Sheffield Parliamentary Boundary Review
MDFS::maps.Sheffield.per2011 Search

The Government has legislated to reduced the size of the House of Commons from 650 MPs to 600 MPs. This requires a Parliamentary Boundary Review to redraw new, larger, fewer, constituencies. The numbers mean that Sheffield will go down from 5.5 constituencies to exactly 5 constituencies.

Comments on submissions

01-April-2012:
I have written my
comments on the submissions to the Boundary Commision on their initial proposal.

My submission

28-Sep-2011:
I have written a submission supporting Jonathan Jordan's proposal, summarised below.

Dr Jordan Model

Jonathan Jordan (user JHJ21) proposed the following model on the Sheffield Forum (with slight modification).
  • Report.doc (3.5M) - Report to Boundary Commission
  • JHJ21a.gif (328K) - Map of proposals
  • Burngreave.gif (2.4M) - Details of boundary through Burngreave
  • Walkley.gif (2.3M) - Details of boundary through Walkley
    There is also a petition on Sheffield City Council's website supporting a model with five constituencies wholly within Sheffield.

    North
    (Brightside)
    West Ecclesfield, East Ecclesfield, Southey, Firth Park, Shiregreen, Shirecliffe/Fir Vale/Hinde House from Burngreave 76386 -0.3%
    South-East
    (Attercliffe)
    Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Woodhouse, Darnall, Burngreave without Shirecliffe/Fir Vale/Hinde House 75542 -1.4%
    South
    (Heeley)
    Beauchief, Graves Park, Gleadless, Arbourthorne, Manor/Castle, Richmond 78566 +2.5%
    North-West
    (Hillsborough)
    Stocksbridge, Stannington, Hillsborough, Fulwood, Crookes, Walkley without Netherthorpe/Upperthorpe/Philadelphia 79861 +4.2%
    South-West
    (Ecclesall)
    Dore, Ecclesall, Nether Edge, Broomhill, Central, Netherthorpe/Upperthorpe/Philadelphia from Walkley 76157 -0.6%
    This is a very good model and difficult to improve on. It has the following good points:

    • Repects very strong natural and community boundaries
    • Only TWO wards split. I was sure I couldn't get fewer than five wards split, but this model only splits:
      • Walkley Ward into the two natural communities of Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe/Philadelphia and Walkley itself (map here 2.3M). The split is along the previous constituency boundary (prior to 2010) and ward boundary (prior to 2004).
      • Burngreave into the natural communities of "core" Burngreave (the area of the old ward), and the parts that are the natural edge of Brightside: Shirecliffe, Fir Vale, Hinde House, etc. The split is a slightly tidied-up version of and very close to the previous constituency boundary (prior to 2010) and ward boundary (prior to 2004). (map here 2.4M)
    • All but one variance 2.5% or less, all variancies well within the required 5%. The 4.2% of North-West could be dropped down to 0.9% if the student halls of residence at Endcliffe Edge were put into SouthWest, giving all five seats under 2.6%.
    The only improvement I could suggest to this model would be the option of placing the 2900 electors in Student Residences at Endcliffe Edge in Fulwood Ward in the South-West constituency. The would result in North-West 76961 +0.4% South-West 79057 +3.1%.

    Derek West (SCC) Model

    Derek West, Policy Office at Sheffield City Council, submitted the only other all-Sheffield model.
  • DerekWest.gif (343K) - Map of proposals

    Boundary Commission Initial Proposals

    The Boundary Commission published their initial recommendations for England on 12 September 2011. Their recommendations for Yorkshire & The Humber include constituencies for Sheffield that do not respect the City Council boundaries, and share three seats with adjoining authorities, two with Barnsley and one with Rotherham. They do this purely to ensure each constituency contains exact whole wards, avoiding splitting wards in Sheffield at the expense of creating unwieldy cross-authority constituencies.
  • InitialSheffield2011l.gif - 17M
  • InitialSheffield2011m.gif - 1.2M
  • InitialSheffield2011s.gif - 400K

    JGH Model A

    I am not supporting this model as Dr Jordan's is much better. I include it here for completeness.
    Jonathan Jordan's model for North is the same as my initial draft for North, and his model for South-East and South are similar to my initial drafts, but fit the electorate and natural geography better. Consequently, I have adopted Dr Jordan's model for South-East and South into my model making my model the same as the JHJ21 model for the three easternmost constituencies.
    In this model I attempted to create a realistic pair of western constituencies that use the Rivelin Valley as a boundary. (
    map here - 340K)
    North
    (Brightside)
    West Ecclesfield, East Ecclesfield, Southey, Firth Park, Shiregreen, Shirecliffe/Fir Vale/Hinde House from Burngreave 76386 -0.3%
    South-East
    (Attercliffe)
    Mosborough, Beighton, Birley, Woodhouse, Darnall, Burngreave without Shirecliffe/Fir Vale/Hinde House 75542 -1.4%
    South
    (Heeley)
    Beauchief, Graves Park, Gleadless, Arbourthorne, Manor/Castle, Richmond 78566 +2.5%
    North-West
    (Hillsborough)
    Stocksbridge, Stannington, Hillsborough, Walkley, Crookes, Broomhill without Botanical/Collegiate 78646 +2.6%
    South-West
    (Hallam)
    Dore, Ecclesall, Fulwood, Nether Edge, Central, Botanical/Collegiate from Broomhill 77372 +0.9%
    This is model has following good points:
    • Repects very strong natural and community boundaries, though weaker between Crookes and Fullwood
    • Again, only TWO wards split. This model only splits:
      • Burngreave into the natural communities of "core" Burngreave (the area of the old ward), and the parts that are the natural edge of Brightside: Shirecliffe, Fir Vale, Hinde House, etc. The split is a slightly tidied-up version of and very close to the previous constituency boundary (prior to 2010) and ward boundary (prior to 2004). (map here 2.4M)
      • Broomhill Ward into the Botanical/Collegiate area around Hunters Bar and the Broomhill area itself (map here 2.5M)
    • Placing Botanical/Collegiate in South-West puts all of Hunters Bar and the Ecclesall Road corridor in the same constituency.
    • All variances are 2.6% or less.
    If the Rivelin Valley is seen as an important natural boundary, then this model is stronger. In all other respects, the Dr Jordan's model is the strongest model.


    Documents and resources

    PDElectorate2011.xls  68KThese are the Sheffield 2011 electorates that must be used. The English target is 76,641 (5% variance gives 72,810 to 80,473). Note that this lists the polling districts used before the May 2011 elections (see here), but are those that match the polling district maps here.
    Sheffield2011l.gif  11M Map of Sheffield with ward 2011 electorates
    Outline.gif  4K Outline map of Sheffield wards
    NorthYorks.gif  6K Outline map of North Yorkshire constituencies
    Yorkshire50.xls  36K Yorkshire subregional figures with calculations for 50 seats
    Yorkshire54.xls  36K Yorkshire subregional figures with calculations for 54 seats
    ElectorateUK.xls  3.5M UK 2011 electorate figures from BCE website
    Draft1.doc  26K My first draft recommendations

    The rules

  • Respect Regional Boundaries
  •                   So exactly 50 constituencies in Yorkshire.
  • Numerical equality. Constituencies must be within 5% of the target of 76,641.
  •  This is a stronger constraint than previous reviews and in light of this acknowledges that ward boundaries will have to be crossed in places, which was avoided before.
  • Respect Local Authority Boundaries.
  •  Sheffield is entitled to 5.0431 constituences, so can justify exactly 5 very very slightly over-sized contituencies coterminal with the local authority area. Consequently, a model that is wholly within Sheffield is more acceptable than a model that crosses Sheffield's boundaries.
  • Aim to respect ward boundaries and minimise crossing ward boundaries.
  •  As Sheffield went for 28 wards in 2004 specifically because that arranged easily into 5.5 constituencies, 28 divided by 5 necessitates crossing ward boundaries. Models that minimise unneccessary crossing of boundaries will be seen as a better model. This acknowledges that wards themselves were drawn constrained by numerical equality. Does not mean that whole polling districts are the building blocks, houses are the sub-ward building blocks, but polling district numbers can used as starting points for building models. Polling districts are abitarily drawn afterwards by the Council.
  • Clear, distinctive boundaries, clearly distinct and geographically visible.
  •  Major railways, rivers, dual carriageways, large open spaces. Models that, for example, split a district centre (eg down the centre of Middlewood Road or Crookes High Street) will be unfavourable.

    Some notes and thoughts

  • Keep half an eye on what future wards would fit into the new constituencies.
  •  Due to this review being out of sequence and resulting in cross-ward constituency boundaries, the Local Government boundary commission can come along with an early review, to redraw the city with an exactle multiple of 5 wards. There's already the large numerical anomolies in Central Ward and Manor/Castle Ward sitting heavily on the map likely to trigger a partial review.
  • The BCE also mentions 'minimal change', which is not really possible in Sheffield going from 5.5 to 5.0. As the last review was so recent, strong arguments can be put forward for comparison with the previous boundaries, ie the 1992 and 1983 boundaries.
  • Sheffield has 28 recently-redrawn wards, so they are almost all the same size and can be used as equal building blocks. 28 divided by 5 is not a whole number, so each constituency will have to cross some ward boundaries somewhere. When drafting models constituencies of 5 3/5 wards per constituency can be used as a starting point before going down further into detailed numbers.
  • Note that two wards - Central and Manor/Castle - have deviated from electoral equality very quickly since the ward review in 2004. Central is now almost 4/3 of a ward, Manor/Castle is now almost 2/3 of a ward. Together they make just about two whole wards, so if an initial draft puts them together in the same constituency this imbalance can be initially skipped.
  • Bradfield Parish
  •  It would be advantagous to avoid splitting Bradfield Parish between two constituencies - that requires Stocksbridge and Stannginton to be in the same constituency.
  • Parish areas
  •  Is there an advantage for all the parished areas to be in the same constituency? People I have spoken to have expressed support for this but, so far, the Town and Parish Councils haven't expressed an official position. This would include Stocksbridge, Stannington, West Ecclesfield and East Ecclesfield wards. To get the 5+3/5 wards needed to get to the total another 1+3/5 wards are needed. Hillsborough and the Walkley part of Walkley Ward (north of Fulton Road, the old boundary) have the best geographic and community-linkage fit. That would give 14576+14159+14035+14464+13569+10244=81047, 5.7% over target. Excluding the unparished part of East Ecclesfield (High Greave polling district) would give 78022, 1.8% over target. This would be near-enough the old Sheffield Hillsborough constituency.
  • Has the old desire for Nether Edge to go back into Hallam fully died out?
  •  There was a desire in Nether Edge to remain in Hallam in 1992, by 2005 when that was floated absolutely nobody said anything either in favour or against. It ended up being used as a floating ward to chuck in whichever direction would best tidy up the numbers, ending up in Central.

    Wards that can easily be split into clearly-defined and distinct areas include

    • Crookes: Crosspool/Crookes; clear distinct boundary at Crookes Cemetary (cf Crookes.gif)
    • Walkley: Walkley/Upperthorpe-Netherthorpe; old Fulton Road boundary
    • Walkley: Walkley-Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe; Ponderosa boundary
    • Walkley: Walkley-Upperthorpe-Netherthorpe/Opal; Ring Road boundary
    • Darnall: Darnall/north handworth; Sheffield Parkway as boundary
    • Shiregreen: Shiregreen/Brightside; Concord Park as boundary
    • Burngreave: Shirecliffe-Firvale-Grimesthorpe/Burngreave; Parkwood Springs and Earl Marshal area as boundary
    • Broomhill: Boundary along Crookes Valley Park, Northumberland Park.
    • Central: City Centre/Sharrow; boundary along Inner Ring Road.
    • Dore/Totley: Dore/Totley; boundary along railway line to Totley Tunnel.
    • Nether Edge: Carter Knowle/rest; boundary along Brincliffe Edge.
    • Graves: Woodseats/Norton; boundary through Graves Park, Lees Hall Wood.
    • Gleadless: Heeley/Gleadless; boundary through Lees Hall Wood.
    • Birley: Charnock/Birley; boundary behind Fox Lane.
    • Woodhouse: Handsworth/Woodhouse; boundary along Shirtcliffe Brook.

    The natural boundaries in Sheffield - the four valleys - split Sheffield into:

    • Rivelin-Upper Don : 3 wards (5 wards if incl. Ecclesfield)
    • Upper Don-Lower Don : 6 wards (4 wards if excl. Ecclesfield)
    • Lower Don-Sheaf : 11 wards (almost exactly 2 x 5+3/5)
    • Sheaf-Rivelin : 8 wards