Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the Yorkshire and the Humber region

3 Initial proposals for Yorkshire and the Humber

  1. Yorkshire and the Humber comprises the county council area of North Yorkshire (including the unitary authority area of the City of York);6 the boroughs of the metropolitan areas of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire; plus the four unitary authorities created from the former county council area of Humberside (East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire, and North Lincolnshire)7.
  2. Yorkshire and the Humber currently has 54 constituencies. Of these constituencies, 22 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of 16 constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of 16 constituencies are above the 5% limit. Our initial proposals for Yorkshire and the Humber maintain the number of constituencies at 54.
  3. In seeking to produce 54 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.
  4. Our division of Yorkshire and the Humber 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.
  5. The distribution of electors across the three counties and four unitary authorities of Yorkshire and the Humber is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county or unitary authority, with each constituency falling within the permitted electorate range, is not always possible.
  6. When considering sub-regional groupings for Yorkshire and the Humber, we noted that Humberside has an electorate of 684,294, meaning it could be allocated nine constituencies with an average size of 76,033. However, given this is only 1,029 below the upper 5% limit, it would result in little flexibility in creating constituencies. In addition to geographical constraints caused by the shape of the sub-region, in particular the Humber estuary, this would make it extremely difficult to construct nine constituencies within the boundaries of Humberside. Therefore, we propose to combine Humberside with South Yorkshire to form a sub‑region. Combined, this sub-region has 1,691,686 electors, thus a mathematical entitlement to 23.05 constituencies. As well as providing more flexibility in Humberside, this sub-region would allow for an arrangement of constituencies in South Yorkshire with better regard to the statutory factors. Therefore, we propose to allocate 23 constituencies to a sub-region that comprises Humberside and South Yorkshire. We have identified that including the three wards that make up the Isle of Axholme area of Humberside in a South Yorkshire constituency improves our proposals across the whole sub-region.
  7. North Yorkshire, with an electorate of 620,874 (indicating a mathematical entitlement to 8.46 constituencies), could not be assigned a whole number of constituencies. Therefore it must be grouped with at least one other county. We identified that combining North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire creates a sub‑region of 2,274,814 electors, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 30.99 constituencies. Such a grouping also allows for more flexibility when constructing constituencies in West Yorkshire, where the electoral size of metropolitan borough wards makes it difficult to create constituencies within the permitted electorate range without dividing towns between constituencies. For these reasons, we propose to allocate 31 constituencies to a sub-region that comprises North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. This sub-region would include two cross-county boundary constituencies: one between the City of Leeds and District of Selby, and another crossing the boundaries between the City of Leeds, District of Selby, and Borough of Harrogate.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Humberside and South Yorkshire sub‑region

  1. There are currently 24 constituencies in this sub-region, ten of which are within the permitted electorate range. Of the remaining constituencies, 11 have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and three have electorates above the limit. The sub‑region is entitled to 23.05 constituencies, meaning that it has been allocated 23, a reduction of one from the existing arrangement. When developing our proposals, we noted that our options would be restricted due to the limited length of the boundary between South Yorkshire and Humberside, and the natural geography of the Humber estuary.

South Yorkshire

  1. We first considered the cross-county boundary constituency necessary to allow for more flexibility across the sub-region. We propose a Doncaster East and Axholme constituency comprising three North Lincolnshire unitary authority wards covering the Isle of Axholme area (Axholme Central, Axholme North, and Axholme South), and four Borough of Doncaster wards, covering the east of the local authority. We consider that this is the most appropriate cross-county configuration, as it preserves community ties by maintaining all of the area of the Isle of Axholme in a single constituency. We also noted that there are good transport links within the proposed constituency, for example, the M180 motorway. We acknowledge that our proposals would disrupt the existing configuration of constituencies in Doncaster, all of which are within the permitted range. However, we consider that altering these existing constituencies is necessary in order to create an arrangement that better reflects the statutory factors across the sub-region.
  2. The inclusion of the three Axholme wards in a constituency with Doncaster borough has allowed us to identify further sub-divisions within South Yorkshire as a consequence: the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley, with a combined electorate of 593,148 results in a mathematical entitlement to 8.08 constituencies; and the boroughs of Rotherham and Doncaster (plus three Axholme wards), with an electorate of 432,660 results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.90 constituencies. Respecting these sub-divisions of the sub‑region allows for an arrangement across South Yorkshire that enables us to minimise change to existing constituencies and better reflect local government boundaries.
  3. Aside from our proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency, in the Borough of Doncaster we propose the existing Doncaster North constituency is changed only by realignment to new local government ward boundaries. The Thorne & Moorends ward is currently divided between the existing Doncaster North and Don Valley constituencies, and we propose this ward be included wholly within the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency. The Stainforth & Barnby Dun ward is also currently divided between constituencies due to local government ward boundary changes. Therefore we propose that the existing Doncaster North constituency boundary be realigned to follow these new ward boundaries, and include the whole of the Stainforth & Barnby Dun ward.
  4. We propose a Doncaster Town constituency that resembles the existing Doncaster Central constituency but without any part of the Stainforth & Barnby Dun ward, and which also contains all of the Tickhill & Wadsworth ward to the south, which is currently divided between constituencies.
  5. Within the Borough of Rotherham, the existing Rotherham and Rother Valley constituencies are changed only to realign constituency boundaries to local government ward boundary changes. We propose that the Rotherham constituency be reconfigured to contain all of the Dalton & Thrybergh, and Wickersley North wards, and no longer contain any part of the Rother Vale and Sitwell wards. These latter two wards would be contained wholly within the proposed Rother Valley constituency, which would no longer contain any part of the Bramley & Ravenfield ward.
  6. We propose to group the remaining Borough of Rotherham wards with the two remaining Borough of Doncaster wards (Conisbrough, and Edlington & Warmsworth). We propose this constituency be called Rawmarsh and Conisbrough to reflect its geographical extent and the main population centres either side of the Doncaster-Rotherham borough boundary.
  7. We then considered the constituencies across the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley with electorates currently within the permitted electorate range. We noted that the three constituencies of Penistone and Stocksbridge, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, and Sheffield Hallam could be left unchanged other than for realignment to reflect minor changes to local government ward boundaries. We therefore propose no further change to these constituencies.
  8. Elsewhere in the City of Sheffield, the existing Sheffield Central constituency has a particularly large electorate of 89,266, whereas the Sheffield Heeley and Sheffield South East constituencies are below the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Manor Castle ward be transferred from the existing Sheffield Central constituency into our proposed Sheffield Heeley constituency, bringing the former within the permitted electorate range. We then propose retaining the existing division of the Richmond ward between the Sheffield Heeley and Sheffield South East constituencies. We propose including the south-west part of the ward, including the areas of Four Lane Ends and Intake, in the Sheffield Heeley constituency, and the remainder of the ward, centred on Richmond, in the Sheffield South East constituency. We recognise that this divides a ward between constituencies, but consider that doing so enables the retention of a significant number of existing constituencies largely unchanged.
  9. Aside from the Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in the remainder of the Borough of Barnsley we propose a north-south arrangement, comprising the constituencies of Barnsley North and Barnsley South. The proposed Barnsley North constituency is similar to the existing Barnsley Central constituency, with the addition of the wards of Cudworth and North East to the east, and no longer including the ward of Kingstone. The remaining Borough of Barnsley wards are contained within the proposed Barnsley South constituency, including the Dearne North and Dearne South wards, which are now moved into a wholly Borough of Barnsley constituency from an existing mostly Borough of Rotherham constituency. We therefore consider that this arrangement better reflects local government boundaries than the existing pattern of constituencies, and note that the Borough of Barnsley would be divided between three constituencies, rather than four, as is currently the case.

Humberside

  1. Due to the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency, and the geography of the Humber estuary, River Trent, and regional boundary, the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority plus the remaining North Lincolnshire authority wards form a self-contained sub-division of the sub-region of 222,956 electors in our proposals. This area has a mathematical entitlement to 3.04 constituencies.
  2. The existing Great Grimsby constituency has an electorate of 60,908 and therefore is required to gain a significant number of electors from elsewhere. We therefore propose a Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency. This brings together the centres and most of the constituent parts of these two towns, thus minimising the division of communities and avoiding the inclusion of large, rural wards in an otherwise urban constituency. Our proposed constituency contains all of the existing Great Grimsby constituency except the Scartho ward, plus three wards from the existing Cleethorpes constituency (Croft Baker, Haverstoe, and Sidney Sussex).
  3. We propose that the remaining five North East Lincolnshire authority wards are combined with four North Lincolnshire unitary authority wards in a newly named South Humber constituency. This constituency groups the Scartho ward of Grimsby with the North East Lincolnshire town of Immingham and the North Lincolnshire towns of Barton-upon-Humber and Brigg.
  4. The existing Scunthorpe constituency has an electorate of 62,511, which is below the permitted range. Therefore, to bring it within the permitted range, we propose to expand the constituency northwards to include the ward of Burton upon Stather and Winterton, and westwards to include the Burringham and Gunness ward.
  5. Crossing to the north side of the Humber, in our proposals the unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull also form a self-contained sub-division of the sub-region. With a combined electorate of 442,922, it is mathematically entitled to 6.03 constituencies and is therefore allocated six in our proposals.
  6. All three existing constituencies that contain part of the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority fall below the permitted electorate range. However, with an entitlement to 2.43, the authority cannot be allocated a whole number of constituencies. Therefore, it is necessary for Kingston upon Hull to continue to be paired with a neighbouring local authority to formulate a pattern of constituencies that are all within the permitted electorate range.
  7. We propose expanding the existing Kingston upon Hull East constituency eastwards with the addition of the East Riding of Yorkshire ward of South West Holderness. The northern boundary of the constituency would also see minor readjustments to realign with changes to local government ward boundaries. This brings the Kingston upon Hull East constituency within the permitted electorate range. We recognise that our proposals result in South West Holderness becoming an orphan ward8, and that it has a considerably more rural character than the wards within the Kingston upon Hull authority. However, the possibilities for extending the Kingston upon Hull East constituency are limited due to the large geographic size and shape of wards bordering the North Sea coast. We also consider that there are ties between Hedon – the main population centre of the South West Holderness ward – and Kingston upon Hull, and good road transport links along the A1033 road.
  8. The existing Kingston upon Hull North constituency is unchanged in our proposals other than for realignment to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries. The Central and West Carr wards are divided between existing constituencies following the ward boundary changes. We therefore propose to include the whole of both wards in the Kingston upon Hull North constituency, which brings it within the permitted electorate range.
  9. We propose that the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency be expanded westwards through the addition of two East Riding of Yorkshire wards: South Hunsley and Tranby. This means it would comprise five Kingston upon Hull authority wards and three East Riding of Yorkshire authority wards (Hessle, South Hunsley, and Tranby).
  10. The seven coastal wards of the East Riding of Yorkshire comprise our proposed Bridlington and Holderness constituency. This groups the town of Bridlington to its north with the remaining Holderness area to the south (but no longer including the South West Holderness ward). Once again we noted it was difficult to create constituency arrangements in this area due to the geographic size and shape of wards and the constraints of the coast.
  11. The East Riding of Yorkshire towns of Beverley, Driffield, Market Weighton, and Pocklington are combined in our proposed Beverley and The Wolds constituency. This name references the Yorkshire Wolds, which are located predominantly within the proposed constituency boundaries. There are good transport links connecting the main population centres within the constituency.
  12. We propose a Goole and Haltemprice constituency that contains the remaining nine East Riding of Yorkshire wards. This constituency groups the town of Goole to the south of the River Ouse with the town of Howden to the north of the river. We consider that there are sufficient links over this natural barrier for such a grouping to be proposed. The constituency then extends east to the boundary of the Kingston upon Hull unitary authority, including the large village of Cottingham. We consider that the proposed name is reflective of the composition of the constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire sub‑region

  1. There are currently 30 constituencies in this sub-region, 12 of which are within the permitted electorate range. Of the remaining constituencies, five have electorates that are below the permitted range and 13 have electorates above the range. The sub-region is mathematically entitled to 30.99 constituencies, meaning that it has been allocated 31, an increase of one from the existing arrangement. When developing our proposals, we recognised that our options would be restricted, due to the large size of ward electorates in the metropolitan boroughs of West Yorkshire. This issue is particularly acute in the City of Leeds and the Borough of Kirklees, with minimum ward sizes of more than 15,000 and 12,000 respectively.

North Yorkshire

  1. We first considered the cross-county boundary constituencies necessary to permit a constituency arrangement in North Yorkshire due to its mathematical entitlement to 8.46 constituencies. We propose the county boundary between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire would be crossed in two areas. First, we propose a constituency that groups the City of Leeds ward of Kippax & Methley with all but two of the wards of the District of Selby, including the town of Selby itself. We propose that this constituency be called Selby. We recognise that this arrangement leads to a minor division of communities in Leeds and results in Kippax & Methley becoming an orphan ward. However, we consider that other configurations of constituencies in this and the surrounding area would not better reflect the statutory factors overall, with more extensive division of communities elsewhere. We also note that there are good transport links east-west, linking the Kippax & Methley ward with the rest of the constituency.
  2. The second cross-county boundary constituency proposed in this sub-region comprises two City of Leeds wards (Harewood and Wetherby); two District of Selby wards (Appleton Roebuck & Church Fenton, and Tadcaster); three District of Hambleton wards (Easingwold, Huby, and Raskelf & White Horse); and six Borough of Harrogate wards. This constituency stretches from south of Tadcaster in the District of Selby to north of Easingwold in the District of Hambleton, while also including the population centres of Wetherby and Boroughbridge (from the City of Leeds and Borough of Harrogate respectively). We propose this constituency be called Wetherby and Easingwold to reflect its main population centre, Wetherby, as well as its geographical extent. We recognise that this constituency includes parts of two counties and four local authorities and we did consider alternative configurations. However, we consider this arrangement better reflects the statutory factors when compared to other options for the area. There are good internal transport links, in particular the A1 (M) motorway which runs north-south through our proposed constituency from Boroughbridge to Wetherby. This is in contrast to the existing arrangement in this area, which has very limited transport links between Harrogate and Selby local authorities across the existing Selby and Ainsty constituency. We also consider that our proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency has shared characteristics given it is rural in nature.
  3. We also considered an alternative arrangement for the whole of the North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire sub-region, which was considerably different to our proposals. In particular, it differed in the area largely covered by the two cross-county boundary constituencies described above. This was an especially challenging area in which to construct constituencies that satisfactorily reflect the statutory factors, and as such we particularly welcome, during the public consultation, any representations with alternative cross-county boundary arrangements. In our alternative considerations, there was only one cross-county constituency, which would group City of Wakefield wards, containing the town of Pontefract, with District of Selby wards, including the town of Selby itself. A second constituency would group wards from the Hambleton, Harrogate, and Selby local authorities, stretching from south of the town of Selby to the town of Sowerby (Hambleton) in the north.
  4. We consider, however, that our proposals better reflect the statutory factors than this alternative arrangement. We considered that the unusual shape of the alternative constituency between Hambleton, Harrogate, and Selby would lead to poor accessibility, including the weak transport links of the existing arrangement, as discussed above. We also considered that the alternative arrangement would divide more communities across the sub-region, for example, dividing the neighbouring market towns of Thirsk and Sowerby. While we consider that this alternative would have retained more existing constituencies, including the City of Leeds constituencies of Leeds North West and Pudsey, it would, however, have required that five wards be divided between constituencies in this sub-region. We considered that it was not necessary to divide this many wards in order to formulate a pattern of constituencies that reflected the statutory factors.
  5. Having decided to include two constituencies in our proposals that crossed the county boundary of North and West Yorkshire, we then considered whether we could retain existing constituencies within North Yorkshire that were within the permitted electorate range. We propose retaining the existing Scarborough and Whitby constituency wholly unchanged. Meanwhile, the two constituencies constituting the City of York – York Central and York Outer – are changed only to realign constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. The entirety of the divided Hull Road ward is included within the York Central constituency. A consequence of this change would be that the University of York campus is included in the York Central constituency. Our proposals for York also respect other minor ward boundary changes on the outskirts of the city.
  6. The existing Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency becomes more compact in our proposals, as a consequence of the inclusion of wards to the north‑east of Knaresborough (Boroughbridge, Claro, and Ouseburn) in our proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency. Due to significant changes in local government ward boundaries in this area, attempting to retain these wards in our Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency would severely constrain the possible arrangements elsewhere across the Borough of Harrogate and District of Hambleton, while also leading to a greater division of communities. The town of Ripley is no longer included in the proposed Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency, again due to realignment with extensive changes to local government ward boundaries.
  7. Under our proposals, Ripley is included in our proposed Skipton and Ripon constituency, which is largely unchanged from the existing constituency, with just the Bishop Monkton & Newby ward transferred to the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency. In addition to this, the constituency boundaries are realigned with new local government ward boundaries around the towns of Burton Leonard and Huby.
  8. To compensate for the inclusion of the three District of Hambleton wards in our proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (Easingwold, Huby, and Raskelf & White Horse), the existing Thirsk and Malton constituency is reconfigured in our proposals to extend further westwards. The wards of Bedale and Tanfield are transferred from the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency to the Thirsk and Malton constituency. The transfer of these two wards, in addition to realignments with new local government ward boundaries along the boundary with the Thirsk and Malton constituency, are the only proposed changes to the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency. We recognise that there is no direct road access over the River Swale between the Thirsk ward and the wards of Bedale and Tanfield without travelling outside the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. However, we decided that this does not practically divide the constituency, as there is road access a very short distance away, through the neighbouring constituency of Skipton and Ripon, via Skipton Bridge.

West Yorkshire

  1. In the City of Bradford, four constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, and one, Bradford South, is just 405 electors below the permitted range. We propose no change to the existing Bradford East constituency, and only very minor realignments to new local government ward boundaries between the Keighley and Shipley constituencies. We propose the exchange of the Clayton and Fairweather Green, and Great Horton wards between the existing Bradford West and Bradford South constituencies, which brings all the City of Bradford constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
  2. Within the Borough of Calderdale, the existing Halifax constituency has an electorate within the permitted range, whereas the existing Calder Valley constituency is above the permitted range. We therefore propose that the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward be transferred from the Calder Valley constituency to a proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency, based largely on the existing Batley and Spen constituency. In order to bring the two Calderdale constituencies within the permitted electorate range, the two wards of Sowerby Bridge and Warley, and the two wards of Brighouse and Rastrick are exchanged between the proposed Halifax and Calder Valley constituencies.
  3. To compensate for the inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in the proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency, the Heckmondwike ward is included in the proposed Dewsbury constituency. We propose the constituency name of Batley and Hipperholme to reflect its geographical extent across the local authority boundary between the boroughs of Kirklees and Calderdale, and to reflect the main population centre, Batley, that is included in the constituency.
  4. Our proposed Dewsbury constituency is more compact than the existing arrangement and no longer contains the geographically large rural wards of Denby Dale and Kirkburton to the south. As well as the addition of the Heckmondwike ward, in order to bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose that the Dewsbury constituency contains part of the Dalton ward, which is currently included entirely within the Huddersfield constituency. We propose that the Dalton ward be divided, with the area around Kirkheaton being included in the proposed Dewsbury constituency, and the rest of the ward, centred on the Rawthorpe area, remaining in the Huddersfield constituency. We consider that not dividing a ward here would inevitably result in more disruption to local ties across the area.
  5. To compensate for the inclusion of the Kirkheaton area in the Dewsbury constituency, we propose that the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward be transferred from the existing Colne Valley constituency to the Huddersfield constituency. This brings both of the constituencies within the permitted electorate range. The only further change to the existing Colne Valley constituency is to realign its boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries.
  6. Within the City of Wakefield, the existing Wakefield and Hemsworth constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. However, we consider that both would have to be altered in order to accommodate change elsewhere. The existing Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford constituency is considerably over the permitted range, with an electorate of 84,627, and therefore needs to have its electorate reduced by the transfer of a ward. We propose that the Normanton ward be included in another constituency, thereby bringing the constituency within the permitted range. We propose this constituency be named Pontefract and Castleford as the existing name would no longer be appropriate.
  7. The Normanton ward is included in the existing Hemsworth constituency in our proposals, which consequently makes the Hemsworth constituency too large and requires one of its wards to be included in another constituency to bring it back within the permitted electorate range. We propose that this constituency would no longer include the Wakefield South ward. We also propose changing the name of the constituency to Normanton and Hemsworth to account for the changes we have made. In our proposals, the Wakefield South ward would be included with three more City of Wakefield wards (Horbury and South Ossett, Ossett, and Wakefield Rural) and two Borough of Kirklees wards (Denby Dale and Kirkburton) in a constituency that we propose be called Ossett and Denby Dale. We consider that this name reflects the main population centres, as well as the geographical extent across the local authority boundary between Wakefield and Kirklees.
  8. The remaining five City of Wakefield wards are grouped with the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell to create our proposed Wakefield constituency. We recognise that under this proposal Rothwell becomes an orphan ward, but a local authority boundary crossing is required to bring the Wakefield constituency within the permitted electorate range. There are good road links north-south through the constituency, linking Wakefield city with the Rothwell ward. Additionally, the majority of the northern boundary of the Rothwell ward is the River Aire, which acts as a natural border between our proposed constituencies. This is in contrast to the arrangement that would have resulted had we grouped an alternative Leeds ward (such as Ardsley & Robin Hood) with the five Wakefield wards, which we consider would have led to the division of communities. We propose the name Wakefield for this constituency, despite it being somewhat different from the existing Wakefield constituency. This is because it would still contain the three wards comprising Wakefield city centre (Wakefield East, Wakefield North, and Wakefield West).
  9. Within the City of Leeds, the Leeds North East constituency is unchanged other than for minor realignment due to new local government ward boundaries. The existing Pudsey constituency has an electorate within the permitted electorate range, while the existing Leeds North West constituency would also be within the permitted range once realigned to new local government ward boundaries. However, due to changes proposed elsewhere within the local authority, neither are retained in our proposals. Nevertheless, we consider that our proposals lead to an arguably more suitable arrangement that better reflects local ties than in the existing constituencies of those names. We propose a Pudsey constituency comprising the Calverley & Farsley, and Pudsey wards of the existing Pudsey constituency, plus the Bramley & Stanningley, and Farnley & Wortley wards, currently within the existing Leeds West constituency. We propose retaining the name of Pudsey, as this would still be the main population centre within the constituency.
  10. We propose a Leeds North West constituency that consists of the Guiseley & Rawdon, and Horsforth wards, currently within the existing Pudsey constituency, plus the two wards of Adel & Wharfedale, and Otley & Yeadon, currently within the existing Leeds North West constituency. Again, we propose retaining the name of Leeds North West, as this would still be the most appropriate geographical description of the constituency. We believe our proposed arrangement for this area leads to less division of communities; the northern boundary of the proposed Pudsey constituency would now largely follow the River Aire, whereas the existing constituency boundary, although following local government ward boundaries, runs through the town of Yeadon, dividing this large community into two different constituencies.
  11. The alternative arrangement we considered, as previously mentioned, retained the existing Leeds North West and Pudsey constituencies (realigned to new local government ward boundaries). This was possible due to the different cross-county boundary arrangement, and the knock-on effects throughout West Yorkshire. However, due to fewer divisions of communities as detailed above, as well as what we considered to be an inferior constituency arrangement across the District of Selby and the boroughs of Harrogate and Hambleton in our alternative arrangement, we believe that, looked at in their entirety, our proposals for this area are more in keeping with the statutory factors than the alternative. However, we welcome any representations with alternative arrangements in the City of Leeds, and the wider West Yorkshire area as a result of consequent knock-on effects.
  12. The existing Leeds Central constituency has an electorate of 91,069, which is considerably above the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose that the Middleton Park ward no longer be included in the constituency. The Hyde Park and Woodhouse Cliff areas to the north-west of the city are also no longer included, to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. As a result of this, we also propose that the Gipton & Harehills ward be divided between the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies, with the area in the west of the ward, centred on Harehills, being included in the Leeds Central constituency, and the remainder of the ward, centred on Gipton, being included in our proposed Leeds East constituency. This brings the Leeds Central constituency within the permitted range. If we were not to divide a ward in the City of Leeds, we consider that there would inevitably be more disruption to local ties. Furthermore, we consider that the division of this ward (and the Dalton ward in the Borough of Kirklees) enables us to better respect county and unitary authority boundaries.
  13. We propose that the Leeds East constituency also extends to the south-east with the addition of the Garforth & Swillington ward. This, along with minor changes to realign the constituency boundary with new local government ward boundaries in the Whinmoor area, brings the constituency within the permitted electorate range. The Middleton Park ward, which is no longer included in the Leeds Central constituency, would be included in our proposed Morley constituency, which also contains the wards of Ardsley & Robin Hood, Morley North, and Morley South. Finally, we propose a Headingley constituency that consists of two wards from the existing Leeds North West constituency (Headingley & Hyde Park, and Weetwood), and two from the existing Leeds West constituency (Armley and Kirkstall).
Back to top

6 Hereafter together referred to as North Yorkshire.
7 Hereafter together referred to as Humberside.
8 ‘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.

Back to top