DOCSLIB.ORG

Hampshire County Council Liberal Democrats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hampshire County Council Liberal Democrats Hampshire County Council Liberal Democrats Review Officer (Hampshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 31 July 2015 Dear Sirs Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council The Hampshire County Council Liberal Democrat Group welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Hampshire Electoral Review of Hampshire. This submission builds on the work of Hampshire County Council’s own submission. It recognises the strength of cross-party and cross-council working in developing a submission. It adds commentary to areas where the Liberal Democrat Group was not able to support the County Council’s position. We have commentary on the following issues: Council Size Disaggregation of Divisions between Districts 2-Member Electoral Divisions Doughnut Divisions Demographic change and application of data to population growth Council Size We support the Commission’s “minded to” recommendation to retain the same Council size, subject to comments below. Hampshire is a County of growth, and as such retaining the same or broadly similar numbers of councillors will see a slight worsening in elector:member ratios. Disaggregation of Divisions between Districts In seeking to retain the same number of councillors, Hampshire County Council has not considered achieving electoral equality between districts by revising the number of Divisions in each District to achieve as near as possible equality of votes in each District and Division. As such, and noting that the under-represented areas are those with most housing growth, and those over-represented are Districts seeing lower levels of growth and relative depopulation due to demographic change, failing to address equality of representation will require an early further review of boundaries. This can be avoided by addressing electoral equality now. The Commission’s technical guidance notes that there are arguments that urban areas given relative issues of deprivation attract more casework for councillors, yet sparsely populated areas create greater distance to travel for elected members. The guidance suggests these issues balance out and favour electoral equality. We agree. A division of 78 elected councillors across the Districts suggests a reallocation of one Division from the New Forest to Eastleigh. New Forest’s entitlement is 10.3 Divisions, that is a rounding to 10 rather than 11. Eastleigh’s is 7.6 Divisions, that is a rounding of 7 to 8. Notwithstanding the argument above, we do not wish to see the New Forest lose a Division. A study of boundaries suggests this would create even larger rural Divisions, and urban Divisions that extend out into a rural hinterland from the Waterside into the National Park with little community of interest. We therefore favour using the flexibility the Commission has to adjust Council size to achieve electoral equality. Adding one further Division to Eastleigh would still see a need to reduce the New Forest by one Division. However at 79 Divisions, Hart reaches the threshold for an additional Division. Adding an additional Division to Hart pushes Winchester to the threshold for an additional Division. At this 81 Divisions every District achieves a rounded figure that equates to broad electoral equality. We therefore recommend that 81 Divisions are created, amending the number of Divisions for each District by adding one councillor to each of Eastleigh, Hart and Winchester. The case for an additional Division for Eastleigh is unanswerable: that for further Divisions is marginal but on balance preferable. For Eastleigh, there is already a model for 8 Divisions worked through by the County Council, that also achieves a better balance of community interest than the County’s submission for 7 Divisions. We support the 8 Division model described by the County Council. For Hart, we have developed a model for 6 Divisions that achieves a good balance of interest (attached as Annex 1). We support this 6-Division model, but in the event of the Commission recommending 5 Divisions of Hart support an amended version also attached in Annex 1. Winchester is more complex, either on the 7 Division model described by the County Council, or in developing any 8 Division model. In either case, our preference is to retain the integrity of the non-parished City area as the basis of two single councillor Divisions, in line with our thinking below on avoiding double councillor Divisions. The table appended to this submission illustrates the mathematics behind the coherence of our case for an 81 Division model County Council. 2-Member Electoral Divisions At the last Electoral Review, three 2-Member Electoral Divisions were created in Hampshire for the first time. We did not support these then, and do not now. The County Council has suggested the Havant 2-Member Division be split. We agree, though do not agree with the specific split (see below). There are arguments for and against 2-Member Divisions. We believe the more compelling arguments are against. “Double size” Divisions can be argued as not giving each voter across the County the same power of their vote. These Divisions are inherently harder for Independent candidates to campaign in, given the cost of producing election communications and the logistics of achieving delivery. There should be a “level playing field” of Division size across Hampshire. Electors too can be confused as to “who is my councillor?” and where a Division has councillors from two political parties it is hard to see who speaks for the town. We therefore favour splitting Fareham, Gosport and Havant each into two Divisions, as is the pattern in other town of similar size across Hampshire with two or three County Councillors: Aldershot, Andover, Eastleigh, Farnborough, Winchester. For Havant, a better community focus would be achieved by a north/south split rather than the north-west/north-east split proposed by the County Council. The community of Bedhampton relates more clearly to the adjoining area of south Havant and could form a “Bedhampton and Havant South” Division, keeping the core Leigh Park wards of Havant Borough in a new “Havant North” Division. For Fareham and Gosport, any number of potential splits would create Divisions as least as coherent as those in other parts of the County. Doughnut Divisions The County’s existing doughnut divisions of Alton and Romsey have worked well and stood the test of time through previous Reviews. We support their retention. For Alton, the County Council has offered options on the location of Holybourne and Froyle. We support the move of these communities to the Alton Rural Division. This will create improved electoral equality and a clearer sense of community identity. We believe there is a case for creating a further Division of this nature based on the Town Council area of Petersfield. A Petersfield Town, and East Hampshire Rural or Petersfield Rural Division would achieve the same sense of community identity as the other market-town based Divisions. Demographic change and application of data to population growth We have noted during the Review that some Districts, in providing projected 2021 electoral data to the County Council, have not allocated new development specifically to polling districts but appear to have allocated development evenly across district wards. The appears to apply to data in Andover and Romsey, and may therefore have implications for boundaries between Divisions. We draw the Commission’s attention to this for closer scrutiny. Yours sincerely Cllr Keith House Leader, Hampshire County Council Liberal Democrats Annex 1 – Variations for Hart District 5 Seats If the Boundary Commission decides to stick with the five-seat proposal for Hart District, then we would support the proposals put forward by the County Council with just one exception. We believe that for the transfer of voters from Fleet into Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells, Option B is a far more sensible option, which better fits the objectives of the Commission for the following reasons: Option B does not require the division of an additional parish, as the large parish of Fleet is already divided into polling districts and its various parts are represented by three different county councillors, whereas Elvetham Heath is a single-ward parish represented by one county councillor. Option B does not require the division of an additional district ward, as Fleet East ward is already divided between two county council divisions and this would just be a change in the boundary between them within that ward, whereas Elvetham Heath is in the Fleet West ward, which is currently wholly within the Fleet division. Arguments can be made about whether Elvetham Heath or Pondtail has the greater community identity. While there is community identity in both locations, Pondtail is clearly part of the wider Fleet community, whereas Elvetham Heath is a new independent community which is successfully developing its own identity. It would therefore be damaging to divide Elvetham Heath at this stage in its development. 6 seats Six county council seats for Hart District offer the opportunity for a logical set of divisions which reflect the varying communities of Hart very well. The average electorate for an 81 division model for Hampshire would be 13,333, with a plus or minus 10% range between 12,000 and 14,666. Just as with the five seat model, where Hart divisions would inevitably be at the top end of the plus 10% range, with a six seat model the Hart divisions will be nearer the bottom end
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minutes of the Meeting of Planning 23Rd April 2015
    Minutes of the Meeting of CHURCH CROOKHAM PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Date and Time: Monday 11th January 2016 – 7.30 pm Place: Acorn Hall, Church Crookham Community Centre Present: Councillors: Helen Butler (HB) (Chair), Pat Lowe (PL), Jeremy Silvester (JS), Gill Scott (GS), Andrew Ballington (AB), Annette Whibley (AW), Also present: Jayne Hawkins (Clerk) Hugh Connolly (CCPC) Jenny Radley (HDC) James Radley (HDC) Chris Axam (HDC) Phill Gower (Fleet & Church Crookham Society) There were 5 members of the public present. 01/16 Apologies for Absence Actions Apologies were received from Michael Burford & Gill Butler (HDC) 02/16 To Approve the minutes The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 7th December 2015 were signed as a true record of the meeting. 03/16 Dispensations – to receive any written request for disclosable pecuniary interest dispensations from members. No requests were received. 04/16 Declarations of Interest relating to any item on the agenda No declarations of interest were made. 05/16 Chairman’s Announcements The chairman had no announcements to make. 06/16 Public Session One member of the public made comments on the following planning applications: 15/02897/FUL – 84 Aldershot Road 15/02750/FUL – QEB Refuse Store Councillor Jenny Radley Commented on the following applications: 15/02897/FUL – 84 Aldershot Road 15/02750/FUL – QEB Refuse Store 15/03103/HOU Page: 1 11 01 2016.doc Date: 26/01/2016 Councillor James Radley informed Councillors that the car park behind Ridgeway Parade had been sold and was now closed causing parking problems for residents, customers and business owners. Councillor Radley also encouraged the Parish Council to respond to the Local Development Consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTICE of POLL Notice Is Hereby Given That
    HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Election of County Councillor for the YATELEY EAST, BLACKWATER & ANCELLS Division NOTICE OF POLL Notice is hereby given that: 1. A poll will be held on Thursday, 2nd May 2013 between 7am and 10pm. 2. Number of councillors to be elected is ONE. 3. The following people stand nominated: SURNAME OTHER ADDRESS OF DESCRIPTION (if NAMES OF ASSENTERS TO THE NOMINATION NAMES CANDIDATE any) (PROPOSER (P) AND SECONDER (S) LISTED FIRST) Collett Adrian 47 Globe Farm Lane, Liberal Democrat DAVID E SIMPSON(P), DAVID J MURR(S), JOHN W Darby Green, Blackwater, KEANE, GILLIAN E A HENNELL, ROBERT E HARWARD, Hampshire, GU17 0DY STUART G BAILEY, BRIAN F BLEWETT, COLIN IVE, MARGUERITE SIMPSON, ELOISE C ESLAMI Dickens Shawn Meadowcroft, Chequers Conservative Party EDWARD N BROMHEAD(P), STEPHEN A GORYS(S), Lane, Eversley, Hampshire, Candidate JULIET M BOWELL, FREDERICK G BAGGS, RG27 0NY CHRISTOPHER W PHILLIPS-HART, SHANE P M MASON, EMMA MASON, SUSAN H LINDEQUE, COURTNEY-TYLA LINDEQUE, PAMELA M MEDLEY Lawrie Les 106 Kingsway, Blackwater, Labour and Co- PATRICIA D DOWDEN(P), KEITH CARTWRIGHT(S), Hants, GU17 0JD operative Party NICHOLAS C J KAY, HARRY A R HAMBLIN, MAUREEN D Candidate HAMBLIN, CHARLES E LINGS, MICHAEL T STEWART, ISMAIL KESENCI, SYLVIA M RHODES, KENNETH B RHODES Tennison Stanley John 51 Stratfield Road, UKIP KAREN RICHMOND(P), EMMA RICHMOND(S), Basingstoke, RG21 5RS DOUGLAS J ATTWELL, KEITH E SANTON, RALPH D CANNON, BRIAN J BISHOP, ROYSTON F PACKMAN, ANTHONY J F HOCKING, KATHLEEN AUSTIN, STEPHEN M WINTERBURN Situation of
    [Show full text]
  • Three Bedroom Chalet Bungalow to Rent**
    Buena Vista, Ewshot Lane, Ewshot, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 5BP £1,400 pcm + fees **THREE BEDROOM CHALET BUNGALOW TO RENT** Situated in the peaceful village of Ewshot. The property comprises of living room, kitchen and utility, three double Contact Details bedrooms and bathroom. Outside there is parking for two Waterfords Property Services Hampshire Lettings 163 Fleet Road, Fleet, Hampshire. GU51 4PA vehicles. This property comes to the market unfurnished and Tel. 01252 623330 Email. [email protected] Website. waterfords.co.uk available mid-January. IMPORTANT NOTICE These particulars are intended only as general guidance. The Company therefore gives notice that none of the material issued or visual depictions of any kind made on behalf of the Company can be relied upon as accurately describing any of the Specified Matters prescribed by any Order made under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. Nor do they constitute a contract, part of a contract or a warranty. Administration fees will apply when renting a property through Waterfords - Surrey Lettings. For more details, please ask a member of staff when you enquire about a property. A refurbished three bed bungalow situated in the peaceful village of Ewshot. The property comprises of living room, kitchen and utility, three double bedrooms and bathroom. Outside there is parking for two vehicles. This property comes to the market unfurnished and available mid January 2019. The property is located in the outskirts of Fleet/Farnham in the small village of Ewshot. There are bus routes into Fleet and Farnham Town Centre where there is an abundance of restaurants, shops and pubs.
    [Show full text]
  • Map Referred to in the Hart
    KEY Map referred to in the Hart (Electoral Changes) Order 2012 Scale : 1cm = 0.08500 km Grid interval 1km DISTRICT COUNCIL BOUNDARY Sheet 2 of 2 WARD BOUNDARY PARISH BOUNDARY PARISH WARD BOUNDARY This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of FLEET WEST WARD WARD NAME the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. FLEET CP PARISH NAME Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. FROGMORE PARISH WARD PARISH WARD NAME The Local Government Boundary Commission for England GD100049926 2012. COINCIDENT BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN AS THIN COLOURED LINES SUPERIMPOSED OVER WIDER ONES. SHEET 2, MAP 2A Ward boundaries in Yateley town L O Sand and Gravel Pit N G W A T E R R D Playing Field E N A L Golf Course L L I B M 3 0 Playing Field 16 Cricket Ground Y WA L'S HAL E AN S L ER DL AN CH C F O O P X B S 3 L E 2 A 7 N L RNE 6 2 RYE E A WEST F 1 N 0 M M E 3 A I L Y Eversley B L F L L A O Cross N W E E STABL R M E VIEW D O The Yateley Lakes R U E L N S A H L A S NS M D R FO G L E X A L DR Y N D B N E M E A S E V H I A O C N R R R A D S C L F CR Y H O R FT N E LAN A Y E E ' L G W S L A A E L N EVERSLEY RD G R A G R E A S A I A C L F I L E N V I V N D A L H L U IL R R VI M S E T ADIN CA G R OAD RA R G D E E R N D A Yateley L E e Industries V n WEY a T BR Up Green O IDG L Yateley Green E H M L EAD n E OAD e R ING L D e REA r I N G K E B N A St Peter's D 3 L A 0 Church N O 1 R E Yateley 6 A B E K K C Manor School Y D F I L A IR G
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Hart in Hampshire
    Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Hart in Hampshire Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions July 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Hart in Hampshire. Members of the Commission are: Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Professor Michael Clarke CBE (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Kru Desai Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes CBE Barbara Stephens Chief Executive © Crown Copyright 2000 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no: 163 ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v SUMMARY vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6 NEXT STEPS 29 APPENDICES A Final Recommendations for Hart: Detailed Mapping 31 B Draft Recommendations for Hart (January 2000) 37 A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for Fleet and Yateley is inserted inside the back cover of the report. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England 25 July 2000 Dear Secretary of State On 20 July 1999 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Hart under the Local Government Act 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUENCY WARD POLLING STATION Aldershot Blackwater
    CONSTITUENCY WARD POLLING STATION Aldershot Blackwater & Hawley Blackwater Centre Hall, 12-14 London Road, Blackwater GU17 9AA Aldershot Blackwater & Hawley Darby Green & Frogmore Social Hall, Frogmore Road, Blackwater GU17 0NP Aldershot Blackwater & Hawley Hawley Memorial Hall, Fernhill Road, Hawley Green GU17 9BW Aldershot Yateley East* Darby Green & Frogmore Social Hall, Frogmore Road, Blackwater GU17 0NP North East Hampshire Crookham East Church Crookham Baptist Church, 64 Basingbourne Road, Fleet GU52 6TH North East Hampshire Crookham East War Memorial Hall, Sandy Lane, Church Crookham GU52 8JY North East Hampshire Crookham West & Ewshot Crookham Village Womens Institute Hall, The Street, Crookham Village GU51 5SJ North East Hampshire Crookham West & Ewshot Ewshot Village Hall, Tadpole Lane, Ewshot GU10 5BX North East Hampshire Crookham West & Ewshot Quetta Park Community Centre, Quetta Park, Church Crookham GU52 8TG North East Hampshire Crookham West & Ewshot War Memorial Hall, Sandy Lane, Church Crookham GU52 8JY North East Hampshire Crookham West & Ewshot Zebon Copse Centre, Danvers Drive, Fleet GU52 0ZE North East Hampshire Fleet Central Harlington Centre, Fleet Road, Fleet GU51 4BY North East Hampshire Fleet East Ancells Community Centre, 1 Falkner Close, Fleet GU51 2XF North East Hampshire Fleet East St Philip & St James Hall, Kings Road, Fleet GU51 3AR North East Hampshire Fleet West The Key Centre, The Keys, Fleet GU51 1HA North East Hampshire Fleet West Hart Leisure Centre, Hitches Lane, Fleet GU51 5HS North East Hampshire
    [Show full text]
  • Elvetham Heath Management Plan
    ELVETHAM HEATH LOCAL NATURE RESERVE & OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2021 1 Site Name Elvetham Heath LNR & Open Spaces Location Fleet, North Hampshire Head of Service John Elson Departmental Manager Adam Green Site Ranger Samantha Kerr Plan prepared by Timothy Ackroyd Plan updated by Leigh Wallace Plan edited by Leigh Wallace Date of draft April 2011 Date of final copy January 2012 Reviewed December 2020 Next Review Date Summer 2021 2 Content Table SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & SITE INFORMATION .................................................... 5 1. Management Aims ...................................................................................................... 5 2. Location ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Land Tenure ................................................................................................................ 6 4. Site Information ........................................................................................................... 6 5. Legal Obligations ......................................................................................................... 7 6. Healthy, Safe & Secure ............................................................................................... 7 7. MAP 1 – Site map Elvetham Heath Nature Reserve ................................................... 9 8. Site Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 9
    [Show full text]
  • Burley Denny Lodge Hursley Overton Minstead Binsted Beaulieu Fawley
    Mortimer Newtown West End East Ashford Hill with Headley Stratfield Saye Silchester Bramshill Woodhay Tadley Stratfield TurgisHeckfield Eversley Highclere Pamber Yateley Burghclere Kingsclere Baughurst BramleyHartley Wespall Mattingley Linkenholt Ecchinswell, Sydmonton Blackwater Faccombe Sherfield on Loddon and Hawley Vernhams and Bishops Green Sherborne St. John Hartley Wintney Ashmansworth Monk Sherborne Sherfield Park Rotherwick Dean Elvetham Heath Litchfield and Woodcott Hannington Chineham Wootton St. Lawrence Hook Fleet Hurstbourne Tarrant Rooksdown Newnham Winchfield Old Basing and Lychpit Church Crookham Dogmersfield Crookham Tangley St. Mary Bourne Mapledurwell and Up Nately Oakley Greywell Village Whitchurch Deane Odiham Ewshot Smannell Overton Winslade Appleshaw Enham Alamein Cliddesden Tunworth Penton Grafton Upton Grey Crondall Kimpton Steventon Charlton Hurstbourne Priors Farleigh Wallop Weston Corbett Fyfield Andover Laverstoke North Waltham Long Sutton Penton Mewsey Ellisfield South Warnborough Shipton Bellinger Dummer Herriard Weston Patrick Bentley Thruxton Amport Longparish Nutley Monxton Popham Froyle Upper Clatford Quarley Abbotts Ann Bradley Lasham Bullington Shalden Grateley Goodworth Clatford Preston Candover Wherwell Binsted Barton Stacey Micheldever Bentworth Wonston Candovers Wield Alton Over Wallop Beech Chilbolton Kingsley Longstock Northington Worldham Leckford Chawton Headley Nether Wallop Medstead South Wonston Old Alresford Lindford Stockbridge Crawley Farringdon Grayshott Bighton Little Somborne Kings
    [Show full text]
  • ITEM 6 Table 6A 19 Hampshire County Council Traffic Management
    ITEM 6 Table 6a Hampshire County Council Traffic Management Programme 2011 / 12 - Proposed Hampshire County Council Traffic Management Programme 2011 / 12 (Hart) County Scheme Parish Location Scheme Works Division Ranking cost (£) Odiham (Cllr Glen) 1 Odiham Tunnel Lane Investigate road closure across the ford 4,000 2 Dogmersfield Chalky Lane Speed limit review 6,000 3 Odiham RAF Odiham Speed limit review and order 20,000 Hartley Wintney 1 Eversley Webbs Corner Implement scheme designed in 2010 / 11 External and Eversley (Cllr 2 Hartley Dipley and A30 30mph speed limit in Dipley and village gateways on A30 for Hartley 10,000 Simpson) Wintney Wintney. 3 Eversley A327 The Street Investigate traffic management measures to reduce vehicle speed. Design Average speed recorded above current limit only Yateley East, 1 Yateley Sandhurst Lane Implement of scheme designed in 2010 / 11 8,000 Blackwater and 2 Yateley Sandhurst Road Investigate traffic management measures to reduce speed Design Ancells (Cllr Collett) only 3 Yateley Cricket Hill Investigate small scale improvements to junctions to reduce Design congestion. only Church Crookham 1 Church Pilcot Road Footway scheme. This is a large scheme out of the scope of traffic Support and Ewshot (Cllr Crookham management but we will provide technical support. only Radley) 2 Church Redfields Lane / Junction improvements. This is a large scheme out of the scope of Support Crookham A287 traffic management but we will provide technical support. only 3 Church Aldershot Road, Traffic management measures to reduce speed. Design Crookham Chruch only Crookham Fleet (Cllr Wheale) 1 Elvetham Wintney Street Road closure. 2,000 Heath 2 Fleet Town Ancells Road (nr Route for school bus.
    [Show full text]
  • Stillers Farm Exhibition Boards.Pdf
    About our scheme Our proposals for Stillers Farm Taylor Wimpey is currently drawing up plans to create a new residential development on land at Stillers Farm, adjoining Ewshot Lane in Church Crookham. Our proposals include: • Up to 60 new homes, 40% of which to be affordable properties • A large Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) on the southern half of the site for the public to enjoy – SANGS are existing open spaces that have been identified for enhancement so that they can be made more accessible and attractive to visitors • Public open space on residential site Planning background – and how you can help shape our plans We are intending to submit an outline planning application to Hart District Council About the site in the near future. The proposed development site is outlined in red and shaded in grey on If Hart District Council approves our application, it will mean the principle of the plan. developing up to 60 new homes and public open spaces has been accepted by the local authority. It is a greenfield site, bordered by the Crookham Park new homes development to the east and Ewshot Lane to the west. To the north of Our site is a greenfield site and it should be noted that Hart District Council is the site is a garden centre, a tennis club and Humphrey Park residential currently approving similar greenfield sites for residential development to help area and to the south is open countryside and woodland. meet the shortage of housing in the district. The site is split into two sections, as denoted by the red dotted line.
    [Show full text]
  • Crondall Crondall
    Crondall Crondall 1.0 PARISH Crondall 2.0 HUNDRED Crondall 3.0 NGR SU 479500 148500 4.0 GEOLOGY Upper Chalk, but northern extension of settlement just abounds an island of Valley Gravel and Sand. 5.0 SITE CONTEXT Crondall is a complex settlement which is laid out around an intricate network of routeways. In simple terms, there are three elements. The first is linear and follows a south-west / north-east route along Well Lane / Pankridge Street via The Borough. This conforms to the valley of a small stream, a tributary of the River Hart, which rises from a pond at Hannam’s Farm. The valley floor is a little less than 85m AOD, with sides rising to c. 100m AOD to east and west. The second element extends south-eastwards along the road to Clare Park, climbing gently for all of that distance. The third component is at the south-west extreme of Crondall where the parish church of St Mary stands dominant on rising ground (c. 95m AOD). South-west of, and adjacent to the church, are the remnant buildings of the former Court Farm, the site of Crondall’s manor house. 6.0 PLAN TYPE & DESCRIPTION Small farmstead clusters (including church and manor) with agglomerations Crondall is an amalgam of a number of settlement types. 6.1 Church and manor house/ farmstead The Church of St Mary is C12. The adjacent Court Farm was once the venue for the manor court (VCH 4: 6). In fact, the whole complex is at the north end of a linear land unit which extends south to the parish boundary including within it the Barley Pound ring and bailies (10.0).
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item: 6
    Agenda Item: 6 HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Decision Report Decision Maker: Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health Date of Decision: 30 July 2014 Title: Supporting People: Changes to Budget, Services Commissioned and Commissioning Responsibilities Reference: 5887 Report From: Director of Adult Services Contact name: Martha Fowler-Dixon Tel: 01962 832181 Email: [email protected] 1. Executive Summary 1.1. This report outlines the proposed changes to the Supporting People programme. These changes are being proposed as part of a reorganisation of preventative services to enable the Adult Services department to meet its legal obligations to people with the highest needs within reducing financial support from Government. Reductions in the Supporting People budget for 2014/15 were agreed by Hampshire County Council on 20 February 2014, when it set the budget for 2014/15. That same report identified the potential for further reductions in 2015/16 in the Supporting People budget. This report sets out how those reductions are proposed to be achieved. 1.2. This paper provides information about the existing and proposed future resources, service levels and governance proposals for the following client groups, who do not meet eligibility criteria and who have been supported by the Supporting People programme: a) People considered to be socially excluded, including homeless people, people with mental health problems and ex-offenders b) Older people c) People with a long-term disability, including learning disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory impairments 1.3. Prevention and Early Intervention services, such as Supporting People services, have always been integral to Adult Services’ strategy.
    [Show full text]