Full details about proposed boundary changes in County Durham have been revealed.
The Local Government Boundary Commission says Durham County Council should be represented by 98 councillors serving 51 divisions. The current make-up of the region consists of 126 councillors across 63 divisions.
The region should also have 51 divisions, 12 fewer than there are now, it says.
This means there will be nine three-councillor divisions, 29 two-councillor divisions and 13 single-councillor divisions.
Among the most significant changes are a new layout in the Consett area and a revised pattern of divisions for the Teesdale and West Auckland areas.
How will the recommendations affect you?
The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on Durham County Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your division name may also change.
The commission said the revised boundaries will ensure councillors represent the same number of electors and will help the council work effectively.
The LGBC added: “We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.”
The changes are due to become law once Parliament has approved them, and council officers will ensure that the arrangements are in place for the 2025 local elections.
What did the political parties say?
The final proposals have been welcomed by Labour members in the county.
Cllr Carl Marshall, Labour leader, said: “Labour represented the voice of the people throughout this process. Labour councillors and members are entrenched in our county’s communities, and it was the views and priorities of residents, organisations and businesses that we took to the commission, always presenting what we believe is the best option for each division.
“While the Tory-led Coalition made this boundary review about politics, Labour made it about the people. Some of the proposals put forward by Tory, LibDem and Independent coalition councillors running Durham County Council made no sense and, in some cases, appeared to be a thinly veiled attempt at gerrymandering.”
Meanwhile, Council Leader Amanda Hopgood, on behalf of the Joint Administration, said: “The recommendations put forward by the LGBC represent a fair outcome.
“[The] submissions were very varied, and there were clearly several politically motivated suggestions from individuals and parties, some of which were driven by self-interest. For our part, the Joint Administration encouraged members to carefully consider the proposals and send submissions that would meet the objectives that the commission set out to achieve.
“We applaud the LGBC for the work that it has done to finalise proposals that are fair, and which will serve both democracy and residents in County Durham.”
What are the proposed boundaries?
Consett
Benfieldside – 2 councillors
Incorporate the entirety of the Blackhill area, and remove Medomsley Edge from the current division.
Consett North – 1 councillor
A single-councillor Consett North division, which will be composed mainly of the town centre.
Consett South – 1 councillor
Derwent & Pont Valley – 3 councillors
A three-councillor Derwent & Pont Valley division, composed of the entirety of the Burnopfield, Dipton & Ebchester division previously proposed, in addition to the villages of Leadgate and Medomsley.
Delves Lane – 2 councillors
Lanchester & Burnhope – 1 councillor
Stanley
Annfield Plain & Tanfield – 2 councillors
Craghead & South Moor – 2 councillors
Stanley – 2 councillors
Chester-le-Street
Chester-le-Street North – 2 councillors
Chester-le-Street South – 2 councillors
The area immediately east of the East Coast Main Line, which includes Chester-le-Street Community Hospital, Relton Terrace, Clifford Terrace and Orchard Gardens, will be included in the Chester-le-Street North division.
The area containing the residential roads of Cragside, Gibside, Gainford and Wynyard will be included in the proposed Chester-le-Street South division.
Sacriston & Witton Gilbert – 2 councillors
Lumley & West Rainton – 2 councillors
North Lodge – 1 councillor
Pelton – 3 councillors
Sacriston & Witton Gilbert – 2 councillors
Brandon and Esh
Brandon – 2 councillors
Deerness – 2 councillors
Langley & Esh – 1 councillor
Durham City
Belmont – 2 councillors
Reduced to a two-councillor division
Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe – 2 councillors
Renamed to include Shincliffe
Framwellgate & Newton Hall – 3 councillors
Neville’s Cross – 2 councillors
Murton and Seaham
Dalton & Dawdon – 2 councillors
Murton – 2 councillors
Seaham – 2 councillors
Easington, Pittington, Sherburn and Shotton
Easington & Shotton – 3 councillors
A new three-councillor division comprising Easington Colliery, Easington Village, Haswell, Shotton and Shadforth parishes.
Pittington & Sherburn – 1 councillor
Horden and Peterlee
Horden & Dene House – 2 councillors
Peterlee – 2 councillors
Blackhalls, Thornley, Trimdon and Wingate
Blackhalls & Hesledens – 1 councillor
“We have decided to adopt this name as part of our final recommendations, as we consider that this name better reflects the communities that will make up this division, which includes Blackhall Colliery, Blackhall Rocks, Crimdon, Hesleden, High Hesleden and Monk Hesleden.”
Castle Eden & Passfield – 1 councillor
Thornley & Wheatley Hill – 1 councillor
Trimdon & Wingate – 2 councillors
Sedgefield
Aycliffe North & Middridge – 2 councillors
Aycliffe South – 3 councillors
Chilton – 1 councillor
Sedgefield – 2 councillors
Bowburn, Coxhoe, Ferryhill and Spennymoor
Bowburn & Coxhoe – 3 councillors
Ferryhill – 2 councillors
Spennymoor – 2 councillors
Tudhoe – 2 councillors
Bishop Auckland and Shildon
Bishop Auckland – 3 councillors
“Bishop Auckland Town Council stated that it would prefer the area to remain represented by four councillors (Bishop Auckland Town and Woodhouse Close), as opposed to the three we have recommended.
“However, given the reduction in the number of councillors for the authority as a whole, it is an inevitable consequence that we must reduce the allocation of councillors per division and redraw division boundaries across the county to achieve an effective balance of our statutory criteria.”
Shildon & Dene Valley – 3 councillors
Crook and Willington
Crook – 3 councillors
Willington & Hunwick – 2 councillors
Teesdale and Weardale
Barnard Castle – 1 councillor
We have sub-divided our three-councillor Barnard Castle division. We are instead recommending a single-councillor Barnard Castle division, comprised solely of Barnard Castle parish, bounded by a single-councillor Upper Teesdale division to the west and a two-councillor Lower Teesdale division to the east. We consider that these three divisions reflect the evidence provided by residents and parishes who expressed a preference for smaller divisions in the Teesdale area.
Evenwood – 1 councillor
“We are recommending a single-councillor Evenwood division that is similar to the current two-councillor Evenwood division, except for Cockfield parish and the part of Etherley parish that includes High Etherley and Toft Hill. As a result of these changes, Etherley has been parish-warded in our final recommendations.
Lower Teesdale – 2 councillors
Upper Teesdale – 1 councillor
West Auckland – 2 councillors
“We have decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal for a two-councillor West Auckland division that incorporates the Escomb and Witton Park areas, along with the part of Etherley parish that includes High Etherley and Toft Hill.”
Weardale – 2 councillors
Full details of the proposals can be found at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/county-durham
