The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Yorkshire and the Humber
South Yorkshire
Initial proposals
Of the 14 existing constituencies in South Yorkshire, eight fell within the permitted electorate range: Doncaster Central; Doncaster North; Don Valley; Penistone and Stocksbridge; Rother Valley; Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough; Sheffield Hallam; and Wentworth and Dearne. Five constituencies fell below the range: Barnsley Central; Barnsley East; Rotherham; Sheffield Heeley; and Sheffield South East. Only Sheffield Central fell above the range.
In formulating our initial proposals, we began by considering the cross-county boundary constituency that was necessary between Humberside and South Yorkshire. We proposed a Doncaster East and Axholme constituency crossing the county boundary between the City of Doncaster and the unitary authority of North Lincolnshire. This constituency comprised the three wards covering the Isle of Axholme area (Axholme Central, Axholme North and Axholme South) and four City of Doncaster wards, covering the east of the local authority.
Including the three Axholme wards in a constituency with the City of Doncaster enabled the identification of further sub-divisions within South Yorkshire, which supported minimal change to the existing constituencies and a better respect for local government boundaries: the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley allocated eight constituencies; and the Borough of Rotherham and City of Doncaster (plus the three Axholme wards) allocated six constituencies.
Elsewhere in the City of Doncaster, we proposed that both the existing Doncaster Central and Doncaster North constituencies were changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries, but with the former changed to be named Doncaster Town. Similarly, within the Borough of Rotherham, the existing constituencies of Rotherham and Rother Valley were changed only to realign boundaries to new local government ward boundaries. The remaining Borough of Rotherham wards were combined with the two remaining City of Doncaster wards (Conisbrough and Edlington & Warmsworth) in the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency.
Across the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley, we proposed no change to the existing constituencies of Penistone and Stocksbridge, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, and Sheffield Hallam, other than to realign their boundaries to new local government ward boundaries. The electorate of the existing Sheffield Central constituency would be reduced to within the permitted electorate range through the transfer of the Manor Castle ward to the proposed Sheffield Heeley constituency. In turn, the Richmond ward would be split between the Sheffield Heeley and Sheffield South East constituencies to bring these both within the permitted range. Aside from the Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in the remainder of the Borough of Barnsley we proposed a north–south arrangement, comprising the constituencies of Barnsley North and Barnsley South.
The initial proposals for the City of Doncaster were mostly opposed during the consultation periods, although they did receive some general support. The greatest source of contention was the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme. In particular, residents of the Thorne & Moorends ward preferred to be included in the proposed Doncaster North constituency rather than the Doncaster East and Axholme constituency. There was also some opposition to the proposed inclusion of the large rural ward of Tickhill & Wadworth with the urban centre of Doncaster in the proposed Doncaster Town constituency.
We received multiple counter proposals that put forward alternative arrangements for the City of Doncaster which attempted to resolve some of the issues highlighted, however, most would result in extensive change across South Yorkshire and relied upon splitting wards.
The greatest source of representations regarding the Borough of Rotherham was the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency, predominantly due to the inclusion of the community of the south of Bramley (Bramley & Ravenfield ward) in this constituency, rather than the Rother Valley constituency. Elsewhere there was also some opposition to the inclusion of the Rother Vale ward in the proposed Rother Valley constituency instead of in Rotherham, and counter proposals suggested the transfer of this ward.
Few representations were received regarding the initial proposals across the boroughs of Barnsley and Sheffield, with the majority being in support.
The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to the proposed arrangement of constituencies across the City of Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme – in particular the opposition to the inclusion of the Isle of Axholme in the cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme. Despite this opposition, they considered that South Yorkshire and Humberside should continue to be combined as a sub-region to allow for more flexibility when creating constituency arrangements across both county areas. In particular, they noted that, if there was to be no cross-county boundary arrangement, there would be extensive change from the existing arrangement of constituencies across the sub-region – and particularly so across South Yorkshire, where the change proposed would otherwise be minimal.
The Assistant Commissioners also acknowledged opposition to the inclusion of the Tickhill & Wadworth ward in the proposed Doncaster Town constituency, and the Thorne & Moorends ward in the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that the counter proposals better satisfied the statutory factors than the initial proposals did, particularly with regard to respect for the existing arrangement of constituencies and local government boundaries. Having reviewed all of the evidence received from the consultation process, the Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no change to the composition of the constituencies across the City of Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme, as we had initially proposed. They did, however, suggest a name change of the proposed Doncaster Town constituency to Doncaster Central to acknowledge that Doncaster had acquired city status since the publication of the initial proposals.
In Rotherham borough, the Assistant Commissioners accepted the reasoning provided at consultation for the inclusion of the Rother Vale ward in the Rotherham constituency, from the proposed Rother Valley constituency, and suggested this ward transfer. Elsewhere, they acknowledged the opposition to the inclusion of part of the community of Bramley in the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency and accepted they likely have closer ties to the proposed Rother Valley constituency. However, they noted that all of Bramley is within the Bramley & Ravenfield ward, which now extends south of the A631 Bawtry Road following changes to local government ward boundaries. As such, the only way to retain the community of the south of Bramley in the Rother Valley constituency would be to include the whole of the Bramley & Ravenfield ward, or split the ward between the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, and Rother Valley constituencies. The Assistant Commissioners considered that to include the whole ward would precipitate change across a wider area that would likely negatively affect community ties, and they did not consider that this proposal met our criteria for splitting a ward.
The Assistant Commissioners noted the limited opposition to the initial proposals in the Borough of Barnsley and City of Sheffield and the expressed support. Therefore, they considered that there was no significant or compelling reason to amend the constituencies in the two local authorities, and recommended retaining the initial proposals in their entirety across these authorities.
We accepted the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners in full for the 14 constituencies wholly or partially within South Yorkshire and adopted them as part of our revised proposals. Therefore, our revised proposals for the area were for constituencies of: Barnsley North; Barnsley South; Doncaster Central; Doncaster East and Axholme; Doncaster North; Penistone and Stocksbridge; Rawmarsh and Conisbrough; Rother Valley; Rotherham; Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough; Sheffield Central; Sheffield Hallam; Sheffield Heeley; and Sheffield South East.
As at other stages of consultation, the revised proposals across South Yorkshire resulted in few representations compared with other areas in the region. The arrangement of constituencies was largely supported in full by those commenting on the pattern of constituencies across the region, although some representations did propose alternative constituency names.
As previously, the pattern of constituencies in the City of Doncaster was mostly opposed by respondents to the consultation. The cross-county boundary nature of the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency was opposed, as it was in the initial proposals, with respondents contending a lack of links between the City of Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme. One representation suggested the full name of the Isle of Axholme should be acknowledged in the constituency name. There were no other significant issues raised regarding the revised proposals in the City of Doncaster during the consultation. The return of the Doncaster Central name was supported by the few representations commenting on it.
The proposed Rotherham and Rother Valley constituencies were mostly supported, including the inclusion of the Rother Vale ward in the former rather than Rother Valley as in the initial proposals. Respondents once again highlighted the links between the Rother Vale ward and the town of Rotherham, and contrasted these with the physical separation from the rest of the Rother Valley constituency. Only one representation was received which opposed the transfer of the ward and proposed a return to the initially proposed arrangement. The proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency was mostly opposed due to it crossing the local authority boundary into the City of Doncaster, although this garnered only a small number of representations. Some respondents also opposed the name of the proposed constituency, with most supporting a continued acknowledgement of the village of Wentworth in the constituency name.
As at previous consultation stages, relatively few representations were received in response to the revised proposals across the Borough of Barnsley and City of Sheffield, with no standout issues and no significant new evidence submitted.
Having considered the evidence received, we do not recommend any changes to the boundaries of the revised proposals for South Yorkshire and the Isle of Axholme.
We acknowledge the continued opposition to the composition of the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme, however, we do not consider that any compelling new evidence to change the cross-county arrangement has been received. Therefore, we conclude that South Yorkshire and Humberside should continue to be combined as a sub-region to allow for more flexibility when creating constituency arrangements across both county areas, and that the Isle of Axholme is the most suitable area for such a cross-county boundary constituency. In particular, we consider that, if there was to be no cross-county boundary arrangement, there would be extensive change from the existing arrangement of constituencies across the sub-region – and particularly so across South Yorkshire, where the change proposed would otherwise be minimal. We also consider there to be unpersuasive evidence for us to change the composition of constituencies elsewhere in the City of Doncaster, and therefore we retain the composition of our revised proposals across the local authority.
However, we are persuaded to change the name of the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency to acknowledge the full name of the Isle of Axholme area. Therefore, we have decided to adopt the name of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme in our final recommendations.
In the Borough of Rotherham, we note the overall support for the transfer of the Rother Vale ward to the proposed Rotherham constituency, and the limited representations received with regard to any other issues. We acknowledge the representations in opposition to the cross-local authority nature of the Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency, but note a lack of viable counter proposals received which resolve this issue. We consider that efforts to avoid a crossing of the local authority boundary between Rotherham and Doncaster would result in wide-scale change across South Yorkshire. We also note that the inclusion of the part of Bramley south of the A631 Bawtry Road in the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency garnered very few representations in the revised proposals consultation, despite being a relatively significant issue at previous consultation stages. As such, we conclude there is no new compelling evidence to modify the pattern of constituencies in this part of the sub-region.
We were also not persuaded by the arguments to rename the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency to acknowledge the village of Wentworth. We consider the proposed arrangement has seen sufficient change from the existing to merit a change in constituency name, and we note that Rawmarsh is considerably larger than Wentworth by population. Therefore, the final recommendations across the Borough of Rotherham are unchanged from our revised proposals.
We considered the relatively small number of representations received regarding both the initial and revised proposals across the Borough of Barnsley and City of Sheffield and therefore retain the revised proposals in their entirety in the final recommendations.
Therefore, our final recommendations in South Yorkshire are for constituencies of: Barnsley North; Barnsley South; Doncaster Central; Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme; Doncaster North; Penistone and Stocksbridge; Rawmarsh and Conisbrough; Rother Valley; Rotherham; Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough; Sheffield Central; Sheffield Hallam; Sheffield Heeley; and Sheffield South East. The areas contained by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
