The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Yorkshire and the Humber
Humberside
Initial proposals
Of the ten existing constituencies in Humberside, only two fell within the permitted electorate range: Cleethorpes, and Haltemprice and Howden. Six constituencies fell below the range: Brigg and Goole; Great Grimsby; Kingston upon Hull East; Kingston upon Hull North; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle; and Scunthorpe. Two fell above the range: Beverley and Holderness, and East Yorkshire.
Due to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme and the geography of the Humber estuary, River Trent, and regional boundary, the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority plus the remaining North Lincolnshire authority wards formed a self-contained sub-division of the sub-region in the initial proposals, with three constituencies. Meanwhile, the unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull were allocated six constituencies.
In the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority we proposed a Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency that would bring together the centres and most of the constituent parts of the two towns. It would contain all of the existing Great Grimsby constituency except the Scartho ward, plus three wards from the existing Cleethorpes constituency (Croft Baker, Haverstoe, and Sidney Sussex). We proposed that the remaining five North East Lincolnshire wards be combined with four North Lincolnshire wards in a newly named South Humber constituency. Finally, the existing Scunthorpe constituency would be brought within the permitted electorate range by expanding it northwards to include the ward of Burton upon Stather and Winterton, and westwards to include the ward of Burringham and Gunness.
Within the East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull unitary authorities, we proposed that the existing Kingston upon Hull East constituency be expanded eastwards to include the East Riding of Yorkshire ward of South West Holderness, while the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency was expanded westwards with the addition of the two East Riding of Yorkshire wards of South Hunsley and Tranby. We proposed that the existing Kingston upon Hull North constituency be changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries.
Three constituencies were then proposed wholly within the unitary authority of East Riding of Yorkshire. A coastal constituency of Bridlington and Holderness would group the town of Bridlington with the remaining Holderness area to the south. The towns of Beverley, Driffield, Market Weighton and Pocklington would be combined in a Beverley and The Wolds constituency. Finally, the proposed Goole and Haltemprice constituency would comprise the remaining nine East Riding of Yorkshire wards, grouping the town of Goole to the south of the River Ouse with the town of Howden to its north, and the communities to the east, up to the outskirts of Hull.
The three constituencies proposed to be wholly within the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities received a mixed response during the consultation process.
Representations received in response to the proposed Scunthorpe constituency were mostly positive. Conversely, the proposed constituencies of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and South Humber, were strongly opposed during the consultation periods with representations contending that the two towns are highly distinct areas with different identities and socio-economic needs, and for this reason they should be in different constituencies. Additionally, many representations objected to the proposed exclusion of the Scartho ward from a constituency with Grimsby, and the inclusion of the villages of Waltham, New Waltham and Humberston in a constituency with more industrial towns such as Immingham and Barton-upon-Humber, rather than Cleethorpes.
The name of the proposed South Humber constituency was also strongly opposed, with most of the opposition focused on the use of ‘Humber’ in the name.
A popular counter proposal was received for the composition of constituencies within the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities, which respondents stated retained the centres of the two towns in separate constituencies: Grimsby would be grouped with Barton-upon-Humber, Brigg and Immingham, while Cleethorpes would be grouped with the villages of Humberston, Waltham and New Waltham to the south.
Moving north of the Humber estuary, the initial proposals for the arrangement of constituencies across Kingston upon Hull were particularly contentious during the consultation process. Significant opposition was received in response to the extension of the constituencies of Kingston upon Hull East, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle into the East Riding of Yorkshire. Respondents from the South West Holderness ward referred to the distinct rural character of the communities of the ward compared with east Hull, and the very different problems each area consequently faces. Meanwhile, to the west of Hull, respondents opposed the prospective inclusion of the South Hunsley ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, citing a distinct character and vastly different socio-economic setting compared with west Hull.
In the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority, we received some opposition to the proposed Goole and Haltemprice constituency, with representations stating that it would stretch too far east–west, grouping communities with very little in common. Respondents also contended that Cottingham would more appropriately be included in a Hull-based constituency due to close physical connections between the areas.
A smaller number of representations were received in opposition to the proposed Bridlington and Holderness constituency, with some respondents contending that there is little in common between the town of Bridlington and the Holderness villages.
Multiple counter proposals were received for the six constituencies covering the East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull unitary authorities, which aimed to rectify some of the issues highlighted during consultation. Many of these proposed different configurations between Kingston upon Hull and the neighbouring East Riding of Yorkshire wards.
Other counter proposals suggested more wholesale change across the two unitary authorities. One such counter proposal suggested splitting a ward in the East Riding of Yorkshire using polling districts that mirror existing parish council boundaries. This allowed for a Beverley and Holderness constituency similar to the existing arrangement, although no longer including the North Holderness ward, and would avoid the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. The two other Hull-based constituencies would extend west into the East Riding of Yorkshire through the inclusion of the Cottingham North, Cottingham South, Tranby, and Willerby and Kirk Ella wards, while avoiding the inclusion of the South Hunsley ward.
The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the strength of opposition to the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and South Humber constituencies, and the support for a counter proposal in the area. However, following a site visit to the towns and their surroundings, the Assistant Commissioners did not ultimately consider the counter proposal to be superior to the initial proposals and they recommended no change to the composition or name of the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency.
The Assistant Commissioners were sympathetic to respondents opposed to the proposed transfer of the Scartho ward from the existing Great Grimsby constituency, and accepted that its exclusion from a constituency containing the town centre was not ideal. Nevertheless, they considered that no counter proposal, or alternative arrangements investigated, were able to satisfactorily resolve this issue without significant disruption and breaking local ties elsewhere.
With regard to the North East Lincolnshire villages to the south of Cleethorpes, while the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that they likely do look to Cleethorpes for their key services and amenities, they considered that the wards containing them have a distinctly more rural character, and noted that the majority of the proposed South Humber constituency would still be largely rural. They also noted that the villages are already included with more industrial areas to the north in the existing Cleethorpes constituency. Following these considerations, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the composition of the proposed South Humber constituency, but in light of the widespread opposition to the name, recommended it be called Brigg and Immingham instead.
We accepted the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners in full for the three constituencies wholly within the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities and adopted them as part of our revised proposals.
The Assistant Commissioners also visited Hull and its surroundings to better understand the issues raised there. They noted the objection received from the South West Holderness ward and, although they observed that the main settlements of Hedon and Preston effectively act as dormitory settlements to the City of Hull, they agreed that the ward currently has a distinct character, with a large proportion of it highly rural and sparsely populated.
The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the evidence regarding South Hunsley ward being distinct from the City of Hull both in character and demographics. They also considered that the Haltemprice villages (Anlaby; Anlaby Common; Cottingham; Hessle, Kirk Ella; West Ella; and Willerby) have very few ties to Goole and Howden with which they were grouped in the initial proposals, and act as suburbs of the city contained within the A164 ring road.
Having considered the representations and counter proposals received regarding the six constituencies covering East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull, the Assistant Commissioners concluded that the approach put forward in the counter proposal set out in the previous section, that required the splitting of a ward, provided a superior arrangement of constituencies overall. Therefore, they recommended its adoption with a minor adjustment.
Specifically, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the Wolds Weighton ward be split between constituencies, along polling district boundaries that follow the parish council boundaries. This would allow for the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward in a Beverley and Holderness constituency, as opposed to in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. The proposed Beverley and Holderness constituency would then be the same as the existing arrangement, though no longer including the North Holderness ward. In turn, the North Carr ward would be included in the Kingston upon Hull East constituency, rather than in Kingston upon Hull North. To the west of Hull, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the South Hunsley ward be included in a constituency with the town of Goole, with the Willerby and Kirk Ella ward instead included in the Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency. They also recommended that the two wards comprising the village of Cottingham – Cottingham North and Cottingham South – should be included in the Kingston upon Hull North constituency. The Assistant Commissioners recommended a modification to the counter proposal, which would involve the ward of Central being split, using polling districts, between the Kingston upon Hull North, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituencies, which would allow for more of the centre of the City of Hull to be included in one constituency.
After considering the evidence received during the consultation process and the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations, we agreed that the counter proposal as set out previously was the superior arrangement in this area and adopted it in its entirety, but for three constituency names. However, we did not agree that the recommended split of the Central ward between the proposed Kingston upon Hull North, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituencies was required to address the multiple issues raised by other representations, and did not propose this as part of the revised proposals.
Therefore, our revised proposals for the county area of Humberside were for constituencies of: Beverley and Holderness; Bridlington and The Wolds; Brigg and Immingham; Goole and Pocklington; Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes; Kingston upon Hull East; Kingston upon Hull North; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle; and Scunthorpe.
In response to the consultation on the revised proposals across Humberside, we received a mixture of support and opposition.
The proposed Scunthorpe constituency was unchanged from the initial proposals and, as in previous consultation stages, resulted in very few representations.
The proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency garnered considerably fewer representations than previously, with only one representation proposing the alternative arrangement popular during consultation on the initial proposals.
The proposed Brigg and Immingham constituency continued to be mostly opposed, as it was during the consultation on the initial proposals (the initially proposed South Humber constituency). The majority of the opposition was regarding the inclusion of the suburb of Scartho and the villages of Waltham, New Waltham and Humberston in this constituency, rather than in a constituency with Grimsby and Cleethorpes, respectively. The revised name of Brigg and Immingham appeared to be more popular than the previously proposed name of South Humber. However, some respondents were still opposed to it. Representations stated that the proposed name was not reflective of the whole constituency, and in particular did not acknowledge the southern extent. The most popular alternative name by number of representations was Northern Lincolnshire, in reference to the unitary authorities covered by the proposed constituency.
The revised proposals for the three constituencies covering the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority garnered a mixture of support and opposition. The newly proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency was mostly supported, with respondents stating that the transfer of the North Carr ward was superior to the crossing of the local authority boundary to the east of the city through the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward. This was despite a possible division of the Bransholme Estate between constituencies, with respondents stating that the estate is already split between the existing Kingston upon Hull East and Kingston upon Hull North constituencies.
The proposed Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency was also similarly mostly supported. Respondents stated that the Willerby and Kirk Ella ward was a more appropriate fit in the constituency than the South Hunsley ward in the initial proposals, while others contended that it made sense to keep the wards of Willerby and Kirk Ella, and Tranby together in a constituency with the wards of west Hull due to their close physical links. However, some representations were received in opposition to the arrangement, contradicting this view and suggesting the East Riding of Yorkshire wards have a distinct character compared with the west of Hull, and have more in common with areas to their west. A handful of respondents suggested a name change to acknowledge Haltemprice in the constituency name, rather than just Hessle. It was contended that more of the population would identify with this amended name due to the proposed revised constituency boundary containing four distinct parishes of the historic Haltemprice area.
The revised composition of the Kingston upon Hull North constituency also resulted in a mixture of support and opposition. The transfer of the two wards comprising Cottingham to a predominantly Hull-based constituency was mostly opposed. However, a significant number of representations in favour of the arrangement were also received. Those in opposition referenced a distinct character to the large village of Cottingham, more like other East Riding of Yorkshire towns and villages to the west, rather than the City of Hull to the east. The ‘2014 referendum’ on the subject of the extension of the City of Hull also featured heavily in representations, as it did at previous consultation stages. Those respondents in favour of the transfer of Cottingham referenced the close physical links to the Kingston upon Hull wards of Bricknell and University, as well as the close educational ties between the areas.
Although the composition of the proposed Kingston upon Hull North constituency resulted in a mixed response, the proposed name was strongly opposed. Almost 250 representations, including a large petition, were received which suggested a change to acknowledge Cottingham in the constituency name, if the arrangement was unchanged in the final recommendations. Respondents drew parallels to the acknowledgement of Hessle in the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency name.
As during the consultation on the initial proposals, we received many counter proposals for the constituencies wholly or partially within the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority. Many of these counter proposals grouped most of the Haltemprice villages bordering Hull into one constituency. This included one which grouped all five of the wards to the west of Hull within the A164 Humber Bridge-Beverley road with three wards of the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency (Boothferry, Derringham and Pickering) and one from the existing Kingston upon Hull North (Bricknell). The counter proposal then proposed a Kingston upon Hull Central constituency which would straddle the River Hull, and a Kingston upon Hull North constituency covering the north of the unitary authority. Other counter proposals suggested less radical change from the existing arrangement in the city, such as one that retained the Hessle ward in a constituency analogous to the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, with the other four Haltemprice wards to the west (Cottingham North; Cottingham South; Tranby; and Willerby and Kirk Ella) included with five wards of the existing Kingston upon Hull North constituency. One representation was also received which suggested the split of the Central ward between the proposed Kingston upon Hull North, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituencies proposed by the Assistant Commissioners previously, in an attempt to retain more of Hull city centre in one constituency.
Regarding the revised proposals consultation response to the three constituencies wholly within the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority, the transfer of the town of Pocklington (Pocklington Provincial ward) to the proposed Goole and Pocklington constituency was the greatest issue in the region, by number of representations. These included a petition of roughly 800 signatories. Respondents highlighted the strong ties between Pocklington and the Yorkshire Wolds area, in particular with the neighbouring market town of Market Weighton. They contended that it was inappropriate to break these ties and include Pocklington in a constituency with areas such as Goole with which it has very few links. The petition argued for a return to the initial proposals which included Pocklington and Market Weighton in a Beverley and The Wolds constituency.
The name of the proposed Goole and Pocklington constituency was also opposed, with East Riding and Rivers being the most popular alternative by number of representations. Other representations contended that Howden or Howdenshire should be acknowledged in the constituency name, while one suggested the name Boothferry and South Hunsley.
The proposed Beverley and Holderness, and Bridlington and The Wolds constituencies resulted in comparatively very few representations, with no standout issues.
We did receive some representations which commented on the boundary between the proposed Bridlington and The Wolds, and Goole and Pocklington constituencies. It was brought to our attention that the parish boundaries of Skirpenbeck and Stamford Bridge parish had been changed and that our proposals would no longer follow the parish boundary. Furthermore, it was noted that the ward boundary of Market Weighton and Pocklington Provincial had been changed to reflect the new parish boundary and restore coterminosity. It was suggested that, if we continued to adopt our revised proposal constituencies, then the boundary in this area should be modified in order to be coterminous with both the parish and ward boundaries.
Having considered the evidence received regarding the revised proposals across Humberside, we have been persuaded to slightly amend two of the proposed constituencies, as well as two constituency names.
We note the small number of representations received regarding the proposed Scunthorpe constituency, which has also been a feature of previous consultations, and therefore propose retaining it in our final recommendations.
We note the smaller number of representations received regarding the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and Brigg and Immingham constituencies compared with previous consultation stages, but acknowledge the recurrence of some points regarding the grouping of the towns of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and the transfer of surrounding North East Lincolnshire areas away from their principal towns. Despite this, we do not consider any persuasive new evidence has been provided to depart from our previous conclusions. Therefore, we make no change to the revised proposals for these constituencies in the final recommendations.
We also acknowledge some continued opposition to the name of the Brigg and Immingham constituency, however, we are not persuaded by any of the alternative names given. We note Brigg and Immingham is more popular than the initially proposed name, and retain this in the final recommendations.
In the East Riding of Yorkshire we acknowledge the strong opposition from residents of the town of Pocklington and the surroundings to their inclusion in the proposed Goole and Pocklington constituency. Due to a lack of viable alternatives received during consultation or identified by us when further investigating this area, we concluded that the arrangement for the three constituencies wholly within the East Riding of Yorkshire would have to be the revised proposals (with a possible minor amendment), or a return to something similar to the initial proposals. Although we are sympathetic to the views regarding the relationship between Pocklington and the wider Yorkshire Wolds area, when considered alongside changes that would be required around Kingston upon Hull, we have concluded that the revised proposals provide the best balance between the statutory factors.
We acknowledge the opposition from some to the transfer of Cottingham to the Kingston upon Hull North constituency. However, we have considered this alongside the support for such an arrangement; evidence regarding the lack of ties between Cottingham and areas in the initially proposed Goole and Haltemprice constituency; and arguments regarding the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. Altogether we have not been persuaded to diverge from the conclusion that it is more appropriate to cross the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority boundary to the west, rather than the east.
Despite no wide-scale change to the constituencies wholly within the East Riding of Yorkshire, we have been persuaded to amend the split of the Wolds Weighton ward. This amends the boundaries of the Bridlington and The Wolds, and Goole and Pocklington constituencies to follow the new Pocklington Provincial and Wolds Weighton ward boundaries, thus restoring coterminosity between the respective boundaries
We note the relatively small number of representations received regarding the Bridlington and The Wolds, and Beverley and Holderness constituencies and therefore the only change to these constituencies, and the proposed Goole and Pocklington is the amended ward split as described above.
We also make no changes to the proposed names of the three previously mentioned constituencies. We acknowledge the opposition to the proposed Goole and Pocklington name, but we were not persuaded by any of the alternatives provided during the consultation.
Around the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority we acknowledge the range of counter proposals which aimed to retain all, or most of, the Haltemprice villages in one constituency. However, we consider these counter proposals would likely negatively affect community ties within the City of Hull, and also result in greater change from the existing arrangement. Therefore, we make no change to the composition of the three constituencies wholly or partially in the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority in our final recommendations.
However, we are persuaded by the groundswell of opinion to acknowledge Cottingham in the constituency name, and therefore adopt the name Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham in our final recommendations. We are similarly persuaded by the arguments for acknowledging Haltemprice in the Kingston upon Hull West constituency name, and therefore adopt the name Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice in our final recommendations.
Therefore, our final recommendations in Humberside are for constituencies of: Beverley and Holderness; Bridlington and The Wolds; Brigg and Immingham; Goole and Pocklington; Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes; Kingston upon Hull East; Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham; Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice; and Scunthorpe. The areas contained by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
