New electoral arrangements for New Forest District Council Draft Recommendations June 2020 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why New Forest? 2 Our proposals for New Forest 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 Central 9 West 13 South West 16 North East 19 South East 22 Conclusions 25 Summary of electoral arrangements 25 Parish electoral arrangements 25 Have your say 29 Equalities 33 Appendices 35 Appendix A 35 Draft recommendations for New Forest District Council 35 Appendix B 38 Outline map 38 Appendix C 40 Submissions received 40 Appendix D 41 Glossary and abbreviations 41

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why New Forest?

7 We are conducting a review of New Forest District Council (‘the Council’) following a request from the Council. Also, some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in New Forest are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the district.

Our proposals for New Forest

9 New Forest should be represented by 48 councillors, 12 fewer than there are now.

10 New Forest should have 25 wards, nine fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the district or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for an 10-week period, from 30 June 2020 to 7 September 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 7 September 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 29 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for New Forest. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the district. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 November 2019 Number of councillors decided 17 December 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 2 March 2020 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 30 June 2020 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 7 September 2020 forming final recommendations 1 December 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2019 2025 Electorate of New Forest 142,717 147,591 Number of councillors 60 48 Average number of electors per 2,379 3,075 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All but one of our proposed wards for New Forest will have good electoral equality by 2025. Bransgore, Burley & Sopley will have 11% fewer electors than the district average by 2025.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 4% by 2025.

25 In response to the warding pattern consultation, a number of respondents put forward questions about development, including between Totton and Marchwood.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

However, we note that these developments are likely to occur beyond the five-year forecast period and cannot be considered as part of this review.

26 We have therefore considered this, along with the information provided by the Council, and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

27 New Forest District Council currently has 60 councillors. We looked at evidence provided by the Council and concluded that reducing the council size by 12 would ensure that the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

28 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 48 councillors.

29 We received a number of general comments supporting or objecting to the change in council size. New Forest District Council put forward a scheme based on a 49-member council, arguing that this would enable a better warding pattern across the district. New Forest East Conservative Association argued for no reduction below 48 but supported 49 members.

30 We have examined the Council’s proposal based on 49 councillors and note that it generally enables strong boundaries and secures good levels of electoral equality. However, Boldre Parish Council raised concerns about the Council’s proposals to transfer part of Boldre parish to a Lymington & Pennington town ward, arguing that this did not reflect community identity. The Parish Council put forward alternative proposals for this area, which would reduce council size to 48. We note the concerns of Boldre Parish Council and consider that its amendment, based on 48 members, provides a stronger warding pattern in this area while still facilitating good electoral equality across the rest of the district.

31 On balance, we have been persuaded to adopt Boldre Parish Council’s proposals, including a council size of 48. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 48-councillor council.

Ward boundaries consultation

32 We received 51 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included a district-wide proposal from New Forest District Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for ward arrangements in particular areas of the district.

6

33 The Council’s district-wide scheme provided a mixed pattern of one-, two- and three-councillor wards for New Forest. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. However, as stated in the ‘Number of councillors’ section (above), we have adopted a council size of 48 as part of our draft recommendations to address Boldre Parish Council’s concerns about the inclusion of part of the parish in a ward with Lymington & Pennington. We also propose several further amendments across the district based on the evidence received, or to improve electoral equality or strengthen boundaries.

34 We received a number or proposals that recommended changes to the external boundaries of the district or parishes. However, these fall outside the scope of an electoral review and so cannot be considered.

35 New Forest East Conservative Association expressed a preference for single- councillor wards where possible. We note these comments. However, the Council has not requested a single-councillor ward review and we have therefore made no presumption for a pattern of single-councillor wards. In addition, we note that New Forest East Conservative Association did not propose specific single-member wards.

36 As a result of the unprecedented circumstances related to the outbreak of Covid-19, we were unable to conduct a visit to the area to look at the various different proposals on the ground. However, we were able to conduct a detailed, virtual tour of New Forest. This helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

Draft recommendations 37 Our draft recommendations are for four three-councillor wards, 15 two- councillor wards and six one-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

38 The tables and maps on pages 9–24 detail our draft recommendations for each area of New Forest. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

39 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 35 and on the large map accompanying this report.

40 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

8

Central

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury 1 3% & Lepe Brockenhurst & Denny Lodge 1 5% Lymington Town 2 6% Lyndhurst & Minstead 1 4% Pennington 2 9% Sway 1 -1%

Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury & Lepe, Brockenhurst & Denny Lodge, Lymington Town and Pennington 41 The Council put forward a mixed pattern of wards for this area, including a Lymington Town & Boldre South ward, comprising part of Lymington & Pennington parish and the south area of Boldre parish. Boldre Parish Council objected to the inclusion of the southern area of the parish in a ward with Lymington & Pennington.

9

Parish Councillor Bolton and a number of residents also objected to the inclusion of this area with part of Lymington & Pennington.

42 Respondents argued that the Council’s proposals would mix urban and rural areas, as well as including an area that falls within the National Park in a Lymington ward. They also argued that the river and railway line provide obvious boundaries. Boldre Parish Council put forward revised proposals for the whole of the central area, arguing that if the number of councillors for the area was reduced by one then it would not be necessary to include the southern area of the parish in a ward with Lymington & Pennington.

43 Hythe & Dibden Parish Council suggested transferring Beaulieu and East Boldre parishes to Fawley, Blackfield & Langley ward. Finally, a resident argued that Brockenhurst and Sway parishes should be in a ward together, but did not provide strong supporting evidence for this proposal.

44 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. While we note the submission from Hythe & Dibden Parish Council regarding Beaulieu and East Boldre parishes, we have not been persuaded that there is compelling community evidence to persuade us to adopt this proposal. Moreover, it would combine the more urban area of Fawley with rural parishes, which in our view would not reflect the interests of communities in the area. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

45 We were, however, persuaded by the concerns about the inclusion of the south area of Boldre parish in a ward with Lymington & Pennington. Although the Council provided some evidence to support their proposal, arguing that this area looks to Lymington & Pennington, we agree that combining rural and urban areas in this part of the district would not reflect the interests of communities. We note that Boldre Parish Council’s proposals facilitate a warding pattern that avoids such a combination, as well avoiding splitting Boldre parish.

46 As noted in the ‘Number of councillors’ section (above), Boldre Parish Council’s proposals are dependent on reducing the number of councillors for this area, and to 48 for New Forest as whole. However, as discussed above, we consider that their proposed warding arrangement enables us to provide a stronger warding pattern in this area, while also facilitating other elements of the Council’s proposals in other parts of the district.

47 Under the Parish Council’s proposals, Lymington & Pennington parish would be entitled to four councillors, and while Boldre Parish Council did not provide specific proposals for how to divide Lymington & Pennington, we believe it is possible to split the area into viable wards that reflect our statutory criteria. These would have the

10

advantage of keeping the whole of Lymington & Pennington parish within these wards.

48 As part of our draft recommendations, we are therefore adopting Boldre Parish Council’s proposals for the area and drawing up our own proposals for two two- councillor wards for Lymington & Pennington (Lymington Town and Pennington). Our Lymington Town ward keeps the whole of the town centre in a single ward, while our Pennington ward is based on the Council’s proposals, but with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality.

49 We are not adopting the local resident’s proposals for combining Brockenhurst and Sway parishes as this suggestion was not supported by strong evidence and we note that the Council’s proposed Sway ward comprises the whole parish, while securing good electoral equality.

Lyndhurst & Minstead 50 The Council proposed a single-councillor Lyndhurst & Minstead ward, comprising Lyndhurst and Minstead parishes. This proposed ward would secure good electoral equality. Lyndhurst Parish Council suggested that their parish should be allocated a single-councillor ward, arguing that it is a clearly defined area with its own amenities. A resident argued that Lyndhurst parish should be in a ward with Minstead and Copythorne but did not provide evidence to support this proposal.

51 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the comments from Lyndhurst Parish Council. However, a single-member ward comprising the entirety of the parish would have 16% fewer electors than the district average by 2025. We do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to justify this level of electoral equality and we are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. In light of the evidence received, we are adopting the Council’s proposals for Lyndhurst & Minstead without amendment.

Sway 52 The Council proposed a single-councillor Sway ward, comprising Sway parish. This was supported by a number of local residents. One resident argued that the north part of Hordle parish should be in a ward with Sway. Another argued that Brockenhurst and Sway parishes should be in a ward together but did not provide strong supporting evidence for this proposal.

53 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the Council’s Sway ward secures good electoral equality, while comprising the whole of a coherent community in Sway parish. We also note that there was local support for this proposal. We note the proposal to transfer part of Hordle parish to Sway. However, this warding arrangement would require the creation of a small parish ward within Hordle parish which was not supported by any other submissions. As a result,

11

we have not adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. We consider that the Council’s proposals provide a strong single-member pattern and keep communities together, and we are therefore adopting its Sway ward without amendment.

12

West

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Bransgore, Burley & Sopley 2 -11% Downlands & Forest North 1 -1% Ellingham & Ringwood North 2 5% Fordingbridge 2 1% Ringwood Town Central 2 5%

13

Bransgore, Burley & Sopley 54 The Council proposed a two-member Bransgore, Burley & Sopley ward comprising Bransgore, Burley and Sopley parishes. Bransgore Parish Council expressed support for this ward as it would combine three rural parishes, avoiding a link with Ringwood or New Milton. A resident argued in favour of a ward comprising Bransgore and Sopley parishes, arguing that these parishes include large villages while Burley ‘is in the Forest’ area. The resident argued that development in Sopley included in the new local plan would make this proposed warding arrangement viable. Another resident suggested a recent development in Sopley parish should be included in the current Bransgore & Burley ward.

55 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the support for the Council’s proposals from Bransgore Parish Council. We also note the argument that Burley parish should be included in a Forest ward, citing links there, but also as a result of future development in Sopley. However, we are not persuaded that any future development would occur within the forecast period and note that under our forecast figures, removing Burley would leave Bransgore & Sopley with 31% fewer electors than the district average by 2025. We are therefore not adopting this amendment as part of our draft recommendations. We also note the comment from a local resident about including part of Sopley in the Bransgore & Burley ward, but note that the whole of Sopley is included in the Council’s proposed ward with Bransgore and Burley parishes.

56 On balance, we consider that the Council’s proposals provide for a warding pattern that reflects communities. Under our proposed council size of 48, Bransgore, Burley & Sopley ward would have 11% fewer electors than the district average by 2025, which is 2% worse than under the Council’s 49-member proposal. We have explored whether this electoral variance can be improved, but given the nature of the parish boundaries and the geography in the area the options are limited. We did consider the transfer of the Bashley area of New Milton parish (discussed below), but we were not persuaded that there would be local support for splitting New Milton parish. We are therefore adopting the Council’s Bransgore, Burley & Sopley without amendment.

Downlands & Forest North, Ellingham & Ringwood North, Fordingbridge and Ringwood Town Central 57 The Council put forward a mixed pattern of wards for this area. However, Hyde and Godshill parish councils and Councillor Lane put forward alternative proposals, recommending the creation of a single-councillor North West Forest ward comprising Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley, Godshill, Hale, Hyde and Woodgreen parishes. These respondents provided strong supporting evidence for the proposed ward, highlighting the parishes’ shared concerns, priorities and responsibilities, while having enough electors to justify a single councillor. These submissions also

14

objected to the inclusion of Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley parish with part of Ringwood parish and of the other parishes in a ward with Fordingbridge.

58 A local resident argued that under the Council’s revised council size of 49, Ringwood would be entitled to four councillors, particularly with the transfer of Sopley to a Bransgore, Burley & Sopley ward. The resident proposed amendments to the existing wards. Another resident argued that there should be a two-councillor ward for the centre of Ringwood, but provided no other evidence or details.

59 A resident argued that Upper Burgate should not be in ward with Fordingbridge and that it has better links to the villages to the north.

60 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that it would be possible to secure a warding pattern with good electoral equality based on four councillors for the Ringwood parish area. This arrangement would also facilitate the proposed North West Forest ward from Hyde and Godshill parish councils and Councillor Lane, which would also secure good electoral equality. However, there are a number of knock-on effects to the remaining area comprising Breamore, Damerham, Fordingbridge, Martin, Rockbourne, Sandleheath and Whitsbury parishes. This area would be entitled to two councillors, but would have poor electoral equality of 16% more electors than the district average by 2025.

61 Therefore, while there is good evidence for the proposed North West Forest ward, the resultant poor electoral equality in the remaining area means we are unable to accept these proposals as part of our draft recommendations. The layout and linkages of the parishes and the position at the edge of the district mean the options for alternatives are limited.

62 Although there are concerns about the Council’s proposals, we note that Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley does have direct links into Ringwood. Moreover, although they may face different issues, Godshill and Hyde parishes have links into Fordingbridge. Finally, we note the comment from a resident about transferring Upper Burgate to a rural ward, but there was limited evidence for this and would require the creation of an unviable parish ward of under 100 electors within Fordingbridge parish. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

63 We consider that the Council’s proposals provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria across the whole area. We are therefore adopting them as part of our draft recommendations without amendment.

15

South West

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Ashley & New Milton North East 2 9% Barton 2 4% Milford & Hordle 3 0% Milton 2 -6% New Milton North West 1 5%

Milford & Hordle 65 The Council proposed a three-councillor ward comprising Hordle and Milford- on-Sea parishes. Hordle Parish Council expressed support for the Council’s proposals, citing shared interests with Milford-on-Sea. A local resident argued that the north part of Hordle parish should be in a ward with Sway.

66 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the suggestion of transferring the north area to Sway. However, this arrangement would require the creation of small parish ward of Hordle parish which was not supported

16

by any other submissions. In light of the good electoral equality and support from Hordle Parish Council, we are adopting the Council’s proposed Milford & Hordle ward without amendment.

Ashley & New Milton North East, Barton, Milton and New Milton North West 67 The Council put forward proposals for this area. It proposed a three-councillor Barton & Becton ward comprising the coastal areas of Barton and Becton; a two- councillor Bashley & Fernhill ward comprising most of the area to the north of the railway line; and a two-councillor Milton ward that included the area to the south of the railway line, as well as an estate to the north.

68 A local resident put forward alternative proposals. The resident proposed that the Bashley area should be included in a neighbouring rural ward, arguing that it sits within the National Park and would be better served in a ward with Brockenhurst. The resident proposed two wards represented by two councillors south of the railway line: Barton and Milton. The resident’s proposed Barton ward comprised Barton and Becton, while the proposed Milton ward would include the area to the immediate north. The resident also argued that the Ashley area should not be split across two wards, suggesting that the area should form part of a two-member Ashley & New Milton North East ward. Finally, the resident proposed a single-councillor New Milton North West ward, comprising the area to the north-west of the railway line.

69 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. While the Council’s proposals secure good electoral equality, we have concerns that some of the proposed boundaries do not reflect local communities. We concur with the resident that Ashley should not be split across wards and that a warding arrangement which links Barton and Becton would reflect the interests of local communities. In addition, we have concerns about the Council’s proposal to include the small estate to the north of the railway within its Milton ward.

70 We have therefore based our draft recommendations in this area on the proposals of the local resident. However, we have made several amendments to the resident’s proposals to improve electoral equality in the area and strengthen the boundaries.

71 Having considered the proposal to include the Bashley area in a rural ward, we note that this would worsen electoral equality in Brockenhurst to 25% more electors than the district average by 2025. As discussed in paragraph 56 (above), we also considered transferring the area to the rural Bransgore, Burley & Sopley ward to improve electoral equality there. However, we were not persuaded that there would be local support for splitting New Milton parish.

72 We do, however, note that it is possible to retain the Bashley area in the resident’s Ashley & New Milton North East ward, while still securing good electoral

17

equality. As part of our draft recommendations, we have therefore amended the resident’s proposals to include the Bashley area in the Ashley & New Milton North East ward. We also propose some minor amendments between the Barton and Milton ward to strengthen the boundary and improve electoral equality.

18

North East

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Ashurst, Bramshaw, Copythorne & 2 6% Netley Marsh Eling & Marchwood 2 6% Totton Central 2 -2% Totton North 3 -3% Totton South 2 7%

Eling & Marchwood 73 The Council put forward proposals for a two-councillor Eling & Marchwood ward, comprising Marchwood parish and the Eling area of Totton parish. Marchwood Parish Council objected to the proposal to link it with Eling, arguing that it is geographically distinct from Eling, which is part of Totton. It added that the links are either via a ‘major trunk road’ or a ‘minor toll road’. It stated that the boundary of Marchwood should be extended northwards to include an area of future development, which it argued would improve electoral equality over time.

74 Councillor Rackham also objected to the inclusion of Eling in a ward with Marchwood, citing Eling’s links to Totton and poor transport connections to Marchwood. Councillor Rackham argued that while this proposal may secure good

19

electoral equality, it does not reflect communities or create better governance, as part of Totton & Eling parish would be in ward with Marchwood parish. New Forest East Conservative Association objected to the Council’s proposal, arguing that it combined the semi-urban Marchwood with part of the urban Totton & Eling. A number of local residents also objected to the Council’s proposals.

75 Eling Residents’ Group expressed support for the inclusion of Eling with Marchwood, but argued that the boundary should be Rumbridge Street.

76 Finally, Hythe & Dibden Parish Council suggested transferring the southern rural part of Marchwood parish to a Dibden & Hythe ward, reducing Marchwood ward to a single councillor. It also proposed transferring part of Ashurst & Colbury parish to Totton South ward, while the remainder is transferred to Lyndhurst ward.

77 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. Firstly, we note the proposal from Hythe & Dibden Parish Council to transfer the southern rural part of Marchwood parish to a Dibden & Hythe ward. However, there is no compelling evidence to do this. In addition, we do not believe it reflects local communities. Therefore, we are not adopting this.

78 We note the objections to the inclusion of Eling in a ward with Marchwood. However, removing this area would leave Marchwood with 23% fewer electors than the district average by 2025. While respondents argued that too much weight has been given to electoral equality, we do not consider that the community evidence here is sufficient to justify such a poor level of electoral equality. We also note the suggestion from Marchwood parish that future development would increase its electorate and justify two councillors. However, this development has not been included in the forecast figures and is likely to occur beyond the five-year forecast period. Therefore, we are unable to consider it.

79 Finally, we note the suggestion for moving the boundary with Totton South to Rumbridge Street, but consider that this is a focus for the area and it would not reflect communities to run a boundary along it. We consider the railway line to be a stronger boundary. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposal without amendment.

Totton Central, Totton North and Totton South 80 The Council proposed two-councillor Totton Central and Totton South wards for this area. It also proposed a three-councillor Totton North ward. New Forest East Conservative Association stated that the Totton North ward is too large, but provided no other significant argument. A local resident argued that Totton should be a single ward.

20

81 Hythe & Dibden Parish Council suggested transferring part of Ashurst & Colbury parish to Totton South ward, while the remainder is transferred to Lyndhurst ward.

82 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that there were only limited comments for this area. As discussed in the Eling & Marchwood section above, we support the Council’s proposal to transfer the Eling area of Totton parish to a ward with Marchwood. For the remainder of the area, we consider that the Council’s proposals provide strong boundaries while securing good electoral equality. We note the proposal from Hythe & Dibden Parish Council, but it provided no compelling evidence for this. In addition, the proposal appears to be designed to facilitate a change elsewhere that we have rejected (see paragraphs 76–77). Therefore, we are not adopting this.

83 We consider there to be no strong evidence to persuade us to move away from the Council’s proposed wards, so we are adopting them without amendment.

Ashurst, Bramshaw, Copythorne & Netley Marsh 84 The Council proposed a two-councillor Ashurst, Bramshaw, Copythorne & Netley Marsh ward for this area. Ashurst & Colbury and Copythorne parish councils expressed support for the proposed wards. As discussed in the section above, Hythe & Dibden Parish Council suggested a change to Ashurst & Colbury parish. However, we have rejected this.

85 Therefore, in light of the good levels of electoral equality, strong boundaries and support from some of the constituent parishes, we are adopting this ward without amendment.

21

South East

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, Furzedown & 3 -9% Langdown Dibden & Hythe 3 -8% Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot & Langley 2 -7% Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield 2 -8%

Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, Furzedown & Langdown and Dibden & Hythe 86 The Council proposed three-councillor Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, Furzedown & Langdown and Dibden & Hythe wards for this area. These proposed wards sit within Hythe & Dibden parish, not breaching the boundary with Fawley parish, like the existing Furzedown & Hardley ward. Hythe & Dibden Parish Council put forward a

22

number of amendments to the existing wards and proposed transferring the south part of Marchwood parish to a new Dibden & Hythe ward. The New Forest East Conservative Association objected to the Council’s proposals and argued that single- member wards might provide a better solution. However, the Association did not provide any specific proposals. It argued that if three-member wards were to be included in the warding arrangement, an east–west split in the area would be better, with a Hythe, Langley & Furzedown ward and a Dibden with Butts Ash & Dibden Purlieu ward.

87 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the proposal from Hythe & Dibden Parish Council to transfer the southern rural part of Marchwood parish to a Dibden & Hythe ward. However, it did not provide compelling supporting evidence for this arrangement. In addition, we do not consider that splitting Marchwood parish would reflect local communities. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

88 We also note the proposals from New Forest East Conservative Association. While it did not provide specific proposals for single-councillor wards or detailed proposals for two three-councillor wards, we have examined the option of creating two wards with an east–west orientation. We note that it would be possible to create three-member Hythe, Langley & Furzedown and Dibden with Butts Ash & Dibden Purlieu wards with 9% fewer and 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2025.

89 However, in light of the lack of significant locally generated evidence to support this, we are not adopting these wards as part of our draft recommendations. In light of our proposed council size of 48 members, the Council’s proposed Dibden & Hythe ward would have 12% fewer electors than the district average. We therefore propose a small amendment to transfer the Scott-Paine Drive area to Dibden & Hythe ward and the Mousehole Lane area to Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, Furzedown & Langdown ward. These wards will have 9% fewer and 8% fewer electors than the district average by 2025.

Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot & Langley and Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield 90 The Council proposed two-councillor Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot & Langley and Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield wards. These wards sit within Fawley parish, not breaching the boundary with Hythe & Dibden parish, like the existing Furzedown & Hardley ward.

91 Fawley Parish Council argued that Hardley should be in a ward with Holbury and not with Furzedown in Hythe & Dibden parish. It also argued that Rollestone Road should be included in this ward. The Parish Council argued that the Heather Road estate, Wilverley Place and Priestcroft areas are part of Blackcroft and should

23

be in Fawley, Blackcroft & Langley ward. Finally, the Parish Council argued that Calshot should be included in the ward name.

92 A number of local residents objected to the existing Furzedown & Hardley ward, which includes areas of Fawley and Hythe & Dibden parishes. A resident also argued for the use of a clear boundary between Holbury and Blackfield. Finally, a resident argued that Lepe should be in a Fawley ward.

93 We have given careful consideration of the evidence received. We note the argument for respecting the boundary between Fawley and Hythe & Dibden parishes and that the Council’s proposal reflects this, as well as reflecting the arguments for the boundary between the Holbury and Blackfield communities. However, we note that under its proposals, Wilverley Place and Priestcroft areas are included in the Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield ward.

94 We have examined whether this area can be included in the Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot & Langley ward. However, doing so would worsen electoral equality in Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield ward to 12% fewer electors than the district average by 2025. We do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to justify this level of electoral equality. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposals without amendment as part of our draft recommendations.

24

Conclusions

95 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in New Forest, referencing the 2019 and 2025 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 60 48 Number of electoral wards 34 25

Average number of electors per councillor 2,379 3,075 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 5 1 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 1 0 from the average

Draft recommendations New Forest District Council should be made up of 48 councillors serving 25 wards representing six single-councillor wards, 15 two-councillor wards and four three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for New Forest District Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for New Forest District Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

96 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

25

97 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, New Forest District Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

98 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Fawley Parish Council, Hythe & Dibden Parish Council, Lymington & Pennington Town Council, New Milton Town Council, Ringwood Town Council and Totton & Eling Town Council.

99 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Fawley parish.

Draft recommendations Fawley Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Blackfield & Langley 5 Calshot 1 Fawley 2 Hardley 1 Holbury 6

100 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Hythe & Dibden parish.

Draft recommendations Hythe & Dibden Parish Council should comprise 13 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Butts Ash 2 Dibden 3 Dibden Purlieu 2 Furzedown 1 Hythe East 1 Hythe West 3 Langdown 1

26

101 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Lymington & Pennington parish.

Draft recommendations Lymington & Pennington Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Buckland 3 Lymington 4 Pennington 8

102 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for New Milton parish.

Draft recommendations New Milton Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing six wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Ashley North 2 Ashley South 2 Barton 5 Bashley 1 Milton 5 New Milton 3

103 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Ringwood parish.

Draft recommendations Ringwood Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Ringwood East 2 Ringwood North 6 Ringwood South 6

27

104 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Totton & Eling parish.

Draft recommendations Totton & Eling Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Totton Central 1 Totton East 4 Totton North 4 Totton South 3 Totton South East 2 Totton South West 3 Totton West 3

28

Have your say

105 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole district or just a part of it.

106 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for New Forest, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

107 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

108 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (New Forest) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

109 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for New Forest District Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

110 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

29

111 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in New Forest?

112 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

113 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

114 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

115 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

116 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

117 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

30

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for New Forest District Council in 2023.

31

32

Equalities 118 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

33

34

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for New Forest District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Ashley & New 1 2 6,447 3,224 8% 6,679 3,339 9% Milton North East Ashurst, Bramshaw, 2 2 6,263 3,132 5% 6,496 3,248 6% Copythorne & Netley Marsh 3 Barton 2 6,169 3,085 4% 6,385 3,192 4% Beaulieu, Boldre, 4 East Boldre & 1 3,031 3,031 2% 3,158 3,158 3% Exbury & Lepe Bransgore, Burley 5 2 5,304 2,652 -11% 5,460 2,730 -11% & Sopley Brockenhurst & 6 1 3,124 3,124 5% 3,222 3,222 5% Denny Lodge Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, 7 3 8,147 2,716 -9% 8,403 2,801 -9% Furzedown & Langdown 8 Dibden & Hythe 3 8,213 2,738 -8% 8,517 2,839 -8% Downlands & 9 1 2,917 2,917 -2% 3,035 3,035 -1% Forest North 35

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Eling & 10 2 6,332 3,166 6% 6,543 3,272 6% Marchwood Ellingham & 11 2 6,216 3,108 5% 6,430 3,215 5% Ringwood North Fawley, 12 Blackfield, 2 5,469 2,735 -8% 5,701 2,851 -7% Calshot & Langley 13 Fordingbridge 2 6,006 3,003 1% 6,238 3,119 1% Hardley, Holbury 14 2 5,480 2,740 -8% 5,670 2,835 -8% & North Blackfield 15 Lymington Town 2 6,335 3,168 7% 6,512 3,256 6% Lyndhurst & 16 1 3,128 3,128 5% 3,212 3,212 4% Minstead 17 Milford & Hordle 3 8,915 2,972 0% 9,234 3,078 0%

18 Milton 2 5,657 2,829 -5% 5,799 2,900 -6% New Milton North 19 1 3,138 3,138 6% 3,222 3,222 5% West 20 Pennington 2 6,489 3,245 9% 6,682 3,341 9% Ringwood Town 21 2 6,316 3,158 6% 6,458 3,229 5% Central 22 Sway 1 2,916 2,916 -2% 3,045 3,045 -1%

23 Totton Central 2 5,808 2,904 -2% 6,025 3,013 -2%

36

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 24 Totton North 3 8,585 2,862 -4% 8,916 2,972 -3%

25 Totton South 2 6,312 3,156 6% 6,550 3,275 7%

Totals 48 142,717 – – 147,591 – –

Averages – – 2,973 – – 3,075 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by New Forest District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

37

Appendix B Outline map

38

Number Ward name 1 Ashley & New Milton North East 2 Ashurst, Bramshaw, Copythorne & Netley Marsh 3 Barton 4 Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury & Lepe 5 Bransgore, Burley & Sopley 6 Brockenhurst & Denny Lodge 7 Butts Ash, Dibden Purlieu, Furzedown & Langdown 8 Dibden & Hythe 9 Downlands & Forest North 10 Eling & Marchwood 11 Ellingham & Ringwood North 12 Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot & Langley 13 Fordingbridge 14 Hardley, Holbury & North Blackfield 15 Lymington Town 16 Lyndhurst & Minstead 17 Milford & Hordle 18 Milton 19 New Milton North West 20 Pennington 21 Ringwood Town Central 22 Sway 23 Totton Central 24 Totton North 25 Totton South

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south- east/hampshire/new-forest

39

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/new-forest

Local Authority

• New Forest District Council

Political Groups

• New Forest East Conservative Association

Councillors

• Councillor E. Lane (New Forest District Council) • Councillor C. Rackham (New Forest District Council) • Councillor A. Bolton (Boldre Parish Council)

Local Organisations

• Eling Residents’ Group

Parish and Town Councils

• Ashurst & Colbury Parish Council • Boldre Parish Council • Bransgore Parish Council • Copythorne Parish Council • Fawley Parish Council • Godshill Parish Council • Hordle Parish Council • Hyde Parish Council • Hythe & Dibden Parish Council • Lyndhurst Parish Council • Marchwood Parish Council

Local Residents

• 34 local residents

40

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

41

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

42 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE