Northumberland Final Recommendations

Alnwick and surrounding area

Alnwick Castle, Alnwick Hotspur and Longhoughton

Alnwick is currently represented by two councillors as part of a two-councillor division. It is the only two-councillor division.

The Council’s submission during the previous consultation proposed two single-councillor divisions of Alnwick East and Alnwick West. The Council’s proposed divisions had 17% more electors than average in Alnwick East and 11% more in Alnwick West.

As part of our draft recommendations, we proposed the retention of a two-councillor division which had an electoral variance of 14% from the average for Northumberland. We based our decision on the poor electoral equality that was contained in the proposed two single-councillor divisions, as well as on the support for the existing two-councillor division from a political group, the existing councillors, a local organisation and a small number of local residents.

In response to the consultation on our draft recommendations, we received further evidence regarding the division pattern in Alnwick and the communities in the area. This included a revised division pattern for two single-councillor divisions for Alnwick from Northumberland Conservatives, discussed fully below. We also received a submission from the Northumberland County Council Liberal Democrat Group opposing a two-councillor division in Alnwick. This submission argued that many of the other towns in the county are divided between divisions and those division boundaries had not impacted on service delivery.

We received eight submissions from local residents opposed to a two-councillor division in Alnwick. Five of these submissions explicitly supported the proposal from Northumberland Conservatives. Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP also wrote in support of the Northumberland Conservatives’ submission.

Councillor Swinbank (one of the two councillors for the existing division) and the Northumberland County Council Green Party Group offered support for a two-councillor division in Alnwick. One local resident also supported a two-councillor division.

The submission from Northumberland Conservatives proposed two single-councillor divisions of Alnwick Castle and Alnwick Hotspur. Their proposed Alnwick Castle division was comprised of the part of the existing Alnwick Town Council parish ward of Castle that covers the east of the town, as well as both parts of Denwick parish. Their proposed Hotspur division was comprised of the Alnwick Town Council parish wards of Clayport and Hotspur, as well as the part of Castle parish ward to the west of the town and the parish of Edlingham. The Northumberland Conservatives proposed a revised Longhoughton division focused on coastal parishes and included the parishes of Alnmouth and Lesbury.

The Northumberland Conservatives argued that Alnmouth and Lesbury parishes were a good fit for the Longhoughton division as they shared similar issues to the other coastal parishes in the proposed division. Like the Liberal Democrat Group, they argued that Alnwick should be covered by two single-councillor divisions.

As part of our tour of Northumberland we visited the town of Alnwick and surrounding area. We carefully considered the proposed division of the town into two single-councillors divisions, as well as the inclusion of Alnmouth and Lesbury parishes in Longhoughton division.

Having visited the area and considered all the submissions received during both consultations, we are persuaded that Alnwick should be represented by two single-councillor divisions. The divisions suggested by the Northumberland Conservatives provide two divisions with good electoral equality and we have adopted them as part of our final recommendations, subject to a small modification to include Fairfields and the streets off it wholly in Alnwick Castle division. In our view, using the existing town council parish ward boundary in this area would divide this community.

Our final recommendations for this area are for three single-councillor divisions of Alnwick Castle, Alnwick Hotspur and Longhoughton. These divisions will have electoral variances of 4%, -2% and 2% by 2028, respectively.

Amble, Amble West with Warkworth and Shilbottle

We received six submissions that directly referenced Amble and Amble West with Warkworth, all of which supported the draft recommendations for these two divisions. These representations included the submission of Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP who also explicitly supported our proposals in Shilbottle. We received no further comments on Shilbottle division.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations in this area as final. These final proposals are for three single-councillor divisions of Amble, Amble West with Warkworth and Shilbottle. These three divisions will have variances of 5%, 0% and -6% by 2028, respectively.

Rural West Northumberland

Bellingham and Rothbury

We received around 35 submissions that referred to one of these two divisions. As part of the draft recommendations, we included the parishes of Elsdon – currently in Rothbury division – and Rothley and Wallington Demesne parishes – currently in Longhorsley division – in Bellingham division. We also proposed to move Hesleyhurst parish to Longhorsley division to include it in a division alongside its grouped parish of Brinkburn. We proposed to leave Humshaugh division unchanged.

The majority of the submissions we received in this area concerned our proposal to include Elsdon parish in Bellingham division. These submissions, including a response from Elsdon Parish Council, argued strongly that Elsdon parish should remain in Rothbury division. The submission from the parish council contained persuasive community evidence to support its argument, evidence that was also mentioned to varying degrees in the other submissions. We also received a submission on behalf of the parish councillors of Rothley parish and Hollinghill parish, stating their connections to the Longhorsley division and Morpeth.

We received a number of submissions regarding the inclusion of Brinkburn parish – currently in Shilbottle division – and Hesleyhurst parish – currently in Rothbury division – in Longhorsley division, which is discussed in the section below. These submissions argued that both parishes should be included in Rothbury division.

Having considered all of the submissions and having visited the area during our tours of Northumberland – both virtual and in-person – we propose to include Elsdon parish in Rothbury division. While this division is forecast to have 11% more electors than the average for Northumberland by 2028, we consider this relatively high variance is justified given the community evidence we have received from Elsdon parish.

As to the arguments related to Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes, we note that the two parishes are grouped and yet currently divided between divisions, with Brinkburn parish being included in the existing Shilbottle division and Hesleyhurst parish currently in the existing Rothbury division. Having investigated the various options in this area, we note that a Rothbury division that included all of these parishes would have poor electoral equality of 16% more electors than the average by 2028. We therefore include Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes in Longhorsley division as part of our final recommendations, which ensures that the grouped parishes are no longer divided between two different divisions. This decision does create a forecast electoral variance in Bellingham of -11%, but – as with Rothbury – we are persuaded that the community evidence justifies a slightly higher variance in this case. Longhorsley division is discussed in more detail in a later section.

Our final recommendations for this area are therefore two single-councillor divisions of Bellingham and Rothbury with electoral variances of -11% and 11% by 2028, respectively.

Humshaugh

We received four submissions regarding our proposal to leave Humshaugh divisions unchanged. Two local residents, Chollerton Parish Council and Northumberland County Council Green Party Group all supported an unchanged division.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations as final. Our proposed single-councillor division of Humshaugh will have an electoral variance of -10% by 2028.

South Central Northumberland

Druridge Bay, Longhirst and Lynemouth

We received five submissions that mentioned these three divisions. Northumberland Conservatives supported all three divisions and the submission from Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP specifically supported the proposals for Druridge Bay and Lynemouth divisions. A local resident proposed an alternative division pattern for Druridge Bay, Longhirst and Longhorsley, which meant that the parish of Widdrington Station & Stobswood would no longer be split between two divisions. Two other local residents objected to an arrangement which split the parish of Widdrington Station & Stobswood.

The submission from the local resident proposed a Widdrington division containing part of Tritlington & West Chevington parish, as well as Ulgham, Widdrington Station & Stobswood and Widdrington Village parishes; and a Felton & Druridge Bay division made up of East Chevington, Felton, Thirston and Togston parishes and the remaining part of Tritlington & West Chevington parish.

We considered these submissions and visited the area on our tour of Northumberland. We accept that our draft proposals divided Widdrington Station & Stobswood parish between divisions and that this may not reflect communities in the area. However, we note that a division arrangement which includes the entirety of the parish in our Longhirst division would produce very poor electoral equality of 25% in Longhirst division and -26% in Druridge Bay division. Equally, if we included the whole parish in our Druridge Bay division it would produce a variance of 35% for Druridge Bay and -36% for Longhirst division.

We considered the submission from the local resident, and whilst we noted that this proposal provided electoral equality for both divisions, it resulted in an arrangement which split Tritlington & West Chevington parish between divisions. The part of the parish that the local resident proposed to include in their Felton & Druridge Bay division would have fewer than 100 electors, which would create an unviable parish ward. As such, we have been unable to adopt these divisions as part of our final recommendations.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for the single-councillor divisions of Druridge Bay, Longhirst and Lynemouth as final. These divisions will have electoral variances of -1%, 0% and 4% by 2028, respectively.

Longhorsley

We received 15 submissions regarding our Longhorsley division. The majority of these submissions regarded the inclusion of Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes in this division, including a response from Brinkburn & Hesleyhurst Parish Council as well as 10 local residents. These submissions all argued for the inclusion of Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes in Rothbury division. We also received a submission from Thirston Parish Council strongly supporting the proposal to include Thirston and Felton parishes in the same division due to their very strong community ties. A submission from the parish councillors of Rothley Parish Council and Hollinghill Parish Council objected to the inclusion of Rothley in Bellingham division and stated their ties to the east and Morpeth.

Having considered the submissions, our final recommendations for Longhorsley division include Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes and is extended to include Rothley and Hollinghill parishes. These are all grouped parish councils and we try not to divide grouped parish councils wherever possible.

While we carefully considered the submissions from Brinkburn and Hesleyhurst parishes, we noted that their inclusion in Rothbury division would create an electoral variance of 16% in the division by 2028. We concluded that we had not been persuaded that the evidence justified this level of electoral inequality in this case. Rather than divide the grouped parish, as is currently the case, our final recommendations include both parishes in Longhorsley division. We also accept the arguments from Rothley and Hollinghill parishes about Rothley’s lack of ties to Bellingham. To avoid dividing this group parish, we have included both in Longhorsley division as part of our final recommendations.

Our final recommendation proposes a single-councillor Longhorsley division with electoral equality of 4% by 2028.

Morpeth

Morpeth Kirkhill, Morpeth North, Morpeth Stobhill and Pegswood

The submission we received from Northumberland Conservatives supported our proposed Pegswood division and suggested minor changes to the other three divisions. They also noted that around 900 electors are due to move from Hebron parish to Morpeth parish from elections in 2025, leaving Morpeth entitled to between three and four councillors based on its forecast electorate.

Morpeth Town Council, in their submission, reference a Community Governance Review that was carried out in 2020-21. The outcome of this review was not communicated to us until after the publication of our draft recommendations, so we were unable to take it into account at that time. We have now received the details of the Community Governance Review, and these have been taken into account when drawing up our final recommendations.

The outcome of the Community Governance Review was that parts of Hebron parish, an area known as Northgate, moves into Morpeth parish. In addition, the parish boundary between Morpeth and Hepscott has been amended to follow the A192 and A196. The housing development at South Field remains in Hepscott parish.

Morpeth Town Council, as part of their submission, suggested that the revised boundaries of Morpeth could be represented by four councillors and provided an alternative division pattern for four Morpeth divisions: Morpeth Central, Morpeth Kirkhill, Morpeth North and Morpeth Stobhill.

Northumberland Conservatives proposed that our draft recommendations could be amended by moving South Field out of Morpeth Stobhill, transferring Loansdean Wood, The Kylins and Sweethope Dean from Morpeth Kirkhill to Morpeth Stobhill. They also proposed to revert the boundary between Morpeth Kirkhill and Morpeth North to follow the existing boundary.

The Labour Group proposed a small amendment to Morpeth Kirkhill division to add the part of Hepscott parish to the west of the railway line into the town into Morpeth Kirkhill division. They proposed this to allow a small number of electors around Catchburn Farm to be included in a Morpeth division.

Councillor Wearmouth, the current Morpeth Kirkhill councillor, supported the submission of the Northumberland Conservatives and stated that he considered the four single-councillor division proposal of Morpeth Town Council to be impractical.

Of the three submissions from local residents, all regarded the inclusion of South Field in Morpeth Stobhill, with two in favour of the proposal and one against it.

Having considered the submissions and having visited Morpeth, and in particular South Field and Northgate, as part of our tour of Northumberland, we are proposing to adopt the revised division pattern suggested by Northumberland Conservatives.

We spent a significant amount of time investigating whether it was possible to provide a division pattern for the Morpeth area that would see it represented by four councillors. We concluded it was not possible for two main reasons. Firstly, allocating four councillors for Morpeth would require Northumberland to be represented by 70 councillors. This increase of one councillor would negatively impact on the electoral equality of divisions across the county, requiring amendments to divisions which were well supported by the evidence we have received. Secondly, the proposed division pattern from Morpeth Town Council does not provide for good electoral equality for the areas around the town. An arrangement which removes the St George’s Park development from Pegswood division and the Northgate development from Longhirst division would leave those divisions with over 30% fewer electors than other divisions.

Having concluded that a pattern of three single-councillor divisions therefore worked best for Morpeth in context of the arrangement for the whole county, we were mindful that some areas of the town would be required to remain in divisions with neighbouring parishes. We considered the alternative pattern suggested by Northumberland Conservatives.

We concluded that this pattern was the best reflection of our statutory criteria for the town. We agree that the existing boundary between Morpeth Kirkhill and Morpeth North better reflects those communities by retaining Castle Close in Morpeth Kirkhill. We are also of the view that the amendment between Morpeth Kirkhill and Morpeth Stobhill provides for a boundary that is more identifiable than that of our draft recommendations.

We also propose that the South Field area remains in Choppington & Hepscott division. We visited the area and considered that electors in this development were likely to use Morpeth for their service needs. However, its inclusion in a Morpeth division would see a split within the parish of Hepscott. On balance, and having carefully considered all of the options, we are of the view that retaining the whole of Hepscott parish in a single division provides for the best reflection of our statutory criteria. We propose to make no changes to our draft proposals for the Pegswood division which will continue to consist of Pegswood parish and the St George’s Park area of Morpeth.

We are unable to make the small change suggested by the Labour Group as this would require the creation of a parish ward of 15 electors within Hepscott parish. We do not consider that any parish ward of under 100 electors provides for effective and convenient local government so we do not propose to make this change. 84 Our four divisions for Morpeth and Pegswood are the single-councillor divisions of Morpeth Kirkhill with a variance of 5%, Morpeth North at 6%, Morpeth Stobhill at -2% and Pegswood at 1% by 2028.

Ashington and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea

Ashington Central, Bothal, College with North Seaton, Haydon, Hirst, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Seaton with Spital

We only received two submissions that mentioned our proposals in Ashington and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea. The submissions from Ashington Town Council and Northumberland Conservatives both supported all seven divisions.

The Newbiggin-by-the-Sea Town Council submission asked that the town council ward allocation be amended to give all four wards two councillors. At this stage, our proposed allocation of ward councillors reflects the forecast number of electors for each. If a town council wishes to make changes to the number of councillors per ward, it can do so by means of a Community Governance Review in conjunction with Northumberland County Council.

We therefore confirm as final our seven divisions in this area. Our final recommendations will see seven single-councillor divisions of Ashington Central, Bothal, College with North Seaton, Haydon, Hirst, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Seaton with Spital with electoral variances of -7%, -7%, -1%, -3%, -7%, 3% and 9% by 2028, respectively.

Bedlington and surrounding area

Bedlington Central, Bedlington East and Bedlington West

We received three submissions that focused on Bedlington. Northumberland Conservatives proposed amendments to all three divisions and two local residents supported this revised proposal.

Northumberland Conservatives proposed The Wyndings estates move back into Bedlington West division. They also suggested that the part of West Bedlington that we proposed to include in Bedlington East division (the town council ward of Park Road) is included in Bedlington Central. This means that the parish of West Bedlington is only divided between two divisions rather than three, as per the draft recommendations. Northumberland Conservatives also proposed a Bedlington East division which used the railway line as its boundary, as opposed to both the existing division and our draft recommendations which include a portion of East Bedlington parish to the west of the railway line in a division with the parts of the parish to the east. Northumberland Conservatives stated that the railway line is the stronger boundary in this area with limited places to cross it within the existing division.

We propose to adopt these amendments which we agree make for a more identifiable division pattern, in particular by using the railway line as a stronger boundary than the existing arrangement. We also agree that dividing a parish between fewer divisions is better for the effective and convenient local government of electors in those divisions.

Our final recommendations for Bedlington are for three single-councillor wards of Bedlington Central, Bedlington East and Bedlington West. These divisions will have electoral variances of 6%, 2% and 10% by 2028, respectively.

Choppington & Hepscott, Sleekburn and Stakeford

We received around 15 submissions relating to these three divisions, including a revised proposal from Northumberland Conservatives. They proposed a revised pattern that works in conjunction with their proposals in Morpeth and Bedlington.

Northumberland Conservatives proposed to include the South Field development in Choppington & Hepscott division, as discussed in the Morpeth section of this report. They also proposed a division more focused on Stakeford than our draft recommendations, arguing that our proposals had divided the Stakeford community. Finally, they proposed a Sleekburn division that included the communities of West Sleekburn and East Sleekburn together with electors along the A1147 (such as Bomarsund). They stated that these communities share issues in common with the other communities in the proposed division.

Choppington Parish Council objected to the inclusion of electors on River Bank in our proposed Sleekburn division. They also opposed our proposal to include Hepscott parish in a division with Choppington, stating the lack of ties between the two communities. They did not submit any revised proposals for the parish.

We received a number of submissions from Hepscott parish, which opposed the parish’s inclusion in a division with Choppington and stated stronger ties to Morpeth and to the Longhorsley division, in which they are currently located. These arguments included a submission from Hepscott Parish Council. However, this representation was focused on the party-political consequences of the proposed change and as such we cannot consider this argument given our political impartiality.

In addition, we received a submission from Ian Lavery MP who stated that historically Hepscott and Choppington had been part of different predecessor authorities and Hepscott may be better placed in a division with areas from that previous authority (Castle Morpeth) like Ponteland and Stannington.

Having considered all the submissions and having visited the area on our tour of Northumberland, we propose to adopt the revised proposal submitted by Northumberland Conservatives.

We note the strong feelings of many of the respondents in this area. However, the limitations of providing a pattern of single-councillor divisions often has the consequence of grouping together areas that do not share particularly strong ties to facilitate electoral equality. We prefer to combine areas than to divide existing communities and parishes.

In our view, it is not possible to include Hepscott in a division pattern with Morpeth and meet all three of our statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identity and interests and effective and convenient local government. Nor is it possible to provide a division pattern for Choppington and East Bedlington parishes without including other areas. We consider that it is more appropriate for Choppington to be paired with Hepscott parish than expanding the division into the Ashington and Blyth areas.

Having carefully considered the evidence and the options in the area, we are of the view that the revised proposal from Northumberland Conservatives provides for the best division pattern for the area by avoiding a split of Hepscott parish and wholly including it in Choppington & Hepscott division, which we propose to rename to add the name of Hepscott parish. We also consider that the proposed Stakeford division is most reflective of the community in that area and avoids dividing the Stakeford community. Having considered all the different divisions arrangements we noted that it is necessary to divide Choppington parish between three divisions due to the number of electors who live in the parish. We consider that the Sleekburn division as well as our proposal for Choppington & Hepscott and Stakeford divisions best reflects this.

Our final recommendations for this area are three single-councillor divisions of Choppington & Hepscott, Sleekburn and Stakeford with electoral variances of -5%, -6% and -2% by 2028, respectively.

Blyth and Seaton Valley parishes

Whole area

We received around 100 submissions that made comment on our draft recommendations in the parishes of Blyth and Seaton Valley. Northumberland Conservatives submitted a revised proposal for part of the area. They supported the draft recommendations for Bebside (subject to renaming the division Bebside & Kitty Brewster), Cowpen, Holywell, Seghill with Seaton Delaval and Wensleydale.

Their revised proposal included a division that crossed the parish boundaries of Cramlington and Seaton Valley to create a Cramlington East & Double Row division, which is discussed fully in the section below. This proposal facilitated for a Hartley division that included all New Hartley Village (except Dorchester Court) which we divided between our Hartley and New Delaval & New Hartley divisions as part of our draft recommendations. Northumberland Conservatives also proposed to restore the existing Isabella, Newsham, Plessey and South Blyth divisions in Blyth subject to some small changes, discussed below.

Northumberland County Council Labour Group proposed a similar arrangement with their proposed Newsham division made up of the bulk of the existing Newsham division with a few area transferring to a revised Cramlington East division discussed in the section below.

Hartley, Holywell and Seghill with Seaton Delaval

We received 83 submissions regarding our proposed New Delaval & New Hartley division, all of which were opposed to our suggested arrangement which split the village of New Hartley between divisions. These submissions came from local residents as well as Ian Lavery MP, Councillor Chicken (Seghill with Seaton Delaval division), Councillor Henderson (Seaton Valley Community Council), Friends of Holywell Dene, New Hartley Community Association, New Hartley First School, New Hartley Residents’ Club, Seaton Sluice & Old Hartley Residents’ Association, Seaton Sluice Community Association and Seaton Valley Community Council. Northumberland County Council Labour Group proposed to maintain the division of New Hartley but proposed that it be divided between our proposed Hartley division and their revised Cramlington East division (discussed in the section below).

The representations we received offered a wealth of evidence illustrating the strong sense of community ties across the village. The submissions argued that the community ties would be undermined and broken by our proposed arrangement.

To address these concerns, the revised proposal from Northumberland Conservatives was for a Hartley division that included the whole of New Hartley Village except for Dorchester Court. This produced a division with an electoral variance of 10% from the average for Northumberland by 2028.

We studied the many informative submissions for this area, and we visited the village as part of our tour of Northumberland. We were able to see from this visit that our draft proposals did not provide for effective and convenient local government for the village, nor did they reflect the strong community ties in the area.

We have therefore adopted the revised proposal from Northumberland Conservatives for Hartley division as part of our final recommendations, subject to one change. We propose to include Dorchester Court in Hartley division, as we consider not including it would split community ties in the area. Our proposed Hartley division will have an electoral variance of 13% more electors that the average for the county by 2028. We consider that this relatively high level of electoral inequality is justified in this area to ensure that our final recommendations do not divide the New Hartley community.

Our final recommendations for this area are for three single-councillor divisions of Hartley, Holywell and Seghill with Seaton Delaval. These divisions will have electoral variances of 13%, 4% and 8% by 2028, respectively.

Bebside & Kitty Brewster, Cowpen, and Wensleydale

In addition to the support for these divisions from Northumberland Conservatives we also received support for them from five local residents.

We agree with the suggestion from Northumberland Conservatives to rename Bebside division to Bebside & Kitty Brewster and propose this name is adopted.

Our final recommendations for this part of Blyth are for three single-councillor divisions of Bebside & Kitty Brewster, Cowpen and Wensleydale. These three divisions have electoral variances of -5%, 1% and -6% by 2028, respectively.

Croft, Isabella, Newsham, Plessey and South Blyth

Northumberland Conservatives’ revised proposal for these five divisions was to restore the existing Newsham division and accept our proposed South Blyth division, subject to a small change to the boundary between the two. They also proposed to restore the existing Isabella division, reversing our proposal to include electors in the triangle bounded by Princess Louise Road, Railway Terrace and Renwick Road in Croft division. They stated that this area works well in its current division of Isabella.

In addition, Northumberland Conservatives proposed to amend the boundary between Isabella and Plessey divisions from Sixth Avenue to Tenth Avenue to provide electoral equality in both divisions. This included the bulk of ‘The Avenues’ in the same division, and Northumberland Conservatives argued that these roads have more in common with electors to the north in Isabella division than to the south in Plessey division. Finally, they proposed that the Newsham division be restored, with the exception of the small area to the west of the A189 (which they agreed should be included in Bebside & Kitty Brewster) and a small number of electors in Park Farm Villas, Railway Cottages and Rayburn Court (which they proposed to include in South Blyth to provide for electoral equality in Newsham division and to reflect that they have more in common with electors in South Blyth than the new development in progress in Newsham).

We received six other submissions, including that of Ian Levy MP, which supported the revised proposals made by Northumberland Conservatives.

We considered the Newsham division proposed by the Labour Group and we note that it is, with the exception of a handful of electors on the Cramlington side of the disused railway line, the same as the division proposed by Northumberland Conservatives we propose to adopt.

Our final recommendations adopt the changes suggested by Northumberland Conservatives for these divisions. These proposals work well in conjunction with the changes in the Hartley area of Seaton Valley parish and we consider they are reflective of the local communities across Blyth and reflect the other submissions we have received.

Our final recommendations for this area of Blyth are for five single-councillor divisions of Croft, Isabella, Newsham, Plessey and South Blyth with electoral variances of -1%, -9%, 9%, -7% and 3% by 2028, respectively.

Cramlington

Cramlington

We received around 15 submissions that referenced all or part of Cramlington. The submission from Northumberland Conservatives supported the proposed divisions for Cramlington Eastfield, Cramlington North, Cramlington North West, Cramlington South West and Cramlington Village. They proposed amendments to Cramlington East and Cramlington South East to facilitate a revised division pattern in the Hartley area. They suggested that the Double Row area of Seaton Valley parish be included in a division they proposed to call Cramlington East & Double Row. They also proposed that the Collingwood community be wholly contained in Cramlington South East division and not divided between Cramlington East and Cramlington South East, as included in our draft recommendations.

Cramlington Town Council asked that we reconsider the electoral forecasts for Cramlington Village as well as consider the number of town councillors allocated to the town council wards. They also argued that Barns Park should remain part of Cramlington Village division, as it is isolated from the rest of Cramlington South East division by the A1171 dual carriageway.

Councillor Flux, the county councillor for Cramlington West, supported the draft recommendations in Cramlington North West and Cramlington South West. Councillor Flux also suggested that a solution to splitting Hartley in the neighbouring Seaton Valley parish would be to include the Double Row area in a Cramlington East division, as suggested by the Northumberland Conservatives’ proposal. Councillor Flux suggested that councillors for these two areas had a history of working together and that the area had stronger ties to Cramlington than it did to the Newsham area of Blyth.

Councillor Swinburn, the county councillor for Cramlington Village, wrote to oppose the inclusion of Barns Park in Cramlington South East division. They argued that Barns Park had strong ties to Cramlington Village and that the A1171 dual carriageway formed a significant boundary between the two areas.

The Labour Group proposed a revised Cramlington East division consisting of the southern portion of our proposed New Delaval & New Hartley division, our proposed Cramlington East division and the village of East Hartford, which we proposed to include in Cramlington North West division.

Of the remaining submissions from local residents, six were also in opposition to the removal of Barns Park from Cramlington Village division, three were in support of the Cramlington Eastfield and Cramlington North divisions and one was in support of the changes suggested by Northumberland Conservatives.

Cramlington Eastfield, Cramlington North, Cramlington North West and Cramlington South West

In light of the support for these four divisions we propose to make no changes to our draft recommendations, other than a small modification to the southern boundary of Cramlington South West that affects no electors, and we therefore confirm our draft recommendations as final.

Our final recommendations for this part of Cramlington are for four single-councillor divisions of Cramlington Eastfield, Cramlington North, Cramlington North West and Cramlington South West with electoral variances of 2%, 7%, -9%, and -9%, respectively, by 2028.

Cramlington East & Double Row, Cramlington South East and Cramlington Village

We propose to adopt the changes suggested by Northumberland Conservatives for Cramlington East & Double Row and Cramlington South East. Having visited the area on our tour of Northumberland, we are persuaded that there are ties between the area of Double Row and Cramlington East that make a division containing the two areas to be appropriate. We also note that such a division enables us to propose a revised division pattern in Seaton Valley, as discussed above. We also consider that the proposed division pattern better reflects the community in the Collingwood area of Cramlington by ensuring it is wholly contained within Cramlington South East division.

In addition to these amendments, we propose to return the Barns Park area to Cramlington Village division, as requested by a number of respondents. We accept that this area has strong ties to Cramlington Village.

We looked at the forecasts for Cramlington Village, as suggested by Cramlington Town Council. We remain content that the forecasts provided to us at the start of the review of Northumberland are robust and represent the best information currently available. While we acknowledge electorate forecasts are an inexact science, we must agree the electorate forecasts at the start of the reviews, as continually changing electorate forecasts would make it difficult to conduct electoral reviews effectively.

We also noted the comments from Cramlington Town Council on the number of councillors allocated to the town council wards. As part of an electoral review, we do not alter the total number of parish and town councillors. We are of the view that such changes should only arise as a consequence of a Community Governance Review, and the only changes we make to parish electoral arrangements are as a direct consequence of our proposed wards and divisions. As Cramlington Town Council has 12 town councillors and seven county council divisions, it is necessary for two town council wards to have a single town councillor. In the event that Cramlington Town Council is of the view that its total number of councillors should be increased, it could do so via a Community Governance Review conducted by Northumberland County Council.

We considered the alternative proposal from the Labour Group but do not propose to adopt it for reasons: we were persuaded that New Hartley Village should not be divided between divisions, which this proposal continues to do; we were not persuaded that East Hartford has sufficient ties to the remainder of their proposed Cramlington East division; and the removal of East Hartford from Cramlington North West division would leave that division with 21% fewer electors than the average for the county by 2028, which their proposal does not seek to remedy.

Our final recommendations for this part of Cramlington are for three single-councillor divisions of Cramlington East & Double Row, Cramlington South East and Cramlington Village with electoral variances of -2%, -3% and 1%, respectively, by 2028.

Ponteland and surrounding area

Ponteland East & Stannington, Ponteland North, Ponteland South with Heddon and Ponteland West

We received 25 submissions that covered the four Ponteland divisions. Northumberland Conservatives fully supported the draft recommendations. Twenty-four local residents also wrote in support of the draft recommendations either in support of all four divisions, or for the division they reside in.

We also received an alternative division pattern from a local resident that proposed that the urban area of Ponteland should be covered by two divisions, with another two divisions covering the rural parishes surrounding the town. This proposal involved moving some parishes to other divisions such as Humshaugh and contained three out of the four divisions with very poor electoral equality of 14%, 15% and -17%.

Given these poor variances and the overwhelming support in other submissions for the draft recommendations, we confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Our final recommendations for Ponteland are for four single-councillor divisions of Ponteland East & Stannington, Ponteland North, Ponteland South with Heddon and Ponteland West with variances of 4%, 3%, 8% and -3%, respectively, by 2028.

Prudhoe and surrounding area

Prudhoe North & Wylam, Prudhoe South, Prudhoe West & Mickley and Stocksfield & Bywell

We received 25 submissions for our proposed divisions of Prudhoe North, Prudhoe South and Stocksfield. The overarching theme of these submissions was objection to the inclusion of the new housing at Prudhoe Hall in our Stocksfield division rather than in a division with Prudhoe South.

The Northumberland Conservatives submitted a revised pattern of divisions for Prudhoe. Their revised proposals were for four divisions of Prudhoe North & Wylam, Prudhoe South, Prudhoe West & Mickley and Stocksfield & Bywell. Their proposed Prudhoe North division comprised the Prudhoe Town Council parish ward of Castlefields & Low Prudhoe as well as the parishes of Wylam and Ovingham. Their proposed Prudhoe South division comprised the Prudhoe Town Council parish wards of West Wylam and Prudhoe Hall and contained all of the new housing development to the south of the town. Their suggested Prudhoe West & Mickley division combined the Prudhoe Town Council parish wards of Castle & Eltringham, Mickley and Prudhoe West & Halfway. Finally, their proposed Stocksfield & Bywell division included the parishes of Bywell, Horsley, Ovington and Stocksfield.

Councillor Stewart, a local councillor in Prudhoe, supported the Northumberland Conservatives’ proposal, arguing that the parishes of Wylam and Ovingham had very close ties to Prudhoe for schooling, shopping and leisure facilities. Guy Opperman MP, the Member of Parliament for Hexham, also wrote in support of the revised pattern suggested by Northumberland Conservatives, emphasising the links between Wylam, Ovingham and Prudhoe.

Councillor Dale, the Councillor for the existing division of Stocksfield & Broomhaugh, supported Northumberland County Council’s proposal at the previous stage to leave the division unchanged. They opposed our draft recommendation to include the Prudhoe Hall development in a Stocksfield division. Like Prudhoe Town Council, the councillor suggested that the Eltringham area in west Prudhoe would be better accommodated in a Stocksfield division. They also proposed that the parish of Hedley in South Tynedale division be moved into a Stocksfield division. The Labour Group also proposed a small change that moved some electors in the west of Prudhoe to Stocksfield division.

Prudhoe Town Council made a revised proposal that suggested that the west of Prudhoe should be included in a division with the parish of Stocksfield rather than the south of the town.

Of the submissions made by local residents, all opposed the exclusion of the Prudhoe Hall development, referred to as Cottier Grange and Humbles Wood, from a Prudhoe South division. A number of these submissions expressed support for the revised proposal from Northumberland Conservatives.

Having considered all these submissions and having visited the area on our tour of Northumberland, as well as studying the plans for the housing developments in south Prudhoe, we have concluded that electors in Prudhoe Hall are an integral part of the community in the south of the town and should be included in Prudhoe South division.

Having considered the alternative proposals submitted to us, we considered whether we could propose three divisions solely within Prudhoe and Stocksfield parishes, with the parish of Stocksfield paired in a division with Mickley and the Eltringham area of Prudhoe Town. We could not identify a division pattern that reflected these aims and provided for good electoral equality.

As part of our tour, we also visited the parishes of Ovingham and Wylam. Northumberland Conservatives had suggested that these parishes be included in Prudhoe North & Wylam division to help facilitate a division pattern of four single- councillor divisions covering Bywell, Horsley, Ovingham, Ovington, Prudhoe, Stocksfield and Wylam parishes. We were persuaded by the argument that these parishes have strong connections with Prudhoe.

Our final recommendations adopt the revised pattern for these four divisions as proposed by Northumberland Conservatives. This arrangement includes the Prudhoe Hall area in a Prudhoe South division. We do not propose to add the parish of Hedley to a Prudhoe division, as was suggested to us, as we have not been persuaded that it should be moved from its existing division of South Tynedale, a division that has received support during our consultations.

Our final recommendations are, therefore, for four single-councillor divisions of Prudhoe North & Wylam, Prudhoe South, Prudhoe West & Mickley and Stocksfield & Bywell with electoral variances of 4%, 10%, 4% and -9%, respectively, by 2028.

Corbridge

Of the three submissions we received that mentioned Corbridge division, all related to the inclusion of the parish of Broomhaugh & Riding in the division. Two submissions from local residents were in support of the proposal, whilst Broomhaugh & Riding Parish Council collated local comments that showed a mixture of support and concern regarding their inclusion in Corbridge division.

Having considered these submissions and noted that removing the parish from Corbridge division would result in that division having 14% fewer electors than the average for Northumberland by 2028, we propose to confirm our draft recommendation as final.

Our final recommendations for Corbridge division will see it have a variance of 6% by 2028.

Hexham

Hexham East, Hexham North and Hexham West

We received 10 submissions that mentioned our proposals in Hexham. Northumberland Conservatives and nine local residents all supported the draft recommendations.

We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Hexham as final. These are for three single-councillor divisions of Hexham East, Hexham North and Hexham West with variances of -1%, -10% and -8%, respectively, by 2028.