Bassetlaw Draft Recommendations

North and East

Beckingham, Everton and Walkeringham

In addition to the district-wide submissions, we received additional ones from Councillor Wilson, Councillor Goacher and North & South Wheatley Parish Council about this area.

The Council and Labour proposed one change to the two existing wards in this area. They proposed addressing the poor forecast variance for Beckingham ward by moving an area around Newells Terrace in the north of Walkeringham parish, into Misterton ward.

Labour stated that the existing Everton ward had good forecast electoral equality and ‘contains a cohesive collection of small rural communities’.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, advocated for three new wards covering this area and Clayworth, Mattersey and Wiseton parishes. They addressed the poor variance in Beckingham ward by excluding Walkeringham parish from the ward. Instead, they included Bole, North & South Wheatley and Saundby parishes in their proposed Beckingham ward. They stated that this ward includes communities linked by the A620.

At the same time they proposed a Walkeringham ward comprised of Clayworth, Gringley on the Hill, Walkeringham and Wiseton parishes, three of which they say are connected via the 597 bus service and are in very close proximity to one another. They stated that this ward also shares a number of public services including Riverside Gringley GP surgery and primary and secondary school catchment areas without splitting them. And they expressed the view that Gringley on the Hill is the central village for these communities, providing the local services such as the GP surgery as well as the Community Centre.

Their proposed Everton ward is based on the existing ward of the same name, but does not include Gringley on the Hill parish. It includes Mattersey parish instead. The Conservatives say that Everton and Mattersey parishes are connected by the 27 bus service and that all four parishes in this ward look to Bawtry as their main commercial centre.

We considered these very different proposals carefully. As we explain further in the section on Misterton (paragraph 99), we have been persuaded to exclude the Newells Terrace area from a ward with the rest of Walkeringham parish, as proposed by the Council and Labour.

We note the transport and community links provided in support of the Conservatives’ proposals for the area. Furthermore, we note North & South Wheatley Parish Council’s and councillors Goacher’s and Wilson’s objections to the Council’s proposal to include the parish in a ward with Clayworth and other parishes to its west, on the grounds that it was geographically separated from them. The parish council stated that Clayworth and Gringley-on-the-Hill parishes had worked together on shared issues pertaining to shared land earmarked for solar farm development, and one of its suggestions was to expand the existing Clayworth ward to include Gringley-on-the-Hill parish. This was something the Council said it had considered but decided against because of the geographical spread of such a ward.

We note that the inclusion of Clayworth and Gringley-on-the-Hill parishes in the same ward is in line with the Conservatives’ proposal and that the Council had considered including these two parishes in a single ward.

We also note that the Council stated that Beckingham and Walkeringham have ‘distinct and separate’ natures. Therefore, we are content to place these parishes in separate district wards.

Accordingly, we have adopted the Conservatives’ proposed wards as part of our draft recommendations.

While we have been persuaded to place North & South Wheatley parish in a different ward than the parishes to its west, we have included it in Beckingham ward and not in a ward with Sturton le Steeple and West Burton parishes for electoral equality reasons, and for reasons explained in the section on Leverton (paragraph 85). We consider this the best balance of our statutory criteria.

Beckingham and Walkeringham are both single-councillor wards forecast to have 1% and 5% fewer electors per councillor, respectively, than the average for Bassetlaw, by 2030. Everton is also a single-councillor ward forecast to have a similar number of electors per councillor as the average for the district, by 2030.

Leverton

In addition to the district-wide proposals, we received submissions from Headon-cum-Upton, Grove & Stokeham Parish Council, North & South Wheatley Parish Council, Councillor Coultate, Councillor Goacher, Councillor Whelan, Councillor Wilson and five residents.

The Council’s and Labour’s proposed Leverton ward was very similar to the one proposed by the Conservatives, and was based on the existing Rampton and Sturton wards. The only difference was that the Council included Bole parish in this ward while the Conservatives included it in Beckingham ward to the north. None of the proposals placed the three grouped parishes of Headon-cum-Upton, Grove and Stokeham in a single ward – on electoral equality grounds.

The Council indicated that North & South Wheatley parish was in a different school catchment area from the rest of the existing Sturton ward and that other villages besides it would be more affected by the development traffic from the STEP (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) project. Labour believed that the proposed Leverton ward was a coherent grouping of rural communities, more so as it united North and South Leverton parishes in a single ward.

The Conservatives state that the proposed ward is made up of rural villages to the southeast of Bassetlaw with road connections between the larger villages.

Councillor Whelan, Headon-cum-Upton, Grove & Stokeham Parish Council and residents objected to the Council’s proposal to split the three parishes across three different district wards. They pointed to the shared farming heritage and facilities between the constituent parishes, and the shared Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Coultate did not think that North Leverton and South Leverton parishes identified as one community because each had their own pubs and community spaces.

As mentioned in the section on Beckingham, Everton and Walkeringham, the North & South Wheatley Parish Council objected to the parish being excluded from a ward with others in the existing Sturton ward. They pointed to established relationships among the constituent parishes and shared issues around the STEP project in West Burton.

Some residents objected to the existing Rampton ward being split across wards. One resident was of the view that this was an opportunity to restore some traditional links, such as the one between North and South Leverton.

We considered all the views that were expressed carefully. With regards to the grouped parishes within Headon-cum-Upton, Grove & Stokeham Parish Council, we considered uniting them in a single ward. To include them all in Leverton ward, ideally we would have to include Rampton & Woodbeck parish. Doing this produced Leverton and Trent wards forecast to have 46% more and 27% fewer electors, respectively, than the average for Bassetlaw, by 2030.

We also considered uniting them in East Markham ward after the changes we are making to the proposals we received for that ward (see section on East Markham ward). However, we have not done so as part of these draft recommendations because we do not have sufficient community evidence to support this. We welcome comments on whether we should unite Headon-cum-Upton, Grove and Stokeham parishes in our draft recommendations East Markham ward, subject to Bothamsall and Haughton parishes being included in a ward to the west of East Markham.

We noted that the Conservatives’ proposed warding pattern split the parish council area over two district wards, and not three district wards as proposed by the Council and Labour. We considered this a more desirable outcome than splitting them over three district wards. However, the Conservatives’ proposed ward to the south is forecast to have 17% more electors than the average for the local authority area.

Therefore, we modified the Conservatives’ proposals by moving Headon-cum-Upton parish into Leverton ward. This not only partially mitigated the split of the grouped parish area, but also facilitated a ward with good electoral equality to the south of Leverton ward.

Leverton is a single-councillor ward forecast to have 10% more electors per councillor than the average for the district in 2030.

Misterton

The district-wide proposals for Misterton were the only ones we received. The only difference between them was their proposal for the Newells Terrace area.

The existing Misterton ward is coterminous with Misterton parish. The Council and Labour advocate the inclusion of Bramley Way, Newells Terrace and Pippin Close from Walkeringham parish in this ward while the Conservatives retain the boundaries of the existing ward.

The Council state that during the Neighbourhood Plan consultation, the Newells Terrace area was included in the development boundary for Misterton because of its proximity and linkages to the area. It also says that residents use shops and facilities in Misterton. Labour are of the view that residents of Newells Terrace and the surrounding roads identify with Misterton, and not Walkeringham.

The Conservatives do not propose any changes to the existing ward which is comprised of Misterton and West Stockwith villages. They state that the villages are connected via the A161 (Marsh Lane) and Stockwith Road. They also point to the ward having good electoral equality.

On consideration of the evidence, we have been persuaded that because of their close proximity to Misterton and neighbours along Marsh Lane and Fox Covert Lane, residents of the Newells Terrace area will most likely look to Misterton for their community, amenities and services. Accordingly, we have been persuaded to include them in Misterton ward.

Our draft recommendations are based on the Council’s and Labour’s identical proposals. Misterton is a single-councillor ward forecast to have 9% more electors per councillor than the average for the local authority area, by 2030.

Clarborough

In addition to the district-wide proposals for this area, we received comments from North & South Wheatley Parish Council and Councillor Wilson.

The Council and Labour proposed a ward based on the existing Clayworth ward but with the addition of North & South Wheatley parish to address the poor forecast variance in the existing ward. The Council point out that the A620 provides a direct link from the North & South Wheatley parish to the southern area of the ward and Wheatley Road links to the north.

The Conservatives proposed a ward with communities that they state have shared interests in the Idle Valley Nature Reserve and surrounding wetlands and who have been working together to oppose development near the nature reserve. Furthermore, the ward will be connected by Chainbridge Lane which they say is used ‘by residents to access public services and commercial units across the proposed ward’.

In light of our decision to keep close neighbours in Ranskill and Torworth parishes in the same ward (see section on Ranskill ward), and our decision not to include North & South Wheatley parish in a ward with Clayworth, Hayton and Wiseton parishes, as explained in the section on Beckingham, Everton and Walkeringham wards, we have adopted the Conservatives’ proposals. Furthermore, we note that while Chainbridge Lane is not a major road, the communities in this ward have some shared interests. Accordingly, we are content to include them in the same ward.

Clarborough is a single-councillor ward forecast to have 8% more electors per councillor than the average for the district, by 2030.

Retford

In addition to the district-wide submissions, we received comments from Councillor Henderson, East Retford Charter Trustees, Retford Business Forum and two residents.

Councillor Henderson expressed support for the proposals put forward by the Council.

East Retford Charter Trustees did not want the boundaries of the town changed as they felt that the current boundaries, being those of the former Borough of Retford, were representative of the town. They also requested the use of geographical features as natural boundaries and wanted the entirety of the town centre in a single ward and not split across wards, as it currently was. We note that uniting the town centre in a single ward was something that all the proposals we received sought to do.

Retford Business Forum believed that uniting the town centre would facilitate better representation of the specific and unique needs of the Retford Town Centre Neighbourhood Plan area and proposed two alternative warding patterns which both created a single-councillor Town Centre ward.

Under the option one, the eastern boundary would run along the A638 Arlington Way. Under option two, it runs along the existing boundary along Churchgate and Carolgate. However, on careful consideration we found that even under option one, which creates a bigger town centre ward, the proposed ward is forecast to have at least 66% fewer electors than the average for the district in 2030. Under these proposals, East Retford West ward is also proposed to have 18% or 22% more electors. We consider these electoral variances too high and did not adopt either of these options. Nevertheless, we understand the desire to unite the area in a single ward.

The Council and Labour proposed three three-councillor and one single-councillor wards for Retford, while the Conservatives proposed two two-councillor and six single-councillor wards. The proposals included almost identical boundaries for a ward in the northeast of Retford.

The Conservatives’ proposed Retford Hallcroft, Retford Trinity and Retford Whitehouses wards were forecast to have variances of -21%, -11% and 19%, respectively, by 2030. We were not persuaded to create wards with such high variances. We therefore did not adopt them as part of our draft recommendations.

A resident suggested that the wards should be pre-fixed with ‘Retford’ and not ‘East Retford’. We note that all the district-wide schemes have dropped the current ‘East Retford’ prefix and we are content to do so as part of our draft recommendations.

Retford Hallcroft & Central

The Council and Labour proposed a three-councillor ward which included a significant part of the existing East Retford North ward. They united the town centre in this ward and extended its southwestern boundary to run along Babworth Road instead of the Chesterfield Canal and to the east used the River Idle as a natural boundary.

Labour said that the Hallcroft area of Retford is linked to the town centre through the ‘highly urbanised A638’ (North Road). The Council explained that the River Idle represents a clear and identifiable boundary and that the eastern boundary of the current East Retford North ward along Tiln Lane artificially split communities.

After careful consideration of the submissions, we are content to adopt the identical proposals by the Council and Labour as part of our draft recommendations, with one modification. We consider that residents on both sides of Babworth Road should be in the same ward, and that the Chesterfield Canal is an identifiable boundary. We also note that this boundary was used by the Conservatives for one of their wards. We have been persuaded to use it.

Retford Hallcroft & Central ward is a three-councillor ward forecast to have 9% fewer electors per councillor than the average for Bassetlaw, by 2030.

Retford Tiln

The Council, Labour and the Conservatives proposed almost identical boundaries for a single-councillor ward in the northeast of Retford. The only difference was that while the Council and Labour unite both sides of the A620 Moorgate/Welham Road in a single ward, the Conservatives use the A620 Moorgate as a boundary before uniting both sides of the A620 Welham Road in this ward.

We were told that the proposed ward unites the Tiln community which is currently split across wards. The Conservatives stated that the ward shares a number of public services including Carr Hill Primary School and is connected by two bus services.

We have considered these representations and are content that this ward has identifiable boundaries and good community links. On our virtual tour of Moorgate, we were persuaded that both sides of this road share community identity. We have therefore united both sides of the road in our draft recommendations, as proposed by the Council and Labour. However, we welcome comments on this.

We name the ward Retford Tiln as proposed by the Council and Labour but we invite comments on whether Retford Bolham, suggested by the Conservatives, better reflects the community in this ward.

Retford Tiln is a single-councillor ward, forecast to have a similar number of electors per councillor as the average for the district, by 2030.

Retford Ordsall & Station

The Council and Labour proposed a three-councillor Retford Ordsall & Station ward in this area while the Conservatives proposed three single-councillor wards: Retford Ordsall North, Retford Ordsall South and Retford Westfield.

The Council and Labour both stated that Ordsall had a strong community identity as was evidenced by various community groups including Friends of Ordsall and Ordsall Community Watch. The Council was of the view that the current boundary along the Sheffield¬–Lincoln railway line split the community of Ordsall unsatisfactorily.

The Conservatives state that their proposed Ordsall North has its own distinct community around Newlands Community Centre ‘away from the traditional centre of Ordsall in Ordsall South ward who holds a different community centre’. They suggest that their Ordsall South ward will bring together the most recent ‘Glen Eagles Estate’ with the oldest section of Ordsall. Their Ordsall Westfield & Station covers residents north of the railway line and south of Chesterfield Canal.

We have considered both proposals very carefully. We note the community facilities that residents in the Conservatives’ proposed wards will use and possibly gravitate towards. We were not persuaded that the proposed boundary between their Retford Ordsall North and Retford Ordsall South wards did not split a community across wards.

While we considered creating a single-councillor Retford Ordsall Westfield & Station ward to the north of the railway line and a two-councillor Ordsall ward to its south, we did not want to inadvertently split a cohesive community across wards, especially since there are community groups which serve the entire community of Ordsall suggesting that the community does extend across the railway line. 1

Therefore, as part of our draft recommendations, we have adopted the Council’s and Labour’s proposals. Nevertheless, we are asking if creating two wards as we considered doing would better reflect the way communities are organised in this area.

We note that both proposals include Retford Station and its surrounding roads in a ward here, and not with the Thrumpton area from which it is separated by the River Idle. The Council said that it shares greater community with Ordsall and that there is a public footpass and tunnel connecting the Retford Station area with Ordsall. We are content to include these areas in the same ward.

Retford Ordsall & Station is a three-councillor ward forecast to have 1% more electors per councillor, than the average for the district, by 2030.

Retford Thrumpton & Spital Hill

The Council and Labour proposed a three-councillor ward covering the existing East Retford East ward with the exception of the Tiln area and the eastern part of the city centre.

They were of the view that the A638 London Road unites the community and should not be used as a boundary. They state that the north and south of the ward are linked together by the A638 Arlington Way/London Road.

We considered the boundaries of the proposed ward and are content that it has good electoral equality and includes entire communities. Retford Thrumpton & Spital Hill is a three-councillor ward forecast to have 2% fewer electors per councillor, than the average for the district, by 2030.

South

Clumber Park and East Markham

We received submissions from Councillor Marples, Councillor Palmer and Norton, Cuckney, Holbeck & Welbeck Parish Council for this area in addition to the district-wide ones.

The Council and Labour proposed an East Markham ward which included Headon-cum-Upton parish, and a Welbeck ward which included the rural parts of Worksop, south of the A60/A57 with the existing Welbeck ward. The Council acknowledged that its proposed East Markham ward was forecast to have a 13% variance, outside of what we consider good electoral equality. However, it felt that it was difficult to find an alternative warding pattern given the number of changes required in the east of the district.

The Conservatives advocated for the Bothamsall and Haughton parishes to be moved from East Markham to Welbeck ward because of the parishes shared community and transport links with Elkesley parish in the east of the existing ward.

Like the Council, they proposed including an area of Worksop south of the A57 in a ward with the existing Welbeck ward, but one of their boundaries departed from the A57 and ran along Old Coach Road/Windmill Lane instead placing residents on this road in a Worksop ward. They proposed that Welbeck ward be renamed Clumber Park after the National Trust’s Clumber Park which takes up a significant part of the ward.

Norton, Cuckney, Holbeck & Welbeck Parish Council proposed a ward similar to the Conservatives’ Clumber Park ward although they used the A57 and not Windmill Lane as the northern boundary. They were of the view that this ward includes communities with similar issues and that although covering a significant geographical area, as rural communities they were used to large geographical ‘divides and barriers to even their closest neighbours’. They suggested that it be called Clumber Park or Dukeries. Councillors Marples and Palmer supported the parish council’s proposals with Councillor Palmer favouring the ward being named Dukeries because it would be made up of the ducal estates of Clumber and Welbeck.

On careful consideration of the submissions we received, we note that the Council state that Elkesley parish has never felt connected to the ward. Geographically, it is isolated to the east of Clumber Park. However, it has been retained in this ward for electoral equality reasons, which we understand.

We note that the Conservatives and Norton, Cuckney, Holbeck & Welbeck Parish Council proposed including Elkesley parish’s closest neighbours (i.e., Bothamsall and Haughton parishes) in the ward. These are parishes which we understand have links with Elkesley. We also note that it facilitates an East Markham ward with good electoral equality.

Accordingly, we have been persuaded to adopt the Conservatives’ proposals, including proposed names, for wards in this area as part of our draft recommendations, with one modification. We do not use Windmill Lane as any part of the northern boundary of Clumber Park ward. We would particularly welcome comments from residents of Bothamsall and Haughton parishes. We also invite comments on whether the name Dukeries will better reflect the communities in Clumber Park ward.

Clumber Park and East Markham wards are both single-councillor wards forecast to have 6% more and 6% fewer electors than the average per councillor for the district, by 2030.

Trent

The district-wide proposals for this area were identical in many respects, except that the Conservatives included Headon-cum-Upton parish here. As mentioned in the section on Leverton, this produced a Trent ward forecast to have 17% more electors than the district average. We were not persuaded to create a ward with such a high variance so we did not adopt this proposal.

Instead we have adopted the Council’s and Labour’s identical proposals as part of our draft recommendations for Trent.

Trent is a single-councillor ward forecast to have 10% more electors per councillor than the average for the local authority area, by 2030.

Tuxford

In addition to the district-wide submissions, we received comments from Councillor Coultate and a resident.

The district-wide submissions proposed identical boundaries for a single-councillor Tuxford ward coterminous with Tuxford parish.

The Council stated that as a market town Tuxford has a distinct urban nature in contrast to the surrounding rural communities. Labour said that it was only made part of a two-councillor urban/rural ward at the last electoral review for electoral equality purposes, and that that was no longer needed.

The Conservatives expressed the view that Tuxford had a strong community identity with shared public services across the town.

Councillor Coultate questioned why the Council proposed splitting the existing two-councillor Tuxford & Trent ward and a resident objected to any changes. Neither submission provided any community evidence in support of the existing ward.

Accordingly, after consideration of the submissions we have adopted the identical proposals from the Council, Conservatives and Labour for a single-councillor Tuxford ward, as part of our draft recommendations. It is forecast to have 8% more electors per councillor than the average for the district, by 2030.