DOCSLIB.ORG

Hampshire County Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Further Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England: Response to the Commission’s Revised Draft Recommendations on a new pattern of divisions for Havant and New Forest district areas – June 2016 2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE Contents 1. Introduction 2. Havant 2.1. Commentary 2.2 LGBCE Revised Draft Recommendations 2.3 HCC Response 3. New Forest 3.1 & 2 Commentary 3.3 LGBCE Revised Draft Recommendations 3.4 HCC Response 4. Conclusions HF11761752 – FINAL 3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 1. Introduction 1.1 On 29 August 2014 the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (‘the Commission’) advised the County Council that the Commission had determined that a Further Electoral Review of the County Council’s Electoral Arrangements should take place. 1.2 To date the County Council has made submissions on Council Size and a proposed pattern of electoral divisions, and responded to the Commission’s draft recommendations. 1.3 On 10 May 2016 the Commission notified the County Council of its decision to undertake a further period of limited consultation prior to publication of its final recommendations on a new pattern of divisions for the County Council. This further period of consultation is in regard to the Commission’s revised draft recommendations for the Havant and New Forest district areas only. The consultation closes on 6 June 2016. Full details are available on the Commission’s website https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south- east/hampshire/hampshire-county-council. 1.4 The Commission’s final recommendations for the County Council as a whole, including those areas not subject to further limited consultation, will be published on 16 August 2016. 1.5 The County Council’s response is set out in sections 2 and 3 of this report. HF11761752 – FINAL 5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 2.3.2 The County Council’s submission of July 2015 proposing a new pattern of divisions for the Havant area recognised that devising boundary changes to divisions within Havant is made difficult by the fact of the natural separation of the borough into three areas, which constrains the solutions available. 2.3.3 The County Council’s original proposals gave consideration to this dilemma and were carefully thought through. The proposal for the two single Member divisions of North East Havant and North West Havant, of approximately equal size, represents the best contiguous grouping of wards and polling districts. 2.3.4 The County Council’s original proposal of July 2015 brings together the wards and polling districts that are closest geographically. 2.3.5 The split of Leigh Park between the two divisions of North East Havant and North West Havant was proposed in the interests of community identity having taken local soundings and to avoid fragmenting what has become geographically acceptable. 2.3.6 In regard to changes to division names proposed by the Commission, as detailed in the table at paragraph 2.2 above, the County Council is concerned that confusion could arise between Havant Coastal and Havant Central; Havant Coastal does not contain all of the coast in the Havant area and therefore is misleading; and the loss of ‘Emsworth’ from the division name creates a loss of identity for the community of Emsworth. For these reasons the County Council requests the Commission to revert to: North East Havant, North West Havant and Emsworth & St. Faiths. 2.3.7 For the reasons set out above, the County Council requests the Commission to revert to its original draft recommendations, as detailed in column 1 of the table at paragraph 2.2 above. HF11761752 – FINAL 7 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 3.4 Hampshire County Council response: 3.4.1 The County Council notes that the Commission’s revised draft recommendations largely concur with the County Council’s alternative proposals and this is welcomed. 3.4.2 The Commission is recommending no change to their original draft recommendations for four divisions, namely: Dibden and Hythe, New Milton, South Waterside, and Totton South and Marchwood. 3.4.3 The County Council notes that the Commission propose to retain Exbury and Lepe within the Brockenhurst Division and this will be welcomed locally. The Commission has accepted the County Council’s alternative proposals to adjust Ringwood and Totton North divisions to avoid some splitting of parishes, and in the interests of greater electoral equality and improved community cohesion. This is welcomed. 3.4.4 Of the remaining divisions, Milford and Hordle division presently shares the parish of Bashley with the Brockenhurst division. This is not understood by the community of Bashley but is unavoidable if electoral equality is to be achieved. The community of Bashley has geographical ties to, and looks to New Milton as its near neighbour. It has little in common with Brockenhurst. 3.4.5 In its submission to the Commission’s original draft recommendations, the County Council requested that consideration be given to renaming the Milford and Hordle division to Milford, Hordle and Fernhill to better reflect community identity. The County Council requests the Commission to re-consider the change of division name. 3.4.6 Fordingbridge with Lyndhurst is the large and newly integrated division proposed by the Commission to achieve the reduction of one division. Under the County Council’s alternative proposal, accepted by the Commission, this division reduces in size through the return of Burley to the Brockenhurst division, by transfer of part of Netley Marsh to Totton North to remedy the splitting of that parish, and by transfer of Ashurst and Colbury to the Brockenhurst division. 3.4.7 Brockenhurst division increases with the whole of Bransgore transferring to it rather than the latter being split between Ringwood and Brockenhurst; with the return of Burley; the retention of Exbury and Lepe; and with the addition of Ashurst and Colbury. It does lose Boldre to Lymington division however. At 101.4 square miles, this division becomes the largest in Hampshire and will have the largest population in the New Forest. This division will be difficult for one elected Councillor to service it. HF11761752 – FINAL 8 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 3.4.8 The Commission continues to combine Lymington and Boldre. This attaches rural Boldre to urban Lymington, which is not popular with the community of Boldre. However, with electoral equality being the prime objective of the Commission there appears to be no alternative to this integration. Boldre feels it has no affinity with Lymington as it is separated from Lymington by a river and railway. HF11761752 – FINAL 9 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 4. Conclusions 4.1 The County Council has given careful consideration to the Commission’s revised draft recommendations for the Havant and New Forest district areas. In so doing, it has been mindful of the Commission’s three statutory criteria, and the need to achieve a balance between electoral equality whilst retaining community identity, which is very important to local people. Therefore the County Council requests that the Commission reverts to its original draft recommendations for the Havant area as detailed in column 1 of the table at paragraph 2.2 of this report. 4.2 In regard to the New Forest district area, the County Council remains of the view that an 11 division model is a better structure for the reasons set out in paragraph 9.1 of its January 2016 response to the Commission’s original draft recommendations Part I Electoral Review of HCC - FINAL Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations (Annex 3). 4.3 However, in regard to the 10 division alternative model and the Commission’s revised draft recommendations, the County Council notes that four out of the six revisions proposed by the County Council have been accepted by the Commission. The majority of the remaining proposals were supported by the County Council in its January 2016 submission. On this basis, the County Council accepts the Commission’s revised draft recommendations. HF11761752 – FINAL THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2015, South East
    South East Register 2015 HERITAGE AT RISK 2015 / SOUTH EAST Contents Heritage at Risk IV Dover 40 Gravesham 42 Maidstone 42 The Register VIII Sevenoaks 45 Content and criteria VIII Shepway 46 Criteria for inclusion on the Register X Swale 49 Thanet 52 Reducing the risks XII Tonbridge and Malling 54 Key statistics XV Tunbridge Wells 55 Publications and guidance XVI Medway (UA) 56 Key to the entries XVIII Milton Keynes (UA) 60 Entries on the Register by local planning XX Oxfordshire 60 authority Cherwell 60 Oxford 63 Bracknell Forest (UA) 1 South Oxfordshire 63 Brighton and Hove, City of (UA) 1 Vale of White Horse 66 South Downs (NP) 3 West Oxfordshire 68 Portsmouth, City of (UA) 70 Buckinghamshire 4 Aylesbury Vale 4 Reading (UA) 73 Chiltern 6 Southampton, City of (UA) 74 South Bucks 7 Surrey 75 Wycombe 7 Elmbridge 75 East Sussex 8 Epsom and Ewell 75 Eastbourne 8 Guildford 76 Hastings 9 Mole Valley 77 Lewes 10 Reigate and Banstead 79 Rother 11 Runnymede 79 South Downs (NP) 13 Spelthorne 80 Wealden 14 Tandridge 80 Hampshire 15 Waverley 81 Basingstoke and Deane 15 Woking 81 East Hampshire 16 West Berkshire (UA) 81 Fareham 17 West Sussex 84 Gosport 18 Hart 19 Adur 84 Havant 19 Arun 84 New Forest 20 Chichester 85 New Forest (NP) 21 Horsham 86 Rushmoor 22 Mid Sussex 87 South Downs (NP) 22 South Downs (NP) 87 Test Valley 26 Worthing 91 Winchester 28 Windsor and Maidenhead (UA) 92 Isle of Wight (UA) 31 Wokingham (UA) 93 Kent 36 Ashford 36 Canterbury 37 Dartford 39 II South East Summary 2015 or the first time, we’ve compared all sites on the Heritage at Risk Register – from houses to hillforts – to help us better understand which types of site are most Fcommonly at risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Item 3, Application 06 90366 FULL
    Planning Development Control Committee - 21 November 2006 Report Item 3 Application No: 06/90366/FULL Full Application Site: Gilbury Farm House, Gilbury Lane, Exbury, Southampton, SO45 1AG Proposal: House; demolition of existing Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Clark Case Officer: Clare Ings Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE 1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council 2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Referred by Authority Member 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION No specific designation 4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES NF-H4 - Replacement dwelling in the New Forest (page 144) NF-E5 - Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) DW-E1 - General development criteria (page 135) 5. MEMBER COMMENTS Ted Johnson: The essence of the landscape along the Beaulieu River is the tree cover sloping down to the river with the dwellings subservient to that. Consideration should be given to making a Tree Preservation Order to secure the landscape character. Not concerned that architectural style is different, but that it should be of an appropriate standard which can be accepted. Alan Rice: Requests that application is considered by the Committee 6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS Exbury and Lepe Parish Council: No comments received 7. CONSULTEES 7.1 Environmental Design: The proposed replacement building is of an unsatisfactory design. Recommend refusal in line with general local plan policies such as DW-E1, NF-E1 and NF-E5, and also NF-H4 (clause ii - that the dwelling should not be detrimental to the character of the New Forest by reason of additional impact) is relevant. 7.2 Environmental Design (Trees): Comments awaited in respect of suggestion that consideration be given to serving a Tree Preservation Order on the site.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 February 2015 Report Item 1 Application No
    Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 1 Application No: 14/00760/FULL Full Application Site: Inchmery House, Inchmery Lane, Exbury, Southampton, SO45 1AE Proposal: Two storey home office/studio building (demolition of existing orangery and store) Applicant: Lady Grosvenor Case Officer: Clare Ings Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE 1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Contrary to Parish Council view 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION No specific designation 3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES DP12 Outbuildings DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness 4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE Design Guide SPD 5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 6. MEMBER COMMENTS None received 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS Exbury & Lepe Parish Council: Recommend permission. There have been discussions between the applicant and the planning officers raising the issue of potential misuse of the building for residential purposes. We take the view that this can be dealt with making any approval subject to a condition. 1 8. CONSULTEES 8.1 Building Design & Conservation Area Officer: No objection, subject to materials and joinery details. 8.2 Tree Officer: No objection. 8.3 Land Drainage (NFDC): No objection, subject to a condition for details of disposal of surface water. 8.4 Ecologist: No comments received. 9. REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 One representation received in support of the application 10. RELEVANT HISTORY 10.1 Polytunnel (14/00217) approved on 19 May 2014 10.2 Single storey extension; external alterations and creation of new access (Inchmery Lodge) (13/98307) approved on 9 May 2013 10.3 Greenhouse (11/96113) approved on 21 March 2011 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology in Hampshire
    Archaeology in Hampshire Annual Report 2008 INTRODUCTION Up until 2003 Hampshire County Council published an Annual Report of Archaeology in Hampshire. The first volume was published in 1977 (for the year 1976) and for over a quarter of a century it proved to be a valuable resource bringing together in summary fashion archaeological work carried out in a particular year, whether it was by professional organization, academic institution or local society. The report ensured that knowledge of such work was easily and conveniently available to all interested parties. The final report of this „first series‟ was published in 2004 (for 2003). Following a hiatus of several years, The Hampshire Field Club was invited to produce a new series of reports and began with a round-up of the „missing‟ years. These can be downloaded from the Hampshire Field Club website. From this year (2008) the report will be published annually and copies will also be available for download from the HFC website http://www.fieldclub.hants.org.uk/ Developments in technology have forced a re-think about the most efficient way to go about the publication of interim statements and it was decided that an electronic format (i.e. a PDF document) provided a convenient and cost-effective solution. It also offers the option of printing only what is required. The structure and content of the report The report is organized by District and then alphabetically by location. Individual entries consist of a location that includes a grid reference. This is followed by an identifier, usually a Site UID, which links it to a record held in the AHBR database.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaulieu, Buckler's Hard and Exbury
    Beaulieu, Buckler’s Hard and Exbury Conservation Area Character Appraisals Beaulieu, Buckler’s Hard and Exbury About the character appraisals The landscape of the New Forest National Park is unique. It is a living working remnant of medieval England with a sense of continuity, tradition and history. It is not the survival of just one special quality but a whole range of features that bring a sense of continuity and integrity. Where there are areas of special historic and architectural interest the Authority has the opportunity to designate these as conservation areas. Every area has its own distinctive character made up from topography, historic development, current uses and features, buildings, paths and lanes, hedges, trees, place names. Understanding and appreciating an area’s character, including its social and economic background, and the way these factors have shaped the place should be the starting point for both its management and its future. This is the purpose of this document. Each character appraisal considers: The location and setting of the area Historic development The character of the area in detail Building materials and details The contribution of the natural environment This document is for: Anyone who is interested in finding out about the areas Anyone proposing to carry out work in the areas Organisations responsible for any aspect of management of the areas Our partner organisations, who help deliver National Park purposes through their work Members and staff of the National Park Authority How to contact us We would welcome your views and comments on this document and any other matter affecting the conservation areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Bovine Tuberculosis: Consultation on Proposals to Help Eradicate the Disease in England
    Bovine tuberculosis: consultation on proposals to help eradicate the disease in England A consultation exercise contributing to the delivery of the government’s strategy for achieving bovine tuberculosis free status for England 27January 2021 © Crown copyright 2021 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] or: Consultation Coordinator, Defra 2nd Floor, Foss House, Kings Pool, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX www.gov.uk/defra 2 Contents Part A: About this consultation............................................................................................. 4 1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. Purpose of this consultation ............................................................................................... 5 3. How this consultation is structured ..................................................................................... 5 4. Additional options and actions to accelerate eradication of bTB .......................................... 6 Part B: Proposals to further help eradicate bovine TB in England ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lepe to Fawley Trail a Walk of Wildlife and Wartime
    Lepe to Fawley Trail A walk of wildlife and wartime Fawley Ashlett Kennels Row Stonehills 1 Fields Heath E 2 Ower Tom’s Black eld Down 7 Badminston 3 Calshot 8 Common D 6 Sprats Down A 4 West Common 5 C Lepe Road Stanswood B Stanswood Road KEY Trail route Footpath Brook Roads 3 miles circular or 8 miles total / 3.5 hours Woodland Trail route summary Buildings This trail has a central circular section with connective ‘branches’ to Langley, 1 Stop spots Blackfield, Fawley, Exbury and Lepe. Many of these routes (now Rights of A Points of interest Way) can be seen on maps dating from the mid to late 1700s. Parking Trail Stats: Try our Mobile Walking App New Forest Trail length 3 miles (5km) circular section. National Park Walks 8 miles (13km) total) to help keep you to this Historic Routes trail. Time to walk trail 3.5 hours Starting point of trail There is no singular starting Download for iPhone point. However, Fawley or Langley are good options. Car parking There is no formal car parking for this trail. There is very limited on-street parking. Our suggested iPhone link here locations are Fawley, Chapel Lane and in Walker’s Lane South. Download for Android Bus Stop Fawley Square. For more information please check myjourneyhampshire.com Terrain (hilliness) Fairly flat Surface type/s Gravel tracks and some muddy Android link here patches Stiles / gates information Some stiles, gates, wooden footbridge, and stepping stones across Dark Water stream. Short section on road Notes Do check yourself for ticks on your return to the car.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Off Lepe Road, Exbury SO45
    Mr Gareth Roberts Our Ref: APP/B9506/W/15/3132171 Pegasus Planning Group Ltd First Floor South Wing 7 April 2016 Equinox North Great Park Road Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4QL Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY MTS EXBURY SOLAR LTD: LAND OFF LEPE ROAD, EXBURY, SO45 1AJ 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, B.Hellier BA (Hons) MRTPI, in relation to your appeal against the decision of the New Forest National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) to refuse planning permission for the installation of a 5MW ground mounted photovoltaic solar array with: transformer stations; internal access track; biodiversity corridors; landscaping; security fencing; security measures; access gate; and ancillary infrastructure, in accordance with application ref 14/01004 dated 10 December 2014. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 7 January 2016 in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that consideration could be given to any possible impact on the New Forest National Park. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation, dismisses the appeal and refuses planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Policy considerations 4. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • 14/01004/FULL Full Application Site
    Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 3 Application No: 14/01004/FULL Full Application Site: Land Off Lepe Road, Exbury, SO45 1AJ Proposal: Construction of a 9ha Solar farm to include solar panels to generate electricity; associated plant buildings; perimeter fencing; landscaping and associated works; internal access track Applicant: MTS Exbury Solar Ltd Case Officer: Deborah Slade Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE 1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Referred by Authority Member. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION No specific designation 3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES CP19 Access DP1 General Development Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP4 Climate Change CP5 Renewable Energy CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP17 The Land Based Economy 4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE Not applicable 5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 10 - Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 6. MEMBER COMMENTS Richard Frampton – The Application should be determined by committee in view of the potential significance of the development. 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS Exbury & Lepe Parish Council: Do not support this proposal and recommends refusal on the basis that it fails to comply with Government policy through its intention to use good quality agricultural land, its failure to acknowledge the special nature of a National Park and fears that it could lead to further industrialisation of the area. There is significant opposition from parishioners. 8. CONSULTEES 8.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No highways objections, subject to condition. 8.2 Natural England: No objection on grounds of impact upon designated sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Item 4, Application 06 90366 FULL
    Planning Development Control Committee - 17 October 2006 Report Item 4 Application No: 06/90366/FULL Full Application Site: Gilbury Farm House, Gilbury Lane, Exbury, Southampton, SO45 1AG Proposal: House; demolition of existing Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Clark Case Officer: Clare Ings Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE 1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council 2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION Referred by Authority Member 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION No specific designation 4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES NF-H4 - Replacement dwelling in the New Forest (page 144) NF-E5 - Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) DW-E1 - General development criteria (page 135) 5. MEMBER COMMENTS Alan Rice: Requests that application is considered by the Committee 6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS Exbury and Lepe Parish Council: No comments received 7. CONSULTEES 7.1 Environmental Design: The proposed replacement building is of an unsatisfactory design. Recommend refusal in line with general local plan policies such as DW-E1, NF-E1 and NF-E5, and also NF-H4 (clause ii - that the dwelling should not be detrimental to the character of the New Forest by reason of additional impact) is relevant. 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 One letter of support from adjoining resident 8.2 One letter from adjoining resident stating no objection to the proposal, but raising concerns over noise and disturbance during construction and route used by construction traffic 9. RELEVANT HISTORY: 9.1 Additions on ground and first floors (47803) - granted 12 July 1991 9.2 Additions on ground and first floors (52375) - granted 23 July 1993 9.3 Two-storey addition (53307) - granted 22 December 1993 9.4 Two-storey addition (55235) - granted 8 November 1994 9.5 Roof alterations to provide additional room on first floor (56933) - granted 11 July 1995 9.6 Garage/workshop with store/balcony over (demolish existing) (61035) - granted 1 May 1997 9.7 Ground floor addition and construct dormer window (62705) - refused 5 January 1998 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2018, South East
    South East Register 2018 HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / SOUTH EAST Contents The Register III Maidstone 44 Sevenoaks 46 Content and criteria III Swale 47 Criteria for inclusion on the Register V Thanet 50 Tonbridge and Malling 51 Reducing the risks VII Tunbridge Wells 52 Key statistics XI Medway (UA) 53 Publications and guidance XII Milton Keynes (UA) 56 Key to the entries XIV Oxfordshire 57 Entries on the Register by local planning XVI Cherwell 57 authority Oxford 59 Bracknell Forest (UA) 1 South Oxfordshire 59 Vale of White Horse 62 Brighton and Hove, City of (UA) 1 West Oxfordshire 63 South Downs (NP) 4 Portsmouth, City of (UA) 65 Buckinghamshire 5 Reading (UA) 68 Aylesbury Vale 5 Southampton, City of (UA) 69 Chiltern 8 South Bucks 8 Surrey 70 Wycombe 9 Elmbridge 70 East Sussex 10 Epsom and Ewell 71 Eastbourne 10 Guildford 71 Hastings 11 Mole Valley 72 Lewes 12 Reigate and Banstead 74 Rother 13 Runnymede 74 South Downs (NP) 14 Spelthorne 74 Wealden 15 Tandridge 75 Waverley 75 Hampshire 16 Woking 76 Basingstoke and Deane 16 West Berkshire (UA) 76 East Hampshire 17 Fareham 17 West Sussex 79 Gosport 18 Adur 79 Hart 19 Arun 79 Havant 20 Chichester 80 New Forest 20 Horsham 81 New Forest (NP) 21 Mid Sussex 83 Rushmoor 22 South Downs (NP) 83 South Downs (NP) 23 Worthing 87 Test Valley 26 Windsor and Maidenhead (UA) 87 Winchester 28 Wokingham (UA) 88 Isle of Wight (UA) 30 Kent 35 Ashford 35 Canterbury 37 Dartford 39 Dover 39 Folkestone and Hythe 41 Gravesham 43 II HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / SOUTH EAST LISTED BUILDINGS THE REGISTER Listing is the most commonly encountered type of statutory protection of heritage assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampshire Association of Local Councils
    Hampshire Association of Local Councils President: Professor Gerry Stoker Chief Executive: Steven M Lugg 5th September 2017 Hampshire 2017/18 Precepts Report 1. There are 7 District Councils within Hampshire. There are 263 local precepting bodies. Of these, 20 raise a zero precept (2 are parish councils and 18 parish meetings). Non precepting Parishes have not been included within the statistics presented below. The remaining 243 local precepting bodies include parish meetings (4), parish councils (224) and town councils (15). 2. The precept figures for 2017/18 are presented with the figures for 2016/17, where relevant, in brackets. 3. The total precept raised is £20,105,159 (£18,981,894). 4. Of the total precept raised, the twenty largest councils (based on electorate) raised £10,203,760 (£9,752,83). 5. The average Band D tax rate is £49.30 (£46.61). 6. 52 Local precepting bodies kept the precept for 2017/18 the same as 2016/17, which for the most would have meant a reduction in Band D tax rate (e.g. Dummer Parish Council -30.62%. ). 15 Local precepting bodies reduced their precept. One in particular (Exbury and Lepe Parish Council) reduced their precept by 100% from £2,262 to £0. This Parish Council is unusual in that it is predominately an Estate. 7. Of the 176 local precepting bodies that increased their precept, 58 increased this by less than £1,000. 8. The largest precept increase by percentage was Bramshill Parish Council, which raised its precept by 100% from £1,500 to £3,000 taking its Band D tax rate from £14.22 to £28.43.
    [Show full text]