By following the link below you can view the Boundary Commission's revised proposals, make comments, see what other people have said and learn more about the BCE and the review:
www.bce2018.org.uk
We have strong objections to these proposals and we have written to the Boundary Commission to tell them so. We have published our representations below:
BCE
revised proposals for new parliamentary constituency boundaries
Comments
by Cllr Rob Crute and Cllr Lynn Pounder, Blackhalls Division, Durham County
Council
Thursday
7 December 2017
We have considered closely the proposals set out by the
Boundary Commission for England as they relate specifically to the villages in
the Blackhalls Division of Durham Council and we would like to make the
following comments:
We object in the strongest terms to the proposal to remove
the communities of the Blackhalls Division from their current parliamentary
constituency (Easington), and include them as part of a revised Hartlepool
constituency.
We note that the BCE in its initial proposals suggested
removing the Hart and De Bruce (Brus) wards from the current Hartlepool
constituency and placing them in a revised East Durham constituency, which
included much of the southern part of the existing Easington constituency.
Following representations from residents in the Hart and De Bruce wards the BCE
agreed to scrap this proposal on the grounds that it “made orphans” of those
two Hartlepool wards when viewed in the context of a revised East Durham
constituency. It was posited that the two Hartlepool wards had nothing whatsoever
in common with East Durham and we agree with that position entirely.
Equally however, we would argue that removing the Blackhalls
division from the Easington constituency, and placing it within a revised
Hartlepool constituency, would have precisely
the same effect in that it would be “made an orphan” in a constituency in which
there was no shared community identity or any social links.
In addition it should be noted that the communities and the
people of the Blackhalls division have no historical or heritage-related ties
with the town of Hartlepool. Indeed, the villages of the Blackhalls division
(and the wider Easington constituency) are physically separated from Hartlepool
by the natural ravine at Crimdon Dene on the Durham and Hartlepool border. We
note that geographic factors must be considered as part of any revised boundary
proposals.
We have discussed the BCE’s revised proposals with many
members of the public at our frequent and regular ward surgeries. We can
confirm that without exception they concur with our views as expressed here.
With those comments we would strongly urge that the
communities of the Blackhalls division be left entirely within the existing
Easington constituency.
Cllr
Rob Crute and Cllr Lynn Pounder
Blackhalls
Division
Durham
County Council
Review of Parliamentary Constituency boundaries – 2018 Response to Boundary Commission for England’ Revised Proposals
The Council’s Constitution Working Group (CWG), an all-party group, has discussed BCE’s revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency boundaries as they affect County Durham. The CWG’s deliberations of BCE’s revised proposals boundaries were reported to a meeting of the Council on 6 December 2017, where the CWGs concerns and comments were endorsed.
Members were highly critical of, and would object in the strongest possible terms, to the BCE revised proposals for the county area.
It is noted with concern that we are not considering minor re-alignments here. It is inconceivable that the electorates concerned, and all those other interested individuals/parties can effectively consider and meaningfully respond to the revised proposals before the consultation closes on 11 December 2017.
The revised proposals are a complete across-the-board change to BCE’s initial proposals with significant changes for the electorate of the County. Members are particularly concerned with the proposals to divide the existing “City of Durham” constituency between 5 revised constituencies and the existing “Easington” constituency between 3 revised constituencies and 3 local authority areas.
I can confirm that this Council categorically rejects BCEs revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency boundaries as they might apply to County Durham.
The Council’s Constitution Working Group (CWG), an all-party group, has discussed BCE’s revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency boundaries as they affect County Durham. The CWG’s deliberations of BCE’s revised proposals boundaries were reported to a meeting of the Council on 6 December 2017, where the CWGs concerns and comments were endorsed.
Members were highly critical of, and would object in the strongest possible terms, to the BCE revised proposals for the county area.
It is noted with concern that we are not considering minor re-alignments here. It is inconceivable that the electorates concerned, and all those other interested individuals/parties can effectively consider and meaningfully respond to the revised proposals before the consultation closes on 11 December 2017.
The revised proposals are a complete across-the-board change to BCE’s initial proposals with significant changes for the electorate of the County. Members are particularly concerned with the proposals to divide the existing “City of Durham” constituency between 5 revised constituencies and the existing “Easington” constituency between 3 revised constituencies and 3 local authority areas.
I can confirm that this Council categorically rejects BCEs revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency boundaries as they might apply to County Durham.
