
East Riding of Yorkshire draft recommendations
Explore our draft recommendations for new wards in East Riding of Yorkshire
LGBCE
The Commission has published draft recommendations for new wards in East Riding of Yorkshire.
This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.
Click on the different layers on the list in the bottom right hand corner of this map to switch between the different boundaries.
Click on the ‘Have your say’ button below this map to tell us what you think of our draft recommendations.
Explore your area
In the map below we discuss each area of the East Riding of Yorkshire. This detail is also available in our report.

Bridlington
Bridlington. Click to expand.
Bridlington Central & Old Town, Bridlington North & Flamborough and Bridlington South

Northern East Riding of Yorkshire
Northern East Riding of Yorkshire. Click to expand.
Driffield

Western East Riding of Yorkshire
Western East Riding of Yorkshire. Click to expand.
Derwent Valley and Pocklington

Southern East Riding of Yorkshire
Southern East Riding of Yorkshire. Click to expand.
Cottingham North & Skidby and Cottingham South

Beverley
Beverley. Click to expand.
Beverley North and Beverley South & Woodmansey

Holderness
Holderness. Click to expand.
Mid Holderness and North Holderness
Bridlington
Bridlington Central & Old Town, Bridlington North & Flamborough and Bridlington South
41 We received various proposals for the town of Bridlington, with differences focused on which outlying areas, if any, should be brought into wards based on the town itself.
42 The Liberal Democrats, in this area and others, argued that it was logical to include a number of outlying villages and parishes in Bridlington-based wards, suggesting that such villages would feel an attachment with the town that, in many cases, provides shopping, schools and other facilities. In contrast, the Council working group noted that in areas where this pattern was reflected in the existing wards, many electors in rural areas did not, in fact, share a community identity with the neighbouring town, but rather felt that their interests and the time of their representatives was dominated by urban issues to the exclusion of those in rural areas. The working group suggested having a clear distinction between urban and rural-based wards wherever possible. This was supported by a resident, who argued that the villages neighbouring Bridlington had a very separate identity from the town itself.
43 All the proposals for Bridlington included a ward based on the north of the town, and Flamborough. We visited this area on our tour of the East Riding and note that any arrangement which attempted to place Flamborough in a rural-based ward would have to wrap around the northern edge of Bridlington. We received no evidence in support of this proposal and have adopted a Bridlington North & Flamborough ward as part of our draft recommendations.
44 The local Labour party, and both residents who proposed full schemes, proposed similar Bridlington South wards, based on the existing ward in this area but expanding to include the area between Flamborough Road and North Marine Promenade to the south-east of the railway line. The Labour submission suggested that, as well as providing for better electoral equality, this area had links to the south of Bridlington through Bay Primary School.
45 In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Bridlington South ward including the parishes of Carnaby and Barmston. No specific evidence of community identity between these parishes and Bridlington was offered, and we have not adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations, preferring the ward suggested by the local Labour party and the residents, based on the evidence of a community identity within Bridlington. This is subject to a minor modification, discussed below at paragraph 48.
46 The Liberal Democrats proposed a Bridlington Old Town & Bempton ward, with the parishes of Boynton, Grindale and Bempton & Buckton joined with the central section of Bridlington town. The other proposals all included a boundary running along the A165 Scarborough Road, with electors in the Burstall Hill estate placed in a rural-based ward.
47 We visited this area on our tour of Bridlington. While the A165 is undoubtedly a strong and clear boundary, we do not consider that the Burstall Hill estate is likely to share a community identity with rural areas, as opposed to the remainder of Bridlington. We have therefore modified the proposal of Labour and the residents and placed this area within a Bridlington Central & Old Town ward, preferring to use the parish boundary rather than the A165 to ensure these electors can remain within a Bridlington-based ward.
48 This change would, in isolation, leave Bridlington Central & Old Town with 12% more electors per councillor than average. To improve this, we propose placing electors along the B1253 Easton Road into Bridlington South ward, rather than Bridlington Central & Old Town as proposed. This change allows both Bridlington South and Bridlington Central & Old Town to have good electoral equality by 2030.
Northern East Riding of Yorkshire
Driffield
49 All the full schemes that we received included a ward based on the town of Driffield. The Liberal Democrats, and one resident’s scheme, proposed a ward composed of only Driffield parish, while Labour and the other resident’s scheme proposed including Kirkburn parish with Driffield. Either option would offer good electoral equality for a Driffield ward. Another resident suggested that Kirkburn would be better served in a rural area, as councillors found it hard to effectively serve the needs of both the town and rural areas.
50 We visited Kirkburn and Driffield on our tour of the East Riding of Yorkshire. We note that there are clear community links between Driffield and Kirkburn, with Driffield Showground and the Driffield Agricultural Society being physically located within Kirkburn parish. However, while including Kirkburn with Driffield provides for good electoral equality in the Driffield ward, we have been unable to identify a configuration to include Kirkburn (forecast to have 729 electors by 2030) in a Driffield ward, which would provide good electoral equality for the surrounding wards. We have therefore adopted the proposal of the Liberal Democrats and a resident for a three-councillor ward comprising only Driffield parish.
East Wolds, Nafferton & Kilham and West Wolds 51 As discussed above (paragraph 33), we received a request from the Council working group that we not recommend any single-member wards across the East Riding of Yorkshire. This was reflected in the schemes received from local political groups and residents. Inevitably, given the requirement to approach 8,000 electors for a two-member ward to offer good electoral equality, this means that rural-based wards will be geographically large.
52 We received a variety of proposals for the wards in the northern rural area of the East Riding of Yorkshire. The Liberal Democrats proposed a ‘doughnut’ Driffield Rural ward, entirely surrounding the town, together with a Burton Dickering ward ranging from Wold Newton to Seaton parishes. As well as including the disadvantages of ‘doughnut’ wards, this configuration was dependent on rural parishes near Bridlington being placed in wards based on the town. As discussed above, we have not adopted this proposal, and therefore cannot entirely adopt the Liberal Democrats’ proposal in the wider rural north. We do note the evidence provided by the Liberal Democrats that the existing three-member rural wards are unwieldy and challenging to represent effectively.
53 The Labour proposal was for a Kilham ward centred on this village. This ward relies upon including electors from the Burstall Hill estate on the edge of Bridlington in order to achieve acceptable electoral equality. Given the decision made in relation to these electors remaining within a Bridlington-based ward, we are not adopting Labour’s proposed Kilham ward, or the neighbouring wards which depend upon it.
54 The two residents who offered full schemes proposed different solutions. One suggested two very large three-member wards, with one stretching from South Cliffe parish south of Market Weighton to Cottam. In the absence of any specific evidence of a shared community identity across this area, and in light of the evidence from the Liberal Democrats that three-member wards in rural areas can be challenging to represent, we have not been persuaded to adopt this proposal.
55 The other resident proposed a Central Wolds ward ranging from Rudston to Warter parishes and a two-member East Wolds & Coastal ward. Again, this relies on electors from Bridlington parish in order to achieve good electoral equality. We have identified our own draft recommendations in this area. We are proposing a Nafferton & Kilham ward covering the area closest to Bridlington, an East Wolds ward which is relatively compact given the rural nature of the area, and a West Wolds ward ranging from Cottam to Seaton Ross parishes. While we accept that this latter ward is relatively large geographically, we consider that making it any smaller by transferring parishes from it to neighbouring wards would result in much poorer levels of electoral equality. We welcome further views on these wards.
56 Another resident proposed a ward based on the Harthill Deanery within the structure of the Church of England, which would stretch from Fridaythorpe to Thwing parishes. While we do not consider Church organisations’ structures to be particularly strong evidence of community identity and have not adopted this proposal, we do note the evidence provided of catchment areas for schools in Garton, Nafferton and Burton Agnes, which lends some support to the boundary we propose between Nafferton and Garton parishes.
57 North Dalton Parish Council provided a submission that, while not discussing specific boundaries or links between communities, suggested a mandate for the relationship between ward councillors and parishes. It is not within our power to advise how elected councillors choose to discharge their duties with respect to parishes in their areas.
Western East Riding of Yorkshire
Derwent Valley and Pocklington
58 The town of Pocklington offers good electoral equality as a stand-alone two-member ward. This was proposed by the local Labour party, and both residents who submitted authority-wide proposals. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats proposed a three-member ward including Pocklington and a number of neighbouring parishes, and a Bridge & West Wolds ward including Stamford Bridge and parishes to the north, east and south of Pocklington. We consider that Pocklington alone offers a ward reflecting the community identity of the town, and we have adopted this as part of our draft recommendations.
59 The Council’s working group suggested that there should be an east/west split of the existing Pocklington Provincial and Wolds Weighton wards and provided evidence that several parishes on the western edge of the county shared issues related to employment in, and transport to, York. Apart from the Liberal Democrats, all three full proposals in this area broadly reflected the suggestion from the working group, proposing a ward ranging from Stamford Bridge to Everingham and/or Seaton Ross. We have broadly adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations, subject to changes to allow the neighbouring West Wolds ward to achieve good electoral equality. Our proposed ward ranges from Stamford Bridge parish in the north to Cottingwith and Melbourne parishes in the south. A variety of names were suggested for this ward, including ‘Stamford Bridge’, and ‘Derwent Valley & Barmby Moor’. We would welcome further evidence as to which name is best reflective of communities in this ward, as well as comments on the boundaries proposed.
Goole South, Goole North and Snaith & Marshland
60 All the proposals received suggested retaining the existing warding arrangements for the wards south of the River Humber. The only point of disagreement was the naming of Snaith & Marshland ward, which is currently named Snaith, Airmyn, Rawcliffe & Marshland. We proposed to retain the boundaries of the existing wards, subject to a minor adjustment to reflect the amended parish boundary between Goole and Airmyn parishes.
61 The Liberal Democrats suggested that the existing name was ‘a mouthful’, preferring ‘Snaith & River’s End’ and one resident proposing a scheme suggested Snaith & Marshland. We have adopted the latter as part of our draft recommendations, but remain open to further suggestions, including retaining the existing name. We also note that it is open to East Riding of Yorkshire Council to propose changes to ward names outside of the context of an electoral review.
Howdenshire and Weighton & Holme
62 There was agreement among all submissions that the town of Howden could not stand as a single-councillor ward and needed to be expanded to take in some of the neighbouring rural areas in order to provide a good level of electoral equality. Evidence varied, primarily on whether the large village of Holme-on-Spalding-Moor should be linked with Howden, or with Market Weighton.
63 The Labour proposal, and both those of the local residents, were for a ‘Wolds Weighton’ ward, linking Market Weighton to parishes such as Full Sutton & Skirpenbeck and Bugthorpe & Kirby Underdale. Very little evidence was provided of a shared community identity between these areas and Market Weighton, and one resident (who did not submit a full scheme) did provide evidence that these rural areas were more likely to look to Pocklington than Market Weighton for shops and services. Cllr P. Hemmerman also suggested a ward more tightly drawn on the town of Market Weighton itself, while Cllr I. McKechnie provided a submission, but did not offer comments on potential boundaries.
64 The Liberal Democrats proposed a Weighton & Holme ward, linking the town of Market Weighton to the neighbouring large village. Evidence of community links were provided, with the submission noting that the majority of secondary school pupils in Holme-on-Spalding-Moor attended school in Market Weighton. We consider that this arrangement is more likely to both reflect community identity and promote effective and convenient government than a long narrow ward skirting the edge of Pocklington, and we have adopted this Weighton & Holme ward as part of our draft recommendations.
65 We received varying proposals for wards based on the town of Howden and the neighbouring rural area. Howden Town Council provided a submission but did not offer suggestions as to potential boundaries or links between communities. Labour proposed a Howden & Gilberdyke ward, comprising the parishes of those names and Eastrington; and a large Howdenshire ward wrapping around Howden & Gilberdyke, including Kilpin, Laxton and Blacktoft parishes together with a number of areas to the north. We consider that this Howdenshire ward would be unlikely to promote effective and convenient local government owing to the lack of internal access, as well as relying on Holme-upon-Spalding-Moor (see paragraph 63-64 above). We have therefore not adopted this proposal.
66 Both residents proposing full schemes suggested two two-councillor wards, with a Howden ward including the town and parishes on the western edge of the county, and a Howdenshire ward containing areas from Kilpin to either Seaton Ross or Holme-upon-Spalding-Moor. While both options offer good electoral equality (as does the Labour proposal), they both rely on electors from Holme-on-Spalding-Moor in order to achieve good electoral equality, and we have not adopted them as part of our draft recommendations.
67 A separate resident of Ellerton parish suggested that there were few links between this area and parishes such as Gilberdyke and North Cave within the existing Howdenshire ward. While the eastern extremity of the existing ward will no longer be linked to Ellerton, we will often propose wards that join communities with few obvious ties other than geography, particularly where the alternative would be to either divide an existing community, or to propose wards that would not promote effective and convenient government.
68 Another resident of Kilpin parish suggested that they shared a community identity with Howden, as the place they visited regularly for shopping and leisure. Kilpin parish will be included with Howden in a Howdenshire ward under these draft recommendations.
69 We have adopted the proposal of the Liberal Democrats, for a single three-councillor Howdenshire ward, ranging from Ellerton to Blacktoft parishes. We have modified the Liberal Democrat proposal slightly to include Newport parish, meaning that this ward is at the upper end of the range of good electoral equality, as this allows the neighbouring wards to also have good electoral equality.
Southern East Riding of Yorkshire
Cottingham North & Skidby and Cottingham South
70 The village, and parish, of Cottingham cannot accommodate either three or four councillors with good electoral equality. It is therefore necessary for a neighbouring area to be joined in a ward with a part of Cottingham. We received varying proposals for how wards should be configured, with the majority of submissions proposing retaining the existing Cottingham South ward.
71 The Goole & Pocklington Constituency Labour Party proposal, while not offering any direct suggestions for Cottingham, placed the parish of Skidby in a South Hunsley ward including Swanland and North Ferriby parishes. By implication, this suggested that the north of Cottingham should be linked to Woodmansey parish. Both residents proposing full schemes also linked the north of Cottingham with at least a part of Woodmansey parish. In contrast, Cllr P. Redshaw argued that Woodmansey was more closely linked to Beverley, and that it would not be appropriate for this area to be linked to Cottingham.
72 The alternative to linking Woodmansey to Cottingham is to link the parish, and village, of Skidby to the town. This was suggested by the Council working group, Cllr P. Redshaw, Cottingham Branch Labour Party and Cottingham Parish Council, who noted that the residents of Skidby looked to Cottingham for services.
73 In contrast, Skidby Parish Council argued that the parish had a rural nature, and that its interests might be diluted in a ward containing a significant urban or suburban area. Several submissions, including that of Cllr P. Hopton, suggested that we should ensure that wards reflected the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies – this is not a point we can consider.
74 We have carefully considered all the submissions in this area and consider the decision to be particularly finely balanced. On balance, we consider that linking Skidby with Cottingham is necessary in order to provide a coherent pattern of wards in this area, and we are proposing this as part of our draft recommendations. We also propose to include Skidby in the name of the ward, to recognise the separate community. The inclusion of Skidby allows both Cottingham South and Cottingham North & Skidby to have acceptable electoral equality.
Dale and Elloughton-cum-Brough
75 Cllr R. Meredith argued for the retention of the existing Dale ward, suggesting that it was a sensible size, and contained communities which were strongly linked together. Cllr Meredith also suggested that, in order to promote good relations between parishes and ward councillors, all wards should contain between six and eight parishes. While this may work in some areas with appropriately sized parishes, it is impractical in many rural areas. We note that the existing Dale ward would be forecast to have a variance of 18% – well beyond the bounds of good electoral equality – and that the Council’s working group described the connection between communities in this ward as ‘historic’. We have not adopted the proposal to retain the ward unchanged.
76 Three out of the four full proposals we received suggested Elloughton-cum-Brough as a single, two-councillor ward, with a larger, rural-based ward wrapping around it to the north. Evidence was provided from Cllr P. Hopton that this area is effectively a single town, with differing issues from the neighbouring rural areas, or the villages of Swanland and North Ferriby. North Ferriby Parish Council provided a submission, but did not discuss potential boundaries in any detail.
77 The Liberal Democrats offered an alternative proposal, choosing to split the parishes of Elloughton-cum-Brough, Ellerker and Brantingham along the line of the A63, with the southern sections joining with North Cave and the northern sections with South Cave, Swanland and North Ferriby. Particularly in the case of Ellerker parish, this would require the creation of parish wards with very few electors, in a way which we do not consider would be compatible with effective and convenient local government. We have therefore not adopted this proposal.
78 We have adopted the proposal from the residents, and Labour, for Elloughton-cum-Brough to be a two-councillor ward, with a revised Dale ward wrapping around the northern edge. We would be particularly interested in received further evidence as to whether our proposed Dale ward reflects a shared community identity; and whether, given the significant changes from the existing Dale ward, the name continues to be appropriate or should be changed.
Hessle, Tranby and Willerby & Kirk Ella
79 No proposals were received for any changes to the boundaries of these wards, and their retention was supported by the working group, all full schemes covering this area, Cllr D. Nolan, Cllr J. Bovill and Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council. The latter submission noted that in several areas the external boundary between the East Riding and the city of Hull has not kept pace with development but accepts that this issue is beyond the scope of this Electoral Review of the East Riding of Yorkshire. A resident also expressed concern about Willerby & Kirk Ella being ‘swallowed up’ by Hull. We have adopted the joint proposals of the Council working group and others, and propose to retain the existing wards in this area as part of our draft recommendations.
80 Hessle Town Council provided a submission focussed on the parish wards covering the Town Council area. As part of an electoral review, we will not make changes to parish warding arrangements except where specifically required by legislation (see paragraph 96 below). As we are not proposing to divide Hessle parish between county wards, we cannot make changes to the Town Council’s warding arrangements – any changes can be made through a Community Governance Review, led by East Riding or Yorkshire Council.
81 The Liberal Democrats noted that Tranby ward does not share a name with the parish covering the same area. We are not proposing a change of name as part of our draft recommendations but would welcome further evidence as to what name would be best understood by the local community as a descriptor of the area.
Beverley
Beverley North and Beverley South & Woodmansey
82 We received no proposals to alter the boundaries of the existing St Mary’s ward covering the north of Beverley and Molescroft parish. We visited the area on our tour of East Riding of Yorkshire and viewed the potential boundary between this ward and the one to the south. In several areas, particularly where it crosses Burden Road and Sigston Road, and in the Butt Lane area where the boundary divides Springdale Way and Newton Drive, we do not consider that the existing boundary is strong or clear. We are proposing an alternative as part of our draft recommendations and would welcome local evidence as to whether it offers a clear boundary, and on any impact upon community identity.
83 We are proposing a boundary running along Woodmansey Mile and Long Lane, before following Mill Dam Drain and the railway line, and then the B1230 Hull Bridge Road to the parish boundary. Based on our observations on our tour of the area, we consider that this offers a significantly stronger and clearer boundary than the existing one between St Mary’s and Minster & Woodmansey wards, while retaining good electoral equality.
84 We note that one consequence of the revised boundary that we propose would be that Beverley Minster itself would not be in the ward named for it. With this in mind, we are proposing revised names of Beverley North and Beverley South & Woodmansey for the two wards covering the town. As well as comments on our proposed boundary, we would particularly welcome further evidence as to whether these names are appropriate or could be improved.
85 As discussed above with regard to a potential link to Cottingham (paragraph 70–74), we have decided to place all of Woodmansey parish in a Beverley South & Woodmansey ward with the southern section of Beverley, as proposed by Cllr P. Redshaw. This allows both wards covering the town of Beverley to have three councillors, with good electoral equality.
Beverley Rural
86 All three schemes received included a Beverley Rural ward of some configuration, comprising parishes to the west and north of Beverley. Our draft recommendations incorporate this principle while accommodating the decisions we have made in neighbouring areas in order to produce a coherent warding pattern across the county as a whole.
87 Tickton & Routh Parish Council supported the retention of the status quo with no changes to existing ward boundaries. Despite the fact that the existing Beverley Rural ward is forecast to retain good electoral equality by 2030, we cannot retain individual wards in isolation, but instead have to construct a coherent warding pattern across the entire county. Goodmanham Parish Council offered a submission, but did not comment on potential boundaries or links between communities.
Holderness
Mid Holderness and North Holderness
88 Most of the schemes we received for the Holderness peninsula included a North Holderness ward matching the existing ward in this area. There was a disagreement over the name of the ward, with the Labour submission and one resident suggesting a name of ‘Hornsea’. It was argued that this town provides the majority of the electorate for this ward. Given the lack of consensus over changing the name, we are not persuaded to put forward an alternative name as part of our draft recommendations, but we welcome further evidence as to whether ‘Hornsea’ ‘North Holderness’ or any other alternative is the best description of this area.
89 The Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative ‘Hornsea and Coastal’ ward, stretching between Hornsea and Aldbrough parish. No evidence was provided that Aldbrough shares a community identity with Hornsea to a greater extent than parishes such as Altwick or Seaton, and the proposed ward is dependent upon other proposals in the east of the county which we have not adopted.
90 Both residents’ schemes included a Mid Holderness ward, with good electoral equality for two councillors, rather than the three currently representing this area. The exact configuration of the ward we have adopted as part of our draft recommendations, ranging from Wawne parish in the west, Catwick parish in the north and Elstronwick parish in the south depended upon the decisions taken in neighbouring areas, particularly Beverley Rural. The Liberal Democrats proposed a West Holderness ward, which was dependent upon Wawne parish being linked with Cottingham. As discussed above (paragraph 70-74), we did not adopt this proposal, so we cannot adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal for a West Holderness ward in isolation.
South East Holderness and South West Holderness
91 Both residents proposed slight revisions to the existing wards in this area, with Burstwick parish being added to a South West Holderness ward based on the town of Hedon. These offered improvements on the electoral equality of retaining the existing wards, which would both be at the lower end of the range of good electoral equality. A separate resident provided evidence that Burstwick is linked to Hedon in terms of shops, healthcare facilities and council services.
92 Cllr J. Dennis argued for the retention of the existing ward, but did not offer specific evidence of links between the various communities. Cllr D. James, of Burstwick Parish Council, offered a submission but did not comment on potential boundaries or the links between communities.
93 We visited this area on our tour of the East Riding and consider that the journey between Hedon and Burstwick is sufficiently easy to justify these areas being in the same ward, especially given the improvements in electoral equality which this offers and the evidence of shared community identity. We have therefore adopted this as part of our draft recommendations.
94 The Liberal Democrats proposed slightly differing wards on the east and west of the Holderness peninsula, named ‘Heritage & Spurn’ and ‘Hedon’, respectively. No evidence of community identity was provided to support the revised configuration of parishes, which included Burstwick parish being placed in the eastern ward, separately from Hedon. We would particularly welcome further evidence as to where Burstwick, Keyingham and other parishes in this area look for their community identity; as well as whether the names proposed by the Liberal Democrats are better reflective of the identity of the area than purely geographic descriptors.
Powered by Esri