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
| | | | | | | | | | |
