Hampshire County Council Further Electoral Review of County Council Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for : Response to the Commission’s Revised Draft Recommendations on a new pattern of divisions for Havant and 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 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 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