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

Tees Valley: Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees

3.75 Of the seven existing constituencies in this sub-region, only three have electorates that are currently within the permitted electorate range: Hartlepool, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and Stockton South. The Tees Valley Combined Authority has an electorate of 494,601, giving a mathematical entitlement to 6.74 constituencies. Under the initial proposals the number of constituencies in this subregion would remain at seven. In the initial proposals, we proposed change to all of the existing constituencies in this area apart from Hartlepool.

3.76 The Green Party (BCE‑75305), Labour Party (BCE‑79502) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE‑80851) all supported the initial proposals in this sub-region, but the Conservative Party put forward a slight alteration across the south-eastern part of the sub-region, which was supported during both consultation periods.

Hartlepool

3.77 In our initial proposals, we proposed to keep the Hartlepool constituency wholly unchanged and coterminous with its local authority boundary. We received no counter-proposals for this constituency. The Assistant Commissioners noted support for the Hartlepool constituency from both the Conservative Party (BCE‑85491) and Labour Party (BCE‑79502), who both supported no change to the existing constituency, keeping it coterminous with its borough boundary. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the initial proposals for Hartlepool constituency, and we agree.

Darlington

3.78 In the initial proposals, Darlington constituency would add a single ward from its rural hinterland in the west (the Heighington & Coniscliffe ward), to bring it within the permitted electorate range, extending the Darlington constituency to the boundary with County Durham.

3.79 We did not receive any cogent counter-proposals to our initially proposed Darlington constituency. Although several respondents asked that the wards of Hurworth, and Sadberge & Middleton St. George be included in the Darlington constituency, this was not possible while keeping a pattern of constituencies within the boundary of Tees Valley Combined Authority sub-region, which was widely supported.

3.80 During the initial public consultation we received conflicting representations from electors in our proposed Stockton West constituency. As mentioned above, around 40 respondents in the Darlington villages of Hurworth-on- Tees, Middleton St George and Sadberge were opposed to being included in a Stockton constituency, as they felt more connected to Darlington. A Sadberge resident rightly stated in BCE‑85415 that the village is ‘under the administrative jurisdiction of Darlington Borough’. Local Councillor Lorraine Tostevin (BCE‑81100) argued that residents of Hurworth wish to be part of Darlington, ‘the Borough in which they live, shop, spend their leisure time.’ The Assistant Commissioners noted that an alternative would be to instead include in the Stockton West constituency the ward of Heighington & Coniscliffe. This ward, however, lies to the north and west of Darlington, and would appear to have even fewer connections to Stockton, requiring residents to drive through Darlington to reach Stockton-on-Tees. Conversely, there was some support from respondents in the Darlington villages at being included in Stockton West. A respondent from Middleton St George (BCE‑96070) felt that their village is ‘very much interconnected’ with villages in Stockton local authority and ‘the facilities in our village provide community links to a lot of other local villages with our dental and medical practices having patients from the Western Parishes, Hurworth, Eaglescliffe and Hartburn wards.’

3.81 The Assistant Commissioners concluded that the initial proposals – including the ward of Heighington & Coniscliffe in the proposed Darlington constituency – is the best option and therefore recommended no changes. We have noted the divergent views on the distribution of Darlington local authority wards between the proposed Darlington and Stockton West constituencies. However, given that the alternatives would either transfer a less appropriate ward to Darlington, or would require altering the sub-region (which was not suggested during either consultation period), we agree with the recommendation to leave the Darlington constituency as we initially proposed.

Stockton-on-Tees

3.82 Our initially proposed Stockton West constituency would include the rural wards of Hurworth, Sadberge & Middleton St. George, and Western Parishes, while transferring the urban Parkfield and Oxbridge ward to Stockton North, and two of the three Thornaby wards to our proposed Middlesbrough constituency, to bring it within the permitted electorate range.

3.83 We did not receive a cogent counter-proposal to our initially proposed Stockton North and Stockton West constituencies. During the secondary consultation and public hearings, we received over 75 representations that were supportive of the initial proposals for these constituencies. A Long Newton resident stated in representation BCE‑86742 that her village has ‘a long-term association with nearby Middleton St George, many villagers being registered with the GP surgery there.’ Additionally, the Assistant Commissioners were aware of Long Newton residents having strong connections with Yarm, outlined in BCE‑86742, stating ‘Long Newton has always identified with Yarm and Eaglescliffe in terms of shopping and attendance at Egglescliffe comprehensive school.’ Electors from the sub-region also outlined good transport links connecting Sadberge with the proposed Stockton West constituency. Craig Harker (BCE‑91120) highlighted transport links ‘through Dinsdale Station, Sadberge residents have a direct train to Eaglescliffe, Thornaby and Allens West Stations. Tees Flex bus services also link up Sadberge with Yarm and Stockton.’

3.84 With regard to Stockton North, the Assistant Commissioners noted support from residents and Matt Vickers, MP for Stockton South (BCE‑82678), who praised our initial proposals for Stockton North, in particular swapping the more urban Parkfield and Oxbridge for the rural Western Parishes ward: ‘Parkfield and Oxbridge areas are a much better fit to Stockton North. The communities are tied inseparably to the Town Centre including through community groups, church attendance, shopping habits and transport links.’

3.85 The Assistant Commissioners felt that the social and commercial connections between Hurworth, Sadbergh & Middleton St. George and other villages in the proposed Stockton West constituency are more with Darlington than Stockton West, but links do exist with the latter, and alternative schemes would be more disruptive across two sub-regions. They noted the overwhelming support for the Western Parishes ward to be included in the Stockton West constituency, which would allow the proposed Stockton North to include Parkfield and Oxbridge ward: this would unite communities and use the River Tees as a more natural geographic boundary, and was largely supported. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioners recommended retaining the initially proposed constituencies and names across Stockton-on-Tees, and, having considered the evidence received, we agree.

Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland

3.86 In the initial proposals, our Middlesbrough constituency would avoid crossing the River Tees, instead including two of the three Thornaby wards, which we acknowledged would divide that town between Middlesbrough and Stockton West constituencies. We considered an alternative option, whereby all three Thornaby wards would be included in the same constituency, but this option would have the ‘domino’ effect of creating a Middlesbrough constituency that would have to cross the River Tees to include both Billingham and an incongruous Northern Parishes rural ward, thereby breaking local ties between these areas and Stockton-on-Tees. On this basis, we chose not to pursue this alternative option.

3.87 To bring Redcar within the permitted electorate range in the initial proposals, we included three wards, Ladgate, Marton East, and Park End & Beckfield, from the Borough of Middlesbrough. We proposed that the Redcar constituency be renamed Redcar and Eston, as recognition of this enlargement of the constituency. We also proposed that electors from the villages of Marske-by-the- Sea and New Marske, specifically the wards of Longbeck and St. Germain’s, be included in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range.

3.88 We received around 200 responses expressing strong opposition from residents living in New Marske and Marske-by-the-Sea, who felt that they had stronger links with Redcar to the north along the coast. BCE‑73354 highlighted the similarities in the coastal communities of Redcar, Marske-by-the-Sea and New Marske, stating ‘this is in part because of the geography of Marske & New Marske, and our historic fishing community.’ Furthermore, respondents from Redcar expressed close ties to Marske-by-the-Sea and Saltburn using public transport. Jonathon Manning (BCE‑82395) highlighted that these close ties are ‘strengthened by the rail connection between Redcar and Saltburn and the shared beaches and bay.’ Bus routes run predominantly along the coast, with evidence from a New Marske resident in BCE‑81745 highlighting that ‘the only bus route serves Redcar’. Thomas Snell (BCE‑70783) raised the point that the initial proposals for the Redcar and Eston constituency meant that it would cross the local authority boundary with Middlesbrough.

3.89 In response to this, Jacob Young, MP for Redcar (BCE‑71814), submitted a counter-proposal that drew a lot of support from residents in the Redcar and Cleveland area (and was also endorsed by the Conservative Party – BCE‑85491). This counter-proposal would allow the Redcar constituency to remain unchanged apart from to reflect the new boundaries of the Saltburn ward. Additionally, Jacob Young made the point that the counter-proposal ‘unites the Saltburn, Marske & New Marske Parish Council under one Constituency.’ The Redcar constituency would also be contained within the borough of Redcar and Cleveland. Furthermore, Jacob Young outlined in his public hearing representation (BCE‑97107) how the counter-proposal would ‘keep the communities of Marton West, Marton East and Marton Manor together under one constituency’, preserving local ties in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency.

3.90 We received around 100 representations from local residents of Thornaby, objecting to the prospective splitting of the town between two constituencies, and outlining the strong and unique community ties in the area. No counter‑proposal was presented, however, that would be consistent with the statutory criteria – and Assistant Commissioners have equally not been able to identify one – that would keep the town of Thornaby together in a single constituency without causing substantial disruption elsewhere.

3.91 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended adopting the counter‑proposal submitted by Jacob Young MP. The Assistant Commissioners noted that the majority of representations in this sub-region came from residents in the Marske-by-the-Sea and New Marske area, and that the counter-proposal would avoid breaking local ties in both that area and Marton, and produce constituencies largely unchanged from the existing ones. We therefore accept that the counter-proposal from Jacob Young MP would represent a better approach than the initial proposal in terms of the statutory factors, and propose revising the composition of our proposed Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and Redcar and Eston constituencies accordingly. We also propose to revert the name of the latter to simply Redcar, reflecting the request of a number of respondents on that issue.

3.92 We recognise that our revisions in the Tees Valley sub-region mean that Thornaby will remain split between Middlesbrough and Stockton West constituencies. We feel, however, that our revised proposals are the best available approach we have seen for the sub-region as a whole. In particular, our approach avoids the alternative of having a Middlesbrough constituency that would cross the natural boundary of the River Tees and take in rural areas of Stockton, including Billingham, which would be more disruptive and measure particularly poorly against the statutory factors. To recognise the distinct identity and community of Thornaby, however, we propose a name change to the otherwise unchanged Middlesbrough constituency as initially proposed – to Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.