Kingsley, Paul
From: Michael Gooding Sent: 07 May 2018 23:42 To: reviews Subject: Basingstoke and Deane Electoral Review Attachments: Michael Berwick-Googing Basingstoke and Deane Proposed Electorate for Boundary review 2018.xlsx; Michael Berwick-Gooding submission to the Boundary Commission May 2018.doc; Michael Berwick-Gooding Map Rural Wards.png
Dear Sirs
Please find attached my submission regarding the boundary review for the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. It consists of a spreadsheet, a Word document and two maps.
I believe it provides the best balance between the three statutory criteria, and I hope you will take it into consideration when you come up with your draft recommendations.
Yours faithfully Michael Berwick-Gooding
1 Michael Berwick-Gooding submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission May 2018
For the 2005 boundary review the Borough Council set out 4 proposals for people to comment on. It is disappointing that it hasn’t done something similar this time.
The Borough Council has forecasted the total electorate for the Borough as 144,049 in 2023. I believe that for the best democratic representation each councillor should only represent about 2000 electors. Also I think every ward should be a single-member ward just as nowadays every Parliamentary constituency only elects one MP. Perhaps councils should be subject to the demands of the Chartist movement not only roughly equal elector / councillor ratios but also annual elections. If the Boundary Commission agreed with me they would have set the number of councillors at 72 not 54.
I have lived in the Borough for nearly 40 years and in all that time the Borough has had a mixture of single-member, two-member and three-member wards elected by thirds in three out of four years. I don’t understand what political considerations resulted in paragraph 2 (3) (d) of Schedule 2 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which states for councils which elect by thirds “the desirability of securing that each electoral area of the district council returns an appropriate number of members of the council”. Which I think the Boundary Commission takes to mean each ward should have three members. It is my understanding that the Boundary Commission can if it wishes recommend schemes which do not have all the councillors in three member wards when a council is elected by thirds. There are many examples of two member wards being included in final recommendations and implementations. It is my hope that the Boundary Commission will recognise that “the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties and desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable” means that a mixed scheme of single-member, two-member and three-member wards is desirable for Basingstoke and Deane.
On the Boundary Commission’s website it states, it wants to “produce a new pattern of wards to accommodate 54 councillors. With a prediction of 144,049 electors for 2023 that is 2667.57 electors per councillor.
My proposal therefore produces a mixed scheme of 54 councillors in single-member, two- member and three-member wards and keeps some of the existing arrangements while taking account of the desirability of have an equal elector / councillor ratio in every ward.
Popley and Rooksdown
These wards are projected to have 14,063 which should be able to provide 5 councillors with a variance of 5.42% from the elector / councillor ratio.
A clear boundary between the two of these areas would be the A340 the Aldermaston Road, but Rooksdown has within its boundary part of the Popley Fields development to the east of the A340 – the Merton Rise area – Magdalen Gardens, Wadham Gardens, St Catherine Road, St Anthony Road, Somerville Gardens and Keble Road; and Popley West has the Priestley Road area west of the A340. It should be note that before 2002 both Rooksdown and the Popley Fields development area were in the parish of Sherborne St John.
Homes are now being built on the land between Priestly Road and the Aldermaston Road within the Rooksdown ward therefore it seems reasonable to assume they will form a community with residents of the rest of Priestly Road currently in Popley West. Therefore I am proposing moving the area between the Rookdown parish and the A339 which have 184 electors to the Rooksdown ward.
As Rooksdown now extends across the A340 and these roads have links into the Trinity Way area it seems reasonable to extend the area to the next natural boundary of the old Sherborne Road – Don Allen Drive line. Therefore I propose moving this area in to the extended Rooksdown ward. According to the map provided the boundary of polling districts GX and GW runs along the old boundary between Sherborne St John Parish and Popley, but some roads in this area are part of polling district GX according to the current electoral register.
The roads I am proposing moving from the GX electoral register in this area with the current number of electors are:
Nuffield Way 28 St Anne Gardens 93 Trinity Way 58
Total 179
The roads I am proposing moving from the GW electoral register in this area with the current number of electors are:
Christ Church Gardens 6 Linacre Road 25 St Hilda Gardens 32 Wolfson Drive 37
Total 100
Both of these areas are closer to the doctors’ surgery in Park Prewett Road than the one in Shakespeare Road, the chemist also in Park Prewett Road than the one in Abbey Road and the shops in Limes Park than the ones in Abbey Road.
The Borough Council has predicted that 930 electors will by 2023 live the Popley Fields area. Looking at the development brief it seems reasonable to divide them 400 east of Sherborne Road and Don Allen Drive and 530 west.
Also the Borough has stated that 122 properties are going to be built on the Trumpet area which I am proposing moving to Rooksdown. If we apply the same methodology to these properties as to those in Rooksdown by 2023 they will produce 195 people multiplied by 0.7 to produce 136 electors.
The figures are: 2017 2023 Polling district GW (Popley Fields) 100 630 Polling district GX (Popley West) 363 499
These changes will provide the following figures:
2017 2023 Rooksdown 3652 5197 Popley 8753 8866
The elector / councillor ratio variances are - 2.6% and 10.77% with two councillors for Rooksdown and three councillors for Popley. In the north the parish boundaries are used for the boundaries as well as Rooksdown western boundary and in the south the A339 is the boundary with the old Sherborne Road – Don Allen Drive line as the boundary between Rooksdown and the new three-member Popley ward.
Chineham
Retain as it is with three councillors, within the boundary which have had public support since 2002. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -0.57%
Eastrop, Grove, Brookvale and Kings Furlong
I propose keeping these wards with two councillors each with the existing boundaries because they all are within 11% of the elector / councillor ratio in 2023 – Eastrop -1.27%, Grove -10.68% and Brookvale and Kings Furlong -7.66%. The only reason for changing the boundaries in this area would be make two three-member wards and not to have clear community identities.
Grove has very clear boundaries the M3 to the south, the Ringway East to the east, the Ringway South to the north and the Winchester Road and the Harrow Way to the west with its own local facilities. Brookvale & Kings Furlong also have clear boundaries the railway to the north, the Ringway East to the east, and the Ringway West to the west. Each have their own facilities as well as the town centre.
Hatch Warren and Beggarwood
I believe we should retain this ward and by 2023 it will be undersized and so I am proposing moving back into it, areas which have in the past been removed. Polling district FS (Kempshott Rise) from Kempshott and polling district EP from Brighton Hill South. This will produce a more identifiable boundary between this ward and Brighton Hill and restore the busy A30 as the boundary between this ward and Kempshott while retaining the Dummer Parish boundary in the west and the M3 as the southern boundary. This ward has its own shared facilities such as shops, schools and the two community centres run bu the Hatch Warren and Beggarwood Community Association.
Brighton Hill
With the return of polling district EP to Hatch Warren and Beggarwood the rest of Brighton Hill South and be joined with Brighton Hill North to create a Brighton Hill ward which will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -0.94%.
The whole of Brighton Hill has clear boundaries, the M3 to the south, the A30 Winchester Road to the north between it and Kempshott, the Harrow Way to the east between it and Grove and the rear of the properties of the roads south of Gershwin Road which has a community affinity.
Winklebury, Chapel and Worting
To create a three member ward based on Winklebury it is necessary to restore to it polling district EU from Buckskin and to add to it polling district FY which was once the single member ward of Chapel from when the Council was created until 1992. Since then it has been united with Brookvale and Norden. It has good communication links to Winklebury and it is on the bus route from Winklebury to the town centre. To improve links the area in polling district FZ adjacent to the Houndmills Roundabout should be transferred to the new ward. The new boundary should be the middle of the Kingsclere Road, then north round the roundabout to the middle of Aldermaston Road South. I believe there are no residents in this area and it will unite the whole of the Houndmills Industrial area into one polling district and provide Norden with it natural boundary of Aldermaston Road South and polling district its natural northern boundary of the Ringway North and to the west the Ringway West. This ward will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 3.55%.
Worting residents have shared facilities with the rest Winklebury, not only schools but the shops and dentist at Winkebury Centre. Also Worting Road narrows to go under the railway bridge discouraging residents from accessing Buckskin and preferring the easier route to Winklebury.
Norden
With a Popley ward which comprises all of the original Popley area and an expanded three member Winklebury we are left with a two member Norden almost identical to the ward which existed from 1976 to 1992. This ward will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 0.77%.
South Ham
To achieve a better elector / councillor ratio I am moving the South Ham extension to join the rest of South Ham. This ward will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -5.51%.
South Ham has clear boundaries the railway in the north, Ringway West to the east, the A30 Winchester Road to the south and the rear of the properties in Alliston Way to the west. It is an established community with its own shared local facilities such as shops, dentist, doctors’ surgery library and community centre.
Kempshott and Buckskin
I am joining the remaining Kempshott and Buckskin wards into this ward, because part of Buckskin (EV) have been part of Kempshott in the past. The two main roads of Buckskin were developed about the same time as the three main roads of Kempshott.
With polling district FS (Kempshott Rise area) restored to Kempshott this new ward has clearer boundaries – to the south the busy A30, and to the west, the parish boundary of Oakley, which should not be broken, to the north the railway, while the rear of properties divide it from the South Ham ward, with limited roads linking them together.
Basing and Upton Grey
Initially I was just going to move Upton Grey to the Basing ward to improve its elector / councillor ratio, but now I am also moving Tunworth because Upton Grey is linked to Basing via Tunworth Road, Huish Lane and Byfleet Avenue. This ward will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -0.95%.
Adding these parishes will enhance the desire of the Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council to maintain a balance between the rural and urban parts of the ward.
Oakley and The Candovers
To expand the electorate of the existing Oakley ward I am joining it with the rest of the Upton Grey ward. This ward will by 2023 have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 15.42%.
Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon
Retain as it is with two councillors, within the boundaries which have had public support since 2002. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -16.57%.
It has shared facilities such as shops, doctors, schools and chemist.
Whitchurch
Retain as it is with two councillors, within the boundary which have had public support since at least 1992 and most likely to when the Borough Council was formed in the 1970s. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -11.32%.
It has shared facilities such as shops and schools.
East Woodhay
Retain as a single-member ward within the boundaries which have had public support since 1992 and most likely to when the Borough Council was formed, and were such that the Boundary Commission retained it in 2005. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -13.56%
East Woodhay is relatively isolated and self-contained with few links to the rest of the borough, looking north to Newbury. With its own school, shops, doctors surgery and pubs as well as its own football, cricket and tennis clubs.
Burghclere, Highclere and St Mary Bourne
Retain as a two-member ward within the boundaries which have had public support since 2007. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of -11.34%
The parishes of Burghclere, Newton and Ecchinswell, Sydmonton & Bishops Green are closely linked with shared interests built on their close geographical proximity with numerous connecting roads. The Clere School sports hall and other facilities are shared for extracurricular and community events.
Tadley
I am proposing joining all the Tadley Town wards into one ward to reflect historical community interest. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 14.78%.
Calleva or Bramley and Sherfield and Silchester
In 1992 three rural wards were joined together to create Calleva. I had hoped to recreate this ward, by joining together Bramley and Sherfield and Pamber and Silchester wards, but the elector / councillor ratio would be 3271:1. Therefore I propose joining them all together minus Pamber. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 14.78%. While I like the name Calleva for this ward, it is now being used for the name of a Hampshire division that covers the whole of these current wards as well as Sherborne St John ward.
This combines areas that share road links and the rail link into Reading and share some interests such as development and growth and facilities such as Bramley C of E Primary School
Sherborne St John and Pamber
As I was forced to move Pamber out of my northern rural three-member ward; I propose joining it with Sherborne St John ward as they are in the same Hampshire division to form a two-member ward. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 10.93%.
The A340 provide a major link between the more populated villages of this combined area.
Baughurst and Kingsclere
I am proposing joining the current Kingsclere ward to the Baughurst parish to form a two- member ward. In 2023 it should have an elector / councillor ratio variance of 13%.
The existing Kingsclere ward contains parishes that have shared interests and facilities such as shops, primary and secondary schools. The existing Baughurst is of a similar rural nature with a more urban part (Baughurst Common Compared to Kingsclere). There are good road links between with the roads running out out Baughurst which don’t go through Tadley running southwards to meet the A339 on which Kingsclere is situated. The Woverton ward of Baughurst Parish was united with Kingsclere until 2002 because of its shared interests and shared facilities with Kingsclere. Currently Ashord Hill with Headley Parish is in the same Hampshire division as Baughurst Parish, as they both bounder the northern Borough boundary with roads running northward to the A4, I assume the Boundary Commission recognised some shared interests and facilities.
I am proposing a scheme for the Borough of one, one-member ward, ten, two-member wards and eleven, three-member wards, which recognise the existing communities of the borough while producing a few more three-member wards than we have at present. I believe that my scheme will provide effective and convenient local government as a mixed scheme of single- member, two-member and three-member wards elected by thirds in three out of four years has for the Borough since at least 1976. I believe it reflects the interests and identities of our local communities. It produces twelve wards with an elector / councillor ratio variance of less than 10% and ten with an elector / councillor ratio variance of between 10 and 20% in 2023.
Hopefully the Boundary Commission will give my scheme serious consideration and even if they reject the whole thing they will still consider its component parts when considering each group of wards. Electoral data Basingstoke & Deane Check your data 2017 2023 Using this sheet: Number of councillors: 54 54 Fill in the cells for each polling district. Please make sure that the names of each parish, parish ward and borough ward are correct and consistent. Check your Overall electorate: 134,263 144,049 data in the cells to the right. Average electorate per cllr: 2,486 2,668
Scroll right to see the second table Scroll left to see
Is there any Is this polling district Is this polling district contained in What is the What is the Fill in the number other Is this polling district contained in a contained in a parish a group of parishes with a joint These cells will show you the electorate and variance. They change What is the polling district code? What ward is this polling district in? current predicted Fill in the name of each ward once of councillors per description you parish? If not, leave this cell blank. ward? If not, leave parish council? If not, leave this depending what you enter in the table to the left. electorate? electorate? ward use for this this cell blank. cell blank.
Description Number of Polling district Parish Parish ward Grouped parish council Existing ward 2017 2023 Name of ward 2017 2017 2023 2023 of area cllrs per ward
EX1 Example 1 Little Example Little and Even Littler Example 480 502 Basing and Upton Grey 3 7,398 -1% 7,928 -1% EX2 Example 2 Even Littler Example Little and Even Littler Example 67 68 Baughurst and Kingsclere 2 6,089 22% 6,030 13% EX3 Example 3 Medium Example Example 893 897 Bramley, Sherfield & Silchester 3 6,034 -19% 7,717 -4% EX4 Example 4 Big Example Big Example East Example 759 780 Brighton Hill 3 8,147 9% 7,930 -1% EX5 Example 5 Big Example Big Example West Example 803 824 Brookvale & Kings Furlong 2 4,955 0% 4,927 -8% Burghclere, Highclere and St Ma 2 4,741 -5% 4,731 -11% EA - Mapledurwell and Up Nately Mapledurwell and Up Nately C
Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Lisa Budd
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Please add Worting Village (incorporating the original Village properties) into the Oakley and North Waltham Ward as this is a much better demographic fit than Buckskin.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Gordon Dunse
E-mail:
Postcode:
Comment text:
I believe Ellisfield has more in common with the other villages south of the M3. They are all very rural as opposed to urban with different needs and different priorities. I agree with the need to consolidate boundaries and would be happy if there was a way to include all the rural villages in a single ward. Hope this helps. Please don’t link rural villages with districts within an urban conurbation. Signed. Gordon Dunse.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Stewart Garwood
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in the new Vyne Park estate and it's unclear which ward my property is located. I know some of the vynepark residents are Chineham whilst others are Bramley & Sherfield. My post code is not recognised on this site.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Beverley Guinness
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live at - Ellisfield. I understand there is a proposal to redraw some ward boundaries and that the Upton Grey/P Candover ward will be divided so that Ellisfield, Farleigh and Cliddesden will become part of an urban Basingstoke ward. I suggest you drive around the area and see for yourselves that these villages are totally rural with working farms and small hamlets, two pubs, no shops i.e. totally different to the wards north of the M3. In addition, Ellisfield, Cliddesden and Farleigh, together with Dummer, form the single Parish of Farleigh. Within the diocese there is talk of forming a United Benefice with parishes as far south as Northington. It does not make good sense to have random divisions within such a wide rural community where everyone works hard to maintain the village life we value so much.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Keith Inwood
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Is does seem ridiculous that at Coxford Down there are 5 houses in a row. All classed as micheldever , with So21 post codes but 2 are in Winchester , the other 3 are in basingstoke , surely it makes sense to have them all in one to simplify things like bin collections etc
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Gary Jones
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1: Include Fairways development in Beggarwood
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Map Features:
Annotation 1: Include Fairways development in Beggarwood
Comment text:
Consider moving the Fairways development into Hatch Warren & Beggarwood ward, since it's part of Beggarwood, yet the ward doesn't reflect that.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Kingsley, Paul
From: Brian Langer Sent: 08 May 2018 11:15 To: reviews Subject: Review of Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council wards
To whom it may concern.
I realise that your review of this borough council ended yesterday but I hope you will accept this late submission, due to computer problems at home, which needs to be taken account of in conjunction with my submission to the earlier period of consultation.
If the LGBC insists that there should be 54 councillors, as against the current 60, for an ever increasing electorate I do feel strongly that the rural, ie parished, areas of the borough should continue to be served by two or one councillors so that the wards' geographical spread doesn't become unmanageable and unrelated to community interests.
Basingstoke town, currently unparished, is primarily a collection of housing estates developed largely since World War II and in particular since the 1960s and where ward boundaries have been determined arbitrarily as the community of interest is not so great as in the rural parishes. There are few obvious 'natural boundaries', the railway line being one, and some major roads but for the most part the town's ward boundaries are less community based than the rural wards.
Taking my own ward of Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon these are three distinct communities which have a natural affiliation to each other. Extending the boundaries to make the electorate larger to accommodate just 54 councillors would mean incorporating either Oakley, Kingsclere or Whitchurch within the new ward, all of which have their distinct community needs which would needlessly be jeopardised if joined with the adjacent ward.
So please consider larger wards in area and population for the unparished Basingstoke town but, unless there are compelling reasons, keep the current rural, parished, wards as they are so they continue to represent a strong community of interest which would be lost if amalgamation with neighbouring wards took place and damage local democracy in the process.
Sincerely.
Brian Langer
1 Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Susan Turner
E-mail:
Organisation Name: Newnham Parish Council
Comment text:
Reference Basingstoke & Deane. Basing Ward works efficiently and effectively with its current boundaries and team of three Ward Councillors.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Gavin Park Weir
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Ellisfield parish council
Comment text:
Dear Sir or Madam, Boundary Review: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council – Upton Grey & the Candovers Ward I am writing to state my views about the proposed ward boundaries for Basingstoke and Deane Borough. I believe that Upton Grey and the Candovers ward is an exceptional case and as such the current parishes should remain together as a single member ward. My main reasons for believing this are as follows: • Distinctive rural ward south of the M3 o Rural area covering 35 miles (approx) with just under 3,000 people o Parishes within ward have shared characteristics – e.g. vast majority of homes have no mains drainage and none have mains gas o Same catchment area for secondary school – Perins in Alresford o Historically formed part of same policing beat area which also included Mapledurwell, Up Nately and Dummer (the 3 other parishes south of the motorway). o Neighbouring parishes work closely with each other as communities – same church grouping (Benefice), landownership stretching across parish boundaries, many share community events etc... o Rural parishes south of the M3 have completely different needs to those north of the M3. It would be very difficult for a Councillor to be able to meet the needs of a ward comprising of rural and urban parishes • Don’t cross parliamentary boundaries o Currently the entire ward is in the North East Hampshire Parliamentary Constituency o Any split of the ward will mean confusion as different parts of the ward will come under different Parliamentary Constituencies I trust that from the reasons above you will recognise that there is a exceptional and valid case for retaining Upton Grey and the Candovers ward as a single member ward as it currently is. Yours sincerely, Gavin Park Weir
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Mark Peters
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
It is vital that the Winklebury ward does not lose a councillor. Winklebury is suffering as most effort locally seems to be going into areas where large numbers of houses are being built. Winklebury has almost nowhere for new homes and is already quite run down. If we lose a councillor, we will struggle even more than we do now to get the help this community deserves. Our current councillors are energetic and work hard for the community despite being from opposing parties, they want what is best for Winklebury. I am not opposed to change if it is for the right reason, what I am hoping is that the people who make the final decision on the reorganisation, is that they see that the poorer and older areas of Basingstoke are those most in need of strong and vibrant people acting as local councillors and that they resist the urge to concentrate on the bright shiny new areas of Basingstoke at the expense of the tired more run down areas. It is a shame that Winklebury doesn’t benefit from having a parish council as some areas do, the people of Winklebury have seen all too often , that these areas gain at the expense of those that do not. Please remember the ordinary people who live in these areas, we have the same hopes and dreams for our families and communities as those in the more affluent areas of Basingstoke.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Annabel portsmouth
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am from the Upton Grey and Candovers Ward. I have heard there are plans to split us up and unite some parts of our Ward with places north of the M3 Motorway. I don't think this would work because we are rural and they are not. We have very different needs. Please keep me informed of future plans, but I do not think this is a good idea. We need to be treated as an exceptional case.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Sharon Pretty
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Our area, Camberry Close, comes under Grove but our catchment school and therefore local community comes under Eastrop. It would be much more relevant if our ward covered Fairfields, or if the Camrose Way estate came under Eastrop. All of our shops snd facilities are in town, therefore we need to be considered as part of the town community.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Sharon Pretty
E-mail: [email protected]
Postcode: Rg21 3ag
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Regarding Grove and Eastrop wards. We live on the outskirts of the town centre and belong to Grove with its associated Viables community centre. Yet our catchment school is Fairfields, which is in Eastrop. Our nearest community centres, shops and facilities come under Eastrop. We are not part of the ward that affects us which makes no sense. Suggest changing the boundary for a town centre ward to include all of its neighbourhoods. This would also have a knock-on affect to help with a sense of community and belonging. As in Camrose Way we feel like we are in no mans land and dont even have a postal area name!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Elizabeth Rawlinson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in and am frustrated that this isn’t recognised as Beggarwood even though l live close to Beggarwood Lane. I have to vote in the Oakley & North Waltham ward which is inconvenient and forced me to use a postal vote. I hope the new boundary will put my postcode into Beggarwood.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Ian Rawlinson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
We live in a new house at which is within 100m of the beggarwood polling station. Currently we are in the Oakley and North Waltham which means we have to vote across the motorway in Dummer. It is hard to see from the map but feel we should be in an expanded Beggarwood as no transport to Dummer and impossible to walk to.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: John Roger Graham
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: self
Comment text:
The proposed changes to the boundaries of Upton Grey/The Candovers are a serious error . Please note my opposition to them- for the reasons which are fully explained, I am sure, in other submissions.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: David Skyrme
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Currently Highclere is in the same district as St Mary Bourne, yet the adjoining village of Wollton Hill is separate. A more logical grouping is Highclere, Woolton Hill and to make up the numbers Ashmansworth and Newtown. There are many shared community facilities between Woolton Hill and Highclere (shop. school. surgery, pub etc) but none with St Mary Bourne.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Joanne Thomas
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I believe that the existing boundary for Upton Grey and the Candovers works well and as such I would request that the parishes in the ward should remain together as a single ward. Please see my supporting letter which I have uploaded as a document for further details.
Uploaded Documents:
Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download_document? file=draft%2F1525700818_JT++Letter+Boundary+Commission+BDBC+26.03.2018.docx)
Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Monday 7th May, 2018.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Boundary Review: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council – Upton Grey & the Candovers Ward
I am writing to state my views about the proposed ward boundaries for Basingstoke and Deane Borough. I believe that Upton Grey and the Candovers ward is an exceptional case and as such the current parishes should remain together as a single member ward.
My main reasons for believing this are as follows:
Distinctive rural ward south of the M3 o Rural area covering 35 miles (approx) with just under 3,000 people o Parishes within ward have shared characteristics – e.g. vast majority of homes have no mains drainage and none have mains gas o Same catchment area for secondary school – Perins in Alresford o Historically formed part of same policing beat area which also included Mapledurwell, Up Nately and Dummer (the 3 other parishes south of the motorway). o Neighbouring parishes work closely with each other as communities – same church grouping (Benefice), landownership stretching across parish boundaries, many share community events etc...
[Type text]
o Rural parishes south of the M3 have completely different needs to those north of the M3. It would be very difficult for a Councillor to be able to meet the needs of a ward comprising of rural and urban parishes
Don’t cross parliamentary boundaries o Currently the entire ward is in the North East Hampshire Parliamentary Constituency o Any split of the ward will mean confusion as different parts of the ward will come under different Parliamentary Constituencies
I trust that from the reasons above you will recognise that there is a exceptional and valid case for retaining Upton Grey and the Candovers ward as a single member ward as it currently is.
Yours sincerely,
Joanne Thomas
[Type text]
Basingstoke and Deane District
Personal Details:
Name: Mark Thomas
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Sirs I understand that the Boundary Commission is proposing to reduce the number of councillors in Basingstoke and Deane from 60 to 54 and create 18x 3-councillor wards. These must each have a similar population. As a resident in the current Upton Grey and Candovers ward we have an excellent councillor in Mark Ruffell who manages to represent the whole of the ward very successfully. I have heard that the proposed boundary changes might result in a split of our current ward into two parts with the Upton Grey/Tunworth and associated areas joining with Old Basing and Cliddesden, Ellisfield (where I live) and the Candovers being joined with Oakley to form a new ward. This would in my view be unworkable as the area that would create is not in any way a 'joined up' community (as is the case currently). Oakley is in a different parliamentary constituency to ours and we have no affinity with the area. Local government should be about people being represented by fellow people that they know and who care about them. These boundary changes present the likelihood that an as yet unknown candidate who will have no stake in our local community could become our new representative. I do not want this so my preference is to keep the existing ward as is represented by our very able councillor. Further facts to back this view are :- • We are a distinctive rural ward south of the M3 o In a Rural area covering 35 miles (approx) with just under 3,000 people o Parishes within the ward have shared characteristics – e.g. vast majority of homes have no mains drainage and none have mains gas o Same catchment area for secondary school – Perins in Alresford o We historically formed part of the same policing beat area which also included Mapledurwell, Up Nately and Dummer (the 3 other parishes south of the motorway). o Neighbouring parishes work closely with each other as communities – same church grouping (Benefice), landownership stretching across parish boundaries, many share community events etc... o Rural parishes south of the M3 have completely different needs to those north of the M3. It would be very difficult for a Councillor to be able to meet the needs of a ward comprising of rural and urban parishes • We do not cross parliamentary boundaries o Currently the entire ward is in the North East Hampshire Parliamentary Constituency o Any split of the ward will mean confusion as different parts of the ward will come under different Parliamentary Constituencies I trust that from the reasons above you will recognise that there is an exceptional and very valid case for retaining Upton Grey and the Candovers ward as a single member ward as it currently is. Yours faithfully Mark J Thomas
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Kingsley, Paul
From: Paul Turner, Ellisfield Sent: 07 May 2018 22:40 To: reviews Subject: Review of Upton Grey and the Candovers boundary (Basingstoke & Deane)
Sirs.
I sent the following to you this evening:
I am unable to comment on any proposed boundary changes in the local government ward (Basingstoke & Deane's "Upton Grey and the Candovers") where I live because I can find nowhere on your website that provides me with the relevant detailed information.
So, the only comment that I can make is that it is vitally important that it should be realised that those of us who live south of the M3 consider ourselves to be a RURAL area and so would not think it advisable if our ward is merged in with the URBAN part of Basingstoke (if that is what is proposed). It is therefore important that you follow your own stricture, as follows:
Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities – this means establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, maintain local ties and where boundaries are easily identifiable.
Regards,
Paul Turner
Please amend the word "inadvisable" to be "advisable" prior to publishing my comments.
Thank You.
Paul Turner.
1 Kingsley, Paul
From: Edward White > Sent: 11 December 2017 21:43 To: reviews Subject: RE: LGBCE's draft recommendations
Dear Lucy,
Regarding the ward boundary consultation. I live in old basing Hampshire.
Thanks
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 at 9:37, reviews
Dear Edward,
Thank you for your email.
Are you able to clarify which review you are referring to so that I can log your submission with the relevant review officer?
Kind Regards,
Lucy Porter
‐
Lucy Porter
Review Assistant
LGBCE
14th Floor Millbank Tower
London SW1P 4QP
0330 500 1291
1
_ _
How are we doing? Click here to give us your views.
From: Edward White [mailto Sent: 10 December 2017 10:26 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
With regard to the above, I feel it is very important that there is a level playing field in district elections. To achieve this it is important we have single councillor wards.
Yours faithfully,
Edward White.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
2