The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – East Midlands
Derbyshire
Initial proposals
Of the 11 existing constituencies in Derbyshire, eight were within the permitted electorate range. Under our initial proposals, we proposed retaining five existing constituencies: Chesterfield; Derby North; Derby South; Erewash and High Peak – although we proposed renaming the Erewash constituency llkeston and Long Eaton to reflect the main population centres of the constituency. Additionally, we proposed retaining the existing constituencies of Amber Valley, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire, with minor modifications to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries.
The existing constituencies of Mid Derbyshire and Derbyshire Dales both fell below the permitted electorate range and the existing constituency of South Derbyshire was above the permitted electorate range. As part of our initial proposals, we therefore proposed that the South West Parishes ward be included in the Mid Derbyshire constituency, and the wards of Hilton and Hatton be included in the Derbyshire Dales constituency, which would then bring all three constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
In response to the consultation on the initial proposals, our proposed composition of constituencies across Derbyshire was broadly supported, although we did receive a significant number of representations that objected to the name of the proposed Ilkeston and Long Eaton constituency, with respondents (both nationally and locally) suggesting that the current name of Erewash should be retained.
We did receive some opposition to the proposed High Peak and Derbyshire Dales constituencies, with the counter proposal that the ward of Bradwell should be included in the High Peak constituency. We also received some opposition to the proposed minor changes to the Derbyshire Dales, Mid Derbyshire and South Derbyshire constituencies to bring them within the permitted electorate range. The focus of these representations was to retain the wards of Hatton and Hilton in the South Derbyshire constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence received and they were not persuaded to recommend to us changes to the boundaries of the proposed constituencies in the county. They considered that doing so in the manner suggested in the counter proposals received would require substantial changes to a number of existing constituencies which would otherwise remain unchanged. However, they did recommend that the proposed constituency of Ilkeston and Long Eaton should retain the name Erewash. We agreed with their proposal.
Our revised proposals for Derbyshire were, therefore, identical boundaries to those put forward in our initial proposals, although they now included the constituency name of Erewash.
In response to the consultation on the revised proposals, we continued to receive support for our proposed constituencies in Derbyshire, including support for our proposal to revert to the original constituency name of Erewash. We again received some objection to the inclusion of the Hatton and Hilton ward in the South Derbyshire constituency and the suggestion that the Bradwell ward be included in the High Peak constituency.
Having considered the evidence received, we are not persuaded to amend the boundaries or names of any of our proposed constituencies in Derbyshire. We do not consider that any further evidence or argument has been provided that might justify changing the constitution of our revised constituencies. Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Amber Valley; Bolsover; Chesterfield; Derby North; Derby South; Derbyshire Dales; Erewash; High Peak; Mid Derbyshire; North East Derbyshire; and South Derbyshire. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
