sign in sign up
<<
Home , Butlocks Heath, City of Winchester, The Offence

Didcot Town Council

Notice of a meeting of the

Finance & General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016 at 7.30pm All Saints Room, Civic Hall, Didcot

Admission of the public and media The council welcomes members of the public to its meetings in accordance with the Public Bodies (Admission to Meeting) Act 1960.

Reports and minutes We add reports and minutes to our website.

Recording, photographs and filming The press or public may audio-record, photograph or film meetings, or report from the meeting using social media. As such members of the public may be recorded or photographed during the meeting.

We ask that anyone wishing to record or photograph the meeting notifies the Town Clerk before the start of the meeting.

Public participation The council welcomes the public’s involvement in meetings, which must be in accordance with our rules (Standing Order 12 on a matter before the Committee).

At the relevant time during the meeting, the Chairman will invite members of the public to present their questions, statements or petitions.

To find out about participation contact the Town Clerk.

Phone: 01235ichard 812637 Chapman, Town Clerk Council Offices, Britwell Road www.didcot.gov.uk Didcot E-mail: [email protected] OX11 7HN Fax: 01235 512837

Agenda

1. To receive apologies

2. To receive declarations of interests. Members are reminded to declare any

interests they may have on any item on this agenda in accordance with Didcot

Town Council’s code of conduct.

3. To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd August 2016 (minutes

attached)

4. Questions on the minutes as to the progress of any item

5. To consider and agree grant aid applications (report attached)

6. To consider responding to a consultation on proposals for new Parliamentary

constituency boundaries (report and appendices attached)

7. To consider responding to a consultation on proposals for the local

government finance settlement 2017/18 (report and appendix attached)

8. To propose days for free Christmas parking in December (report attached)

REPORTS FOR NOTING

9. To note the financial statements and budgets as at 31st August 2016 (report

and appendices attached)

10. To note the CCTV monitoring report (report and appendix attached)

Phone: 01235ichard 812637 Chapman, Town Clerk Council Offices, Britwell Road www.didcot.gov.uk Didcot E-mail: [email protected] OX11 7HN Fax: 01235 512837

EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Public Bodies [Admission to Meetings]

Act 1960 the committee will be asked to exclude the press and public

from the meeting on the grounds that publicity would be prejudicial to

the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the

business to be transacted.

11. To consider Willowbrook Leisure Centre contract fee (restricted circulation)

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk 20th September 2016

Voting committee members: Councillors Dr S Clarke (Chairman) Mr T Harbour (Vice Chairman) Ms J Billington Mr J Louth Mrs M Davies Mr B Shaw Mr A Dearlove

Nominated substitute committee members: Councillors Mr T Bedford Dr A C Nash Mr B Cooper Dr J Nash Mr J Hart Mr A Thompson Mr R Milton-Eldridge

Phone: 01235ichard 812637 Chapman, Town Clerk Council Offices, Britwell Road www.didcot.gov.uk Didcot E-mail: [email protected] OX11 7HN Fax: 01235 512837

This page is intentionally blank

Phone: 01235ichard 812637 Chapman, Town Clerk Council Offices, Britwell Road www.didcot.gov.uk Didcot E-mail: [email protected] OX11 7HN Fax: 01235 512837

Agenda item 3

Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee Monday 22nd August 2016 at 7.30pm Didcot Civic Hall

Minutes

Note: These minutes are subject to approval as a true and correct record by the next meeting of this committee.

Present: Councillors: Dr S Clarke (Chairman) Mr B Service Mr A Dearlove Mr B Shaw Mr T Harbour Mr A Thompson (as substitute for

Ms J Billington)

Officer:

Mrs K Fiander, Town Clerk

Public participation

None

128. Apologies

Ms J Billington and Mrs M Davies tendered apologies. 129. Declarations of interests

None.

130. Minutes of the meeting held on 25th July 2016

RESOLVED to agree as a correct record the minutes of the meeting on 25th July 2016 including the exempt minutes of the meeting and that the Chairman should sign them as such.

3-1

Agenda item 3

131. Questions on the minutes as to the progress of any item

None

132. Grant aid application

The Committee considered a grant aid application from Restore for £6304.

In doing so, the Committee noted that there were 40 clients in Didcot, that Restore’s work extended beyond Didcot and that it was unclear if grant aid funding had also been sought from South District Council and/or other parish councils. As such the Committee decided that it should make the same award as in previous years with an advice to Restore to seek match-funding from District Council and to also approach parish councils in support of its activities.

The Town Clerk advised that she would ask the Committee to consider the grant aid policy at its next meeting to ascertain that it met the Council’s requirements for the provision of grant aid. She explained that the Council was awarding grant aid under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 as there was otherwise no specific legislation that permitted it unless the Council had the General Power of Competence.

RESOLVED: to award £2300 to Restore.

133. Final costs for delivery of the Town Fayre

The Committee considered the report that set out the final costs for the delivery of the Town Fayre. In response to a question, the Town Clerk advised that expenditure on staffing could have been better controlled had the project commenced earlier. Recognising that it was largely officers and councillors that ran the event supported by a small number of volunteers and that arranging such an event detracted from officers’ day jobs, it was considered that a different means of delivery should be debated in future. One proposal was that a voluntary group could take responsibility for its organisation and delivery overseen by the Mayor.

The Committee offered its sincere thanks to those involved in organising the Town Fayre.

RESOLVED: to note the report and to accommodate staff costs for the delivery of the event from the future projects budget.

REPORT FOR NOTING

134. Financial statements and budgets as at 31st July 2016

The Committee considered the financial statements and budgets as at 31st July and noted the reports.

3-2

Agenda item 3

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL

135. Amendments to the signatories on the bank mandate

The Committee considered a report that sought to update the Council’s signing mandate with its bankers.

RESOLVED: to RECOMMEND Council to update the banking arrangements to include on the bank mandate councillors from the Finance and General Purposes Committee who agree to become signatories.

136. Updates to the Council’s Financial Regulations

The Committee considered a report that explained the two reasons for updating the Council’s Financial Regulations: these being the implementation of the Public Procurement Regulations in 2015 and an audit report that recommended changes to reflect that the Council made payments via internet banking.

RESOLVED: to RECOMMEND to Council for approval the revised Financial Regulations subject to permitting the Town Clerk to make minor changes for accuracy beforehand.

EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

137. Exclusion of the press and public

RESOLVED: pursuant to Section 1 of the Public Bodies [Admission to Meetings] Act 1960 to exclude the press and public from the meeting on the grounds that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.

138. Briefing paper on the Willowbrook Leisure Centre contract (restricted circulation)

The Committee considered a confidential briefing paper on the terms of Willowbrook Leisure Centre contract.

The Committee NOTED the report1.

The meeting closed at 8.00pm

Signed______Chair Date ______

1 There are no exempt minutes accompanying this minute.

3-3

Agenda item 3

This page is intentionally blank

3-4

Agenda item 5 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

Report author: Teresa Tye/ Kathy Fiander

Grant Aid applications

Introduction

1. The Committee is asked to consider the grant aid applications set out in this report.

Recommendation

2. The Committee should consider the grant aid applications and agree an amount to award if the Committee decides to fund the applications.

Background

3. Didcot Town Council has a policy of providing grant funding for organisations.

4. The following applications are summarised below for consideration.

a) Homestart Date received: 16th August 2016 Amount: £3,332 Application summary: Weekly support group for first time parents, based at the Ladygrove Children’s Centre. The group helps parents make new friends, offer play opportunities etc. Previous awards/ £900 31.03.2014 applications in the current £500 25.05.2013 and the preceding 2 financial years: Supporting documentation Application form and supporting held in the office: information as required

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 5-1 Agenda item 5

b) Didcot Events Date received: 19th September 2016 Amount: £9,000 Application summary: To provide an outdoor firework event organised by the community for the community. Previous awards/ None applications in the current and the preceding 2 financial years: Supporting documentation Application form and supporting held in the office: information as required

Financial Implications

5. The amount available within the grant aid budget is £22,737.50.

Legal Implications

6. The Council can give grants to organisations and the Council sets out its rules within its grants policy

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 5-2 Agenda item 6 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

RReport author: Kathy Fiander

Consultation on proposals for revised parliamentary constituency boundaries

Introduction

1. This report asks the Committee to consider proposals on revised parliamentary constituency boundaries.

Recommendation

2. The Committee should agree its response to the consultation on proposals for a revised boundary for the parliamentary constituency of Wantage.

Background

3. The Boundary Commission for recently published details of its 2018 review of parliamentary constituencies on which it is consulting.

4. Attached is a document setting out the proposals for the South East region. Within it references to the Wantage constituency and Oxfordshire have been highlighted in yellow. Also attached are two maps: the first shows the existing and proposed constituency boundaries. The second shows constituency boundaries with polling districts. Boundaries shown are as follows: a. Blue – existing constituencies b. Red – initial proposal c. Pink – polling districts

5. One observation is that proposals do not reflect the new parish boundaries between Didcot (North-East) and Long Wittenham. Therefore the Boundary Commission’s proposal is that the area of Didcot bounded by the B4016 i.e. Ladygrove North-East development, which has outline planning consent, would be in a different constituency to the rest of Didcot.

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 6-1 Agenda item 6

6. The Committee is asked to consider the report and maps and suggest a response for submission to the Boundary Commission for England.

7. During the consultation the Boundary Commission for England will visit the South East region and hold five public hearings. One of these events will take place in on 24th to 25th October.

Financial and Legal Implications

8. None

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 6-2 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region Contents

Summary 3

1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5

2 Background to the 2018 Review 7

3 Initial proposals for the South East region 11

Initial proposals for the sub-region 12

Initial proposals for the , , 13 , and sub-region

Initial proposals for the sub-region 16

Initial proposals for the 17 and Milton Keynes sub-region

Initial proposals for the , 18 and sub-region

Initial proposals for the sub-region 20

Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub-region 20

Initial proposals for the sub-region 21

4 How to have your say 23

Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, 27 including wards and electorates

Glossary 53

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 1 Summary

Who we are and what we do Our proposals leave 15 of the 84 existing constituencies unchanged. We propose The Boundary Commission for England only minor changes to a further 47 is an independent and impartial constituencies, with two wards or fewer non ‑departmental public body which is altered from the existing constituencies. responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The rules that we work to state that we must allocate two constituencies to the Isle The 2018 Review of Wight. Neither of these constituencies is required to have an electorate that is within We have the task of periodically reviewing the requirements on electoral size set out the boundaries of all the Parliamentary in the rules. constituencies in England. We are currently conducting a review on the basis of rules In Berkshire, two of the eight existing set by Parliament in 2011. The rules tell constituencies are unchanged, while four are us that we must make recommendations changed only by the transfer of one ward. for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in September 2018. They In Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, also result in a significant reduction in Kent, and Medway, two of the 25 existing the number of constituencies in England constituencies are unaltered and one is (from 533 to 501), and require that every reconfigured slightly due to rewarding. constituency – apart from two specified A further four are altered only by the exceptions – must have an electorate that transfer of one ward. is no smaller than 71,031 and no larger than 78,507. In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, one of the seven existing constituencies is Initial proposals unchanged.

We published our initial proposals for In Hampshire, Portsmouth, and the new Parliamentary constituency Southampton, three of the 18 existing boundaries in England on 13 September constituencies are unaltered, while a 2016. Information about the proposed further four are altered only by the transfer constituencies is now available on our of one ward. website. In the County of Oxfordshire, one of the What is changing in the six existing constituencies is unchanged, South East? while one is changed only by the transfer of one ward. The South East region has been allocated 83 constituencies – a reduction of one from In Surrey, five of the existing 11 the current number. constituencies are unaltered, while three of the remaining six are altered only by the transfer of one ward.

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 3 Sub‑region Existing allocation Proposed allocation Berkshire 8 8 Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway 25 24 Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes 7 7 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton 18 17 Isle of Wight 1 2 Oxfordshire 6 6 Surrey 11 11 West Sussex 8 8

In West Sussex, one of the existing eight We further propose two constituencies that constituencies is unchanged and one is contain electors from Kent, and Medway. reconfigured slightly due to rewarding. One crosses the boundary at Higham, A further five are changed only by the combining it with Rochester, and the other transfer of one ward. at Chatham, combining it with East and West Malling. As it has not always been possible to allocate whole numbers of constituencies How to have your say to individual counties, we have grouped some county and local authority areas We are consulting on our initial proposals into sub-regions. The number of for a 12-week period, from 13 September constituencies allocated to each sub-region 2016 to 5 December 2016. We encourage is determined by the electorate of the everyone to use this opportunity to help combined local authorities. us shape the new constituencies – the more views we hear, the more informed our Consequently, it has been necessary to decisions will be when considering whether propose some constituencies that cross to revise our proposals. county or unitary authority boundaries. Our website at www.bce2018.org.uk has We have proposed one constituency more information about how to respond that contains electors from Brighton and as well as details of where and when we Hove, and East Sussex; it crosses the will be holding public hearings in your boundary on the south coast, combining area. You can also follow us on Twitter the east of the City of Brighton and Hove @BCE2018 or using #2018boundaryreview. with Newhaven and Seaford. We propose one constituency that contains electors from East Sussex and Kent; it crosses the boundary at The Weald, combining the towns of Crowborough and Tenterden.

4 Boundary Commission for England 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England?

1 The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and You can find further information on our impartial non‑departmental public body website, at www.bce2018.org.uk. You which is required to review Parliamentary can also contact us with any general constituency boundaries in England. We enquiries by emailing information@ conduct a review of all the constituencies boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk, in England every five years. Our role is to or by calling 020 7276 1102. make recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries.

2 The Chair of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he does not participate in the review. The current Deputy Chair, Mrs Justice Patterson, and two further Commissioners, take decisions on proposals and recommendations for new constituency boundaries. Further information about the Commissioners can be found on our website.1

1 At www.bce2018.org.uk

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review

3 We are currently conducting a review 5 This is a significant change to the old of Parliamentary constituency boundaries rules under which Parliamentary boundary on the basis of rules set by Parliament in reviews took place, in which achieving as 2011. 2 These rules require us to reduce the close to the average number of electors number of constituencies in the UK and in each constituency was an aim, but make more equal the number of electors in there was no statutory fixed permissible each constituency. This report covers only range. For example, in England, existing the work of the Boundary Commission for constituencies (drawn under the previous England (there are separate Commissions rules) currently range from 54,232 to for Northern Ireland, , and ) 105,448 electors. Furthermore, the current and, in particular, introduces our initial constituencies were constructed under the proposals for the South East region. last completed review, which relied on the data contained in the electoral registers for 4 The rules set out in the legislation 2000 and applied the earlier version of the state that there will be 600 Parliamentary rules. Achieving a more even distribution constituencies covering the UK – of electors in every constituency across a reduction of 50 from the current England, together with the reduction in number. This means that the number of the total number of constituencies, means constituencies in England must be reduced that a significant amount of change to the from 533 to 501. There are also other existing map of constituencies is inevitable. rules that the Commission has regard to when conducting the review – a full set 6 Our Guide to the 2018 Review of the rules can be found in our Guide to contains further detailed background the 2018 Review3 published in summer information, and explains all the policies 2016, but they are also summarised later and procedures that we are following in in this chapter. Most significantly, the rules conducting the review. We encourage require every constituency we recommend anyone wishing to be involved in the review (with the exception of two covering the Isle to read this document, which will give them of Wight) to contain no fewer than 71,031 a greater understanding of the rules and electors and no more than 78,507. constraints placed on the Commission, especially if they are intending to comment on our initial proposals.

2 The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, available at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/contents 3 Available at www.bce2018.org.uk and at all places of deposit

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 7 The rules in the legislation 9 Although the first review under the new rules will unavoidably result in 7 As well as the primary rule that significant change, we have also taken constituencies must have no fewer than into account the boundaries of existing 71,031 electors and no more than 78,507, constituencies so far as we can. We have the legislation also states that, when tried to retain existing constituencies deciding on boundaries, the Commission as part of our initial proposals wherever may also take into account: possible, as long as the other factors can also be satisfied. This, however, has proved • special geographical considerations, difficult. Our initial proposals retain just including in particular the size, shape under 18% of the existing constituencies in and accessibility of a constituency; the South East region – the remainder are • local government boundaries as they new constituencies (although in a number existed on 7 May 2015; of cases we have been able to limit the • boundaries of existing constituencies; changes to existing constituencies, making and only minor changes as necessary to enable • any local ties that would be broken by us to comply with the rules). changes in constituencies. 10 Our proposals are based on the 8 In addition, in relation to local nine regions used for European elections government boundaries in particular, it (though it should be clear that our work should be noted that we are obliged to take has no effect on European electoral into account local government boundaries matters, nor is it affected by the recent as they existed in May 2015, rather than any referendum result). This report relates to subsequent changes that may have been the South East region. There are eight made (or are due to be made). Our initial other separate reports containing our initial proposals for the South East region (and the proposals for the other regions. You can accompanying maps) are therefore based on find more details on our website. While this local government boundaries as they existed approach does not prevent anyone from in May 2015. Our Guide to the 2018 Review making proposals to us that cross regional outlines further our policy on how, and to boundaries (for example, between the what extent, we take into account local South East and the South West regions), government boundaries. We have used the very compelling reasons would need to wards as at May 2015 of unitary authorities, be given to persuade the Commission to and borough and district councils (in areas depart from the region-based approach. where there is also a county council) as the The Commission has previously consulted basic building blocks for our proposals. on the use of the regions as building blocks, and this was supported.

8 Boundary Commission for England Timetable for our review Stage two – consultation on initial proposals Stage one – development of initial proposals 13 We are consulting on our initial proposals for 12 weeks, until 5 December 11 We began this review in February 2016. Chapter 4 outlines how you can 2016. We published electorate data contribute during the consultation period. from December 2015 for each ward, We are also hosting five public hearings in local government authority, and existing the South East region, at which people can constituency. The electorate data were give their views direct to one of our Assistant provided by local authorities and the Office Commissioners. Once the consultation has for National Statistics. These are available closed, the Commission will collate all the on our website4 and are the data that must responses received, including records of the be used throughout the remainder of the public hearings. review process. The Commission has since then considered the factors outlined Stage three – above and drawn up the initial proposals. consultation on representations We published our initial proposals for received consultation for each of England’s nine regions on 13 September 2016. 14 We are required to publish all the responses we receive on our initial 12 We ask people to be aware that, in proposals. This publication will mark publishing our initial proposals, we do so the start of a four‑week ‘secondary without suggesting that they are in some consultation’ period, likely to take place in way definitive, or that they provide the ‘right spring 2017. The purpose of the secondary answer’ – they are our starting point for consultation is for people to see what consulting on the changes. We have taken others have said in response to our initial into account the existing constituencies, proposals, and to make comments on local government boundaries, and their views, for example by countering an geographical features to produce a set of argument, or by supporting and reinforcing constituencies that are within the statutory what others have said. You will be able to electorate range and that we consider to see all the comments on our website, and be the best balance between those factors use the site to give us your views on what at this point. What we do not yet have others have said. is evidence and intelligence of how our proposals reflect or break local community ties. One of the most important purposes of the consultation period is to seek evidence that will enable us to review our initial proposals.

4 At www.bce2018.org.uk

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 9 Stage four – Stage five – development and publication of development and publication of the revised proposals final report and recommendations

15 Once we have all the representations 16 Finally, following the consultation and comments from both the initial on revised proposals, we will consider and secondary consultation periods, all the evidence received at this stage, the Commission will analyse those and throughout the review, before representations and decide whether determining our final recommendations. changes should be made to the initial The recommendations will be set out in a proposals. If we decide that the evidence published report to the Government, who presented to us persuades us to change will present it, without amendment, to our initial proposals, then we must publish Parliament on our behalf. The legislation our revised proposals for the areas states that we must report to the concerned, and consult on them for a Government in September 2018. Further further period of eight weeks. This is likely details about what the Government to be towards the end of 2017. When we and Parliament then do with our consult on our revised proposals, there recommendations are contained in our will be no further public hearings, nor will Guide to the 2018 Review. there be a repeat of the four‑week period for commenting on the representations 17 Throughout each consultation we will of others. You will be able to see all our be taking all reasonable steps to publicise revised proposals, and give us your views our proposals, so that as many people as on them, on our website. possible are aware of the consultation and can take the opportunity to contribute to our review of constituencies.

10 Boundary Commission for England 3 Initial proposals for the South East region

18 The South East region comprises the 22 Our division of the South East region counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, into sub-regions is a purely practical East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, approach. We welcome counter-proposals Oxfordshire, Surrey, and West Sussex from respondents to our consultation, (all of which are covered by a mix of based on other groupings of counties and district and county councils, and unitary unitary authorities, if the statutory factors authorities) and the unitary authorities can be better reflected in those counter- of Brighton and Hove, Isle of Wight, proposals. Medway, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth and Southampton. 23 The City of Brighton and Hove has 183,038 electors, which would result in an 19 The region currently has 84 allocation of 2.45 constituencies. Given constituencies. Of the existing its historic links to East Sussex and the constituencies, 40 have electorates within current configuration of constituencies, 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates we considered it would be appropriate of 32 constituencies fall below the 5% limit, to combine East Sussex with the City while the electorates of 12 constituencies of Brighton and Hove when formulating are above the upper limit. Our initial a pattern of constituencies. With an proposals for the South East region are for allocation of eight constituencies, the 83 constituencies, a reduction of one. average electorate for each constituency would be 70,783 – just 248 electors below 20 As discussed in chapter 2, the the lower limit (71,031) of the 5% target. rules that govern how we conduct the This suggests that it would prove difficult review state that we must allocate two to allocate eight constituencies all with constituencies to the Isle of Wight. Neither electorates within the 5% electoral quota. of these constituencies is required to We therefore considered whether we have an electorate that is within 5% of the should group the City of Brighton and electoral quota. Hove, and East Sussex, with either Kent, and Medway, or West Sussex. 21 In seeking to produce initial proposals for the region in which 81 of 24 With an electorate of 598,549 it is the 83 constituencies have an electorate possible to allocate eight constituencies within 5% of the electoral quota, we first to West Sussex, which is the same considered whether, and how, the local number as present. The electorate of authorities could usefully be grouped into Kent, and Medway is 1,227,088, and it is sub-regions. We were mindful of seeking possible to allocate 16 constituencies, a to respect, where we could, the external reduction of one from the current situation. boundaries of the local authorities. Our As there would need to be significant approach in attempting to group local change to some of the constituencies in authorities together in sub-regions was Kent to accommodate this reduction, we based both on trying to respect county considered that grouping Brighton and boundaries wherever possible and on Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway achieving (where we could) obvious into one sub-region, with an allocation practical groupings such as those dictated of 24 constituencies, would be the most in some part by the geography of the area. appropriate solution and produce better

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 11 proposals. As a result our proposals 27 The electorates of the counties contain one constituency which crosses of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and the boundary between the City of Brighton West Sussex enable each of them to be and Hove and the County of East Sussex, allocated a whole number of constituencies and one constituency that crosses the with electorates within 5% of the electoral boundary between East Sussex and quota, therefore allowing us to consider Kent. Two constituencies also cross the them individually. Accordingly, we propose boundary between Kent, and Medway (see that eight constituencies be allocated to the section on the Brighton and Hove, East Berkshire, six to Oxfordshire, 11 to Surrey Sussex, Kent, and Medway sub-region). and eight to West Sussex. The number of constituencies allocated to each of these 25 The electorate of Milton Keynes, at counties is the same as at present. 169,933, is too large to be contained within two whole constituencies. Therefore we 28 Having developed our initial proposals propose to group Milton Keynes with for the South East region, we are Buckinghamshire in one sub-region, given proposing to retain unchanged 15 of the that Buckinghamshire is the only county in existing constituencies. the South East region that shares a border with Milton Keynes. As it has a combined 29 The term ‘ward’ used throughout this electorate of 536,534, we propose to document should be taken to mean electoral allocate seven constituencies to this sub- division in reference to the Isle of Wight. region, the same number as at present. Our proposals include one constituency Initial proposals for the Berkshire which crosses the boundary between sub-region Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire (see the section on the Buckinghamshire and 30 There are currently eight Milton Keynes sub-region). constituencies in this county. We are proposing no change to the number 26 The area of Hampshire, Portsmouth of constituencies. Of the existing and Southampton has an electorate of constituencies, four (, 1,273,506. This enabled us to develop a Maidenhead, , and Wokingham) proposal in which 17 constituencies are have electorates within 5% of the allocated to the area without the need to electoral quota. Of the remaining four cross the boundary of another county. constituencies, Newbury is over the 5% This is a reduction of one constituency electoral quota and Reading East, Windsor, from the existing allocation. Of the and Reading West are all below the 5% proposed constituencies, one crosses the electoral quota. boundary between Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth. We have proposed 31 In order to reduce the large electorate two constituencies covering the City of in the Newbury constituency, we Southampton, neither of which crosses propose transferring the the boundary with Hampshire (see the Borough ward of Aldermaston to the section on the Hampshire, Portsmouth Wokingham constituency. In order to and Southampton sub-region). ensure the Reading East and Reading

12 Boundary Commission for England West constituencies are within 5% of the We propose to reduce the number of electoral quota, we propose to transfer constituencies to 24. the Wokingham Borough ward of Maiden Erlegh to the Reading East constituency 35 We considered whether we could and the ward of Mapledurham from the leave unchanged any of the eight existing Reading East constituency to the Reading constituencies that have an electorate West constituency. within 5% of the electoral quota. However, in developing proposals in which all the 32 To increase the number of electors proposed electorates are within 5% of the in the Windsor constituency, we propose electoral quota and taking account of the transferring the Chalvey ward to it reduction in the number of constituencies from the Slough constituency. We did in this sub-region, we propose changing consider whether other wards in Slough all but three constituencies – , Borough could be included in the Windsor and Rye, and Sittingbourne and constituency in order to ensure it met the Sheppey. However, we propose only minor electoral quota. However, we identified changes to the constituencies of Dartford, that including other wards would result in Folkestone and Hythe, Gillingham and the Slough constituency being detached Rainham, and Rochester and Strood. or require the inclusion of multiple wards. We considered whether a ward from 36 The existing constituencies of Brighton, Buckinghamshire county could be included Pavilion, and Brighton, Kemptown, and in the Windsor constituency but were of Hove have electorates which are below the view that crossing the county boundary the 5% limit. Therefore we propose was not necessary. reconfiguring these constituencies.

33 We propose to keep unaltered 37 We propose a Brighton Central and the constituencies of Bracknell and Hove constituency similar to the existing Maidenhead, both of which are within 5% Hove constituency that now includes of the electoral quota. the City of Brighton and Hove wards of Regency, and St. Peter’s and North Initial proposals for the Brighton and Laine, which were previously included in Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway the Brighton, Pavilion constituency. The sub-region other change we propose to the Hove constituency is to transfer the ward of Hove 34 There are currently 25 constituencies Park to the Brighton Pavilion constituency. in this sub-region. Of the existing To further increase the electorate in the constituencies, eight have electorates Brighton Pavilion constituency, we propose within 5% of the electoral quota (Battle that it includes the wards of Moulsecoomb and Bexhill, Dartford, Dover, Eastbourne, and Bevendean, and Woodingdean, which Hastings and Rye, Rochester and were previously included in the Brighton, Strood, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and Kemptown constituency. In light of these ). Of the remaining modifications we propose to rename the constituencies, three are above the Brighton Pavilion constituency Brighton 5% limit and 14 are below the 5% limit. North, as we consider this better reflects the area covered by the constituency.

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 13 38 Due to the small electorates of the propose to retain the existing Eastbourne neighbouring Brighton, Kemptown and constituency: the boundaries of this Lewes constituencies, we propose a constituency have required small changes Brighton East and Newhaven constituency to ensure they reflect changes to local that contains seven wards from the government ward boundaries in the District existing Brighton, Kemptown constituency, of Wealden, but no electors have been three of which are City of Brighton and affected. Hove wards, and four of which are District of Lewes wards. In addition, our proposed 42 As a result of the changes we have constituency includes a further seven made in East Sussex, we propose a wards of the District of Lewes, from the constituency called High Weald that existing Lewes constituency. This means crosses the county boundary between that our proposed Brighton East and Kent and East Sussex. We considered that Newhaven constituency follows the south the similarity of areas on both sides of the coast, includes the town of Seaford and county boundary and the geographical has the A259 as a spine road through the nature of the Weald meant that this was constituency. the most suitable place in which to create a constituency across the county boundary. 39 As a consequence, we propose a The proposed High Weald constituency significantly modified Lewes constituency. includes the remaining nine wards of the This constituency includes 14 wards existing Wealden constituency, including from the existing Lewes constituency the town of Crowborough, and the and 12 wards from the existing Wealden remaining five wards of the existing Bexhill constituency, including the wards and Battle constituency, including the town that cover the town of Uckfield. This of Robertsbridge. In addition, it includes constituency would include the areas four Borough of Tunbridge Wells wards, of Lewes, Uckfield, Polegate and parts including the town of Cranbrook, and of the Ashdown Forest. As a result we seven wards, including propose that this constituency is named the areas of Tenterden and Biddenden. Lewes and Uckfield. We consider that, among others, the A21, A268 and A28 provide good road links in 40 We propose a new Bexhill and Battle the constituency. constituency comprising almost half of the existing Bexhill and Battle constituency: it 43 As a result of our proposed High Weald includes 16 wards from that constituency, constituency, the existing Tunbridge Wells encompassing the towns of Bexhill and constituency has to be reconfigured in order Heathfield. In addition, our Bexhill and to have an electorate that is within 5% of the Battle constituency includes three wards electoral quota. Our proposed Tunbridge from the existing Wealden constituency, Wells constituency includes 16 wards of including the town of Hailsham. the existing constituency, including the town of Tunbridge Wells, and five District 41 As previously mentioned, we propose of wards from the existing to retain the existing Hastings and Tonbridge and Malling constituency, Rye constituency unchanged. We also including the town of Edenbridge.

14 Boundary Commission for England 44 The existing Tonbridge and Malling we propose no further changes to the constituency has been significantly Dartford constituency, which will be reconfigured due to changes elsewhere. coterminous with Dartford Borough. As a result we propose a Tonbridge and We also propose that the Borough of The Weald constituency that includes ward of Higham is transferred nine wards from the existing Tonbridge from the Gravesham constituency to the and Malling constituency, four wards Rochester and Strood constituency. Apart from the existing Maidstone and The from the inclusion of this ward, we propose Weald constituency, including the village no further changes to the Rochester and of Staplehurst, and seven wards from Strood constituency. the existing Faversham and Mid Kent constituency, including the villages of 48 Our proposed Gillingham and Headcorn and Harrietsham. Rainham constituency is largely unchanged, apart from the inclusion 45 Our proposed Maidstone constituency of the Lordswood and Capstone ward is significantly different from the existing from the existing Chatham and Aylesford Maidstone and The Weald constituency. constituency. In addition to the transfer We propose a more compact Maidstone of this ward, we propose further changes constituency, comprising the whole of the to the existing Chatham and Aylesford town of Maidstone and the outlying villages constituency. We have also included in this of Barming, Bearsted and Otham. constituency four wards from the existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency, 46 To increase the electorate of the including the towns of East Malling Sevenoaks constituency, we propose to and West Malling. As a result of these include all wards included in the existing changes, we propose that the Chatham Sevenoaks constituency, apart from the and Aylesford constituency is renamed Ash and New Ash Green ward, which Chatham and The Mallings. As previously has been transferred to our proposed mentioned, our proposed Sittingbourne Gravesham constituency (detailed and Sheppey constituency remains below), and three wards from the existing unchanged from the existing constituency. Tonbridge and Malling constituency, including the town of Borough Green. 49 As a result of our changes elsewhere in Kent, we propose significantly 47 Our proposed Gravesham reconfigured constituencies of Ashford, constituency is similar to the existing Canterbury and Faversham, and North constituency. However, we do propose Kent Coastal. changes to ensure that the neighbouring constituencies of Dartford, and Rochester 50 Our proposed Ashford constituency and Strood are within 5% of the electoral includes 27 wards from the current quota. We propose that the District of Ashford constituency and includes the Sevenoaks ward of Hartley and Hodsoll Borough of Ashford ward of Saxon Shore, Street is transferred from the existing from the existing Folkestone and Hythe Dartford constituency to the Gravesham constituency. This results in a more constituency. Apart from this change, compact urban constituency which has the

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 15 town of Ashford at its centre. Apart from Initial proposals for the West Sussex the change detailed above, we propose no sub-region other changes to the Folkestone and Hythe constituency. 55 There are currently eight constituencies in the County of West 51 Our proposed Canterbury and Sussex. We are proposing no change to Faversham constituency includes ten the existing number of constituencies. wards from the existing Canterbury Five of the existing constituencies have constituency, including the town of electorates within 5% of the electoral Canterbury, six wards from the existing quota. The electorates of Mid Sussex and Faversham and Mid Kent constituency, are above the 5% limit and including the town of Faversham, and is below the 5% limit. two wards from the existing Dover constituency. We consider that the A2 56 We considered whether we could provides a clear road link through this leave unchanged any of the five existing constituency. constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. In 52 As a consequence of these changes, developing proposals in which all the we propose that the two District of Dover constituency electorates are within 5% wards of Little Stour and Ashstone, and of the electoral quota we propose no Sandwich are included in the Dover alterations to the East and constituency to ensure it is within 5% of Shoreham constituency. Otherwise, the electoral quota. we propose changes to all other constituencies in the county; on the whole 53 The changes we have suggested these changes are relatively minor. elsewhere in Kent have led us to propose a new Thanet East constituency, which 57 In order to reduce the number of comprises the majority of the existing electors in the Chichester constituency, South Thanet constituency and five we propose to transfer the Plaistow ward wards from the existing North Thanet of the District of Chichester to the Arundel constituency. The proposed Thanet and constituency. This East constituency encompasses the results in the Chichester constituency resort towns of Margate, Ramsgate and being within 5% of the electoral quota. Broadstairs. To reduce the number of electors in the Mid Sussex constituency we propose to 54 As a result, our proposed North transfer the Bolney ward of the District Kent Coastal constituency comprises the of Mid Sussex to the Arundel and South remainder of the wards in the North Thanet Downs constituency. The transfer of constituency, and the towns of Herne Bay this ward results in the Mid Sussex and Westgate-on-Sea. This constituency constituency being within 5% of the also includes five wards from the existing electoral quota. However, the inclusion of Canterbury constituency, including the both these wards in the Arundel and South coastal town of Whitstable, which provides Downs constituency results in it being a further section of the North Kent coast. above the 5% limit. Therefore, we propose

16 Boundary Commission for England to include the Barnham ward of the quota. Of the remaining constituencies, District of Arun in the Bognor Regis and Milton Keynes North and Milton Keynes Littlehampton constituency. This results South are above the 5% limit and Chesham in both the constituencies of Arundel and and Amersham is below. South Downs, and Bognor Regis and Littlehampton being within 5% of the 62 We considered whether we could electoral quota. leave unchanged any of the four existing constituencies that have an electorate 58 To the east of these constituencies within 5% of the electoral quota. We we are proposing limited changes to the propose keeping Beaconsfield the same existing Worthing West constituency. as the existing constituency. These changes have been necessary following modifications to the local 63 The is government ward boundaries in the currently divided into two constituencies, District of Arun. both of which have electorates above the 5% limit. Additionally, the local government 59 To increase the number of electors ward boundaries in the borough have in the Crawley constituency we propose also been modified. In order to reduce to transfer to it the District of Mid Sussex the electorates of the two Milton Keynes ward of Copthorne and Worth from the constituencies it is necessary to cross Horsham constituency. The inclusion of the boundary between the Borough of this ward results in both the Crawley and Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire. Horsham constituencies being within 5% We therefore propose to include the of the electoral quota. Wolverton and Stony Stratford wards of the Borough of Milton Keynes in our proposed Initial proposals for the Buckingham constituency. We consider Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes these two wards the most appropriate to sub-region include in a cross-county constituency due to the communication links between 60 As mentioned previously, we decided the county and the borough. We did that Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire investigate whether to include wards from should be considered as one sub-region the Bletchley area in the Buckingham as it would be necessary to cross the constituency, but considered this would be boundary to achieve the electoral quota. likely to divide the Bletchley area between The geographic position of Milton Keynes constituencies. meant that this could only be achieved by considering it with the County of 64 As a consequence, we propose Buckinghamshire. There are currently that our Milton Keynes Newport Pagnell seven constituencies in this sub-region. constituency include the wards of We are proposing no reduction in the Danesborough & Walton, Monkston, number of constituencies. Campbell Park & Old Woughton, and Woughton & Fishermead. In turn, the 61 Of the existing constituencies, four wards of Bradwell and Stantonbury have electorates within 5% of the electoral are transferred to the Milton Keynes

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 17 Bletchley constituency from the existing the other ten constituencies are below the Milton Keynes North constituency. 5% lower limit. We propose to allocate 17 constituencies to this sub-region, 65 The inclusion of the two Borough a reduction of one from the current of Milton Keynes wards in the cross- arrangement. county constituency has led us to transfer the District of Aylesbury Vale 68 We considered whether we could wards of Edlesborough, Pitstone & leave unchanged any of the eight existing Cheddington, Oakfield & Bierton, constituencies that have an electorate Watermead, and Wingrave from the within 5% of the electoral quota. However, Buckingham constituency to the Aylesbury in developing proposals in which all constituency. We note that these changes constituencies are within 5% of the result in an Aylesbury constituency that is electoral quota we propose altering all but a slightly unusual shape as it wraps around three of these constituencies – , the edge of the region, but considered that and . alternative boundaries would not result in a pattern of constituencies that were 69 In the north of the county, we propose within 5% of the electoral quota. significant changes to the existing constituencies. This is required to ensure 66 We propose that the Chesham and that all constituencies are within 5% of Amersham constituency, which currently the electoral quota and to accommodate has an electorate below 5% of the electoral the loss of a constituency. We propose an quota, include the District of Wycombe constituency that includes the wards of Lacey Green, Speen and the District of Hart wards of Crookham East, Hampdens, and Greater Hughenden, from and Crookham West and Ewshot. This the south-east of the existing Aylesbury constituency no longer includes any of the constituency. Our proposed Wycombe area. We propose that the Yateley constituency includes the wards of Bledlow area is included in a modified North East and Bradenham, and Stokenchurch and Hampshire constituency, with the areas of Radnage. We consider that there are Holybourne and Alton. strong communication links within each of these constituencies. 70 As a consequence of these changes we propose significantly reconfigured Initial proposals for the Hampshire, constituencies of North West Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton and . We propose that the sub-region Borough of wards of Pamber and Silchester, Bramley and 67 There are currently 18 constituencies Sherfield, and Sherborne St. John are in this sub-region, eight of which transferred from the North (Basingstoke, Eastleigh, , constituency to the North West Hampshire Gosport, Meon Valley, New Forest East, constituency. Consequently, we propose North East Hampshire, and North West to include the District of Test Valley wards Hampshire) have electorates within 5% of Anna, Amport, and Penton Bellinger in of the electoral quota. The electorates of our proposed Test Valley constituency.

18 Boundary Commission for England To ensure the Test Valley constituency is constituency include the City of within 5% of the electoral quota and to ward of from the existing Meon accommodate the loss of a constituency Valley constituency. In order to increase in the sub-region, we propose to include the number of electors in the Portsmouth the Twyford and Compton areas of the North constituency, we propose that it Borough of Winchester and the Hiltingbury include the Borough of wards of and Chandler’s Ford areas of the Borough Purbrook and Stakes, which are currently of Eastleigh in our Test Valley constituency. located in the existing Havant constituency. As a result of this change, we are able to 71 In the south-west of the county, our increase the electorate in the Portsmouth New Forest East and New Forest West South constituency. We noted that constituencies are largely similar to the either of the City of Portsmouth wards existing constituencies. To increase the of Baffins or Nelson could be included number of electors in the New Forest West in the Portsmouth South constituency to constituency, we propose to include the bring it within 5% of the electoral quota. ward of Boldre and Sway from the New We propose to include the Nelson ward Forest East constituency. This change in the Portsmouth South constituency, results in the New Forest East constituency as we considered this resulted in more of being below the 5% limit. Consequently, Portsmouth Harbour being included in a we propose that the Borough of Test Valley single constituency, but would welcome wards of Blackwater and Dun Valley are representations considering whether this transferred to it from the existing or the Baffins ward more appropriately and Southampton North constituency. reflects this area. As a consequence of our changes in Portsmouth, the Havant 72 In Southampton, we propose constituency would be below the 5% limit. to include the City of Southampton To increase its electorate we propose to wards of Bassett and Swaythling in our include the wards of Southampton Test constituency. This Hart Plain, Cowplain, and Waterloo in the has enabled us to transfer the City of Havant constituency. These wards were Southampton ward of Bevois to our previously included in the existing Meon Southampton Itchen constituency. This Valley constituency. results in both the Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen constituencies 74 As a consequence of our changes being within 5% of the electoral quota in the county, we propose significantly and means that all wards of the City of modified constituencies of Winchester Southampton are included in Southampton and East Hampshire. This has been constituencies. necessary to ensure both constituencies are within 5% of the electoral quota and to 73 We propose relatively minor accommodate the loss of a constituency. changes to the existing constituencies We propose a Winchester constituency of Fareham, Havant, Portsmouth North, that has expanded south to include ten and Portsmouth South. Our Fareham City of Winchester wards, including the constituency is largely unchanged from area of Bishop’s Waltham. Our proposed the existing one. We propose that this East Hampshire constituency has also

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 19 expanded south to include seven District of 79 We considered whether we could East Hampshire wards, including the areas leave unchanged any of the three existing of Clanfield and . constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. We Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight propose no change to the constituency sub-region of Witney.

75 As discussed earlier, the Isle of 80 To reduce the electorate of the Wight is specifically allocated two whole existing Banbury constituency, which is constituencies. While the legislation does too large, we propose to transfer the wards not state that the two constituencies of Fringford, Launton, and Ambrosden should have similar electorates, we & Chesterton (located in the Borough of considered that it would be in accordance Cherwell) to our renamed Henley and with the spirit of the legislation to divide Thame constituency. As we have altered the island relatively equally in terms of the existing Banbury constituency, we electorate. We will, however, consider propose to rename the constituency representations that do not follow this Banbury and Bicester to reflect the approach, given that there is no legislative names of the two largest towns. Our necessity to do so. proposed Henley and Thame constituency extends further north than the existing 76 We considered a number of Henley constituency. It extends up to, but configurations for dividing the island does not include, the town of Bicester. between constituencies. We propose to In the south of our Henley and Thame divide the island into Isle of Wight East and constituency, we propose that it includes Isle of Wight West constituencies. Both are the ward of Wallingford from the existing similar in terms of geographical size and Wantage constituency and, to ensure the we considered this ensured an element constituency remains within 5% of the of rural and coastal communities in both electoral quota, we propose to transfer the constituencies. wards of Wheatley, Garsington & Horspath, and Sandford & The Wittenhams to our Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. sub-region The inclusion of these wards also reflects changes to the local government ward 77 There are currently six constituencies boundaries in the District of South in the County of Oxfordshire. We are Oxfordshire. proposing no change to the number of constituencies. 81 The existing Oxford East constituency currently has an electorate below 5% of 78 Three of the existing constituencies the electoral quota. In order to increase (Henley, Oxford West and Abingdon, and the number of electors in this constituency, Witney) have electorates within 5% of the we propose to include the wards of North electoral quota. Of the remaining three and St. Margaret’s (located in the City of constituencies, Banbury and Wantage have Oxford) in our Oxford East constituency. electorates above the 5% limit and Oxford East is below the 5% limit.

20 Boundary Commission for England 82 In order to reflect changes to local propose including the Byfleet ward in this government ward boundaries in the District constituency from the existing Woking of the , we propose that constituency. the whole of the Thames ward be included in our Wantage constituency. 86 In addition to transferring the Byfleet ward, we propose other changes to Initial proposals for the Surrey the existing Woking constituency. We sub-region propose including the Bisley ward from the existing constituency in 83 There are currently 11 constituencies our Woking constituency. This is the only in the County of Surrey. We are change we proposed to the existing Surrey proposing no change to the number Heath constituency. In the eastern part of constituencies. Eight of the existing of our Woking constituency, we propose constituencies have electorates within that it include the 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates Send ward from the existing of two constituencies, Runnymede and constituency. Weybridge, and Spelthorne are below the 5% limit and the constituency of Esher and 87 As the existing Esher and Walton Walton is above the 5% limit. constituency is currently above 5% of the electoral quota, we propose that the 84 We considered whether we could Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon ward be leave unchanged any of the existing transferred from it to our proposed Mole eight constituencies that have an Valley constituency. This change results in electorate within 5% of the electoral both constituencies being within 5% of the quota. In developing proposals in which electoral quota. all constituencies are within 5% of the electoral quota, we have not made alterations to the constituencies of East Surrey, , Guildford, Reigate, and South West Surrey.

85 To increase the electorate of the Spelthorne constituency, we propose to include the ward of Chertsey St. Ann’s from the existing Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. We note that this constituency crosses the River Thames but consider that the Chertsey St. Ann’s ward has clear road links into the Spelthorne constituency. The Runnymede and Weybridge constituency is otherwise largely unchanged. In addition to the change above, this constituency is modified in the south-west, as we

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 21 4 How to have your say

88 We are consulting on our initial • we have constructed constituencies proposals for a 12‑week period, from within regions, so as not to cross 13 September 2016 to 5 December 2016. regional boundaries – compelling We encourage everyone to give us their reasons would need to be given to views on our proposals for their area – the persuade us that we should depart more public views we hear and the more from this approach. local information that is provided, the more informed our decisions will be when 91 These issues mean that we encourage analysing all the views we have received. people who are making a comment about their local area to bear in mind any 89 On our interactive consultation knock‑on effects that might result from website, at www.bce2018.org.uk, you can their suggestions. The Commission must see what constituency you will be in under look at the recommendations for new our proposals, and compare it with your constituencies across the whole region existing constituency and local government (and, indeed, across England). What may boundaries. You can also easily submit be a better solution for one location may your views on our proposals. have undesirable consequences for others. We therefore ask everyone wishing to 90 When making comments on our respond to our consultation to bear in mind initial proposals, we ask people to bear in the impact of their counter‑proposals on mind the tight constraints placed on the neighbouring constituencies, and on those Commission by the rules set by Parliament, further afield across the region. discussed in chapter 2 and in our Guide to the 2018 Review. Most importantly, in the How can you give us your views? South East region: 92 Views can be given to the Commission • we cannot recommend constituencies either in writing or in person (oral that have electorates that contain representations). We encourage everyone more than 78,507 or fewer than 71,031 who wishes to comment on our proposals electors (apart from the two covering in writing to do so through our interactive the Isle of Wight); consultation website at www.bce2018. • we are basing our initial proposals on org.uk – you will find all the details you local government ward boundaries need and be able to comment directly (from May 2015) as the building through the website. We also welcome oral blocks of constituencies – our view representations at one of a series of public is that, in the absence of exceptional hearings we are conducting during the and compelling circumstances, it consultation period. People are welcome would not be appropriate to divide to both attend a hearing and submit wards in cases where it is possible to comments through our website if they construct constituencies that meet the choose to. electorate rules without doing so; and

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 23 Written representations remember that we are obliged to publish all the comments we receive on our initial 93 As stated above, we strongly encourage proposals. As this is a public consultation, everyone to make use of our consultation we publish respondents’ names and website, at www.bce2018.org.uk, when addresses, alongside their comments. responding to our consultation. The website allows you to explore the map of our Public hearings proposals and get further data, including the electorate sizes of every ward and polling 95 The Commission will be hosting public district. You can also upload text or data files hearings across England. In the South you may have previously prepared setting East region we will be hosting three public out your views. hearings during the consultation period. Our website (www.bce2018.org.uk) has 94 We encourage everyone, before more details of these hearings, and an submitting a representation, to read our opportunity to register to attend and give approach to protecting and using your us your views in person. The table below personal details (available at www.bce2018. shows the locations and dates of the org.uk). In particular, respondents should hearings in the South East region.

Town Location Dates Guildford Guildford Harbour Hotel, Thursday 20 – Friday 21 October 2016 3 Alexandra Terrace, High St, Guildford, GU1 3DA Oxford Oxford Town Hall, St. Aldate’s, Monday 24 – Tuesday 25 October 2016 Oxford, OX1 1BX Portsmouth Portsmouth Guildhall, Thursday 27 – Friday 28 October 2016 Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, PO1 2AB Brighton Jurys Inn Brighton, Monday 31 October – Tuesday 101 Stroudley Road, 1 November 2016 Brighton, BN1 4DJ Maidstone Kent County Council, Thursday 3 – Friday 4 November 2016 County Hall, Maidstone, ME14 1XQ

24 Boundary Commission for England 96 The purpose of the hearings is for What do we want views on? people to have an opportunity to put their views on our proposals directly to an 99 We would like particularly to ask Assistant Commissioner who will chair two things of people responding to our the hearings and subsequently assist consultation. First, if you support our the Commission in the analysis of all proposals, please tell us so. Past experience the evidence received in the region. The suggests that too often people who are hearings differ from the way we used to happy with our proposals do not respond in conduct ‘local inquiries’ in past reviews support, while those who object to them do – these were much more judicial in respond to make their points. That can give a style, and people were allowed to cross- rather distorted view of the balance of public examine each other. The legislation that support or objection to proposals, and those Parliament introduced specifically rules who in fact support our initial proposals may out such inquiries, specifying instead then be disappointed if those proposals that we host ‘public hearings’, which are are subsequently revised in light of the intended purely as a way for people to consultation responses. Second, if you are make representations orally, directly to considering objecting to our proposals, do representatives of the Commission, as please use the resources (such as maps and well as to provide an opportunity for the electorate figures) available on our website Commission to explain its proposals. and at the places of deposit to put forward counter‑proposals which are in accordance 97 It is important to stress that all with the rules to which we are working. representations, whether they have been made through our website, in person 100 Above all, however, we encourage at a hearing, or sent to us in writing, everyone to have their say on our initial will be given equal consideration by the proposals and, in doing so, to become Commission. Therefore it does not matter involved in drawing the map of new if you are unable to attend or speak at a Parliamentary constituencies. The more public hearing – even after the last public views and information we get as a result hearing in the South East region has of our initial proposals and through the finished, you will still have until 5 December subsequent consultation phases, the more 2016 to submit your views to us. informed our consideration in developing those proposals will be, and the better we 98 You can find more information about will be able to reflect the public’s views in the public hearings, and can register to attend, final recommendations we present in 2018. on our website at www.bce2018.org.uk, or by phoning 020 7276 1102.

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 25 Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates

Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

1. Aldershot BC 74,715 Crookham East Hart 5,834 Crookham West and Ewshot Hart 6,394 Aldershot Park 5,177 Cherrywood Rushmoor 5,057 Cove and Southwood Rushmoor 5,276 Empress Rushmoor 4,259 Fernhill Rushmoor 5,190 Knellwood Rushmoor 5,442 Manor Park Rushmoor 5,447 North Town Rushmoor 4,547 Rowhill Rushmoor 4,994 St. John’s Rushmoor 4,966 St. Mark’s Rushmoor 4,763 Wellington Rushmoor 2,471 West Heath Rushmoor 4,898

2. Arundel and South Downs CC 74,331 Angmering & Findon Arun 7,003 Arundel & Walberton Arun 6,240 Bury Chichester 1,702 Petworth Chichester 3,609 Plaistow Chichester 3,649 Wisborough Green Chichester 1,913 Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote Horsham 4,124 Chanctonbury Horsham 6,506 Chantry Horsham 7,615 Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead Horsham 4,166 Henfield Horsham 4,059 Pulborough and Coldwatham Horsham 4,993 Steyning Horsham 4,786 Bolney Mid Sussex 2,118 Hassocks Mid Sussex 6,123 Hurstpierpoint and Downs Mid Sussex 5,725

3. Ashford CC 71, 303 Aylesford Green Ashford 2,341 Beaver Ashford 3,817 Bockhanger Ashford 1,873 Boughton Aluph and Eastwell Ashford 2,262 Bybrook Ashford 1,891 Charing Ashford 2,008 Downs North Ashford 1,927 Downs West Ashford 1,932 Godinton Ashford 4,641 Great Chart With Singleton North Ashford 2,533 Highfield Ashford 1,841 Isle of Oxney Ashford 2,105 Kennington Ashford 1,799 Little Burton Farm Ashford 2,131 Norman Ashford 1,840 North Willesborough Ashford 3,742 Park Farm North Ashford 2,445 Park Farm South Ashford 1,932 Saxon Shore Ashford 4,083

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 27 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Singleton South Ashford 2,267 South Willesborough Ashford 2,360 Stanhope Ashford 1,900 Stour Ashford 3,599 Victoria Ashford 3,521 Washford Ashford 2,338 Weald East Ashford 2,195 Weald South Ashford 4,177 Wye Ashford 1,803

4. Aylesbury CC 77,715 Aston Clinton & Stoke Mandeville Aylesbury Vale 7,422 Bedgrove Aylesbury Vale 4,886 Central & Walton Aylesbury Vale 4,233 Coldharbour Aylesbury Vale 6,070 Edlesborough Aylesbury Vale 2,298 Elmhurst Aylesbury Vale 4,285 Gatehouse Aylesbury Vale 6,007 Mandeville & Elm Farm Aylesbury Vale 6,329 Oakfield & Bierton Aylesbury Vale 5,113 Pitstone & Cheddington Aylesbury Vale 4,799 Riverside Aylesbury Vale 4,966 Southcourt Aylesbury Vale 4,070 Walton Court & Hawkslade Aylesbury Vale 4,179 Watermead Aylesbury Vale 2,154 Wendover & Halton Aylesbury Vale 6,288 Wing Aylesbury Vale 2,321 Wingrave Aylesbury Vale 2,295

5. Banbury and Bicester CC 78,250 Adderbury Cherwell 2,317 Banbury Calthorpe Cherwell 3,974 Banbury Easington Cherwell 6,076 Banbury Grimsbury and Castle Cherwell 6,821 Banbury Hardwick Cherwell 5,911 Banbury Neithrop Cherwell 3,869 Banbury Ruscote Cherwell 5,606 Bicester East Cherwell 4,307 Bicester North Cherwell 4,601 Bicester South Cherwell 3,630 Bicester Town Cherwell 3,784 Bicester West Cherwell 5,467 Bloxham and Bodicote Cherwell 5,250 Caversfield Cherwell 2,087 Cropredy Cherwell 2,268 Deddington Cherwell 2,163 Hook Norton Cherwell 2,063 Sibford Cherwell 2,161 The Astons and Heyfords Cherwell 3,756 Wroxton Cherwell 2,139

6. Basingstoke BC 78,026 Basing Basingstoke and Deane 6,624 Brighton Hill North Basingstoke and Deane 3,936 Brighton Hill South Basingstoke and Deane 3,798 Brookvale and Kings Furlong Basingstoke and Deane 4,321 Buckskin Basingstoke and Deane 4,335 Chineham Basingstoke and Deane 7,340 Eastrop Basingstoke and Deane 3,821 Grove Basingstoke and Deane 4,636 Hatch Warren and Beggarwood Basingstoke and Deane 6,406 Kempshott Basingstoke and Deane 5,634 Norden Basingstoke and Deane 5,770 Popley East Basingstoke and Deane 4,373 Popley West Basingstoke and Deane 3,551

28 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Rooksdown Basingstoke and Deane 2,671 South Ham Basingstoke and Deane 6,220 Winklebury Basingstoke and Deane 4,590

7. Beaconsfield CC 73,984 Beaconsfield North South Bucks 1,949 Beaconsfield South South Bucks 2,858 Beaconsfield West South Bucks 3,725 Burnham Church & Beeches South Bucks 5,540 Burnham Lent Rise & Taplow South Bucks 5,366 Denham South Bucks 5,686 Farnham & Hedgerley South Bucks 5,135 Gerrards Cross South Bucks 5,840 Iver Heath South Bucks 3,949 Iver Village & Richings Park South Bucks 4,788 Stoke Poges South Bucks 3,672 Wexham & Fulmer South Bucks 1,824 Bourne End-cum-Hedsor Wycombe 4,076 Flackwell Heath and Little Marlow Wycombe 5,643 Marlow North and West Wycombe 6,392 Marlow South East Wycombe 3,891 The Wooburns Wycombe 3,650

8. Bexhill and Battle CC 73,474 Battle Town Rother 3,912 Central Rother 3,872 Collington Rother 3,679 Crowhurst Rother 2,024 Kewhurst Rother 3,884 Old Town Rother 2,984 Sackville Rother 3,653 Sidley Rother 3,937 St. Marks Rother 3,779 St. Michaels Rother 3,707 St. Stephens Rother 3,693 Cross in Hand/Five Ashes Wealden 1,975 Hailsham Central and North Wealden 4,729 Hailsham East Wealden 1,894 Hailsham South and West Wealden 6,168 Heathfield East Wealden 1,933 Heathfield North and Central Wealden 6,091 Herstmonceux Wealden 2,209 Ninfield and Hooe with Wartling Wealden 1,914 Pevensey and Westham Wealden 7,437

9. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton CC 78,189 Aldwick East Arun 4,416 Aldwick West Arun 4,972 Barnham Arun 5,999 Beach Arun 3,674 Bersted Arun 6,177 Brookfield Arun 4,490 Courtwick with Toddington Arun 5,579 Felpham East Arun 4,566 Felpham West Arun 4,111 Hotham Arun 3,458 Marine Arun 3,632 Middleton-on-Sea Arun 4,130 Orchard Arun 3,981 Pagham Arun 4,927 Pevensey Arun 3,624 River Arun 6,192 Yapton Arun 4,261

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 29 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

10. Bracknell CC 76,917 Bullbrook 4,110 Central Sandhurst Bracknell Forest 3,797 College Town Bracknell Forest 3,852 Crown Wood Bracknell Forest 5,575 Crowthorne Bracknell Forest 3,932 Great Hollands North Bracknell Forest 4,928 Great Hollands South Bracknell Forest 3,577 Hanworth Bracknell Forest 5,778 Harmans Water Bracknell Forest 6,112 Little Sandhurst and Wellington Bracknell Forest 3,995 Old Bracknell Bracknell Forest 3,974 Owlsmoor Bracknell Forest 3,814 Priestwood and Garth Bracknell Forest 5,454 and Central Bracknell Forest 3,203 Finchampstead North Wokingham 4,302 Finchampstead South Wokingham 4,341 Wokingham Without Wokingham 6,173

11. Brighton Central and Hove BC 78,387 Brunswick and Adelaide Brighton and Hove 6,518 Central Hove Brighton and Hove 6,120 Goldsmid Brighton and Hove 10,429 Hangleton and Knoll Brighton and Hove 10,478 North Portslade Brighton and Hove 7,324 Regency Brighton and Hove 6,171 South Portslade Brighton and Hove 6,716 St. Peter’s and North Laine Brighton and Hove 11,357 Westbourne Brighton and Hove 6,609 Wish Brighton and Hove 6,665

12. Brighton East and Newhaven BC 71,505 East Brighton Brighton and Hove 9,318 Queen’s Park Brighton and Hove 10,037 Rottingdean Coastal Brighton and Hove 10,224 East Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffs Lewes 5,275 Newhaven Denton and Meeching Lewes 5,532 Newhaven Valley Lewes 2,554 Peacehaven East Lewes 3,825 Peacehaven North Lewes 3,148 Peacehaven West Lewes 3,164 Seaford Central Lewes 3,500 Seaford East Lewes 3,792 Seaford North Lewes 3,913 Seaford South Lewes 3,480 Seaford West Lewes 3,743

13. Brighton North BC 75,072 Hanover and Elm Grove Brighton and Hove 9,966 Hollingdean and Stanmer Brighton and Hove 9,171 Hove Park Brighton and Hove 7,686 Moulsecoomb and Bevendean Brighton and Hove 9,998 Patcham Brighton and Hove 10,580 Preston Park Brighton and Hove 10,101 Withdean Brighton and Hove 10,354 Woodingdean Brighton and Hove 7,216

14. Buckingham CC 77,080 Buckingham North Aylesbury Vale 4,287 Buckingham South Aylesbury Vale 4,285 Great Brickhill & Newton Longville Aylesbury Vale 4,577 Great Horwood Aylesbury Vale 2,487 Grendon Underwood & Brill Aylesbury Vale 2,569 Haddenham & Stone Aylesbury Vale 7,028 Long Crendon Aylesbury Vale 2,456

30 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Luffield Abbey Aylesbury Vale 2,079 Marsh Gibbon Aylesbury Vale 2,450 Oakley Aylesbury Vale 2,239 Quainton Aylesbury Vale 2,433 Steeple Claydon Aylesbury Vale 2,312 Stewkley Aylesbury Vale 2,538 Tingewick Aylesbury Vale 2,468 Waddesdon Aylesbury Vale 2,196 Winslow Aylesbury Vale 4,658 Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 7,408 Wolverton Milton Keynes 9,857 Icknield Wycombe 2,459 The Risboroughs Wycombe 6,294

15. Canterbury and Faversham CC 72,011 Barton Canterbury 5,994 Blean Forest Canterbury 4,034 Chartham & Stone Street Canterbury 5,240 Little Stour & Adisham Canterbury 3,041 Nailbourne Canterbury 3,025 Northgate Canterbury 3,120 St. Stephens Canterbury 4,381 Sturry Canterbury 5,634 Westgate Canterbury 4,476 Wincheap Canterbury 5,306 Aylesham Dover 3,650 Eythorne and Shepherdswell Dover 3,723 Abbey Swale 3,835 Boughton and Courtenay Swale 4,277 East Downs Swale 2,128 Priory Swale 1,978 St. Ann’s Swale 3,906 Watling Swale 4,263

16. Chatham and The Mallings CC 75,494 Chatham Central Medway 8,996 Luton and Wayfield Medway 8,936 Princes Park Medway 6,837 Walderslade Medway 6,956 Aylesford North and Walderslade Tonbridge and Malling 4,948 Aylesford South Tonbridge and Malling 3,180 Burham and Wouldham Tonbridge and Malling 2,065 Ditton Tonbridge and Malling 3,707 East Malling Tonbridge and Malling 3,527 Kings Hill Tonbridge and Malling 5,645 Larkfield North Tonbridge and Malling 3,402 Larkfield South Tonbridge and Malling 3,228 Snodland East and Ham Hill Tonbridge and Malling 3,476 Snodland West and Holborough Lakes Tonbridge and Malling 4,257 Wateringbury Tonbridge and Malling 1,540 West Malling and Leybourne Tonbridge and Malling 4,794

17. Chesham and Amersham CC 77,089 Amersham Common Chiltern 1,865 Amersham Town Chiltern 3,339 Amersham-on-the-Hill Chiltern 3,520 Asheridge Vale and Lowndes Chiltern 3,580 Ashley Green, Latimer and Chenies Chiltern 1,725 Austenwood Chiltern 1,646 Ballinger, South Heath and Chartridge Chiltern 1,703 Central Chiltern 3,091 Chalfont Common Chiltern 3,075 Chalfont St. Giles Chiltern 5,202 Chesham Bois and Weedon Hill Chiltern 3,831

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 31 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Cholesbury, The Lee and Bellingdon Chiltern 1,837 Gold Hill Chiltern 1,582 Great Missenden Chiltern 1,693 Hilltop and Townsend Chiltern 3,330 Holmer Green Chiltern 3,279 Little Chalfont Chiltern 3,815 Little Missenden Chiltern 1,869 Newtown Chiltern 1,701 Penn and Coleshill Chiltern 3,450 Prestwood and Heath End Chiltern 5,029 Ridgeway Chiltern 1,782 Seer Green Chiltern 1,721 St. Mary’s and Waterside Chiltern 3,444 Vale Chiltern 1,451 Greater Hughenden Wycombe 6,486 Lacey Green, Speen and the Hampdens Wycombe 2,043

18. Chichester CC 75,087 Bosham Chichester 3,500 Boxgrove Chichester 1,670 Chichester East Chichester 5,563 Chichester North Chichester 5,144 Chichester South Chichester 5,042 Chichester West Chichester 3,605 Donnington Chichester 1,808 Easebourne Chichester 1,893 East Wittering Chichester 3,911 Fernhurst Chichester 3,895 Fishbourne Chichester 1,811 Funtington Chichester 2,131 Harting Chichester 1,611 Lavant Chichester 1,822 Midhurst Chichester 3,693 North Mundham Chichester 1,698 Rogate Chichester 1,859 Selsey North Chichester 4,821 Selsey South Chichester 3,362 Sidlesham Chichester 1,816 Southbourne Chichester 5,340 Stedham Chichester 1,706 Tangmere Chichester 1,865 West Wittering Chichester 3,776 Westbourne Chichester 1,745

19. Crawley BC 74,325 Bewbush Crawley 5,442 Broadfield North Crawley 3,998 Broadfield South Crawley 3,951 Furnace Green Crawley 4,223 Gossops Green Crawley 3,720 Ifield Crawley 6,170 Langley Green Crawley 5,022 Maidenbower Crawley 6,184 Northgate Crawley 3,281 Pound Hill North Crawley 4,805 Pound Hill South and Worth Crawley 5,899 Southgate Crawley 5,634 Three Bridges Crawley 4,916 Tilgate Crawley 4,213 West Green Crawley 3,120 Copthorne and Worth Mid Sussex 3,747

32 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

20. Dartford CC 72,180 Bean and Darenth Dartford 4,165 Brent Dartford 4,903 Castle Dartford 1,833 Greenhithe Dartford 5,042 Heath Dartford 5,021 Joyce Green Dartford 3,642 Joydens Wood Dartford 5,617 Littlebrook Dartford 3,106 Longfield, New Barn and Southfleet Dartford 5,639 Newtown Dartford 5,112 Princes Dartford 4,312 Stone Dartford 4,803 Sutton-at-Hone and Hawley Dartford 3,265 Swanscombe Dartford 4,822 Town Dartford 2,708 West Hill Dartford 4,981 Wilmington Dartford 3,209

21. Dover CC 76,650 Buckland Dover 5,355 Capel-le-Ferne Dover 2,012 Castle Dover 1,637 Eastry Dover 3,980 Little Stour and Ashstone Dover 5,445 Lydden and Temple Ewell Dover 1,957 Maxton, Elms Vale and Priory Dover 5,128 Middle Deal and Sholden Dover 5,966 Mill Hill Dover 5,995 North Deal Dover 5,593 Ringwould Dover 1,687 River Dover 3,765 Sandwich Dover 5,638 St. Margaret’s-at-Cliffe Dover 3,481 St. Radigunds Dover 3,540 Tower Hamlets Dover 3,931 Town and Pier Dover 1,427 Walmer Dover 6,093 Whitfield Dover 4,020

22. East Hampshire CC 72,314 Binsted and Bentley East Hampshire 2,272 Bramshott and Liphook East Hampshire 6,472 Clanfield and Finchdean East Hampshire 4,252 Downland East Hampshire 2,019 East Meon East Hampshire 1,768 Four Marks and Medstead East Hampshire 5,045 Froxfield and Steep East Hampshire 1,887 Grayshott East Hampshire 1,812 Headley East Hampshire 4,324 Horndean Catherington and Lovedean East Hampshire 1,848 Horndean Downs East Hampshire 1,904 Horndean Hazleton and Blendworth East Hampshire 2,066 Horndean Kings East Hampshire 2,378 Horndean Murray East Hampshire 1,869 Lindford East Hampshire 2,026 Liss East Hampshire 3,695 Bell Hill East Hampshire 1,737 Petersfield Causeway East Hampshire 1,918 Petersfield Heath East Hampshire 1,542 Petersfield Rother East Hampshire 1,897 Petersfield St. Marys East Hampshire 1,990 Petersfield St. Peters East Hampshire 1,778

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 33 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Ropley and Tisted East Hampshire 1,764 Rowlands Castle East Hampshire 2,108 Selborne East Hampshire 1,799 The Hangers and Forest East Hampshire 1,849 Whitehill Chase East Hampshire 1,603 Whitehill Deadwater East Hampshire 1,725 Whitehill Hogmoor East Hampshire 1,617 Whitehill Pinewood East Hampshire 1,727 Whitehill Walldown East Hampshire 1,623

23. East Surrey CC 77,146 Horley Central 5,851 Horley East Reigate and Banstead 5,145 Horley West Reigate and Banstead 5,645 Bletchingley and Nutfield Tandridge 4,155 Burstow, Horne and Outwood Tandridge 4,399 Chaldon Tandridge 1,379 Dormansland and Felcourt Tandridge 2,894 Felbridge Tandridge 1,671 Godstone Tandridge 4,193 Harestone Tandridge 2,978 Limpsfield Tandridge 2,739 Lingfield and Crowhurst Tandridge 3,124 Oxted North and Tandridge Tandridge 4,197 Oxted South Tandridge 4,351 Portley Tandridge 3,208 Queens Park Tandridge 2,793 Tatsfield and Titsey Tandridge 1,488 Valley Tandridge 2,863 Warlingham East and Chelsham and Farleigh Tandridge 4,147 Warlingham West Tandridge 2,636 Westway Tandridge 3,078 Whyteleafe Tandridge 2,775 Woldingham Tandridge 1,437

24. East Worthing and Shoreham BC 71,723 Buckingham Adur 3,039 Churchill Adur 3,292 Cokeham Adur 3,286 Eastbrook Adur 3,308 Hillside Adur 3,301 Manor Adur 3,204 Marine Adur 3,401 Mash Barn Adur 3,248 Peverel Adur 3,353 Southlands Adur 2,862 Southwick Green Adur 3,341 St. Mary’s Adur 3,526 St. Nicolas Adur 3,027 Widewater Adur 4,455 Broadwater Worthing 6,574 Gaisford Worthing 6,495 Offington Worthing 6,291 Selden Worthing 5,720

25. Eastbourne BC 74,670 Devonshire Eastbourne 7,495 Hampden Park Eastbourne 6,883 Langney Eastbourne 7,496 Meads Eastbourne 7,531 Old Town Eastbourne 7,927 Ratton Eastbourne 7,447 Sovereign Eastbourne 8,600 St. Anthony’s Eastbourne 7,786 Upperton Eastbourne 7,341 Willingdon Wealden 6,164 34 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

26. Eastleigh BC 77,814 Bishopstoke East Eastleigh 4,262 Bishopstoke West Eastleigh 4,202 Botley Eastleigh 3,937 Bursledon and Old Eastleigh 5,658 Eastleigh Central Eastleigh 7,695 Eastleigh North Eastleigh 5,986 Eastleigh South Eastleigh 6,612 Fair Oak and Horton Heath Eastleigh 6,728 Hamble-le-Rice and Butlocks Heath Eastleigh 4,284 Grange Park Eastleigh 5,619 Hedge End St. John’s Eastleigh 6,174 Hedge End Wildern Eastleigh 4,082 Netley Abbey Eastleigh 4,095 West End North Eastleigh 4,037 West End South Eastleigh 4,443

27. Epsom and Ewell BC 77,417 Auriol Epsom and Ewell 2,959 College Epsom and Ewell 4,162 Court Epsom and Ewell 4,567 Cuddington Epsom and Ewell 4,365 Ewell Epsom and Ewell 4,122 Ewell Court Epsom and Ewell 4,201 Nonsuch Epsom and Ewell 4,302 Ruxley Epsom and Ewell 4,301 Stamford Epsom and Ewell 4,944 Stoneleigh Epsom and Ewell 3,603 Town Epsom and Ewell 4,468 West Ewell Epsom and Ewell 4,544 Woodcote Epsom and Ewell 4,263 Ashtead Common Mole Valley 3,195 Ashtead Park Mole Valley 3,341 Ashtead Village Mole Valley 4,523 Nork Reigate and Banstead 6,035 Tattenhams Reigate and Banstead 5,522

28. Esher and Walton BC 74,117 Claygate Elmbridge 5,363 Cobham and Downside Elmbridge 4,660 Cobham Fairmile Elmbridge 2,924 Esher Elmbridge 4,797 Hersham North Elmbridge 4,442 Hersham South Elmbridge 4,754 Hinchley Wood Elmbridge 3,752 Long Ditton Elmbridge 4,578 Molesey East Elmbridge 4,758 Molesey North Elmbridge 4,550 Molesey South Elmbridge 4,930 Thames Ditton Elmbridge 4,534 Walton Ambleside Elmbridge 3,041 Walton Central Elmbridge 4,921 Walton North Elmbridge 4,569 Walton South Elmbridge 4,713 Weston Green Elmbridge 2,831

29. Fareham BC 77,933 Fareham East Fareham 5,755 Fareham North Fareham 5,421 Fareham North-West Fareham 5,371 Fareham South Fareham 5,210 Fareham West Fareham 5,295 Fareham 5,548 Park Gate Fareham 6,185 Portchester East Fareham 8,621 Portchester West Fareham 5,612 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 35 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Sarisbury Fareham 5,719 Titchfield Fareham 5,686 Titchfield Common Fareham 5,920 Warsash Fareham 5,381 Whiteley Winchester 2,209

30. Folkestone and Hythe CC 77,333 Broadmead Shepway 2,747 Cheriton Shepway 8,180 East Folkestone Shepway 7,593 Folkestone Central Shepway 6,417 Folkestone Harbour Shepway 4,362 Hythe Shepway 8,884 Hythe Rural Shepway 4,615 New Romney Shepway 5,570 North Downs East Shepway 8,468 North Downs West Shepway 4,843 Romney Marsh Shepway 5,767 Sandgate & West Folkestone Shepway 4,076 Walland & Denge Marsh Shepway 5,811

31. Gillingham and Rainham BC 75,283 Gillingham North Medway 10,351 Gillingham South Medway 10,137 Hempstead and Wigmore Medway 6,269 Lordswood and Capstone Medway 6,393 Rainham Central Medway 9,488 Rainham North Medway 6,546 Rainham South Medway 9,613 Twydall Medway 9,642 Watling Medway 6,844

32. Gosport BC 72,357 Hill Head Fareham 5,923 Stubbington Fareham 5,491 Alverstoke Gosport 3,510 Anglesey Gosport 3,007 Bridgemary North Gosport 3,440 Bridgemary South Gosport 3,486 Brockhurst Gosport 3,716 Christchurch Gosport 3,707 Elson Gosport 3,428 Forton Gosport 3,307 Grange Gosport 3,551 Hardway Gosport 4,187 Lee East Gosport 4,518 Lee West Gosport 3,980 Leesland Gosport 3,492 Peel Common Gosport 3,355 Privett Gosport 3,324 Rowner and Holbrook Gosport 3,264 Town Gosport 3,671

33. Gravesham CC 76,583 Central Gravesham 4,477 Chalk Gravesham 1,727 Coldharbour Gravesham 3,196 Istead Rise Gravesham 2,841 Meopham North Gravesham 3,485 Meopham South and Vigo Gravesham 3,434 Northfleet North Gravesham 4,742 Northfleet South Gravesham 5,055 Painters Ash Gravesham 4,363 Pelham Gravesham 4,667 Riverside Gravesham 4,842

36 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Riverview Gravesham 3,370 Shorne, Cobham and Luddesdown Gravesham 3,243 Singlewell Gravesham 5,280 Westcourt Gravesham 4,555 Whitehill Gravesham 3,115 Woodlands Gravesham 4,947 Ash and New Ash Green Sevenoaks 4,513 Hartley and Hodsoll Street Sevenoaks 4,731

34. Guildford CC 74,077 Burpham Guildford 4,097 Christchurch Guildford 4,012 Friary and St. Nicolas Guildford 5,727 Holy Trinity Guildford 5,480 Merrow Guildford 5,825 Onslow Guildford 5,188 Pilgrims Guildford 1,980 Shalford Guildford 4,179 Stoke Guildford 4,304 Stoughton Guildford 6,790 Westborough Guildford 6,255 Worplesdon Guildford 6,494 Alfold, Cranleigh Rural and Ellens Green Waverley 1,494 Blackheath and Wonersh Waverley 1,420 Cranleigh East Waverley 4,946 Cranleigh West Waverley 2,994 Ewhurst Waverley 1,575 Shamley Green and Cranleigh North Waverley 1,317

35. Hastings and Rye CC 71,672 Ashdown Hastings 4,365 Baird Hastings 3,362 Braybrooke Hastings 3,311 Castle Hastings 3,559 Central St. Leonards Hastings 3,272 Conquest Hastings 3,710 Gensing Hastings 3,617 Hollington Hastings 3,969 Maze Hill Hastings 3,562 Old Hastings Hastings 3,953 Ore Hastings 3,318 Silverhill Hastings 3,132 St. Helens Hastings 3,904 Tressell Hastings 3,065 West St. Leonards Hastings 3,616 Wishing Tree Hastings 3,675 Brede Valley Rother 3,948 Eastern Rother Rother 3,705 Marsham Rother 3,312 Rye Rother 3,317

36. Havant BC 77,739 Barncroft Havant 4,438 Battins Havant 4,679 Bedhampton Havant 7,091 Bondfields Havant 4,844 Cowplain Havant 7,272 Emsworth Havant 8,093 Hart Plain Havant 7,402 Hayling East Havant 7,118 Hayling West Havant 6,799 St. Faith’s Havant 7,231 Warren Park Havant 4,845 Waterloo Havant 7,927

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 37 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

37. Henley and Thame CC 77,517 Ambrosden and Chesterton Cherwell 3,005 Fringford Cherwell 1,887 Kirtlington Cherwell 2,346 Launton Cherwell 2,256 Otmoor Cherwell 1,967 Benson & Crowmarsh South Oxfordshire 5,716 Berinsfield South Oxfordshire 2,846 Chalgrove South Oxfordshire 2,643 Chinnor South Oxfordshire 6,118 Forest Hill & Holton South Oxfordshire 2,688 Goring South Oxfordshire 2,991 Haseley Brook South Oxfordshire 3,062 Henley-on-Thames South Oxfordshire 8,318 Kidmore End & Whitchurch South Oxfordshire 2,789 Sonning Common South Oxfordshire 5,214 Thame South Oxfordshire 8,847 Wallingford South Oxfordshire 5,625 Watlington South Oxfordshire 2,955 Woodcote & Rotherfield South Oxfordshire 6,244

38. High Weald CC 74,102 Biddenden Ashford 1,977 Rolvenden and Tenterden West Ashford 1,969 St. Michaels Ashford 1,832 Tenterden North Ashford 1,744 Tenterden South Ashford 1,898 Weald Central Ashford 3,996 Weald North Ashford 1,891 Darwell Rother 3,920 Ewhurst and Sedlescombe Rother 2,036 Rother Levels Rother 3,752 Salehurst Rother 3,417 Ticehurst and Etchingham Rother 3,410 Benenden and Cranbrook Tunbridge Wells 5,044 Frittenden and Sissinghurst Tunbridge Wells 1,571 Goudhurst and Lamberhurst Tunbridge Wells 3,340 Hawkhurst and Sandhurst Tunbridge Wells 4,402 Crowborough East Wealden 3,830 Crowborough Jarvis Brook Wealden 1,883 Crowborough North Wealden 4,430 Crowborough St. Johns Wealden 2,021 Crowborough West Wealden 3,842 Frant/Withyham Wealden 3,933 Mayfield Wealden 2,122 Rotherfield Wealden 1,924 Wadhurst Wealden 3,918

39. Horsham CC 73,653 Billingshurst and Shipley Horsham 7,377 Broadbridge Heath Horsham 2,929 Denne Horsham 4,342 Forest Horsham 2,877 Holbrook East Horsham 4,100 Holbrook West Horsham 4,290 Horsham Park Horsham 5,718 Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham Horsham 4,175 Nuthurst Horsham 2,354 Roffey North Horsham 4,692 Roffey South Horsham 4,594 Rudgwick Horsham 2,078 Rusper and Colgate Horsham 2,249 Southwater Horsham 7,622 Trafalgar Horsham 4,642

38 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Ardingly and Balcombe Mid Sussex 4,179 Crawley Down and Turners Hill Mid Sussex 5,435

40. Isle of Wight East CC 53,268 Arreton and Newchurch Isle of Wight 3,007 Binstead and Fishbourne Isle of Wight 2,627 Brading, St. Helens and Bembridge Isle of Wight 5,930 Godshill and Wroxall Isle of Wight 2,517 Havenstreet, Ashey and Haylands Isle of Wight 2,685 Lake North Isle of Wight 2,785 Lake South Isle of Wight 2,881 Nettlestone and Seaview Isle of Wight 2,427 Ryde East Isle of Wight 2,763 Ryde North East Isle of Wight 2,546 Ryde North West Isle of Wight 2,573 Ryde South Isle of Wight 2,841 Ryde West Isle of Wight 2,614 Sandown North Isle of Wight 2,294 Sandown South Isle of Wight 2,807 Shanklin Central Isle of Wight 2,660 Shanklin South Isle of Wight 2,721 Ventnor East Isle of Wight 2,265 Ventnor West Isle of Wight 2,325

41. Isle of Wight West CC 52,180 Carisbrooke Isle of Wight 2,548 Central Wight Isle of Wight 2,758 Chale, Niton and Whitwell Isle of Wight 2,271 Cowes Medina Isle of Wight 2,874 Cowes North Isle of Wight 2,393 Cowes South and Northwood Isle of Wight 2,867 Cowes West and Gurnard Isle of Wight 2,973 East Cowes Isle of Wight 2,944 Freshwater North Isle of Wight 2,148 Freshwater South Isle of Wight 2,421 Newport Central Isle of Wight 2,840 Newport East Isle of Wight 2,669 Newport North Isle of Wight 2,384 Newport South Isle of Wight 2,580 Newport West Isle of Wight 2,460 Parkhurst Isle of Wight 2,292 Totland Isle of Wight 2,287 West Wight Isle of Wight 2,694 Whippingham and Osborne Isle of Wight 3,072 Wootton Bridge Isle of Wight 2,705

42. Lewes and Uckfield CC 77,046 Barcombe and Hamsey Lewes 1,510 Chailey and Wivelsfield Lewes 3,802 Ditchling and Westmeston Lewes 1,891 Kingston Lewes 1,542 Lewes Bridge Lewes 3,356 Lewes Castle Lewes 3,283 Lewes Priory Lewes 5,067 Newick Lewes 1,922 Ouse Valley and Ringmer Lewes 4,829 Plumpton, Streat, East Chiltington and St. John Lewes 1,678 (Without) Alfriston Wealden 1,942 Buxted and Maresfield Wealden 4,723 Chiddingly and East Hoathly Wealden 2,421 Danehill/Fletching/Nutley Wealden 3,946 East Dean Wealden 1,876 Forest Row Wealden 3,722 Framfield Wealden 2,147

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 39 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Hartfield Wealden 2,039 Hellingly Wealden 5,555 Horam Wealden 2,064 Polegate North Wealden 4,510 Polegate South Wealden 1,988 Uckfield Central Wealden 2,272 Uckfield New Town Wealden 2,006 Uckfield North Wealden 4,212 Uckfield Ridgewood Wealden 2,743

43. Maidenhead CC 71,834 Belmont Windsor and Maidenhead 5,233 Bisham and Cookham Windsor and Maidenhead 4,983 Boyn Hill Windsor and Maidenhead 4,962 Bray Windsor and Maidenhead 5,299 Cox Green Windsor and Maidenhead 5,313 Furze Platt Windsor and Maidenhead 5,144 Hurley and Walthams Windsor and Maidenhead 4,387 Maidenhead Riverside Windsor and Maidenhead 5,295 Oldfield Windsor and Maidenhead 5,946 Pinkneys Green Windsor and Maidenhead 5,105 Charvil Wokingham 2,334 Coronation Wokingham 4,381 Hurst Wokingham 2,185 Remenham, Wargrave and Ruscombe Wokingham 4,275 Sonning Wokingham 2,541 Twyford Wokingham 4,451

44. Maidstone CC 71,284 Allington Maidstone 5,356 Barming Maidstone 1,880 Bearsted Maidstone 6,367 Boxley Maidstone 6,162 Bridge Maidstone 3,965 Detling and Thurnham Maidstone 2,265 Downswood and Otham Maidstone 1,909 East Maidstone 5,839 Fant Maidstone 5,972 Heath Maidstone 4,037 High Street Maidstone 5,715 North Maidstone 5,564 Shepway North Maidstone 5,770 Shepway South Maidstone 4,019 South Maidstone 6,464

45. Mid Sussex CC 77,031 Ashurst Wood Mid Sussex 2,023 Burgess Hill Dunstall Mid Sussex 3,812 Burgess Hill Franklands Mid Sussex 3,903 Burgess Hill Leylands Mid Sussex 3,650 Burgess Hill Meeds Mid Sussex 3,560 Burgess Hill St. Andrews Mid Sussex 3,676 Burgess Hill Victoria Mid Sussex 4,141 Cuckfield Mid Sussex 3,973 East Grinstead Ashplats Mid Sussex 4,164 East Grinstead Baldwins Mid Sussex 3,766 East Grinstead Herontye Mid Sussex 3,741 East Grinstead Imberhorne Mid Sussex 3,538 East Grinstead Town Mid Sussex 3,514 Haywards Heath Ashenground Mid Sussex 3,894 Haywards Heath Bentswood Mid Sussex 4,215 Haywards Heath Franklands Mid Sussex 3,739 Haywards Heath Heath Mid Sussex 3,973 Haywards Heath Lucastes Mid Sussex 4,280 High Weald Mid Sussex 3,834 Lindfield Mid Sussex 5,635 40 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

46. Milton Keynes Bletchley BC 74,374 Bletchley East Milton Keynes 9,140 Bletchley Park Milton Keynes 10,204 Bletchley West Milton Keynes 10,136 Bradwell Milton Keynes 8,873 Loughton & Shenley Milton Keynes 9,556 Shenley Brook End Milton Keynes 8,953 Stantonbury Milton Keynes 10,139 Tattenhoe Milton Keynes 7,373

47. Milton Keynes Newport Pagnell CC 78,294 Broughton Milton Keynes 8,239 Campbell Park & Old Woughton Milton Keynes 8,820 Central Milton Keynes Milton Keynes 7,840 Danesborough & Walton Milton Keynes 8,563 Monkston Milton Keynes 8,190 Newport Pagnell North & Hanslope Milton Keynes 9,451 Newport Pagnell South Milton Keynes 8,748 Olney Milton Keynes 9,307 Woughton & Fishermead Milton Keynes 9,136

48. Mole Valley CC 73,419 Oxshott and Stoke D’abernon Elmbridge 4,428 Clandon and Horsley Guildford 6,886 Effingham Guildford 2,089 Lovelace Guildford 1,884 Tillingbourne Guildford 4,394 Beare Green Mole Valley 1,521 Bookham North Mole Valley 4,486 Bookham South Mole Valley 4,405 Box Hill and Headley Mole Valley 1,706 Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland Mole Valley 3,480 Capel, Leigh and Newdigate Mole Valley 3,259 Charlwood Mole Valley 1,751 Dorking North Mole Valley 3,123 Dorking South Mole Valley 5,346 Fetcham East Mole Valley 3,022 Fetcham West Mole Valley 3,109 Holmwoods Mole Valley 4,677 Leatherhead North Mole Valley 4,617 Leatherhead South Mole Valley 3,245 Leith Hill Mole Valley 1,312 Mickleham, Westhumble and Pixham Mole Valley 1,488 Okewood Mole Valley 1,437 Westcott Mole Valley 1,754

49. New Forest East CC 72,520 Ashurst, Copythorne South and Netley Marsh New Forest 4,702 Bramshaw, Copythorne North and Minstead New Forest 2,124 Brockenhurst and Forest South East New Forest 4,404 Butts Ash and Dibden Purlieu New Forest 4,959 Dibden and Hythe East New Forest 4,496 Fawley, Blackfield and Langley New Forest 4,772 Furzedown and Hardley New Forest 2,634 Holbury and North Blackfield New Forest 4,928 Hythe West and Langdown New Forest 4,905 Lyndhurst New Forest 2,353 Marchwood New Forest 4,401 Totton Central New Forest 4,211 Totton East New Forest 4,890 Totton North New Forest 4,611 Totton South New Forest 4,569 Totton West New Forest 3,725 Blackwater Test Valley 4,103 Dun Valley Test Valley 1,733

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 41 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

50. New Forest West CC 71,289 Barton New Forest 4,809 Bashley New Forest 2,209 Becton New Forest 3,975 Boldre and Sway New Forest 4,418 Bransgore and Burley New Forest 4,470 Buckland New Forest 2,579 Downlands and Forest New Forest 2,350 Fernhill New Forest 4,720 Fordingbridge New Forest 5,237 Forest North West New Forest 2,055 Hordle New Forest 4,502 Town New Forest 4,686 Milford New Forest 4,180 Milton New Forest 4,807 Pennington New Forest 4,755 East and Sopley New Forest 2,100 Ringwood North New Forest 4,845 Ringwood South New Forest 4,592

51. Newbury CC 76,793 Basildon West Berkshire 2,459 Bucklebury West Berkshire 4,767 Chieveley West Berkshire 1,790 Clay Hill West Berkshire 4,461 Cold Ash West Berkshire 2,344 Compton West Berkshire 2,346 Downlands West Berkshire 2,415 Falkland West Berkshire 4,839 Greenham West Berkshire 4,493 Hungerford West Berkshire 4,271 Kintbury West Berkshire 3,947 Lambourn Valley West Berkshire 4,232 Northcroft West Berkshire 3,926 Speen West Berkshire 4,136 St. Johns West Berkshire 4,416 Thatcham Central West Berkshire 4,450 Thatcham North West Berkshire 4,139 Thatcham South and Crookham West Berkshire 5,038 Thatcham West West Berkshire 4,827 Victoria West Berkshire 3,497

52. North East Hampshire CC 71,949 Upton Grey and The Candovers Basingstoke and Deane 2,240 Alton Amery East Hampshire 1,762 Alton Ashdell East Hampshire 1,891 Alton Eastbrooke East Hampshire 1,941 Alton Westbrooke East Hampshire 2,179 Alton Whitedown East Hampshire 2,310 Alton Wooteys East Hampshire 1,670 Holybourne and Froyle East Hampshire 2,421 Blackwater and Hawley Hart 5,460 Fleet Central Hart 6,374 Fleet East Hart 5,670 Fleet West Hart 5,820 Hartley Wintney Hart 6,713 Hook Hart 6,123 Odiham Hart 6,302 Yateley East Hart 6,591 Yateley West Hart 6,482

42 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

53. North Kent Coastal CC 75,023 Beltinge Canterbury 5,901 Chestfield Canterbury 5,569 Gorrell Canterbury 8,177 Greenhill Canterbury 3,038 Herne & Broomfield Canterbury 6,145 Heron Canterbury 9,271 Reculver Canterbury 2,951 Seasalter Canterbury 6,019 Swalecliffe Canterbury 3,177 Tankerton Canterbury 2,792 West Bay Canterbury 3,146 Birchington North Thanet 3,252 Birchington South Thanet 5,203 Thanet Villages Thanet 5,193 Westgate-on-Sea Thanet 5,189

54. North West Hampshire CC 78,317 Baughurst and North Basingstoke and Deane 4,353 Bramley and Sherfield Basingstoke and Deane 4,261 Burghclere, Highclere and St. Mary Bourne Basingstoke and Deane 4,556 East Woodhay Basingstoke and Deane 2,221 Kingsclere Basingstoke and Deane 3,860 Oakley and North Waltham Basingstoke and Deane 5,388 Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon Basingstoke and Deane 3,795 Pamber and Silchester Basingstoke and Deane 3,598 Sherborne St. John Basingstoke and Deane 1,727 Tadley Central Basingstoke and Deane 2,067 Tadley South Basingstoke and Deane 4,374 Whitchurch Basingstoke and Deane 4,007 Alamein Test Valley 6,818 Bourne Valley Test Valley 1,641 Charlton Test Valley 1,520 Harroway Test Valley 5,740 Millway Test Valley 5,512 St. Mary’s Test Valley 6,804 Winton Test Valley 6,075

55. Oxford East BC 76,194 Barton and Sandhills Oxford 4,614 Blackbird Leys Oxford 3,790 Carfax Oxford 1,926 Churchill Oxford 3,715 Cowley Oxford 3,937 Cowley Marsh Oxford 3,982 Headington Oxford 3,843 Headington Hill and Northway Oxford 3,109 Hinksey Park Oxford 3,717 Holywell Oxford 1,573 Iffley Fields Oxford 3,645 Littlemore Oxford 4,305 Lye Valley Oxford 4,327 Marston Oxford 4,232 North Oxford 2,936 Northfield Brook Oxford 4,081 Quarry and Risinghurst Oxford 4,418 Rose Hill and Iffley Oxford 4,235 St. Clement’s Oxford 3,767 St. Margaret’s Oxford 2,965 St. Mary’s Oxford 3,077

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 43 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

56. Oxford West and Abingdon CC 75,606 Kidlington North Cherwell 3,973 Kidlington South Cherwell 6,112 Yarnton, Gosford and Water Eaton Cherwell 4,047 Jericho and Osney Oxford 4,040 Summertown Oxford 4,197 Wolvercote Oxford 4,281 Garsington & Horspath South Oxfordshire 2,752 Sandford & the Wittenhams South Oxfordshire 2,880 Wheatley South Oxfordshire 3,023 Abingdon Abbey Northcourt Vale of White Horse 4,333 Abingdon Caldecott Vale of White Horse 5,083 Abingdon Dunmore Vale of White Horse 4,545 Abingdon Fitzharris Vale of White Horse 4,616 Abingdon Peachcroft Vale of White Horse 5,178 Botley & Sunningwell Vale of White Horse 4,240 Cumnor Vale of White Horse 4,645 Kennington & Radley Vale of White Horse 5,081 Wootton Vale of White Horse 2,580

57. Portsmouth North BC 75,213 Purbrook Havant 7,340 Stakes Havant 7,234 Baffins Portsmouth 10,812 Copnor Portsmouth 9,693 Cosham Portsmouth 10,171 Drayton and Farlington Portsmouth 10,064 Hilsea Portsmouth 9,951 Paulsgrove Portsmouth 9,948

58. Portsmouth South BC 74,253 Central Portsmouth 9,429 Charles Dickens Portsmouth 10,213 Eastney and Craneswater Portsmouth 8,914 Fratton Portsmouth 9,477 Milton Portsmouth 9,792 Nelson Portsmouth 9,676 St. Jude Portsmouth 8,042 St. Thomas Portsmouth 8,710

59. Reading East BC 72,024 Abbey Reading 6,707 Caversham Reading 6,592 Church Reading 5,476 Katesgrove Reading 5,262 Park Reading 5,587 Peppard Reading 7,122 Redlands Reading 4,492 Thames Reading 6,969 Bulmershe and Whitegates Wokingham 6,491 Loddon Wokingham 6,784 Maiden Erlegh Wokingham 6,570 South Lake Wokingham 3,972

60. Reading West BC 72,101 Battle Reading 5,780 Kentwood Reading 6,601 Mapledurham Reading 2,392 Minster Reading 6,208 Norcot Reading 6,568 Southcote Reading 6,022 Tilehurst Reading 6,763 Whitley Reading 7,337 Birch Copse West Berkshire 6,085 Calcot West Berkshire 6,596

44 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Pangbourne West Berkshire 2,249 Purley on Thames West Berkshire 5,136 Theale West Berkshire 2,172 Westwood West Berkshire 2,192

61. Reigate BC 71,778 Banstead Village Reigate and Banstead 6,119 Chipstead, Hooley and Woodmansterne Reigate and Banstead 6,528 Earlswood and Whitebushes Reigate and Banstead 6,255 Kingswood with Burgh Heath Reigate and Banstead 5,489 Meadvale and St. John’s Reigate and Banstead 5,520 Merstham Reigate and Banstead 5,483 Preston Reigate and Banstead 1,874 Redhill East Reigate and Banstead 6,869 Redhill West Reigate and Banstead 5,666 Reigate Central Reigate and Banstead 5,195 Reigate Hill Reigate and Banstead 4,130 Salfords and Sidlow Reigate and Banstead 2,045 South Park and Woodhatch Reigate and Banstead 5,192 Tadworth and Walton Reigate and Banstead 5,413

62. Rochester and Strood CC 78,455 Higham Gravesham 3,138 Cuxton and Halling Medway 4,384 Peninsula Medway 10,544 River Medway 5,741 Rochester East Medway 7,181 Rochester South and Horsted Medway 9,509 Rochester West Medway 7,318 Strood North Medway 9,674 Strood Rural Medway 10,681 Strood South Medway 10,285

63. Runnymede and Weybridge CC 71,724 Oatlands Park Elmbridge 4,694 St. George’s Hill Elmbridge 4,196 Weybridge North Elmbridge 3,089 Weybridge South Elmbridge 3,188 Addlestone Bourneside Runnymede 4,005 Addlestone North Runnymede 4,226 Chertsey Meads Runnymede 4,227 Chertsey South and Row Town Runnymede 4,638 Egham Hythe Runnymede 4,510 Egham Town Runnymede 3,912 Englefield Green East Runnymede 2,146 Englefield Green West Runnymede 3,142 Foxhills Runnymede 3,995 New Haw Runnymede 4,211 Thorpe Runnymede 4,119 Virginia Water Runnymede 3,936 Woodham Runnymede 4,146 Byfleet Woking 5,344

64. Sevenoaks CC 76,611 Brasted, Chevening and Sundridge Sevenoaks 4,861 Crockenhill and Well Hill Sevenoaks 1,513 Dunton Green and Riverhead Sevenoaks 3,589 Eynsford Sevenoaks 1,498 Farningham, Horton Kirby and South Darenth Sevenoaks 3,724 Fawkham and West Kingsdown Sevenoaks 4,801 Halstead, Knockholt and Badgers Mount Sevenoaks 2,675 Hextable Sevenoaks 3,287 Kemsing Sevenoaks 3,241 Otford and Shoreham Sevenoaks 3,485 Seal and Weald Sevenoaks 3,045

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 45 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Sevenoaks Eastern Sevenoaks 2,924 Sevenoaks Kippington Sevenoaks 3,561 Sevenoaks Northern Sevenoaks 3,030 Sevenoaks Town and St. John’s Sevenoaks 4,351 Swanley Christchurch and Swanley Village Sevenoaks 4,299 Swanley St. Mary’s Sevenoaks 3,004 Swanley White Oak Sevenoaks 4,603 Westerham and Crockham Hill Sevenoaks 3,284 Borough Green and Long Mill Tonbridge and Malling 5,258 Downs and Mereworth Tonbridge and Malling 3,305 Wrotham, Ightham and Stansted Tonbridge and Malling 3,273

65. Sittingbourne and Sheppey CC 75,638 Bobbing, Iwade and Lower Halstow Swale 3,895 Borden and Grove Park Swale 4,423 Chalkwell Swale 1,914 Hartlip, Newington and Upchurch Swale 4,403 Homewood Swale 4,569 Kemsley Swale 4,103 Milton Regis Swale 4,107 Minster Cliffs Swale 5,652 Murston Swale 3,905 Queenborough and Halfway Swale 5,375 Roman Swale 4,287 Sheerness Swale 6,927 Sheppey Central Swale 5,815 Sheppey East Swale 3,734 Teynham and Lynsted Swale 3,951 The Meads Swale 2,075 West Downs Swale 2,110 Woodstock Swale 4,393

66. Slough BC 71,317 Baylis and Stoke Slough 5,428 Britwell and Northborough Slough 5,538 Central Slough 5,045 Cippenham Green Slough 6,195 Cippenham Meadows Slough 6,182 Elliman Slough 5,028 Farnham Slough 5,423 Foxborough Slough 2,142 Haymill and Lynch Hill Slough 6,167 Langley Kedermister Slough 6,208 Langley St. Mary’s Slough 6,301 Upton Slough 5,803 Wexham Lea Slough 5,857

67. South West Surrey CC 74,494 Bramley, Busbridge and Hascombe Waverley 3,333 Chiddingfold and Dunsfold Waverley 2,929 Elstead and Thursley Waverley 3,002 Farnham Bourne Waverley 3,103 Farnham Castle Waverley 2,939 Farnham Firgrove Waverley 3,036 Farnham Hale and Heath End Waverley 3,165 Farnham Moor Park Waverley 3,505 Farnham Shortheath and Boundstone Waverley 3,107 Farnham Upper Hale Waverley 3,052 Farnham Weybourne and Badshot Lea Waverley 3,242 Farnham Wrecclesham and Rowledge Waverley 3,271 Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford Waverley 3,045 Godalming Binscombe Waverley 3,001 Godalming Central and Ockford Waverley 3,219 Godalming Charterhouse Waverley 2,642

46 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

Godalming Farncombe and Catteshall Waverley 3,497 Godalming Holloway Waverley 3,196 Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill Waverley 4,313 Haslemere East and Grayswood Waverley 4,897 Hindhead Waverley 3,108 Milford Waverley 3,007 Witley and Hambledon Waverley 2,885

68. Southampton Itchen BC 75,474 Bargate Southampton 8,571 Bevois Southampton 8,343 Bitterne Southampton 9,573 Bitterne Park Southampton 9,747 Harefield Southampton 9,698 Peartree Southampton 9,850 Sholing Southampton 10,291 Woolston Southampton 9,401

69. Southampton Test BC 72,705 Bassett Southampton 8,890 Coxford Southampton 9,843 Freemantle Southampton 8,673 Millbrook Southampton 9,954 Portswood Southampton 8,877 Redbridge Southampton 9,871 Shirley Southampton 9,212 Swaythling Southampton 7,385

70. Spelthorne BC 74,558 Chertsey St. Ann’s Runnymede 4,259 Ashford Common Spelthorne 6,049 Ashford East Spelthorne 5,619 Ashford North and Stanwell South Spelthorne 5,814 Ashford Town Spelthorne 5,265 Halliford and Sunbury West Spelthorne 4,679 Laleham and Shepperton Green Spelthorne 5,900 Riverside and Laleham Spelthorne 5,170 Shepperton Town Spelthorne 5,243 Staines Spelthorne 5,430 Staines South Spelthorne 5,145 Stanwell North Spelthorne 5,356 Sunbury Common Spelthorne 5,470 Sunbury East Spelthorne 5,159

71. Surrey Heath CC 74,975 Ash South and Tongham Guildford 5,958 Ash Vale Guildford 4,276 Ash Wharf Guildford 4,717 Bagshot Surrey Heath 4,411 Chobham Surrey Heath 2,895 Frimley Surrey Heath 4,444 Frimley Green Surrey Heath 4,249 Heatherside Surrey Heath 4,479 Lightwater Surrey Heath 5,260 Mytchett and Deepcut Surrey Heath 4,929 Old Dean Surrey Heath 3,012 Parkside Surrey Heath 4,791 St. Michaels Surrey Heath 3,508 St. Pauls Surrey Heath 4,452 Town Surrey Heath 3,378 Watchetts Surrey Heath 3,652 West End Surrey Heath 3,308 Windlesham Surrey Heath 3,256

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 47 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

72. Test Valley CC 74,805 Chandler’s Ford East Eastleigh 3,644 Chandler’s Ford West Eastleigh 4,581 Hiltingbury East Eastleigh 4,021 Hiltingbury West Eastleigh 4,105 Abbey Test Valley 3,786 Ampfield and Braishfield Test Valley 1,803 Amport Test Valley 1,820 Anna Test Valley 3,740 Broughton and Stockbridge Test Valley 3,582 Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams Test Valley 5,160 Cupernham Test Valley 3,895 Harewood Test Valley 1,748 Kings Somborne and Michelmersh Test Valley 2,106 North Baddesley Test Valley 5,382 Over Wallop Test Valley 1,369 Penton Bellinger Test Valley 3,601 Romsey Extra Test Valley 3,395 Tadburn Test Valley 3,989 Valley Park Test Valley 5,575 and Twyford Winchester 4,252 Compton and Winchester 3,251

73. Thanet East BC 78,130 Beacon Road Thanet 3,395 Bradstowe Thanet 3,240 Central Harbour Thanet 5,511 Cliffsend and Pegwell Thanet 3,862 Cliftonville East Thanet 5,133 Cliftonville West Thanet 4,571 Dane Valley Thanet 5,256 Eastcliff Thanet 4,920 Garlinge Thanet 3,699 Kingsgate Thanet 1,708 Margate Central Thanet 3,199 Nethercourt Thanet 3,498 Newington Thanet 3,530 Northwood Thanet 4,914 Salmestone Thanet 3,886 Sir Moses Montefiore Thanet 3,630 St. Peters Thanet 5,459 Viking Thanet 5,558 Westbrook Thanet 3,161

74. Tonbridge and The Weald CC 71,575 Boughton Monchelsea and Chart Sutton Maidstone 1,925 Coxheath and Hunton Maidstone 5,456 Harrietsham and Lenham Maidstone 4,418 Headcorn Maidstone 3,778 Maidstone 1,770 Loose Maidstone 1,976 Marden and Yalding Maidstone 5,618 North Downs Maidstone 1,834 Park Wood Maidstone 4,039 Staplehurst Maidstone 4,330 Sutton Valence and Langley Maidstone 2,004 Cage Green Tonbridge and Malling 3,502 Castle Tonbridge and Malling 3,287 Hadlow and East Peckham Tonbridge and Malling 5,371 Higham Tonbridge and Malling 3,611 Hildenborough Tonbridge and Malling 3,686 Judd Tonbridge and Malling 3,594 Medway Tonbridge and Malling 4,167 Trench Tonbridge and Malling 3,516 Vauxhall Tonbridge and Malling 3,693

48 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

75. Tunbridge Wells CC 73,871 Cowden and Hever Sevenoaks 1,561 Edenbridge North and East Sevenoaks 3,616 Edenbridge South and West Sevenoaks 3,015 Leigh and Chiddingstone Causeway Sevenoaks 1,690 Penshurst, Fordcombe and Chiddingstone Sevenoaks 1,966 Brenchley and Horsmonden Tunbridge Wells 3,852 Broadwater Tunbridge Wells 2,902 Capel Tunbridge Wells 1,719 Culverden Tunbridge Wells 4,994 Paddock Wood East Tunbridge Wells 2,913 Paddock Wood West Tunbridge Wells 2,755 Pantiles and St. Mark’s Tunbridge Wells 4,745 Park Tunbridge Wells 5,054 Pembury Tunbridge Wells 4,268 Rusthall Tunbridge Wells 3,371 Sherwood Tunbridge Wells 4,391 Southborough and High Brooms Tunbridge Wells 4,981 Southborough North Tunbridge Wells 3,051 Speldhurst and Bidborough Tunbridge Wells 4,463 St. James’ Tunbridge Wells 3,753 St. John’s Tunbridge Wells 4,811

76. Wantage CC 75,312 Cholsey South Oxfordshire 6,597 Didcot North East South Oxfordshire 6,805 Didcot South South Oxfordshire 7,104 Didcot West South Oxfordshire 4,663 Blewbury & Harwell Vale of White Horse 4,583 Drayton Vale of White Horse 2,274 Faringdon Vale of White Horse 5,362 Grove North Vale of White Horse 3,998 Hendreds Vale of White Horse 2,151 Kingston Bagpuize Vale of White Horse 2,555 Marcham Vale of White Horse 2,158 Ridgeway Vale of White Horse 2,355 Stanford Vale of White Horse 2,654 Steventon & the Hanneys Vale of White Horse 2,444 Sutton Courtenay Vale of White Horse 2,086 Thames Vale of White Horse 2,534 Wantage & Grove Brook Vale of White Horse 5,138 Wantage Charlton Vale of White Horse 4,764 Watchfield & Shrivenham Vale of White Horse 5,087

77. Winchester CC 76,083 Bishops Waltham Winchester 5,261 and Southwick Winchester 1,130 Cheriton and Winchester 1,740 Winchester 5,757 , and Hambledon Winchester 1,682 Winchester 1,575 Winchester 3,475 Winchester 2,716 Olivers Battery and Winchester 3,044 and Winchester 3,107 Winchester 3,074 Sparsholt Winchester 1,329 St. Barnabas Winchester 4,618 St. Bartholomew Winchester 4,557 St. John and All Saints Winchester 3,935

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 49 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

St. Luke Winchester 3,365 St. Michael Winchester 4,433 St. Paul Winchester 3,899 and Newtown Winchester 3,394 The Alresfords Winchester 4,869 Upper Meon Valley Winchester 1,588 Wickham Winchester 3,163 and Winchester 4,372

78. Windsor CC 74,185 Ascot Bracknell Forest 3,967 Binfield with Warfield Bracknell Forest 6,444 Warfield Harvest Ride Bracknell Forest 5,755 Winkfield and Cranbourne Bracknell Forest 3,883 Chalvey Slough 5,351 Colnbrook with Poyle Slough 3,404 Ascot and Cheapside Windsor and Maidenhead 3,643 Castle Without Windsor and Maidenhead 4,418 Clewer East Windsor and Maidenhead 3,465 Clewer North Windsor and Maidenhead 5,341 Clewer South Windsor and Maidenhead 3,406 Datchet Windsor and Maidenhead 3,368 Eton and Castle Windsor and Maidenhead 1,227 Eton Wick Windsor and Maidenhead 1,711 Horton and Wraysbury Windsor and Maidenhead 3,723 Old Windsor Windsor and Maidenhead 3,573 Park Windsor and Maidenhead 3,536 Sunningdale Windsor and Maidenhead 3,489 Sunninghill and South Ascot Windsor and Maidenhead 4,481

79. Witney CC 78,455 Alvescot and Filkins 1,367 Ascott and Shipton West Oxfordshire 1,713 Bampton and Clanfield West Oxfordshire 2,877 Brize Norton and Shilton West Oxfordshire 1,549 Burford West Oxfordshire 1,467 Carterton North East West Oxfordshire 3,806 Carterton North West West Oxfordshire 3,260 Carterton South West Oxfordshire 3,295 Chadlington and Churchill West Oxfordshire 1,533 Charlbury and Finstock West Oxfordshire 2,955 Chipping Norton West Oxfordshire 4,640 Ducklington West Oxfordshire 1,667 Eynsham and Cassington West Oxfordshire 4,706 Freeland and Hanborough West Oxfordshire 3,378 Hailey, Minster Lovell and Leafield West Oxfordshire 3,107 Kingham, Rollright and Enstone West Oxfordshire 3,115 Milton-under-Wychwood West Oxfordshire 1,645 North Leigh West Oxfordshire 1,506 Standlake, Aston and Stanton Harcourt West Oxfordshire 3,280 Stonesfield and Tackley West Oxfordshire 3,111 The Bartons West Oxfordshire 1,556 Witney Central West Oxfordshire 3,654 Witney East West Oxfordshire 5,541 Witney North West Oxfordshire 3,114 Witney South West Oxfordshire 4,522 Witney West West Oxfordshire 2,994 Woodstock and Bladon West Oxfordshire 3,097

50 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

80. Woking CC 72,819 Normandy Guildford 2,478 Pirbright Guildford 2,083 Send Guildford 3,409 Bisley Surrey Heath 2,610 Brookwood Woking 1,851 Goldsworth East Woking 5,018 Goldsworth West Woking 3,500 Hermitage and Knaphill South Woking 3,742 Horsell East and Woodham Woking 3,478 Horsell West Woking 5,154 Kingfield and Westfield Woking 3,923 Knaphill Woking 6,796 Maybury and Sheerwater Woking 6,129 Mayford and Sutton Green Woking 1,932 Mount Hermon East Woking 3,350 Mount Hermon West Woking 4,187 Old Woking Woking 2,123 Pyrford Woking 3,789 St. John’s and Hook Heath Woking 3,295 West Byfleet Woking 3,972

81. Wokingham CC 72,505 Aldermaston West Berkshire 2,170 Burghfield West Berkshire 4,497 Mortimer West Berkshire 4,364 Sulhamstead West Berkshire 2,215 Arborfield Wokingham 1,927 Barkham Wokingham 2,544 Emmbrook Wokingham 6,466 Evendons Wokingham 6,819 Hawkedon Wokingham 6,678 Hillside Wokingham 6,267 Norreys Wokingham 6,915 Shinfield North Wokingham 2,371 Shinfield South Wokingham 5,515 Swallowfield Wokingham 2,270 Wescott Wokingham 4,290 Winnersh Wokingham 7,197

82. Worthing West BC 74,210 East Preston Arun 6,705 Ferring Arun 3,975 Rustington East Arun 4,431 Rustington West Arun 6,650 Castle Worthing 6,140 Central Worthing 6,497 Durrington Worthing 4,378 Goring Worthing 6,690 Heene Worthing 5,717 Marine Worthing 6,363 Northbrook Worthing 3,626 Salvington Worthing 6,927 Tarring Worthing 6,111

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 51 Constituency Ward District/borough/city/county Electorate

83. Wycombe CC 77,998 Abbey Wycombe 6,227 Bledlow and Bradenham Wycombe 2,149 Booker and Cressex Wycombe 3,474 Bowerdean Wycombe 3,477 Chiltern Rise Wycombe 3,995 Disraeli Wycombe 3,839 Downley and Plomer Hill Wycombe 3,654 Greater Marlow Wycombe 3,770 Hambleden Valley Wycombe 1,891 Hazlemere North Wycombe 3,712 Hazlemere South Wycombe 3,439 Micklefield Wycombe 3,493 Oakridge and Castlefield Wycombe 5,213 Ryemead Wycombe 4,719 Sands Wycombe 4,119 Stokenchurch and Radnage Wycombe 4,137 Terriers and Amersham Hill Wycombe 6,081 Totteridge Wycombe 4,290 Tylers Green and Loudwater Wycombe 6,319

52 Boundary Commission for England Glossary

Assessor Statutorily appointed technical Public hearing Formal opportunity in a given adviser to the BCE, being either area for people to make oral the Registrar General for representations, chaired by England and Wales or the an Assistant Commissioner. In Director General of Ordnance each region of England there Survey. may be no fewer than two and Assistant Independent person appointed no more than five hearings, and Commissioner at the request of the BCE to each may last a maximum of assist it with the discharge of its two days. functions. Representations The views provided by an Borough Parliamentary constituency individual, group or organisation constituency containing a predominantly to the BCE on its initial or revised (abbreviated to BC) urban area. proposals, either for or against, including counter‑proposals and Parliamentary constituency County petitions. constituency containing more than a small (abbreviated to CC) rural element. Review date Proposals must be based on the numbers of electors on the Designation Classification as either a electoral registers on this date. borough constituency or as Defined in the 2011 Act as the a county constituency. date two years and ten months Electorate The number of registered before the final report is to be Parliamentary electors in submitted (i.e. 1 December a given area. 2015 for the review that is to conclude with a final report by (Statutory) The statutory rule that requires 1 October 2018). Electorate range the electorate of every constituency (as at the review Revised proposals The initial proposals as date) to be within 5% of the UK subsequently revised. electoral quota. Rules The statutory criteria for Final The recommendations Parliamentary constituencies recommendations submitted in a formal final under Schedule 2 to the report to Parliament at the end Parliamentary Constituencies of a review. They may – or may Act 1986 (as amended). not – have been revised since UK electoral quota The average number of the initial proposals in any electors in a constituency, given area. found by dividing the total Initial proposals First formal proposals published electorate of the UK (less that by the BCE during the review for of the four specific ‘protected’ public consultation. constituencies) by 596. Periodical report Report to Parliament following a Unitary authority An area where there is only general review of Parliamentary one tier of local council (above constituencies. any parish or town council). Contrasted with those ‘shire Places of deposit In each constituency the district’ areas that have two tiers Commission will make available (i.e. both a non‑metropolitan hard copies of its initial county council and a district/ proposals (including report and borough/city council). maps). The places of deposit where the public may inspect the proposals are usually the offices of the relevant local authority, although other public places such as libraries may be used. The Commission will publish a full list of places of deposit on its website.

Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 53 13/09/2016 South East | BCE Consultation Portal Your proposed constituency is Wantage

The proposed new constituency boundaries are displayed in red on the map below. You can click on boundaries to compare them with other geographies and click data to see how many electors are in each constituency. We welcome comments on our initial proposals, do this by clicking have your say.

Before you comment, have you read? South East region Initial proposals report (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14172)

The boundaries and the name labels in the wards, polling district and existing and proposed constituency layers are visible only at a certain zoom level. Please zoom in to see all the information on these layers. Polling district electorate data is provided by local authorities and we are not responsible for its accuracy.

Review details

What do you need to know? The number of constituencies in the South East region must reduce from 84 to 83 By law, every constituency we propose must contain between 71,031 and 78,507 electors We largely use local government wards as the building blocks for proposed constituencies We try to retain existing constituencies where possible We try to have regard to geographic factors

Public hearings

During the consultation we will be visiting the South East region and holding five public hearings 20 ­ 21 October ­ Guildford (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 24 ­ 25 October ­ Oxford (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 27 ­ 28 October ­ Portsmouth (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 31 October ­ 1 November ­ Brighton (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 3 ­ 4 November ­ Maidstone (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) Useful links

Report ­ Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14172) Summary ­ Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14181) All documents relating to the South East region (/publications) Guide to the 2018 review (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14224) http://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=OX118RF 1/2 13/09/2016 South East | BCE Consultation Portal Your proposed constituency is Wantage

The proposed new constituency boundaries are displayed in red on the map below. You can click on boundaries to compare them with other geographies and click data to see how many electors are in each constituency. We welcome comments on our initial proposals, do this by clicking have your say.

Before you comment, have you read? South East region Initial proposals report (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14172)

The boundaries and the name labels in the wards, polling district and existing and proposed constituency layers are visible only at a certain zoom level. Please zoom in to see all the information on these layers. Polling district electorate data is provided by local authorities and we are not responsible for its accuracy.

Review details

What do you need to know? The number of constituencies in the South East region must reduce from 84 to 83 By law, every constituency we propose must contain between 71,031 and 78,507 electors We largely use local government wards as the building blocks for proposed constituencies We try to retain existing constituencies where possible We try to have regard to geographic factors

Public hearings

During the consultation we will be visiting the South East region and holding five public hearings 20 ­ 21 October ­ Guildford (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 24 ­ 25 October ­ Oxford (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 27 ­ 28 October ­ Portsmouth (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 31 October ­ 1 November ­ Brighton (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) 3 ­ 4 November ­ Maidstone (https://www.bce2018.eventbrite.co.uk) Useful links

Report ­ Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14172) Summary ­ Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14181) All documents relating to the South East region (/publications) Guide to the 2018 review (/download_document?type=0&document_id=14224) http://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=OX117HN 1/2 Agenda item 7 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

RReport author: Kathy Fiander

Consultation on proposals for the local government finance settlement 2017/18

Introduction

1. This report asks the Committee to consider proposals on the local government finance settlement 2017/18.

Recommendation

2. The Committee should consider whether to respond to the proposals and if so, agree its responses.

Background

3. The Department for Communities and Local Government recently published proposals for the local government finance settlement 2017/18 on which it is consulting. There are proposals to introduce referendum principles to parish councils.

4. Paragraph 2.1.2 says:

“This Chapter outlines the Government’s proposals for the 2017/18 local government finance settlement that have implications for the local resources collected by councils. In summary, it includes:

that referendum principles are introduced for town and parish councils whose Band D precept is higher than that of the lowest charging district council for 2016/17 (£75.46), and which have a total precept for 2016/17 of at least £500,000, while taking account of transfers of responsibilities, and that consideration is given to the extension of referendums to all local precepting authorities.”

5. Section 3.3 of the document elaborates further, going on to pose the following questions: Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 7-1 Agenda item 7

Question 4: Do you agree that referendum principles should be extended to larger, higher-spending town and parish councils in 2017/18 as set out in paragraphs 3.3.3 to 3.3.4?

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to take account of the transfer of responsibilities to town and parish councils as outlined in paragraph 3.3.5?

Question 6: Do you agree with the suggestion that referendum principles may be extended to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.6? If so what level of principle should be set?

Question 7: Do you have views on the practical implications of a possible extension of referendum principles to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.7?

6. In 2016/2017 Didcot Town Council will receive £104.95 for each band D household. The amount to be collected via the precept is £916,529.

7. The Committee should consider whether to respond to the consultation and if so, agree its responses.

8. This consultation will last for 6 weeks from 15th September 2016 to 5pm, 28th October 2016

Financial and Legal Implications

9. None immediately arising from the consultation.

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 7-2

The 2017/18 Local Government Finance Settlement

Technical Consultation Paper

September 2016 Department for Communities and Local Government

© Crown copyright, 2016

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re/use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence,http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open/government/licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg

If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, complete the form at http://forms.communities.gov.uk/ or write to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000

For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK

September 2016

ISBN: 978-1-4098-4896-7

Contents

Scope of the consultation 4

About this consultation 6

1. Summary of proposals 7

2. The distribution of central resources 9

3. Changes to local resources 12

Annex A: 50% Business Rates Retention: Methodology for adjusting for the 2017 revaluation 19

Annex B: Summary of consultation questions 24

Annex C: Glossary of technical terms 25

3

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this This consultation covers proposals for the local government consultation: finance settlement for 2017/18.

Scope of this This consultation seeks views on proposals for the local government consultation: finance settlement for 2017/18, in particular from representatives of local government

Geographical These proposals relate to England only. scope: Impact Since the Government does not envisage that the proposals Assessment: within this consultation document will have an impact on business, no impact assessment has been produced.

Basic Information

To: The consultation will be of particular interest to local authorities, and representative bodies for local authorities.

Body/bodies Local Government Finance Directorate within the Department for responsible for Communities and Local Government. the consultation: Duration: This consultation will last for 6 weeks from 15 September 2016 to 5pm, 28 October 2016. Enquiries: For any enquiries about the consultation please contact

James Livingston [email protected] or 0303 444 2075

How to respond: Please respond by completing an online survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/583WBQL

Alternatively, you can respond to the questions in this consultation by email to: [email protected]

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to.

Written responses should be sent to:

James Livingston Department for Communities and Local Government 2nd floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

4

When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include: - your name, - your position (if applicable), - the name of organisation (if applicable), - an address (including post/code), - an email address, and - a contact telephone number

5

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department for Communities and Local Government will process your personal data in accordance with DPA and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact DCLG Consultation Co/coordinator.

Department for Communities and Local Government 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Or by e-mail to: [email protected]

6

1. Summary of proposals

1.1 Summary

1.1.1 This chapter provides an overview of the wider reforms of local government finance which will help provide context to the proposals for the 2017/18 settlement:

 it provides background information regarding the ongoing reforms to business rates retention and

 it outlines the key themes that the Government is proposing for the 2017/18 local government finance settlement.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The funding available to councils to deliver their core services for the rest of this Parliament is broadly flat, in cash terms. By then, local government will retain 100% of taxes raised locally. This will give local government additional business rates receipts of around £12.5bn to spend on local services. The system will have stronger incentives to boost growth, and areas that take bold decisions to boost growth will see the benefits. In order to ensure that the reforms are fiscally neutral, councils will gain new responsibilities, and some Whitehall grants will be phased out.

1.2.2 These reforms represent a unique opportunity to fundamentally change the role of local government and the way it is funded. The move towards self-sufficiency and away from dependence on central government is something that councils have been calling for over a number of decades. The historic 2016/17 local government finance settlement was a first step along this road. It offers those local authorities who are committed to reform far greater certainty over their future funding.

1.3 Summary of proposals

The distribution of central resources

2.1.1 This chapter outlines our proposals for distributing central resources in 2017/18 to build on the four year offer announced in the 2016/17 local government finance settlement. These proposals are intended to give councils that are committed to reform long term certainty, earlier in the year, over more sources of funding. In summary, it outlines:

 the Government’s commitment to the multi-year settlement offer and seeks views on expanding this offer

 the proposed approach to distributing funding through the Improved Better Care Fund using a methodology that takes account of each council’s capacity to raise resources through the adult social care precept.

7

Changes to local resources

2.1.2 This chapter outlines the Government’s proposals for the 2017/18 local government finance settlement that have implications for the local resources collected by councils. In summary, it includes:

 the Government’s proposals for the council tax referendum principles for 2017/18 which are:

- a core principle of 2%. As in 2016/17, this would continue to apply to shire counties, unitary authorities, London boroughs, the Greater London Authority, fire authorities, and Police and Crime Commissioners except those whose Band D precept is in the lower quartile of that category

- a continuation of the Adult Social Care precept of an additional 2%, for county councils, unitary authorities and London boroughs (including the Common Council of the and the Council of the Isles of Scilly), subject to consideration of the use made of the Adult Social Care precept in the previous year

- that shire district councils will be allowed increases of less than 2% or up to and including £5, whichever is higher

- that Police and Crime Commissioners whose Band D precept is in the lowest quartile of that category will be allowed increases of less than 2% or up to and including £5, whichever is higher

- that referendum principles are introduced for town and parish councils whose Band D precept is higher than that of the lowest charging district council for 2016/17 (£75.46), and which have a total precept for 2016/17 of at least £500,000, while taking account of transfers of responsibilities, and that consideration is given to the extension of referendums to all local precepting authorities.

 the proposed approach for adjusting business rates tariff and top ups to cancel out, as far as is practicable, the impact of the 2017 business rates revaluation on local authorities’ income

 a proposed methodology for calculating the agreed changes in the local share of retained business rates and the level of tariff and top ups for local authorities piloting 100% business rates retention, designed to ensure that no authorities anywhere in the country are adversely affected by these pilots, and

 a mechanism which would allow places with a devolution deal to revisit the distribution of existing funding streams within their areas, if all affected councils agree.

8

2. The distribution of central resources

2.1 Summary

2.1.1 This chapter outlines our proposals for distributing central resources in 2017/18 to build on the multi-year settlement offer announced in the 2016/17 local government finance settlement. These proposals are intended to give councils that are committed to reform greater certainty, earlier in the year, over more sources of funding. In particular, the chapter outlines:

 the multi-year settlement offer and seeks views on expanding this offer

 the proposed approach to distributing funding through the Improved Better Care Fund, using a methodology that takes account of each council’s capacity to raise resources through the adult social care precept.

2.2 The multi-year settlement offer

2.2.1 On 10 March, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to every local authority in England setting out the conditions for the offer of a multi- year settlement.1 This made clear that the offer and the production of an efficiency plan should be as simple and straightforward as possible. It is important that plans cover the full four year period and are open and transparent about the benefits they will bring and show how greater certainty can create the necessary conditions for further savings.

2.2.2 The offer, as described in the Secretary of State’s letter of 10 March, includes:  Revenue Support Grant  Business rates tariff and top up payments, which will not change for reasons relating to the relative needs of local authorities  Rural Services Delivery Grant and  Transition Grant.

2.2.3 Plans should be locally owned and driven and as such we have not provided guidance or set out what they should contain. However councils should consider sector-led advice produced by the Local Government Association and CIPFA on what efficiency plans could include (http://tinyurl.com/zqhpsyo). Councils have until

1 The letter confirmed that the Government will offer any council that wishes to take it up a four-year funding settlement to 2019-20. This includes:  Common Council of the City of London  London borough councils  District Councils  County Councils  Council of the Isles of Scilly  Greater London Authority  Metropolitan County Fire and Rescue Authorities  Combined Fire and Rescue Authorities.

9

14 October 2016 to accept the offer by sending an email or letter to [email protected] with a link to their published efficiency plan. After the deadline for receipt, DCLG will respond to councils on the 4 year offer as soon as practicable.

2.2.4 We expect the take up for this offer to be high as it gives councils an excellent opportunity to increase the level of certainty they have regarding their financial position for the rest of this Parliament. Barring exceptional circumstances, and subject to the normal statutory consultation process for the local government finance settlement,2 the Government intends to confirm the constituent elements of the multi-year offer for the remaining years of the Parliament for qualifying councils soon after 14 October. These amounts, together with any additional grants which might be part of the offer (see paragraph 2.2.6, below), would then be published as part of the 2017/18 provisional local government finance settlement in due course.

2.2.5 However, those councils that choose not to accept the offer will be subject to the existing annual process for determining the level of central funding that they will receive.

2.2.6 The Government would also like to consider expanding the current multi-year offer to give local councils who are committed to reform the opportunity for more security over more of their funding for the rest of this parliament. This could potentially be achieved by including more grants in the offer.

Question 1: What other, additional grants, beyond those set out in para 2.2.2, should the Government consider including in the multi-year offer?

2.3 Distribution of the improved Better Care Fund

2.3.1 The Spending Review 2015 announced the introduction of the improved Better Care Fund worth £105 million in 2017/18, £800 million in 2018/19 and £1.5 billion in 2019/20.

2.3.2 The Government set out its proposed approach to allocating the improved Better Care Fund allocations alongside the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2016/17 and committed to consult on the distribution of the fund in due course.

2.3.3 Having carefully considered its approach and the views received in response to the consultation on the settlement, the Government proposes to maintain the approach for 2017/18 set out in chapter 5 of the consultation on the provisional 2016/17 local government finance settlement published on 17 December 2015.3 This approach recognises that authorities have varying capacity to raise council tax, and will

2 As prescribed in sections 78 and 78A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. 3 Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494385/Provisional_settlemen t_consultation_document.pdf

10

allocate the funding through a separate grant to local government, using a methodology which provides more funding to those authorities which benefit less from the adult social care council tax precept.

2.3.4 The proposed methodology for each financial year is as follows:

i. We calculate the additional funding available to spend on adult social care at a national level, combining the 2% council tax flexibility for adult social care and the additional funding for the improved Better Care Fund.

ii. We then calculate the share of that national amount which each authority with responsibility for social care would receive if it were distributed according to the 2013 adult social care relative needs formula.

iii. We then calculate how much each authority with responsibility for social care could raise from the additional 2% council tax flexibility for adult social care.

iv. The additional funding for the improved Better Care Fund is then allocated in such a way that, when combined with the money which could be raised from the council tax flexibility, each council would receive its share of the combined national amount as calculated in step (ii) above.

v. These allocations are adjusted so that, where an authority could raise more from the additional council tax flexibility for social care than its share of the national amount calculated in step (ii), its allocation for the improved Better Care Fund is set to zero rather than a notional negative figure.

vi. The remainder of the allocations are then reduced proportionately, so that the combined totals sum to the national total for additional funding available to spend on adult social care, as calculated in step (i). 2.3.5 The resulting illustrative proposed allocations of the improved Better Care Fund by local authority can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/core- spending-power-final-local-government-finance-settlement-2016-to-2017

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed methodology for allocating funding for the improved Better Care Fund as outlined in paragraph 2.3.4?

11

3. Changes to local resources

3.1 Summary

3.1.1 This chapter outlines the Government’s proposals for the 2017/18 local government finance settlement that have implications for the local resources collected by councils. These proposals include:

 provisional council tax Referendum principles for 2017/18

 the Government’s approach to adjusting tariff and top ups to ensure as far as possible that local authorities have a predictable level of income regardless of the impact of the 2017 business rates revaluation

 a methodology for calculating the change in the local share and the level of tariff and top ups for local authorities piloting 100% business rates retention

 a mechanism through which funding could be transferred to a if all councils affected agree to the transfer.

3.2 Council tax referendum principles for local authorities

3.2.1 In the Spending Review, the Government announced a new adult social care precept worth 2% for authorities with responsibility for adult social care for the remainder of the Parliament. This new precept was in addition to a ‘core’ council tax referendum principle of 2% which would be reviewed annually. A range of flexibilities were offered to certain other categories of authority, with the remainder able to increase by up to the core 2% without triggering a local referendum. The Government is committed to keeping council tax low and, under the existing principles, the average Band D increase for 2016/17 was 3.1%, which means that council tax is still 9% lower in real terms than it was in 2009/10.

3.2.2 In order to balance the aim of keeping council tax low for local residents with the need for councils to raise sufficient funding to support local services, the Government is minded to propose referendum principles the same as those set in 2016/17, subject to the views of respondents to this consultation and consideration of the use made of the adult social care precept in 2016/17. This would mean:

 a core principle of 2%. This would continue to apply to shire counties, unitary authorities, London boroughs, the Greater London Authority, fire authorities, and Police and Crime Commissioners except those whose Band D precept is in the lower quartile of that category (see below)

 a continuation of the Adult Social Care precept of an additional 2%, for County Councils, unitary authorities and London boroughs (including the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly), subject to consideration of the use made of the Adult Social Care precept in the previous year

12

 shire district councils will be allowed increases of less than 2% or up to and including £5, whichever is higher

 Police and Crime Commissioners in the lowest quartile will be allowed increases of less than 2% or up to and including £5, whichever is higher.

Question 3: Do you agree with the council tax referendum principles for 2017-18 proposed in paragraphs 3.2.1 to 3.2.2 for principal local authorities?

3.3 Council tax referendum principles for parish and town councils

3.3.1 Since the introduction of council tax referendums in 2012/13, no referendum principles have been set for local precepting authorities such as town and parish councils (“parishes”), although the Government has made it clear that we would keep this under review and take action if necessary.

3.3.2 We recognise the value of parishes and the greater role in service delivery that many are performing to deliver ambitious services for their residents. However, the increase in the average Band D council tax level of 6.1% set by parishes in 2016/17 is notably higher than those in the previous 5 years, as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Average percentage increase in Band D council tax levels set by parishes 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Parishes 2.3% 3.9% 5.2% 4.3% 3.3% 6.1%

3.3.3 In light of this, the Government is minded to apply referendum principles to larger, higher-spending town and parish councils in 2017/18. There are around 8,800 precepting parishes in England, which vary widely in terms of resident population and precept charge. We believe there is a strong argument in favour of extending referendums to those larger parishes whose precept is equivalent in size to that of a district council.

3.3.4 We propose that referendum principles are introduced for local precepting authorities (town and parish councils) whose Band D precept is higher than that of the lowest charging district council for 2016/17 (£75.46), and which have a total precept for 2016/17 of at least £500,000 (subject to the next paragraph). These parishes would face the same referendum principles as shire districts: increases of less than 2% or up to and including £5 (whichever is higher) can be set without triggering a referendum. Based on these thresholds, the Government expects this new principle will affect around 120 of England’s 8,800 local precepting parishes.

3.3.5 In doing this, the Government wishes to ensure that parishes continue to have the flexibility to take on responsibilities from other tiers of local government without being unduly constrained by council tax referendum principles. It is therefore proposed that parishes will not be in the category to which the referendum principle

13

applies where there has been a transfer of responsibilities, and where three conditions are satisfied:

i. the parish council and a principal council covering the area of the parish council have each resolved that a particular function carried out by the principal council in relation to the parish council’s area in the financial year 2016-17 is to be carried out instead by the parish council in the financial year 2017-18

ii. the parish council and the principal council have agreed the reasonable cost of the exercise of that particular function in the parish council’s area by the parish council in the financial year 2017-18

iii. that the agreed cost, if collected by way of the parish council precept, would take the parish council over the threshold of a 2% or £5 increase on the previous year.

3.3.6 A large proportion of parishes are modest in size – for example, around 4,000 parishes have precepts of £25 or less. However, the Government is aware that increases in these precepts continue to concern local tax payers and is therefore prepared to consider extending referendums to all parishes.

3.3.7 We recognise that issues of proportionality, practicality and cost could be raised by such a step, and would welcome views on this.

Question 4: Do you agree that referendum principles should be extended to larger, higher-spending town and parish councils in 2017/18 as set out in paragraphs 3.3.3 to 3.3.4?

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to take account of the transfer of responsibilities to town and parish councils as outlined in paragraph 3.3.5?

Question 6: Do you agree with the suggestion that referendum principles may be extended to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.6? If so what level of principle should be set?

Question 7: Do you have views on the practical implications of a possible extension of referendum principles to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.7?

3.4 The business rates revaluation adjustment

3.4.1 The next business rates revaluation takes effect from 1 April 2017. Revaluation is a revenue neutral exercise so the total rates bill will stay the same at the England level in real terms, after allowing for appeals. At the local authority level, overall bills will increase or fall depending upon whether rateable values in that area have performed above or below the average for England, after allowing for appeals.

14

3.4.2 This creates change in the system outside the control of local authorities. When the Government introduced the 50% business rate retention scheme it signalled that it would adjust each authority’s tariff or top up following a revaluation to ensure, as far as is practicable, that their retained income is the same after revaluation as immediately before. This will ensure that the growth incentive created by the rates retention scheme and the delivery of public services will not be weakened by losses of income outside the control of authorities. The following section describes how we will implement this commitment.

The adjustment for the revaluation

3.4.3 For a local authority, the measure of rates income in the rates retention scheme is its share of “non-domestic rating income” as defined in regulations and captured on the NNDR3 form. Therefore, the objective of the revaluation adjustment is to identify and isolate the amount by which non-domestic rating income in the authority will change purely due to the revaluation. Once identified, the relevant shares of these amounts can then be deducted or added to the tariffs or top ups to cancel out the impact of revaluation.

3.4.4 For example:

An authority sees its local share of non-domestic rating income grow due to revaluation from £100m to £122m. It has a £20m top up. With no adjustment, the £22m increase would feed through into extra revenue for the authority. To compensate we need to deduct £22m from the £20m top up giving a tariff of £2m.

3.4.5 In practice we do not believe it will be possible to directly measure the changes in non-domestic rating income arising from the revaluation alone. Instead we propose to estimate the change using a proxy (derived from gross rates payable). The proxy will be calculated by comparing the local authority’s rateable value before and after the revaluation to quantify the impact the revaluation has on the tax base. This effect will then be applied to the authority’s gross business rates income before the revaluation to produce a figure for the council’s income post-revaluation. Subtracting this post-revaluation income figure from the pre-revaluation income and apportioning it according to the authority’s share of business rates income under the scheme will produce the change that needs to be made to its tariff or top up in order to ensure that it has, as far as practicable, the same income after the revaluation as it had before.

3.4.6 We propose to make this adjustment in three stages: on a provisional basis in the 2017-18 settlement; on a final basis with a reconciliation in the 2018-19 settlement; and finally, by cancelling out the reconciliation in the 2019-20 settlement.

3.4.7 Annex A provides more detailed information about the calculations involved in the proposed methodology for the revaluation adjustment.

Appeals against the 2017 rating list

3.4.8 The adjustment for revaluation is for those impacts discernable at the time of the revaluation only (and captured in the rateable values on 31/3/17 and 1/4/17 as we look at them on that day). Changes to the revaluation which occur after 1 April

15

2017 by virtue of backdated amendments or appeals (including those backdated to 1/4/17) fall within the operation of the rates retention system in the normal way.

Question 8: Do you agree with the methodology for calculating the revaluation adjustment to business rates tariff and top-up payments as outlined in paragraphs 3.4.1 to 3.4.8?

3.5 Adjustments to business rates in areas piloting 100% business rates retention

3.5.1 At the 2015 Autumn Statement the Government committed to piloting approaches to 100% business rates retention in London, and from 1 April 2017.

3.5.2 The Government also committed that the pilots’ offer would be available to other areas with ratified devolution deals and that as part of the pilots, the “local share” of business rates could be increased from as early as 2017-18.

3.5.3 To ensure that an increase in the “local share” of business rates is fiscally neutral at the point of change, the Government and pilot areas are exploring:

 ending entitlement to certain grants and other funding streams  devolving additional responsibilities to pilot areas and  adjusting existing business rate tariffs and top ups.

3.5.4 The Government intends to use the pilots to test mechanisms for full rollout of the 100% retention scheme. Any cost to the system from elements of the pilots will not impact on non-pilot authorities.

Methodology for calculating the additional local share in pilot areas

3.5.5 The calculation of the value of an additional local share will be based on the pilot areas’ Baseline Funding Levels and notional Business Rates Baselines (i.e. the 2013/14 Business Rates Baseline, uprated by subsequent changes to the small business rates multiplier). This will preserve the integrity of the existing scheme by ensuring that the value of the additional share is exclusive of any growth (or decline) in business rates achieved by pilot authorities since 2013-14.

3.5.6 For each pilot authority, the value of funding streams and the new responsibilities rolled in to the business rates retention system (hereinafter referred to as “Grant”) will be added to the existing Baseline Funding Level to create a “new” Baseline Funding Level for the authority.

3.5.7 There are two different options on offer to pilot authorities in 2017-18. Either:

a) the local percentage share of business rates is increased only by the value of the “Grant” rolled-in or

16

b) the local percentage share of business rates is increased to 100% and, to the extent that the “Grant” rolled in is not equivalent to 100% of local business rates, tariffs and top ups are adjusted appropriately.

3.5.8 Under option a) above, the additional percentage share of business rates will be equal to:

Grant / notional Business Rates Baseline x existing % share of business rates

3.5.9 This additional percentage share will be added to the existing percentage share to give the percentage to be retained in 2017/18.

3.5.10 Under option b) above, the notional Business Rates Baseline of each authority will be adjusted to reflect the increase in the local share to 100%.4 The adjustment to the notional Business Rates Baseline is equal to:

Business Rates Baseline / existing % share of business rates x 100%

3.5.11 For option B, the difference between the new Baseline Funding Level and the new notional Business Rates Baseline will be the tariff or top up for 2017-18.

Calculation of Baseline Funding Levels and Tariffs and Top ups

3.5.12 Baseline Funding Level and business rate tariff and top up figures were set as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement in February 2016 using OBR estimates of the Retail Price Index (RPI) as a proxy for the changes in the small business rating multiplier. The actual multiplier for 2017-18 will be set once September 2016’s RPI is published. At the 2017-18 Settlement, Government will also update Baseline Funding Levels and tariffs/top ups for later years based on up- to-date estimates of RPI.

3.5.13 If it is necessary to make any agreed changes to amounts of Revenue Support Grant, the retained local share or tariffs and top ups for 2017-18, these will be made after the change in the small business rating multiplier are known. Whilst we will publish indicative figures for later years, it is the Government’s intention to recalculate the value of the local share (and the possible knock-on consequences for tariffs and top ups) for future Local Government Finance Settlements based on the actual change to the small business rating multiplier for those years.

Question 9: Do you agree that the methodology, as outlined in paragraphs 3.5.5 to 3.5.13, for calculating changes to the local share of business rates and tariff and top up payments is correct and does not adversely affect non-pilot areas?

3.6 Voluntary transfers of funding to Mayoral Combined Authorities

3.6.1 Devolution Deals have established the new duties that Mayoral Combined Authorities will be responsible for. There is the potential to adjust the calculation of

4 In most areas, the 100% will be split between different tiers of authority.

17

grant and business rates payments to reflect any changes in the way existing duties are carried out by authorities. These changes would only be made in areas where it is requested by the Mayoral Combined Authority and all authorities affected by any changes agreed to the proposals.

3.6.2 Before doing this, we would need all local authorities affected by the transfer of funding arrangements to agree to the process and to provide the numbers on which the calculations would be based.

3.6.3 If the funding is to be transferred in the form of grant, then it would be possible to decide on an authority by authority basis how much grant is to be paid to the Combined Authority instead of the authorities who currently receive funding. It would be up to the local authorities affected to agree how this should be done.

3.6.4 If the funding is to be transferred in the form of a share of business rates, then the same procedure as above would be followed, but an additional step would be required to convert the amount for each authority into a percentage of their business rates that would transfer to the combined authority and the shares of business rates would then need to be reflected in regulations. Section 3.5 outlines how this would be done.

3.6.5 If the funding is to be transferred in the form of council tax then it would be necessary to ensure any transfer did not in itself increase the burden on council tax payers. In order to affect the transfer the same Band D level would need to be transferred away from all the currently funded authorities. This could be achieved by dividing the total amount to be transferred to the Combined Authority by the total number of Band D equivalent properties within the currently funded authorities. Alternative Notional Amounts could then be used to reduce the currently funded authorities’ baselines and create a new baseline for the Mayor; this would ensure that no local referendums would be triggered due to the transfer of funding. This could only be done if the service transferred was the responsibility of the Mayor rather than that of the combined authority.

Question 10: Are you considering a voluntary transfer of funding between the Combined Authority and constituent authorities?

Question 11: Do you have any comments on the impact of the proposals for the 2017-18 settlement outlined in this consultation document on persons who share a protected characteristic? Please provide evidence to support your comments.

18

Annex A: 50% Business Rates Retention: Methodology for adjusting for the 2017 revaluation

B.1. In order to ensure, as far as is practicable, the impact of the 2017 revaluation is neutralised in the rates retention scheme, DCLG propose to make the following

adjustments to tariffs and top ups. This will be in addition to the normal inflation adjustments made to tariffs and top ups.

B.2. Ideally, we would directly measure the change in non-domestic rating income between 31/3/17 and 1/4/17 (the 2 days either side of the revaluation). However:

 being the last day of the financial year and a Friday there could be many alterations on 31 March 2017 with retrospective effect (typically appeals credited on that day). The authority would, therefore, need to take a view as to how much of their provision they have released to fund those appeals and how much actually reduced non-domestic rates income for that day

 we would need to consider whether changes to the provisions for the year should also be allocated to the income for the day and if so how

 there will be other accounting adjustments in income which would need to be reflected for the day – such as bad debt.

B.3. In practice we believe this would be too complicated and too sensitive to refunds, backdated alterations and subjective allocations of accounting adjustments. Instead the Government will use a proxy to measure the change in rates income due to the revaluation. We will then apply that proxy (as a factor) to the non- domestic rating income for 2016/17. That would then give an estimate of the change in in non-domestic rating income between 31/3/17 and 1/4/17.

Choice of a proxy for revaluation change

B.4. As a proxy, we propose to adopt the change in gross rates payable before all reliefs and accounting adjustments between 31 March 2017 and 1 April 2017. Essentially, this is just the rateable value x small business multiplier for those 2 days.

B.5. This proxy will not itself reflect changes in reliefs such as Small Business Rate Relief (SBRR). However, the proxy will be applied to non-domestic rating income which will already reflect the degree to which local income is affected by reliefs. So the adjustment will, by adopting non-domestic rating income, reflect the position of those authorities with a lot of SBRR.

B.6. Where the proxy could be less accurate is where reliefs in a local area change due to the revaluation out of line with the proxy for all properties in the area. Many percentage awards of reliefs will not change due to the revaluation (e.g. charitable

19

relief) as their eligibility and percentage is not driven by rateable value - so for them the proxy should work as well as it does for any property. And some have little impact (e.g. the empty property relief lower threshold) and some reliefs are insignificant (rural rate relief).

B.7. In principle, there is more scope for the revaluation factor for small properties receiving SBRR to be different to all properties. However:

 it is not possible to say what that revaluation factor for SBRR properties would have been. The Government has made large changes to the eligibility of SBRR for 1 April 2017. Had the Government not done anything to SBRR we would in any case have adjusted the thresholds for the relief and the Small Business (SB) multiplier. In the absence of the need for that decision we cannot isolate the effect of the Budget change to SBRR from the revaluation change

 we believe the impact would still be marginal.

B.8. Therefore, we believe adopting a proxy based on the gross change in rateable value using the Small Business multipliers is a practical and proportionate method. However, we will keep this under review for the final adjustment in the 2018/19 settlement (see below). We will also separately pay section 31 for the SBRR changes in the 2016 Budget including the increase in the threshold for the SB multiplier and will consider that payment in the context of the revaluation adjustment.

Provisional and Final adjustments

B.9. We will not have actual 2016/17 non-domestic rates income or rateable values at 1 April 2017 in time for the 2017/18 settlement. Therefore, we propose to make the revaluation adjustment in 3 stages:

 provisional 2017/18 top ups and tariffs will be calculated in the autumn of 2016 based on forecasts. This will be based on NNDR3 non-domestic rates income for 2015/16 increased in line with inflation and rateable values for the 2010 and 2017 lists available at the draft list stage (30 September 2016)

 final 2017/18 top ups and tariffs will be calculated in the autumn of 2017. The 2018/19 settlement will then include a reconciliation of the 2017/18 adjustment

 in 2019/20 we will cancel the one off reconciliation adjustment for 2018/19.

Appeals and the multiplier

B.10. At the revaluation the Secretary of State is allowed, in setting the multiplier, to anticipate future appeals on both the old and new rating list. This has the effect of increasing the multiplier so in effect we over-collect in the early years of the rating list and then under-collect in later years as the appeals start to come through with retrospective effect.

20

B.11. Local government is responsible for accounting for appeals through their forecast of business rates income using proper accounting practice. Therefore they will make a provision at the start of the 2017 rating list to reflect all expected future appeals. To offset the effect of this provision we propose to remove from the revaluation adjustment the impact of future appeals. We will do this by calculating the revaluation adjustment using a notional small business multiplier for 2017/18 which has not been adjusted for appeals.

B.12. This approach will give local authorities funds to deal with volatility and ensure retained rates income and spending does not fall from 1 April 2017 due to large new provisions for the revaluation.

B.13. Having regard to the above, the following are the adjustments we propose to make to future settlements to implement the revaluation adjustment.

2017/18 Settlement

B.14. For the 2017/18 settlement top ups and tariffs for the previous year will be adjusted for each local authority by the addition of the following amount (such that a negative outcome gives rise to a deduction):

( )

Where:

A is total rateable value in all of the draft 2017 local rating lists covering the authority’s area using the draft lists provided to Billing Authorities on 30 September 2016 multiplied by the adjusted provisional small business non-domestic rating multiplier for 2017/18. “Adjusted provisional small business non-domestic rating multiplier” is the provisional small business multiplier as included in the draft Local Government Finance Settlement but adjusted to an assumption that the effect of the alterations referred to in paragraph 5(6) & 5(7) of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was to have no effect on rateable values or hereditaments.

B is the total rateable value in all of the 2010 local rating lists covering the authority’s area for 23 September 2017 and measured on that day multiplied by 0.484. C is the non-domestic rating income for the authority for 2015/16 (line 12 page 1 NNDR3) multiplied by 0.484/0.480 D is the local share.

2018/19 Settlement

B.15. For the 2018/19 settlement tariffs and top ups for the previous year will be adjusted for each local authority by the addition of the following 2 amounts (such that a negative outcome gives rise to a deduction):

21

Amount 1 (on-going adjustment)

( )

Amount 2 (reconciliation of 2017/18)

( )

Where:

E is total rateable value in all of the 2017 local rating lists covering the authority’s area for 1 April 2017 and measured on that day multiplied by the adjusted small business non-domestic rating multiplier for 2017/18. “Adjusted small business non-domestic rating multiplier” is the small business multiplier as included in the Local Government Finance Settlement but adjusted to an assumption that the effect of the alterations referred to in paragraph 5(6) & 5(7) of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was to have no effect on rateable values or hereditaments.

F is the total rateable value in all of the 2010 local rating lists covering the authority’s area for 31 March 2017 and measured on that day multiplied by 0.484.

G is the non-domestic rating income for the authority for 2016/17.

H is the local share.

J is the result of the formula above for the 2017/18 settlement for the authority.

2019/20 settlement

B.16. Finally we will need an adjustment to the 2019/20 settlement to cancel the adjustment from the previous year’s top up or tariff for the reconciliation of 2017/18 (thereby leaving in the top up or tariff the ongoing adjustment only). For the 2019/20 settlement top ups and tariffs for the previous year will be adjusted for each local authority by deducting the following amount:

Amount 2 in respect of 2018/19 x -1 Notes: i. We aim to provide certainty for local government by explaining this methodology now. However, DCLG will keep this methodology under review in order to allow scope for further adjustments to be made in 2018/19, for example to account for any significant issues of unfairness.

22

ii. The tariffs and top ups will also need to be increased in line with inflation in the normal way each year. To achieve this we may, in practice, first strip out inflation from the revaluation adjustment. We may do this by adopted a “zero inflation” SB multiplier at A above. iii. The revaluation factor is calculated before SBRR and before the SB supplement (i.e. it is just based on the SB multiplier). We will separately pay section 31 for the SBRR changes in 2016/17 including the increase in the threshold for the SB multiplier. We will consider that payment in the context of the revaluation adjustment. iv. The 2010 and 2017 lists should match – i.e. have the same hereditaments with same physical attributes etc. The draft list provided to you for 30 September will be taken from the live list on 23 September – hence the use of that date. We believe this methodology will achieve this but we will continue to check that assumption. v. The adjustment to the multiplier for 2017/18 is to remove the impact of the appeals assumption from the multiplier. This will reduce the multiplier in the calculation which in turn will give local authorities a surplus to offset against future appeal.

23

Annex B: Summary of consultation questions

Question 1: What other, additional grants, beyond those set out in para 2.2.2, could the Government consider including in the multi-year offer?

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed methodology for allocating funding for the improved Better Care Fund as outlined in paragraph 2.3.4?

Question 3: Do you agree with the council tax referendum principles for 2017-18 proposed in paragraphs 3.2.1 to 3.2.2 for principal local authorities?

Question 4: Do you agree that referendum principles should be extended to larger, higher- spending town and parish councils in 2017/18 as set out in paragraphs 3.3.3 to 3.3.4?

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to take account of the transfer of responsibilities to town and parish councils as outlined in paragraph 3.3.5?

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the suggestion that referendum principles may be extended to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.6? If so what level of principle should be set?

Question 7: Do you have views on the practical implications of a possible extension of referendum principles to all local precepting authorities as set out in paragraph 3.3.7?

Question 8: Do you agree with the methodology for calculating the revaluation adjustment to business rates tariff and top-up payments as outlined in paragraphs 3.4.1 to 3.4.8?

Question 9: Do you agree that the methodology, as outlined in paragraphs 3.5.5 to 3.5.13, for calculating changes to the local share of business rates and tariff and top up payments is correct and does not adversely affect non-pilot areas?

Question 10: Are you contemplating a voluntary transfer of funding between the Combined Authority and constituent authorities?

Question 11: Do you have any comments on the impact of the proposals for the 2017-18 settlement outlined in this consultation document on persons who share a protected characteristic? Please provide evidence to support your comments.

24

Annex C: Glossary of technical terms

Baseline funding level

The amount of an individual local authority’s Start-Up Funding Assessment for 2013/14 provided through the local share of the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate uprated each year by the change to the small business multiplier (in line with RPI).

Business rates baseline

Determined for individual authorities at the outset of the business rates retention scheme by dividing the local share of the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate (England) between billing authorities on the basis of their proportionate shares, before the payment of any major precepting authority share.

Central share

The percentage share of locally collected business rates that is paid to central government by billing authorities. This is set at 50%. The central share is re-distributed to local government through grants including the Revenue Support Grant. This replaces the previous ’set-aside’ policy.

Local government spending control total

The total amount of expenditure for Revenue Support Grant in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit (LG DEL) plus the local share of the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate that is allocated to the local government sector by Government for each year of a Spending Review. It does not include the resources identified in the 2013 Spending Round for social care and Troubled Families.

Local share

The percentage share of locally collected business rates that is retained by local government. This is set at 50%.

Revenue Support Grant

Billing and most major precepting authorities receive Revenue Support Grant from central government in addition to their local share of business rates Aggregate. An authority’s Revenue Support Grant amount plus the local share of the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate will together comprise its Settlement Funding Assessment.

Safety net

Mechanism to protect any authority which sees its business rates income drop, in any year, by more than 7.5% below their baseline funding level (with baseline funding levels being uprated by the small business rates multiplier for the purposes of assessing eligibility for support).

25

Start-up funding assessment

A local authority’s share of the local government spending control total which will comprise its Revenue Support Grant for the year in question and its baseline funding level.

Tariffs and top ups

Calculated by comparing at the outset of the business rate retention scheme an individual authority’s business rates baseline against its baseline funding level. Tariffs and top ups are self-funding, fixed at the start of the scheme and index linked to RPI in future years.

Tariff authority

An authority with, at the outset of the scheme, a higher individual authority business rates baseline than its baseline funding level, and which therefore pays a tariff.

Top-up authority

An authority with, at the outset of the scheme, a lower individual authority business rates baseline than its baseline funding level, and which therefore receives a top up.

26 Agenda item 8 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

RReport author: Kathy Fiander

Free Christmas parking in December

Introduction

1. This report asks the Committee to suggest a day on which free parking should be offered in South Oxfordshire District Council’s (SODC) car parks in the lead up to Christmas.

Recommendation

2. The Committee should agree which day to suggest for free Christmas parking.

Background

3. The contractor operating car parks on behalf of SODC has contacted the Council asking which day free parking should be offered within its car parks in December.

4. In 2015, the Committee was advised that SODC had agree to allow free parking in all the council owned car parks every Tuesday afternoon in December as was the arrangement in December 2014.

5. The contractor has clarified that a full day is on offer.

Financial and Legal Implications

6. None

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 8-1 Agenda item 8

This page is intentionally blank

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 8-2 Agenda item 9 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

RReport author: Kathy Fiander

Financial Statements and Budgets

Introduction 1. This report presents a summary of the Council’s financial activities as at 31st August 2016. The Committee is asked to consider the information.

Recommendation

2. That the Committee considers and notes the financial statements and budgets.

Background

3. Attached are monthly reports that present a summary of the Council’s financial activities as at 31st August 2016 - they are:

(a) the detailed income and expenditure report by budget heading; (b) the detailed balance sheet (excluding stock movement); (c) the cash and investment reconciliation; (d) sales ledger aged account balances.

4. Not represented in the financial statements is the decision of Council to use reserves to fund a number of projects during 2016/17. On 6th June, Council agreed to fund from general reserves Environment Committee projects amounting to £48,050 as set out in the table within the report to the Finance and General Purposes Committee on 23rd May 2016. As such the Council’s general reserves are £816,085 (£864,135 in the detailed balance sheet).

5. The attached sales ledger aged account balances report indicates an outstanding sum of £22,778.51. As at 20th September the amount outstanding between 30 and 90 days is zero and the current ledger balance is £114.00.

6. Of the cost centres showing greater expenditure than could be expected at this time of year, these are

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 9-1 Agenda item 9

a. Central administration (101) 1108 training and conferences – staffing changes are giving rise to unexpected expenditure on Cilca and professional development; b. Central administration (101) 1126 photocopier – in July 2016 the Committee heard that a greater budget provision would be required in future to accommodate rental, usage and maintenance charges. c. Civic and Democratic (102) 1207 room hire – is higher than could be expected although a revision to the calendar of meetings after the budget was set could be the cause of this.

Delegated Authority

7. Under Standing Order 54(a), the administration of the Finance and General Purposes budget is delegated to Committee, as is the financial administration of the Council under Standing Order 54(b).

Legal Implications

8. The Council is required to arrange for the proper administration of its financial affairs: this will include regular reporting.

9. The Accounts and Audit Regulations require local councils to ensure that financial management is adequate and effective and have a sound system of internal control.

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 9-2 Agenda item 10 Didcot Town Council

Finance and General Purposes Committee 26th September 2016

RReport author: Kathy Fiander

CCTV quarterly report: quarter 1, 2016/17

Introduction 1. This report asks the Committee to note the CCTV report.

Recommendation

2. The Committee should note the CCTV quarterly report for quarter 1, 2016/17.

Background

3. South Oxfordshire District Council has provided the attached report for the Committee to consider. It contains information for towns in which CCTV cameras are located, these being Didcot, Henley-on-Thames, Thame and Wallingford.

Financial Implications

4. The Council has a budget of £10,500 per annum towards the service.

Legal Implications

5. None pertaining to this report

Kathy Fiander Town Clerk

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 10-1 Agenda item 10

This page is intentionally blank

Council Offices, Britwell Road Phone: 01235 812637 Didcot www.didcot.gov.uk OX11 7HN E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 01235 512837 10-2

CCTV Quarterly Report Didcot, Henley, Thame and Wallingford Quarter One 2016 - 17

PURPOSE OF REPORT This report provides information on how the district council’s CCTV cameras1 contribute to the deterrence of crime, help reduce the fear of crime and both increase crime detection and assist with the successful prosecution of offenders. The report is produced using information provided by the CCTV monitoring suite based in Abingdon. It is based on information drawn from the record of occurrences. A record of occurrence is completed by the operator on duty, each time a CCTV camera is used proactively to monitor a specific incident. This provides detailed evidence that enables us to produce the quarterly reports. The report covers the four towns that have had CCTV installed: Didcot, Henley-on-Thames, Thame and Wallingford. The aim is to provide the report on a quarterly basis to each town council and other stakeholders in order to share information and help publicise the positive outcomes of CCTV to residents and businesses. DATA

Summary Across South Oxfordshire, CCTV operators supported 492 incidents during the first quarter of 2016 – 17 (April - June 2016). The operators also produced 32 evidence packs for possible court proceedings, carried out 14 reviews of CCTV footage (a review is undertaken as a result of a written request) and supported 29 arrests.

1 The report covers the district council cameras plus three which Henley Town Council installed in Mill Meadows as these are managed under the same scheme. 1

The chart below compares quarter one with quarters from previous years:

For further breakdown please see table below:

2016 - 17 Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Didcot 209 Henley 146 Thame 46 Wallingford 91 Total 492

The following table displays the most common type of incident for each town during quarter one 2016 - 17, where CCTV was involved at some stage:

MOST COMMONLY MONITORED INCIDENTS Didcot Henley Thame Wallingford 1 Missing Miscellaneous* Missing Missing persons (52) (16) persons (9) persons (10) 2 Suspicious Drunkenness Drunkenness Drunkenness behaviour (20) (15) (5) (9) 3 Fear for Missing Fear for Suspicious welfare (17) persons (11) welfare (5) behaviour (8)

2

* Miscellaneous refers to monitored incidents that don’t fit easily into categories that are listed e.g. A request from G4 security to monitor their staff attending a local bank

N.B. In previous quarterly reports, we used a category entitled ‘observation’. ‘Observations’ were so designated by the police on a formal broadcast e.g. “observations for” a vehicle or person or incident. The degree of accuracy and detail passed by police radio depends on what is reported to them from persons reporting the incident.

In order to give a clearer picture of the type of events/incidents in which CCTV are involved, the category ‘observations’ is no longer used. Where observations are requested, only the category to which the observation is linked, is indicated in the statistics. E.g. If an operator were asked to observe a vehicle that is causing problems and parked on double yellow lines, this would be entered against ‘traffic prohibition’ on our data base.

TYPE AND NUMBER OF INCIDENTS The chart on page four shows the amount and type of incidents the CCTV operators have monitored and supported across all four towns, between April and June 2016.

3

4 ARRESTS, SECTION 35S AND OTHER OUTCOMES The chart below shows the outcomes the CCTV operators supported while involved in monitoring an incident. The police use their discretion on how an incident is resolved based on experience, the gravity of the offence, the resources that are available to them at that time and so on. While we cannot always be certain whether CCTV was solely instrumental in an arrest or the serving of a Section 352 or a Penalty Notice for Disorder3 (PND), we do know the cameras alert police to incidents they may not have known about. CCTV also gives the police the ability to assess and allocate resources and prioritise in real time e.g. should the situation allow, leaving CCTV to monitor incidents or offenders while officers attend other incidents. In the chart below, actions designated ‘other’ usually means that the police either gave verbal advice or a non-recordable sanction. For example, people caught by camera tipping the contents of rubbish from bin bags in the small hours are made to painstakingly pick up all the litter deposited (and more) under the police and cameras supervision.

CCTV Supported Incidents and Outcomes Quarter One 2016 - 17 14 12 12 11

10

8 7 7

6

4 3 3 3

2 1 Number of Number Incidents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Didcot Henley Thame Wallingford Town

Arrests S 35 PND Other

2 A Section 35 allows the police to move someone from a specified area for a period of up to 48 hours if they believe the person poses a risk of anti-social related disorder. 3 A PND is the ‘on the spot fine’ 5 CAMERA USAGE The following charts show camera usage for each town. These indicate the number of times that individual cameras were deployed in recorded, monitored events.

The number of times that each camera was used has been divided into three sections, covering a twenty four hour period.

It is worth noting that for the period 23:30 – 07:30, the vast majority of camera usage occurred during the 23:30 – 03:30 time slot.

6

7 Wallingford Camera Usage - Quarter One 2016 - 17 40

35 4 4 6 30 8 6 3 25 3 5 4 17 5 20 18 3 13 17 19 5 4 2 2 14 3 15 12 16 14 11 10 9 11 13 10 10 10 12 12 13 5 10 10 10 9 11 8 7 6 8 7 6 6 6 0

129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. Number of Number Camera Times Used Camera Number with Time Span of Usage

0730-1530 1530-2330 2330-0730

Cameras 133 and 134 were not functioning for a short period during quarter one. They are currently undergoing repair. Both cameras have been assessed as damaged beyond repair (result of lightning strike/power surge) and cannot be replaced (as Conway cameras are no longer produced) – there is a plan to move two lesser used cameras to cover 133 and 134 as a temporary measure.

HOW CCTV MONITORING WAS INITIATED

The chart below shows how many of the incidents monitored were as a result of: a direct request from the police (police requests); the CCTV operator hearing about an incident on a police radio (police radio); or initiated by the operator proactively patrolling the cameras (camera surveillance); request to review footage at the time of an incident (incident review). Only Henley on Thames has a shop radio scheme.

8

Reviews and evidence packs When not tasked by police, the operators patrol all the cameras and focus on ‘hotspot’ areas. All cameras are recording 24 hours a day, seven days a week and are set in ‘default’ positions which are agreed with the police as the area most likely to experience problems. CCTV operators and the CCTV supervisor also respond to requests from members of the public and third parties under Data Protection Legislation and Subject Access Requests. The most common request is to examine car park or road cameras for evidence of ‘non- stop road traffic collisions’ in which the complainant’s car has been damaged. All such requests are actioned and replies given. These are not included in the data below. The chart on the next page shows the number of evidence packs the CCTV operators put together and the number of evidence reviews they undertook, as a result of formal written requests. The evidence packs are the recordings and statements which the CCTV operators produce for police, solicitors and the Crown Prosecution Service. Activity that monitors past footage, but does NOT result in an evidence pack being produced, is termed ‘a review’. This may be, for example, that the footage does not show an event clearly enough to warrant making a permanent DVD copy for evidential use. One of the greatest advantages of CCTV footage is in obtaining a guilty plea at the early interview stage. For many offences this early admission is due to the offence being captured clearly on camera and saves the expense of full trial at either magistrates or crown court.

9

Viewing Log

When authorised personnel (mainly police officers) visit the CCTV control room to view footage, the details are entered into a viewing log. The following chart reflects the number of times this occurred during quarter one for 2016/17, across the four towns. N.B. These visits may or may not be followed by a formal written request for footage.

10

CASE STUDIES The following examples of incidents dealt with by CCTV operators during quarter one were initiated by police requests, police radio monitoring, shop/pub radio watch reports and operator surveillance.

Didcot Our operator observed a man outside a local shop, laying on the pavement. An ambulance arrived but the man refused to co-operate with the ambulance crew and lurched off down an adjoining street. Police officers were dispatched and our operator was able to guide them towards the man’s exact location as they arrived. They raised him to his feet and arrested him as he was heavily intoxicated and refused to co-operate.

A request came in via the police radio for our operator to monitor The Health Centre. There had been reports of a man behaving suspiciously. It appeared that he was trying to gain access to the Centre with the aid of a hacksaw. Our operator was able to keep the police control centre updated while officers were on route. It transpired that the man had a legitimate reason for needing to access the Health Centre but had lost his keys. Words of advice were given.

In the early hours of the morning, our operator noticed two men behaving suspiciously in the vicinity of the Drive Car Park. They were nasally inhaling what looked like some kind of powder. Our operator advised the police control centre via the radio and officers were dispatched. When the officers arrived, one of the men made off at speed. Our operator was able was able to assist in locating him and consequently, both were arrested.

11

Henley Our operator noted a request for an observation that came across the police radio. It was for a black Vauxhall Astra that had been spotted in the town driving erratically. Our operator was able to locate the vehicle and it was stopped by officers. The driver provided a negative breath test but stern words of advice regarding driving safely were given.

Our operator was requested, via the police radio, to monitor a local one way street for a car that was reported to be parked facing against the flow of traffic. Our operator identified the vehicle and by reviewing CCTV footage was able to confirm that the vehicle had driven the wrong way up the one way street and reversed out when leaving. The footage was made available to the police for further enquiries.

Our operator was requested to monitor an elderly man who was last seen in The Market Place. He was suffering from dementia and there were concerns regarding his welfare. Our operator located him from the description given and continued to monitor his progress through the town as officers were on route. The officers were then advised of his exact whereabouts and they were able to ensure his safety and return him to his carers.

Thame

The police control centre asked our operator to monitor two men. They had been spoken to by officers because of a previous incident and had been advised to move out of the town centre. Our operator was able to locate the men, from descriptions given, and monitor their progress. Once satisfied that the males had left the town centre and had moved out of camera view for some time, our operator updated the police control centre.

Our operator heard over the police radio, reports of a vehicle that had crashed into a house on one of the streets leading off the town centre. They were able to review the relevant camera footage and identify the vehicle in question from the description given over the police radio. The information was passed on to near-by officers who were able to locate the vehicle close to its last sighting and appropriate investigations were carried out.

Information came in via the police radio, of an extremely intoxicated man outside a local town centre pub. From the description given, our operator was able to locate him and via police radio, keep officers updated as they made their way. On arrival, the officers assessed the man’s capabilities and ensured that he got a taxi to his home address.

Wallingford During the course of routine monitoring, our operator noticed a car driving erratically in a local car park. The car left the car park and side-swiped another car as it progressed along the High Street and moved out of camera view. Our operator was able to relay details to the police control centre. The vehicle was soon found abandoned but upon investigation contained details of a man at a local address.

12 Our operator noted an incident that came across the police radio. There were reports of some potential ant-social behaviour in a town centre car park. Although there was nothing to be seen on camera, by reviewing the CCTV footage, the operator was able to identify the individuals and noted that they had all left in a car. The details and timing of the event were passed on to the police control centre.

A phone request was answered by our operator from a local officer. They wanted to track the progress of a car through the town. From the description given, our operator was able to spot the car and give the officer an accurate and up to date account of the car’s movements.

Date of report: July 2016 Author: Steve Webb Contact details: tel. 01235 556929, email [email protected]

13