County Durham final recommendations

Stanley

Annfield Plain & Tanfield

Bar the inclusion of Greencroft parish, for the reasons justified in the previous section, we recommend no further changes to our Annfield Plain & Tanfield division as part of our final recommendations.

Craghead & South Moor and Stanley

We received no submissions in relation to these divisions during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for both divisions as final.

Chester-le-Street

Chester-le-Street North and Chester-le-Street South

While broadly supportive of the divisions proposed for the Chester-le-Street area, the Labour Group, with the support of the North Durham Constituency Labour Party, suggested some modifications to the two divisions. They proposed that the area immediately east of the East Coast Main Line, which includes Chester-le-Street Community Hospital, Relton Terrace, Clifford Terrace and Orchard Gardens, should be included in Chester-le-Street North division. They were of the view that the railway line forms a strong, identifiable boundary that has limited crossing points. They also proposed that the area containing the residential roads of Cragside, Gibside, Gainford and Wynyard be included in our proposed Chester-le-Street South division rather than our draft Chester-le-Street North division to achieve a better level of electoral equality and achieve more identifiable boundaries.

We agree that these modifications will result in two divisions that will reflect communities, achieve a good level of electoral equality, and have strong boundaries, so we are therefore adopting them as part of our final recommendations.

Lumley & West Rainton

We received no submissions in relation to Lumley & West Rainton division during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

North Lodge

The Liberal Democrats, North Lodge Parish Council, Councillor Martin and 10 local residents supported our proposed North Lodge division. We are therefore confirming the division as final.

Pelton

Ouston Parish Council, Pelton Parish Council and Urpeth Parish Council all expressed their support for our three-councillor Pelton division. We are therefore confirming the division as final.

Sacriston & Witton Gilbert

The Liberal Democrats supported our proposed Sacriston & Witton Gilbert division, despite it being significantly different from the proposal they had submitted for the area during the previous consultation. With no further submissions received relating to this division, we therefore confirm the division as part of our final recommendations.

Brandon and Esh

Brandon and Deerness

Brandon & Byshottles Parish Council requested that the current arrangements remain, so that the Brandon, Meadowfield and Langley Moor communities continue to be linked together within Brandon division, with New Brancepeth excluded. However, transferring New Brancepeth to the adjacent Deerness division would result in that division having a forecast electoral variance of 21%, which we consider too high to accept. We also consider that an alternative arrangement of placing New Brancepeth in Willington & Hunwick division would not be reflective of local community identities and interests. Therefore, we have decided to confirm our proposed Brandon and Deerness divisions as final.

Langley & Esh

We received two submissions in relation to this division during consultation. One of these came from the Liberal Democrats. While largely supportive of the division, they argued that Satley parish should be moved to this division from Weardale division. They stressed that significant community links exist between Satley and the rest of the proposed Langley & Esh division. However, a local resident supported the inclusion of Satley parish within Weardale. After considering the evidence received, we have been persuaded by the proposal made by the Liberal Democrats and have transferred Satley into our proposed Langley & Esh division as part of our final recommendations.

Durham city

Belmont and Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe

The Liberal Democrats, Councillor Ormerod, Shincliffe Parish Council and several local residents opposed our decision to exclude Shincliffe parish from Elvet & Gilesgate division and place it in Bowburn & Coxhoe division. They argued that Shincliffe parish is distinct from the parishes that comprise Bowburn & Coxhoe division, and that the parish would fit more appropriately within our Elvet & Gilesgate division.

We were persuaded by the evidence received that placing Shincliffe parish in an Elvet & Gilesgate division would better reflect community identities and interests. However, including the parish in Elvet & Gilesgate division would result in the division being significantly under-represented. Therefore, we have decided to transfer the unparished area around Habgood Drive and Cuthbert Avenue from our draft Belmont division to our final Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe division. We have also transferred the unparished Gilesgate area, north of Sunderland Road, from Elvet & Gilesgate division to our final Belmont division. This was supported by Councillor Freeman, who stated that these two modifications would better reflect community identities and interests. This will result in both divisions having a good forecast level of electoral equality by 2028.

Belmont Parish Council expressed regret that we had ‘not considered Belmont Parish Council’s views’ which it submitted during the previous consultation. Belmont Parish Council had previously requested the retention of the current division boundaries and the current allocation of three councillors. Councillor Ashfield also expressed concern at the reduction of councillors for Belmont division. However, as previously outlined in the draft recommendations, it is an unavoidable consequence that we must reduce the allocation of councillors per division and redraw division boundaries across the county to achieve an effective balance of our statutory criteria. We are therefore recommending a two-councillor Belmont division as part of our final recommendations, which now excludes the unparished area around Habgood Drive and Cuthbert Avenue but includes the unparished Gilesgate area.

Framwellgate & Newton Hall

We received two submissions relating to this division. One local resident requested that the Kimblesworth Grange area be incorporated into our Framwellgate & Newton Hall division. We decided not to adopt this proposal as it would mean splitting Witton Gilbert parish across two divisions, which, in our view, would not contribute to effective and convenient local government.

Another local resident requested that the Aykley Heads area be transferred to Framwellgate Moor parish. However, changing external parish boundaries falls outside the scope of this electoral review and is the responsibility of the County Council via a Community Governance Review.

Neville’s Cross

We received no submissions in relation to Neville’s Cross division during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

Murton and Seaham

Dalton & Dawdon, Murton and Seaham

The Labour Group expressed disappointment that their proposals for this area of the county, which were submitted during the previous consultation, were not adopted. They therefore submitted a revised version of their initial proposals, proposing three two-councillor divisions, named Dawdon, Murton and Seaham & Deneside. However, we decided not to adopt these proposals as we consider that the community evidence the Labour Group supplied was not persuasive enough for us to significantly alter our draft recommendations here. In addition, as outlined in our draft recommendations, our proposed Dalton & Dawdon division will have excellent electoral equality and unites Dalton-le-Dale parish in one division, which will promote effective and convenient local government.

A local resident opposed South Hetton parish being included in Murton division, stating that the area is closer to the Easington area than it is to Murton parish. However, removing South Hetton parish from our Murton division would result in Murton division having a forecast electoral variance of -24% by 2028, which is unacceptably high.

We are therefore confirming our Dalton & Dawdon, Murton and Seaham divisions as final.

Easington, Pittington, Sherburn and Shotton

Easington & Shotton

We received three submissions that opposed this division, from Councillor Hood, Haswell Parish Council and a local resident. These respondents opposed the creation of a large three-councillor division comprised of Easington Colliery, Easington Village, Haswell, Shotton and Shadforth parishes, arguing they were disparate and did not have shared community identity and interests. We examined Councillor Hood’s proposal, which proposed a single-councillor Easington division and a two-councillor Shadforth, Haswell & Shotton division. However, both divisions were forecast to have significantly high levels of electoral inequality. We consider such levels of electoral inequality would not reflect our statutory criteria, so we have decided not to adopt these divisions as part of our final recommendations. We are instead confirming our draft recommendations for Easington & Shotton division as final.

Pittington & Sherburn

Councillor Hall opposed our single-councillor Pittington & Sherburn division, and specifically our decision not to include Sherburn Hill village. Councillor Hall argued that Sherburn Hill shares much stronger links with the communities in our Pittington & Sherburn division, than with those in our Easington & Shotton division. However, as noted in our draft recommendations, we have not included Sherburn Hill village in Pittington & Sherburn division as it would result in a forecast electoral variance of 13% for the division. We are not persuaded that we have received sufficient community evidence to justify this variance. We also noted in our draft recommendations that placing Sherburn Hill in our Easington & Shotton division ensures that the entirety of Shadforth parish is in one division. We maintain our view that this aids effective and convenient local government. We are therefore not recommending any changes to this division as part of our final recommendations.

Horden and Peterlee

Horden & Dene House and Peterlee

A local resident disagreed with our proposals to link part of Peterlee parish with Horden parish. However, no alternative arrangement was suggested by the local resident that better reflected our statutory criteria, so we have decided to recommend no changes to these two divisions as part of our final recommendations.

Blackhalls, Thornley, Trimdon and Wingate

Blackhalls & Hesledens and Castle Eden & Passfield

The Labour Group requested that we combine our proposed single-councillor Castle Eden & Passfield and Monk Hesleden divisions into a larger two-councillor division named Blackhalls. They argued that the communities within these divisions share a historic and current community connection and should therefore be placed within the same division.

We have decided not to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations. We maintain the view, as outlined in our draft recommendations, that a single-councillor division for Monk Hesleden parish provides the best reflection of our statutory criteria, creating a division for a parish that is somewhat distinct from communities immediately to its west. We also note that, in its submission, Monk Hesleden Parish Council did not express a need to be linked with the communities in our proposed Castle Eden & Passfield division.

However, we did note that Monk Hesleden Parish Council requested that Monk Hesleden division be renamed Blackhalls & Hesledens. We have decided to adopt this name as part of our final recommendations, as we consider that this name better reflects the communities that will make up this division, which includes Blackhall Colliery, Blackhall Rocks, Crimdon, Hesleden, High Hesleden and Monk Hesleden.

Thornley & Wheatley Hill

We received no submissions in relation to Thornley & Wheatley Hill division during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

Trimdon & Wingate

We received two submissions in relation to this division. The Labour Group proposed that we divide it into two single-councillor divisions. A desire for a single-councillor Wingate division was also expressed by Councillor Higgins.

The Labour Group suggested placing Trimdon parish in a division with Station Town. Wingate parish would then be linked to Trimdon Foundry parish. We have decided not to adopt the proposal, as the former division would contain detached areas. We consider that such proposals would not reflect community identities, nor promote effective and convenient local government.

Splitting this division along the Trimdon, Trimdon Foundry and Wingate parish boundary would result in single-councillor Wingate and Trimdon divisions with forecast electoral variances of 2% and 11%, respectively. We consider that the community-based evidence submitted by the Labour Group and Councillor Higgins is not persuasive enough for us to recommend a single-councillor Trimdon division with a high variance. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for a two-councillor Trimdon & Wingate division as final.

Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield

Aycliffe North & Middridge and Aycliffe South

Councillor Chandran, of Great Aycliffe Town Council, supported our proposals ‘as they do not interfere with the internal parish boundaries’. With no further submissions received with regard to these two divisions, we are confirming them both as final.

Chilton

We received no submissions in relation to Chilton division during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

Sedgefield

Sedgefield Town Council supported our decision to adopt its proposal to extend the current Sedgefield division to incorporate the parish of Bishop Middleham, stating that it will effectively reflect community identities and interests. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

Bowburn, Coxhoe, Ferryhill and Spennymoor

Bowburn & Coxhoe

The Liberal Democrats supported the inclusion of Cornforth parish within Bowburn & Coxhoe division, noting that it would ensure electoral equality across divisions. However, Councillor Crathorne opposed the inclusion of Cornforth parish in Bowburn & Coxhoe division, expressing a strong preference that it remain in a Ferryhill division. This would result in an anticipated electoral variance of 21% for our Ferryhill division and -13% for our Bowburn & Coxhoe division. We consider such variances are too high to accept as part of our recommendations. We therefore confirm our decision to place Cornforth parish in Bowburn & Coxhoe division as part of our final recommendations.

As justified in our Durham city section, we have decided to transfer Shincliffe parish from our proposed Bowburn & Coxhoe division into Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe division. We have also decided to include Croxdale & Hett parish, as supported by Croxdale & Hett Parish Council.

Ferryhill

Councillor C. Maddison and Councillor L. Maddison agreed with our decision to include Kirk Merrington and North Close in Ferryhill division. However, we received submissions that challenged our decision. Both Spennymoor Town Council and Councillor Gilling argued that these two areas form part of Spennymoor parish and therefore share closer community links with the larger Spennymoor area. They stated that these two areas should be included either in a Spennymoor or Tudhoe division. Councillor Foster stated that the inclusion of these areas in a Tudhoe division would aid effective and convenient local government.

However, we are unable to include these areas either in our proposed Spennymoor or Tudhoe divisions, as it would result in significant electoral inequality for Ferryhill division. This was recognised by Councillor Ranyard, who acknowledged that incorporating these areas into a Spennymoor division would be difficult to achieve while ensuring good electoral equality. We are therefore keeping Kirk Merrington and North Close in Ferryhill division as part of our final recommendations.

Spennymoor and Tudhoe

Councillor L. Maddison and Councillor Ranyard agreed with our decision to not include the Coundon area in Spennymoor division. Councillor L. Maddison, Councillor Molloy and Councillor Ranyard also approved of our decision to incorporate the Binchester and Newfield areas into Spennymoor division. Spennymoor Town Council, Councillor Foster, Councillor L. Maddison and Councillor Ranyard agreed with our decision to place the entirety of the housing estate near the Merrington Lane Industrial Estate in Tudhoe division. This estate is currently split between the existing Tudhoe and Ferryhill divisions.

However, Spennymoor Town Council, Councillor Foster, Councillor C. Maddison, Councillor L. Maddison and Councillor Molloy opposed our decision to move the current boundary between Spennymoor and Tudhoe divisions to the rear of Ox Close Crescent, thereby including several roads around Dundas Street in Tudhoe division. These respondents stated that this placed the commercial centre of Spennymoor town within Tudhoe division, and that the current boundary, which runs through the town centre along an underground stream, represents a natural boundary. It was also argued that the town centre contains shared facilities and that the current boundary allowed both the current Spennymoor and Tudhoe councillors to engage in town centre matters. Councillor Ranyard deemed the boundary between our Spennymoor and Tudhoe divisions as broadly acceptable, although they did recognise that placing Spennymoor town centre in Tudhoe division may be confusing for electors.

We have carefully considered the evidence received. We note that our Spennymoor division is forecast to have an electoral variance of 10% by 2028. Expanding the division eastwards and following the existing boundary would result in an electoral variance of 15%, which we consider too high to accept, based on the evidence received. Therefore, we are not changing the boundary between our proposed Spennymoor and Tudhoe divisions as part of our final recommendations.

In our draft recommendations, we asked whether renaming our Spennymoor and Tudhoe divisions to Spennymoor West and Spennymoor East, respectively, would be welcomed. This had been suggested by Councillor Ranyard. However, this was opposed by Spennymoor Town Council, Councillor C. Maddison, Councillor L. Maddison and Councillor Molloy. They agreed that the current division names are locally recognised and changing them would cause confusion for electors. We are therefore retaining the Spennymoor and Tudhoe division names as part of our final recommendations.

Spennymoor Town Council requested that the parish electoral arrangements proposed in our draft recommendations be amended, so that six town councillors are allocated to Low Spennymoor & Tudhoe Grange parish ward and four town councillors to Tudhoe parish ward. We had recommended that both Low Spennymoor & Tudhoe Grange and Tudhoe parish wards be represented by five town councillors each. However, our policy is to allocate the current number of total councillors to each parish ward based on the five-year electorate forecast. We consider that changing the total number of councillors for a parish ward is a matter best resolved locally and that the Council may wish to make such changes via a Community Governance Review.

While the Liberal Democrats, Councillor L. Maddison and Councillor Ranyard supported the incorporation of Croxdale & Hett parish into our Tudhoe division, Croxdale & Hett Parish Council and Councillor Foster opposed this. In particular, the former stated that the parish has formed strong community relationships with the parishes that comprise our Bowburn & Coxhoe division, and that they should thus be kept together in the same division. We have been persuaded by the evidence received by Croxdale & Hett Parish Council and Councillor Foster, and have transferred the parish into our recommended Bowburn & Coxhoe division. The inclusion of Croxdale & Hett parish was also supported by Shincliffe Parish Council, which noted that it would achieve a more equal level of representation between divisions.

Bishop Auckland and Shildon

Bishop Auckland

Bishop Auckland Town Council expressed concern that our proposed Bishop Auckland division included areas outside the Bishop Auckland parish boundary, asserting that such an arrangement could cause confusion for electors. However, we consider that the unparished South Church area, which is the area immediately outside the town council boundary that we included in Bishop Auckland division, shares close geographic links with Bishop Auckland town. We consider including the South Church area in Bishop Auckland division provides an effective balance of our statutory criteria.

We nonetheless agree with Bishop Auckland Town Council that a future Community Governance Review to possibly bring the South Church area within Bishop Auckland parish might be beneficial and contribute to effective and convenient local government.

Bishop Auckland Town Council also stated that it would prefer the area to remain represented by four councillors, as opposed to the three we have recommended. However, given the reduction in the number of councillors for the authority as a whole, it is an inevitable consequence that we must reduce the allocation of councillors per division and redraw division boundaries across the county to achieve an effective balance of our statutory criteria. Therefore, we are not able to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Shildon & Dene Valley

Eldon Parish Council supported our proposed three-councillor Shildon & Dene Valley division. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this division as final.

Crook and Willington

Crook and Willington & Hunwick

Councillor Currah supported our proposed Crook division, stating that it re-established links between the villages of Roddymoor, Billy Row and Witton-le-Wear.

We also received three submissions, all from local residents, that expressed support for our proposed Willington & Hunwick division. One of the local residents welcomed the decision to incorporate the Helmington Row area in particular.

However, Councillor Reed disagreed with our proposal to exclude the Helmington Row area from Crook division, providing evidence of the links it shares with Crook village. However, removing it from our Willington & Hunwick division would result in that division having a forecast electoral variance of -13% by 2028. We are not persuaded that we have received sufficient community identity evidence to justify such a variance. We are therefore keeping Helmington Row in our proposed Willington & Hunwick division as part of our final recommendations.

Councillor Reed also stated that the Crook division boundary should not go as far north as East Hedleyhope village. However, we consider that following the Hedleyhope parish boundary, which runs just south of East Hedleyhope village, to be an identifiable boundary. We therefore recommend no changes to our proposed Crook division as part of our final recommendations.

Councillor Reed also noted that a residential development near High West Road ‘remain(ed) on the cards’ and that we should take account of this development when considering the Crook division boundary. However, when submitting electorate forecasts to us, we ask local authorities to take account of any developments that will contain electors five years after the review has finished. The Council determined that this development would not contain any electors by 2028 and has therefore not included this development in the forecast. We are content with the overall forecast and cannot consider developments that will come on line outside of the five-year forecast period.