Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the East Midlands region

3 Initial proposals for the East Midlands region

  1. The East Midlands comprises the counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, and Rutland (which are covered by a mix of district and county councils, and unitary authorities).
  2. The East Midlands currently has 46 constituencies. Of these constituencies, only 17 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of seven constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of 22 constituencies are above the 5% limit.
  3. Our initial proposals for the East Midlands are for 47 constituencies, an increase of one.
  4. In seeking to produce 47 constituencies within the electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub‑regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authority areas together in sub-regions was based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and in achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings such as those dictated in some part by the geography of the area.
  5. Our division of the East Midlands into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
  6. The distribution of electors across the six counties of the East Midlands is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county, with each constituency falling within the permitted electorate range, is not always possible.
  7. Northamptonshire, comprising the two unitary authorities of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire,8 has an electorate of 529,899, resulting in a mathematical allocation of 7.22 constituencies. We therefore consider Northamptonshire as a sub-region in its own right, and have allocated seven whole constituencies, the same as the existing number.
  8. Lincolnshire has an electorate of 551,904, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 7.52 constituencies. This is too large for seven whole constituencies, and too small for eight; therefore, it is necessary to pair Lincolnshire with another county. Rutland’s electorate of 30,154 results in a mathematical entitlement for itself of 0.41 constituencies, far too small to be considered as a constituency in its own right. However, when considered with Lincolnshire, the combined electorate of 582,058 equates to a near whole mathematical entitlement to 7.93 constituencies. We therefore propose to allocate eight whole constituencies to a sub-region consisting of Lincolnshire and Rutland, one more than the existing number of constituencies in Lincolnshire alone.
  9. We acknowledge that pairing Rutland with Lincolnshire is a deviation from the established pairing of Rutland with Leicestershire. However, the retention of this latter pairing would require pairing Lincolnshire either with Leicestershire, which would necessarily disrupt the existing Rutland and Melton constituency, or Nottinghamshire, which can otherwise be a sub-region in its own right, and where there are few justifiable options for a county boundary crossing with Lincolnshire. The combined electorate of Leicestershire and the City of Leicester9 (754,549) results in a mathematical entitlement to 10.28 constituencies. We therefore consider Leicestershire as a sub-region in its own right, and have allocated ten whole constituencies, the same as the existing sub-region of Leicestershire and Rutland.
  10. The combined electorate of Nottinghamshire and the City of Nottingham10 (823,638) results in a mathematical entitlement to 11.22 constituencies. We therefore consider Nottinghamshire as a sub-region in its own right, and have allocated 11 whole constituencies, the same as the existing number. Similarly, the combined electorate of Derbyshire and the City of Derby11 (790,982), results in a mathematical entitlement to 10.78 constituencies. We therefore also consider Derbyshire as a sub-region in its own right, and have allocated 11 whole constituencies, the same as the existing allocation.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Derbyshire sub-region

  1. There are currently 11 constituencies in the Derbyshire sub-region, eight of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range (two fall below and one above). The Derbyshire sub-region is allocated 11 whole constituencies, the same as the existing allocation.
  2. The electorates of five constituencies (Chesterfield, Derby North, Derby South, Erewash, and High Peak) are such that they could remain wholly unchanged, and there is no need to change them in order to assist the design of neighbouring constituencies. We therefore propose no changes to the configuration of these constituencies. However, we propose to rename the Erewash constituency to Ilkeston and Long Eaton, as this reflects the main population centres of the constituency. We welcome feedback on this proposed constituency name and all others in the East Midlands.
  3. In the remaining three constituencies that are within the permitted electorate range (Amber Valley, Bolsover, and North East Derbyshire), we propose some realignment to ensure the constituency boundaries reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, as some wards are currently divided between existing constituencies. Beyond this realignment with ward boundaries, we propose no substantive change for these three constituencies.
  4. In order to increase the electorate of the Mid Derbyshire constituency, which is currently below the permissible range, we propose that it should extend westwards to include the South West Parishes ward. The alternatives of extending to the north, east or south would cause otherwise unnecessary disruption to wholly unchanged constituencies, or constituencies only realigned to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries. The electorate of the existing Derbyshire Dales constituency is 65,240, also below the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose a reconfigured constituency extending southwards, to include the Hilton and Hatton wards. This proposal also reduces the electorate of the existing South Derbyshire constituency to within the permitted electorate range, with no further changes required.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Leicestershire sub-region

  1. The Leicestershire sub-region is allocated ten whole constituencies, the same as the current number allocated to Leicestershire and Rutland. In Leicestershire, only the existing Leicester South constituency has an electorate within the permitted range: one constituency falls below, and the electorates of the remaining eight constituencies are above.
  2. Although it would be possible to propose three constituencies wholly within the City of Leicester unitary authority, this would leave the remainder of Leicestershire with a mathematical entitlement to 7.28, which would require us to propose seven constituencies, all of which would need to have electorates near to the top end of the permitted range. This in turn allows little flexibility in the design of those constituencies, to the detriment of our ability to respect the other statutory factors. As such, we are proposing a reconfigured Leicester West constituency that crosses the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary to include two Blaby District wards of Ellis and Fairestone as both these wards cover the Glenfield area. They would be the only parts of the proposed constituency to lie outside the City authority boundary. We propose the constituency be called Leicester West and Glenfield. To ensure this constituency is within the permitted electorate range, we also propose that it is extended eastwards to include the Belgrave ward. The existing Leicester East constituency is above the permitted electorate range, and we therefore propose a reconfigured Leicester East that follows the unitary authority boundary to the north and east, and includes the Spinney Hills ward. The only constituency in the Leicestershire sub-region that is within the permitted electorate range is the existing Leicester South constituency; however, due to the neighbouring Leicester East constituency being reconfigured to include the Spinney Hills ward, the proposed Leicester South constituency would need to extend westwards to include the Westcotes ward.
  3. Crossing the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary allows us to propose a Harborough constituency that is coterminous with the District of Harborough local authority boundary. Our proposed Blaby, Oadby and Wigston constituency includes all ten Oadby and Wigston local authority wards and seven District of Blaby wards, including the town of Blaby and village of Stoney Stanton. The electorates of the existing Bosworth and North West Leicestershire constituencies are above the permitted electorate range, at 82,098 and 79,551, respectively. Our proposed Hinckley and Bosworth constituency transfers two eastern wards from the existing Bosworth constituency into a proposed Mid Leicestershire constituency, which enables us to extend the Hinckley and Bosworth constituency northwards to include two District of North West Leicestershire wards. We consider that both the Appleby, and Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe wards should be included in the proposed Hinckley and Bosworth constituency, to avoid dividing the Ibstock or Measham communities. Apart from no longer including these two wards, the proposed North West Leicestershire constituency is unchanged.
  4. The proposed Mid Leicestershire constituency consists of five Borough of Charnwood wards, three Borough of Hinckley and Bosworth wards, and nine District of Blaby wards. This proposed constituency wraps around the City of Leicester, using the River Soar as a geographic boundary to the north-east, and includes the area surrounding Enderby in the south of the constituency.
  5. As our initial proposals consider Rutland separately from Leicestershire, we propose a Melton and Syston constituency in place of the existing Rutland and Melton constituency. This includes all District of Melton wards and eight Borough of Charnwood wards extending towards the River Soar, which becomes its western boundary. The existing Loughborough constituency has an electorate of 80,073, above the permitted range. We propose a Loughborough constituency with the River Soar forming a geographic boundary to the eastern limit, only crossed to include the Barrow and Sileby West ward. The constituency also extends southwards to include the Mountsorrel ward.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Lincolnshire and Rutland sub-region

  1. There are currently seven constituencies in the Lincolnshire sub-region. As previously outlined, we propose a sub-region of Lincolnshire and Rutland, which has a mathematical entitlement to 7.93 constituencies, and has been allocated eight whole constituencies. Four existing constituencies have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range.
  2. We decided the most appropriate crossing between Rutland and Lincolnshire is to include parts of the South Kesteven local authority with Rutland. We therefore propose a Rutland and Stamford constituency, comprising the entirety of the Rutland unitary authority and 11 South Kesteven wards. This proposed constituency includes the towns of Stamford and Market Deeping to the south‑east following the District of South Kesteven local authority boundary, and the wards of Isaac Newton, Castle, and Glen to the north.
  3. As the southern part of the existing Grantham constituency is now included in a Rutland and Stamford constituency, the proposed Grantham constituency now extends further north. The proposed constituency now aligns with part of the northern boundary of the District of South Kesteven and includes the Heckington Rural and Osbournby wards from the District of North Kesteven. The proposed Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency boundary is unchanged to the north, and to the south will no longer cross the local authority boundary with the District of South Kesteven.
  4. The electorate of the existing Lincoln constituency, of 74,128, is such that it could remain unchanged, apart from some realignment to ensure the constituency boundaries reflect changes to local government ward boundaries. However, we noted that it would be possible to exchange the Bracebridge Heath and Waddington East ward, and the Skellingthorpe ward, with five wards that make up the town of North Hykeham. This would only affect the boundaries of the proposed Lincoln, and Sleaford and North Hykeham constituencies, and have no further knock-on effects across the wider sub-region. We propose the former ‘minimal change’ option for the Lincoln constituency, as we believe it better reflects the ‘existing constituency boundaries’ statutory factor, but we would particularly welcome representations on the preferred configuration of constituencies in this area, having regard to the other statutory factors, such as local ties.
  5. To the north and east of the Lincolnshire and Rutland sub-region, there is a smaller degree of change to the existing constituencies when compared to the rest of the sub-region. The Wragby ward is included within the proposed Louth and Horncastle constituency, allowing us to propose a Gainsborough constituency that is coterminous with the District of West Lindsey local authority boundary. The electorate of the existing Louth and Horncastle constituency is above the permitted electorate range. Therefore, the Chapel St. Leonards, and Willoughby with Sloothby wards are transferred to the Boston and Skegness constituency to accommodate the inclusion of the Wragby ward, and there is some realignment to ensure the constituency boundaries reflect changes to local government ward boundaries. The proposed Boston and Skegness constituency would therefore include the two wards from the existing Louth and Horncastle constituency, all District of Boston wards, apart from the Five Village and Swineshead and Holland Fen wards, and there is again some realignment to reflect changes to local government boundaries. The existing South Holland and The Deepings constituency is within the permitted electorate range. However, as previously mentioned, we are including Market Deeping as part of a proposed Rutland and Stamford constituency, and therefore propose a new South Lincolnshire constituency that contains the whole of the District of South Holland plus the two southern District of Boston wards.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Northamptonshire sub-region

  1. The Northamptonshire sub-region is allocated seven whole constituencies, the same as the existing allocation. However, as only one of the existing constituencies is within the permitted electorate range (two fall below and four above) we propose changes to every constituency. This is partly a consequence of wide disparities in the electorates of the existing constituencies, which range between 59,114 and 91,358, as well as changes to local government ward boundaries.
  2. As recently established unitary authorities, both North and West Northamptonshire are temporarily using the county electoral divisions (hereafter referred to as wards) of the now defunct Northamptonshire County Council, in lieu of a future review from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The consequence of this is that the wards used for this constituencies review are unusually large for a primarily rural area, both geographically and in terms of electorate size. Our proposals are therefore limited by the difficulties posed by these wards, including the inability to prevent division of some communities without an unreasonable number of ward splits or geographically expansive constituencies that do not reflect local ties. Indeed, the unwieldy ward sizes, relatively close clustering of distinct communities, and the proximity to the regional boundary, have led us to propose a small number of divided wards.
  3. In formulating our initial proposals for Northamptonshire, we investigated a number of configurations, including, as described above, those that divided wards between constituencies. As described below, our initial proposals result in two constituencies which reflect the urban area of Northampton. However, we did also investigate patterns of constituencies that would have included parts of Northampton in more rural constituencies. We consider, at this stage, that we have achieved a good balance between the statutory factors in our initial proposals, as outlined below. However, we welcome representations on the proposed pattern of constituencies for Northamptonshire.
  4. The electorates of both the existing Northampton North, at 59,114, and Northampton South, at 62,516, are below the permitted electorate range. Therefore we propose an expansion of each constituency southwards with Northampton North including the Riverside Park ward and the entirety of the Billing and Rectory Farm ward, and Northampton South in turn taking in the Abington and Phippsville ward, and the remaining southernmost wards that cover the Northampton urban area.
  5. Our proposals for Northampton would therefore result in two constituencies, covering the urban area coterminous with the former Northampton borough. This in turn makes our proposed South Northamptonshire constituency of a more rural character, as it no longer includes the urban southern limit of Northampton. To the east of the proposed South Northamptonshire constituency the boundary is extended to include the southern part of the divided Irchester ward, around the villages of Bozeat and Wollaston. In dividing this ward we follow the boundary between the Irchester and Wollaston civil parishes. We propose to extend the north of the constituency to include the entirety of the Bugbrooke ward, so as to reflect changes to local government boundaries. Within this constituency we propose a second divided ward to the west, with 22 polling districts of the Silverstone ward included in the South Northamptonshire constituency. In dividing this ward we follow the southern boundaries of the Eydon, and Chipping Warden and Edgcote civil parishes. The remaining five polling districts of the divided Silverstone ward are included in a proposed Daventry constituency, which is otherwise only changed to include the Earls Barton ward.
  6. In order to reduce the electorate of the existing Corby constituency, we propose a Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency, with the Raunds ward transferred to a proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituency. This allows no changes to the existing constituency boundary between the proposed Kettering, and Corby and East Northamptonshire. The existing Kettering constituency is within the permitted electorate range. However, we propose extending the Kettering constituency to include part of the Finedon ward: this ward would be divided along the boundary of the Finedon civil parish, with the area around the village of Finedon included in the proposed Kettering constituency, and the remainder of the ward included in the proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituency.
  7. The existing Wellingborough constituency has an electorate of 80,191, above the permitted range. With the proposed addition of the Raunds ward, it is therefore necessary to propose considerable change to the existing Wellingborough constituency to bring it back into the permitted electorate range. The proposed constituency therefore includes the southern part of the divided Finedon ward (covering the urban area of Wellingborough), and the northern part of the divided Irchester ward. We are aware that these divisions may not reflect some community ties; however, they ensure the proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituency is within the permitted electorate range and allow continuous access throughout the constituency. Without the two divided wards we have proposed, we believe that there would need to be substantial knock-on disruption throughout the whole of the sub-region, which would more poorly reflect the statutory factors.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Nottinghamshire sub-region

  1. The Nottinghamshire sub-region currently has 11 constituencies, three of which are within the permitted electorate range, two constituencies fall below, and six are above. The mathematical entitlement to 11.22 results in an allocation of 11 whole constituencies, the same as the existing allocation. One constituency, Rushcliffe, can remain unchanged apart from minor realignment with new ward boundaries, and we therefore propose no further changes to this constituency beyond that.
  2. As in the Leicestershire sub-region, we have decided to propose a constituency that crosses the City of Nottingham unitary authority boundary, on the grounds that the remainder of Nottinghamshire would have a mathematical entitlement to 8.32 constituencies, necessitating eight constituencies with large electorates, which would artificially restrict our ability to reflect the other statutory factors. We considered several options for our proposed crossing of the unitary authority boundary, particularly at Hucknall or West Bridgford. However, we noted that this would have resulted in unnecessary disruption to the surrounding Sherwood, Gedling, and Rushcliffe constituencies. As the existing Nottingham North constituency is below the permitted electorate range, we propose including three Borough of Broxtowe wards (Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West) within a proposed Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency. The remaining wards from the Borough of Broxtowe are included in a proposed Broxtowe constituency that extends further north, uniting the Eastwood community that is currently split between the Broxtowe and Ashfield constituencies.
  3. The existing Nottingham East constituency has an electorate below the permitted electorate range. In order to bring this constituency within the permitted range, we propose to include the Castle ward, and make minor changes to align with changes to local government wards. We also propose a slightly reconfigured Nottingham South constituency that, as well as losing the Castle ward to Nottingham East, is expanded further north to take in the Bilborough ward, which is exchanged with the Leen Valley ward (which we propose to transfer to Nottingham North and Kimberley).
  4. The existing Mansfield constituency is above the permitted electorate range, at 77,409, meaning there is a requirement for a constituency that crosses its local authority boundary. As the proposed Broxtowe constituency is aligned to its local authority boundary, the partly reconfigured Ashfield constituency requires an increase in electorate to meet the required range. When considering how best to meet the statutory factors in this area, we noted the surrounding constituencies of Bassetlaw and Sherwood only required minimal change. We therefore decided to propose a constituency that crosses between the Ashfield and Mansfield local authorities in order to avoid widespread disruption throughout this subregion. The proposed Ashfield constituency would accordingly include two wards (Brick Kiln and Grange Farm) from the Mansfield local authority that are centred on two road links connecting Mansfield to Sutton-in-Ashfield, the A38 (Sutton Road) and the B6014 (Skegby Lane). We are aware that this proposal seemingly divides the Mansfield community, and particularly welcome any representations and counter‑proposals that suggest alternative configurations to bring the size of the Mansfield electorate into the permitted range. Our proposed Mansfield constituency is otherwise unchanged apart from the transfer of these two wards.
  5. In the rest of the sub-region we are proposing minor changes to the remaining four constituencies. The boundary of the proposed Gedling constituency is realigned to reflect changes to ward boundaries, and expanded slightly to include the Dumbles ward. As previously mentioned, the proposed Sherwood constituency requires minimal change and is expanded eastwards to include the villages of Lowdham and Thurgarton. The existing Newark constituency is expanded northwards to include two additional District of Bassetlaw wards: Clayworth and Sturton. This reduces the electorate of the existing Bassetlaw constituency to within the permitted electorate range: we also propose renaming this constituency Worksop and Retford, to reflect the main population centres, and the fact that with these changes a substantial minority of the Bassetlaw local authority would no longer be in the constituency. We note that the A631 (which links the northern part of the Worksop and Retford constituency) now crosses into the proposed Newark constituency; however, we decided that this does not in practice divide the constituency, and therefore we propose no further changes to this constituency.
Back to top

8 Hereafter referred to as Northamptonshire.
9 Hereafter referred to as Leicestershire.
10 Hereafter referred to as Nottinghamshire.
11 Hereafter referred to as Derbyshire.

Back to top