The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Yorkshire and the Humber
North Yorkshire
Initial proposals
Of the eight existing constituencies in North Yorkshire, three fell within the permitted electorate range: Scarborough and Whitby, York Central, and York Outer. Five constituencies were above the range: Harrogate and Knaresborough; Richmond (Yorks); Selby and Ainsty; Skipton and Ripon; and Thirsk and Malton.
We proposed that the county boundary between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire be crossed in two areas in the initial proposals. We proposed a Selby constituency that would include the City of Leeds ward of Kippax & Methley with all but two of the wards of the District of Selby, including the town of Selby itself. We also proposed a Wetherby and Easingwold constituency that would consist of two City of Leeds wards (Harewood and Wetherby); the remaining two District of Selby wards (Appleton Roebuck & Church Fenton, and Tadcaster); three District of Hambleton wards (Easingwold, Huby, and Raskelf & White Horse); and six Borough of Harrogate wards. This constituency would stretch from south of Tadcaster in the District of Selby to north of Easingwold in the District of Hambleton, while also including the population centres of Wetherby and Boroughbridge (from the City of Leeds and Borough of Harrogate respectively).
The transfer of the Borough of Harrogate wards of Boroughbridge, Claro and Ouseburn to the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency resulted in a more compact Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency in the initial proposals. Meanwhile, the proposed Skipton and Ripon constituency saw no further change beyond the transfer of the Bishop Monkton & Newby ward to the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency, and realignment to new local government ward boundaries.
To compensate for the inclusion of the three District of Hambleton wards in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (Easingwold, Huby, and Raskelf & White Horse), the existing Thirsk and Malton constituency was reconfigured in the initial proposals to extend further westwards. The wards of Bedale and Tanfield would be transferred from the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency to the Thirsk and Malton constituency. This was the only proposed change to the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency, as well as realignment to new local government ward boundaries.
The proposed Scarborough and Whitby constituency was wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement under the initial proposals, while the York Central and York Outer constituencies were amended only to realign with new local government ward boundaries.
The cross-county boundary constituencies proposed in this sub-region were contentious. The inclusion of the City of Leeds ward of Kippax & Methley in a predominantly District of Selby-based constituency was widely opposed in representations which stated that there is no commonality between the two areas, with Kippax instead being closely tied to the Leeds town of Garforth. The second cross-county boundary constituency in the sub-region, Wetherby and Easingwold, was also strongly opposed during consultation. Most of the opposition (excluding that regarding the inclusion of the Borough of Harrogate ward of Claro, which is discussed in detail below) made reference to the large geographical size of the proposed constituency and the fact it would cover four separate local authorities, grouping communities with little in common.
A counter proposal was received for the cross-county boundary arrangement which proposed two constituencies that would cover the same wards as the Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold constituencies in the initial proposals, but which distributed those 31 wards differently between the constituencies. The three City of Leeds wards of Harewood, Kippax & Methley, and Wetherby would be included in a constituency with eight wards comprising the southern ‘half’ of the District of Selby, covering the villages of Eggborough and Sherburn in Elmet, among others. The remainder of the District of Selby would be grouped with the same Borough of Harrogate and District of Hambleton wards included in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency.
The proposed inclusion of the Borough of Harrogate ward of Claro in the Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (as opposed to Harrogate and Knaresborough) was highly contentious during the consultation. Representations highlighted the strong connections between the Claro ward and the towns of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and relatively few links to Wetherby and Easingwold. Including the Claro ward in the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency would have no wider knock-on effects – the initially proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency would remain within the permitted electorate range – and this was put forward in counter proposals.
The consultations identified that the proposed transfer of the Bedale and Tanfield wards was highly contentious. Respondents said that these wards are intimately linked to the towns of Northallerton and Richmond, with very few links with the communities of Thirsk and Malton. Counter proposals were received that retained one, or both, of the Bedale and Tanfield wards in the proposed Richmond (Yorks) constituency, by exchanging them with one, or both, of the District of Hambleton wards of Great Ayton and Stokesley.
As well as opposition specifically regarding the Bedale and Tanfield wards, we received some opposition to the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency more generally. Respondents contended the constituency would be too large geographically and encompass too large a variety of communities. Meanwhile, aside from consideration of which wards to transfer between the Richmond (Yorks) and Thirsk and Malton constituencies, we received few representations about the former. Despite this, some respondents opposed the constituency name.
Very few representations were received regarding the Scarborough and Whitby, and Skipton and Ripon constituencies, while the arrangement within the City of York unitary authority of York Central and York Outer was mostly supported.
The Assistant Commissioners considered that the counter proposal that grouped the wards of the initially proposed cross-county boundary constituencies into a different arrangement had merit, and would likely be superior to the initial proposals with regard to respect for local government boundaries. However, they had concerns regarding the unusual shape of the proposed Selby and Easingwold constituency, and the poor travel and transport connectivity within it. They also questioned the level of community ties between the City of Leeds wards of Wetherby and Harewood and the communities in the south of the District of Selby. Therefore, on balance, they concluded the initial proposals were superior overall with regard to the statutory factors, and did not propose any changes to the Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold constituencies.
The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the extensive evidence presented in the representations for transferring the Claro ward from the Wetherby and Easingwold constituency to the proposed Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency and recommended this to us. They did not recommend any further change to the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency.
Regarding the transfer of the Bedale and Tanfield wards to the Richmond (Yorks) constituency from Thirsk and Malton, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that these wards likely have closer links to the towns of Northallerton and Richmond, rather than with the population centres of the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any change to the composition of either the proposed Richmond (Yorks) or Thirsk and Malton constituencies. This was due to the lack of any counter proposal that they considered to be superior to the initial proposals with regard to the statutory factors. However, they accepted the arguments put forward in opposition to the name of the proposed Richmond (Yorks) constituency, and therefore recommended the name be changed to Richmond and Northallerton.
In view of the limited opposition to the proposed Scarborough and Whitby, Skipton and Ripon, York Central, and York Outer constituencies, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the compositions or names of these constituencies.
We accepted the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners in full for the nine constituencies wholly or partially within North Yorkshire and adopted them as part of our revised proposals. Therefore, our revised proposals for the county council area were for constituencies of: Harrogate and Knaresborough; Richmond and Northallerton; Scarborough and Whitby; Selby; Skipton and Ripon; Thirsk and Malton; Wetherby and Easingwold; York Central; and York Outer.
The transfer of the Claro ward to the proposed Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency was mostly supported, for the same reasons regarding its links to the principal towns as heard during earlier stages of consultation. Despite this, a smaller number of representations were received in opposition due to the relationship between the Claro and Boroughbridge wards within the new North Yorkshire unitary authority structure, which it is suggested would be broken by the revised proposals arrangement. Multiple respondents suggested we revert to our initial proposals in respect of the Claro ward.
The proposed cross-county boundary constituencies of Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold continued to be opposed, for much the same reasons outlined during consultation on the initial proposals. Respondents continued to contend that there are few links between the District of Selby and the City of Leeds ward of Kippax & Methley. The proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency was strongly opposed, particularly from respondents in the District of Hambleton wards of Easingwold, Huby, and Raskelf & White Horse. These representations contended that these areas have few links with the West Yorkshire wards (Harewood and Wetherby) in the proposed constituency and would instead be better included in a constituency with Thirsk and Malton, as they are currently.
Despite the opposition detailed above, we also received a significant number of representations in favour of the cross-county boundary arrangement. These representations contended that there are, in fact, links between the areas of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire that are proposed to be grouped. Respondents also suggested that the proposed arrangement was superior to the counter proposal considered from the initial proposals consultation. Representations stated that, as a historic market town, Wetherby has more in common with areas in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency than compared with the former industrial areas in the south of the District of Selby, around Eggborough.
We received one new counter proposal for the cross-county boundary arrangement between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. This avoided the inclusion of the Kippax & Methley ward in a cross-county boundary constituency, instead including it in a predominantly Borough of Wakefield-based constituency. A proposed Selby constituency would subsequently include all of the wards of the District of Selby plus part of the Borough of Harrogate ward of Marston Moor. The rest of this ward would be included in a revised Wetherby and Easingwold constituency, similar to the proposed but with the addition of the City of Leeds ward of Cross Gates & Whinmoor – currently in the existing Leeds East constituency.
The transfer of the Bedale and Tanfield wards to the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency continued to be highly contentious, resulting in the most representations in North Yorkshire. The points raised were similar to those previously heard during consultation on the initial proposals: namely that Bedale and Tanfield have close ties with Northallerton and the Yorkshire Dales to the west, rather than with the North York Moors to the east. One representation also stated that the Bedale and Tanfield wards are not uniquely linked, and it would be appropriate to split them into different constituencies. The respondent suggested a new counter proposal which would involve the transfer of the Bedale ward to the proposed Richmond and Northallerton constituency, to be replaced in the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency by parts of the Great Ayton and Osmotherley & Swainby wards.
The remaining proposed constituencies in North Yorkshire garnered significantly less representations, as they did during previous rounds of consultation. The addition of Northallerton to the Richmond and Northallerton constituency name was mostly welcomed, although a couple of respondents suggested the existing name of Richmond (Yorks) be retained. Some respondents also argued that, as the larger town by population, Northallerton should come first in the name.
The arrangement within the City of York unitary authority was mostly uncontentious. However, a few representations contended that the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward should be included in the York Central constituency. No significant issues were raised regarding the proposed Skipton and Ripon constituency, while the proposed Scarborough and Whitby was wholly supported by the small number of representations it garnered.
Having considered the evidence received, we do not recommend any changes to the boundaries or names of the revised proposals for North Yorkshire.
We acknowledge the continued opposition to the cross-county boundary constituencies of Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold, however, we do not consider that any compelling new evidence to change the arrangement, or superior counter proposals, have been received. We consider that any change to the cross-county boundary arrangement would result in an inferior composition overall, based on the statutory factors. We also note the support for the revised proposal arrangement over the counter proposal considered by the Assistant Commissioners, on which we had specifically invited views. Therefore, we retain both the proposed Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold constituencies in the final recommendations.
As at previous consultation stages, we acknowledge the strength of opposition to the inclusion of the Bedale and Tanfield wards in the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. Despite this, we do not consider persuasive new evidence has been received to modify this constituency and we conclude that the proposed arrangement best reflects the statutory factors. We are not persuaded by counter proposals that sought to separate either the Bedale and Tanfield, or Great Ayton and Stokesley wards, or the transfer of the latter two to the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. We note these two wards are geographically separated from the Thirsk and Malton constituency by the North York Moors. We are also not persuaded by the arguments for reordering the name of the proposed Richmond and Northallerton constituency. Therefore, we retain our revised proposals as our final recommendations for the constituencies of Richmond and Northallerton, and Thirsk and Malton.
We note that, despite some opposition, the transfer of the Claro ward to the proposed Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency was mostly supported, and therefore we retain this revised proposal in the final recommendations.
We acknowledge some suggestions that the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward should be included in the York Central constituency, from York Outer. However, we note that this could not be achieved without wider consequential changes. Furthermore, we note our proposals largely reflect the existing pattern of constituencies in the City of York and were supported by other responses. Therefore, we retain the proposed York Central and York Outer constituencies in the final recommendations as per our revised proposals.
We note the proposed Scarborough and Whitby, and Skipton and Ripon constituencies have resulted in comparatively few representations throughout the consultation periods, and therefore retain them both in the final recommendations.
Therefore, our final recommendations in North Yorkshire are for constituencies of: Harrogate and Knaresborough; Richmond and Northallerton; Selby; Scarborough and Whitby; Skipton and Ripon; Thirsk and Malton; Wetherby and Easingwold; York Central; and York Outer. The areas contained by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
