Proposal to split villages from rest of Teesdale

A POLITICAL row has erupted over a boundary shake-up after the Labour Party suggested that Evenwood, Cockfield, Butterknowle and Hamsterley should be split from the rest of Teesdale.
There had been local cross-party support to keep Teesdale united after plans were announced to change the make-up of parliamentary constituencies.
The present proposal would see Teesdale divided down the middle of Barnard Castle. Homes and businesses on opposing sides of Market Place, Newgate and Galgate would have separate MPs.
A town meeting in Barnard Castle this month led to united condemnation of the idea. Members of Teesdale Labour party and Conservative county councillors were in agreement that all three of Teesdale’s wards – Evenwood, Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West – should stay together.
However, a public hearing held in Darlington heard that the official Labour Party’s counter proposal was that Teesdale should be split up. But instead of dividing the dale through the centre of Barnard Castle, the Labour Party wants the Evenwood ward to be broken off.
If accepted, the Labour proposal would mean villages such as Butterknowle, Cockfield, Copley and Hamsterley would have different MPs than the rest of Teesdale.
Evenwood villages would stay with the Bishop Auckland seat, while the rest of Teesdale would be united with Weardale in a constituency that would go as far north as Chopwell, near Gateshead.
In a submission to the Boundary Commission, signed by Teesdale’s four county councillors, the Labour Party has been slammed.
Cllr Richard Bell, Cllr Ted Henderson, Cllr James Rowlandson and Cllr George Richardson said Barnard Castle and Teesdale look towards Bishop Auckland – a fact
they said was agreed by all political parties when the last boundary review took place in 2011. Cllr Bell said: “I am disappointed by the volte face performed by Labour at this review which has everything to do with political opportunism elsewhere in the region and nothing to do with what is best for people.”
Cllr Bell said Evenwood villages had been united with the rest of Teesdale politically for many years and that local churches were also linked.
The Boundary Commission’s initial proposal was to create a new seat of West Durham and Teesdale, which would encompass the current boundaries of Barnard Castle West – including Eggleston, Bowes, Startforth, the upper dale and the western half of Barnard Castle.
This would also include Consett, parts of Crook and much of Weardale. Meanwhile, Staindrop, Gainford, the eastern half of Barnard Castle and Evenwood villages would remain in a rejigged Bishop Auckland constituency.
Cllr Bell criticised that idea too. He said: “This is too large a seat to be managed conveniently; there are poor communication links and few community ties within the proposed seat. The road links are poor and there are no significant cultural, educational, commercial or transport links through the seat. It’s at least a 1.75-hour drive from one end to the other, and a day or two by bus. To split the town and the dale in two will disrupt community ties and will be a most fertile source of inconvenience for all in public life.”
But Greg Cook, the head of political strategy at the Labour Party, said: “West Durham and Teesdale is a large and diverse constituency comprising some sparsely populated areas with limited communication links. However, we accept that there may be some merit in combining these similar communities in one constituency.”
However, Mr Cook said splitting the town of Barnard Castle was undesirable and would be confusing.
“Barnard Castle, as the largest town in Teesdale, should be the focal point of the southern part of the constituency,” he said.
Labour said both Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West should be included in the West Durham and Teesdale seat, which would stretch past Weardale. That would leave Evenwood and Crook with Bishop Auckland, along with Heighington and Coniscliffe.
Town councillor Judi Sutherland spoke at the hearing, which was held on November 17. She says she spoke as an individual not representing the town or her Labour party. In her speech, she spoke about the need for Teesdale and Barnard Castle to be united.
She said: “Which MP do we go and see if we have an issue with a facility on the other side of the Market Place from the street we live in? The Bishop Auckland one, or one who may be living 50 miles away? She explained the need for Teesdale to retain close links with Bishop Auckland.
“When Teesdale people need to access services not provided within their own area, they tend to go 15 miles north east to Bishop Auckland or 15 miles east to Darlington,” she said. Ms Sutherland added: “We have nothing in common with Consett, Rowlands Gill and Blaydon.
“Most people in Teesdale will have no reason ever to go there. Their concerns are not our concerns. What happens there does not affect us, and vice versa.”
Phil Hunt, from Teesdale Labour Party, said: “I don’t think anyone in Teesdale (except John Watson) agrees with the [Labour] Party’s response.”
He said the only thing in its favour was keeping Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West together. He added: “The original Boundary Commission proposal of combining half of Teesdale with Consett and the suburbs of Blaydon was ridiculous and clearly ignores the physical and social geography of the area. We need to recognise that the political parties can’t make piecemeal responses for each constituency but have to give a co-ordinated response that covers the whole of the region.”