North East: County Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland
3.41 Of the 13 existing constituencies in this sub-region, only three have electorates that are currently within the permitted range: City of Durham; North West Durham; and Sunderland Central. As such a large proportion of the constituencies fall below the permitted electorate range, the overall number of constituencies to which the area is entitled under the legislation fell to 12. The combination of these factors resulted in a significant amount of change being required to be made for constituencies in the area, with the initial proposals changing all but one existing constituency (Sunderland Central).
Back to topGateshead and South Tyneside
3.42 The initial proposals treated the Gateshead local authority as its own sub-region, as it was noted that it could have two constituencies wholly contained within its boundaries (Blaydon and Gateshead). The hard geographic barriers of the River Tyne and the North Sea coast, coupled with a wholly unchanged Sunderland Central to the south, and largely supported South Shields constituency (gaining only Cleadon and East Boldon ward) to the east, then resulted in a Jarrow and Sunderland West constituency that included the three Sunderland wards of Castle, Redhill and St. Anne’s.
3.43 The Conservative Party (BCE‑85491), Green Party (BCE‑75305) and Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80851) all supported the initial proposals in this area of the sub‑region, however both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats proposed changes further south in the sub-region, which will be outlined below.
3.44 The Labour Party (BCE‑79502) put forward a counter-proposal including Gateshead in a County Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland sub-region. They proposed dividing Gateshead across parts of four constituencies, and Sunderland across three, with a Blaydon and Consett constituency that would cross the County Durham and Gateshead boundary, and a Jarrow constituency that would include four Gateshead wards (two more than it has currently). Their proposed Gateshead constituency would include the centre of the city and the Whickham area, and their proposed Washington constituency would stretch from Gateshead’s Lamesley ward to Sunderland’s Redhill ward.
3.45 We received over 100 representations from the three Sunderland wards of Castle, Redhill and St. Anne’s, expressing clear opposition to being included in a Jarrow constituency. One resident from St. Anne’s ward stated in BCE‑71787, ‘there is no real connection, historically, culturally, or spiritually between my ward and Jarrow.’ The Assistant Commissioners noted that not only is St. Anne’s ward part of a different local authority, it is also separated from Jarrow by the physical barrier of the River Wear.
3.46 The Assistant Commissioners recognised that the Labour Party counter-proposal would more closely resemble the existing Jarrow constituency, which already crosses the local authority boundary between South Tyneside and Gateshead. There was, however, support for the initial proposals from respondents in the Gateshead local authority. As mentioned above, Councillor Martin Gannon (BCE‑97056) described Gateshead having a ‘distinct community with a strong sense of identity.’ Councillor Ged Morton (BCE‑81387) also supported the initial proposals, as they ‘respect the additional statutory factors such as geographical considerations, they recognise the River Tyne as an important natural boundary as well as local ties of the population.’
3.47 There was support for the Labour counter-proposal from Washington respondents, including Sharon Hodgson, MP for Washington and Sunderland West (BCE‑97051), who spoke at the Newcastle public hearing, stating in relation to the proposed inclusion of Gateshead wards with Washington that ‘Birtley has a common connection to Washington and the Sunderland West wards in the new constituency via industry, schools and GP practises’ and that ‘the A1 connects Washington, Birtley and Lamesley through historical, well established roads such as Vigo Lane in the south of the constituency to Birtley, and from Springwell village via Eighton Banks to the north of the constituency down to Birtley and Lamesley.’ Local resident, Kevin Roddy (BCE‑72525) emphasised that ‘historically Washington and the town of Birtley have always been close. They still share many education, transport, work and shopping links.’
3.48 The Assistant Commissioners noted that although the A1 appeared to form a physical barrier between Washington and the two Gateshead wards of Birtley and Lamesley, there was strong support for the two areas being included in the same constituency. Evidence from BCE‑78132 outlined the historical ties as ‘Washington families travelled to work at what was then the Royal Ordnance Factory [in Birtley] and socialised at the local pubs and clubs’.
3.49 In respect of a potential constituency pairing of Blaydon and Consett put forward in the Labour Party counter-proposal, the Assistant Commissioners visited the area on a site visit and did feel that the two towns are well connected via the A694 and did not discern a significant difference in character as they crossed between local authorities.
3.50 The Assistant Commissioners noted support for our proposed South Shields constituency gaining the Cleadon and East Boldon ward, with one respondent stating (BCE‑81178) ‘as you drive from South Shields, through Whitburn and into Cleadon, there is a seamless and very natural flow between the town and the villages.’ The representation from Angela Hamilton (BCE‑83187) corroborated this, stating, ‘Cleadon and East Boldon are inextricably linked to Whitburn to the East’ with ‘direct, frequent, fast and financially viable public transport links from Cleadon and East Boldon to South Shields town centre.’
3.51 In considering all the evidence, the Assistant Commissioners noted the support from Gateshead councillors for our initial proposal of two constituencies together coterminous with the Gateshead local authority, but concluded that this advantage was outweighed by the disadvantages in terms of the disruption of local ties, particularly in Sunderland, but also into County Durham. They therefore recommended: a South Shields constituency as initially proposed; a Jarrow constituency to include the four Gateshead wards of Felling, Pelaw and Hewort, Wardley and Leam Lane, and Windy Nook and Whitehills; a Gateshead and Whickham constituency, to include three wards around the Whickham area (Dunston Hill and Whickham East, Whickham North and Whickham South and Sunniside); a Blaydon and Consett constituency, which would pair the two towns across the Gateshead boundary with County Durham; and a Washington constituency to include the two Gateshead wards of Birtley and Lamesley. While regretting the loss of the two coterminous Gateshead constituencies, we acknowledge the wider benefits to be gained across the sub-region as a whole that this allows, and therefore agree with these recommendations.
Back to topSunderland
3.52 In our initial proposals, Sunderland Central would be wholly unchanged, but the City of Sunderland overall would be split between five constituencies. As mentioned above, the proposed Jarrow and Sunderland West constituency would include the wards of Castle, Redhill and St. Anne’s. With the loss of these wards, Washington and Sunderland South West constituency would be reconfigured, gaining instead the wards of Sandhill, Shiney Row, Silksworth and St. Chad’s. The proposed Seaham and Peterlee constituency would include Doxford as an orphan ward. Finally, our City of Durham constituency would be extended into Sunderland as far as Houghton-le-Spring.
3.53 In their counter-proposals, the Green Party (BCE‑75305), Labour Party (BCE‑79502), Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80851) and Conservative Party (BCE‑85491) all would keep Sunderland Central unchanged. As previously mentioned, the Labour Party counter-proposal would allow them to create a more cohesive Sunderland: they also proposed that the existing Houghton and Sunderland South gain one ward, St. Anne’s, to bring it within the permitted electorate range.
3.54 We received over 100 representations explaining how disruptive our initial proposals were to Sunderland, with Bridget Phillipson, MP for Houghton and Sunderland South (BCE‑82612), objecting particularly to the ‘separation of the coalfields wards – Copt Hill, Hetton, Houghton, Shiney Row – across two constituencies, given their shared history and identity.’
3.55 In respect of the proposed Seaham and Peterlee constituency, Richard Bradley (BCE‑55392) pointed out that the Doxford ‘orphan ward’ is ‘separated from the rest of the constituency geographically by the A19 and the band of farmland that circles Sunderland’ and said that their ‘community is in the city.’
3.56 Although they generally supported the Commission’s initial proposals across Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland, the Liberal Democrats put forward the slight modification of joining the former mining areas of Easington, Hetton-le-Hole, Houghton-le-Spring, Murton and Seaham, together with the Doxford Park area of Sunderland (Doxford ward), arguing that their counter-proposal ‘constitutes a more logical configuration of similar communities along the A19 to the south and south west of Sunderland, and ensuring Houghton-le-Spring, Copt Hill and Hetton are in a constituency with similar local identity and tradition as parts of the former East Durham coalfield along with Seaham, Easington and environs, rather than with the main Sunderland urban area.’
3.57 We did receive one counter-proposal from Jonathan Stansby (BCE‑58022) that suggested breaking up an otherwise wholly unchanged Sunderland Central constituency: this would solve the contentious Jarrow and Sunderland West constituency, but would retain Doxford as an ‘orphan ward’ in a Seaham and Peterlee constituency.
3.58 The Assistant Commissioners felt the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal to keep the historic mining communities together had merit, but as it did not address the highly contentious issue of Jarrow and Sunderland West, they did not feel able to endorse it. Similarly, they did not feel able to support the counter-proposal from Jonathan Stansby, given that it changed the otherwise unchanged Sunderland Central constituency that all the qualifying political parties had supported.
3.59 Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the Sunderland Central constituency as initially proposed, and endorsed the Labour Party counter-proposal to retain a Houghton and Sunderland South constituency unchanged from the existing one, other than to additionally include St. Anne’s ward. We agree with these recommendations.
Back to topCounty Durham
3.60 As mentioned above, two constituencies in the initial proposals would cross the County Durham boundary into the Sunderland local authority: City of Durham, and Seaham and Peterlee. The City of Durham constituency would include the towns of Houghton-le-Spring and Hetton-le-Hole, with Seaham and Peterlee including Doxford as an orphan ward. There would be minimal change to the North Durham constituency, with the addition of the single ward of Burnopfield and Dipton from North West Durham. The remainder of North West Durham would be relatively unchanged, other than to realign its boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. The constituencies of Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield would include wards from the existing City of Durham constituency – Brandon and Coxhoe wards respectively – to bring them into the permitted electorate range.
3.61 The Conservative Party (BCE‑85491) supported the initial proposals in most of the sub-region, but proposed splitting the Deerness ward between the constituencies of North West Durham and Bishop Auckland. Their counter-proposal would allow the towns of Willington and Crook to be kept together, respecting their close community ties.
3.62 Similarly, the City of Durham Trust (BCE‑73166) supported our initial proposals around Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland, but proposed changes in County Durham. The Trust argued against the inclusion of the three Sunderland wards in the City of Durham constituency, proposing that it should include instead the wards to the west of the city: Brandon, Deerness, and the Witton Gilbert part of the Esh and Witton Gilbert ward. In their view, this arrangement would better ‘respect the ‘flow of life’, stating that their counter-proposal ‘is balanced and reflective of the communities within it.’
3.63 The Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80851) also supported our initial proposals in the north of the sub-region, but put forward changes across County Durham in their counter-proposals. They proposed a City of Durham constituency that would include Chester-le-Street, following the A1 and A167 north. Additionally, they proposed splitting up Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield, with the former joining Bishop Auckland, and the latter being included in a coastal constituency with Peterlee. Finally, they proposed keeping the three towns of Crook, Tow Law and Willington together in their proposed North West Durham, which was an outcome supported by local residents during both consultation periods.
3.64 Under the Labour Party (BCE‑79502) counter-proposal, the City of Durham would retain the wards to the west of Durham: Brandon, Deerness, Esh and Witton Gilbert and Willington and Hunwick, but transfer the Durham South and Sherburn wards to their proposed Sedgefield and Easington constituencies, respectively.
3.65 We received over 150 representations from residents in the wards around the western edge of Durham, opposing their exclusion from the initially proposed City of Durham constituency, due to their strong connections to the city. This was expressed by Nick Rippin (BCE‑68871), who highlighted ‘services such as public transport, health and leisure are focussed on the city.’ A similar sentiment was portrayed through representations from residents of Bowburn in the Coxhoe ward, including BCE‑87517, which cites strong transport links with the city, via ‘three major bus services (56, 57 & X12) to Durham.’
3.66 The Labour Party’s counter-proposal would include the wards to the west of Durham in a City of Durham constituency, but the Assistant Commissioners noted that it would also remove the Durham South ward from the City of Durham constituency and instead include it in Sedgefield. The Assistant Commissioners observed during a site visit that this ward contains large elements of Durham University, which is an integral part of the city. Additionally, the Assistant Commissioners considered the Labour Party’s separation of Spennymoor from Tudhoe surprising, when they form a seemingly contiguous community. Multiple representations were made at the Middlesbrough public hearing, including Lyndsey Fox (BCE‑97093), which opposed Labour’s split of Spennymoor and Tudhoe, as ‘the two areas are intrinsically linked’ and ‘strongly connected’ through pubs, community events and schooling. Finally, the Labour counter-proposal would also remove the ward of Sherburn from the existing City of Durham, which has historically been part of the city.
3.67 The Assistant Commissioners noted the counter-proposal from Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE‑94274), which utilised the Labour counter-proposal across most of the sub-region, but in this area proposed splitting the Trimdon and Thornley ward, to ‘produce better boundaries in three constituencies.’ The proposed ward split would move five polling districts from the north of the ward (Durham‑DKC, Durham-EEA, Durham-SNA, Durham-SNB, and Durham-SNC), including Wheatley Hill and Thornley, into an Easington constituency. These villages have been included in an Easington constituency in the past and have good connections to the east via the A181. The remaining polling districts (Durham- SKB, Durham-SLA, Durham-SLB, Durham-SMB, and Durham-SMC), including the villages of Deaf Hill, Trimdon and Trimdon Grange, would be included in a Sedgefield constituency with which they have good links via Salters Lane. This ward split would allow the Sherburn ward to be retained in a City of Durham constituency, which Edward Carlsson Browne states ‘looks to Durham and has been part of the City of Durham constituency since 1918.’ Additionally, the Durham South ward, which includes elements of Durham University, could be retained in the City of Durham. Finally, the Trimdon and Thornley ward split proposal would allow the whole of Spennymoor town to be kept together, including the adjacent village of Tudhoe, with which it has strong links.
3.68 Our initial proposals would divide Willington from the towns of Crook and Tow Law, but we received several representations advocating for these three towns to be kept together in a constituency. Dehenna Davison, MP for Bishop Auckland, in her representation BCE‑84358 opposed the split of the towns, as it would ‘sever the strong and historical community link’, noting that they formed the Three Towns Area Action Partnership of Durham County Council.
3.69 The Assistant Commissioners felt that there was some merit to both the Liberal Democrats’ and Conservative Party’s counter-proposals for this area. The Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal would keep Willington, Crook and Tow Law together in a single constituency, but the Assistant Commissioners ultimately felt it was too disruptive, as it relied upon retention of the strongly opposed Jarrow and Sunderland West constituency, and the City of Durham constituency would continue to be connected with Chester-le-Street, rather than the adjacent wards to the west of the city.
3.70 Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioners did not feel that the Conservative Party’s split of Deerness ward would facilitate a more cohesive sub-region in terms of local ties, particularly as their proposed Bishop Auckland constituency would have two disconnected parts, there being no direct route between the Deerness and Brandon wards and the rest of the constituency without crossing through either the City of Durham or North West Durham constituencies.
3.71 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended Edward Carlsson Browne’s modification to the Labour counter-proposal for County Durham, deeming it to be superior to Labour’s original counter-proposal in satisfying the statutory factors. Having driven across the proposed ward split during a site visit, the Assistant Commissioners felt there was a clear separation between the communities in the north and south of the Trimdon and Thornley ward. While respecting that splitting of wards should be avoided where possible, the Assistant Commissioners felt this ward split would be justified, as it provides wider benefits by enabling boundaries that better respect local ties across three constituencies.
3.72 This revised approach would allow for the City of Durham constituency to more closely resemble the existing constituency, including the wards to the west of the city (Brandon, Deerness, Esh and Witton Gilbert, and Willington and Hunwick), as well as the Durham South ward (keeping Durham University campus together in a single constituency). The final benefit of this ward split solution would keep Spennymoor and Tudhoe together in a constituency with Newton Aycliffe, respecting their strong local ties. The Assistant Commissioners also consequentially recommended changing the name of the latter constituency from Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield to Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, to reflect the largest population centres in the constituency, and reverting the name of the proposed Seaham and Peterlee back to Easington.
3.73 Under the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations, Crook, Tow Law and Weardale from the existing constituency of North West Durham would instead be included in a revised Bishop Auckland constituency. The Lanchester ward would be included in North Durham, and the Burnopfield and Dipton ward would be in the newly proposed Blaydon and Consett constituency.
3.74 We have considered the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners for County Durham and we accept their recommendation to adopt the counter-proposal of Edward Carlsson Browne for the area, including a split of the Trimdon and Thornley ward as detailed above. We therefore propose revised constituencies as described above, named: Easington; Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor; City of Durham; Bishop Auckland; and North Durham.
Back to top