3 Revised proposals for the East Midlands
3.1 After the consultation on the initial proposals in 2021, we arranged for the appointment of two Assistant Commissioners for the East Midlands – Peter Fish CB and Alison Blom-Cooper – to assist us with the analysis of the representations received during the first two consultation periods. This included chairing public hearings held in the region to collect oral evidence, as follows:
-
- Nottingham: 7–8 March 2022
- Leicester: 10–11 March 2022
- Northampton: 14–15 March 2022
3.2 We asked the Assistant Commissioners to consider all the written and oral representations, and to make recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, in light of evidence provided in the representations. It is important to stress that the Assistant Commissioners had no involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open to viable alternative proposals supported by evidence. We are very grateful for the thorough and methodical approach the Assistant Commissioners have taken to their work.
3.3 What follows in this chapter is:
-
- a brief recap of our initial proposals;
- a description of the views and counter-proposals put forward during the consultations;
- the Assistant Commissioners’ analysis of the strength of the arguments for adoption of any of those counter-proposals; and
- our decision on whether or not to make changes to our proposals in the given area.
3.4 A tabular summary of the revised constituencies we now propose appears in the Appendix to this report.
3.5 Throughout this chapter, where we refer to a respondent’s response, we do so by using the reference number, i.e. BCE-12345 (we only include an individual’s name if they gave permission for it to be published). This reference number corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website at www.bcereviews.org.uk. All representations received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this website. The representations received in response to these revised proposals will be published at the end of the review.
Back to topSub‑regions
3.6 In formulating the initial proposals, Derbyshire10, Northamptonshire11 and Nottinghamshire12 each had electorates that allowed them to have a whole number of constituencies within the permitted range, and were therefore treated each as a separate sub‑region.
3.7 We noted that Lincolnshire had an electorate that was too large for seven whole constituencies, and too small for eight; therefore, it was necessary to pair Lincolnshire with another county. Rutland’s electorate was far too small for it to be considered as a constituency in its own right, meaning it too needed to be paired with another county. We noted Rutland and Lincolnshire had a combined electorate resulting in a near whole mathematical entitlement of 7.93 constituencies. We therefore allocated eight whole constituencies to a sub‑region consisting of Lincolnshire and Rutland, one more than the existing number of constituencies in Lincolnshire alone.
3.8 We acknowledged that pairing Rutland with Lincolnshire was a deviation from the established pairing of Rutland with Leicestershire. However, the retention of this latter pairing would require linking Lincolnshire either with Leicestershire or Nottinghamshire, and we felt that there were few justifiable options for a county boundary crossing either of these with Lincolnshire. We noted the combined electorate of Leicestershire and the City of Leicester13 allowed it to be allocated ten whole constituencies, and we therefore proposed Leicestershire as a sub‑region on its own with ten constituencies (the same number as the existing sub‑region of Leicestershire and Rutland).
3.9 The Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) and Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542) supported the sub‑regions used in formulating the initial proposals. The Green Party’s response to the initial consultation (BCE‑81984) expressed reservations about the pairing of Lincolnshire and Rutland; however, the party’s representation at the Nottingham public hearing (BCE‑97544) supported the pairing.
3.10 The Labour Party (BCE‑79476, BCE‑95649 and BCE‑97545) supported the proposed sub‑regions of Derbyshire, Northamptonshire, and Nottinghamshire; however, they proposed combining Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, and Rutland into one sub‑region. They proposed a constituency comprising Rutland, nine South Kesteven (Lincolnshire) wards and three Harborough (Leicestershire) wards. The Labour Party argued that this proposal would better reflect the statutory factors, even though a proposed Rutland and Stamford constituency would contain parts of three counties. This proposal would permit minimum change to the existing constituencies in Lincolnshire, and revert closer to the existing pattern of constituencies across Leicestershire.
3.11 As all other counties in the region are mathematically entitled to whole numbers of constituencies, counter-proposals that put forward alternative sub‑region configurations naturally focused on Lincolnshire and Rutland. We received one counter-proposal that would combine this sub‑region with the Northamptonshire and Leicestershire sub‑regions (BCE‑79456) and two more that would combine Lincolnshire and Rutland with Northamptonshire only (BCE‑55438 and Jonathan Stansby – BCE‑87423). We also received a counter-proposal from Daniel Henderson (BCE‑88542) that combined Lincolnshire and Rutland with Nottinghamshire.
3.12 Our Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence of these counter-proposals and other representations received. They noted the significant number of representations, including from Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Melton (BCE‑84062, BCE‑96679 and BCE‑97476), that demonstrated the significant local ties between Leicestershire and Rutland. They also noted that the theoretical entitlement of Leicestershire to 7.28 constituencies means that it is challenging to develop a pattern of constituencies for the county that adheres to the statutory factors, and that mathematical constraints necessitated a constituency that crossed the boundary between the City of Leicester and Leicestershire in the initial proposals. The Assistant Commissioners felt that combining the Leicestershire, and Lincolnshire and Rutland sub‑regions facilitates a pattern of constituencies for all three that improves on the initial proposals with respect to the statutory factors, and we agree with their recommendation. In particular, we are persuaded that there is no viable solution that treats Leicestershire and Rutland as a sub‑region without including a third county: with a combined theoretical entitlement of 7.69, such a sub‑region would be as mathematically constrained for eight constituencies as Leicestershire alone is for seven.
3.13 We received two proposals (BCE‑56943 and BCE‑75245) that said Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire should be grouped into one sub‑region. BCE‑56943 primarily focused on preventing the division of part of Mansfield town between the proposed Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies. BCE‑75245 argued that the initial proposals divide communities and combine them with unsuitable areas in Nottingham. Our Assistant Commissioners took the view that neither of these counter-proposals improved on the initial proposals for Nottinghamshire to such an extent that disrupting the largely unchanged pattern of constituencies in Derbyshire would be justified. We accept their recommendation that Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire should be separate sub‑regions, as in the initial proposals.
Back to topDerbyshire
3.14 Of the 11 existing constituencies in Derbyshire, eight have electorates within the permitted range (two fall below and one above). Our initial proposals made only very minor adjustments, and all qualifying political parties supported our proposed boundaries, although all four objected to our proposed name for the Ilkeston and Long Eaton constituency.
3.15 The electorate of the Chesterfield, Derby North, Derby South, Erewash, and High Peak constituencies were such that they could remain wholly unchanged. We proposed no changes to these constituencies in our initial proposals; however, we did propose renaming the Erewash constituency to Ilkeston and Long Eaton, to reflect the main population centres of the constituency. Our initial proposals for the boundaries of these constituencies attracted very few representations, but those that we received were largely supportive.
3.16 We received one counter-proposal (BCE‑79456) that proposed the Arboretum ward be included in a Derby North constituency and Chaddesden ward in a Derby South constituency. They also proposed the Sutton ward be included in a Chesterfield constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners felt that it was unclear what the benefits of this counter-proposal, affecting wholly unchanged constituencies, would be. Therefore, we do not propose any changes from the initial proposals for the Chesterfield, Derby North and Derby South constituencies.
3.17 The MP for High Peak, Robert Largan, put forward an alternative arrangement for the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak constituencies (BCE‑82042 and BCE‑97513). This counter-proposal would include the Bradwell ward from the Derbyshire Dales constituency in a High Peak constituency. Robert Largan MP argued that ‘Bradwell has very strong local links with the rest of High Peak for shopping, recreation, education, and other community facilities’. The Assistant Commissioners did not recommend these changes. Their view is that there would need to be compelling reasons to recommend changes, given that the proposed constituency is both unchanged and coterminous with the High Peak local authority boundary. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and do not propose any change to the High Peak constituency.
3.18 As previously mentioned, our initial proposals for the boundaries of the Ilkeston and Long Eaton constituency, which are unchanged from the existing Erewash constituency, were mostly supported, but we received a significant number of representations opposing our proposal to change the name of this constituency. The MP for Erewash, Maggie Throup, strongly opposed the change of name and argued that the name Erewash should be retained (BCE‑73287 and BCE‑96998). Representations received argued that the name Erewash ‘is steeped in history. This name is now an intrinsic part of our heritage’ (BCE‑73208) and ‘supports our feeling of inclusiveness and all being together and of equal importance’ (Councillor Christopher Corbett – BCE‑71616). Retaining the Erewash name was also supported by Erewash Borough Council (BCE‑85854) and Derbyshire County Council (BCE‑83979). Given the overwhelming public response, the Assistant Commissioners recommended retaining the existing constituency name. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and, considering our policy on the naming of constituencies allows for a name that commands strong local support, we propose that the constituency should retain the existing name of Erewash.
3.19 In designing the initial proposals for the Amber Valley, Bolsover, and North East Derbyshire constituencies, we proposed some realignment to ensure the constituency boundaries reflected changes to local government ward boundaries, but otherwise we proposed no changes to these constituencies. Similar to the wholly unchanged constituencies, we received very few representations concerning these constituencies, but those that were received were broadly supportive. Nothing in the evidence presented to the Assistant Commissioners persuaded them that there would be any benefit in altering these proposals. Therefore, we agree with our Assistant Commissioners’ recommendation that the initial proposals for the Amber Valley, Bolsover, and North East Derbyshire constituencies are retained.
3.20 The electorates of the existing Derbyshire Dales and Mid Derbyshire constituencies are currently below the permitted electorate range, and the electorate of the existing South Derbyshire constituency is currently above the permitted electorate range. We therefore proposed including the Hatton and Hilton wards in an extended Derbyshire Dales constituency, which would bring the electorate of the South Derbyshire constituency to within the permitted range. We also proposed to transfer the South West Parishes ward into the Mid Derbyshire constituency, to bring both the Derbyshire Dales and Mid Derbyshire constituencies within the permitted range.
3.21 We did receive some opposition to the proposed changes to the Derbyshire Dales constituency. BCE-55438 proposed changes to five of the 11 constituencies in Derbyshire, focusing on retaining Hatton and Hilton with Etwall. This counter-proposal included Belper and Duffield within a Derbyshire Dales constituency. It proposed six Derbyshire Dales wards, four South Derbyshire wards, one Amber Valley ward, two City of Derby wards, and three Erewash wards in a South West Derbyshire constituency, and also proposed a South Derbyshire constituency that would include the Chellaston ward from the City of Derby.
3.22 We also received some opposition to the proposed Mid Derbyshire constituency on the grounds of weak community ties within the constituency; however, many of the comments received indicated that this is an issue in the existing constituency, rather than local ties that would be broken by our proposals. In particular, Adrian Brown (BCE‑55490) argued there is a lack of community ties between Belper and the villages Duffield and Quarndon. BCE‑88120 also argued for the lack of community ties in the Mid Derbyshire constituency between the more urban areas of Allestree and Oakwood within the City of Derby and the rural communities.
3.23 The Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence and counter-proposals submitted for the Derbyshire Dales, Mid Derbyshire, and South Derbyshire constituencies. Their view was that the minimal change recommended in the initial proposals is most compatible with the statutory factors and they therefore did not recommend the changes proposed in BCE‑55438. We agree that the initial proposals for the Derbyshire Dales, Mid Derbyshire, and South Derbyshire constituencies should be retained.
Back to topLeicestershire, Lincolnshire and Rutland
Leicestershire
3.24 In formulating the initial proposals, we considered that, although the City of Leicester had a theoretical entitlement to exactly three constituencies, the theoretical entitlement of the rest of Leicestershire to 7.28 constituencies was too high for us to be able to propose seven constituencies without crossing the boundary with the City, while still properly reflecting the statutory factors.
3.25 We therefore proposed one constituency that crossed the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary in the initial proposals. Our proposed Leicester West and Glenfield constituency crossed the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary to include two Blaby District wards of Ellis and Fairestone, as both these wards covered the Glenfield area. We also proposed that this constituency extend eastwards to include the Belgrave ward. We proposed a Leicester East constituency that includes the Spinney Hills ward. Finally, we proposed the Leicester South constituency extend westwards to include the Westcotes ward.
3.26 We received some support for our three initially-proposed Leicester constituencies from the Green Party (BCE‑97544) and Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542); however, we received significantly more opposition. The comments focused on the inclusion of Glenfield in a city constituency, and the proposal to transfer the Belgrave, Spinney Hills, and Westcotes wards from their existing constituencies.
3.27 Neill Ransom (BCE‑97480) and BCE‑55163 argued that Glenfield should be included within a county-based constituency, as it does not share community ties with Leicester. Similarly, Councillor Roy Denney (BCE‑93587) outlined the community ties which Glenfield has with the neighbouring villages in the Blaby local authority of Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe. Councillor Denney argued that these villages ‘are on the edge of the National Forest and Charnwood Forest so the residents look outwards into these areas for much of their recreation and leisure activities rather than travel into Leicester City’ (BCE‑93587). Similarly, Edward Argar, the MP for Charnwood (BCE‑84793 and BCE‑97481) argued that Glenfield is a more rural community that looks towards the county area for transport, shopping, and education.
3.28 In addition to representations that specifically opposed including Glenfield in a constituency with Leicester, we also received representations expressing the general view that the City of Leicester should retain three constituencies wholly within the city boundary. Lord Willy Bach (BCE‑97529) argued that the city is entitled to three seats, and that therefore respecting the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary would be the best reflection of the statutory factors. Crossing the City of Leicester boundary was also opposed by the Labour Party (BCE‑79476, BCE‑95649 and BCE‑97545) and Leicester City Council (BCE‑74892 and BCE‑97450).
3.29 We received widespread opposition to our initial proposals to include the Belgrave ward in a Leicester West and Glenfield constituency. Respondents argued strongly that this ward forms the ‘heart’ of a coherent Leicester East community, for example Keith Vaz, former MP for Leicester East (BCE‑86415, BCE‑97028, and BCE‑97495). Representations also outlined the Belgrave ward as the centre for many community and religious groups that serve the neighbouring North Evington, Rushey Mead, and Troon wards; including Sri Jeya Durga Temple (BCE‑61690) and Shree Sanatan Mandir & Community Centre (BCE‑85963). These sentiments were reinforced during the Leicester public hearing, where numerous respondents presented evidence of the strength of community ties between Belgrave and Leicester East, particularly concerning the ‘Golden Mile’ and the movement of residents from the Belgrave ward eastwards into the neighbouring wards; for example Baljit Singh, Dharmesh Lakhani, Karan Modha, and Councillor Rita Patel (BCE‑97537, BCE‑97444, BCE‑97488, BCE‑97482 respectively). Claudia Webbe, the MP for Leicester East (BCE‑96371) outlined further community ties and religious organisations that operate between the Belgrave ward and the rest of the existing Leicester East constituency. We also received a petition opposing our initial proposals, which attracted 2,569 signatories; the largest petition received for any single issue in the region (BCE‑86576).
3.30 Similarly, we received substantial opposition to our proposal to include the Spinney Hills ward in Leicester East. Jonathan Ashworth, MP for Leicester South (BCE‑73649 and BCE‑97472), argued that the Spinney Hills ward is part of the Highfields community with the neighbouring wards Wycliffe and Stoneygate: ‘The heart of the area is Spinney Hill Park which often hosts community events including a communal Eid Prayer every year attracting thousands of worshippers from across Spinney, Wycliffe, and Stoneygate Wards’, highlighting the religious and community ties between these wards. BCE‑67392 and BCE‑85760 among others provided evidence that the Spinney Hills ward is an intrinsic part of the Highfields community, and like Belgrave, Spinney Hills is the centre for community and religious groups. These comments were supported by the Leicester East Labour Party (BCE‑96678), who stated that residents of the ward ‘see themselves as being an integral part of the South constituency. It is a hub for members of one community to come and worship’, further demonstrating the community relations in this area.
3.31 We received some opposition to the proposal to include the Westcotes ward in a Leicester South constituency. BCE‑90669 argued that the Westcotes ward is the ‘urban core’ for the Leicester West constituency. Liz Kendall, MP for Leicester West, submitted a counter-proposal during the secondary consultation (BCE‑96666 and BCE‑97451). This submission provided evidence for a lack of community ties between the Glenfield wards and the City of Leicester, as well as the strength of community that exists between the Westcotes ward and Leicester West. Liz Kendall MP proposed splitting the Belgrave ward, including the area west of the Belgrave road (A607) within a Leicester West constituency and the remainder of the ward in a Leicester East constituency; resulting in no further changes being required to the existing constituencies in Leicester. This proposal would not cross the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary, and was also submitted by the Leicester West Labour Party (BCE‑75229).
3.32 In addition to the above, we received a number of counter-proposals that contained three constituencies wholly within the City of Leicester boundary. John Bryant (BCE‑94367) and BCE‑56943 set out an alternative ward rotation, proposing to include the Aylestone ward in Leicester West, the Evington ward in Leicester South, and the Wycliffe ward in Leicester East. Edward Barkham (BCE‑75591) put forward a very similar proposal, but would include the Spinney Hills ward in a Leicester East constituency instead of the Wycliffe ward. Baroness Sandip Verma (BCE‑84476), amongst others, proposed the Aylestone and Eyres Monsell wards be included in a Leicester West constituency, the Belgrave and Westcotes wards in a Leicester South constituency, and the Spinney Hills ward in a Leicester East constituency.
3.33 The Labour Party counter-proposal (BCE‑95649) submitted during the secondary consultation proposed that the Belgrave, Spinney Hills, and Westcotes wards should remain in their current constituencies without crossing the city boundary. This would be achieved through transferring the Aylestone ward to Leicester West and splitting either the Evington or North Evington wards, with one polling district being included in a Leicester South constituency. In their representations they gave the example of including one polling district from North Evington in a Leicester South constituency. Jonathan Ashworth MP (BCE‑97472) supported the Labour Party proposal, and in particular the inclusion of the Aylestone ward into the Leicester West constituency, arguing there is a shared community between the Aylestone, and Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields wards, focused on Aylestone Meadows.
3.34 We also received some counter-proposals that proposed alternative crossings of the City of Leicester unitary authority boundary. The Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) proposed a revised Leicester East constituency including two Oadby wards (Oadby Grange and Oadby Uplands) that would allow Glenfield to remain in a county-based constituency and the Westcotes ward in Leicester West. Jonathan Stansby (BCE‑87423) proposed two constituencies that would cross the city boundary at Braunstone Town and Eyres Monsell; however, it would retain Glenfield in a county-based constituency. Similarly, BCE‑79456 proposed including two of the three Braunstone Town wards in a Leicester West constituency.
3.35 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to crossing the City of Leicester boundary in the initial proposals, and recognised that it would be desirable if the city could be considered separately from the county to respect the distinct urban and rural communities. They noted the strength of feeling from residents of Glenfield evident in the representations received and, having visited the area, observed that despite its proximity to Leicester, the area has a character distinct from the city. The Assistant Commissioners further noted that several alternative crossings of the city boundary were proposed (as noted above), but were unpersuaded that any of these would be any more desirable than crossing the city boundary at Glenfield.
3.36 The Assistant Commissioners also noted the strength of feeling within the City of Leicester concerning community ties between the Belgrave ward and the North Evington, Troon and Rushey Mead wards in Leicester East, and the Spinney Hills ward and the Stoneygate and Wycliffe wards in Leicester South. Having visited the area, they agreed that each of these two groups of wards share strong internal cultural and community ties and the whole of each group should therefore be included in the same constituency. Of the counter-proposals received, the Assistant Commissioners noted that the Labour Party counter-proposal would return both wards to their existing constituencies without crossing the City of Leicester boundary, but that this required splitting a ward. Either the North Evington or Evington wards were proposed by representatives of national and local Labour groups, and having visited these wards, the Assistant Commissioners’ view was that there is no clear separation between the polling districts in the North Evington ward, but that there seems to be a natural break between the southernmost polling district of Evington and the rest of the ward. Therefore, they recommended adopting the Labour Party counter-proposal for Leicester, splitting the Evington ward.
3.37 We agree with the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore propose three constituencies wholly contained within the city boundary. We propose: a Leicester South constituency that would include Spinney Hills and polling district EVF from the Evington ward; a Leicester East constituency that would include the Belgrave ward and the remainder of the Evington ward, and a Leicester West constituency that would include the Aylestone and Westcotes wards.
3.38 The existing Bosworth and North West Leicestershire constituencies are both above the permitted electorate range; therefore, we proposed transferring the Appleby and Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe wards from North West Leicestershire into the Hinckley and Bosworth constituency. The initial proposals for these constituencies were largely uncontentious and we received few representations for these constituencies. There was some opposition to including the Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward in the Hinckley and Bosworth constituency. Chris Smith (BCE‑74256, BCE‑92630 and BCE‑97447) proposed retaining the Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward in North West Leicestershire by splitting the Sence Valley ward between the Hinckley and Bosworth, and North West Leicestershire constituencies.
3.39 The Assistant Commissioners noted that there was general support for the proposed Hinckley and Bosworth, and North West Leicestershire constituencies, not least from all four qualifying parties. They acknowledged the opposition to the Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe ward being included in the proposed Hinckley and Bosworth constituency, but noted that this ward cannot be retained in the North West Leicestershire constituency without transferring another out, or splitting a ward, for which they felt there was insufficient justification. Therefore, they recommended that the initial proposals be retained for these constituencies. We agree with these recommendations and do not propose any changes to the initial proposals for either of these constituencies.
3.40 As our initial proposals considered Rutland separately from Leicestershire, we proposed a Melton and Syston constituency, to include all the Melton local authority wards plus eight Charnwood local authority wards extending to the River Soar, which would form its western boundary. To bring the existing Loughborough constituency electorate down to within the permitted range, we proposed that the River Soar mostly form its boundary to the east, only crossing to include the Barrow and Sileby West ward, with the proposed constituency also extending southwards to include the Mountsorrel ward.
3.41 As well as opposition to the separation of the Melton and Rutland local authorities, we also received opposition to joining the Melton local authority area with Syston. Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Melton (BCE‑84062, BCE‑96679 and BCE‑97476), provided evidence that Melton shares extensive community ties with Rutland, commenting they are ‘heavily rural, agricultural areas with market towns and a high number of villages’ while arguing that this differs from the suburban area of Syston. These sentiments were supported by many representations, including the Melton Borough Council (BCE‑78673 and BCE‑97438) and Rutland County Council (BCE‑97445). Alyson Culmer (BCE‑87498) and BCE‑81940, among others, argued that there are weak community ties between the rural Melton local authority and the more urban Syston area. They highlighted that the community needs differ between these areas, with the Melton local authority having ‘rural issues such as farming, access to services, poor public transport’ and that this was very different to that of a suburban area (BCE‑81940).
3.42 We also received opposition to including The Wolds ward in our proposed Melton and Syston constituency. Councillor Jenny Bokor (BCE‑79986) argued that The Wolds ward’s ‘historical identity is with Loughborough’; sharing education, healthcare and leisure facilities. BCE‑85850, among others, commented on the lack of transport connections between The Wolds ward and Melton Mowbray, arguing there are strong natural links to Loughborough along the A60. Jane Hunt, MP for Loughborough (BCE‑85971 and BCE‑97459) opposed the initial proposals for The Wolds ward, highlighting that the residents ‘look entirely to Loughborough’, and wished for it to remain in the constituency. Apart from the representations concerning The Wolds ward, the Loughborough constituency was largely well received.
3.43 We also received a counter-proposal from Jonathan Stansby (BCE‑87423) that proposed a constituency comprising the Melton local authority and rural wards from the Harborough district, including Market Harborough itself. This counter-proposal would establish a pattern of constituencies that would more closely resemble the existing constituencies in Leicestershire, but would require two constituencies to cross the city boundary at Braunstone Town and Eyres Monsell (albeit retaining Glenfield in a county-based constituency). John Bryant (BCE‑94367) also proposed a constituency that would combine the Melton local authority with Market Harborough, as well as: a constituency coterminous with the Blaby local authority; a South Leicestershire constituency that would include Oadby and Wigston; and retaining The Wolds in Loughborough. This proposal would not cross the City of Leicester boundary, but at the expense of disrupting the proposed Loughborough, Hinckley and Bosworth, and North West Leicestershire constituencies. Edward Barkham (BCE‑75591) proposed a similar pattern of constituencies in Leicestershire to John Bryant’s counter-proposal, but would be more disruptive to local authority boundaries.
3.44 The Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) proposed three Harborough local authority wards (Billesdon & Tilton, Nevill, and Thurnby & Houghton) be included in the Melton and Syston constituency, with The Wolds ward retained in a Loughborough constituency, and the Mountsorrel and Thurmaston wards included in a Mid Leicestershire constituency. This proposal was supported by Edward Argar, MP for Charnwood (BCE‑84793), and Jane Hunt, MP for Loughborough (BCE‑85971). The Labour Party (BCE‑79476, BCE‑95649 and BCE‑97545) supported our initial proposal for the Melton and Syston constituency; but they proposed that the Mountsorrel ward be retained in a Charnwood constituency. The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542) proposed The Wolds and Sileby wards be included in a Loughborough constituency, the Quorn and Mountsorrel Castle, and Mountsorrel wards in a Mid Leicestershire constituency, and the Birstall Wanlip, and Birstall Watermead wards in a Melton and Syston constituency.
3.45 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the Loughborough constituency was broadly well received, except for the decision to transfer The Wolds ward to the Melton and Syston constituency, which drew opposition. They felt that the Liberal Democrat counter-proposal (BCE‑80959 and BCE‑94369), while it would retain the Sileby and The Wolds wards in a Loughborough constituency, also proposed the Melton and Syston constituency to extend further into the existing Charnwood constituency to include the two Birstall wards. They therefore felt that this proposal did not sufficiently address the issues raised in the wider Leicestershire sub‑region; the most disruptive aspects of the initial proposals.
3.46 The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the evidence received concerning the ties of The Wolds. They therefore recommended that the Conservative Party counter-proposal be adopted for Loughborough. The Assistant Commissioners noted that this would divide Quorn from Mountsorrel, our initially proposed pairing, which was favourably commented on in representations; however, they felt as their recommendations would restore an existing constituency boundary between the two, this decision can be justified given its benefits both in Loughborough and elsewhere in the county. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and therefore propose that the initially proposed Loughborough constituency should be revised to include The Wolds ward instead of the Mountsorrel ward.
3.47 The Assistant Commissioners noted the force of local opinion regarding the initially proposed division of Rutland from Leicestershire; they therefore considered whether this existing pairing could be retained. The Assistant Commissioners noted that no valid counter-proposals were received that proposed Rutland and Melton Mowbray in the same constituency, and that the general principle of a Lincolnshire and Rutland sub‑region was supported by all qualifying political parties.
3.48 Nonetheless, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged opposition to including the Melton local authority with Syston. They considered the counter-proposals that paired the Melton local authority with Market Harborough (Edward Barkham – BCE‑75591, Jonathan Stansby – BCE‑87423, and John Bryant – BCE‑94367), but noted that these proposals would be disruptive to existing constituencies, and separate areas with established community ties. The Assistant Commissioners also felt that insufficient evidence had been received to demonstrate that the Melton Mowbray and Market Harborough pairing would be an improvement on the initial proposals, as the proposals were not widely commented on during consultation.
3.49 When visiting the area, the Assistant Commissioners observed some differences between Melton Mowbray and Syston, but overall felt that both are small towns with a rural hinterland, and that they are well connected along the A607. As such, they recommended retaining the initial proposals for Melton and Syston, subject to removing The Wolds ward as discussed above. We agree with this recommendation and propose only this minor change to the initially proposed Melton and Syston constituency.
3.50 In the initial proposals, we proposed a Harborough constituency that would be coterminous with the District of Harborough local authority. Our proposed Blaby, Oadby and Wigston constituency included all ten Oadby and Wigston local authority wards and seven Blaby local authority wards, including Blaby and Stoney Stanton. The proposed Mid Leicestershire constituency consisted of five Charnwood local authority wards, three Hinckley and Bosworth local authority wards, and nine Blaby local authority wards. This proposed constituency used the River Soar as a geographic boundary to the north-east, wrapping around Leicester to the area surrounding Enderby in the south of the constituency.
3.51 We received some support for our initial proposals for the Blaby, Oadby and Wigston, Harborough, and Mid Leicestershire constituencies; notably from the local (BCE‑92603) and national Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959 and BCE‑94369). BCE‑90662 argued that a coterminous Harborough constituency has a clear identity, as it is a rural area focusing on two market towns. Similarly, BCE‑72854 supported the principle of a Blaby, Oadby and Wigston constituency comprising principally suburban areas.
3.52 Overall, however, we received a significantly larger number of representations opposing the initial proposals for these three constituencies. BCE‑63428 opposed the Blaby, Oadby and Wigston, and Harborough constituencies, providing evidence concerning the major transport routes in the area, which are orientated north-south, connecting Oadby and Wigston to Market Harborough along the A6. Respondents also opposed including the Billesdon & Tilton, Nevill, and Thurnby & Houghton wards in the Harborough constituency; they argued these wards are more rural in nature and look to the Melton and Rutland local authorities, for example Caroline Jack (BCE‑57753) and Councillor Michael Rickman (BCE‑73854). Councillor Leslie Phillimore (BCE‑64084) argued that there is ‘no commonality between the Blaby District area and the Oadby & Wigston area’, outlining that the initial proposal joins together two areas which do not share community ties. These representations argued that the existing South Leicestershire constituency shared strong socio-economic and socio‑cultural ties; this argument was common among representations made at the Leicester public hearing. Councillor Roy Denney (BCE‑93587) opposed the Mid Leicestershire constituency and argued it does not reflect communities in this area, asserting that the proposed constituency would be split into two parts that wrap around Leicester with little in common. These sentiments were supported by Alberto Costa, the MP for South Leicestershire (BCE‑92016, BCE‑97460, and BCE‑63663 in a joint submission with seven Conservative MPs), who argued that the initial proposals were unnecessarily disruptive, and that these constituencies ought to be closer aligned to the existing boundaries.
3.53 We received counter-proposals for Leicestershire which would make constituencies that would align more closely to the existing configuration. As previously mentioned, the Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) proposed a crossing of the city boundary, including two Oadby wards in a revised Leicester East constituency. The remaining Oadby and Wigston wards would be included with Market Harborough; they proposed a revived South Leicestershire constituency that would include Blaby and Lutterworth; and would retain Glenfield in a Mid Leicestershire constituency. This proposal also included the three Harborough local authority wards with Melton and Syston. This proposal was supported by the seven Conservative Leicestershire and Rutland MPs in a joint submission (BCE‑63565 and associated responses).
3.54 We also received counter-proposals that better represented the existing constituencies in Leicestershire while avoiding crossing the City of Leicester boundary. BCE‑56943 proposed a Melton and Syston constituency that included the three Harborough wards, similar to the Conservative Party. It proposed Charnwood, South Leicestershire, and Wigston and Market Harborough constituencies that aligned to the existing constituencies, but at the expense of greater disruption to the existing Bosworth, Loughborough and North West Leicestershire constituencies.
3.55 The Labour Party counter-proposal recommended retaining Glenfield in a Charnwood constituency, which would extend southwards to include Braunstone Town. Similar to the Conservative Party and BCE‑56943, they proposed substantial reconfiguration of the proposed Harborough, and Blaby, Oadby and Wigston constituencies in order to better reflect the existing constituencies. They proposed a Harborough constituency that would be realigned to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, and a South Leicestershire constituency that would no longer include Braunstone Town. This would be facilitated by a Rutland and Stamford constituency that would include three Harborough wards (Billesdon & Tilton, Nevill, and Thurnby & Houghton) retaining them in a constituency with the Rutland local authority, albeit establishing a constituency that would comprise wards from three counties.
3.56 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the orientation of the initially proposed Harborough constituency would be very different from the existing Harborough constituency, and that this caused further disruption to the existing South Leicestershire and Charnwood constituencies. Although recognising the support of the Liberal Democrats, among others, for such a configuration, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that the majority of representations indicated that the initial proposals for this part of the county were unnecessarily disruptive.
3.57 The Assistant Commissioners felt that this level of disruption to the existing constituencies would not reflect the statutory factors well, and thus recommended reverting to a configuration that would more closely resemble the existing pattern of constituencies. The Assistant Commissioners particularly noted the counter-proposal BCE‑56943, which proposed Harborough, Mid Leicestershire, and South Leicestershire constituencies that closely resembled the existing constituencies, but felt unable to recommend it, as this would be achieved at the cost of significant disruption to the Hinckley and Bosworth, and North West Leicestershire constituencies. They also noted the Conservative Party proposal, but did not consider that the crossing of the city boundary best reflected the statutory factors.
3.58 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the Labour Party counter-proposal would result in a Harborough constituency that would only change from the existing one to realign with new local government ward boundaries, and a South Leicestershire constituency that would be very similar to the existing constituency.
3.59 On balance, the view of the Assistant Commissioners was that the Labour Party counter-proposal for Harborough, South Leicestershire, and Charnwood best reflected the statutory factors and addressed the objections raised in consultation, and therefore recommended that it be adopted. They did, however, believe that the initially proposed Mid Leicestershire name would better reflect the composition of the constituency, and therefore recommended this constituency name be retained. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and therefore propose: a Harborough constituency that is only realigned to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries; a South Leicestershire constituency comprising 11 Blaby local authority wards and nine Harborough local authority wards; and a Mid Leicestershire constituency that includes the Glenfield area and the Mountsorrel ward.
Back to topLincolnshire and Rutland
3.60 In formulating initial proposals in the East Midlands, we proposed a Lincolnshire and Rutland sub‑region that was allocated eight constituencies; an increase of one from the existing allocation to Lincolnshire alone. Four of the existing constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, the remaining three are above.
3.61 In the initial proposals, we proposed a Rutland and Stamford constituency that would comprise the entirety of the Rutland unitary authority and 11 South Kesteven wards; including the towns of Stamford and Market Deeping, and the wards of Isaac Newton, Castle, and Glen. We received a mixture of support and opposition to this proposal. The Rutland Liberal Democrats (BCE‑93201) and BCE‑74919 argued that Rutland and Stamford share services and have strong community ties, commenting that Rutland has a ‘greater affiliation with Stamford’ (BCE‑74919). BCE‑68437 also argued that Rutland shared a community with Stamford, ‘Most of the eastern half of Rutland look to Stamford as a community hub for health and social care, shopping and entertainment’, and also highlighted that the existing Grantham and Stamford constituency does not share these close community ties. Overall, however, we received a greater number of representations opposing our initial proposals, arguing Rutland looks to Melton Mowbray and Leicestershire, for example BCE‑66270 and BCE‑86849 (see also Leicestershire, above). Christopher Clark (BCE‑81449) and Anthony Peowrie (BCE‑87296) argued that Rutland has no community or transport connections with Market Deeping, commenting that villages along the A15 look north and identify with Bourne instead of Stamford.
3.62 Edward Barkham (BCE‑74499) proposed a Rutland and Stamford constituency that would include Bourne. This would enable an unchanged South Holland and The Deepings constituency, but is dependent on a proposed Grantham and Sleaford constituency, a Lincoln constituency that would include two orphan wards, and a Gainsborough constituency that would also include an orphan ward.
3.63 A consequence of accepting the Labour Party’s counter-proposal for Harborough is that the three Harborough wards of Billesdon & Tilton, Nevill, and Thurnby & Houghton, which representations often referred to collectively as ‘the Harborough villages’ cannot be included in a constituency wholly within Leicestershire. The Labour Party’s counter-proposal set out that the Harborough villages should be included in a revised Rutland and Stamford constituency.
3.64 Our Assistant Commissioners considered whether it would be compliant with the statutory factors to propose a constituency containing parts of three counties. They noted that, although significant change to the existing Rutland and Melton constituency is inevitable, the Harborough villages are part of that existing constituency with Rutland, and noted the considerable evidence for local ties between Rutland and Leicestershire that would otherwise be broken (Councillor Michael Rickman – BCE‑73854 and Lord Willy Bach – BCE‑97529). They also noted that representations from these three Leicestershire wards broadly supported retaining their existing link to Rutland, and shared common rural characteristics. On balance, the Assistant Commissioners deemed the advantages of this proposal to outweigh the difficulties posed by a constituency including parts of three counties. Therefore, they recommended the Harborough villages be included within a Rutland and Stamford constituency. While noting that a single constituency incorporating parts of three counties should very much be the exception, we also note the very small size of Rutland is itself exceptional, and accordingly agree with the view of the Assistant Commissioners and propose a revised Rutland and Stamford constituency as set out in the Labour Party counter-proposal.
3.65 As the two wards comprising Market Deeping were transferred to our proposed Rutland and Stamford constituency in our initial proposals, we proposed a South Lincolnshire constituency that included the Five Village, and Swineshead and Holland Fen wards. We proposed expanding the existing Boston and Skegness constituency to include the Chapel St. Leonards, Halton Holegate, and Willoughby with Sloothby wards. We also proposed including the Wragby ward in a Louth and Horncastle constituency, aligning the constituency with the northern boundary of the East Lindsey local authority boundary.
3.66 Our initial proposals for the Boston and Skegness, and Louth and Horncastle constituencies were largely uncontentious, attracting very few representations. We received some opposition to our proposed South Lincolnshire constituency: Dudley Bryant (BCE‑60976) argued that the two Boston local authority wards are connected to Boston ‘for all their services including local government, education, health, retail including twice weekly markets, social and leisure’, and these sentiments were supported by Swineshead Parish Council (BCE‑90142). We also received opposition to the name South Lincolnshire, with representations proposing many different options, for example Sir John Hayes, MP for South Holland and The Deepings (BCE‑81659) and BCE‑85615; however, there was no one clearly preferred name in the representations.
3.67 While the main benefits of the Labour Party counter-proposal would be in Leicestershire, the Assistant Commissioners noted that it also has positive knock-on impacts for Lincolnshire in terms of the statutory factors. It enables retention of: the existing South Holland and The Deepings constituency unchanged; the Five Village, and Swineshead and Holland Fen wards in the Boston and Skegness constituency; and the Halton Holegate ward in the Louth and Horncastle constituency. The Assistant Commissioners considered that retaining Market Deeping in an unchanged South Holland and The Deepings constituency had merit, which also addressed some of the opposition to the proposed Rutland and Stamford constituency, by removing Market Deeping from it. They felt that this approach better reflected the statutory factors for the Boston and Skegness, and Louth and Horncastle constituencies too, as they more closely aligned to the existing constituency boundaries. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and propose that: Market Deeping be retained in a South Holland and The Deepings constituency unchanged from its current composition; the initially proposed Boston and Skegness constituency be realigned to the southern boundary of the Boston local authority; and the proposed Louth and Horncastle constituency be revised to include the entire Halton Holegate ward.
3.68 The existing Gainsborough and Lincoln constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. We proposed no change to the Lincoln constituency except to realign its boundary to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, and we aligned the Gainsborough constituency to be coterminous with the West Lindsey local authority boundary. We proposed that the Grantham constituency should include the remaining South Kesteven local authority wards and the Heckington Rural and Osbournby wards. The proposed Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency included the remaining North Kesteven local authority wards.
3.69 Our initial proposals for the Gainsborough, and Lincoln constituencies were broadly supported. We did receive some representations that argued that some wards on the northern edge of the City of Lincoln boundary should be included within the Lincoln constituency, for example Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln (BCE‑88399). We also received some representations arguing that there are strong community ties between North Hykeham and Lincoln, which should therefore be included within the same constituency, for example BCE‑56530 and the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542). However, despite this being raised as a possible alternative in the initial proposals report, there was little support for alterations to an otherwise unchanged Lincoln constituency.
3.70 We received some opposition to including the Heckington Rural and Osbournby wards in our proposed Grantham constituency. David Turgoose (BCE‑93834) and BCE‑72115 argued the natural community and transport connections are with Sleaford, and opposed being included in the Grantham constituency. BCE‑90960 opposed the constituency name Grantham, with representations wishing to rename it Grantham and Bourne to better represent the spread of the proposed constituency; this was also supported by the Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543), Green Party (BCE‑97544) and Gareth Davies, MP for Grantham and Stamford (BCE‑80771).
3.71 The Labour Party’s submission supported the initial proposals for Gainsborough, Grantham, Lincoln, and Sleaford and North Hykeham. The Assistant Commissioners noted that the proposed Gainsborough constituency was well-received in the consultation periods, and given that it is highly compliant with the statutory factors they recommended no change to this constituency. The Assistant Commissioners considered the comments outlining the different community ties within the Grantham, Lincoln, and Sleaford and North Hykeham constituencies; however, they felt that none of the counter-proposals received reflected the statutory factors better than the initial proposals across the overall area covered by these constituencies. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any changes to these constituencies as initially proposed. They considered the name Grantham and Bourne, but did not recommend this change, as they were unpersuaded that there was sufficient evidence that this name would have broad local support. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and propose no changes to the Gainsborough, Grantham, Lincoln, and Sleaford and North Hykeham constituencies as initially proposed.
Back to topNorthamptonshire
3.72 Although the Northamptonshire sub‑region was allocated seven whole constituencies in the initial proposals, the same as the existing allocation, as only one of the existing constituencies is within the permitted electorate range (two fall below and four above) we proposed changes to every constituency.
3.73 As recently established unitary authorities, both North and West Northamptonshire are temporarily using the county electoral divisions (hereafter referred to as wards) of the former Northamptonshire County Council, until the Local Government Boundary Commission’s reviews of ward boundaries in the two new authorities concludes in the latter half of 2023. The consequence of this is that the wards used for this Parliamentary boundary review are unusually large for a primarily rural area, both geographically and in terms of electorate size. Our choices were therefore constrained by the difficulties posed by these large 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. Unwieldy ward sizes, relatively close clustering of distinct communities, and the proximity to the regional boundary, led us to propose three split wards in the initial proposals.
3.74 We received some counter-proposals that opposed the number of split wards we proposed in Northamptonshire, and argued that a satisfactory scheme could be achieved within the county with fewer.
3.75 The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542) proposed changes to six constituencies in Northamptonshire, and only one split ward. They proposed: a Daventry constituency that would include Brackley; a Rushden and Towcester constituency; and a Wellingborough constituency that would expand north west to include three West Northamptonshire wards. The Labour Party (BCE‑95649) ‘have considerable sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ ambition to minimise the number of split wards’; however, they ultimately opposed the counter-proposal, due to a lack of coherence in the proposed Rushden and Towcester constituency. The Conservative Party (BCE‑96664) also commented on the disruptive nature of the Liberal Democrats’ proposals.
3.76 John Bryant (BCE‑94367) and BCE‑94201 both proposed alternative arrangements for all seven constituencies in Northamptonshire. BCE‑94201 argued that it is possible to reduce the number of split wards in Northamptonshire. This counter-proposal would include: a similar Daventry constituency to the Liberal Democrats; a Towcester and Mid Northamptonshire constituency that would encircle Northampton; a Kettering constituency that would include Raunds; and a Wellingborough constituency that would contain the entire Irchester ward. John Bryant (BCE‑94367) supported this proposal, although they noted that the entire Earls Barton ward could be included in the Towcester and Mid Northamptonshire constituency, thereby reducing the number of ward splits to one.
3.77 The Assistant Commissioners considered the benefits of reducing the number of split wards; however, they did not recommend any of these counter-proposals, noting that the counter-proposals mentioned above would all disrupt the existing constituencies to a far greater extent than the initial proposals. We feel that these counter-proposals aptly demonstrate the value of split wards specifically in Northamptonshire, allowing us to respect local ties and existing constituencies to a far greater extent than would otherwise be possible. We are therefore satisfied that the approach taken by the Assistant Commissioners towards splitting wards in Northamptonshire, which will be temporary in nature, is appropriate with regard to both the statutory factors and the Commission’s own policy.
3.78 Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE‑84681) supported our approach to split wards in Northamptonshire; however, they proposed changes to six of the seven proposed constituencies. This proposal would: include the entire Irchester ward with the majority of the Earls Barton ward in a proposed Daventry constituency, thus preventing a proposed South Northamptonshire constituency crossing the unitary authority boundary; include the entire Finedon ward and part of a split Irthlingborough ward in the proposed Wellingborough constituency; include the remaining part of the Irthlingborough ward in a Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency that would also retain Raunds; and split the Thrapston ward between the proposed Corby and East Northamptonshire, and Kettering constituencies. The Assistant Commissioners considered this proposal, but believed that it did not better reflect the statutory factors, specifically in relation to community ties, when compared to the initial proposals for the Irchester ward. Therefore, they did not recommend this proposal.
3.79 The electorates of the existing Northampton North and Northampton South constituencies are below the permitted electorate range. Therefore, we proposed to expand both constituencies southwards, covering the entirety of the area of the former Northampton Borough Council.
3.80 The initial proposals for the proposed Northampton North and Northampton South constituencies were supported by the Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) and the Green Party (BCE‑97544). The initial proposals were also supported by Michael Ellis, MP for Northampton North (BCE‑66867 and BCE‑97500) who argued that the A45 acts as a good boundary for the constituency, for example ‘residents living in Billing will often remain north of the A45 for their services such as schools and shops’. Councillor Michael Hallam (BCE‑97510) spoke at the Northampton public hearing and argued that the proposed Northampton North constituency has strong community ties, with the Weston Favell Shopping Centre acting as a community hub for the Billing and Rectory Farm, and Riverside Park wards.
3.81 Conversely, we received a counter-proposal from the Labour Party (BCE‑79476, BCE‑95649 and BCE‑97545) that proposed an alternative arrangement for the Northampton North and Northampton South constituencies. They proposed the Abington and Phippsville, Castle, and Dallington Spencer wards be included in a Northampton North constituency and the Billing and Rectory Farm, and Riverside Park wards in a Northampton South constituency, on the grounds that this configuration would more closely reflect the existing constituencies (BCE‑79476). The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542) proposed almost exactly the same configuration as the Labour Party, adding only a single polling district from the Hackleton and Grange Park ward to the Northampton South constituency.
3.82 We received numerous representations supporting the arguments put forward in the Labour Party counter-proposal. BCE‑80291 outlined the community ties between the Abington and Phippsville ward and the Kingsthorpe area of Northampton North, stating that residents of the ward shop and use leisure facilities in Kingsthorpe; similar arguments were made by BCE‑83291. During the public hearings, numerous attendees gave evidence on the connections between Abington and Phippsville, Castle, and Dallington Spencer wards and the existing Northampton North constituency. Councillor Danielle Stone (BCE‑97504) and Mike Reader (BCE‑97509) commented on the community ties between these areas through religious and community groups that operate throughout the urban core of Northampton, centred in and to the north of the Castle ward. Councillor Zoe Smith (BCE‑97507) demonstrated the strength of community ties between the Abington and Phippsville, and Headlands wards, which are both currently included in the existing Northampton North constituency.
3.83 The Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence and counter-proposals submitted for the Northampton North and Northampton South constituencies. When visiting the area they observed that the wards mentioned in the previous paragraph shared strong community ties, and that the Labour counter-proposal created a clear boundary between Northampton North and Northampton South. They were persuaded by the evidence in favour of reverting to an arrangement that more closely resembled the current constituencies, and therefore recommended the changes set out in the Labour Party’s counter-proposal. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and believe that the evidence in favour of uniting the urban core of Northampton in the Northampton North constituency has merit. Therefore, we propose a revision of our initial proposals, such that the Abington and Phippsville, Castle, and Dallington Spencer wards would be included in a Northampton North constituency, and the Billing and Rectory Farm, and Riverside Park wards in a Northampton South constituency.
3.84 The electorate of the existing Daventry and South Northamptonshire constituencies are both above the permitted electorate range. We proposed that the Silverstone ward be split between these two constituencies, and that the Irchester ward be split between the proposed South Northamptonshire, and Wellingborough and Raunds constituencies. The proposed Daventry constituency was also extended eastwards to include entirety of the Earls Barton ward. Both the proposed Daventry and South Northamptonshire constituencies would cross the boundary between the two unitary authorities in Northamptonshire.
3.85 We received some counter-proposals that argued it was unnecessary to have two constituencies crossing the unitary authority boundary. BCE‑52555 and BCE‑56943 both proposed only one constituency to cross the unitary authority boundary: the former including part of a split Earls Barton ward and the entirety of the Irchester ward in a South Northamptonshire constituency; and the latter including the southern part of the split Irchester ward with Earls Barton in a Daventry constituency.
3.86 We received some opposition to our initial proposals for the proposed Daventry constituency, with the majority of the representations opposed to the inclusion of the Earls Barton ward. Kenneth Jones (BCE‑91142), BCE‑52249 and BCE‑83496 all argued that the distance between Daventry and Earls Barton ward is too great and the area shares closer links with Northampton or Wellingborough. BCE‑83496 states ‘The close proximity of our village to decision makers impacting on our daily lives is important as we can communicate better about local issues with an MP like Peter Bone, than with an MP who is 43 miles away and based in a town with which our village have no business what so ever’, which highlighted the concerns about a lack of community ties within this proposed constituency.
3.87 We also received substantial opposition to including part of the split Irchester ward in a South Northamptonshire constituency. The Bozeat Parish Council (BCE‑73436 and BCE‑96677) opposed our initial proposals, on the grounds that Bozeat is separated from the rest of the constituency by Yardley Chase and Salcey Forest, historic hunting grounds, which makes access very difficult, especially by public transport. They state that the A509 acts as the major transport route for Bozeat, connecting it to Milton Keynes, Olney and Wellingborough for culture, community and work; these sentiments were also highlighted to the Assistant Commissioners during the Northampton public hearing (BCE‑97503). This lack of connection is also highlighted in representations from residents of Bozeat, for example ‘The connections of our villages are all made along the A509 which was the coaching road to London. Historically, Yardley Chase and Salcey Forest were hunting grounds and so crossings were prevented. This has fed down into the modern road network and has largely isolated our villages from the rest of the South Northamptonshire constituency and instead made Wellingborough our natural urban and cultural centre’ (BCE‑79196). Both the Bozeat Parish Council and BCE‑79196 stated that if we are unable to include Bozeat in a constituency with Wellingborough, we should look to include it within a constituency with Newport Pagnell in the South East region.
3.88 Splitting the Irchester ward and including the southern part in a South Northamptonshire constituency was also opposed by the Green Party (BCE‑97544); however, they did not propose a specific alternative. The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80959, BCE‑94369 and BCE‑97542) proposed keeping the whole of the Irchester ward in one constituency (their proposed Rushden and Towcester), but this would still separate Bozeat from Wellingborough. The Conservative Party (BCE‑85837, BCE‑96664 and BCE‑97543) and the Labour Party (BCE‑79476, BCE‑95649 and BCE‑97545) supported our initial proposals.
3.89 We acknowledge the evidence that community ties between Wellingborough and Bozeat would be broken by the initial proposals; however, we agree with the Assistant Commissioners that no counter-proposal that returns the entirety of the Irchester ward to a Wellingborough constituency provides a persuasive pattern of constituencies for the county as a whole. We note that such alternatives either include additional county crossings (Jonathan Stansby – BCE‑87423, BCE‑55438, and BCE‑79456) or disrupt the existing constituencies to an unnecessary degree (John Bryant – BCE‑94367, and BCE‑94201). While noting the proposal of including Bozeat within a constituency with Newport Pagnell, we do not feel that the case in favour of this is sufficiently compelling for us to depart from our policy of respecting regional boundaries. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners that the Daventry, and South Northamptonshire constituencies are retained unchanged from the initial proposals.
3.90 The electorate of the existing Kettering constituency is within the permitted electorate range, but we did not propose an unchanged constituency, as the existing Corby and Wellingborough constituencies are both above the permitted electorate range. We proposed that the Finedon ward be split between the Kettering, and the proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituencies. We also proposed splitting the Irchester ward between the South Northamptonshire, and Wellingborough and Raunds constituencies, as mentioned above. The proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituency would also be extended eastwards to include the Raunds ward.
3.91 We received significant opposition to all three of these proposed constituencies. The major theme of the opposition concerned which parts of the area surrounding Wellingborough should or should not be included in the Wellingborough constituency. As previously mentioned we received opposition to excluding the Earls Barton ward and part of the Irchester ward. Similarly, we received opposition to including part of the Finedon ward in our proposed Kettering constituency. Gill Mercer (BCE‑92191 and BCE‑97516) and Wellingborough Town Council (BCE‑84203) opposed the initial proposals, on the basis that they would break long-standing historical links between Finedon and Wellingborough. They also outlined how the proposed boundary would cut through the new Stanton Cross development, which is a significant urban extension of Wellingborough connecting the town with both Finedon and Irthlingborough.
3.92 Wellingborough Town Council (BCE‑84203) also provided evidence of community ties between Irthlingborough and Wellingborough, particularly the Rushden Lakes area – this was also highlighted by Gill Mercer and Andy Mercer (BCE‑92191, BCE‑97516 and BCE‑97517). BCE‑57232, a resident from Irthlingborough, stated that Irthlingborough is remote from Corby, with no direct public transport links and the closest community amenities being located at Rushden Lakes. The strength of these transport connections is outlined in BCE‑69602, for example ‘via the A6/A45 to the East or the B571 and Ditchford Lane’ to Rushden or ‘with direct access only a few miles on the B571 road’ to Wellingborough, passing through the Stanton Cross development.
3.93 We also received opposition to including the Raunds ward in our proposed Wellingborough and Raunds constituency. Councillor Cameron Clarke (BCE‑64100) outlined how Raunds and Stanwick have community ties to Thrapston and Oundle, part of the former East Northamptonshire local authority. These community ties were also highlighted by Hargrave Parish Council (BCE‑64787), who argued ‘Hargrave as a rural parish has more similarities with Corby and the East Northamptonshire area than the conurbations of Wellingborough and Rushden/Higham Ferrers’. Raunds Town Council (BCE‑63311) also argued that Raunds has no geographic, historic or social connections to Wellingborough, with the A6 acting as a natural boundary.
3.94 We received a counter-proposal for these constituencies submitted by the Conservative Party (BCE‑85837) and as a joint submission (BCE‑73119) from Peter Bone (MP for Wellingborough), Philip Hollobone (MP for Kettering), and Tom Pursglove (MP for Corby). This proposal would retain the entirety of the Finedon ward in a Wellingborough and Rushden constituency along with part of the Irthlingborough ward, using the A6 as the boundary with a proposed Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency. Under this configuration, the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency would include the Raunds ward and the remaining rural polling districts of the Irthlingborough ward to the north east of the A6. Consequently, to ensure the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency is within the permitted electorate range, the Corby Rural ward would be split, including the parts containing Cottingham, East Carlton, and Middleton to the north west of Corby, and Little Stanion, and Stanion to the south of Corby, in the Kettering constituency. An identical proposal was submitted by the North Northamptonshire Council (BCE‑74691) and by various individual representations, for example Gill Mercer (BCE‑92191 and BCE‑97516).
3.95 During our secondary consultation period we did receive some opposition to this proposal; particularly focused on the division of the Corby Rural ward. Chris Stanbra (BCE‑94793 and BCE‑97512) argued that the villages proposed to be included in a Kettering constituency all ‘look to Corby for facilities, shopping, leisure and services’ and are geographically linked to the town. Martyn Reuby (BCE‑97514) also opposed the Conservative Party counter-proposal, commenting during the Northampton public hearing on the strength of community ties between Cottingham and Corby. The Conservative Party counter-proposal was also opposed by the Labour Party (BCE‑95649), and Liberal Democrats (BCE‑94369).
3.96 The Assistant Commissioners felt that there was considerable evidence to include the Finedon and Irthlingborough communities within Wellingborough, and the Raunds ward with Corby and East Northamptonshire. When visiting the area, the Assistant Commissioners noted that the Finedon ward had very strong community ties with Wellingborough, with the Stanton Cross development divided by the initial proposals. They also acknowledged that the A6 provides a clear boundary separating Irthlingborough itself from the more rural parts of the Irthlingborough ward, and that the town is closely tied to Wellingborough. The Assistant Commissioners noted that to facilitate these changes, the Corby Rural ward would also need to be split. While acknowledging that this ward clearly has strong community ties with Corby, they considered that Middleton, Cottingham and Stanion, the parishes proposed to be included in the Kettering constituency, were of a consistent character with other rural villages in the adjacent Desborough, Rothwell and Mawsley, and Ise wards. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners recommended adopting the Conservative Party counter-proposal for the Corby and East Northamptonshire, Kettering, and Wellingborough constituencies.
3.97 We agree with the judgement reached by the Assistant Commissioners, including their recommendation that the existing Wellingborough name is sufficiently descriptive, as opposed to the Wellingborough and Rushden proposed by the Conservative Party. Therefore, we propose: a Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency to include the Raunds ward and six polling districts (RA, RB, RR, SG, SZ, and UQ) from the Irthlingborough ward north of the A6; a Kettering constituency to include six polling districts (CRWB, CRWC, CRWD, CRWE, CSCB and CSCC) from the Corby Rural ward; and a Wellingborough constituency to include the whole of the Finedon ward and the remaining two polling districts (SD and SF), covering Irthlingborough itself, from the Irthlingborough ward.
Back to topNottinghamshire
3.98 Of the 11 existing constituencies in Nottinghamshire, three are within the permitted electorate range, two fall below, and six are above. The Nottinghamshire sub region was allocated 11 constituencies, the same as at present. In formulating the initial proposals, we noted that the City of Nottingham unitary authority had a mathematical entitlement of 2.90 constituencies and the Nottinghamshire County Council area had a mathematical entitlement of 8.32 constituencies. As in the Leicestershire sub region, we decided that a hard boundary between city and county would artificially restrict our ability to reflect the other statutory factors. Therefore, we decided to propose a constituency that included part of the Broxtowe local authority with City of Nottingham wards.
3.99 The electorate of the existing Gedling and Newark constituencies are within the permitted electorate range; however, we proposed changes to both, as the neighbouring constituencies are above the permitted electorate range. We proposed the Gedling constituency to include the Dumbles ward, and the Newark constituency to expand northwards to include the Bassetlaw local authority wards of Clayworth and Sturton. We proposed the Rushcliffe constituency to be unchanged apart from minor realignment with new ward boundaries. We also proposed to rename the Bassetlaw constituency to Worksop and Retford, to reflect the main population centres, and that a substantial minority of the Bassetlaw local authority is no longer included in the constituency.
3.100 The initial proposals for the Rushcliffe constituency drew little comment, reflecting the minimal change to the boundaries of the constituency. Although we received a small number of objections from the areas removed from this constituency as a consequence of changes to local government boundaries, we agree with the Assistant Commissioners that no persuasive evidence to depart from the initial proposals has been presented. Therefore, we propose no change to the initial proposals for Rushcliffe.
3.101 We received some opposition to our initial proposals for the Gedling constituency. BCE 72832 and BCE 91314 both argued that there is a lack of community ties and disparities in the requirements between the rural areas of Lambley and Woodborough, and the urban area of Gedling. We received one counter-proposal (BCE 56943) that sought to include the Dumbles ward within a Sherwood constituency, but this was not possible without widespread disruption to the constituencies in Nottinghamshire. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to the initial proposals for the Gedling constituency, and we agree.
3.102 We also received some opposition to our proposed Newark constituency on the grounds of breaking community ties to the north and the south. The West Stockwith Parish Council (BCE 79448), Ruth Edwards (BCE 85224), and Daniel Henderson (BCE 88542) all argued that the Clayworth and Sturton wards have very few community ties with Newark and look towards Retford and Worksop as their principal towns. Alan Harvey (BCE 86809) and BCE 86745 outlined similar issues to the south of the proposed Newark constituency; they argued that Bingham and the surrounding villages share service provision and community ties to the west with the rest of the Rushcliffe local authority.
3.103 We received one counter-proposal (BCE 55438) that would retain the Clayworth ward in a proposed Bassetlaw constituency, and include Bingham in an alternative Newark constituency that would extend further south into the Rushcliffe local authority to include Keyworth and Radcliffe on Trent. This would, however, be achieved through alterations to eight other proposed constituencies in Nottinghamshire, including two constituencies crossing the City of Nottingham unitary authority boundary, and one constituency comprising wards from four local authorities.
3.104 We also received a more localised counter-proposal for the Newark, and Worksop and Retford constituencies. BCE 81811 proposed including the Beckingham ward in a Newark constituency and the Clayworth ward in a Bassetlaw constituency. This counter-proposal argued that the Beckingham ward has more in common with Newark than the Clayworth ward, due to the economic and transport connections from the River Trent.
3.105 The Assistant Commissioners considered the counter-proposals and evidence outlining the different community ties in the Newark constituency. They noted that the arrangements proposed in BCE 55438 would be very disruptive to the existing constituencies and local authority boundaries throughout Nottinghamshire, and that including the Beckingham ward in Newark (as in BCE 81811) would leave the Misterton ward almost completely detached from the rest of the Bassetlaw constituency. Their view was that the initial proposals reflect the statutory factors better than any counter-proposal received. They therefore recommended no changes to the initially proposed Newark constituency, and we agree.
3.106 Our initial proposals for the boundaries of the Worksop and Retford constituency were largely supported, apart from some opposition to including more wards from the Bassetlaw local authority in a Newark constituency; however, we received a significant number of representations opposing the name of Worksop and Retford. The MP for Bassetlaw, Brendan Clarke-Smith (BCE 85855), opposed the change of name and argued that the name Bassetlaw should be retained. Chris Ball (BCE 63702) and BCE 63830 both argued that Bassetlaw is a significant historical name that has existed for 130 years and that it ‘encompasses the whole area’. BCE 55805 and BCE 87251 also expressed how the name covers all the communities within this constituency and does not exclude the smaller rural villages, as could be the case for Worksop and Retford. The four qualifying political parties all supported retention of the name Bassetlaw. Considering the evidence, the Assistant Commissioners recommended retaining the constituency name Bassetlaw. In light of the strong local support for retention of the Bassetlaw constituency name, we accept this recommendation.
3.107 As previously mentioned, we proposed one constituency that would cross the City of Nottingham unitary authority boundary at initial proposals to aid the development of constituencies in Nottinghamshire. We proposed a Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency that would include the Broxtowe wards of Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West. Our proposed Broxtowe constituency would consequently expand northwards to include Eastwood, and all the remaining Broxtowe local authority wards. The proposed inclusion of the Eastwood area in a Broxtowe constituency received general support.
3.108 We received a mixture of representations expressing support and opposition to our proposal to cross the City of Nottingham boundary. During the first consultation we received substantial opposition from the Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West wards. Councillor Jill Owen (BCE 58544) and BCE 52733 argued that the Broxtowe wards contain established parish councils and there is a great difference between these communities and the City of Nottingham. Councillor Philip Owen (BCE 57923) also highlighted these differences: ‘There is a clear demarcation, not only physically between these two communities and the City but, also in outlook’. The Greasley Parish Council (BCE 68861) and Nuthall Parish Council (BCE 63889) argued that the green belt provides the rural nature of the area and separates it from Nottingham. Glynn Lowth (BCE 70110) also outlined how the M1 acts as a significant boundary drawing the focus of residents away from the city and towards Eastwood.
3.109 Broxtowe Borough Council (BCE 72949) supported our initial proposals during the first consultation and outlined that Beeston, Kimberley, and Nuthall are distinct communities with defined boundaries. They considered alternatives to the initial proposals, but deemed it was preferable for entire communities to be included in the same constituency. BCE 65952 also supported the initial proposals and argued that there is a geographical, educational, employment, and cultural connection between Kimberley and Nuthall, and Nottingham.
3.110 We did receive some alternative proposals for the location of the City of Nottingham crossing. The Conservative Party (BCE 85837) proposed that the Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West wards should be retained in a Broxtowe constituency, instead including the Beeston Central, Beeston North and Beeston Rylands wards in a Nottingham South constituency. This proposal gained widespread support from residents of Kimberley, Nuthall, and Watnall, for example BCE 69932. Darren Henry, MP for Broxtowe (BCE 71122), and local Conservative Party groups (BCE 73926 and BCE 76223) also made submissions on this topic; these representations argued that Beeston has much more connection to Nottingham through education, employment and transport. BCE 81173 also argued there are strong community ties between Beeston and Nottingham, again focusing on education and employment connections.
3.111 Andrew Mansfield (BCE 93005 and BCE 95825) proposed that the Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West wards should be retained in a Broxtowe constituency, instead including the Beeston North and Bramcote wards into a Nottingham based constituency; however, the counter-proposal did not specify which constituency these two wards should be included in.
3.112 Finally, counter-proposal BCE 58332 proposed retaining the Kimberley ward in a Broxtowe constituency through retaining the Brinsley ward in an Ashfield constituency, and a second constituency crossing the city boundary, with Nottingham North including the Bestwood St. Albans ward. The aim of the counter-proposal was to retain Kimberley in a county-based constituency and align the Bestwood St. Albans ward with areas it shares community ties with.
3.113 During the second consultation, we received a substantial number of representations in support of the initial proposals, mainly from residents in Beeston who opposed the Conservative Party counter-proposal. Jane Marshall (BCE 97037) highlighted that the Conservative Party counter-proposal would split the Beeston town centre between constituencies. BCE 89228 argued that ‘Beeston is a very cohesive and engaged local community with a very proud and clear community identity.’ Graham Hickman (BCE 93924) supported these sentiments, arguing ‘This would impose an artificial, unnecessary and harmful division on the community. Woodside road and university boulevard are natural boundaries between Broxtowe and the city and should be used as such.’
3.114 We did also receive further opposition to our initial proposals during the secondary consultation. Councillor Robert Flatley (BCE 97008) and Kashmir Purewal (BCE 97026) spoke at the Nottingham public hearing and gave evidence on the community ties between Beeston and Nottingham, focusing on the university for education and Boots as an employer. Kashmir Purewal also outlined that the M1 creates a significant boundary between the Kimberley, Nuthall East & Strelley, and Watnall & Nuthall West wards, and Nottingham. Bradley Bell (BCE 97041) highlighted the strength of the transport links, via the trams and buses, connecting Beeston and Nottingham and how this creates strong community ties between the two.
3.115 The initial proposals for Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley were supported by the Labour Party (BCE 79476, BCE 95649 and BCE 97545) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE 80959, BCE 94369 and BCE 97542). The Green Party (BCE 97544) expressed the view that the Commission should look further into this issue, but acknowledged that there might be no simple solution.
3.116 The electorate of the existing Nottingham East is below the permitted range; we proposed expanding the constituency to include the entirety of the Castle ward and to make minor changes to realign with new local government wards. The Nottingham South constituency was expanded further north to include the Bilborough ward. We received general support for both constituencies, including from Lillian Greenwood, MP for Nottingham South (BCE 94463 and BCE 96991), who outlined the community ties within the proposed Nottingham South constituency.
3.117 The Assistant Commissioners considered all the evidence and counter-proposals, noting in particular that the Conservative Party counter-proposal had attracted substantial support, but also an even larger amount of opposition. The Assistant Commissioners visited the area and noted that there are good road connections between Beeston and the City of Nottingham, but there was also a substantial clear separation, due to the University of Nottingham campus and Highfields Park. Furthermore, they noted that the proposed constituency boundary would run along the pedestrianised high street and the wider town centre of Beeston, dividing it between two constituencies, as outlined in the representations. When also visiting the Kimberley, Nuthall, and Watnall areas the Assistant Commissioners observed that the M1 forms a significant boundary with Nottingham; however, the Assistant Commissioners felt that while this configuration combines these areas with the City, with which there are not strong local ties, it would be preferable to the counter-proposal, which would entail dividing an area where community ties are present. The Assistant Commissioners considered that it would be more detrimental to split a community between two constituencies than combine in one constituency two distinct areas without strong links to each other. Accordingly, they did not recommend any changes to the initial proposals for the Broxtowe, and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituencies. Acknowledging the broad support for both constituencies, they also recommended no change to the Nottingham East, and Nottingham South constituencies.
3.118 We agree with the Assistant Commissioners and are not proposing changes to the initial proposals for the Broxtowe, Nottingham East, Nottingham North and Kimberley, and Nottingham South constituencies. While we acknowledge that there may be weak community ties within the Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency, we were particularly persuaded by the arguments made to prevent the alternative of a division of Beeston, as it is a single unified community.
3.119 The existing Mansfield constituency is slightly above the permitted electorate range, with an electorate of 77,409, meaning some electors need to be transferred out of Mansfield constituency. Conversely, as the changes to the existing Broxtowe constituency would align it to its northern local authority boundary, the partly reconfigured Ashfield constituency required an increase in electorate to meet the permitted range. The proposed Bassetlaw and Sherwood constituencies only required minimal change. Therefore, we decided to propose an Ashfield constituency that would include two wards (Brick Kiln and Grange Farm) from the Mansfield local authority. We decided to include these wards as they are centred on two clear and direct road links connecting Mansfield to Sutton-in-Ashfield: the A38 (Sutton Road) and the B6014 (Skegby Lane). We acknowledged these proposals would divide the Mansfield community and we actively sought views in our initial proposals report on whether there was any better alternative approach.
3.120 We received a significant number of representations expressing opposition to our proposals to include the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards in an Ashfield constituency. Ben Bradley, MP for Mansfield (BCE 97001), outlined the general opposition his constituents had expressed to our initial proposals. A key theme in the representations was opposition to the division of communities we had ourselves identified. Specifically, residents commented that these wards form part of the wider Ladybrook Estate, which has a strong local identity and extends into the centre of Mansfield. These respondents argued that the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards ‘constitute a very major and integral part of the Town of Mansfield’ (BCE 85930) and have ‘no affinity towards Sutton (Ashfield)’ (BCE 92291). Representations also outline the division between these wards and the Ashfield local authority, for example one respondent (BCE 77363) said ‘A bird’s eye view of the urban areas of Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield reveals a clear natural border which ought to form the parliamentary boundary between Mansfield and Ashfield. This is the main road known locally as the Mansfield and Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR), specifically the Beck Lane, Kings Mill Road East, and Sherwood Way South sections. The proposal of putting Grange Farm ward area and Brick Kiln ward area on the Ashfield side of the border would completely disrupt the natural border of the two towns.’
3.121 We received alternative proposals for our proposed Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies. Andy Abrahams, the Executive Mayor of Mansfield (BCE 97431), Mansfield District Council (BCE 81832) and various other responses argued that the initial proposals would separate well established communities in Mansfield, which are disconnected from Ashfield by the A38, the Kings Mill Hospital complex, Kings Mill Reservoir, and areas of agricultural land. They proposed instead that the Brick Kiln, and Grange Farm wards should be retained in Mansfield and either part of the Ransom Wood ward or the village of Pleasley Hill be removed from the Mansfield constituency. During the secondary consultation period Mansfield District Council (BCE 96668) submitted an amended counter-proposal that continued to support their general initial proposal, but also proposed that the Lindhurst development to the southern end of the Berry Hill ward could be transferred to the Ashfield constituency. They argued that this very recent development is its own distinct community that has not yet formed close connections with the Mansfield constituency.
3.122 Councillor Jason Zadrozny, the Leader of Ashfield District Council (BCE 97033) and Ashfield District Council (BCE 75735 and BCE 81737) submitted a counter-proposal during the first consultation period that retained the Brick Kiln, and Grange Farm wards in a Mansfield constituency. They proposed instead that one polling district of the Ransom Wood ward be included in a Sherwood constituency. They argued that the proposal would ensure the entirety of Rainworth is within one Parliamentary constituency, as the village is currently divided between the Newark and Sherwood, and Mansfield local authorities. Although this would decrease the Mansfield constituency electorate sufficiently to bring it within the permitted range, this alone would leave the Ashfield constituency too small, so they also proposed including the Hucknall West ward in an Ashfield constituency. They argued that the A611 – which follows the majority of the boundary between the Hucknall West ward and the remaining three Hucknall wards – is a natural and strong boundary. During the secondary consultation period, Councillor Zadrozny submitted a supplementary representation (BCE 95699), supporting the same counter-proposal as Mansfield District Council outlined above.
3.123 Councillor June Stendall (BCE 72853 and BCE 97031), a district councillor for the Grange Farm ward, also proposed multiple alternatives for the Mansfield constituency. Councillor Stendall argued that the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards have strong community ties with Mansfield and are separated from Ashfield by the Sutton Reservoir, Kings Mill Hospital, industrial complexes, railway line, and the A38. Similar to the response of Ashfield District Council, Councillor Stendall proposed including parts of the Ransom Wood ward in a Sherwood constituency and in turn either the Hucknall West ward – or part of the Newstead Abbey ward around Newstead Village – into an Ashfield constituency. This representation contained further alternatives, such as transferring parts of the Berry Hill, Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill, or Penniment wards, into an Ashfield constituency. Councillor Stendall also submitted a supplementary representation during the secondary consultation (BCE 93955), putting forward a number of alternatives, again including the same counter-proposal as Mansfield District Council. Regarding this proposal, Councillor Stendall argued for a lack of community ties between the Lindhurst development and the Mansfield constituency, and highlighted that this option would result in no knock-on impacts for the neighbouring Sherwood constituency.
3.124 The four qualifying political parties all supported our initial proposals for the Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies. The Labour Party (BCE 79476 and BCE 95649) expressed regret for the end of a coterminous Mansfield constituency, and sympathised with representations objecting to the transfer of the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards. The Liberal Democrats (BCE 80959 and BCE 94369) similarly disliked the proposed Ashfield constituency, but accepted it as ‘the least worst choice’. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, however, opposed the counter-proposal, proposing instead to include part of the Ransom Wood ward in a Sherwood constituency, and Hucknall West in an Ashfield constituency.
3.125 Mark Spencer, MP for Sherwood (BCE 81132 and BCE 97469), opposed the counter-proposals that would divide Hucknall West from the other three Hucknall wards, arguing that it would create confusion for residents and see the town split in two. Councillor Lauren Mitchell (BCE 85320) submitted a petition opposing the division of Hucknall named ‘Keep Hucknall Together’, which attracted over 400 signatories.
3.126 Our initial proposals for the Sherwood constituency – which only proposed minor changes to expand it eastwards to include the villages of Lowdham and Thurgarton – were largely uncontentious, and we received very few representations on this composition. We did, however, receive a number of representations wishing the name of the constituency to be Sherwood Forest, for example Mark Spencer MP argued that there was confusion with the existing name of Sherwood, as it is also the name of a City of Nottingham council ward. Respondents also argued that the constituency comprises wards from the Ashfield and Gedling local authorities, with the majority of electors actually located outside the Newark and Sherwood local authority. They proposed the name Sherwood Forest would ‘reflect the immense history and heritage of the area’ (BCE 81132). The Conservative Party (BCE 85837, BCE 96664 and BCE 97543) and Green Party (BCE 97544) supported the name Sherwood Forest.
3.127 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the initial proposals for Ashfield and Mansfield received the largest number of critical representations in Nottinghamshire. They considered the counter-proposals and noted particularly that any alternative that does not directly transfer electors from the Mansfield constituency to Ashfield would result in disruption to other proposed constituencies in Nottinghamshire, which had been generally well received. They noted that the first counter-proposal from Councillor Jason Zadrozny, Councillor June Stendall, and Ashfield District Council would divide the community of Hucknall, and include parts of four local authorities in a Sherwood constituency, including an orphan polling district. They considered this would not better reflect the statutory factors relative to the initial proposals, noting opposition from residents of the Hucknall West ward, and therefore did not recommend this approach.
3.128 In considering the second counter-proposal from Mayor Andy Abrahams, Councillor Jason Zadrozny, Councillor June Stendall, Ashfield District Council, and Mansfield District Council the Assistant Commissioners visited the area and were persuaded that the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards were intrinsic parts of the Mansfield community, stretching into the urban centre. They noted that these wards are particularly connected to the neighbouring Ladybrook and Penniment wards that collectively make up the Ladybrook Estate. During this visit, the Assistant Commissioners noted the Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm ward was more rural in character and did not extend into the centre of Mansfield. They also noted that the part of the Berry Hill ward that is proposed to be included in the Ashfield constituency is a new housing estate, as yet without direct road links to the rest of the ward. The Assistant Commissioners considered whether an entire ward could be transferred into the Ashfield constituency, but believed this would cause similar issues to the initial proposals, as the Berry Hill and Oakham wards both extend towards the centre of Mansfield, and the Penniment ward forms part of the wider Ladybrook Estate. Therefore, they recommended adopting the counter-proposal to include the Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm ward and the Lindhurst development of the Berry Hill ward (polling district BHC) in the Ashfield constituency, returning Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards to the Mansfield constituency. The Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the boundary of the Sherwood constituency, but endorsed the request that it be named Sherwood Forest.
3.129 We agree it would be appropriate to limit the crossing of the Mansfield local authority boundary to Ashfield, in order to prevent disruption to the other constituencies in Nottinghamshire. When assessing the information presented by the Assistant Commissioners and the representations received, we considered whether alternative whole wards could be included in the Ashfield constituency. We agreed that the Penniment ward forms part of the Ladybrook Estate, and the Berry Hill, and Oakham wards extend into the centre of Mansfield in a manner similar to that of Brick Kiln and Grange Farm ward. We acknowledge that the ties of the Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm ward and the Lindhurst development are stronger with Mansfield than Ashfield, but the evidence received indicates that these ties are weaker than those of the Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards. Given that some part of the Mansfield local authority must be removed from the constituency, we feel that this option disrupts local ties the least across the district as a whole. We therefore agree to revise the proposed Ashfield and Mansfield constituencies as recommended by the Assistant Commissioners.
3.130 We agree with the recommendations by the Assistant Commissioners for the existing Sherwood constituency, proposing no changes to the boundary, but a change of name to Sherwood Forest.
Back to top10 Including the City of Derby.
11 Incorporating the new unitary authorities of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire.
12 Including the City of Nottingham.
13 Hereafter referred to as Leicestershire.