Skip to content

The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – East Midlands


Initial proposals

  1. Of the existing 11 constituencies in Nottinghamshire, three were within the permitted electorate range: Broxtowe, Newark and Gedling. Two, Nottingham East and Nottingham North, fell below the range and six (Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Nottingham South, Rushcliffe, and Sherwood) were above. Under our initial proposals we proposed changes to all the existing constituencies in Nottinghamshire. We proposed reconfigured Nottingham East and Nottingham South constituencies, both of which included only wards from the City of Nottingham. Our proposed Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency included six City of Nottingham wards and three wards from the Borough of Broxtowe (Watnall & Nuthall West, Kimberley, and Nuthall East & Strelley). As a result of this configuration, we proposed a Broxtowe constituency which ran further north than the existing one, to include the wards covering the community of Eastwood.
  2. As the existing Ashfield constituency was below the permitted electorate range and the Mansfield constituency was above, we proposed including the District of Mansfield wards of Brick Kiln and Grange Farm in the Ashfield constituency, which brought both constituencies within the permitted electorate range. In the remainder of the county, we proposed minor changes to the existing constituencies, including in some cases just to realign them with new local government ward boundaries: this was the case for the proposed Gedling, Rushcliffe and Sherwood constituencies. We included the District of Bassetlaw wards of Clayworth and Sutton in the proposed Newark constituency, which brought the Newark and Bassetlaw constituencies within the permitted electorate range. We also proposed renaming the Bassetlaw constituency Worksop and Retford, in order to reflect the main population centres included in the constituency.
Back to top

Consultation on the initial proposals

  1. In response to the consultation on our initial proposals, we received some support for our proposed constituencies in Nottinghamshire. We received opposition to the proposed Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency, particularly the inclusion of the Borough of Broxtowe wards of Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West in the constituency. Some respondents objected to this proposal as it would include different communities in the same constituency and this part of Broxtowe was physically divided from Nottingham. The counter proposal received was to include the above three wards in the Broxtowe constituency and instead reconfigure the Nottingham North and Kimberley, and Nottingham South constituencies, including the proposal to include the wards of Beeston Central, Beeston North and Beeston Rylands in the Nottingham South constituency. This counter proposal was supported locally, particularly by respondents from the Kimberley area. However, we also received support for our initial proposals, with a number of representations concerned that the counter proposal divided the area of Beeston between constituencies.
  2. We also received some opposition to our proposed Mansfield constituency, particularly that the wards of Brick Kiln and Grange Farm were in close proximity to Mansfield and thus should be included in the same constituency as the town. A number of counter proposals were received, some of which only sought changes between the Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies and some which also proposed changes to the neighbouring Sherwood constituency. However, we also received support for the initially proposed Mansfield constituency, with respondents considering that this was the best solution available that was based on whole local government wards.
  3. We received limited opposition to our proposed Newark constituency, with respondents suggesting that the District of Bassetlaw ward of Clayworth had close links with Retford and therefore should be included in the same constituency. The counter proposals received suggested instead that the Newark constituency could extend further north to include the ward of Beckingham. Our proposed name of Worksop and Retford was also opposed to by respondents, with many of them suggesting the constituency should continue to be named Bassetlaw.
  4. The remaining pattern of constituencies across Nottinghamshire was largely uncontentious and generally supported. However, we did receive a proposal that the Sherwood constituency should be renamed Sherwood Forest.
Back to top

Revised proposals

  1. In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we modify our initial proposals for Nottinghamshire.
  2. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the initial proposals in Mansfield broke community ties, but after they visited the area to assess the alternative counter proposals, they were not persuaded by those alternative configurations that proposed changes between the Mansfield, Ashfield and Sherwood constituencies, as these alternatives divided the area of Hucknall. They considered that an alternative that included the ward of Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill and part of the Berry Hill ward was likely to better reflect community ties. Having considered the advice of our Assistant Commissioners, we adopted this alternative pattern of constituencies as part of our revised proposals.
  3. Our Assistant Commissioners also considered the competing arguments in terms of the proposals for Broxtowe and Nottingham North. They observed after visiting the area that the counter proposal divided the Beeston area between constituencies. They recognised that the Kimberley, Nuthall and Watnall areas were a separate community to Nottingham, but combining two distinct areas in a single constituency was better than dividing one between constituencies. They therefore recommended no changes to our initial proposals for either of these constituencies. We accepted their recommendations.
  4. In light of the evidence received and advice from our Assistant Commissioners we did decide to amend the name of two proposed constituencies. We decided to rename the Sherwood constituency Sherwood Forest, as evidence received considered this name better reflected the whole area covered by the constituency. We also decided to retain the Worksop and Retford constituency’s existing name of Bassetlaw as there was strong local support for this. We noted the concerns regarding Clayworth ward not being included in a Bassetlaw constituency, but considered that the reconfigurations required were too significant.
  5. We did not propose any changes to our initially proposed constituencies of: Gedling; Newark; Nottingham East; Nottingham South; and Rushcliffe.
Back to top

Consultation on the revised proposals

  1. In response to the consultation on our revised proposals, we received broad support for the majority of the proposed constituencies. However, we did receive some opposition to the revised configuration of the Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies, and to the Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituencies.
  2. In Ashfield and Mansfield, we received a counter proposal that we should revert to the initial proposals for these two constituencies. Proponents of this position considered that the District of Mansfield ward of Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill had poor road connections to the Ashfield constituency, with links via a rural road, whereas the wards of Brick Kiln and Grange Farm had good road connections to Ashfield along the A38. Residents of the Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill ward, particularly, in the eastern part of this ward, considered that they had close community ties with Mansfield.
  3. Slightly south in the county, we received a counter proposal for the Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituencies. This counter proposal was different to those received during previous consultations, in that Beeston was no longer being divided between constituencies. The counter proposal sought to make a smaller change between the constituencies by proposing the division of the Watnall and Nuthall West ward, in order to include all of Greasley Parish in the Broxtowe constituency. We also received some representations that advocated we adopt the counter proposal for the Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituencies, as outlined above.
  4. We received a limited number of representations that commented on the proposed name of the Sherwood Forest constituency. Those that opposed the constituency name considered the change unnecessary. Our proposal to revert to the name Bassetlaw in our revised proposals was broadly supported.
Back to top

Final recommendations

  1. Having considered the evidence received, we are not recommending any changes to the boundaries of our revised proposals for Nottinghamshire. We noted the representations regarding whether we should revert to our initial proposals for the Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies. As we have set out above, the existing constituency of Mansfield is too large, and therefore it must be reconfigured. During all consultations we have received evidence identifying local community ties in the area but it has not been possible to satisfy all the responses received.
  2. We considered the different arguments and evidence received in regards to our initial and revised proposals for the Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies. In both cases, we received evidence suggesting that the area we proposed be transferred from the existing Mansfield constituency to Ashfield shared community ties with neighbouring parts of Mansfield. We also considered the evidence in regards to the road connections of the wards of Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill, Brick Kiln, and Grange Farm. We also considered the pattern of existing constituencies and that the initial proposal transferred a far greater number of electors from the existing Mansfield constituency. Having considered the evidence received during all consultations, we have decided to retain our revised proposals as our final recommendations. We consider that this pattern of constituencies achieves the best balance of the statutory factors.
  3. We also reflected on the arguments put forward in regards to reconfiguring the Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituencies. We believe that splitting the Watnall and Nuthall West ward between constituencies would likely break community ties, particularly as the boundary proposed for the split ward would divide a number of residential properties on Larkfield Road. Furthermore, in light of evidence received during the initial consultation, we consider that this split would likely break community ties between Kimberley, Nuthall and Watnall.
  4. Finally, we have considered whether to amend the names of any constituencies in the sub-region. We note that some respondents considered that we should return to the constituency name Sherwood as opposed to our revised proposal of Sherwood Forest. We have decided to retain the name Sherwood Forest as part of our final recommendations as this has been supported locally.
  5. Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Ashfield; Bassetlaw; Broxtowe; Gedling; Mansfield; Newark; Nottingham East; Nottingham North and Kimberley; Nottingham South; Rushcliffe; and Sherwood Forest. The areas contained by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Back to top