disrupt community ties and create an unnecessary division of the parish. We also determined that the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Swale division provided a better balance in terms of community identity and geographic cohesion.

A local resident from Skipton-on-Swale parish, currently within the existing Thirsk division, expressed a preference to remain in a Thirsk-based division. They highlighted their reliance on both Northallerton and Thirsk for essential services and noted personal connections to both towns. Additionally, they emphasised that the River Swale serves as a natural boundary and opposed being placed in a division with communities to the west.

While we acknowledge this evidence, removing Skipton-on-Swale parish and the adjacent Carlton Miniott parish from our proposed South Swale Villages division would result in a significant electoral imbalance. Therefore, we have not included these parishes in a division with the Thirsk area. However, we note that the boundary between our proposed Dishforth & Dalton and South Swale Villages divisions follows the River Swale, which we agree serves as a clear and identifiable boundary in this area.

 Sowerby & Topcliffe

13       The Council proposed reducing the size of the current Sowerby & Topcliffe division by removing the parishes of Eldmire with Crakehill, Hutton-Sessay and Sessay. The Liberal Democrats suggested a further reduction by also transferring Dalton parish into a newly created Dishforth & Dalton division. In contrast, the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party proposed a new Sowerby & Sessay division, linking Sowerby with Dalton, Eldmire with Crakehill, Hutton Sessay and Sessay, while excluding Topcliffe parish.

In our draft recommendations, we have largely adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Sowerby & Topcliffe division. We did not adopt the proposals from either the Council or the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party, as we consider the predominantly rural parishes of Eldmire with Crakehill, Hutton Sessay and Sessay share greater community identities and interests with the more rural-based Dishforth & Dalton division. This arrangement allows Dalton parish to serve as one of that division’s primary communities, which is reflected in the division’s name.

Thirsk

We received varying proposals for Thirsk from the Council, the Liberal Democrats and the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party. The Council proposed retaining the existing division, while the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party suggested removing Catton, Skipton-on-Swale and Kirby Wiske parishes from the current division, while including either Bagby or South Kilvington parish. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats put forward a significantly different proposal, linking Thirsk with villages to the north.

After careful consideration, we have decided to base our Thirsk division on the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. We agree that the villages north of Thirsk have strong connections to the town via the A19 and A168. This arrangement also enables the creation of divisions to both the east and west of Thirsk that will have good electoral equality.

However, we have chosen not to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to use the A61 as the southern boundary. Instead, we consider that following the parish boundary will better support effective and convenient local government by avoiding unnecessary parish warding arrangements that would otherwise be needed if we were to follow the A61. Additionally, we have decided to exclude the parishes of Cowesby, Kepwick, Nether Silton and Over Silton from this division, placing them instead in our Hillside division, as outlined in the Hillside section of this report.

Easingwold

Easingwold

The Council proposed retaining the current Easingwold division, with the exception of moving Crayke parish. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats suggested a restructured Easingwold division, consisting of the parishes of Easingwold and Huby.

We have decided to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for Easingwold division in our draft recommendations. This decision is based on our assessment that the parishes of Aldwark, Alne, Flawith and Youlton, which are currently in Easingwold division, are more closely connected by road and community ties to the Tollerton and Ouseburn areas. As such, we consider it appropriate that these parishes be included in our proposed Tollerton & Ouseburn division.

Hammerton and Tollerton & Ouseburn

After thorough consideration, we were not convinced that either the Council’s proposed Ouseburn and Huby & Tollerton divisions or the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Ouseburn & Hammerton and Tollerton & Linton divisions achieved an appropriate balance of the statutory criteria. As outlined in the Easingwold section of this report, we consider that the parishes of Aldwark, Alne, Flawith and Youlton have stronger connections to the Tollerton and Ouseburn areas. Therefore, we consider that a division linking communities around Tollerton and Ouseburn would better reflect our three statutory criteria.

Additionally, using the River Ouse as part of the southern boundary would enable the creation of a division centred on Green Hammerton and Kirk Hammerton. This division would incorporate surrounding communities along the A59, which would serve as a spine to the division facilitating clear road access between the constituent parishes. We consider these two divisions will both reflect community identities and follow clear and identifiable boundaries. However, we welcome feedback on both divisions as part of this consultation process.

Spofforth & Tockwith

The Council proposed to retain the existing boundaries of Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale & Tockwith division but suggested shortening the name to Spofforth & Tockwith. The Liberal Democrats also suggested this name and largely retained the division’s existing boundaries, with one exception – they proposed transferring the parish of Great Ribston with Walshford to their proposed Ouseburn & Hammerton division.

We support the proposed name change to Spofforth & Tockwith and have adopted it as part of our draft recommendations. Our proposed division aligns more closely with that suggested by the Liberal Democrats, which excludes Great Ribston with Walshford. This adjustment ensures electoral equality for our adjacent Hammerton division.

Malton, Norton and Pickering

Howardian

The Council, the Liberal Democrats and the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party each proposed a division linking communities along the B1257, which were based on the existing Amotherby & Ampleforth division. The Council’s proposal for an Amotherby & Hovingham division excluded Ampleforth and incorporated some parishes to the north and west. The Thirsk & Malton Labour Party proposed a West Vale of Pickering division which also excluded Ampleforth but included a greater number of parishes from divisions to the north than the Council’s proposal.

The Liberal Democrats put forward a Howardian division that similarly excluded Ampleforth but instead incorporated parishes to the south from the existing Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division.

After careful consideration, we have decided to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a Howardian division. This is because we consider their division to best reflect the identities and interests of the communities within the Howardian Hills National Landscape. We also consider ‘Howardian’ to be the most appropriate division name on this basis, though we welcome comments on whether ‘Amotherby & Hovingham’, ‘West Vale of Pickering’, or another alternative name may be more suitable.

Malton & Norton

The existing Malton division, which aligns with the Malton parish boundary, is projected to have an electoral variance of -11% by 2030. In contrast, the neighbouring Norton division, which is coterminous with the Norton-on-Derwent parish boundary, is expected to exceed the average electorate size by 18% within the same period making it relatively large, in terms of number of electors.

To address these variances, the Council proposed the creation of two single-councillor divisions that both crossed the River Derwent – Malton Norton East and Malton Norton West – aligning with its request for a uniform pattern of single-councillor divisions across the county. A local resident also provided supporting evidence for this approach.

However, this proposal faced strong opposition in a well-substantiated joint submission from Councillor Duncan, Malton Town Council, Norton-on-Derwent Town Council, and Kevin Hollinrake MP (Thirsk & Malton), which supported a two-councillor division for this area. The Liberal Democrats, the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party and the North Yorkshire Labour Party Local Government Committee also provided support for such an arrangement. These submissions contended that the Council’s proposal would impose arbitrary boundaries that would not reflect local communities and could potentially cause confusion locally.

After careful consideration of the submissions received, and while mindful of the general presumption in favour of single-councillor divisions, we have concluded that a two-councillor Malton & Norton division will provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. We were persuaded by the evidence demonstrating that, despite their distinct identities, Malton and Norton share key infrastructure, services and facilities. These include schools, healthcare provision, retail centres and transport links. Given their close interdependence, we determined that dividing them into separate single-councillor divisions would create arbitrary boundaries that would not adequately reflect the pattern of local communities. We also consider that keeping both parishes wholly in the same division will help support effective and convenient local government.

Pickering

The current Pickering division, which aligns with the Pickering parish boundary, is projected to have an electoral variance of 12% by 2030, which means it will be slightly oversized in terms of number of electors when compared to the authority’s average. To address this, the Council proposed transferring several hundred electors from the southeastern part of the town into its Amotherby & Hovingham division. However, we have not adopted this proposal, as we determined that the suggested boundary was not sufficiently identifiable. Additionally, we were not persuaded that the transferred electors would share sufficiently strong community links with the predominantly rural communities that would form the Council’s division.

The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative approach, proposing the transfer of electors from the parish’s more rural areas – both north and south – into adjacent divisions. They argued that these electors would be better represented in a division with a stronger rural focus. However, we have decided not to adopt this proposal, as it would necessitate creating parish wards for Pickering Town Council containing only a small number of electors. We concluded that this approach would not facilitate effective and convenient local governance, especially given the overall size of Pickering Town Council’s electorate.

In light of these considerations, we have decided to retain the existing Pickering division in our draft recommendations, despite its forecast electoral variance being relatively high. We consider this approach is justified as it ensures a Pickering division that, in our view, adequately reflects community ties and ensures effective and convenient local government by avoiding an arbitrary division of the parish. We also note that this approach has received support from the North Yorkshire Labour Party Local Government Committee and the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party.

Sheriff Hutton & Derwent

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed a Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division, but they differed in their boundaries. In our draft recommendations, we have adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposed division. We consider that the parishes of Bulmer, Coneysthorpe, Henderskelfe, Huttons Ambo, Welburn, Westow and Whitwell-on-the-Hill – which the Council proposed to retain in Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division – are better aligned with other communities the Howardian division, given their location within the Howardian Hills National Landscape. Additionally, we consider the proposal to include the parishes of Luttons, Kirby Grindalythe, Thixendale and Wharram in the Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division to be a logical approach, for the reasons outlined in the Thornton Dale & Wolds section of this report.

Thornton Dale & Wolds

The Council proposed to retain the existing boundaries of Thornton Dale & Wolds division, suggesting only a minor name adjustment to include ‘The’ before ‘Wolds’. They stated that the division’s electorate size is appropriate and that it encompasses a well-established and recognised area.

The Liberal Democrats proposed transferring the southernmost parishes of the current division – Luttons, Kirby Grindalythe, Thixendale and Wharram – to the adjacent Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division. Their proposal also included the entirety of Heslerton and Sherburn parishes.

We have decided to largely base our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposed boundary changes. We agree that the parishes of Luttons, Kirby Grindalythe, Thixendale and Wharram share stronger connections with communities in the Sheriff Hutton & Derwent division rather than with those in the Council’s Thornton Dale & The Wolds division. Furthermore, we consider the full inclusion of Heslerton parish in the division will provide for effective and convenient local government.

We have, however, adopted the Council’s proposal to retain Levisham and Lockton parishes within this division. While the Liberal Democrats included both parishes in their Kirkbymoorside division, we consider that they share stronger ties with Thornton-le-Dale parish and the neighbouring parishes to the south, rather than with the parishes to the west that look towards Kirkbymoorside parish.

We propose retaining the current division name. The Council’s submission did not provide sufficient justification for adding ‘The’ to the division name. Likewise, we were not persuaded that the Liberal Democrats’ suggested name of ‘Forest & Wolds’ was more appropriate than the existing division name

North York Moors

Helmsley & Ampleforth

Both the Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed a Helmsley & Ampleforth division, though their boundary suggestions differed. While we agree that a division centred around the communities of Helmsley and Ampleforth is logical, our draft recommendations incorporate elements of both proposals.

Our proposed Helmsley & Ampleforth division includes the parishes of Bransdale, Fadmoor, Farndale East, Farndale West and Gillamoor, in line with the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. Additionally, we recommend including the parishes of Cold Kirby, Hawnby, Old Byland & Scawton and Rievaulx in this division, as proposed by the Council, to ensure that the division’s western boundary aligns with the topography of the Yorkshire Moors. This approach places communities that are separated by significant elevation changes into separate divisions. We consider that the parishes west of this boundary are better suited to the Hillside division, which consists of parishes located along the edge of the North York Moors.

Consequently, we did not adopt the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party’s proposed Helmsley & Hillside division, as we determined that it would group together disparate communities separated by significant topographical features. We concluded that this would not provide an effective balance of our statutory criteria.

We have also transferred Bilsdale Midcable parish from the existing Great Ayton division into our recommended Helmsley & Ampleforth division for the reasons outlined in the Great Ayton section of this report.

Hillside

The Council and the Liberal Democrats both proposed a division linking several rural communities along the western edge of the North York Moors, though with slight variations in boundaries. The Council’s proposed Hillside & Raskelf division was largely based on the existing division but removed the parishes of Coxwold, Kilburn High & Low, Newburgh, Oulston and Wildon Grange to the east. Instead, it included the parishes of Eldmire with Crakehill, Hutton Sessay and Sessay to the west.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Hillside division that extended further south towards the county boundary, incorporating several parishes from the existing Huby & Tollerton division.

Our recommended Hillside division more closely follows the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. As outlined in the Boroughbridge and Dishforth & Dalton section, we consider that the communities of Eldmire with Crakehill, Hutton Sessay and Sessay are better placed in our Dishforth & Dalton division. As a result, we have not adopted the Council’s proposal. However, our Hillside division differs from the Liberal Democrats’ proposal in two key ways – it includes the parishes of Cowesby, Kepwick, Nether Silton and Over Silton, which they placed in their Thirsk division – and excludes the parishes of Cold Kirby, Hawnby, Old Byland & Scawton and Rievaulx, which we have allocated to Helmsley & Ampleforth division.

These adjustments ensure that our Hillside and Helmsley & Ampleforth divisions better reflect the area’s topography and road networks, thereby achieving a more effective balance of the statutory criteria. While we note that our Hillside division is geographically large, we are satisfied that it will encompass rural communities with similar characteristics and interests. As noted by the Liberal Democrats, this area is bounded by the edge of the North York Moors, the Vale of York and the Howardian Hills.

Kirkbymoorside & Dales

We received three proposals for the Kirkbymoorside & Dales division from the Council, the Liberal Democrats and the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party.

After careful consideration, we have adopted the proposal from the Council and the Liberal Democrats to include Edstone and Sinnington parishes in this division. This decision is based on their geographical proximity to Kirkbymoorside parish and the good road links between these areas. Additionally, we have included Salton parish, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, for the same reasons. Consequently, we have not adopted the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party’s proposal, which placed these parishes in a West Vale of Pickering division.

However, as outlined in the Helmsley & Ampleforth section, we propose to exclude the parishes of Bransdale, Fadmoor, Farndale East, Farndale West and Gillamoor. This adjustment ensures better electoral equality for our Helmsley & Ampleforth division by 2030. Conversely, we have decided to exclude Levisham and Lockton from Kirkbymoorside division, aligning with the Council’s proposal and the existing division structure. We consider that the community identities and interests of these parishes will be better reflected in Thornton Dale & Wolds division, whereas the Liberal Democrats had suggested their inclusion in a Kirkbymoorside division.

With regard to the division name, the Council proposed adding ‘the’ before Dales, while the Thirsk & Malton Labour Party proposed retaining the name of Kirkbymoorside & Dales. The Liberal Democrats suggested shortening the division name to Kirkbymoorside. We propose to retain the existing name, but would welcome comments and evidence on what name is most suitable during the current consultation.

Whitby

Danby & Glaisdale

The Council, supported by the Liberal Democrats and Councillor Harston, proposed the creation of a Danby & Glaisdale division, by expanding the existing Danby & Mulgrave division to include the eastern half of the current Esk Valley & The Coast division. However, a local resident stated that Danby and Mulgrave are distinct areas with different needs and identities and should not be merged.

While we note the local resident’s concerns, we have decided to recommend a Danby & Glaisdale division as part of our draft recommendations. This is because we consider it to strike a good balance between our statutory criteria, uniting the rural hinterlands west of Whitby into a cohesive division with good projected electoral equality by 2030.

Esk Valley & The Coast

Our draft recommendations for Esk Valley & The Coast division are largely based on the Council’s proposals, which were also suggested by Councillor Harston. As noted in the Council’s submission, this division connects coastal areas between Scarborough and Whitby, which share similar topography and are linked by the A171. On this basis, we were persuaded that this division would effectively reflect local community identities and interests. However, unlike the Council’s proposal, we recommend including Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre parish in this division and excluding the Ruswarp area of Whitby Town Council. The rationale for this decision is outlined in the following section.

Whitby Streonshalh and Whitby West

The Council proposed expanding the existing Whitby Streonshalh division to include Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre parish. It also proposed that the current Whitby West division be reduced in size, by transferring the Ruswarp area to an Esk Valley & The Coast division. This proposal received support from the Liberal Democrats.

However, Whitby Town Council, the Scarborough & Whitby Constituency Labour Party and Councillor Harston (Whitby Town Council) suggested an alternative arrangement. They suggested shifting the boundary between the two existing Whitby divisions westward to achieve better electoral equality and establish a clearer boundary. Under this proposal, both Whitby divisions would fall entirely within the Whitby parish boundary. The proposal to retain both Whitby divisions within the Whitby Town Council area was also supported by the North Yorkshire Labour Party Local Government Committee and a local resident.

Another local resident requested that the River Esk be used as the boundary between the two Whitby divisions. However, this proposal would not provide for good electoral equality, so we have not adopted it in our draft recommendations.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we have decided to adopt the proposals of Whitby Town Council, the Scarborough & Whitby Constituency Labour Party and Councillor Harston. We agree that aligning both Whitby divisions with the Whitby parish boundary will promote effective and convenient local government. Additionally, we agree with the Scarborough & Whitby Constituency Labour Party that, as a more rural area, Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre parish would be better included in the predominantly rural Esk Valley & The Coast division.