North of Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland
Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside
3.14 In our initial proposals, North Tyneside local authority would be split between three constituencies: Newcastle upon Tyne North (crossing the boundary into Newcastle upon Tyne local authority); Tynemouth; and Whitley Bay and Cramlington (crossing the boundary with the Northumberland local authority, and discussed in the Northumberland section below). In our initial proposals for the Tynemouth constituency, we would maintain the River Tyne as a boundary, but orient the constituency to face west, instead of north, recognising the strong road links to Newcastle upon Tyne. Our initially proposed Newcastle upon Tyne North would not include Callerton and Throckley ward, but instead include five wards from North Tyneside: Benton, Camperdown, Killingworth, Longbenton and Weetslade. In the remainder of Newcastle upon Tyne local authority, our initially proposed Newcastle upon Tyne East would include the relatively central Arthur’s Hill ward, to bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range. Finally, we proposed that the existing Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency be extended westwards to include the wards of Chapel, Denton & Westerhope, Kingston Park South & Newbiggin Hall, and Lemington, and the constituency be renamed Newcastle upon Tyne West, as this would better reflect the new orientation.
3.15 We received some support for our initial proposals in this sub-region, but also opposition. Both the Labour Party (BCE‑79502) and North Tyneside Constituency Labour Party (BCE‑81552) put forward counter-proposals that covered these areas. The Labour Party’s counter-proposal would minimise change to the outer west of Newcastle upon Tyne, keeping the Callerton and Throckley ward within a Newcastle upon Tyne North constituency. We received around 50 representations in Newcastle upon Tyne at the initial consultation stage that focussed on the Callerton and Throckley orphan ward9, which was included in a Hexham constituency in the initial proposals.
3.16 Over 300 respondents from the North Tyneside local authority opposed the prospective division of that local authority between three constituencies, including the fact that two of these would cross the local authority boundary: with Newcastle upon Tyne (Newcastle upon Tyne North); and with Northumberland (Whitley Bay and Cramlington). Alan Campbell, MP for Tynemouth (BCE‑97058), mentioned in his Newcastle public hearing representation that the initial proposals were ‘unnecessarily disruptive’ and were a ‘radical change’ to North Tyneside.
3.17 As mentioned above, the Labour Party counter-proposal (BCE‑79502) would keep the existing Tynemouth constituency relatively unchanged, preserving the coastal communities of Whitley Bay, Cullercoats and Tynemouth together. There was also a counter-proposal from Colin Grant (BCE‑76940) that would make a slight modification to the Labour proposal; a split of the Riverside ward at the A19 Tyne Tunnel, as he said it represents a ‘physical barrier’ that splits the communities in a ‘more natural way.’ The proposed split would move two polling districts to the west of the A19 (North Tyneside-FA and North Tyneside-FB) into a North Tyneside constituency, and leave the six polling districts east of the A19 (North Tyneside-FC, North Tyneside-FD, North Tyneside-FE, North Tyneside-FF, North Tyneside-FG, North Tyneside-FH) in a Tynemouth constituency. This ward split was endorsed by the North Tyneside Constituency Labour Party in their counter-proposal, BCE‑81552, which stated that this Riverside ward split, ‘allows you to unite the communities around North Shields while keeping the communities around Wallsend united.’ The Assistant Commissioners did note, however, that this counter-proposal would move the Cramlington East ward rather arbitrarily, from the rest of Cramlington into a North Tyneside constituency.
3.18 The Assistant Commissioners noted that Callerton and Throckley was referred to as part of the ‘Outer West of Newcastle’ community in numerous representations, including that of Catherine McKinnell, MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North (BCE‑67056), who argued that removing Callerton and Throckley from a Newcastle constituency would ‘divide these historical community ties across the Outer West of Newcastle.’ Conversely, during our secondary consultation we also received evidence supporting the initial proposals for this area, including comments made by a local councillor, Gordan Stewart (BCE‑97074) who said, ‘large numbers of children from Throckley do come up to Heddon school’ and ‘people from Heddon use Throckley on a daily basis’ for amenities. Guy Opperman, MP for Hexham (BCE‑97073), spoke at the Newcastle public hearing in support of the initial proposals for Hexham, and the inclusion of the Callerton and Throckley ward in that constituency, advocating that it ‘makes geographical sense and we think it respects the cultural and historical ties.’
3.19 We received a number of representations supporting the Labour counter-proposal, particularly as it managed to preserve the ‘Outer West’, but we also received representations opposing this counter-proposal, not least from Bedlington respondents, who – due to the consequential knock-on effects of that counter-proposal – would be included in a Hexham constituency, and felt this did not respect their ties to Blyth. The Assistant Commissioners drove from Bedlington to Hexham during their site visit to the region, and observed that anyone using main roads would need to pass through two other constituencies under the Labour Party counter-proposal, which they felt indicated that direct links between these areas are almost non-existent.
3.20 The North East region received its only petition (BCE‑85954) in the North of Tyne sub-region. This had 17 signatories, and advocated for Arthur’s Hill ward to be included in a constituency with Newcastle’s West End, rather than form part of a Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency. Hayder Qureshi (BCE‑83002) outlined how Arthur’s Hill and Elswick have ‘a strong local identity, established through a network of community and voluntary organisations that collaborate across the west end.’
3.21 The Assistant Commissioners noted a representation made by Oskar Avery (BCE‑97054), who spoke in support of the Labour counter-proposal, highlighting
its benefits in uniting Wallsend in a Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency. Mr Avery mentioned ‘very obvious contiguous communities between Wallsend, Walkergate and Walker’ where there is ‘community and commonality between those communities.’
3.22 After considering all the evidence put forward, our Assistant Commissioner recommended to us an alternative pattern of constituencies in this sub-region. They proposed to revise our initially proposed Tynemouth constituency to include one part of Colin Grant’s (BCE‑76940) counter-proposal. They considered that the split of Riverside ward would preserve local ties in the area and allow a revised Tynemouth constituency to more closely resemble its existing shape, and keep the Wallsend community together west of the A19. Furthermore, they felt it was a natural place to cross between North Tyneside and Newcastle upon Tyne East, due to the community links expressed by Mr Avery. We agree with the recommendation, and therefore propose that the two Riverside ward polling districts west of the A19 – North Tyneside-FA and North Tyneside-FB – be moved into a Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency. As the Wallsend area (part of North Tyneside) is proposed to be in a constituency with eastern parts of Newcastle upon Tyne, we also propose that this constituency be named Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.
3.23 Our Assistant Commissioners recommended that this ward split will be used in conjunction with two others across the sub-region – detailed below – to create a pattern of constituencies across the sub-region that would achieve a better overall fit with the statutory factors. This approach would allow for inclusion of the wards of Arthur’s Hill and Monument in the proposed Newcastle upon Tyne West constituency, as representations requested, which the Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended. We agree with this recommendation, and propose the constituency therefore be called Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West in our revised proposals, to better reflect the new composition.
3.24 Our considerations and decisions in respect of the remaining three constituencies covering Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside are very much concerned with the extent to which these constituencies cross the boundary with Northumberland, and are therefore covered in more detail below.
Back to topNorthumberland
3.25 The initial proposals would join Berwick and Morpeth together, reflecting the primarily north/south links, and particularly the A1. Blyth and Ashington would be included together to maintain a shared coastal community. Bedlington and Choppington would also be included in this proposed constituency, as they have good proximity and transport connections to the two larger coastal towns to the east. To avoid our Hexham constituency crossing the combined authority boundary between County Durham and Northumberland we proposed to cross the Newcastle upon Tyne local authority boundary by including the Callerton & Throckley ward, albeit as an ‘orphan ward.’ Finally, the proposed Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituency would cross the Northumberland boundary into North Tyneside.
3.26 We received a number of counter-proposals for alternative constituencies within this part of the sub-region, although the initial proposals were supported by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Representations with alternative patterns of constituencies in this sub-region were: BCE‑52056, BCE‑56954, BCE‑65492, BCE‑77677, BCE‑77985, BCE‑80474, BCE‑81039, BCE‑83196, BCE‑85699 and BCE‑86770. The Green Party put forward a counter-proposal at the Newcastle public hearing (BCE‑97038), which would modify the initial proposals slightly, splitting the Longhorsley ward to better reflect local ties. Under this counter-proposal, the Longhorsley polling districts B38LON, B44THI, W17HEP and W18MIT would join the Berwick and Morpeth constituency, and polling districts B37HAR, B39MEL, B41NET, B42NU, B43ROT and B45WAL would join Hexham: the villages of Eshott, Longhorsley and Thirston would be included in Berwick and Morpeth. As noted above, the Labour Party counter-proposal (BCE‑79502) argued for more significant changes to the initial proposals across the sub-region, saying that this would better reflect the local communities in the sub-region.
3.27 By far the most contentious issue in the North East region was the initially proposed Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituency, receiving over 200 representations across both consultations. Multiple representations outlined the strong coastal community links between Whitley Bay, Cullercoats and Tynemouth. When talking about Whitley Bay and Cullercoats, John Fenwick (BCE‑82766) stated that the ‘two towns share a community identity and are in walking distance, sharing many facilities.’ On site visits to the area, our Assistant Commissioners observed how Whitley Bay and Cullercoats form one contiguous community with no clear break.
3.28 The Assistant Commissioners considered that the Labour Party’s counter-proposal would have a significant ‘domino effect’ that would result in an undesirable consequence to the proposed Blyth and Ashington constituency: specifically, their proposed constituency of Hexham would include Bedlington and Choppington. This was opposed during the secondary consultation, with Councillor Wayne Daley (BCE‑91946) stating, there are ‘no direct public transport links to the Hexham area.’ Veronica Jones (BCE‑92795) also questioned the local ties between the two areas, stating rather that ‘Bedlington has traditionally linked to the south-east of Northumberland and has strong ties to Blyth.’
3.29 Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats also raised concerns at the Newcastle public hearing regarding the Labour counter-proposal, specifically with regard to Bedlington and Choppington being included in a Hexham constituency: the Conservative Party (BCE‑97034) described this approach as having ‘unnecessary splits where they break local ties’; and the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑97048) stated that Bedlington and Choppington were ‘significantly distant from Hexham with no obvious community identity or association with Hexham.’
3.30 The initially proposed Blyth and Ashington constituency was otherwise largely supported in representations. Jim Lang (BCE‑65880) praised how the initial proposals kept the towns of Ashington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Choppington, Bedlington and Blyth together, ‘as the communities share many similar characteristics.’ Furthermore, Mr Lang supported the initial proposals as they kept ‘the parishes of both Ashington and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea intact and wholly within the same constituency.’
3.31 The proposed Berwick and Morpeth constituency did divide opinions, with some residents unhappy that Longhorsley ward would be separated from the town of Morpeth. BCE‑65798 highlighted that the links across the ward are oriented north/south to Alnwick or Morpeth, with ‘all cultural, economic, medical and travel foci’ of Longhorsley being in the existing Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency. Several representations, including Anne-Marie Trevelyan, MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed (BCE‑71206), requested that the Berwick and Morpeth constituency name include the historically significant town of Alnwick. Alternatively, nine representations suggested simply naming the constituency North Northumberland. Similarly, during the consultation periods we received six representations asking for Bedlington to be included in the name of the proposed Ashington and Blyth constituency, or alternatively for the name to be simply South East Northumberland.
3.32 The Assistant Commissioners considered the Green Party’s submission that proposed a split of Longhorsley ward, and a number of representations from Eshott and Longhorsley residents who wished to be included in a constituency with Morpeth. Ultimately, however, the Assistant Commissioners felt there was not a strong enough case to recommend either moving the whole of Longhorsley ward into a constituency including Morpeth or splitting the ward. The Assistant Commissioners considered the responses in relation to the name of the Berwick and Morpeth constituency, but did not feel that there was sufficient justification to either add a third population centre to the name, or take a more generalised approach to the name. We agree with these recommendations, and therefore propose no revision to the composition or name of the Berwick and Morpeth constituency, as initially proposed.
3.33 The Assistant Commissioners then considered the initial proposals, and the Labour Party’s counter-proposals, for the rest of Northumberland, North Tyneside, and Newcastle upon Tyne. While they felt there was merit in parts of each of them, they also felt there were significant weaknesses. They considered that in the Labour Party counter-proposal, keeping Callerton and Throckley within the outer west of Newcastle was too disruptive in its consequences for Bedlington and Choppington; it was clear to see during their site visits that these areas have clear, direct transport links to Blyth, and contrastingly very limited connections to Hexham and the west.
3.34 The Assistant Commissioners therefore put forward an alternative that sought to deliver more benefits in terms of the statutory factors than either the initial proposals or the Labour Party counter-proposals. Their recommendation would respect the existing pattern of constituencies better than the initial proposals – in particular in the east, keeping Tynemouth relatively unchanged – and maintain more local ties across the sub-region. The Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations were particularly influenced by the large number of representations received in opposition to the initially proposed Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituency.
3.35 As detailed above, the Assistant Commissioners recommended a split of the Riverside ward. They deemed this ward split acceptable, as not only would it keep the Wallsend community together, but it also allowed them to address the key issue of the initially proposed Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituency, the most heavily opposed constituency across the North East region. Instead a Tynemouth constituency could be recreated that would be similar to the existing one, in particular incorporating Whitley Bay and Cullercoats.
3.36 The Assistant Commissioners did not support the remainder of the counter-proposal for the area put forward by the North Tyneside Constituency Labour Party (BCE‑81552), as the Newcastle North and Cramlington constituency in that counter-proposal would split Cramlington, transferring Cramlington East ward to Blyth and Ashington. The Assistant Commissioners instead recommended a Cramlington and Killingworth constituency, crossing the local authority boundary between North Tyneside and Northumberland further inland, where internal links appear better than in the initial proposals.
3.37 The Assistant Commissioners’ recommended Cramlington and Killingworth constituency would contain a second ward split in the sub-region. This would be a split of Newcastle upon Tyne’s Castle ward, along the Hazlerigg civil parish boundary, with the northern polling districts uniting the communities of Brunswick Village, Hazlerigg and Wideopen in the proposed constituency. The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that this constituency would, as a result, contain parts of three local authorities, but felt that this arrangement would allow for an overall pattern of constituencies in the sub-region that better reflects community ties than either the initial proposals or any of the alternatives proposed.
3.38 The final ward split in the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners for this sub-region would split Kingston Park South & Newbiggin Hall ward, using the A696 as the divide, as this appears to be a distinct physical barrier between the two communities. The polling district north of the A696 (Newcastle upon Tyne-O04) would be included in a Newcastle upon Tyne North constituency, and the remaining three polling districts south of the road (Newcastle upon Tyne-O01, Newcastle upon Tyne-O02, Newcastle upon Tyne-O03) would be included in a Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West.
3.39 Having considered the conflicting evidence received in relation to Callerton and Throckley ward, the Assistant Commissioners felt that there was no clear solution that would attract widespread support. They did not feel that the evidence to split this ward was sufficiently compelling, and a split ward here was not necessary to facilitate wider benefits for the pattern of constituencies across the sub-region as a whole. Taken together with their decision not to endorse either the Labour Party’s counter-proposal that would see Bedlington and Choppington included in the Hexham constituency, nor the Green Party’s proposal to split the Longhorsley ward, they therefore recommended no change to the initially proposed Hexham constituency.
3.40 We agree that the Labour Party counter-proposal would produce a very unsatisfactory outcome for Bedlington and Choppington, and that there was very mixed evidence on the ties of Callerton and Throckley ward. While our policy is to avoid splitting wards other than in exceptional cases, we acknowledge that in this area particularly, there are communities with very distinct local identities, but which are very geographically close to each other. This makes establishing constituency boundaries within a narrow electorate range, while both respecting local government ward boundaries and avoiding splitting any of those communities, often extremely difficult. In that light, we accept the recommendations that three ward splits are required to achieve a pattern of constituencies across the sub-region as a whole that optimally keeps communities together and avoids breaking local ties, while still meeting the permitted electorate range requirement. Accordingly, we propose: no change to our initially proposed Berwick and Morpeth, Hexham, and Blyth and Ashington10 constituencies; revisions as detailed above to the composition of our initially proposed Newcastle upon Tyne North, and Tynemouth constituencies; and revisions as detailed above to both the name and composition of what would now be Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, and Cramlington and Killingworth11 constituencies.
Back to top9 Orphan ward refers to a ward from one local authority, in a constituency where all the remaining wards are from at least one other local authority.
10 In the initial proposals, though the ward listing and reported electorates for the Blyth and Ashington, and Whitley Bay and Cramlington constituencies were accurate, there was a minor error in the indicative mapping. We apologise for any confusion caused and are grateful to those who identified the discrepancy to us. The revised proposal mapping for the relevant area – for the now-proposed constituencies of Blyth and Ashington, and Cramlington and Killingworth – has been corrected.
11 As the previous footnote.