Councillor submissions to the Hampshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors surnames A-Z. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Hinds, Alex From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 09:11 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council -----Original Message----- From: Collett, Cllr A P Sent: 10 January 2016 19:37 To: reviews <
[email protected]> Subject: Hampshire County Council Dear Sir/Madam, Whilst I support Hampshire County Council's response to your Draft Recommendations on a new pattern of Divisions with regard to Hart District, I do have one additional major concern that I need to draw to your attention. I agree with Hampshire County Council that: 1. "Blackwater" should be added to the name of the proposed Fleet North & Yateley East Division. I support the desire to keep division names brief, but without "Blackwater" the name will be alien to residents of a large proportion of the division and this will undermine the community interests and identities criterion, with little corresponding benefit to justify leaving it out. 2. It would be better to leave Dogmersfield in the proposed Odiham & Hook Division. Although moving Dogmersfield parish into the proposed Hartley Wintney & Yateley West Division creates a very marginal improvement in electoral equality, this would be at the cost of splitting the Odiham district council ward across the two divisions unnecessarily. Also, given that Winchfield (in the proposed Hartley Wintney & Yateley West Division) has been identified as the proposed location of a new town in the emerging Hart Local Plan, increasing the "starting" electorate of this division unnecessarily would mean that the electorate would exceed the +10% from the average tolerance sooner, and by a greater extent, thereby undermining the electoral equality criteria to a greater extent than the benefit achieved by putting Dogmersfield into this division would justify.