3 Revised proposals for Yorkshire and the Humber
3.1 After the consultation on the initial proposals in 2021, we arranged for the appointment of two Assistant Commissioners for the Yorkshire and the Humber region – Professor Paul Wiles CB and Suzanne McCarthy – to assist us with the analysis of the representations received during the first two consultation periods. This included chairing public hearings held in the region to collect oral evidence, as follows:
-
- Leeds: 10-11 March 2022
- Hull: 14-15 March 2022
- Northallerton: 17-18 March 2022
3.2 We asked the Assistant Commissioners to consider all the written and oral representations, and to make recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, in light of evidence provided in the representations. It is important to stress that the Assistant Commissioners had no involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open to viable alternative proposals supported by evidence. We are very grateful for the thorough and methodical approach the Assistant Commissioners have taken to their work.
3.3 What follows in this chapter is:
-
- a brief recap of our initial proposals;
- a description of the views and counter-proposals put forward during the consultations;
- the Assistant Commissioners’ analysis of the strength of the arguments for adoption of any of those counter-proposals; and
- our decision on whether or not to make changes to our proposals in the given area.
3.4 A tabular summary of the revised constituencies we now propose appears in the Appendix to this report.
3.5 Throughout this chapter, where we refer to a respondent’s response, we do so by using the reference number, i.e. BCE-12345 (we only include an individual’s name if they gave permission for it to be published). This reference number corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website at www.bcereviews.org.uk. All representations received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this website. The representations received in response to these revised proposals will be published at the end of the review.
Back to topSub-regions
3.6 Yorkshire and the Humber comprises the county council area of North Yorkshire plus the unitary authority 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
3.7 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 maintained the number of constituencies at 54.
3.8 The distribution of electors across 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, was not possible. Accordingly, we sought to group local authorities together into sub-regions, to which a whole number of constituencies could be allocated, while, within those, still seeking to respect the boundaries of component local authorities as far as reasonably possible.
3.9 Humberside could be allocated nine constituencies, but each would have to be very near the upper limit of the permitted electorate range, which provides little flexibility in creating constituencies. Options are restricted further by the geographical constraints of the former county (particularly the North Sea coast, Humber estuary, and boundary with the East Midlands region). Accordingly, we proposed combining Humberside with South Yorkshire to form a sub-region with 23 constituencies that provided both more flexibility in Humberside and allowed for an arrangement of constituencies in South Yorkshire with better regard to the statutory factors. Including the Isle of Axholme area of Humberside in a constituency with wards from Doncaster allowed for a better set of proposals across the whole sub-region.
3.10 North Yorkshire could not be assigned a whole number of constituencies, but combining it with West Yorkshire creates a sub-region with a mathematical entitlement to almost exactly 31 constituencies. Such a grouping also allows for more flexibility when constructing constituencies in West Yorkshire, where the electorate size of metropolitan borough wards makes it difficult to create constituencies within the permitted range without dividing towns between constituencies. For these reasons, we allocated 31 constituencies to a sub-region that comprised North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, with 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.
3.11 There was broad support for the proposed sub-regions, including from the Green Party (BCE-96981), Labour Party (BCE-79525, BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE-83448, BCE-96103 and BCE-96983).
3.12 The Conservative Party (BCE-85514, BCE-96439 and BCE-96980) supported grouping South Yorkshire with North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire in a southern sub-region of 17 constituencies, but then proposed including East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull in the same sub-region as North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, with 37 constituencies. This would include two cross-county boundary constituencies between East Riding of Yorkshire and North Yorkshire, and a further three between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. BCE-79391 forwent sub-regions altogether and treated the region as one group of 54 constituencies: this would incorporate two cross-county boundary constituencies between North Yorkshire and the unitary authorities of Humberside, one between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, and one between South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
3.13 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the strength of parts of the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal; however they did not, on the whole, consider that the new sub-region arrangement permitted a superior overall arrangement based on the statutory factors – particularly with regard to local government boundaries. Similarly, they did not consider that forgoing sub-regions altogether and treating the region as one group of 54 constituencies, as in BCE-79391, resulted in a superior arrangement.
3.14 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that the sub-regional groupings in the initial proposals be retained in the revised proposals. We agree with their recommendation and therefore propose retaining the sub-regional groupings of: Humberside and South Yorkshire; and North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
3.15 In the next sections of our report, we consider each of our now proposed sub-regions in turn, summarising our initial proposals, followed by the responses and counter-proposals received, our Assistant Commissioners’ consideration of the evidence and their recommendations, and our revised proposals on the basis of the evidence received and in accordance with the statutory rules for the 2023 Review.
Back to topHumberside and South Yorkshire
3.16 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 mathematically entitled to 23.05 constituencies, meaning that it was allocated 23, a reduction of one from the existing arrangement.
3.17 We began by considering the cross-county boundary constituency that was necessary between Humberside and South Yorkshire, noting that the options would be restricted due to the limited length of boundary between the two, and the natural geography of the Humber estuary.
South Yorkshire
3.18 We proposed a Doncaster East and Axholme constituency at initial proposals, crossing the county boundary between South Yorkshire and the unitary authority of North Lincolnshire. This constituency comprised the three 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.
3.19 Including the three Axholme wards in a constituency with Doncaster borough enabled the identification of further sub-divisions within South Yorkshire, which supported minimal change to the existing constituencies and a better respect for local government boundaries: the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley allocated eight constituencies; and the boroughs of Rotherham and Doncaster (plus the three Axholme wards) allocated six constituencies.
3.20 Elsewhere in the Borough of Doncaster, we proposed that both the existing Doncaster Central and Doncaster North constituencies would be changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries. The Thorne & Moorends and Stainforth & Barnby Dun wards are both currently split between the Doncaster North constituency and one other constituency, and it was proposed that the former be removed from the proposed Doncaster North constituency, while the latter be wholly included. Meanwhile the Tickhill & Wadworth ward is currently split between the Doncaster Central and Don Valley constituencies, and we proposed including it wholly within the former. We also proposed that this constituency, based predominantly on the existing Doncaster Central, be called Doncaster Town.
3.21 The initial proposals for the Borough of Doncaster were mostly opposed during the consultation periods, although they were supported by all of the qualifying political parties. The greatest source of contention was the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme. There was opposition to the proposed inclusion of the three wards that comprise the Isle of Axholme in a predominantly Doncaster borough-based constituency from respondents in both Doncaster and North Lincolnshire, with representations such as BCE-65908 stating the areas have different characters and limited ties. In particular, residents of the Thorne & Moorends ward said that they would prefer to be included in the proposed Doncaster North constituency rather than Doncaster East and Axholme, highlighting their close links to the town of Stainforth (BCE-94934). There was also some opposition to the proposed inclusion of the large rural ward of Tickhill & Wadworth with the urban centre of Doncaster in the proposed Doncaster Town constituency. A number of respondents to the consultation said that the Tickhill & Wadworth ward should be in a constituency with the rural Doncaster villages to its east, identifying the strong association with the village of Bawtry particularly.
3.22 We received multiple counter-proposals that put forward alternative arrangements for Doncaster borough. BCE-79391 would retain three constituencies wholly within the Borough of Doncaster, by transferring wards between the three existing constituencies. Although the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of such an arrangement for Doncaster borough, they did not consider that the extensive change that would be necessary across South Yorkshire as a result of treating Doncaster as a new sub-regional grouping would be acceptable, particularly as the minimal change from the existing arrangement in the initial proposals for South Yorkshire was mostly supported during the consultation periods.
3.23 BCE-65908 put forward a counter-proposal that would avoid both the inclusion of the Thorne & Moorends ward in a cross-county boundary constituency with the Isle of Axholme, and the inclusion of the Tickhill & Wadworth ward in a constituency with the centre of Doncaster. To achieve this, however, wards would have to be transferred between the three existing constituencies of the borough, two of which were unchanged in the initial proposals other than for realignment to new local government ward boundaries. As such, the Assistant Commissioners considered this would result in greater change to the existing arrangement of constituencies than the initial proposals, and therefore give a less satisfactory solution with regard to the statutory factors overall.
3.24 The counter-proposals received from both the Doncaster Central Constituency Labour Party (BCE-78248) and the Doncaster North Constituency Labour Party (BCE-78202) proposed splitting wards between constituencies in Doncaster borough in an effort to resolve some of the issues raised during the consultation periods. The Doncaster Central Constituency Labour Party proposed splitting the Tickhill & Wadworth ward between the Doncaster Central, and Doncaster East and Axholme constituencies, with the town of Tickhill included with the rural Doncaster villages to the east. While the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the retention of the local ties between these areas in this counter-proposal, and in particular the links between the towns of Tickhill and Bawtry, they considered it could be argued that similar community ties within the ward between the town of Tickhill and village of Wadworth would be neglected. The Doncaster North Constituency Labour Party instead outlined a counter-proposal that would split three wards between constituencies within the Borough of Doncaster, and would retain the existing split of wards arising from changes to local government ward boundaries since the last update of Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Although this would retain two existing constituencies wholly unchanged, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider such splitting of wards to be in keeping with the Commission’s policy on ward splits. They also had concerns regarding the breaking of community ties within wards – particularly between the town of Thorne and village of Moorends, which would be in different constituencies in this counter-proposal.
3.25 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to the proposed arrangement of constituencies across Doncaster borough and the Isle of Axholme – in particular the opposition to the inclusion of the Isle of Axholme in the cross-county boundary constituency of Doncaster East and Axholme. Despite this opposition, they considered that South Yorkshire and Humberside should continue to be combined as a sub-region to allow for more flexibility when creating constituency arrangements across both county areas. In particular, they noted that, if there was to be no cross-county boundary arrangement, there would be extensive change from the existing arrangement of constituencies across the sub-region – and particularly so across South Yorkshire, where the change proposed would otherwise be minimal. The Assistant Commissioners also noted that all the qualifying political parties supported the proposed constituency crossing between South Yorkshire and the North Lincolnshire unitary authority, recognising that the relatively short border between the county of South Yorkshire and the Humberside unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire makes realistic alternatives limited. The Assistant Commissioners considered that the continued inclusion of all of the Isle of Axholme in a cross-county boundary constituency would be the most appropriate arrangement to facilitate a pattern of constituencies across the sub-region as a whole that best reflect the statutory criteria.
3.26 The Assistant Commissioners also acknowledged opposition to the inclusion of the Tickhill & Wadworth ward in the proposed Doncaster Town constituency, rather than with the rural villages to the east of the city, and to the inclusion of the Thorne & Moorends ward in the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme constituency rather than Doncaster North. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that the counter-proposals better satisfied the statutory factors than the initial proposals did, particularly with regard to respect for the existing arrangement of constituencies and local government boundaries. Having reviewed all of the evidence received from the consultation process, the Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no change to the composition of the constituencies across Doncaster borough and the Isle of Axholme, as we had initially proposed. Since the initial proposals were published, however, Doncaster has acquired city status and, in consequence, the Assistant Commissioners recommended a retention of the existing constituency name of Doncaster Central. They recommended no name changes for the Doncaster East and Axholme, and Doncaster North constituencies.
3.27 We agree with the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners for the three constituencies covering Doncaster borough, and propose no revisions to the proposed Doncaster East and Axholme, and Doncaster North constituencies, and a name change only for the proposed Doncaster Town constituency, to Doncaster Central.
3.28 Within the Borough of Rotherham, the existing constituencies of Rotherham and Rother Valley were changed in the initial proposals only to realign boundaries to new local government ward boundaries. The remaining Borough of Rotherham wards were combined with the two remaining Borough of Doncaster wards (Conisbrough and Edlington & Warmsworth) in the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency.
3.29 The initially proposed constituencies wholly or partially within the Borough of Rotherham were supported in full during the consultation process by the Green Party (BCE-96981), Labour Party (BCE-79525, BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE-83448, BCE-96103 and BCE-96983). The greatest source of representations regarding the borough was the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency, predominantly due to the inclusion of the community of Bramley (Bramley & Ravenfield ward) in this constituency, rather than the Rother Valley constituency. Representations such as those from Alexander Stafford, MP for Rother Valley (BCE-69848, BCE-69858 and BCE94666) stated that there are no links between Bramley and the main centres of the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency. Elsewhere in the borough, there was also some opposition to the inclusion of the Rother Vale ward in the proposed Rother Valley constituency instead of in Rotherham. The Conservative Party (BCE-85514, BCE-96439 and BCE-96980) would transfer this ward from the former to the latter constituency in their counter-proposal, maintaining that the communities of Catcliffe and Treeton have closer links with Rotherham, and are separated from the towns of the Rother Valley constituency by open greenspace. Few other counter-proposals were received for Rotherham borough. BCE-79391 proposed extensive change from the existing arrangement, including cross-local authority boundary constituencies with both the Borough of Barnsley and the City of Sheffield.
3.30 The Assistant Commissioners accepted the reasoning provided by the Conservative Party for the inclusion of the Rother Vale ward in the Rotherham constituency from the proposed Rother Valley constituency. They observed that, following changes to local government ward boundaries, the ward is currently split between these two constituencies, and that the communities of Catcliffe, Waverley and Treeton were likely to have closer ties with the town of Rotherham than with the communities of Rother Valley such as Dinnington, based on physical road links, shared primary care networks and school catchment areas. The Assistant Commissioners also noted the significant green belt land between the communities of the Rother Vale ward and those of the rest of the proposed Rother Valley constituency, including Waverley Park, Treeton Dyke and Hail Mary Hill Wood. In light of all this evidence, the Assistant Commissioners recommended adoption of the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal in respect of the Rother Vale ward. We accept their recommendations and we therefore propose that the Rother Vale ward be transferred from the proposed Rother Valley constituency to Rotherham, with no further revisions to the name or composition of either constituency.
3.31 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to the inclusion of the part of the community of Bramley that lies south of the A631 Bawtry Road in the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency. They accepted that the community of south Bramley likely has closer ties with south Wickersley in the proposed Rother Valley constituency than with the main centres of the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency. However, they noted that this part of Bramley is within the Bramley & Ravenfield ward, which now extends south of the A631 Bawtry Road following changes to local government ward boundaries. As such, the only way to retain the community of south Bramley in the Rother Valley constituency would be to include the whole of the Bramley & Ravenfield ward, or split the ward between the proposed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, and Rother Valley constituencies. The Assistant Commissioners considered that to include the whole ward would precipitate change across a wider area that would likely negatively affect community ties, and they did not consider that this proposal met our criteria for splitting a ward. We agree with them and propose no revisions to the Rawmarsh and Conisbrough constituency as initially proposed.
3.32 Across the City of Sheffield and the Borough of Barnsley, we proposed no change to the existing constituencies of Penistone and Stocksbridge, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, and Sheffield Hallam, other than to realign their boundaries to new local government ward boundaries. The electorate of the existing Sheffield Central constituency – particularly large at 89,266 – would be reduced and brought within the permitted electorate range through the inclusion of the Manor Castle ward in the proposed Sheffield Heeley constituency. In turn, the Richmond ward would be split between the Sheffield Heeley and Sheffield South East constituencies to bring these both within the permitted range. The south-west part of the ward (polling districts UB, UC and UE), including the areas of Four Lane Ends and Intake, would be included in the Sheffield Heeley constituency, and the remainder of the ward (polling districts UA, UD, UF, UG and UH), centred on Richmond, in the Sheffield South East constituency. No further change was proposed across the City of Sheffield. Aside from the Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in the remainder of the Borough of Barnsley we proposed a north-south arrangement, comprising the constituencies of Barnsley North and Barnsley South. These constituencies were formed from the wards of the existing Barnsley Central and Barnsley East constituencies, plus the Dearne North and Dearne South wards of the existing Wentworth and Dearne constituency.
3.33 We received relatively few representations on these initial proposals across Barnsley and Sheffield, with the majority of those – including all of the qualifying political parties – being in support. Dan Jarvis, MP for Barnsley Central (BCE-75573) described the initial proposals in Barnsley borough as ‘sensible, pragmatic and consistent with local geography and community ties’, while Councillor Jonathan Harston (BCE-78583) described the initial proposals in the City of Sheffield as ‘probably as close to perfect within the rules that can be implemented’.
3.34 Given the limited opposition to the initial proposals in the Borough of Barnsley and City of Sheffield and the expressed support, the Assistant Commissioners considered that there was no significant or compelling reason to amend the constituencies in the two local authorities. They therefore recommended retaining the initial proposals in their entirety across these authorities. We agree and therefore propose no change to the constituencies of Barnsley North, Barnsley South, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, Sheffield Central, Sheffield Hallam, Sheffield Heeley, and Sheffield South East.
Humberside
3.35 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 formed a self-contained sub-division of the sub-region in the initial proposals, with three constituencies.
3.36 We proposed a Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency that would bring together the centres and most of the constituent parts of the two towns. It would contain 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). We proposed that the remaining five North East Lincolnshire wards be combined with four North Lincolnshire wards in a newly named South Humber constituency. This constituency would group the Scartho ward of Grimsby with the North East Lincolnshire town of Immingham and the North Lincolnshire towns of Barton-upon-Humber and Brigg. Finally, the existing Scunthorpe constituency would be brought within the permitted electorate range by expanding it northwards to include the ward of Burton upon Stather and Winterton, and westwards to include the ward of Burringham and Gunness.
3.37 The three constituencies proposed for this area received a mixed response during the consultation process. Representations received in response to the proposed Scunthorpe constituency were mostly positive, including those from all the qualifying political parties. Holly Mumby-Croft, MP for Scunthorpe (BCE-85438) welcomed the proposed addition of the Burton upon Stather and Winterton, and Burringham and Gunness wards to the constituency, describing them as a ‘natural fit’. This representation, along with that of Andrew Percy, MP for Brigg and Goole (BCE-70162), also highlighted that these two wards already include housing developments that consider themselves as part of Scunthorpe. In view of the overall support for the proposed Scunthorpe constituency the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any revisions to the initial proposals.
3.38 Conversely, the proposed constituencies of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and South Humber, were strongly opposed during the consultation process. Matthew Brown (BCE-57861) and Cleethorpes Community Sports and Education (BCE-62190), among others, contended that Grimsby and Cleethorpes are highly distinct areas with different identities and socio-economic needs, and for this reason they should be in different constituencies. Additionally, representations such as those from Liam Tarttelin (BCE-70613) and BCE-87106 objected to the proposed exclusion of the Scartho ward from Grimsby, and the inclusion of the villages of Waltham, New Waltham and Humberston in a constituency with more industrial towns such as Immingham and Barton-upon-Humber, rather than Cleethorpes.
3.39 Despite the significant opposition to the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and South Humber constituencies, the Assistant Commissioners noted that their composition was supported by all of the qualifying political parties, as well as North East Lincolnshire council (BCE-74577, BCE-74580 and BCE-93502). The proposed South Humber name was, however, more widely opposed, with most of the opposition focused on the use of ‘Humber’ in the name: the most popular alternatives included referencing populous towns, such as Brigg and Immingham, or were a more general geographical description, such as Northern Lincolnshire.
3.40 A counter-proposal for the towns of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, first proposed by Matthew Brown, was widely supported across both consultation periods – although with various names put forward for the constituencies. Respondents proposed that the centres of the two towns be in separate constituencies: Grimsby would be grouped with Barton-upon-Humber, Brigg and Immingham, to create what was described as a more industrial constituency, while Cleethorpes would be grouped with the villages of Humberston, Waltham and New Waltham to the south, to create a more rural constituency with an economy more based on tourism and agriculture.
3.41 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the strength of opposition to the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and South Humber constituencies, and the support for the counter-proposal described above, and decided to visit the area themselves in order to better understand the options. Upon evaluating the merit of the counter-proposal from Matthew Brown and others, the Assistant Commissioners did not ultimately consider it to be superior to the initial proposals. They noted that the creation of a separate Cleethorpes-based constituency in the counter-proposal would require the grouping of the three wards of Heneage, Park and South from Grimsby in a constituency with Cleethorpes and the more rural villages to the south. When visiting these wards, the Assistant Commissioners considered them to be key parts of the town of Grimsby, particularly in their northern reaches, and as such felt that the counterproposal would unacceptably break local ties of these communities with Grimsby. They also struggled to identify any obvious boundary between the suburbs of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and observed that they instead appeared to be one continuous urban area. In light of the findings from their visit, they recommended no change to the composition or name of the proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency. Nonetheless, the Assistant Commissioners were sympathetic to those opposing the proposed transfer of the Scartho ward. They appreciated that Scartho is a suburb of Grimsby and its exclusion from a constituency containing Grimsby town centre in the initial proposals is not ideal. Nevertheless, they considered that no counter-proposal received during the consultations, or alternative arrangements investigated, were able to satisfactorily resolve this issue without significant disruption and breaking local ties elsewhere.
3.42 With regard to the villages of Waltham, New Waltham and Humberston, while the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that they likely do look to Cleethorpes for their key services and amenities, they considered that the wards containing them have a distinctly more rural character. While accepting that these villages would be included in a constituency with considerably more industrial areas to the north, they noted that the large majority of that proposed South Humber constituency would still be highly rural, made up of agricultural land, with industrial development confined to the southern bank of the Humber estuary. They also noted that the rural villages south of Cleethorpes are already included with more industrial areas to the north (such as Immingham) in the existing constituency. Following these considerations, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the composition of the proposed South Humber constituency, but in light of the widespread opposition to the name, recommended naming it Brigg and Immingham instead.
3.43 After reviewing the evidence received during the consultation process and the Assistant Commissioners’ site visits and subsequent recommendations, we agree with their recommendations not to revise the initially proposed Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and Scunthorpe constituencies. We also agree with their recommendation to retain the initial proposals for the composition of the South Humber constituency, but rename it Brigg and Immingham, noting support for that name from the Labour Party (BCE-95675), BCE-88617 and BCE-87777, among others.
3.44 When forming the initial proposals, the unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull formed a self-contained sub-division of the sub-region and were allocated six constituencies. All three of the existing Kingston upon Hull constituencies fall below the permitted electorate range, so we proposed that the existing Kingston upon Hull East constituency be expanded eastwards to take in the East Riding of Yorkshire ward of South West Holderness, while the existing Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency be expanded westwards through the addition of the two East Riding of Yorkshire wards of South Hunsley and Tranby. We proposed that the existing Kingston upon Hull North constituency be changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries, including all three wards of Avenue, Central and West Carr (which are currently split between constituencies).
3.45 Three constituencies were then proposed wholly within the unitary authority of East Riding of Yorkshire. The seven coastal wards would form a Bridlington and Holderness constituency that grouped the town of Bridlington with the remaining Holderness area to the south. The towns of Beverley, Driffield, Market Weighton and Pocklington would be combined in a Beverley and The Wolds constituency. Finally, the proposed Goole and Haltemprice constituency would comprise the remaining nine East Riding of Yorkshire wards, grouping the town of Goole to the south of the River Ouse with the town of Howden to its north, and the communities to the east, up to the outskirts of Hull.
3.46 The initial proposals for the arrangement of constituencies across Kingston upon Hull were particularly contentious during the consultation process. Significant opposition was received in response to the extension of the constituencies of Kingston upon Hull East, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle into the East Riding of Yorkshire. Respondents from the South West Holderness ward referred to the distinct rural character of the communities of the ward compared to east Hull, and the very different problems each area consequently faces (Beverley and Holderness Conservative Association – BCE-85494). In addition, many representations, including a letter writing campaign (BCE-63300), referred to a 2014 ‘referendum’ on the subject of the extension of the City of Hull into the surrounding East Riding of Yorkshire: this had achieved a high response rate and an almost universal opposition to such expansion. A smaller number of representations were received, however, that questioned the degree of separation of Hull and the South West Holderness town of Hedon, and in particular any conclusions drawn from the ‘referendum’. BCE-91781 stated that following the awarding of Freeport status to the Humber area and the forthcoming development of the proposed Yorkshire Energy Park, the gap between the two communities will close further. George McManus, on day two of the Hull public hearing (BCE-97284), queried the reliance that should be placed on the ‘2014 referendum’ referenced in multiple representations, instead describing it as a ‘carefully selected opinion poll’, which was also specifically about a prospective extension of local authority boundaries, not a constituency reconfiguration and the significantly smaller administrative impact that would have on residents’ lives.
3.47 To the west of Hull, respondents, including Emma Hardy, MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (BCE-75273), opposed the prospective inclusion of the South Hunsley ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, for similar reasons to those heard from South West Holderness. The representations contended that the South Hunsley ward is significantly more rural in nature than the rest of the proposed constituency and highlighted that it is bisected from Hull and its surrounding villages by the north-south A164 Humber Bridge-Beverley road. The representations also noted the stark socio-economic differences between the communities of South Hunsley and those in the west of Hull, with such differences meaning community ties between the areas are limited.
3.48 We received some opposition to the proposed Goole and Haltemprice constituency, including from Joe Riches (BCE-85267) and the Haltemprice & Howden Constituency Labour Party (BCE-79425), stating that the constituency would stretch too far east-west, grouping communities with very little in common. In particular it was said that the suburban developments to the west of Hull – such as Cottingham and Willerby – have no links to the town of Goole and its rural hinterlands, and would be better placed in a predominantly Hull-based constituency. The Liberal Democrats (BCE-83448, BCE-96103 and BCE-96983) noted that Cottingham is physically connected to Hull by Bricknell Avenue, Inglemire Lane and Endyke Lane, with residential areas such as the Bricknell Estate spanning the city boundary, while the East Riding of Yorkshire ward of Tranby is physically connected to the Hull city ward of Boothferry by Anlaby Common. They also highlighted the close ties between Tranby and the neighbouring East Riding of Yorkshire ward of Willerby and Kirk Ella, with residential streets such as Kerry Pit Way and Mill Lane spanning the two, and no discernible difference between communities.
3.49 A smaller number of representations were received in opposition to the proposed Bridlington and Holderness constituency. Charlie Dewhirst (BCE-85041), among others, stated that, other than sharing a coastline, there is little in common between Bridlington and the Holderness villages, and the transport links between them are very poor.
3.50 Multiple counter-proposals were received for the six constituencies covering the East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull, which aimed to rectify some of the issues discussed above. Some of these proposed relatively minor changes to the initial proposals for Kingston upon Hull, in order to avoid the inclusion of the South Hunsley ward in a Hull-based constituency – leaving the constituencies of Beverley and The Wolds, Bridlington and Holderness, and Kingston upon Hull East unchanged from the initial proposals. Jonathan Stansby (BCE-64225) proposed simply replacing the South Hunsley ward in the Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency with the Willerby and Kirk Ella ward.
3.51 Both the Haltemprice & Howden Constituency Labour Party and George McManus (BCE-80243) put forward proposals that the two wards covering the village of Cottingham – Cottingham North and Cottingham South – should be included in the proposed Kingston upon Hull North constituency, while exchanging wards between this constituency and the proposed Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, to avoid the inclusion of the South Hunsley ward in the latter. The Haltemprice & Howden Constituency Labour Party’s proposals would also allow for the retention of the centre of the City of Hull – generally considered to be the Central and St. Andrew’s & Docklands wards – in one constituency (the proposed Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency). The division of these two wards in the centre of Hull between constituencies was identified as a particular issue in the initial proposals by Emma Hardy MP (BCE-97184), among others.
3.52 A counter-proposal from the Liberal Democrats proposed splitting the East Riding of Yorkshire ward of Wolds Weighton between constituencies, using polling districts that mirror existing parish council boundaries. This would allow for a Beverley and Holderness constituency similar to the existing arrangement, minus the North Holderness ward, and would avoid the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. The two other Hull-based constituencies would extend west into the East Riding of Yorkshire through the inclusion of the Cottingham North, Cottingham South, Tranby, and Willerby and Kirk Ella wards, while avoiding the inclusion of the South Hunsley ward. The centre of Hull, however, would still be divided between constituencies. The merit of the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal for this area was acknowledged by both the Labour Party (BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) and Conservative Party (BCE-96439 and BCE-96980), while the Green Party (BCE96981) supported it to the extent of including it in their own counter-proposal. It was also supported during the second consultation period by members of the public, including Jonathan Stansby and BCE-87777.
3.53 We received other counter-proposals that were similar in parts to that from the Liberal Democrats: Joe Riches proposed an arrangement the same as the Liberal Democrats for Kingston upon Hull East and the three constituencies wholly within the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority – including the division of the Wolds Weighton ward, but proposed the inclusion of the Willerby and Kirk Ella ward in a Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham constituency, rather than in a Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice constituency (the Avenue ward would be included in the latter instead). This proposal would also split the Central ward between these two constituencies, which, as a consequence, would retain more of the centre of Hull in a single constituency (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice).
3.54 The Labour Party (BCE-79525, BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) put forward a counter-proposal for the same area that would avoid the inclusion of the South Hunsley ward in a Hull-based constituency, but retain the South West Holderness ward in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. As in other counter-proposals already discussed, they proposed the two Cottingham wards be included in a Kingston upon Hull North constituency, but they also proposed transferring wards between all three of the initially proposed Hull-based constituencies – including the St. Andrew’s & Docklands ward to a Kingston upon Hull East constituency that would straddle the River Hull. They contended that this would unite ‘the river front and docklands communities’ in a single constituency. Such a river-crossing constituency, however, was opposed during the consultation process: Colin Inglis (BCE-86722) said ‘there is no case for incorporating the St. Andrew’s & Docklands ward into the East Hull constituency’, stating that ‘in its southern reaches, below Clough Road, the River Hull has been a very clear boundary for over 700 years’ and that such a transfer of wards would damage the ‘sense of community in what has always been the core of West Hull’.
3.55 Finally, counter-proposals were received for East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull that would involve cross-county boundary constituencies with North Yorkshire, and thus a different sub-regional grouping than that adopted for the initial proposals. The Conservative Party (BCE-85514, BCE96439 and BCE-96980) proposed only one constituency that would cross the local authority boundary between Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire (a Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice constituency that would still include the South Hunsley ward), but they proposed two cross-county boundary constituencies with North Yorkshire: a Bridlington and The Wolds constituency taking in wards from three local authorities (East Riding of Yorkshire, District of Ryedale and Borough of Scarborough); and a Selby and Goole constituency between the East Riding of Yorkshire and the District of Selby. Such an arrangement was supported by some respondents during the consultation process, including Tony Galbraith on behalf of the Haltemprice and Howden Conservative Association (BCE-97286), who took the view that only one constituency should cross the local authority boundary between Kingston upon Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire. Despite this support, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that a new sub-regional grouping permitted a superior arrangement based on the statutory factors overall, and therefore did not recommend the adoption of the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal in this area.
3.56 To better understand the issues around Hull, the Assistant Commissioners visited the area. They noted the objection received from the South West Holderness ward, but observed that the main settlements of Hedon and Preston effectively act as dormitory settlements to the City of Hull. They also considered that planned development around the Salt End area and the granting of Freeport status along the Humber might decrease the separation between the City of Hull and the town of Hedon even further at some point in the future. Despite this, they agreed that the ward currently has a distinct character when compared to the east of Hull, with a large proportion of it highly rural and sparsely populated.
3.57 The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the evidence regarding South Hunsley ward being distinct from the City of Hull both in character and demographics. They also considered that the Haltemprice villages (Anlaby, Anlaby Common, Cottingham, Hessle, Kirk Ella, West Ella and Willerby) have very few ties to Goole and Howden with which they were grouped in the initial proposals, and act as ‘a de facto part of the city’s urban/suburban area’ (Liberal Democrats – BCE-83448) contained within the A164 ring road. In particular, they noted the evidence that the local authority boundary between the Hull wards of Boothferry and Derringham, and the East Riding of Yorkshire wards of Tranby, and Willerby and Kirk Ella is imperceptible, passing through residential streets. This was confirmed to them while visiting the area in order to see the local geography for themselves.
3.58 Having considered the representations and counter-proposals received regarding the six constituencies covering East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull, the Assistant Commissioners accepted that both the counter-proposals submitted by the Liberal Democrats and the Haltemprice & Howden Constituency Labour Party had significant merit, but concluded that the approach put forward by the Liberal Democrats provided a superior arrangement of constituencies overall, and recommended its adoption with a minor adjustment.
3.59 Specifically, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the Wolds Weighton ward be split between constituencies, which would allow for the inclusion of the South West Holderness ward in a Beverley and Holderness constituency, as opposed to in the proposed Kingston upon Hull East constituency. The proposed Beverley and Holderness constituency would then be the same as the existing arrangement, minus the North Holderness ward. In turn, the North Carr ward would be included in the Kingston upon Hull East constituency, rather than in Kingston upon Hull North. To the west of Hull, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the South Hunsley ward be included in a constituency with the town of Goole, with the Willerby and Kirk Ella ward instead included in the Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency. They also recommended that the two wards comprising the village of Cottingham – Cottingham North and Cottingham South – should be included in the Kingston upon Hull North constituency (for the reasons outlined above). The Assistant Commissioners recommended a modification to the Liberal Democrats’ counterproposal, which would involve the Central ward being split, using polling districts, between the Kingston upon Hull North, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituencies. They believed there was merit in this change, as it would allow for more of the centre of the City of Hull – including Hull train station and Hull Royal Infirmary – to be included in one constituency (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle).
3.60 The Assistant Commissioners recommended the split of Wolds Weighton ward should use polling districts that match the parish council boundaries in the ward, and roughly follow the demarcation of the A1079 road. The nine polling districts covering the villages of Melbourne and Bielby, among others, would be included in a Goole and Pocklington constituency, which would be similar to the Goole and Haltemprice constituency of the initial proposals, minus the Haltemprice villages, but with the addition of the South Hunsley and Pocklington Provincial wards. The remainder of Wolds Weighton ward (20 polling districts) would be included in a Bridlington and The Wolds constituency, including the towns of Bridlington and Driffield, among others.
3.61 After considering the evidence received during the consultation process and the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations, we agree that the counterproposal submitted by the Liberal Democrats would be the superior arrangement in this area. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners’ conclusion that it is more appropriate to extend the Hull-based constituencies to the west, up to the A164 ring road – including all of the Haltemprice villages that act as suburbs of the City of Hull. Therefore, we propose that the Wolds Weighton ward be split between constituencies as described, to permit such an arrangement across Hull. We also acknowledge that this allows an arrangement across East Riding of Yorkshire that would be more similar to the existing arrangement, and therefore consider it to be superior to the initial proposals. However, one element of the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations with which we do not agree is the recommended split of the Central ward between the proposed Kingston upon Hull North, and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituencies. While we accept that the Liberal Democrats’ arrangement within Hull likely divides the city centre to some degree, a ward split is not required for this approach to address the multiple issues raised by other representations, and based on the evidence received during the consultation process, we do not consider that these circumstances are sufficiently strong to lead us to support the split of a ward in Hull city centre.
3.62 In conclusion, therefore, we propose the complete adoption of the counterproposal from the Liberal Democrats for the unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull, other than three names. We propose the constituencies of: Beverley and Holderness; Bridlington and The Wolds; Goole and Pocklington (identical to the Boothferry and South Hunsley constituency of the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal); Kingston upon Hull East; Kingston upon Hull North (identical to the Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham constituency of the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal); and Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (identical to the Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice constituency of the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal).
Back to topNorth Yorkshire and West Yorkshire
3.63 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, so was allocated 31, an increase of one from the existing arrangement. When developing our proposals, the large size of ward electorates in the metropolitan boroughs of West Yorkshire, particularly in the City of Leeds and the Borough of Kirklees – which have minimum ward sizes of more than 15,000 and 12,000 respectively – caused us particular difficulties. We proposed two cross-county boundary constituencies for this sub-region, both of which would contain wards from the City of Leeds and one or more North Yorkshire local authorities, detailed below.
North Yorkshire
3.64 We proposed that the county boundary between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire be crossed in two areas in the initial proposals. We proposed a Selby constituency that would include 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 also proposed a Wetherby and Easingwold constituency that would consist of two City of Leeds wards (Harewood and Wetherby); the remaining 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 would stretch 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).
3.65 Both cross-county boundary constituencies proposed in this sub-region were contentious. Only one of the qualifying political parties supported them – the Labour Party (BCE-79525, BCE-95675 and BCE-96982). The inclusion of the Leeds city ward of Kippax & Methley in a predominantly Selby district-based constituency was widely opposed in representations such as BCE-62798 and BCE-88382. They stated that there is no commonality between the two areas, with Kippax instead being closely tied to the Leeds town of Garforth. The second cross-county boundary constituency in the sub-region, Wetherby and Easingwold, was also strongly opposed during consultation. Most of the opposition (excluding that regarding the inclusion of the Harrogate borough ward of Claro, which is discussed in detail below) made reference to the large geographical size of the proposed constituency and the fact it would cover four separate local authorities. Kevin Hollinrake, MP for Thirsk and Malton (BCE73692), stated that this would make the constituency ‘poorly compliant with Rule 5(b)’ of the legislation, while the Liberal Democrats (BCE-83448, BCE-96103 and BCE-96983) said it would make it unduly difficult for a Member of Parliament to represent. Many representations, such as that from Alec Shelbrooke, MP for Elmet and Rothwell (BCE-71205), BCE-79539 and BCE-88424, said that the proposed constituency would group many disparate communities with no local ties or natural affinity between them. BCE-62815 stated that the three principal towns of the proposed constituency all look to ‘different cities as their geographical, social and political locus: Wetherby to Leeds, Easingwold to York and Boroughbridge to Ripon’. With respect to the crossing of local authority boundaries, the Assistant Commissioners noted that the new unitary authority area of North Yorkshire Council, which is due to be implemented in April 2023 – as highlighted in representations such as that from North Yorkshire County Council (BCE-94120) – will reduce the number of local authorities in this proposed constituency from four to two.
3.66 As part of their alternative sub-regional grouping, the Conservative Party (BCE85514, BCE-96439 and BCE-96980) proposed linking Selby in a cross-county boundary constituency with the town of Goole, rather than Kippax & Methley. In turn, they proposed that the Kippax & Methley ward be split along the River Aire, with both parts being included in City of Wakefield-based constituencies. This counter-proposal was supported by Nigel Adams, MP for Selby and Ainsty (BCE-95208) and Andrew Percy, MP for Brigg and Goole (BCE-97280), who referenced the many physical, historical and cultural links between the towns of Selby and Goole, while Alec Shelbrooke MP (BCE-71205 and BCE-97126), stated that the Wakefield town of Castleford acts as the economic hub for the community of Kippax.
3.67 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the potential benefits of a constituency that would group the towns of Selby and Goole, and the support this garnered from multiple representations during the consultations. They accepted that there are strong transport, cultural and historical links between the two areas. They noted, however, that this arrangement would create a cross-county boundary constituency between North Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire and would therefore be dependent on a new sub-region arrangement with consequential extensive change across the whole region. As has been mentioned previously, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that this alternative sub-region arrangement would result in a superior pattern of constituencies for the region as a whole, based on the statutory factors.
3.68 Both the Liberal Democrats and BCE-60759 agreed that the most appropriate place to cross the county boundary between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire would be between the east of the City of Leeds and the neighbouring districts of North Yorkshire. Both proposed two constituencies that would cover the same wards as the Selby, and Wetherby and Easingwold constituencies in the initial proposals, but distributed those 31 wards differently between the constituencies. They said the three City of Leeds wards of Harewood, Kippax & Methley and Wetherby should be included in a constituency with eight wards comprising the southern ‘half’ of Selby district, covering the villages of Eggborough and Sherburn in Elmet, among others. The remainder of Selby district would be grouped with the same Harrogate borough and Hambleton district wards included in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency. This proposal was also supported by the Green Party in the second consultation stage (BCE96981). The arrangement would reduce the number of cross-county boundary constituencies to just one, and avoid a constituency containing wards from four current local authorities, replacing it with one that crosses three (which, as noted, will become one from April 2023). Kippax & Methley would also no longer be an ‘orphan ward’8 as it would be in a constituency with the other City of Leeds wards of Harewood and Wetherby. The Assistant Commissioners considered that this counter-proposal had merit, and would likely be superior to the initial proposals with regard to respect for local government boundaries. However, they had concerns regarding the unusual shape of the proposed Selby and Easingwold constituency, and the poor travel and transport connectivity within it. They also questioned the level of community ties between the City of Leeds wards of Wetherby and Harewood and the communities in the south of Selby district. The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that, given these geographical and community ties-based considerations, the decision to be made between the counter-proposal put forward by the Liberal Democrats and BCE-60759, and the initial proposals was a finely balanced one.
3.69 Jonathan Stansby (BCE-87147) proposed another alternative cross-county boundary arrangement between the City of Leeds and North Yorkshire. The City of Leeds wards of Harewood, Kippax & Methley and Wetherby would be included in a constituency with the six most westerly wards of Selby district, covering the town of Tadcaster and village of Sherburn in Elmet, among others. Meanwhile, the remainder of Selby district, including the town of Selby itself, would be grouped with six City of York wards, and the Harrogate borough and Hambleton district wards in the initially proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency would be grouped with a further six City of York wards to create a third constituency. As in the counter-proposal submitted by the Liberal Democrats and BCE-60759, the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the merit of this counter-proposal, namely that it would: result in one less county boundary crossing compared to the initial proposals; avoid a constituency containing parts of four local authorities; and prevent Kippax & Methley becoming an ‘orphan ward’. They noted, however, that it would require extensive change to the arrangement across the City of York; the initial proposals avoided such disruption by maintaining the existing constituencies with only minor realignment to new local government ward boundaries and this was largely supported during the consultation process, as discussed in more detail below. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider Jonathan Stansby’s counter-proposal better fulfilled the statutory factors than the initial proposals did.
3.70 After consideration of the evidence received during the consultation process and examination of the counter-proposals received, the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any change to the cross-county boundary arrangement between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in the initial proposals. We accept this recommendation, and do not propose any change to the Selby constituency, or to the cross-county boundary element of the Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (a single ward transfer is proposed elsewhere, and this is discussed in detail below). We propose no change to either constituency name. Noting, however, how very close our Assistant Commissioners felt the decision was between the initial proposals and the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal, we would particularly welcome views and supporting evidence as to whether or not this alternative would be preferable.
3.71 As well as its cross-county boundary element, the proposed inclusion of the Harrogate borough ward of Claro in the Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (as opposed to Harrogate and Knaresborough) was highly contentious (although supported by all qualifying political parties other than the Conservative Party). The Claro ward is currently split between three constituencies due to changes to local government ward boundaries, but more electors reside in the part that is in the existing Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency. At the Northallerton public hearing, Andrew Jones, MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough (BCE97292), highlighted the strong connections between the Claro ward and the towns of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and relatively few links to Wetherby and Easingwold – sentiments that were echoed in written submissions such as that from Councillor James Roberts (BCE-85310). BCE-78315 emphasised the greater distances between the largest town of Claro ward – Scotton – and Wetherby and Easingwold: over ten and 19 miles respectively, compared to just over two miles to Knaresborough. It was also stated that there are multiple bus services between the ward and Harrogate and Knaresborough, but no direct public transport links to Wetherby or Easingwold. Similar arguments were also made in representations from residents of the Boroughbridge ward, such as BCE-74128, although in considerably fewer numbers. The Boroughbridge ward, like part of Claro, is in the existing Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency.
3.72 Including the Claro ward in the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency would have no wider knock-on effects – the initially proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency would remain within the permitted electorate range – and this was put forward in counter-proposals from the Conservative Party and BCE-80475. The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the extensive evidence presented in the representations for including the Claro ward in the proposed Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency and recommended its inclusion to us. They accepted that residents from across the Claro ward likely look to Knaresborough or Harrogate for their services, while there are relatively poor links to the main population centres of the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency. The Assistant Commissioners noted, however, that including both Claro and Boroughbridge wards in this constituency (including Boroughbridge alone would make it a detached part) would result in the number of electors exceeding the permitted electoral range, and therefore require change to all three of the constituencies that include part of Harrogate borough; creating an arrangement of constituencies that the Assistant Commissioners considered would be inferior to the initial proposals. For this reason, they recommended that the Boroughbridge ward remain in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency. We concur with the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners and propose that the only change to the initially proposed constituencies of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Wetherby and Easingwold should be the transfer of Claro ward from the latter to the former.
3.73 The only remaining constituency wholly or partially within the Borough of Harrogate, Skipton and Ripon, would see only minimal change under the initial proposals. This would involve the transfer of the Bishop Monkton & Newby ward to the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency, as well as the realignment of its boundaries to new local government ward boundaries. Few representations were received on this during the consultation process. Those we did receive, such as BCE-52355 and BCE-87328, referred to the local government boundaries themselves (rather than their relationship to the constituency boundaries), so were beyond our remit. The proposed constituency was supported by all qualifying political parties, other than the Conservative Party (who, as mentioned above, proposed wide-scale change across North Yorkshire in consequence of their alternative sub-region). In view of the limited opposition to the proposed Skipton and Ripon constituency, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the constituency, and we agree.
3.74 We only proposed a small change to the arrangement of constituencies in the City of York in the initial proposals: the existing York Central and York Outer constituencies would be amended only to realign with new local government ward boundaries. This was mostly supported during the consultation process, including by all of the qualifying political parties. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central (BCE-74918), among others, supported the small changes, and the subsequent inclusion of the University of York (Hull Road ward) in the proposed York Central constituency. Few counter-proposals were received for the arrangement across the City of York, other than those that proposed extensive change, by linking it with other surrounding local authorities. BCE-60759 proposed the exchange of the Hull Road ward to the York Outer constituency with the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward included in York Central. They contended that this would better respect community ties around the Heslington area, while the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward is an urban ward that would be a better fit in the city centre constituency.
3.75 The Assistant Commissioners considered that the initial proposals would see minimal disruption to the existing arrangement of constituencies in the City of York and were not particularly contentious, so were not minded to recommend either the counter-proposal from Jonathan Stansby that would link York wards with the districts of Hambleton and Selby, and the Borough of Harrogate, nor the ward transfer as proposed in BCE-60759. We accept their recommendation and propose no change to either the York Central or York Outer constituencies as in the initial proposals.
3.76 To compensate for the inclusion of the three District of Hambleton wards in the proposed Wetherby and Easingwold constituency (Easingwold, Huby and Raskelf & White Horse), the existing Thirsk and Malton constituency was reconfigured in the initial proposals to extend further westwards. The wards of Bedale and Tanfield would be transferred from the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency to the Thirsk and Malton constituency. Other than realignments with new local government ward boundaries along the boundary with the Thirsk and Malton constituency, this was the only proposed change to the existing Richmond (Yorks) constituency.
3.77 The consultation process showed the proposed transfer of the Bedale and Tanfield wards to be highly contentious. Multiple representations said that these wards are intimately linked to the towns of Northallerton and Richmond, with Bedale described as a ‘suburb of Northallerton’ in BCE-58275, with very few links with the communities of Thirsk and Malton. It was also stated that Bedale has much more affinity with the Yorkshire Dales area to the west, rather than the North York Moors to the east, with the town described as ‘the gateway to the Dales’ by the Northallerton Branch Labour Party (BCE-83814). Furthermore, Jonathan Stansby (BCE-64225) highlighted that the wards of Bedale and Tanfield are physically cut off from the rest of the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency by the River Swale.
3.78 As well as opposition specifically regarding the Bedale and Tanfield wards, we received some opposition to the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency more generally. Rick Parker (BCE-58711) and Rowan Humphreys (BCE-80046) contended that the proposed constituency would be too large geographically and encompass such a variety of communities that parliamentary representation would be difficult. In particular, a number of representations, such as those from David Knowles (BCE-57699) and Councillor Mike Cockerill (BCE-87233), highlighted that Filey in the far east of the proposed constituency is a coastal community with little affinity to Thirsk or Malton. Instead they said that it would be more appropriately included in a constituency with Scarborough.
3.79 Despite this opposition, only the Conservative Party among the qualifying political parties did not support the proposed Richmond (Yorks), and Thirsk and Malton constituencies. They proposed retaining the Bedale ward in the Richmond (Yorks) constituency, making reference to the town’s strong ties to Morton-on-Swale and Northallerton, and keeping over 7,000 electors in their existing constituency, while they proposed that the Tanfield ward remain in Thirsk and Malton. They proposed exchanging the Bedale ward with Great Ayton, which was also tied into their more extensive changes to the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency, consequential on their proposed cross-county boundary constituency between Ryedale district, Scarborough borough and East Riding of Yorkshire, and a different cross-county boundary arrangement between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. The Assistant Commissioners noted that the exchange of the Bedale ward with the Great Ayton ward is deliverable as an isolated modification to the initial proposal arrangement, with no wider knock-on effects beyond the two constituencies involved. Councillor Carl Les, on day two of the Northallerton public hearing (BCE-97304), stated, however, that the Bedale and Tanfield wards are closely related, as are Great Ayton and the neighbouring Stokesley ward, and that these pairs of wards should not be divided. Councillor John Weighell (BCE-97293) made a similar point explaining, that ‘Bedale is the market town that services the Tanfield ward, Stokesley is the market town that services the Great Ayton ward’.
3.80 Jonathan Stansby (BCE-64225 and BCE-87147) avoided dividing these two pairs of wards, but recommended both Bedale and Tanfield wards should be exchanged in the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency with the Great Ayton and Stokesley wards. In his view, the Great Ayton and Stokesley wards are connected to the rest of the Thirsk and Malton constituency by the B1257 road, whereas the Bedale and Tanfield wards are isolated by the River Swale. This evidence regarding connectivity was directly contradicted, however, by Councillor Ron Kirk at the Northallerton public hearing (BCE-97296), who said that the North York Moors act as a great geographical divide between the wards of Great Ayton and Stokesley and the rest of the Thirsk and Malton constituency, and instead the communities of these wards look west to Richmond, and north to Teeside. This view was reiterated in BCE-87777, which stated that ‘Stokesley and Great Ayton are separated from the bulk of the Thirsk and Malton constituency by the Cleveland Hills, so while there is a road connection the links to that constituency are not as close as they might appear.’ Councillor John Weighell appreciated the strength of opposition to the inclusion of the Bedale and Tanfield wards in the Thirsk and Malton constituency, but reluctantly supported the initial proposals, as the councillor considered them to be superior to the alternative of including the Great Ayton and Stokesley wards.
3.81 Aside from consideration of which wards to transfer between the Richmond (Yorks) and Thirsk and Malton constituencies, we received few representations about the former. Some respondents approved of the composition of the proposed constituency, but not its name. Emma Atkinson (BCE-66273) noted that Richmond is not the largest population centre in the proposed constituency and also that the ‘(Yorks)’ is unnecessary and often omitted by the media.
3.82 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the strength of opposition to the inclusion of the Bedale and Tanfield wards in the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. They appreciated that these wards likely have closer links to the towns of Northallerton and Richmond, rather than with the population centres of the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any change to the composition of either the proposed Richmond (Yorks) or Thirsk and Malton constituencies. This was due to the lack of any counter-proposal that they considered to be superior to the initial proposals with regard to the statutory factors. They were not minded to separate either the Bedale and Tanfield wards, or the Great Ayton and Stokesley wards, and therefore considered the only viable counter-proposal would be the exchange of both Bedale and Tanfield with both Great Ayton and Stokesley, as proposed by Jonathan Stansby. They were persuaded, however, that the upland area of the North York Moors between the settlements of Great Ayton and Stokesley and the Thirsk and Malton constituency acts as a significant physical barrier that would negatively affect the accessibility and community ties across a constituency that grouped these areas together.
3.83 The Assistant Commissioners were also mindful of the strong opposition expressed – for the same reasons – when Great Ayton had been initially proposed to be included in the Thirsk and Malton constituency during the 2018 Review, which had persuaded the Commission to deliver a different final recommendation. While evidence from previous reviews is not decisive in itself, the repetition of such arguments in the current Review denoted that the views of local people on the issue would still be the same, were such an approach to be proposed by the Commission again. The Assistant Commissioners concluded that the initial proposals provided a better arrangement to the alternatives put forward for this area and therefore recommended no change to their composition. However, they accepted the arguments put forward in opposition to the name of the proposed Richmond (Yorks) constituency, and therefore recommended a name change to Richmond and Northallerton.
3.84 We agree with the Assistant Commissioners’ reasoning for retaining the initially proposed composition of the Richmond (Yorks), and Thirsk and Malton constituencies and therefore propose no revisions to these, but we agree with their recommendation to change the name of the former to Richmond and Northallerton. We consider that this reflects both the main population centre and county town in North Yorkshire – Northallerton – and the historical significance of Richmond, which has featured in the Parliamentary constituency name since the 16th Century.
3.85 The proposed Scarborough and Whitby constituency was one of two in the region that would be wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement under the initial proposals. We received very little opposition during the consultation process in response to the constituency, and it was supported by all of the qualifying political parties. As noted above, however, a number of respondents said that Filey, in the proposed Thirsk and Malton constituency, would be more appropriately included in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency. This change would require additional changes to both the otherwise unchanged Scarborough and Whitby constituency, and other North Yorkshire constituencies. The Assistant Commissioners did not consider that these changes necessitated by the inclusion of Filey in Scarborough and Whitby would better satisfy the statutory factors overall. We agree, and therefore propose no change to this constituency as initially proposed.
West Yorkshire
3.86 In the City of Bradford, four existing constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, and one, Bradford South, is just 405 electors below the permitted range. We proposed no change to the existing Bradford East constituency, and only minor realignment to new local government ward boundaries in the Keighley and Shipley constituencies. We proposed only the exchange of two wards – Clayton and Fairweather Green, and Great Horton – between the Bradford West and Bradford South constituencies, which would bring them both within the permitted range.
3.87 The initial proposals for the City of Bradford received a mixture of support and opposition during the consultation periods, although their composition was supported by all the qualifying political parties. One of the issues across the metropolitan area of West Yorkshire about which we received the most representations was the name of the proposed Keighley constituency. Many respondents approved of the changes to its composition to realign with new local government ward boundaries, but felt that the constituency would be better named Keighley and Ilkley. A campaign in favour of the name change was organised by Robbie Moore, MP for Keighley (BCE-75768), and included a letter writing campaign, beginning with BCE-68507. This highlighted that the constituency includes two distinct primary towns, but only one of them is reflected in the constituency name, which was said to cause confusion among residents, so Keighley and Ilkley would be a more appropriate name. This name change was also supported by the Conservative Party (BCE-85514, BCE-96439 and BCE-96980).
3.88 Elsewhere in the City of Bradford, significant support was received for maintaining the Shipley constituency with only minimal change to align with new local government ward boundaries, but a smaller number of representations were received from residents of the Idle and Thackley ward, stating their opposition to their continued inclusion in the Bradford East constituency, and proposing that they would be better included in a constituency with the town of Shipley. BCE94154 and BCE-94233 said that the communities of Thackley and Idle have very little in common with the more inner-city areas of Barkerend and Little Horton, both due to their geographical separation, and the socio-economic differences between them. Both Jonathan Stansby (BCE-64225) and BCE-79391 put forward the same counter-proposal for the Keighley and Shipley constituencies, which would transfer the Wharfedale ward from the Shipley constituency to Keighley, and the Worth Valley ward in the other direction. This would be a superior arrangement, according to Jonathan Stansby, as the Wharfedale ward is cut off from the rest of the Shipley constituency and ‘it is necessary to take circuitous routes through neighbouring constituencies’ to travel across the Shipley constituency. This was supported by other representations, such as BCE-64088, which stated ‘there are no direct road links between Shipley town and Burley in Wharfedale [the main settlement of the Wharfedale ward] without entering another constituency.’ They added that the two areas have very different characters and demographic makeups, with the Wharfe Valley being ‘a separate community of settlements’ to the Aire Valley (containing the town of Shipley).
3.89 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the counter-proposal for the constituencies of Keighley and Shipley from Jonathan Stansby and BCE-79391, as well as the small amount of opposition to some elements of the initially proposed constituencies, but they were persuaded by the more widespread support for retaining these constituencies, changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries, and as such recommended no change to their composition. They did, however, accept the strong support for a name change for the proposed Keighley constituency and therefore recommended that it be renamed Keighley and Ilkley, as supported by numerous responses.
3.90 The most significant issue regarding the composition of constituencies in the City of Bradford was the exchange of wards between the proposed Bradford South and Bradford West constituencies. Judith Cummins, MP for Bradford South (BCE-75077), among others, voiced serious concerns about the effects of this proposed swap of wards. Respondents felt that this swap could damage community cohesion, by reducing the ethnic diversity of both constituencies involved, and that this could jeopardise ‘the decades of work of inclusion and diversity’ (Sandale Trust – BCE-90671) across Bradford. A number of representations also raised the issue of the division of the community of Wibsey between constituencies in the initial proposals: Wibsey is spread across the wards of Great Horton, Wibsey and Royds (Sandale Community Trust – BCE66593) and thus would be divided between the proposed constituencies of Bradford South and Bradford West.
3.91 Multiple representations proposed splitting a ward in the City of Bradford to avoid the necessity of exchanging wards between Bradford South and Bradford West. Judith Cummins MP and Thomas Hughes (BCE-97114) highlighted that the existing Bradford South is only just over 400 electors below the permitted electorate range, but the exchange of wards in the initial proposals would move over 22,000 electors from their current constituency. This was described by Thomas Hughes as ‘unnecessary change for 98% of the electors involved’. It was proposed in multiple representations that just one polling district be included in the proposed Bradford South constituency from a neighbouring ward, to balance the numbers and bring its electorate within the permitted range. Polling district 18H from the Little Horton ward was identified by the Bradford South Constituency Labour Party (BCE-74857) and Thomas Hughes as the most appropriate polling district to be included. This would involve the movement of under 1,000 electors, and this would be the only change to the composition of constituencies across the Bradford local authority, other than realignment to new local government ward boundaries. Polling district 18H of the Little Horton ward contains the Marshfield community, which the Bradford South Constituency Labour Party stated has close links to the Bradford South communities of Bankfoot and Odsal, and was previously part of the Bradford South constituency (Sandale Trust). Both the Conservative Party (BCE-96439 and BCE-96980) and Labour Party (BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) agreed during the secondary consultation that splitting a ward in this way may be justified to minimise disruption, and such a solution was supported by the three ward councillors of the Wibsey ward (Councillor David Green, BCE-74678).
3.92 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the concerns regarding community cohesion and the division of the community of Wibsey between constituencies that could result from the exchange of wards in the initial proposals. They therefore recommended adopting the counter-proposal submitted by the Bradford South Constituency Labour Party and Thomas Hughes: this would return the constituencies of Bradford East, Bradford South and Bradford West to the existing arrangement, other than the transfer of the 18H polling district from the Bradford East ward of Little Horton to the proposed Bradford South constituency. The Assistant Commissioners were particularly persuaded by the comparison in number of electors moved across the local authority when splitting a ward rather than moving two wards. They recommended no change to the names of the three constituencies involved.
3.93 We agree with the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations and therefore propose: no change to the composition of the initially proposed Keighley and Shipley constituencies, but a name change to Keighley and Ilkley for the former; and a return to the existing arrangement for the constituencies of Bradford East, Bradford South and Bradford West, other than for the transfer of polling district 18H of Little Horton ward from Bradford East to Bradford South.
3.94 Within the Borough of Calderdale, the existing Calder Valley constituency is above the permitted range. We proposed that the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward be transferred from it to a proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency – based largely on the existing Batley and Spen constituency. We also proposed the exchange of four wards between the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies to bring them both within the permitted electorate range. To compensate for the inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in Batley and Hipperholme, the Heckmondwike ward would be included in the proposed Dewsbury constituency. This constituency would be more compact than the existing arrangement, no longer containing 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 proposed that the Dewsbury constituency contain part of the Dalton ward, which is currently included entirely within the Huddersfield constituency. We proposed that the Dalton ward be split using polling districts, 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. To compensate for the inclusion of the Kirkheaton area in the Dewsbury constituency, we proposed that the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward be included in the Huddersfield constituency from the existing Colne Valley constituency. This would bring both of the constituencies within the permitted electorate range. The only further change proposed to the existing Colne Valley constituency would be to realign its boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. The two remaining Kirklees district wards (Denby Dale and Kirkburton) would be grouped with four City of Wakefield wards in the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency.
3.95 The initial proposals for the seven constituencies either wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees were widely opposed during the consultation periods, although their composition was supported by the Liberal Democrats (BCE-83448, BCE-96103 and BCE-96983). The most contentious proposed constituency across the whole Yorkshire and the Humber region was Batley and Hipperholme, with the majority of the opposition centring on the inclusion of the Calderdale borough ward of Hipperholme and Lightcliffe in a constituency with the Kirklees borough town of Batley and the communities of the Spen Valley. Representations, such as those from Graham Holmes (BCE-71974), the Batley & Spen Constituency Labour Party (BCE-76466) and Councillor George Robinson (BCE-83445), contended that there are very few links between the communities of Calderdale and Kirklees in this area. They stated that the M62 motorway and the high ground of Hartshead Moor act as physical dividing features between the two local authorities. Instead it was claimed that the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward is intrinsically linked to the town of Brighouse – the two areas being ‘bound at the hip’ according to Councillor George Robinson (BCE-97143) – due to their historical and cultural links. For this reason Councillor Robinson, among others, said that the ward should stay in a Calderdale borough-based constituency with Brighouse.
3.96 The exclusion of the Heckmondwike ward from the proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency was also strongly opposed during the consultation periods. Representations such as BCE-69887 and BCE-70327 said that the town of Heckmondwike has close links to communities across the existing Batley and Spen constituency. In particular, it was claimed that Heckmondwike is the hub of the local transport system – BCE-70327 stated that it is not possible to travel between the towns of Cleckheaton and Batley without travelling through Heckmondwike. For this reason, Kim Leadbeater, MP for Batley and Spen (BCE-97130), maintained that it was essential to keep the centre of Heckmondwike and the A638 road within a constituency with Batley and the Spen Valley.
3.97 In Calderdale borough, the proposed constituencies of Calder Valley and Halifax were mostly opposed, although with fewer representations than in respect of the neighbouring Batley and Hipperholme. Representations such as BCE-53462 and BCE-55934 stated there are no community ties between Brighouse and Halifax, while highlighting that the community of Bailiff Bridge, which is closely linked to Brighouse, would be partially in another constituency (the proposed Batley and Hipperholme). The proposed transfer of wards from the existing Halifax constituency to Calder Valley was similarly contentious: residents of the Sowerby Bridge and Warley communities claimed that they are an integral part of the town of Halifax, and have few links with the communities of the Calder Valley. Representations such as those from Linda Oswin (BCE-60232) and BCE-95516 highlighted the close proximity and ample transport links between the communities of Warley and Sowerby Bridge and Halifax town centre. Holly Lynch, MP for Halifax (BCE-73792) highlighted the strong local ties between the eastern part of Warley ward and Park ward, where a significant ethnic minority community lives and uses shared facilities in both wards.
3.98 The existing Calder Valley constituency must lose electors to bring it within the permitted electorate range. The Conservative Party (BCE-85514, BCE-96439 and BCE-96980), the Labour Party (BCE-79525, BCE-95675 and BCE-96982) and Jonathan Stansby (BCE-64225 and BCE-87147) said that it would be more appropriate to achieve this by including the Rastrick ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with Kirklees borough, rather than doing so with the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward as in the initial proposals. Jonathan Stansby acknowledged that the Rastrick ward is divided from Huddersfield by the M62 motorway, but identified that the two areas are connected by the A641 road. The exclusion of the Rastrick ward would bring the Calder Valley constituency within the permitted electorate range, while the existing Halifax constituency is already within the range, and both Jonathan Stansby and the Labour Party proposed no further adjustments to the arrangement within Calderdale borough. The Conservative Party, meanwhile, proposed adjusting both the Calderdale borough constituencies into a lower and upper valley arrangement, which they proposed to name Brighouse and Ryburn, and Halifax and the Upper Calder, respectively. The counter-proposals from the Conservative Party and Labour Party received similar levels of support during the consultation process.
3.99 It is also possible to avoid a cross-local authority boundary constituency between Calderdale and Kirklees boroughs by splitting a ward between the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies. This was proposed in multiple representations during the consultation process, and there are many viable solutions: the Heavy Woollen District Independents (BCE-54492) and Councillor Aleks Lukic (BCE-96027) proposed splitting the Sowerby Bridge ward; BCE60759 and BCE-87777 proposed a split of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward; while BCE-82102 proposed splitting either the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe, or Luddendenfoot wards.
3.100 The Dewsbury constituency in the initial proposals also proved to be contentious at consultation, with the large majority of the opposition coming from the part of the Dalton ward that would be included within it. The Dalton ward is in the existing Huddersfield constituency, but in the initial proposals would be split between the Huddersfield and Dewsbury constituencies. Residents of the village of Kirkheaton claimed that they have very few links to the town of Dewsbury, and should remain in a constituency with Huddersfield. BCE-60239 highlighted the physical distances between Kirkheaton and Huddersfield (3.5km) compared to Dewsbury (over 8km) and said that the village is part of the ‘continuous eastern sprawl of Huddersfield town’, but is separated from Dewsbury by a ‘large expanse of farmland’. John Worsley (BCE-79723) also stated that the proposed split of the Dalton ward using polling districts would divide the village of Kirkheaton between constituencies.
3.101 Elsewhere in Kirklees borough, the proposed Huddersfield constituency was similarly opposed during the consultation periods. Almost all of the opposition related to the proposed transfer of the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward to the Huddersfield constituency, from the Colne Valley constituency. Representations such as that from the Colne Valley Constituency Labour Party (BCE-85005) claimed that the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward is the ‘centrepiece of the Colne Valley constituency’. They stated that it sits between the Colne and Holme Valleys, with most people travelling through the ward to move between them, and therefore to remove it ‘would leave a hole at the heart of the constituency’ according to Councillor Matthew McLoughlin (BCE-82132). Many representations, such as that from Councillor McLoughlin and BCE79919, stated that the Lindley ward has closer ties with the town of Huddersfield than does Crosland Moor and Netherton, particularly with regard to public transport and education links. These wards cannot be exchanged, as it would leave the Colne Valley constituency below the permitted electorate range, but many representations proposed a solution that would involve splitting a ward. The Green Party (BCE-96981) and Councillor McLoughlin proposed splitting the Lindley ward, with the majority of it being included in the Huddersfield constituency, except the LD02 and LD05 polling districts that would remain in the Colne Valley constituency. These polling districts contain the Mount and Salendine Nook areas, which respondents said are the most closely linked to the rest of the Colne Valley. The split of the Lindley ward would allow for the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward to remain within the Colne Valley constituency. Although this solution was popular during the consultations, it was not universally supported: Jason McCartney, MP for Colne Valley (BCE-97013) and Councillor Adam Gregg (BCE-97281) supported the Colne Valley constituency in the initial proposals, and the Conservative Party (BCE-96439 and BCE-96980) considered that there was ‘no justification’ for splitting a ward in the area.
3.102 The representations received regarding the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency, which would cross the local authority boundary between the Borough of Kirklees and City of Wakefield, were more balanced between opposition and support. Andrew Macdonald (BCE-63691) opposed the constituency, stating that it would contain people who identify with four different towns (Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Penistone and Wakefield), while the poor public transport links between communities in the area were highlighted in BCE-58302. Multiple representations, including BCE-65434, also said that the Wakefield South ward should be in the Wakefield constituency rather than in the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale. On the other hand, in BCE-76862 the Wakefield South ward was described as the most ‘geographically isolated’ of the wards containing what could be considered as central Wakefield, due to the natural boundary of the River Calder and, as such, it would be a logical inclusion in the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency. Other representations, including BCE-71879, supported the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency on the grounds that it would group ‘similar-sized rural and semi-rural towns and villages which are well-connected’. Even among those that supported the composition of the proposed Ossett and Denby Dale constituency, however, several representations called for a change to its name: representations such as BCE52532 claimed that the proposed constituency would contain many communities closely related to Wakefield that would not be represented by simply referencing Ossett in the name.
3.103 We received multiple counter-proposals for some, or all, of the seven constituencies either wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees. As previously mentioned, the Conservative Party proposed crossing the local authority boundary between the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees through the inclusion of the Rastrick ward in a predominantly Kirklees-based constituency of Huddersfield. They then proposed extensive change to the arrangement across Calderdale borough. The Rastrick ward was proposed to be included in a Huddersfield constituency that would be the same as in the initial proposals, minus all of the Dalton ward (which would no longer be included to account for the additional electors of Rastrick ward). The Dalton ward would be included in a proposed Spen Valley constituency containing the communities of Birstall, Cleckheaton and Mirfield (among others), and the southern part of the Heckmondwike ward. This latter ward would be split, using polling districts, between the proposed Spen Valley constituency and a Batley and Dewsbury constituency. No change was proposed by the Conservative Party to the Colne Valley, and Ossett and Denby Dale constituencies of the initial proposals.
3.104 The Labour Party also proposed the inclusion of the Rastrick ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency, but proposed no further change to the existing arrangement across Calderdale borough. The Rastrick ward would be included in a Huddersfield constituency that would include all of the Dalton ward, but not the Almondbury ward, which would be included in a proposed Horbury and Denby Dale constituency. This constituency would be similar to the composition of Ossett and Denby Dale in the initial proposals, but the Almondbury ward would replace Ossett, which would be included, in their counter-proposal, in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with Dewsbury, Mirfield, and the southern part of the Heckmondwike ward (which would again be split between constituencies). The northern part of the Heckmondwike ward would be in a Batley and Spen constituency identical to the existing constituency, minus part of the Heckmondwike ward. The Labour Party proposed no change to the Colne Valley constituency of the initial proposals.
3.105 Jonathan Stansby submitted a counter-proposal containing elements of the counter-proposals from both the Conservative Party and Labour Party. As in the latter, Rastrick would be included in a Huddersfield constituency, with no further change across the Calderdale local authority. Elsewhere, Dalton ward would be transferred from the existing Huddersfield constituency – as in the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal – but to a Dewsbury constituency, rather than Spen Valley.
3.106 BCE-87777 outlined different possible ways to find an improved arrangement across the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees, involving multiple split wards. One option would split five wards between constituencies, and another split three, with this latter one considered superior by the Assistant Commissioners. This counter-proposal would split a ward between the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies, and the representation considered several possibilities for which ward that should be. This approach would avoid the need for any Calderdale borough ward to be included in a cross-local authority boundary constituency. It would also involve no revision to the Huddersfield constituency from the initial proposals, retaining the proposed split of the Dalton ward, but rather than that part of the ward covering the village of Kirkheaton being grouped with Dewsbury (as in the initial proposals), it would be included in a Spen Valley constituency. Finally, this respondent proposed splitting the Kirklees borough ward of Kirkburton between Dewsbury and Batley, and Ossett and Denby Dale constituencies, using polling districts. They proposed no change to the Colne Valley constituency of the initial proposals.
3.107 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the widespread opposition to the initial proposals for the seven constituencies wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees, and the numerous and wide-ranging counter-proposals for alternative constituencies. In particular, they noted the strength of opposition to the proposed inclusion of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with Batley and the Spen Valley communities. They decided to visit the area to better understand the issues, and their observations accorded with the criticisms of the initial proposals that were heard during the consultation periods.
3.108 The Assistant Commissioners accepted that Bailiff Bridge, and the wider Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward, is isolated from the rest of the proposed Batley and Hipperholme constituency, and that both the M62 motorway and the difference in elevation between the communities act as significant physical barriers. They also accepted that including the Rastrick ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency, rather than the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward, would enable an arguably superior arrangement of constituencies in Calderdale borough. With the inclusion of the Rastrick ward in a predominantly Kirklees-based constituency, no further change would be required to the Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies, meaning the latter would be wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement – as proposed by the Labour Party and Jonathan Stansby. The Assistant Commissioners considered this would be a superior arrangement to the initial proposals, particularly regarding the opposition received during consultation from the Brighouse, Sowerby Bridge and Warley wards. They did not consider the extensive change proposed for the arrangement in Calderdale borough by the Conservative Party to better meet the statutory factors than other options.
3.109 Despite acknowledging the possible benefits that would result from the inclusion of the Rastrick ward in a cross-local authority boundary constituency, the Assistant Commissioners were reluctant to recommend such an arrangement. The Rastrick ward is separated from Huddersfield by the M62 motorway and they considered the division between these communities to be substantial on their site visit to the area. They observed that not only does the M62 run between the boroughs, but it is flanked by rural land on either side and there is a substantial elevation between the village of Rastrick and the Kirklees ward of Ashbrow with which it would be linked. Travelling through Brighouse and Rastrick, the Assistant Commissioners also found them to be one continuous urban area, albeit with the River Calder running between them. For these reasons, they considered that creating an ‘orphan ward’ of Rastrick would likely trigger a similar response to that received from the residents of the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward during the consultation process.
3.110 The Assistant Commissioners also considered that the counter-proposals from Jonathan Stansby, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party had further weaknesses. They considered that the proposals from the Conservative Party and Jonathan Stansby would unacceptably divide the community of Huddersfield by including the Dalton ward in a different constituency. Upon visiting the area they observed that this ward contains part of Huddersfield town centre – extending right to the inner ring road (A62) at its western edge. Elsewhere, they considered that the Conservative Party’s proposal to split the ward of Heckmondwike would not be an appropriate solution, although they noted this split could be amended to follow the River Spen for most of its length (as in the counter-proposals from the Labour Party and Jonathan Stansby), with no wider knock-on effects – as outlined in BCE-71879.
3.111 The Assistant Commissioners considered that the Labour Party’s counterproposal would also divide the community of Huddersfield through the inclusion of the Almondbury ward in a proposed Horbury and Denby Dale constituency. In turn, Ossett ward would be included in a Dewsbury constituency, both creating an additional local authority boundary crossing between the Borough of Kirklees and City of Wakefield, and making Ossett an ‘orphan ward’. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioners considered the division of communities spanning the Ossett, and Horbury and South Ossett wards was not an appropriate proposition. These communities consider themselves to be ‘part of the same village/town conurbation’ (BCE-88789) and this view was reinforced during a visit to the area by the Assistant Commissioners. They did note, however, that the communities of Ossett and South Ossett could be retained in one constituency (Dewsbury) through a slight amendment to the Labour Party’s counter-proposal. This would split the Horbury and South Ossett ward between constituencies and was discussed in BCE-87777. Finally, the Assistant Commissioners identified issues of connectivity between the southern part of the Heckmondwike ward and the rest of the Dewsbury constituency with which it would be included in the Labour Party’s counter-proposal. The two polling districts in the southwest of the Heckmondwike ward (5 and 6) are regarded as Liversedge rather than Heckmondwike, according to BCE-71879, and therefore it is arguably a weakness of the counter-proposal that they would be grouped with the town of Dewsbury and wards to the east, rather than with the ward of Liversedge and Gomersal to the west.
3.112 The Assistant Commissioners considered that the counter-proposal of BCE-87777 that would split three wards between constituencies had the most merit of any counter-proposals received, or various other possible alternatives investigated by the secretariat for the Calderdale and Kirklees area. Accordingly, they recommended to us that this counter-proposal be adopted for the composition of constituencies wholly or partially within Kirklees borough, minus the Colne Valley and Huddersfield constituencies (which they recommended maintaining unchanged from the initial proposals).
3.113 The Assistant Commissioners recommended a Spen Valley constituency that would comprise the wards of Birstall and Birkenshaw, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike, Liversedge and Gomersal, and Mirfield, plus polling district DA06 of the Dalton ward (which covers the communities of Kirkheaton and Upper Heaton). This arrangement would retain the unpopular split of the Dalton ward as in the initial proposals: while acknowledging the likely opposition to this, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that any of the alternative arrangements that did not split the Dalton ward would better meet the statutory factors overall. They also observed from their visit to the area that, given its proximity to Huddersfield, the village of Kirkheaton likely has close ties to that town, however they did not consider that the village is part of the continuous urban sprawl eastwards from Huddersfield, as stated in BCE-60239. Rather, they considered that polling district DA06 of the Dalton ward has a significantly different character to that of the west of the ward, closer to the town centre. They also observed no discernible difference between communities when travelling from the Dalton ward into the neighbouring Mirfield ward.
3.114 The Assistant Commissioners then recommended a Dewsbury and Batley constituency that would comprise the wards of Batley East, Batley West, Dewsbury East, Dewsbury South and Dewsbury West, plus four polling districts of the Kirkburton ward, covering the north of the ward. The division of this ward would be in a rural area and follow a small stream (Beldon Brook) for most of its length.
3.115 They recommended no further change to the composition of the Ossett and Denby Dale constituency, other than the transfer of four polling districts of the Kirkburton ward to the Dewsbury and Batley constituency (as described above). The Assistant Commissioners recommended the name of this constituency be changed to Wakefield West and Denby Dale, being persuaded by the comments that the initially proposed name was not sufficiently representative of many of the communities in the City of Wakefield part of the proposed constituency.
3.116 The Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the proposed Colne Valley and Huddersfield constituencies. They acknowledged the opposition to the transfer of the Crosland Moor and Netherton ward to the Huddersfield constituency from Colne Valley, but noted that the only realistic solution to avoid this would involve splitting a ward between constituencies, for which they did not feel there was justification in this area.
3.117 In Calderdale borough, the Assistant Commissioners recommended splitting a ward between constituencies, as proposed in multiple representations. They considered that the benefits of not crossing the local authority boundary between Calderdale and Kirklees to be significant enough to justify such a ward split. They recommended the Ryburn ward be split between the proposed Calder Valley and Halifax constituencies, with the three polling districts covering the town of Sowerby Bridge and the village of Triangle (MB, MC and MD) being included in the latter. This would bring together the communities of Sowerby and Sowerby Bridge in one constituency.
3.118 We agree with the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners as described above, and propose they be adopted in their entirety for the constituencies wholly or partially within the boroughs of Calderdale and Kirklees. Therefore, we propose the constituencies of: Batley and Dewsbury, Calder Valley, Colne Valley, Halifax, Huddersfield, Spen Valley, and Wakefield West and Denby Dale.
3.119 When constructing the initial proposals within the City of Wakefield, we noted that the existing Wakefield and Hemsworth constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, but considered 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, so we proposed that the Normanton ward be removed, and the constituency be renamed Pontefract and Castleford accordingly. The Normanton ward would be transferred to the existing Hemsworth constituency in our initial proposals, while the Wakefield South ward would no longer be included, thereby bringing Hemsworth within the permitted electorate range: we consequently also proposed changing the name of the constituency to Normanton and Hemsworth to reflect these changes. 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 the Ossett and Denby Dale constituency, as described previously. The remaining five City of Wakefield wards were grouped with the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell to create our proposed Wakefield constituency.
3.120 Very few representations were received during the consultation process concerning the two proposed constituencies wholly within the City of Wakefield local authority – Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford. They were supported by all of the qualifying political parties (other than the Conservative Party) as well as the local MPs. Jon Trickett, MP for Hemsworth (BCE-95346), described the addition of the Normanton ward into the current Hemsworth constituency as a ‘natural addition’, while Yvette Cooper, MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (BCE-95811), said that the proposed Pontefract and Castleford constituency is ‘historically consistent with previous boundaries and historical connections’. Yvette Cooper MP also said that the proposed changes across the local authority ‘support the well-established “Five Towns” within the Wakefield district’, maintaining their integrity.
3.121 The cross-local authority boundary constituency of Wakefield was considerably more contentious, although, again, it was opposed by only one of the qualifying political parties – the Conservative Party. Almost all of the opposition received regarding this constituency was concerning the City of Leeds ‘orphan ward’ of Rothwell. The Morley and Outwood Conservative Association (BCE-68953), among others, questioned the level of community ties between the ward and Wakefield local authority, highlighting that the M62 motorway creates a ‘clear division’ between them. Conversely, a smaller number of representations were received in favour of the proposed Wakefield constituency, including BCE-57995, which claimed that, despite being an ‘orphan ward’ in the initial proposals, Rothwell has good historical ties and physical transport links with the City of Wakefield – better than with areas such as Wetherby with which Rothwell ward is currently grouped in the existing Elmet and Rothwell constituency.
3.122 The Assistant Commissioners considered that very few counter-proposals received for these three proposed constituencies adequately considered the knock-on effect to the wider West Yorkshire arrangement of constituencies. The Conservative Party proposed that Rothwell ward should remain in a City of Leeds constituency, with the Wakefield constituency instead expanding eastwards through the inclusion of the City of Wakefield ward of Altofts and Whitwood, and that part of the City of Leeds ward of Kippax & Methley south of the River Aire. The remainder of the split Kippax & Methley ward would be included in a proposed Pontefract and Castleford constituency, similar to that of the initial proposals, minus the Altofts and Whitwood ward and with the addition of the Selby district ward of Byram & Brotherton. As previously discussed, the adoption of the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal in large areas would necessitate a new sub-regional grouping of counties which the Assistant Commissioners did not consider gave a better arrangement of constituencies overall, and were therefore not minded to adopt. They were also mindful of the division of the town of Castleford that would result from this counter-proposal, as highlighted by Yvette Cooper MP, both in her written submission and on day two of the Northallerton public hearing (BCE-97303), who said it would be following ‘no logical natural boundary’, and ‘severing historical, cultural and civic links across the town’.
3.123 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no change to the proposed Normanton and Hemsworth, and Pontefract and Castleford constituencies, noting the limited number of representations received during the consultation periods regarding them. They acknowledged the opposition to the inclusion of the City of Leeds ward of Rothwell in the proposed Wakefield constituency, but also recommended no change to this constituency. We agree with their conclusion and therefore propose no change to the composition or names of the constituencies of Normanton and Hemsworth, Pontefract and Castleford, and Wakefield.
3.124 Seven constituencies were proposed wholly within the City of Leeds in the initial proposals. The Leeds North East constituency would be unchanged other than for minor realignment due to new local government ward boundaries. We proposed a Pudsey constituency that would comprise 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 proposed a Leeds North West constituency that would consist 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.
3.125 The existing Leeds Central constituency has an electorate of 91,069, which is considerably above the permitted electorate range. We therefore proposed 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 would also no longer be included, to realign constituency boundaries with changes to new local government ward boundaries. As a result of this, we also proposed that the Gipton & Harehills ward be split 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 would bring the Leeds Central constituency within the permitted range. Meanwhile, we proposed that the Leeds East constituency would also extend 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, would bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range. The Middleton Park ward, which would no longer be included in the Leeds Central constituency, would be included in our proposed Morley constituency, which would also contain the wards of Ardsley & Robin Hood, Morley North and Morley South. Finally, we proposed a Headingley constituency that would consist 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).
3.126 The initial proposals in the City of Leeds received a mixed response during the consultation process, with all of the qualifying political parties, other than the Liberal Democrats, opposed to one or more of the seven constituencies wholly within the local authority. We received very few representations regarding the proposed Leeds Central, Leeds North East and Pudsey constituencies, while the proposed Leeds North West constituency was mostly supported. At the Northallerton public hearing, Councillor Rob Jacques (BCE-97295) praised the Commission for correcting ‘a historic wrong’ by grouping the similar ‘small market towns on the edge of Leeds’ – Horsforth, Guiseley, Yeadon and Otley – together, rather than linking them with west Leeds wards, summarising that they are ‘communities that simply belong together’. Councillor Jacques went on to discuss the ‘key sensible boundaries’ of the River Aire and the A6120 outer ring road that separates the communities of the proposed Leeds North West constituency from other areas of Leeds.
3.127 The proposed Leeds East constituency was the most contentious within the City of Leeds. Representations such as those from the East Leeds History and Archaeology Society (BCE-65843 and BCE-96984) and Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East (BCE-85477), made reference to a distinct ‘east Leeds community’, with a clear identity, character and history. They stated that the community is well reflected by the existing Leeds East constituency, but that the changes proposed in the initial proposals would break the link between community identity and Parliamentary constituency. In particular, the proposed division of the Gipton & Harehills ward, and the subsequent exclusion of the Harehills community from the Leeds East constituency were strongly opposed. Richard Burgon MP highlighted that Harehills is the most diverse area in the City of Leeds and that its removal would fundamentally alter the diversity and character of the Leeds East constituency, with a negative effect on community cohesion and the loss of ‘the ethnic minority voice … from the democratic channels’ of the community. He maintained that, for these reasons, Gipton & Harehills ‘is the most inappropriate ward in the city of Leeds to split’. Many representations, such as that from Councillor Katie Dye (BCE-97011) and BCE-85443, also highlighted that the Harehills area contains many services and facilities utilised by the whole east Leeds community, most prominently the Bilal Mosque and Fearnville Sports Centre.
3.128 As well as the exclusion of Harehills from the proposed Leeds East constituency, the inclusion of the Garforth & Swillington ward was strongly opposed. Many representations, such as that from the East Leeds History and Archaeology Society and BCE-85534, pointed out that Garforth & Swillington ward is separated from east Leeds by the M1 motorway as well as an expanse of countryside. They also highlighted the difference in character and socioeconomic status between this ward and the rest of the proposed Leeds East constituency. Rather than replacing the Harehills area with the Garforth & Swillington ward, many representations proposed that the electorate of the existing Leeds East constituency be brought within the permitted range through the inclusion of part of the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward. BCE-85453 stated that this ward used to be part of the Leeds East constituency and is still ‘very much part of the fabric of east Leeds’. This representation, among others, proposed that the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward could be split following the clear physical divide of the A64 dual carriageway, with the Burmantofts area to the north of the road being included in the Leeds East constituency.
3.129 The proposed Morley constituency was also opposed during the consultation periods, with most of the representations received concerned with the proposed inclusion of the Middleton Park ward. The Morley and Outwood Conservative Association (BCE-68953 and BCE-97133) claimed that the Middleton Park ward is ‘wholly incorporated into the urban sprawl of the City of Leeds’, and is now ‘so firmly linked … via Belle Isle that it is almost indistinguishable’. This is in contrast to Morley, which has a unique identity and the feel of a market town, according to BCE-76804. The Morley and Outwood Conservative Association also highlighted the poor transport links between Middleton Park and the rest of the proposed Morley constituency. They stated that there are no infrastructure links between Middleton Park and the wards of Morley North and Morley South, and only a few minor roads linking it with the Ardsley & Robin Hood ward. The Conservative Party proposed linking the Rothwell ward to Morley, and returning the Middleton Park ward to their Leeds Central constituency. This arrangement was supported by multiple representations that pointed out the towns of Morley and Rothwell have been in a constituency together in the past, and both are isolated from Leeds city centre by green belt land, so have retained a similar identity as an ‘independent suburban settlement’ (Morley and Outwood Conservative Association – BCE-68953).
3.130 The proposed Headingley constituency was also mostly opposed during the consultation periods, with the majority of representations objecting to the inclusion of the Armley ward. Representations such as that from Jonathan Long (BCE-96987) and BCE-55659 contended that the Armley ward has limited ties with the rest of the proposed constituency, and that the River Aire acts as a significant physical barrier here, with only one crossing point over it between the Armley and Kirkstall wards. Representations such as that from John Withill (BCE58262) said that much of the Armley ward, particularly to the west, has greater community ties with the ward of Bramley & Stanningley than with the proposed Headingley constituency. Elsewhere, a smaller number of representations were received that opposed the inclusion of the Weetwood ward in a Headingley constituency: Katie Lowes (BCE-71366), among others, said that Weetwood has a significantly different demographic to the ‘students and young professionals’ who make up much of the rest of the proposed constituency.
3.131 We received multiple counter-proposals during the consultation process, for some or all of the seven constituencies wholly within the City of Leeds. Most involved the simple transfer of individual wards between constituencies, such as that from the Green Party (BCE-83616 and BCE-96981), which proposed including the Armley ward in the Pudsey constituency from Headingley, with the Bramley & Stanningley ward moving in the opposite direction to bring both constituencies within the permitted range. They stated that there are strong community ties between the communities of Armley and Wortley that are not respected in the initial proposals.
3.132 The inclusion of the Armley ward in the proposed Pudsey constituency appeared in multiple counter-proposals. Jonathan Stansby and BCE-79391 both proposed that such a transfer of wards be balanced by the transfer of the Little London & Woodhouse ward from the proposed Leeds Central constituency to Headingley, and the Farnley & Wortley ward from the proposed Pudsey constituency to Morley. Similarly, Brandon Ashford (BCE-88682) proposed the transfer of the Armley ward from Headingley to Pudsey, and the Little London & Woodhouse ward from Leeds Central to Headingley, but said that this should be balanced by the transfers of the Farnley & Wortley ward from the proposed Pudsey constituency to Morley, and the Middleton Park ward from the proposed Morley constituency to Leeds Central. Brandon Ashford said that such a transfer of wards would result in an arrangement with multiple positives over the initial proposals: substituting the Armley ward with Little London & Woodhouse ward in the Headingley constituency would respect the River Aire as a natural constituency boundary, while it would combine the student population across the Headingley & Hyde Park and Little London & Woodhouse wards. The subsequent transfer of the Farnley & Wortley ward from the proposed Pudsey constituency to Morley would then create ‘a more natural’ constituency, while the inclusion of the Middleton Park ward in Leeds Central would unite similar demographics between this ward and that of Beeston & Holbeck, reflecting ‘the shifting trend of the city centre expansion to the south of the River [Aire]’.
3.133 The Conservative Party and Labour Party proposed more significant change across the City of Leeds in their counter-proposals. As elsewhere in the region, the arrangement proposed by the Conservative Party would rely upon, and be a result of, their alternative cross-county boundary arrangement and sub-regional groupings. They proposed three cross-county boundary constituencies between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. A proposed Elmet constituency would consist of four City of Leeds wards and two District of Selby wards, while their proposed Leeds North and Wharfedale constituency would consist of three City of Leeds wards and six Borough of Harrogate wards, creating a constituency that would incorporate both the north-west of the Leeds local authority and areas around the towns of Harrogate and Knaresborough. They also proposed a constituency between the cities of Leeds and Wakefield, and District of Selby – as previously discussed.
3.134 Within the City of Leeds, the Conservative Party would avoid the contentious split of the Gipton & Harehills ward between constituencies. Instead they proposed splitting the Little London & Woodhouse ward between their proposed Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. Their proposed Leeds East constituency, therefore, would consist of part of the Little London & Woodhouse ward, the existing Leeds East wards of Cross Gates & Whinmoor, Gipton & Harehills and Killingbeck & Seacroft, plus the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward. It would not include the wards of Garforth & Swillington and Temple Newsam, as in the initial proposals, which would be included in the cross-county boundary constituency of Elmet. The Conservative Party were also opposed to the inclusion of the Middleton Park ward in the Morley constituency, and proposed it be replaced by the Rothwell ward, as previously discussed. Elsewhere, they proposed wards be transferred between the initially proposed Leeds Central, Leeds North West and Pudsey constituencies, but put forward no change to the proposed Headingley and Leeds North East constituencies.
3.135 The Labour Party also proposed extensive change to the initial proposals within the City of Leeds, primarily to avoid the contentious division of the Gipton & Harehills ward. They said the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward should be split between constituencies – as proposed in multiple representations – using the A64 York Road as a boundary, as previously discussed. The Burmantofts area to the north of the A64 would be included in their proposed Leeds East constituency, also comprising the existing Leeds East wards of Cross Gates & Whinmoor, Gipton & Harehills and Killingbeck & Seacroft. Their Leeds East constituency, however, would omit the Temple Newsam ward and replace it with the Roundhay ward of the existing Leeds North East constituency. In turn, the Adel & Wharfedale ward would be transferred from the proposed Leeds North West constituency to Leeds North East, and the Weetwood ward from the proposed Headingley constituency to Leeds North West. The Weetwood ward would be replaced by the Little London & Woodhouse ward, to create their Leeds Central constituency. The remaining wards would be included in a proposed Leeds South East constituency, comprising: the part of the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward south of the A64 dual carriageway; the existing Leeds Central constituency wards of Beeston & Holbeck and Hunslet & Riverside; and the Garforth & Swillington and Temple Newsam wards from the Leeds East constituency of the initial proposals. They proposed no change to the Morley and Pudsey constituencies of the initial proposals.
3.136 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the significant opposition regarding elements of the seven constituencies wholly within the City of Leeds in the initial proposals. In particular, they noted the strong objections to the removal of the Harehills community from the proposed Leeds East constituency, and the inclusion of the Garforth & Swillington ward. This was eloquently expressed in many of the oral representations at the public hearing in Leeds, including by Councillor Mohammed Shahzad (BCE-97025) and Councillor Jessica Lennox (BCE-97124). The Assistant Commissioners visited the area to see it for themselves. They acknowledged that the division of the Gipton & Harehills ward, as proposed, does not follow any clear physical boundary, whereas Garforth & Swillington ward is clearly separate from east Leeds over the M1 motorway and has a distinctly more rural character. Despite this, although many representations put forward an alternative arrangement for Leeds East involving a split of the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward, the Assistant Commissioners considered there were few counter-proposals for the area that accounted reasonably for the knock-on effects on neighbouring constituencies. These knock-on effects would be considerable when dealing with whole wards, due to the large electorates of the City of Leeds wards, but even splitting wards did not seem to produce a suitable alternative.
3.137 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that splitting the Burmantofts & Richmond Hill ward along the physical boundary of the A64 dual carriageway, with the Burmantofts area to the north being included in the Leeds East constituency – as proposed in multiple representations – was a logical solution that would produce a coherent Leeds East constituency; the Garforth & Swillington ward, however, cannot be included, either wholly or partially, in any of the neighbouring cross-local authority boundary constituencies to give an adequate arrangement. Accordingly, they considered that the Garforth & Swillington ward would have to be included with the wards of the proposed Leeds Central constituency, as the only other neighbouring constituency. The Assistant Commissioners were not minded to include Garforth & Swillington ward with the central Leeds wards due to the limited links between them: Garforth & Swillington and Burmantofts & Richmond Hill wards only have a short section of the M1 motorway as a boundary between them, with expanses of non-residential land either side. The Assistant Commissioners considered this grouping to be inferior to that of the Garforth & Swillington and Temple Newsam wards in the initial proposals.
3.138 In order to avoid the split of the Gipton & Harehills ward, the Assistant Commissioners considered a number of other possible arrangements for the Leeds East constituency. None were ideal, with what they felt the most promising requiring a split of the Temple Newsam ward between Leeds East and Leeds Central, rather than splitting Gipton & Harehills. They considered this to be a very finely balanced decision, but, after consideration, they concluded that this would still be no better than the initial proposals. They noted in particular the relatively poor connections between the Temple Newsam and Burmantofts & Richmond Hill wards, the boundary between them being Pontefract Lane – a dual carriageway with semi-industrial land on either side – or a railway line with only one vehicle crossing point. This is in contrast to the Burmantofts and Harehills areas, where the Assistant Commissioners considered there to be no discernible boundary between the communities.
3.139 The Assistant Commissioners also did not feel that the Labour Party’s counterproposal for the City of Leeds would better fulfil the statutory factors than the initial proposals. While they accepted that retaining the communities of Gipton and Harehills together would be a distinct benefit, they noted that this would be at the cost of change to the Leeds North East constituency that can otherwise be left unchanged from the existing arrangement, other than to realign to new local government ward boundaries. In turn, change would also be necessary to the Leeds North West constituency, which was mostly supported during the consultation process.
3.140 The Assistant Commissioners visited the boundary between the Leeds East wards and Roundhay ward, which would be grouped together in the Labour Party’s counter-proposal. They considered the Easterly Road to be a clear boundary, which corroborated what was heard during the consultations regarding the east Leeds community being bordered by the York Road in the south and Easterly Road in the north (Councillor Jessica Lennox). They also noted a distinctly different character in the Roundhay ward, compared to wards to its south. Finally, they considered that the Labour Party’s counter-proposal would still divide the community of east Leeds, as the Temple Newsam ward would be included in a separate Leeds South East constituency. Accordingly, while the Assistant Commissioners recognised the difficulties of the Leeds East constituency as proposed, they did not feel that any alternative had been presented that would enable a better pattern of constituencies overall across Leeds, and therefore did not recommend any change to the Leeds East constituency as initially proposed.
3.141 Cognisant of the small number of representations regarding the proposed Leeds North East constituency, and the fact they were not minded to recommend to us the adoption of the Labour Party’s counter-proposal, Assistant Commissioners recommended no change to the composition or name of this constituency. Similarly, they recommended no change to the proposed Leeds North West constituency, noting the overall support it received during the consultation process.
3.142 The Assistant Commissioners recommended adopting the composition of the Headingley, Leeds Central, Morley and Pudsey constituencies as outlined in the counter-proposal submitted by Brandon Ashford, although they recommended no change to the names of those constituencies as initially proposed. They were persuaded by the evidence highlighting that Middleton Park ward is part of the urban sprawl of Leeds city centre, with poor physical ties to the rest of the initially proposed Morley constituency. They also agreed that the isolation of the Armley ward south of the River Aire made it a poor fit in the initially proposed Headingley constituency. Finally, they were persuaded by the arguments for combining the Headingley & Hyde Park and Little London & Woodhouse wards in the same constituency, not least to unite the student population and avoid the division of the Little London estate between constituencies (David Salinger – BCE-96993).
3.143 Having considered the evidence and counter-proposals received during the consultation process, and the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners, we propose change to the composition of five of the seven constituencies wholly within the City of Leeds authority. We propose no change to the Leeds North East or Leeds North West constituencies, noting the minimal, or mostly positive, reaction to them during the consultation process. We also propose adopting the transfer of wards outlined in the counter-proposal submitted by Brandon Ashford, between the constituencies of Headingley, Leeds Central, Morley and Pudsey. That is: the inclusion of the Little London & Woodhouse ward in the proposed Headingley constituency; the inclusion of the Armley ward in the proposed Pudsey constituency; the inclusion of the Farnley & Wortley ward in the proposed Morley constituency, and the inclusion of the Middleton Park ward in the proposed Leeds Central constituency. We propose no change to the names of any of these constituencies.
3.144 Like the Assistant Commissioners, we are highly sympathetic to the evidence with regard to the initially proposed split of the Gipton & Harehills ward, and inclusion of the Garforth & Swillington ward in the Leeds East constituency. We also note the low number of counter-proposals that would both address these issues, and still produce an acceptable and workable arrangement for the surrounding constituencies. Like the Assistant Commissioners, we consider no option from the initial proposals or the counter-proposals received, to be a satisfactory solution. We therefore propose an alternative to the initial proposals, which may be considered superior by respondents to the revised proposal consultation process – noting not least the comment of the current MP that any other ward would be better to split than Gipton & Harehills.
3.145 Our proposal is that all of the Gipton & Harehills ward be retained in the Leeds East constituency, and the Temple Newsam ward instead be split between the Leeds Central and Leeds East constituencies. Our revised Leeds Central constituency would therefore consist of the wards of: Beeston & Holbeck; Burmantofts & Richmond Hill; Hunslet & Riverside; Middleton Park; and eight polling districts from the Temple Newsam ward (covering the areas of Halton and Halton Moor). Our revised Leeds East constituency would consist of the wards of: Cross Gates & Whinmoor; Garforth & Swillington; Gipton & Harehills; Killingbeck & Seacroft; and the remaining four polling districts of Temple Newsam ward (covering the areas of Colton and Whitkirk). We acknowledge that this would be unlikely to unite all of what may be considered the full extent of the community of east Leeds in one constituency, and note the relatively limited physical connections from Temple Newsam ward to the rest of the proposed Leeds Central constituency. It remains, however, the best alternative to the initial proposal that we have been able to identify that would not also have detrimental effects across the rest of the city and beyond. We consider that it is the residents and people of Leeds who understand the issue of local community ties best. Accordingly, we particularly welcome, during this final public consultation, representations on the revised proposals in this area, including any further alternative solutions in the east of Leeds that would minimise negative consequential impacts on neighbouring constituencies.
Back to top6 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 all the remaining wards are from at least one other local authority.