New electoral arrangements for Borough Council Draft Recommendations June 2021

Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2021

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Gosport? 2 Our proposals for Gosport 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 8 , Grange & Alver Valley, Lee and Sultan 9 Bridgemary, Elson, Hardway, Peel Common and & Holbrook 16 Conclusions 19 Summary of electoral arrangements 19 Have your say 21 Equalities 25 Appendices 27 Appendix A 27 Draft recommendations for Gosport Council 27 Appendix B 29 Outline map 29 Appendix C 30 Submissions received 30 Appendix D 31 Glossary and abbreviations 31

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Gosport?

7 We are conducting a review of Gosport Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Gosport. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Gosport are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Gosport

9 Gosport should be represented by 28 councillors, six fewer than there are now.

10 Gosport should have 14 wards, three fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change except Lee East and Lee West wards.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 22 June 2021 to 30 August 2021. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 30 August 2021 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 21 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Gosport. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

14 December 2020 Number of councillors decided 6 January 2021 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 16 March 2021 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 22 June 2021 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 30 August 2021 forming final recommendations 2 November 2021 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2020 2026 Electorate of Gosport 63,143 67,953 Number of councillors 28 28 Average number of electors per 2,255 2,427 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Gosport will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2026, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2021. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of 7.6% by 2026.

25 We received one submission from a resident, who queried the forecast totals for certain polling districts. In response, we explained that the forecast is based on the electorate growth trends which have taken place within the polling districts over the last few years. In areas where significant development is set to take place, and

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

would not be accounted for, estimates for these developments have been added on. Significant development is expected in Anglesey, Hardway, Lee West and Town wards.

26 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

27 Gosport Council currently has 34 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that decreasing this number by six will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

28 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 28 councillors. We received nine submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on ward patterns. One submission queried whether we were proposing an increase in the number of councillors. Two submissions suggested that wards should have one councillor representing them instead of two. One submission commented that there should be maximum of 10 councillors, whilst four submissions approved the proposed reduction in councillors. The last submission disagreed with the reduction in councillors.

29 We considered the submissions received but were not persuaded to change our decision with regard to the number of councillors elected to the authority. In particular, as Gosport Council elects by halves (meaning that half its councillors are elected every two years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a uniform pattern of two-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 28-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

30 We received 27 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three borough-wide proposals from a local resident, Gosport Borough Council and the Gosport Conservative Association. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for ward arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

31 While the three borough-wide schemes provided uniform patterns of two- councillor wards for Gosport, they differed considerably in terms of ward boundaries.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

6

We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards put forward by the Gosport Conservative Association resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. We calculated that one ward would have an electoral variance of 11% by 2026, falling just outside of what we would normally consider to be good electoral equality.

32 The warding pattern received from the Council did not contain any ward names or maps. We requested this information from the Council, but did not receive it and have therefore interpreted the submission based on the information provided. We noted that one ward in the scheme had poor electoral equality, with a forecast electoral variance of -20%. The warding pattern was also largely based on polling districts, and we considered that clearer and more identifiable boundaries could have been used. Moreover, the proposal was largely descriptive in nature. The warding pattern from the local resident contained limited evidence and we calculated that the scheme was forecast to have poor electoral equality in some areas. Additionally, we considered that clearer and more identifiable boundaries could have been utilised in certain areas.

33 Some submissions appeared to support retaining the current ward boundaries while others queried how the review process works, and these were responded to individually. One submission stated that the boundary between Gosport and should be realigned, which is outside the scope of this electoral review. One submission suggested that certain wards be combined, largely creating three- councillor wards. As mentioned in paragraph 29, the Commission has a statutory requirement to create two-councillor wards and we do not deviate from this unless there is compelling evidence that better reflects our statutory criteria. As the submission did not provide sufficient evidence to support this proposal, we were not persuaded to adopt these changes.

34 On this basis, our draft recommendations are largely based on the warding pattern submitted by the Gosport Conservative Association. Our recommendations also take into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

35 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed virtual tour of Gosport. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the proposed draft boundary recommendations.

7

Draft recommendations 36 Our draft recommendations are for 14 two-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

37 The tables and maps on pages 9–18 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Gosport. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 27 and on the large map accompanying this report.

39 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

Alverstoke, Grange & Alver Valley, Lee and Sultan

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Alverstoke 2 8% Grange & Alver Valley 2 -8% Lee East 2 -1% Lee West 2 1% Sultan 2 -6%

Lee East and Lee West 40 We received the most submissions in relation to this area, which included borough-wide proposals from the Council’s officer group, the Conservative Association and a local resident, as well as localised submissions from three residents. Two residents suggested merging the wards, whilst one stated that they were content with the current ward boundaries.

41 The Conservative Association proposed that the current ward boundaries be retained, stating the community has always been separate due to its geographical location. We note that the wards are forecast to have good electoral variances based

9

on the new council size and forecast electorate, with Lee East set to have an electoral variance of -1% and Lee West 1% by 2026. The Council proposed that the outer boundaries of the two wards be retained, but reconfigured the boundary between the wards, resulting in electoral variances of 5% and -6% by 2026. We did not consider the revised boundary to be clear or identifiable, as the submission indicated polling district boundaries would be used. A local resident also proposed that the outer boundaries of the wards be used but adjusted the boundary between the two wards. The resident stated that their proposals took account of forthcoming development in the area and would be more fitting with the geographical ward names of East and West. We calculated that their proposed Lee East ward would have an electoral variance -9% and Lee West 9% by 2026.

42 We carefully considered the evidence received and concluded that the best electoral variances would be achieved by following the current ward boundaries. Submissions proposing alternative boundaries between the wards failed to provide any persuasive evidence in support of their proposals. However, it was clear from the submissions received that the area is a distinct community, separate from the rest of the borough.

43 We were of the view that some of the proposals did not use sufficiently clear or identifiable ward boundaries, or provide evidence to suggest that they were more reflective of community identity within the area. We therefore propose that the current boundaries for the wards are retained, as proposed by the Conservative Association. We consider our proposed two-councillor Lee East and Lee West wards to provide an effective balance of our statutory criteria. We also note that both wards will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Alverstoke, Grange & Alver Valley and Sultan 44 We received four submissions in relation to this area, including the three borough-wide schemes. A resident stated that the southern part of Privett ward and the area broadly to its south should be part of Alverstoke ward. The submission contended that residents in this area align themselves more with Alverstoke, and the top of the ward would likewise ‘easily fit’ within a Brockhurst ward. The submission went on to argue that Privett ward existed for historical purposes and no longer reflected the residential movements of communities today.

45 The Conservative Association proposed combining the northern part of Privett ward with Brockhurst, and the southern area with Alverstoke. The Association proposed largely retaining the existing boundaries of the other two wards. However, it proposed that Brockhurst’s eastern boundary run along the A32 and Ann’s Hill Road, and proposed an adjustment to the northern boundary of Grange ward. The Association also proposed that Brockhurst ward be renamed Sultan and Grange ward be renamed Alver Valley. The former name reflected the naval establishment HMS Sultan, which is a significant landmark in the proposed ward. The submission

10

stated that Grange was an old airfield, which was subsequently re-developed as a new non-naval housing estate called Alver Village. We calculated the Association’s proposals for Alverstoke, Alver Valley and Sultan wards would result in electoral variances of 8%, -10% and -6% respectively, by 2026.

46 The Council’s and local resident’s borough-wide schemes both put forward revised versions of Privett ward, with the Council referring to this as ward 9 in its proposal. The Council reconfigured Grange and Brockhurst wards entirely, changing the orientation of the wards from east to west to north to south, and referring to them as wards 6 and 7. Ward 7 extended past the B3333 to take in an additional area of housing. While we noted that all three wards would have good variances, we had concerns that the proposals, particularly for ward 7, would join together disparate communities. We noted that that the proposals cut off housing along Gomer Lane from its nearest neighbours in the adjacent area to the east. We were also not persuaded that the alternative configurations suggested for the area would be reflective of community identity, and therefore do not propose adopting them.

47 The local resident extended Grange ward to encompass more of the Sultan military housing base to the east of Grange Road. The resident also proposed that Brockhurst be a more contained ward. According to our calculations, the resident’s proposals for Grange and Privett wards would result in good electoral variances by 2026, at -4% and -8%, respectively. However, we calculated that their proposed Brockhurst ward would have a significant electoral variance of -37% by 2026. We did receive a further submission from another resident who stated that many in Brockhurst were unhappy as they were currently placed in Forton ward. We considered that this proposal may address these concerns but were not persuaded to adopt the proposal due to the significantly high variance. We also considered that clearer, more identifiable boundaries could be utilised, and therefore concluded that it would not provide for the best balance of our statutory criteria.

48 In consideration of all the evidence received, we were persuaded to adopt the proposals put forward by the Conservative Association. We are of the view that their warding pattern has good electoral equality and follows clear and identifiable boundaries. The proposals for Alverstoke and Sultan were also supported by evidence received in a separate submission from a local resident. We have decided to adopt the proposals in full for Alverstoke and Sultan wards. We were persuaded to rename Brockhurst ward to Sultan, owing to the change in configuration of the ward. We also noted that Brockhurst refers to an area in the north of the ward, which would not wholly be contained in our proposed ward, whilst we considered that the naval establishment of Sultan is a significant feature of the ward.

49 On inspection, we observed that the Conservative Association proposal for Alver Valley ward broadly follows the current ward boundaries of Grange. We noted that the current northern ward boundary of Grange is also the county division

11

boundary, and so its retention would allow for effective and convenient local government. However, the ward would have a variance of -13% by 2026 were it retained, and we would consider this outside the parameters of good electoral equality. The Conservative Association proposed moving Newbroke Road into the ward, in order to bring the undersized ward into good variance. On touring the area virtually, we considered that the north-western boundary divided those along Franklin Road from the nearest housing to them. We therefore propose that the boundary be adjusted to include the area of Franklin Road and Grange Junior School in the ward. We also considered that Newbroke Road had more commonality with Shackleton Road, and so we propose retaining the current ward boundary here. These amendments also reduce the electoral variance from -10% to -8% by 2026.

50 In light of our amendments, we propose that the reference to Grange be retained in the ward name. We consider the name more reflective of the communities in our proposed ward. However, we also accept the Conservative Association’s argument that the name is more reflective of the present community and therefore propose that the ward is renamed Grange & Alver Valley. We would be interested to hear from residents as to whether there is a particular preference for the ward name.

51 We consider our proposed two-councillor wards of Alverstoke, Grange & Alver Valley and Sultan to provide an effective balance of our statutory criteria. We also note that all three wards will have good electoral equality by 2026.

12

Anglesey, Forton, Harbourside and Leesland & Christchurch

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Anglesey 2 1% Forton 2 3% Harbourside 2 -3% Leesland & Christchurch 2 9%

Anglesey and Harbourside 52 We received three submissions for this area. The Conservative Association proposed boundaries most similar to the current warding arrangements, making minor modifications to both boundaries, and renaming Town ward to Harbourside. The Association stated that the proposed name change was illustrative of the two yacht marinas in the ward, and was also put forward in order to help promote Gosport as a marine town. We calculated both wards would have good electoral

13

equality by 2026, with Anglesey at 1% and Harbourside at -3%, and considered the boundaries used to be clear and identifiable.

53 The local resident’s proposal also broadly followed current ward boundaries but extended the geographical size of both wards. In doing so, we calculated that Anglesey and Town wards would have electoral variances of 19% and 16%, respectively, by 2026. We consider both to be too high, and outside the parameters of good electoral equality.

54 Conversely, the Council effectively split the area between three wards, which they numbered 8,10 and 12. In doing so, the two coastal wards (8 and 12) come into good variance at -2% and 9% by 2026. However, the third ward (10), which appears to be centred on Newtown, has an electoral variance of -20%. We would consider this to be outside the parameters of good electoral equality. We also noted that the northern extension of ward 8 is effectively cut off from the rest of the ward, and we do not consider this would fulfil our statutory criteria of providing effective and convenient local government.

55 Having toured the area virtually, we were of the view that the Conservative Association’s proposal provided for the best balance of our statutory criteria. We therefore propose to adopt this proposal in full. We looked at the possibility of extending Town ward northwards, to take in the additional area between the borough boundary and Weevil Lane, as we considered that this would also be a clear and identifiable boundary. However, it was not possible to do so and achieve good electoral equality. We considered the ward name change and were persuaded that Harbourside is reflective of the area. However, we would be interested to hear whether local residents agree.

56 We consider our proposed two-councillor wards of Anglesey and Harbourside provide a good reflection of our statutory criteria. We also note that both wards will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Forton and Leesland & Christchurch 57 We received five submissions in relation to this area. A resident stated that some Brockhurst residents identify more with Forton, although the submission did not specify where or why. The submission also stated that Leesland has three schools, and that the number of schools should be distributed more evenly across the borough. The Farnham & Gosport Green Party also put in a submission regarding Leesland ward. The party stated that the ward should increase in size and be extended to Queen’s Road. The submission stated that in doing so, it would place Leesland Park in the centre of the ward and would also mean that many families in this particular area, whose children attend Newtown C of E Primary School, would now be in the same ward. The submission also made reference to the numerous schools within the ward and queried whether they should be distributed more evenly.

14

58 The Conservative Association combined substantial parts of the current Leesland and Christchurch wards, thereby placing Leesland Park towards the centre of their proposed ward. We considered the boundaries used to be clear and identifiable but calculated the ward would have an electoral variance of 11% by 2026, which is relatively high. The Association also combined the remaining areas of Christchurch, part of Leesland and most of Forton to produce Forton ward. This proposed ward would have an electoral variance of 2% by 2026.

59 The local resident maintained separate Christchurch and Leesland wards. However, on examining this proposal, we calculated these wards would have electoral variances of 32% and -18% respectively by 2026, and have therefore deciding not to adopt these as part of our draft recommendations. The resident did not propose a Forton ward. The Council proposed that Leesland ward be extended both to the north and south, with a variance of 0% by 2026. However, due to the significant differences in the warding patterns received, we would not be able to accommodate the boundaries proposed and achieve good electoral equality.

60 Therefore, we propose adopting the Conservative Association’s proposal with an amendment to the northern boundary, so that it is coterminous with the county division boundary. We note that doing so would improve the electoral variance, as the ward would now have a variance of 9% by 2026. We also consider that the amendment would allow for more effective and convenient local government, and therefore consider it to provide for the best balance of our statutory criteria.

61 Our proposed two-councillor wards of Forton and Leesland & Christchurch will both have good electoral equality by 2026.

15

Bridgemary, Elson, Hardway, Peel Common and Rowner & Holbrook

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Bridgemary 2 -2% Elson 2 2% Hardway 2 4% Peel Common 2 -5% Rowner & Holbrook 2 -3%

Hardway and Elson 62 We received four submissions in relation to this area. Councillor Ballard, who represents Elson ward, stated that it is a community, and an area steeped in history. The submission listed numerous amenities which make up Elson, such Elson Junior and Elson Infant School and Monks Walk conservation area. Councillor Ballard stated a desire for Elson to ‘remain a community village without expansion or blending’. If the current ward boundaries were retained, Elson would have an electoral variance of -23% by 2026, which we would consider significantly outside the parameters of good electoral equality.

16

63 The Conservative Association largely proposed retaining the current ward boundaries for both wards. The proposal extended both wards southwards, thus reducing the size of Forton ward. In doing so, both wards would have good electoral variances with Elson at 2% and Hardway at 4% by 2026. The Council and the local resident both proposed that the current ward boundaries for Hardway be retained, with an electoral variance of -5% by 2026. The Council extended what is currently Forton ward northwards (ward 13) to produce a ward with a variance of 9% by 2026. The local resident meanwhile extended Elson ward southwards, whilst also adjusting the boundaries in the north.

64 We carefully considered the alternatives put forward. We were of the view that the Conservative Association’s proposals provided for the best balance of our statutory criteria. We noted that the proposals would result in a number of areas identified by Councillor Ballard remaining within Elson ward, and concluded that this would both ensure good electoral equality and that community identities were reflected. Were we to retain the current ward boundaries for Hardway, our proposed Forton ward would have an electoral variance of 12%. We therefore propose to adopt the Conservation Association’s proposal for Hardway ward, which we consider to provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. However, we have recommended a minor amendment to the southern boundary, to ensure it is coterminous with the county division boundary. We consider that this would have no effect on electoral equality, as there are no electors in the area, but would reflect the need to secure effective and convenient local government.

65 We consider our proposed two-councillor wards of Elson and Hardway to reflect the best balance of our statutory criteria. We also note that both wards will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Bridgemary, Peel Common and Rowner & Holbrook 66 We received four submissions in relation to this area. One resident queried whether they were moving into Peel Common ward having previously been in Bridgemary South ward. The resident also asked whether their postal address would change. This would not be the case as postal addresses are not affected by this review.

67 The Conservative Association proposed largely combining Bridgemary North and Bridgemary South wards to form a single Bridgemary ward, with an electoral variance of -2% by 2026. The proposal also extended Peel Common ward northwards, and Rowner & Holbrook ward westwards, producing variances of -5% and -2%, respectively. Overall, we considered that the proposal followed clearly defined and identifiable boundaries.

17

68 The Council proposed an elongated ward, taking in the eastern areas of Bridgemary North and Bridgemary South, and combining these with parts of Elson ward. We calculated that this ward, which the Council numbered as ward 3, has an electoral variance of 5% by 2026. The Council proposed dividing the remaining areas on the eastern side of Henry Cort Way between wards 4 and 5, with electoral variances of 3% and 5%, respectively, by 2026.

69 The local resident proposed a reconfigured Rowner & Holbrook ward, and concentrated Bridgemary ward to the north-west of the borough, whilst also adjusting the boundary with Peel Common. We calculated that all three wards would have good electoral equality by 2026, with Bridgemary at 5%, Peel Common at 4% and Rowner & Holbrook at -3%.

70 Having toured the area virtually, we considered the ward boundary followed by the Council along Henry Cort Way was particularly clear, and noted the low electoral variances in the scheme provided by the local resident. However, we had concerns about both proposals for the area. We considered that the Council’s proposed ward 3 spanned a very large geographical area, which could make the ward more difficult to represent and therefore not deliver effective and convenient local government. The ward also appeared to merge quite disparate communities on the edge of Bridgemary and Elson. Additionally, we were of the view that the resident’s proposed Rowner & Holbrook ward appeared to join disparate communities. The resident’s submission acknowledges that this was done in order to produce good electoral equality; however, we consider that there is an alternative viable option that may be more reflective of community identity. We were therefore not convinced to adopt either of these proposals for the area.

71 We therefore propose to base our recommendations on the Conservative Association’s proposals, subject to our proposed amendments between Grange & Alver Valley and Peel Common wards, as discussed previously in this report. We are content that our draft recommendations will follow clearly identifiable boundaries while ensuring that community identities and interests are reflected.

72 We consider our proposed two-councillor wards of Bridgemary, Peel Common and Rowner & Holbrook will provide the best balance of our statutory criteria. We also note that all three wards will have good electoral equality by 2026.

18

Conclusions

73 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Gosport, referencing the 2020 and 2026 electorate figures against the proposed number of councillors and wards. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2020 2026 Number of councillors 28 28 Number of electoral wards 63,143 67,953 Average number of electors per councillor 2,255 2,427 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 4 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Gosport Council should be made up of 28 councillors serving 14 wards representing 14 two-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Gosport Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Gosport Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

19

20

Have your say

74 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

75 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Gosport, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

76 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

77 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: The Review Officer (Gosport) LGBCE PO Box 133 Blyth NW14 9FE

78 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Gosport Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

79 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

21

80 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Gosport?

81 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

82 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

83 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

84 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

85 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

86 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

22

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Gosport in 2022.

23

24

Equalities 87 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

25

26

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Gosport Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Alverstoke 2 5,059 2,530 12% 5,220 2,610 8%

2 Anglesey 2 3,781 1,891 -16% 4,922 2,461 1%

3 Bridgemary 2 4,624 2,312 3% 4,765 2,383 -2%

4 Elson 2 4,730 2,365 5% 4,970 2,485 2%

5 Forton 2 4,550 2,275 1% 5,012 2,506 3%

Grange & Alver 6 2 4,452 2,226 -1% 4,468 2,234 -8% Valley

7 Harbourside 2 3,703 1,852 -18% 4,726 2,363 -3%

8 Hardway 2 4,691 2,346 4% 5,055 2,528 4%

9 Lee East 2 4,677 2,339 4% 4,784 2,392 -1%

10 Lee West 2 4,150 2,075 -8% 4,884 2,442 1% Leesland & 11 2 5,322 2,661 18% 5,312 2,656 9% Christchurch 12 Peel Common 2 4,424 2,212 -2% 4,591 2,296 -5%

27

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % Rowner & 13 2 4,570 2,285 1% 4,688 2,344 -3% Holbrook 14 Sultan 2 4,410 2,205 -2% 4,555 2,277 -6%

Totals 28 63,143 – – 67,953 – –

Averages – – 2,255 – – 2,427 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Gosport Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

28

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south- east/hampshire/gosport

29

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/gosport

Local Authority

• Gosport Borough Council

Political Groups

• Fareham & Gosport Green Party • Gosport Conservative Association

Councillors

• Councillor S. Ballard (Gosport Borough Council)

Local Residents

• 23 local residents

30

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

31

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

32 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE