Councillor submissions to the Hampshire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors surnames A-Z.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 09:11 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council
-----Original Message----- From: Collett, Cllr A P Sent: 10 January 2016 19:37 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
Whilst I support Hampshire County Council's response to your Draft Recommendations on a new pattern of Divisions with regard to Hart District, I do have one additional major concern that I need to draw to your attention.
I agree with Hampshire County Council that:
1. "Blackwater" should be added to the name of the proposed Fleet North & Yateley East Division. I support the desire to keep division names brief, but without "Blackwater" the name will be alien to residents of a large proportion of the division and this will undermine the community interests and identities criterion, with little corresponding benefit to justify leaving it out. 2. It would be better to leave Dogmersfield in the proposed Odiham & Hook Division. Although moving Dogmersfield parish into the proposed Hartley Wintney & Yateley West Division creates a very marginal improvement in electoral equality, this would be at the cost of splitting the Odiham district council ward across the two divisions unnecessarily. Also, given that Winchfield (in the proposed Hartley Wintney & Yateley West Division) has been identified as the proposed location of a new town in the emerging Hart Local Plan, increasing the "starting" electorate of this division unnecessarily would mean that the electorate would exceed the +10% from the average tolerance sooner, and by a greater extent, thereby undermining the electoral equality criteria to a greater extent than the benefit achieved by putting Dogmersfield into this division would justify. 3. The consequential changes to the Yateley parish wards should be based on the recent Community Governance Review rather than the earlier proposals from the Hart District Council ward boundary review, which were never implemented. As the recent CGR has created a local consensus, which meets all three of the Commission's criteria very well, it would be a great shame to go back to the larger, and less community-focussed, wards which were proposed as a consequence of the last Hart District Council ward boundary review. All that is needed is to create the new one-member "Yateley North" parish ward, as proposed by you, and reduce the number of town councillors representing the Yateley Centre ward from three to two. All the other CGR parish wards fit your proposals very neatly.
The other area of concern that I have is the proposed boundary between the Fleet Town and the Fleet North & Yateley East divisions.
The current proposals clearly meet the electoral equality criterion very well and the use of the railway line as a boundary is obviously attractive, so it is understandable why this has been proposed. The use of this boundary, however, comes at a cost which warrants further consideration. There is an alternative proposal, which is equally good in electoral equality terms, but which avoids the pitfalls of the current proposals and brings several clear advantages.
So what is wrong with the current proposal?
Firstly, using the railway line as a boundary leads to splitting Elvetham Heath parish between two divisions, with a consequential requirement that the parish be split into two parish wards. This may not seem important, but Elvetham Heath is a new community, which did not exist at all 15-20 years ago and they are working hard to create a united and harmonious identity. What they are achieving is astonishingly good, with many hundreds turning out for community events and the parish council winning all sorts of awards for their creative and successful work on community development. Splitting the parish into two wards brings with it the danger of creating an "us and them" situation, which is so often seen on other councils and which does not exist at the moment. This would fly in the face of both the
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Andrew Joy
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Hampshire County Council
Feature Annotations
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: The outline shown encompasses the contiguous and cohesive community of Alton & Holybourne with the CPs of Chawton and Farringdon. The latter CPs are included solely to appease the LGBCE aversion to 'doughnut' divisions and thus split Alton Rural.
Comment text:
The outline shown above reflects an attempt to accommodate the LGBCE's open reluctance to accept 'doughnut' divisions by including Chawton CP and Farringdon CP with the existing Alton Town Division. The outline could reasonably include Shalden and/or Lasham in place of Chawton and Farringdon but both alternatives are included for the sole purpose of appeasing the LGBCE's aversion to doughnut divisions. I most strongly advocate retention of the existing Alton Town division WHICH INCLUDES HOLYBOURNE. Electoral equality is highly desirable providing it takes adequate account of the geographical dispersion of the electorate. In this case Alton Rural, with circa 19 rural parishes over some 90 square miles, has not only a very different character to the urban settlement of Alton & Holybourne but requires a very different type of engagement. It is reasonable and justifiable to seek to balance the electoral numbers but this should take proper account of the degree of dispersion of the electorate. Clearly, administration and support of an urban conurbation is logistically and logically more achievable than a widely dispersed and fragmented group of communities. The proposal put forward by the LGBCE achieves electoral equality in numerical terms but in so doing separates Alton and Holybourne. Both are inextricably bound within a single Alton CP boundary, coincident with the Parish Boundary. Holybourne is represented within Alton Town Council and is served necessarily, effectively and conveniently by it. The EHDC ward of Holybourne & Froyle comprises Holybourne, which is contiguous with Alton and wholly urban, with the three rural parishes of Froyle, Lasham and Shalden. Hampshire County Council's response to the proposals counters with a suggestion that Lasham and Shalden CPs are included with Alton Town whilst accepting the concept of removing Holybourne from the Alton Town Division. Again this is solely in response to a perceived determination by the LGBCE to drive a wedge in the apparent doughnut surrounding Alton Town whilst attempting to reduce the impact of the LGBCE proposals. It is worth observing that every division in Hampshire and elsewhere, other than those edged by water, are surrounded by another division or divisions. LBGCE state they are not normally inclined to adopt a doughnut division on the basis that 'such a division pattern is unlikely to reflect community identities and interests or communication links in the rural area'. The rural concerns and interests of the villages are quite distinct from those of the urban settlement of Alton and Holybourne. Alton and Holybourne share effective transport links, are bound by a group of residents' associations and share health, shopping, social and leisure facilities. Both are directly and immediately served by two secondary schools and Alton College. Most importantly, the District ward boundary between Alton and Holybourne, on which the LGBCE proposed Division boundary is based, is indistinct and weak. I suggest that the legal obligation to effect electoral equality can best be achieved in terms of equality of ability to serve the electorate which is based predominantly on numbers but takes account of geographical dispersion and accessibility. As for the statutory criteria to recognise both community identity and interests with effective and convenient local government, the proposals achieve neither. It is concerning that the proposals fail to achieve two of the three statutory criteria. Both Alton Town Council, within which Holybourne is directly represented, and the Holybourne Village Association have unanimously objected to the proposed severance of shared County Council representation. The current arrangement works well and achieves balanced consideration of the needs of both the rural and urban communities. Cllr Andrew Joy Hampshire County Cllr, Alton Town Division Executive Member for Communities, Partnerships & External Affairs
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6654 11/01/2016 secondary schools and Alton College. Most importantly, the District ward boundary between Alton and Holybourne, on which the proposed Division boundary is based, is indistinct and weak.
LGBCE state , in the brief explanatory note, that they are not normally (my italics) inclined to adopt a 'doughnut' division on the basis that 'such a division pattern is unlikely to reflect community identities and interests or communication links in the rural area'. Where such a division pattern is extremely effective, as here, I trust that there is therefore scope for this to be considered.
The common rural concerns and interests of the villages are quite distinct from those of the urban settlement of Alton and Holybourne. The proposal to extricate Holybourne from its embedded position within Alton Town appears to serve only one main purpose; to enable a break of the 'doughnut' by combining Alton Town with outlying parishes.
The latest HCC proposal to include only Lasham and Shalden parishes within an Alton Town division shorn of its Holybourne ward, moderates the LGBCE proposal somewhat but still cannot overcome the failure to meet two of the three statutory criteria.
Having given this long and hard thought, I can currently see only two options: Either 1. retain Alton Town Division (including Holybourne) as currently configured or 2. retain Alton Town Division as currently configured but with the addition of either Chawton & Farringdon or Shalden & Lasham, the additions being made solely to facilitate the introduction of a 'wedge' in the doughnut. The resultant disparity in electorate numbers between Alton Rural and Alton Town would remain manageable and equitable in logistical terms.
Both Alton Town Council and the Holybourne Village Association Members have unanimously expressed individual and collective disappointment with and objection to the LGBCE proposals. Both are emphatic that they wish Alton and Holybourne to remain as they are, an interwoven and cohesive community within the Alton Town Division. There is also considerable support for the Division to be renamed Alton & Holybourne.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Joy *** This email, and any attachments, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender. Any request for disclosure of this document under the Data Protection Act 1998 or Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be referred to the sender. [disclaimer id: HCCStdDisclaimerExt] ***
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Adrian Newell
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Rushmoor Borough Council - Councillor for Aldershot Park Ward
Comment text:
Regarding the draft recommendations for Aldershot (Hampshire County) I wish to make the following points: 1) I support very much the proposed boundaries given in the draft recommendations that include the whole of Aldershot Park Ward and Manor Park Ward in a single Hampshire Councty Council division. 2) I believe that renaming the new divisions "Aldershot North" and "Aldershot South" would also better reflect geographically the new boundaries.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6610 11/01/2016
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Jackie Branson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Havant Borough Council
Comment text:
I believe that the reorganisation of the Havant divisions is mostly good and happy to support. However the division of Waterloo and Stakes North crosses over two Parliamentary Constituencies. Stakes North is a very small part of this division and is alone in the Havant Parliamentary Constituency and I feel it would be better to be part of a Stakes and Purbrook division. Looking at the numbers this would not appear to be a problem. Cllr Jackie Branson Deputy Chair Political, Havant Conservative Association.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6298 15/12/2015 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 December 2015 15:50 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Reviw of ward boundries in HCC
From: Bruce Thomas Sent: 01 December 2015 15:36 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I strongly support the boundaries proposed in the draft recommendations that include the whole of Aldershot Park Ward and Manor Park Ward in a single Hampshire County Council division.
I believe that renaming the new divisions ‘Aldershot North’ and ‘Aldershot South’ will better reflect the new boundaries.
Regards, Bruce Thomas Manor Ward Councillor Aldershot
1 Appeal on the Hampshire County Council Boundary Review
Prepared by Cllr Christopher Ecclestone, Millway Ward, Andover Town Council
Preamble:
First correction to make is page 33 of the proposal states Andover Town Council has 18 councillors at present. This is incorrect, it has 19 members (four for each ward excepting Alamein, which has only 3 members).
I note the proposals put forward by the boundary commission. As these pertain to Test Valley they appear to take their lead primarily from the thoughts of the submissions of the HCC councillors representing wards within the TVBC borders.
As a member of the Working Group on Boundary Review of Andover Town Council (ATC), I would note that information has become available since my original submission. Chief amongst this information are the considerations that:
‹ It appears that TVBC councillors will be reduced in number by around 25% ‹ Talks have advanced on redrawing the town borders, most specifically as it regards the Burghclere Down part of Abbotts Ann parish ‹ That opinion has shifted towards fewer town councillors in the ATC (with 15 being regarded as the preferred number) and opinion favouring single member wards for the town over multi- member wards. I notice that the HCC review refers to maintaining the number of ATC councillors at 18 but this was “decision” was made without ANY consultation at all with the Town Council.
Specific Observations on LGBC Recommendations:
‹ The “gerrymandered” situation of Millway Ward is perpetuated ‹ The anomaly of part of Winton Ward being south of the A303 is corrected, while the anomaly of Burghclere Down (north of the A303) NOT being included in an Andover-oriented ward is NOT corrected ‹ While Winchester, Basingstoke and Eastleigh urban cores are focused in urban-only wards, Andover is broken up between four wards, of which only one (Millway) is predominantly urban. ‹ The population projection numbers for the inner core of Andover for 2021 are grossly inaccurate. They include population surges in areas where there is NO space for anything except the most minimal infill construction. The most glaring example is polling district UQ which is projected to grow from 2,084 voters to 3,102 voters when the area has scarcely had any new residences added since the 1970s! ‹ The proposals for Andover Town Council future wards are a mish-mash of three-, two- and single member wards which seem based upon expediency rather than best representation of the voters or functionality.
Appeal to the LGBC Recommendations
I hereby appeal the draft recommendations of the HCC boundary review calling for:
‹ Three HCC wards that substantially encompass the urban core of Andover (including Augusta Park and Burghclere Down) ‹ That these three wards be based upon the “building blocks” of fifteen town council wards, with Burghclere Down and Augusta Park be considered as inevitably included within the town borders and thus encompassed within the 15 “building blocks”.
I attach a proposed map of how 15 town wards could be created using the current polling districts with some minor alterations.
Conclusion
I shall conclude with some basic mathematics which impinge upon future work of the Boundaries Commission. As proposed the Town of Andover is divided amongst four County divisions, encompasses 15 TVBC seats (across 5 wards) while including 19 seats on the Andover Town Council across five wards. Four is not divisible into 19, nor into five, nor into 15. The LGBC is making a rod for its own back in future more localized boundary reviews with this current proposal. Moreover, it will be patently obvious by the County elections in 2017 that the population statistics used in these calculations at the polling district level are grossly inaccurate.
I humbly request that the basis for calculations for Andover at all three levels of government be based upon a “Factor of 3” with three county divisions across 15 Town wards (which in turn accommodates other combinations to afford 15 TVBC council seats).
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Christopher Ecclestone
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 09:11 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council Boundary Review
-----Original Message----- From: Wood, Cllr C Sent: 10 January 2016 20:50 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write in reference to the Hampshire County Council Boundary Review currently taking place.
The Boundary Commission, in exercise of its judgement must pay close attention to three statutory criteria. To date the Boundary Commission has only paid attention to one of these three criteria, that being the drive to deliver electoral equality. So far, in relation to the proposals to amend the boundary of the Fareham Crofton Division, the requirement for a Division ‘to reflect the interest and identity of local communities and have readily identifiable boundaries’ has been ignored and the proposals do not meet this criteria. The proposals also fail to adhere to the third criteria, this being ‘that the Electoral Arrangements of the County Council should provide for effective and convenient Local Government, the proposals make this less likely to be achieved.
At present the Fareham Crofton provides a representative for the community of Stubbington and Hill Head, it very clearly reflects the interest and identity of the local community. Any proposal for the Division to encompass part of another area, in this instance Fareham Town, seriously weakens this position. At present the Fareham Crofton is made up of two Fareham Borough Council Wards, these being the Stubbington Ward and the Hill Head Ward, which ensures that the Electoral Arrangement provides effective and convenient Local Government. The proposal for part of the Fareham Town Division to move to the Fareham Crofton Divison based on the position of a couple of roads and which would dissect a Fareham Borough Council Ward into having 4 separate County Councillors, clearly undermines the Boundary Commission’s own statutory criteria.
In order to further improve the already sensible Fareham Crofton Division Boundary would be the changing of the name of the Division from ‘Fareham Crofton’ to ‘Stubbington and Hill Head’. As explained previously the Division is made up of the Stubbington Ward and the Hill Head Ward on Fareham Borough Council and all of the residents represented, except for about 150 in the Newgate Lane area, would say that they lived in either Stubbington or Hill Head and none would say that they lived in Crofton. I appreciate the historical context of the term ‘Crofton’ and how it is used in the names of our schools and some local groups, however I believe my suggestion is more relevant to the public. As it is whenever I tell someone which Division I represent I then have to explain it is Stubbington and Hill Head, which I think illustrates my point rather well.
I have spoken with over 300 of the residents I represent on Hampshire County Council and Fareham Borough Council and the vast majority favour the Fareham Crofton Division remaining unchanged. Many believe that the Boundary Commission is solely interested in delivering electoral equality, which is mistaken to only relate to numbers and not to the ability to represent each of those people equally, and not to the other two of its statutory criteria. The case for keeping the Fareham Crofton unchanged is clear, any amendment to the boundary to incorporate Fareham Town or any other area of the Fareham Borough is not in the interest of residents, therefore I strongly urge you to ensure that the Fareham Crofton Division Boundary remains intact, fully, without amendment, as to not do so would be in contravention of the Boundary Commission’s own statutory criteria.
Yours sincerely, Cllr Chris Wood Hampshire County Councillor – Fareham Crofton Fareham Borough Councillor
*** This email, and any attachments, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender. Any
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Derek Tipp
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
My comments relate only to the New Forest area. I am the district councillor for the ward of Ashurst, Netley Marsh and Copythorne South. My preferred outcome would be for the New Forest to retain its existing 11 county divisions as I think it would give the best balance of a reasonable electoral equality combined with effective and convenient local government. However if you decide against this, then I would like to put forward two proposals for the parishes in my ward. First I would like to see Copythorne north and south put into one division. This would be the Lyndhurst and Fordingbridge division. Secondly I would like to see the whole of Netley Marsh kept together in the Totton North division. I would also propose that the new division be renamed Totton North and Netley Marsh division.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6591 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Gavin James
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Councillor - Basingstoke Liberal Democrats
Comment text:
Please see attached document that outlines alternative proposals which resuklt in better electoral equality to the divisions within the Basingstoke constituency whilst achieving more borders consistent with existing borough boundaries and keep divisions based more closely on existing communities.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6460 04/01/2016 Hampshire County Council Boundary review for 2017
The following submission comments on the draft proposals in relation to the divisions that fall within the Basingstoke constituency. In addition it proposes an alternative which maintains a greater level of consistency with existing borough boundaries, avoiding ‘split wards’, keeps communities together, provides for better defined natural boundaries and greater electoral equality.
Loddon
No changes proposed
Basingstoke North.
The draft boundaries split the borough ward of Norden. Norden is a mixture of 60 and 70’s council development with older properties interspersed with newer infill and regeneration developments. As such there is no obvious place to split the ward and given the common amenity use and schools it would be undesirable to do so. There is little reason for it to be attached to the Popley wards other than that it has been in previous boundary reviews. Clearly the expansion of both Popley and Norden make this too big, however there is little logic or need in splitting Norden to fit with Popley.
The Popley wards are clearly linked by geography and name and both have the characteristics of being late 60’s/70’s overspill settlements with additional newer development to the North. To the West of Popley is Rooksdown, separated from Popley by the Hospital campus, new development has reduced the gap between the two. Rooksdown itself has seen rapid expansion and developed into a self-contained community. It has limited connection to Winklebury to the South or Popley to the East and could sit with either. I would therefore propose that Basingstoke North comprise of both Popley Wards and Rooksdown. The A339 provides a natural boundary in that all the residents live north of this barrier.
Draft Proposals 2020 electorate = 14358. Alternative proposals 2020 electorate = 14329
Basingstoke Central
Under the draft proposals Brookvale and South Ham are combined which is consistent with existing county boundaries, though there is little reason to keep them together other than electoral convenience. To make the numbers up a part of Eastrop is added and a large part of Norden. As a result the County division would cover 4 borough wards, 10 ward councillors. Whilst from a desk top point of view there seems a geographical link, when Commercial areas are excluded and the Railway line is considered, you would need to travel through the proposed Basingstoke South East Division to travel between the two halves of Basingstoke central by foot or car. It is inevitable that some residents south of the Railway line will be in a division that crosses the railway line, but it would make sense to do so in an area where pedestrians and drivers can! There appears to be no community link between South Ham and Norden as both areas look to different schools and centres.
As an alternative I would suggest that Norden is retained as community and combined with Winklebury. Whilst these communities are distinct, those in Winklebury will use bus routes that apply to Norden. The two communities are divided by the Houndmills industrial estate, however in terms of natural boundaries they both lay north of the Railway line and South of the A339. This seat would be undersized, however it is proposed that Buckskin could be split to compensate. Buckskin is a borough seat that is divided between new development in the Worting area, large ex council housing to the South of the Railway line and an established community that lies to the North of the Railway line and looks to Winklebury for schools and community centres. Given the changes I would propose the seat was re-named Basingstoke Houndmills or Basingstoke Railway.
Draft proposals 2020 electorate = 14412 Alternative proposals = 14150*
Basingstoke South East.
Draft proposals seek to change the current division by adding most of Eastrop and removing half of Brighton Hill South. There is little to connect Brighton Hill with Eastrop and as the name suggests Brighton Hill North and South are best retained as a clearly defined community which looks to Brighton Hill District centre as a common amenity. Brighton Hill North and South have existed as two two seat borough wards and a 3 seat borough ward in the past and given the geographical and historical links, it is felt that these two should remain joined.
I would propose that Basingstoke South East should combine Grove, Eastrop and Brookvale. This would avoid splitting wards and create a division that surrounds the Town centre. Grove is linked to both Brookvale and Eastrop by secondary school access to Costello in Eastrop and Crambourne School in Brookvale. In addition primary schools such as Ruckstall serve both Grove and Eastrop, whilst Fairfield school attracts students from all 3 wards. The existing borough boundaries split Eastrop from Brookvale along Penrith road so keeping these wards connected makes sense. I would propose the name of the division is either Basingstoke Old Town reflecting the large number of heritage sites and conservation areas or Basingtoke town centre which all wards are closely attached to.
Draft proposals 2020 electorate 14926, Alternative proposals 2020 electorate 14428
Basingstoke South
The current proposals keep Kempshott and Hatch Warren together. Whilst there is some geographical logic to this, I do not believe there is any other strong connection between the two which are divided by the A30. By combining Brighton Hill as one community with Hatch Warren we create a division that avoids splitting wards and communities. The two are connected as Hatch Warren looks to Brighton Hill Secondary school. They are contained by the natural boundaries of the M3 to the South and A30 to the north. As a result the boundaries of the borough and County remain consistent.
Draft proposals electorate 2020 = 14981. Alternative proposals 2020 electorate 14428
Basingstoke West
The draft boundaries leave Kempshott and Hatch Warren together with part of South Ham (the Berg Estate). By placing Hatch Warren with Brighton Hill, the whole of South Ham and Kempshott can be joined. Buckskin, which includes South Ham extension, (which gives and indication of which community it naturally belongs in) would be bought together. The new division lies to the West of the A30 which creates a natural boundary rather than a natural barrier as suggested by the draft and existing proposals. As outlined previously Winklebury would now be coupled with Norden. Winklebury is an established self-contained community with little connection to the Southern parts of Buckskin which would look to Kempshott and South Ham for schools, bus routes and community amenity.
Draft proposals 2020 electorate 14398. Alternative proposal 2020 electorate 15,243*
In summary
Electoral equality can be achieved by splitting just one borough seat rather than arbitrary lines through the Communities of Brighton Hill and Norden. Only one borough seat would be split between two divisions rather than 4 under the draft proposals. Whilst Buckskin is split it is noteworthy that until the last borough review in 2008, large parts of Buckskin were in the Winklebury ward and were only moved, with some reluctance, to make the numbers. The alternative proposals arguably re-connect communities better than both existing a draft proposals.
Images provided as a guide.
*You will note that Buckskin is split between the larges and smallest divisions and this is based on present polling districts. With greater detail further streets could be moved to achieve greater electoral equality.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Rob Hylands
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
This is a comment relating to the county division of Leesland and Town, which is currently and in the draft plan is to continue as a large county division with 2 Councillors. The areas that consist of Anglesey, Alverstoke and most of Privett is a completely a different demographic to the rest of Privett, Leesland, Brockhurst and Town. I believe that there is a clear case for splitting this division into two divisions having one County Councillor for each. This would ensure that the views of these two very distinct areas are fairly represented in the County Council.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6296 15/12/2015
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 December 2015 08:53 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objections from Boldre Parish Council
From: Thornber, Cllr T K Sent: 21 December 2015 15:35 To: reviews
Dear Peter,
Thank you and a great piece of campaigning oratory. Thank your Council please for its support,
Regards,
Ken.
Cllr Ken Thornber CBE
County Councillor, Brockenhurst Division
Hampshire County Council,, The Castle, Winchester SO23 8UJ. www.hants.gov.uk
From: Peter Lock Sent: 20 December 2015 19:14 To: [email protected] Cc: 'Cllr Colin Wise'; Thornber, Cllr T K Subject: Objections from Boldre Parish Council
On 14th December 2015 Boldre Parish Council passed unanimously the following proposition: “That this Council: 1. Objects to any reduction in the number of county divisions covering the New Forest and, 2. Strongly objects to Boldre Parish being joined with Lymington as a single county council division.”
The Council’s full document explaining the reasons for these objections is attached to this email.
A letter, with that document, has also been sent to your Millbank Tower offices in London.
Regards
Peter Lock Parish Clerk & Responsible Finance Officer
1 Boldre Parish Council
******************************************************************************* The information in this electronic (email) and any appendices to it is the property of Boldre Parish Council. It may contain confidential information. It is intended for the address only. Communications using this email system may be monitored. It has been screened for viruses by Norton Internet Security.
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection. For more info visit www.bullguard.com
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection. For more info visit www.bullguard.com *** This email, and any attachments, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender. Any request for disclosure of this document under the Data Protection Act 1998 or Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be referred to the sender. [disclaimer id: HCCStdDisclaimerExt] ***
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Leslie Keeble
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Cllr Fareham Borough Council West Ward
Comment text:
Fareham West ward is being dismantled into having 4 different County Councillors by being split into 3 areas as apposed to the current one area.2 CC for the Town area,1 CC for Titchfield and 1 CC for Crofton Stubbington. How do you expect residents and myself as the Ward councillor to successfully manage this.It is a shambles. Cllr Leslie Keeble
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6390 22/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Matt Grantham
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
There is a clear division between east and west of the M3, not just in terms of school catchment, but general demographics, house type, employment and qualifications. Whilst electoral boundaries will do nothing to change this, it does seem rediculous that an area such as Chandler's Ford which locally is very distinct from Eastleigh, is going to be essentially split in half. Surely it would be better to keep like-type settlements as one, rather than artificially try and segregate them when the M3 is so clearly the locally known boundary between the two areas. Similarly, the Velmore estate is known locally as being part of the Eastleigh Local Area Committee area, despite being on the Chandler's Ford side of the M3. Velmore should become part of the wider Chandler's Ford area, even though its demographics fit much better with the Eastleigh structure. To sumarise, I believe the Chandler's Ford boundary should cover what local communities already believe to be Chandlers Ford - west of the M3 up to Valley Park in Test Valley, South to Chestnut Avenue and north to Hocombe Road. The proposed boundaries are community divisive and have no link to physical boundaries clearly showing on maps.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6657 11/01/2016 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 15:57 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council - Electoral Review
From: Michael Harris Sent: 11 January 2016 15:49 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in support of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England electoral review of Hampshire County Council and specifically in respect of the New Forest.
I am an elected Councillor on New Forest District Council for the Brockenhurst & Forest South East Ward. I wish to support the Boundary Commission report particularly as it proposes NO CHANGE to the Parish of Exbury & Lepe. I strongly believe that this Parish should remain in the Brockenhurst Division. I understand that Hampshire County Council is proposing an amendment that would move Exbury & Lepe to the South Waterside Division.
Exbury and Lepe Parish is forecast to have 136 electors in 2021. It is an entirely rural Parish entirely within the New Forest National Park. The Commission will have received recommendations that Exbury & Lepe Parish should be included in the South Waterside Division (which is entirely outside the National Park). I believe that this is being put forward simply for mathematical reasons (electoral equality) and ignores ‘community interest’.
As a District Councillor I have been privileged to be elected to Wards in both of these County Council Divisions. The South Waterside Division is an urban area containg some heavy industry. It contains a large Esso fuel depot which boasts handling one in every eight litres of fuel consumed in the UK. It also contains a power station connected to the national grid for back up purposes. Both of these facilities create very large amounts of very heavy traffic.
In contrast Exbury & Lepe is a very rural Ward. Many rare and endangered plant types have been identified here. As one of their District Councillors I have been called upon to help negotiate a reduction in the number of times that their road side verges are cut each year. Ideally the Parish Council would like them cut once a year. By way of comparison the South Waterside Division would wish to continue with 6 to 8 verge cuts each year. This is largely because the very busy A326 and B3053 run through this Division. Exbury & Lepe do not contain any ‘through’ roads. Their roads are only there to serve the very small rural local community.
In conclusion I would say that Exbury & Lepe Parish has very little ‘community interest’ with the larger parishes of Fawley and Hythe& Dibden that comprise the South Waterside Division. The issue of electoral equality is not really helped with only 136 electors and should not be allowed to override the important issue of community interest.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Michael Harris District Councillor for Brockenhurst & Forest South East.
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 January 2016 08:53 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: HCC proposed divisional boundary changes - East Hampshire District - Alton Rural Divisiion
From: Mark Kemp‐Gee Sent: 11 January 2016 18:19 To: reviews
I write as the sitting County Councillor of some 11 years of the Alton Rural Division of Hampshire Country Council. I have noted the shibboleth expressed by the lgbce with regard to so called ` doughnut` seats such as mine, naturally the changes you have proposed maintain a `doughnut` with the outside wall provided now ( to Alton Town ) by the Basingstoke & Deane District boundary as well as the Alton Rural Division – no difference in practice at all. I urge you to forgo this prejudice and allow Holybourne to stay with Alton Town and to allow Ropley and the Tisted parishes to move to Petersfield Hangers as we suggested. As for accuracy, it is distressing that your recommendations don’t seem to take into account that you are moving Ropley and the Tisteds and some 1200 voters to another division admittedly with my blessing because of the pressure on numbers of electorate. This leads me to think that you haven`t appreciated the devastation to community cohesion in this division by further proposing that some 8 parishes altogether ( 5 in addition to Ropley and the 2 Tisteds ) are removed to be replaced only by Holybourne ( from Alton Town ). So, to put it in perspective, you are proposing that 8 of the existing 18 parishes are moved out of Alton Rural to be replaced by an integral part of nAlton Tow – namely Holybourne. I know the County Council has proposed a compromise – namely that your doughnut shibboleth should be nodded through – much against community wishes and that Ropley and the 2 Tisted parishes should join Petersfield Hangers and also that Shalden and Lasham should join Alton Town which on a map would show the `doughnut` truly broken and the County, further proposes, that Beech, Bentworth and Wield should remain with Alton Rural with Holybourne moving to that division as well ( out of Alton Town ). I have to say that is the very least of my expectations. Finally, if you remain obdurate in your rather strange logic and apparent lack of knowledge of the relevant social support issues, community, transport, educational and commercial aspects of this part of the world then, at least, allow little Wield parish to stay with its parent parish Medstead but, in truth, I trust you will listen to the wider issues as well.
With kind regards,
Mark Kemp-Gee
Councillor, Alton Rural Division, Hampshire County Council.
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Martin Lyon
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Ref - Hampshire County Division Boundary Changes. Dear LGBCE, I wish to object to certain proposals being made within the Hampshire/Eastleigh area - in particular the dividing up of Fair Oak/Horton Heath across parish and community boundaries and also name changes within this and other divisions. I have attached a letter explaining my views. Yours faithfully, Cllr Martin
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6652 11/01/2016 10th January 2016
LGBCE, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, London, SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir/Madam
Re Further Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council - Borough of Eastleigh
In response to the current LGBCE’s proposals (Local Government Boundary Commission for England) for the current county divisions within the Borough of Eastleigh and the alternative proposal to be submitted by Hampshire County Council following its meeting on the 7th January 2016, I wish to submit my own comments etc as part of the consultation, as follows.
Terms of Reference.
In commenting on the current proposals I am mindful of the criteria, outlined below, to be used by the LGBCE when making its final decision.
To consider a new pattern of electoral divisions the LGBCE must hold to three main criteria when making its decision as set out in law. a. elected members are to have roughly equal weighting of voters across county divisions, b. division patterns should reflect community interests and identities, and boundaries should be identifiable, c. the electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government.
The current position is that Hampshire County Council previously accepted the existing seven county divisions within the borough of Eastleigh, which I agree with. However due to current and future housing development (population growth) via the Local Plan, the LGBCE has understandably proposed that West End & Hedge End should have two county councillors in a single (enlarged) ward. This would equate to eight councillors within the existing seven divisions.
To enable this to happen including realignment of current divisions the LGBCE has also proposed that Fair Oak and Horton Heath be split in two, effectively dividing a parish boundary, so as to accommodate changes within the Horton Heath and West End/Hedge End areas in providing for a ‘two councillor’ division.
I would like to see this proposal changed at least to ensure the Fair Oak polling districts all remain within the current division of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak i.e. polling district AI, but not AJ (Horton Heath). This would increase the current variance from 6.6% to approximately 8%. This supports the stance taken by Fair Oak Parish Council and in effect would require a new boundary line running along the line of Knowle Lane - Burnetts Lane, thereby dividing Fair Oak from Horton Heath (including the new proposed housing development at Chalcroft Farm).
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Neil Cutler
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I wish to make representations in respect of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals for the new wards and boundaries for Hampshire County Council published on 17 November 2015. The current proposal suggests that the Winchester Southern Parishes Ward should consist of Denmead, Southwick & Widley,Boarhunt, Wickham & part of Newtown and Soberton , whilst Meon Valley contains Whitely, Curdridge, Shedfield, pt of Soberton, Swanmore, Droxford, Exton, Warnford ,Hambledon and West Meon I would propose that a more logical ‘Southern ‘ Parishes County ward should consist of the Wickham and Knowle village , Southwick and Widley , Boarhunt along with Whiteley and Shedfield City wards . Denmead should be part of the Meon Valley County Ward which would include Denmead, Corhampton and Meonstoke, Droxford, Exton, Hambledon, Swanmore, Warnford, West Meon and Soberton and Newtown. i.e The two wards should both be a combination of 2 new Winchester City Wards, Southern Parishes would consist of Southwick and Wickham ward and Whitely, Meon Valley would consist of Denmead and the Central Meon Valley Ward I recommend this change for the following reasons: 1. The alignment of community interests and communications is better in this new arrangement-Denmead has close affinity and good road links with the Central Meon Valley wards. The B2150 from Waterlooville through Denmead to Droxford is a good, natural link to all these communities. The routes to the southwest of Denmead towards Southwick and Wickham are less good, and the routes to Whiteley are considerably further than going from Denmead to Swanmore, and the quickest route is to use the M27 motorway. Shedfield, Whiteley ,Wickham and Southwick are all closely linked by the B2177,the A334 and if necessary the M27. 2. Journey times between Denmead and Whiteley are 23 minutes if the M27 route is used (11.8 miles). 35 minutes if the route is via the A3051. In our proposal the maximum journey from Denmead to Swanmore is 18 mins using Forest Road (7.2 miles) and 21 minutes via Bishops Wood Road (8 miles). Use of the M27 takes the journey outside Winchester. 3. The change is a simple one based on combining the Winchester Council wards differently to achieve better community affinity. 4. There is an initial shortfall in the size of the two proposed new wards, but significant development means that the new proposed wards are only marginally short of the ward average -13,846 proposed by the Boundary Commission by 2021: Proposed Southern Parishes Ward: Wickham and Southwick (6889) and Whiteley and Shedfield (6210) Total 13,099 -5.40% Proposed Meon Valley Ward: Denmead (6471) and Central Meon Valley (7154) Total 13,625 -1.6% Given the geographical size of these wards, the ongoing development expected west of Waterlooville and in Whiteley, and the number of parishes in these rural areas d this under variance seems reasonable. 5. The two wards of Soberton can be kep t together. Soberton -New Town relates better to Swanmore and even Denmead than it does on its own to Wickham and Southwick. 6. Whitely was part of Wickham parish and ward before it was developed 7. The Southern parishes would include two similar communities in the two MDAs, West of Waterlooville and Whitely I hope you will give consideration to this reasonable proposal that creates more coherent wards than your original proposal.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6668 11/01/2016
9 January 2015
Review Officer (Hampshire) The Local Government Boundary Commission For England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1 P 4QP
Dear Sir/Madam
Boundary Commission Proposals for Hampshire County Council 2015
I wish to make representations in respect of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals for the new wards and boundaries for Hampshire County Council published on 17 November 2015.
The current proposal suggests that the Winchester Southern Parishes Ward should consist of Denmead, Southwick & Widley,Boarhunt, Wickham & part of Newtown and Soberton , whilst Meon Valley contains Whitely, Curdridge, Shedfield, pt of Soberton, Swanmore, Droxford, Exton, Warnford ,Hambledon and West Meon
I would propose that a more logical ‘Southern ‘ Parishes County ward should consist of the Wickham and Knowle village , Southwick and Widley , Boarhunt along with Whiteley and Shedfield City wards .
Denmead should be part of the Meon Valley County Ward which would include Denmead, Corhampton and Meonstoke, Droxford, Exton, Hambledon, Swanmore, Warnford, West Meon and Soberton and Newtown. i.e The two wards should both be a combination of 2 new Winchester City Wards, Southern Parishes would consist of Southwick and Wickham ward and Whitely, Meon Valley would consist of Denmead and the Central Meon Valley Ward
I recommend this change for the following reasons:
1. The alignment of community interests and communications is better in this new arrangement-Denmead has close affinity and good road links with the Central Meon Valley wards. The B2150 from Waterlooville through Denmead to Droxford is a good, natural link to all these communities. The routes to the southwest of Denmead towards Southwick and Wickham are less good, and the routes to Whiteley are considerably further than going from Denmead to Swanmore, and the quickest route is to use the M27 motorway. Shedfield, Whiteley ,Wickham and Southwick are all closely linked by the B2177,the A334 and if necessary the M27.
2. Journey times between Denmead and Whiteley are 23 minutes if the M27 route is used (11.8 miles). 35 minutes if the route is via the A3051. In our proposal the maximum journey from Denmead to Swanmore is 18 mins using Forest Road (7.2 miles) and 21 minutes via Bishops Wood Road (8 miles). Use of the M27 takes the journey outside Winchester.
3. The change is a simple one based on combining the Winchester Council wards differently to achieve better community affinity. 4. There is an initial shortfall in the size of the two proposed new wards, but significant development means that the new proposed wards are only marginally short of the ward average -13,846 proposed by the Boundary Commission by 2021:
Proposed Southern Parishes Ward: Wickham and Southwick (6889) and Whiteley and Shedfield (6210) Total 13,099 -5.40%
Proposed Meon Valley Ward: Denmead (6471) and Central Meon Valley (7154) Total 13,625 -1.6%
Given the geographical size of these wards, the ongoing development expected west of Waterlooville and in Whiteley, and the number of parishes in these rural areas d this under variance seems reasonable. 5. The two wards of Soberton can be kep t together. Soberton -New Town relates better to Swanmore and even Denmead than it does on its own to Wickham and Southwick. 6. Whitely was part of Wickham parish and ward before it was developed 7. The Southern parishes would include two similar communities in the two MDAs, West of Waterlooville and Whitely
I hope you will give consideration to this reasonable proposal that creates more coherent wards than your original proposal.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Neil Cutler Winchester City Councillor for Boarhunt and Southwick Member of Southwick and Widley Parish Council Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 January 2016 09:00 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council electoral review
From: Peter Chegwyn Sent: 12 January 2016 00:00 To: reviews
Submission relating to the draft recommendations for Gosport: Hardway and Leesland / Town divisions
Dear Sir,
I'd like to make a couple of comments and a suggestion relating to the Boundary Commission draft recommendations for the Hardway and Leesland & Town electoral divisions in Gosport.
I do so as a local resident since 1982, a Gosport Borough Councillor since 1983, and a Hampshire County Councillor since 1985.
1. My first comment relates to the proposed split of Polling District GM1 of the Leesland Ward (which I represent on Gosport Borough Council). The Boundary Commission draft recommendation to transfer the area of GM1 north of Forton Road from the Leesland & Town electoral division into the Hardway electoral division (which I represent on Hampshire County Council) makes sense geographically and community-wise. This area regards itself as part of the Forton area and, until the last HCC boundary review, was part of the Elson, Forton & Hardway electoral division.
The Boundary Commission draft recommendation to leave the area of GM1 south of Forton Road within the Leesland & Town electoral division also makes sense. This area, including Halliday Close, regards itself as part of Leesland.
The County Council's response that all of GM1 should be transferred to the Hardway division does not make sense geographically, community-wise, or numerically. Transferring the whole of GM1 from Leesland & Town to Hardway would reduce the variance for the Hardway division from -4.4% to -2.0% but increase the variance for the Leesland & Town division from -8.6% to -9.8% (2021 figures). Under the County Council's revised proposals the variance between the two divisions would increase from 4.2% to 7.8%.
In summary, I support the Boundary Commission draft recommendations for dividing Polling District GM1 and do not support the revised proposals from the County Council which do not make sense geographically, community-wise or numerically.
2. My second comment relates to the Boundary Commission's draft recommendation to transfer the whole of the GE1 Polling District from the Leesland & Town division to the Hardway division. The map included in the Boundary Commission's draft recommendations shows only part of the GE1 Polling District being transferred. On the map, the part of GE1 to the west of
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 19 November 2015 14:12 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Comments on the Review of the Ward Boundaries to Hampshire County Council
From: Peter Crerar Sent: 19 November 2015 14:09 To: reviews
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I write in respect of the Draft Boundary Proposals for Hampshire that require comments to be made before the 11th of January 2015.
I strongly support the boundaries shown in the draft recommendations for the two Aldershot Hampshire County Council Divisions for the following reasons ‐
The proposed arrangements maintain the natural communities of Aldershot Park Ward and Manor Park Ward within their entirety within a single county division. Under the current 2005 to 2017 arrangements, Manor Park Ward has been split 57%/ 43% between the town county divisions and this has divided a naturally strong community. The proposed arrangements share the areas around Aldershot Town Centre between the two divisions. This is much better than having one ward that covers the whole of the town centre and the other that is completely residential. The proposed arrangements are entirely made up of Polling Districts within Rushmoor Borough Council. While North Town Ward is divided between the two county divisions, its two polling districts are not. It would be difficult for an alternative proposal to meet electoral equality without cutting polling districts. While I recognise that the draft proposals divide North Town Ward between the two county divisions this ward lends itself better to being shared between two divisions. The Northern Polling District of North Town has late 20th Century / early 21st Century housing and is strongly connected with Wellington Ward through the top North Lane. The Southern Polling District of North Town is more like Aldershot Park with its Victorian / Edwardian terrace houses.
My only comment is that I feel that there could be more appropriate names than Aldershot East and Aldershot West.
Technically speaking the wards should be Aldershot North West and Aldershot South East.
I understand that the boundary commission prefer more simple names and therefore feel that Aldershot North and Aldershot South would be more accurate than Aldershot East and Aldershot West.
Prior to 2005, the two Aldershot Hampshire County Council divisions were called Aldershot North and Aldershot South.
1 Aldershot North and Aldershot South would also be more consistent with the two Aldershot Police Beat Areas which are Aldershot North (Rowhill and Wellington) and Aldershot South (Aldershot Park, Manor Park and North Town).
Kind regards,
Peter Crerar
Councillor for Manor Park
Rushmoor Borough Council
2 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 14 December 2015 09:11 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire Boundary changes.
From: Cllr Pat Wyeth Sent: 11 December 2015 17:27 To: reviews
Regards,Pat Cllr Pat Wyeth.
From: Cllr Pat Wyeth Sent: 09 December 2015 15:22 To: [email protected] Subject: Hampshire Boundary changes.
To The Review Officer.( Hampshire ) Dear Sir/Madam, I strongly object to the proposed Boundary changes for the Parish of Lyndhurst. The proposal is to join us with Fordingbridge a town 0f approx. 6271 population with 16 individual Parishes. We are severed by the A31,with no bus route or cycle lanes the only means of access is by car via the A31 and across open forest. We are a village with the hamlets of Bank and Emery Down with a population of approx.3176. We have 8 Parishes in the County division of Lyndhurst. To add Fordingbridge and Lyndhurst together it becomes a very large Division of 9447 population with 24 Parishes. The mileage between these Communities is totally impractical for any County Councillor to be able to serve these Areas with any degree of satisfaction both to themselves and the Communities they are supposed to represent. Where does Localisim play it's part if these proposals were to be implemented. The route that would have to be taken between the Communities is a High Risk area for Animals that have been killed between the hours of dusk and night Fall. All Parish Council Meetings are in the evening. Currently the Rural Division we are in,works well the villages have similar Planning issues, Transport concerns etc. We are all within the New Forest National Park,Lyndhurst is right in the Centre. Fordingbridge is not in the National Park,although I accept a few small Parishes are. We would prefer to maintain the Status Quo,if that is not possible,then I understand there is a second option,that joins Lyndhurst with Brockenhurst.This would be a far more manageable Division,with a joint population of 6861 and 16 Parishes. It is on a direct Bus Route there are plans for a Cycle track and could be better serviced by The County Councillor. All of the Area sit in the New Forest National Park. We understand this is purely a numbers exercise but would urge you to please consider the larger picture and to put the Local Communities and their needs first. Thank you.
Regards,Pat Cllr Pat Wyeth. *************************************************** The information in this electronic mail (email) and any appendices to it is the property of New Forest District Council. It may contain confidential information. It is intended for the addressee only. Communications using this email system may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. Please examine the full terms of this disclaimer by clicking on the following hyper link: www.newforest.gov.uk\emaildisclaimer
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: ROGER HUXSTEP
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL & HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Comment text:
I am delighted that the recommendations show the parish of Shedfield comprising the villages of Shedfield, Shirrell Heath & Waltham Chase have been retained in one division namely the Meon Valley by observing criteria of reflecting community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government, not only by stated word but as shown on the draft map. (As a comment, at yesterday's HCC's plenum it became clear there were a number of anomalies between word and map and officers are submitting separate corrections.) Thus at county level the parish council will have just one county councillor instead of having to hold two to account. This is in contrast to the Commission's deliberations on the Winchester City Council review of wards where potentially the parish council could be struggling to hold 6 district councillors to account after the 2016 local election! Not in the best interests of community cohesion as I represented at the time. Cllr Roger Huxstep 8th January 2016. PS: Your editing dictionary appears to be set up for English (American) which makes drafting responses somewhat tedious?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6573 11/01/2016
Portsmouth City to the East, Winchester City to the North and the sea to the south and Fareham Town to the West.
All the residents living in Portchester East and the majority in Portchester West relate to the services in Portchester and nowhere else.
Prior to the last Boundary change the areas of Downend and Shearwater Avenue were not in the Portchester Division but in the Fareham Division because they have no connection or ties with the remainder of Portchester. I personally believe that these areas should be again put in to the Fareham Division as they were before. If you asked these residents I am sure they would agree with my comments, unfortunately we have no Parish Council who could put a view forward.
All the residents in the Downend and Shearwater Avenue areas look towards Fareham for shopping, primary schools and local Healthcare provision. They are connected to the Fareham scene for most everyday activities, even to walk and collect the daily paper Fareham is much nearer than any shop in Portchester.
In the draft recommendations the Commission states that the Portchester community is separated from Fareham by A27 dual carriageway. This is wrong as the separation boundary between the Portchester and Fareham Town Division is actually the Delme Roundabout intersection. The A27 does not constitute a boundary between the Fareham Town and Portchester Divisions at any point. The A27 runs through the centre of the division, Portchester East and West.
Based on the above I strongly believe that Downend Road is a more sensible boundary between Portchester and Fareham Divisions as it is a main through route from the East and is used by many vehicles as a main road instead of the A27 or Motorway. Also Fareham Borough Council and Winchester City Council are separated by the road along the top of the hill which is a continuation of Downend Road. The part of Downend Road above the railway bridge also at present divides the Fareham Division (Fareham East) with Portchester Division and therefore the division should continue down to the traffic lights. It would then only be right to then carry the dividing line between Fareham and Portchester across the Downend Traffic lights and draw a boundary to the rear of the properties on the Western side of Birdwood Grove, thereby transferring, Shearwater Avenue, Magpie Close, Partridge Close, Goldcrest Close, Peacock Close, along with the West of Downend Road, The Causeway, Crest Close, The Dell, The Ridgeway, Cams Hill, Tor Close, Ventnor Way, Allum Way, St Catherines Way, Paradise Lane, Charlemont Drive and 48-51 Wallington Shore Road into the Fareham Division.
Portchester Division will then reduce to 13,229 and be just under the average number and make it more in line with the rest of the Fareham Divisions and would be made up of all Portchester East Polling districts plus Portchester West Polling districts PW1,PW2 and PW3 plus part of PW4 which excludes the above roads.
I hope that you can agree with my views and change your draft proposals in line with my comments above.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Price, Hampshire County Councillor for 22years serving Fareham Portchester Division and Fareham Borough Councillor for 44 years serving Portchester East.
2
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Stuart Parker
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Electoral Commission, We would like to comment on the draft proposals for Hampshire County Council Boundary Review and suggest some amendments. As representative for Eastrop and Grove Wards and a previous long-term representative of Brookvale and Kings Furlongs Ward we are particularly concerned about how these proposals effect these wards, Two of us have also been County Councillors for County Divisions that have covered Brookvale. There is a natural community linking Eastrop, Brookvale and King Furlong and Grove Ward. All the wards are orientated to the Town Centre and Town Centre Issues. The wards all share issue in common, such as new development, (often flats), walking/cycling to the town centre, resident and visitor parking, etc. They share many secondary and primary schools. Bringing them together would put all the Town Centre in one division. Such a County Division would have clear, strong identifiable boundaries. It would also avoid splitting borough wards and keep good electoral equality. Previously, Brookvale has been linked with Winklebury and Rooksdown ! While the current boundaries at least keep it with Eastrop (there being no obvious boundary between the two) the draft proposals link Eastrop and Brookvale with South Ham and Norden - who have little in common with Eastrop and Brookvale and even less with each other. No one in Norden goes to a South Ham school or shop and vice-versa. We feel that having previously drawn the short straw in the interest of electoral equality the town centre wards should at last have their own coherent county seat. It is important that County Councillors can have coherent Divisions so they are not dealing with excessive numbers of for example schools. Brighton Hill North and South make a good fit with the Hatch Warren and Beggarwood Ward, indeed, prior to the last boundary review the County Division covered Brighton Hill and Hatch Warren. The growth of Beggarwood made change necessary for electoral equality, but now the more natural old seat can be recreated, with its clear, strong boundaries the M3 and the A30. While under the existing County Boundaries, Brookvale and Eastrop are linked with South Ham, this was largely a matter of electoral equality. South Ham is more naturally linked to the south and west of the town. Nobody in South Ham would view themselves as living in the Town Centre. It would make sense to link South Ham with Kempshott, mirroring a similar County Division in Brighton Hill and Hatch Warren. Once again the A30 and other main roads provide clear boundaries. Popley East and West regard themselves very much as a single, place, Popley, Popley West in particular has had a lot of new development, and in this respect has a lot in common with Rooksdown Ward. Joining them is a single County Seat would give them a shared voice on issues like schools and road that serve the area. The A339 provides a natural boundary in that all the residents live north of this barrier. Popley and Rooksdown share much in common, such as the Hospital, the road network. the traffic from Newbury and Tadley. That leaves just Norden, Winklebury and Buckskin. Winklebury and Buckskin both lay north of the Railway line and South of the A339. This seat would be undersized, so it would be necessary to include part of Buckskin in the Division. Fortunately Buckskin is divided between new development to the West, older previous Council Housing to the South and to Winklebury for schools and community centres. Thank you for your consideration Councillor Stuart Parker (Eastrop) Councillor Steve Day (Grove) Councillor Ron Hussey (Grove) Councillor Gavin James (Eastrop) John Shaw (Former Councillor Brookvale and Kings Furlong) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Civic Offices, London Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 4AH
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6666 11/01/2016 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 12:19 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council Review - Southern Parishes/Meon Valley proposed divisions
From: Vivian Achwal Sent: 11 January 2016 10:43 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam
I am a Winchester District Councillor for Whiteley ward for the past 7 years and Whiteley Town Councillor for the past 12 years, this is my own personal view of the Hampshire County Council boundary proposed changes for the Southern Parishes/Meon Valley proposed divisions.
In the Hampshire Electorate data 2015 excel spreadsheet for 2016 - 2021, it doesn't account for the fact that the current Whiteley Ward has now been given planning permission in October 2015 to build 3500 more houses, the building is expected to start from 2016 over the next eight years, this will therefore increase the current 2341 electorate to approximately 8000 for Whiteley Ward.
To put Whiteley Ward along with the proposed Meon Valley division (which goes up to and beyond Exton) is not at all desirable as Whiteley Ward has nothing in common to reflect the local communities of Whiteley and Exton. I would propose that Whiteley Ward remains part of the current Southern Parishes Division (Whiteley, Wickham, Shedfield, Boarhunt and Southwick) as Whiteley and Wickham Parish Councils were at one stage one Parish until Whiteley was awarded their own Parish Council 12 years ago. Also Denmead should be part of the proposed Meon Valley County Ward, instead of Whiteley, the new Meon Valley Ward should include including Denmead,Corhampton and Meonstoke,Droxford, Exton,Hambledon, Swanmore,Warnford,West Meon and Soberton and Newtown.
-- regards
Vivian Achwal
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Victoria Weston
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Winchester City Council Councillor and Parish Councillor
Comment text:
I would like to express my regret that "Two" Parished wards are proposed in Soberton Parish for the County Electoral Division. The Parish of Soberton as been brought together under the District Boundary review. Please consider that the numbers are only small approximately 400 electors, no further development is proposed in this part of the District and acceptable variations from the average number of electors per councillor can still be achieve. Please make the Boundaries consistent with the District Boundaries for the Parish of Soberton and Newtown.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6549 08/01/2016