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

3 Initial proposals for the North East region

20. The North East region comprises the unitary authorities of County Durham, Darlington, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, Redcar and Cleveland, South Tyneside, Stockton‑on‑Tees, and Sunderland.
21. The North East region currently has 29 constituencies. Of these, six are within the permitted electorate range, 21 constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit and the electorates of just two constituencies are above the 5% limit. The North East region comprises 1,952,999 electors, giving it a mathematical entitlement to 26.61 constituencies.
22. Our initial proposals for the North East region are for 27 constituencies, a reduction of two.
23. In seeking to produce 27 constituencies within the electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub‑regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authority areas together in sub-regions was based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and in achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings such as those dictated in some part by the geography of the area such as the River Tees, River Tyne, River Wear and the Pennines.
24. With the creation of three combined authorities encompassing the entire North East region, we consider the previous county boundaries less relevant and we have sought to retain constituencies within combined and unitary authority boundaries. However, where this was not possible we have sought to group local authorities together into sub-regions. The distribution of electors across the combined authorities is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies within each of these combined authorities is possible without crossing from one combined authority to another.
25. Beginning in 2014, the unitary authorities in the region have been reorganised and are now grouped into three combined authorities: North East (County Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland), North of Tyne (Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, and Northumberland), and Tees Valley (Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees). Our proposed sub-regions mirror these, with the exception of Gateshead which we chose to consider separately. It is worth noting that both Gateshead and Hartlepool can each have constituencies which are coterminous with their boundaries. None of our proposals cross a combined authority boundary.
26. Our division of the North East region into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
27. Neither County Durham nor Northumberland can be allocated a whole number of constituencies on their own. County Durham’s electorate of 393,533 gives a mathematical entitlement to 5.36 constituencies, and Northumberland’s electorate of 249,414 gives 3.40. However, combining them into a sub-region creates not only a constituency which crosses a local authority boundary between County Durham and Northumberland, but also one that crosses the boundary between the North East, and North of Tyne combined authorities. This is undesirable, given the limited nature of the road links in the area and their susceptibility to closure in the winter months due to snow. It also requires a crossing of the River Tyne, which – although there are many links across the river – has been heavily opposed at previous reviews due to the strong and distinct local community identities on opposite banks of the river.
28. Grouping Northumberland with Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside provides a mathematical entitlement to 8.13 constituencies and means we avoid having to create constituencies that cross these contentious boundaries referred to above. This grouping keeps the entire North of Tyne Combined Authority in a single sub-region.
29. With an electorate of 144,619, Gateshead is entitled to 1.97 constituencies, which permits us to propose two constituencies without crossing out of the unitary authority area, and are therefore wholly contained within their local authority boundaries.
30. Combining County Durham, South Tyneside and Sunderland into a sub-region with an electorate of 716,893 and a mathematical entitlement to 9.77 constituencies, we are able to propose ten constituencies without crossing out of the North East Combined Authority. Furthermore, this allows us to preserve Sunderland Central wholly unchanged, avoiding unnecessary disruption as its electorate is within range.
31.  The Tees Valley Combined Authority has an electorate of 494,601 and a mathematical entitlement to 6.74 constituencies. Under our proposals, the relatively recently created combined authority can be allocated seven constituencies without having to cross the combined authority boundary. However, due to the particular distribution of electorates in certain parts of the sub-region, the majority of the constituencies will have to be reconfigured to bring them within the permitted electorate range. With that being said, we noted that Hartlepool has an electorate of 71,228, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 0.97 of a constituency. It is therefore possible to propose a Hartlepool constituency that is wholly contained within its local authority boundary similar to that of Gateshead mentioned above.

Initial proposals for the Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland sub-region

32. There are currently nine constituencies in the Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland sub-region, none of which are within the permitted electorate range. With an electorate of 596,886, the sub-region is entitled to 8.13 constituencies, and has been allocated eight constituencies, a reduction of one. We consider that this change would encompass all constituencies and would have to be significant to bring them all within range. When developing our proposals we noted that, despite the large geographical extent of the region, our options would be limited, due to the physical geography of the mountain range, rivers, coast, and the national and regional boundaries that shape this part of the country.
33. The electorate of the existing Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency at 59,968 means that it must gain additional electors. We propose that the three wards making up the town of Morpeth be included in the existing Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, which better reflects its north/south links due to its proximity to the A1 road. We propose to name this constituency Berwick and Morpeth to reflect both population centres north and south. The Hexham constituency also needs to gain electors, although to avoid having a constituency that crosses the combined authority boundary between County Durham and Northumberland we have chosen to cross the Newcastle upon Tyne local authority boundary to include the Callerton & Throckley ward in our Hexham constituency, albeit as an orphan ward.⁴
34. There is a complete reconfiguration of the remainder of the sub-region, with the reduction of one constituency overall, and the creation of a Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituency that crosses the Northumberland boundary into North Tyneside. We propose a Blyth and Ashington constituency that maintains coastal ties between the two towns. The existing Tynemouth constituency is one of two constituencies in the North East region that is above the permitted electorate range, requiring us to reconfigure the constituency. Using the River Tyne as a boundary to preserve local ties north of the river, we propose a constituency facing west, recognising the strong road links towards the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. The North Tyneside constituency is the other constituency in the region that has an electorate above the permitted electorate range. We propose that the North Tyneside constituency is divided up and its wards are allocated between our proposed Tynemouth and Newcastle upon Tyne North constituencies.
35. In this configuration, Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency, with an electorate of 63,723, must gain electors to come within the permitted electorate range – which is managed in part through realigning the constituency to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries, and the addition of Arthur’s Hill ward to the west. The electorate of the existing Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency at 58,302 is the lowest in the region. In order to increase the electorate, we propose that it should be extended westwards and will include Chapel, Denton & Westerhope, Kingston Park South & Newbiggin Hall, and Lemington wards. We propose renaming the Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency to Newcastle upon Tyne West, as this reflects the geography and local ties in the area.

Initial proposals for the County Durham, South Tyneside and Sunderland sub-region

36. The County Durham, South Tyneside and Sunderland sub-region has an electorate of 716,893 and is entitled to 9.77 constituencies. We propose an allocation of ten constituencies for this sub-region, a reduction of one. Only three constituencies have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range (City of Durham, North West Durham and Sunderland Central), and the electorates of many of the remaining constituencies are significantly below the permitted electorate range (such as Easington at 61,335 and South Shields at 62,796).
37. We propose no changes to the Sunderland Central constituency, but some changes to the other nine constituencies in the sub-region. Treating Gateshead as its own sub-region including the Blaydon and Gateshead constituencies means that Jarrow, with an electorate of 65,232, in our proposed configuration will have to gain electors from the south, including the wards of Castle, Redhill and St. Anne’s from Sunderland West and the transfer of Cleadon and East Boldon ward to the South Shields constituency. We propose that Jarrow is renamed Jarrow and Sunderland West, to better reflect the new composition of the constituency. Although we appreciate this is not an ideal arrangement, we noted Jarrow’s links to Sunderland via the A19 road which runs north/south, and that this proposal presented greater advantages than the alternatives of crossing the River Tyne, or taking wards from South Shields, due to the unique local identities of the Jarrow and South Shields communities. A possible alternative option was considered for Jarrow which instead gains three Washington wards: Washington North, Washington South and Washington West. However we consider the links in this configuration were comparably weaker: for instance, the A194(M) road connecting Jarrow and Washington must cross through our proposed Gateshead constituency. Our proposed Jarrow and Sunderland West constituency allows for a relatively unchanged South Shields constituency and the retention of all the Washington wards in a single constituency.
38. In this pattern we propose that the existing Washington and Sunderland West constituency is reoriented to face south-east, gaining the wards of Sandhill, Shiney Row, Silksworth and St. Chad’s in place of the wards of Castle, Redhill and St. Anne’s. We propose that the constituency name is changed to Washington and Sunderland South West to better reflect its geography. We do acknowledge that this constituency crosses the River Wear, however we feel that it is well connected to the east via the Washington Highway (A183). Furthermore, we consider the importance of keeping the Washington wards together in order to maintain the strong local ties in the town, and we were able to achieve this while keeping a wholly unchanged Sunderland Central constituency.
39. We propose minimal change for the North Durham constituency, with the addition of the single electoral division of Burnopfield and Dipton from North West Durham to bring it within the permitted electorate range, at 73,327 electors. The remainder of North West Durham is relatively unchanged, other than to realign its boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries, the result of which is a constituency with an electorate of 70,300. Our proposed City of Durham constituency is extended into the Borough of Sunderland as far as Houghton‑le‑Spring, which has good connections to Durham via the A690 road.
40. The existing Easington constituency is considerably below the permitted electorate range at 61,335; its constricted position on the coast between Sunderland to the north and a coterminous Hartlepool constituency to the south limits our options. We propose to extend the constituency slightly westwards, and also include Doxford ward as an orphan ward from the Borough of Sunderland. We also propose changing the constituency name from Easington to Seaham and Peterlee as this better reflects both main population centres.
41. We propose the constituencies of Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield include wards from the City of Durham to bring them into the permitted electorate range. Our Bishop Auckland constituency will include the Brandon ward, and the Sedgefield constituency will include the Coxhoe ward. In this pattern, Sedgefield avoids crossing the local authority boundary from County Durham into the Tees Valley Combined Authority, as it does currently. We propose that the existing Sedgefield constituency be renamed to Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield to better represent the main population centres of the constituency.

Initial proposals for the Gateshead sub-region

42. The metropolitan Borough of Gateshead unitary authority has a mathematical entitlement to 1.97 constituencies from an electorate of 144,619. However, in their current configuration both Blaydon and Gateshead are below the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Blaydon constituency includes the Dunston and Teams ward from Gateshead, and the Gateshead constituency includes the two eastern wards of Pelaw and Heworth, and Wardley and Leam Lane from the existing Jarrow constituency. We feel this configuration better adheres to the statutory factors, as both resulting constituencies will be wholly contained within the boundary of Gateshead.

Initial proposals for the Tees Valley sub-region

43. The Tees Valley Combined Authority has an electorate of 494,601, giving a mathematical entitlement to 6.74 constituencies. Therefore we concluded that the Tees Valley sub-region can be allocated seven constituencies, the same as currently. However, in its current configuration only three constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, (Hartlepool, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and Stockton South) and we were only able to maintain one existing constituency wholly unchanged in our proposals. As Darlington has a current electorate of 66,729, we propose adding a single ward from its rural hinterland in the west, Heighington & Coniscliffe ward, to bring it within the permitted electorate range, extending the Darlington constituency to the boundary with County Durham.
44. The existing Stockton South constituency is just within the permitted electorate range at 77,001. However, as a result of changes elsewhere in Tees Valley there needs to be a considerable degree of change to the existing Stockton South constituency. We therefore propose that Stockton South includes the rural wards of Hurworth, Sadberge & Middleton St. George, and Western Parishes, while it transfers the urban Parkfield and Oxbridge ward to Stockton North, and transfers two of the three Thornaby wards to our proposed Middlesbrough constituency, to bring it within the permitted electorate range. Under this configuration, Stockton South would be renamed as Stockton West constituency to better reflect its new orientation.
45. The Middlesbrough constituency is considerably below the permitted electorate range, at 61,630, and has the geographical boundary of the River Tees to its north, with relatively few crossing points linking it to Stockton-on-Tees. In proposing our Middlesbrough constituency we chose to avoid crossing the River Tees and instead opted to include two of the three Thornaby wards, thereby dividing the town between the Stockton West and Middlesbrough constituencies. We considered an alternative option whereby all three Thornaby wards are included in the same constituency, however this option would have the ‘domino’ effect of creating a Middlesbrough constituency which crosses the River Tees to include both Billingham and an incongruous Northern Parishes rural ward, and thereby breaking local ties between these areas and Stockton-on-Tees. On this basis, we discounted this option.
46. Forming the south-east tip of the region, the existing Redcar, and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituencies are constrained by the coast, the Yorkshire and Humber region boundary to the south and also the River Tees. At 66,423, the electorate of Redcar is too small, and we propose that it now includes additional wards (Ladgate, Marton East, and Park End & Beckfield) from the Borough of Middlesbrough. We propose that the Redcar constituency is renamed Redcar and Eston as recognition of the enlargement of the constituency. We are also proposing that electors from the villages of Marske-by-the-Sea and New Marske (specifically the wards of Longbeck and St. Germain’s) would be included in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
47. The Hartlepool constituency is retained unchanged from the current configuration, and remains coterminous with the Borough of Hartlepool, with an electorate of 71,228 producing a mathematical entitlement to 0.97. However, we propose a change to the designation from a borough constituency to a county constituency to better represent the significant rural nature of wards such as Hart, and particularly Rural West.

4 ‘Orphan ward’ refers to a ward from one local authority, in a constituency where the remaining wards are from at least one other local authority.