Final Recommendations - South East Region
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Final recommendations - South East region Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 5. Final recommendations p9 2. Number of representations received p3 6. Sub-region 1: Berkshire, and Surrey Berkshire p13, Surrey p14, recommendations p15 3. Campaigns p5 7. Sub-region 2: Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway Brighton and Hove, and East Sussex p16, recommendations p19 Kent and Medway p19, recommendations p22 4. Major issues p6 8. Sub-region 3: W est Sussex p23, recommendations p24 9. Sub-region 4: Buckinghamshire, and Milton Keynes 12. Sub-region 7: Oxfordshire p31, recommendations p32 p25, recommendations p26 10. Sub-region 5: Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Appendix A Southampton p27, recommendations p29 11. Sub-region 6: Isle of W ight p30, recommendations p31 Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The South East region was allocated 83 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of one from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Berkshire (Initial proposals 8 8 n/a only) 1 Berkshire and Surrey 19 n/a 19 (Revised proposals only) Brighton and Hove, East 25 24 24 Sussex, Kent, and Medway West Sussex 8 8 8 Buckinghamshire and 7 7 7 Milton Keynes Hampshire, Portsmouth, 18 17 17 and Southampton Isle of Wight 1 2 2 Oxfordshire 6 6 6 Surrey (Initial proposals 11 11 n/a only) 2. Under the initial proposals 15 of the existing 84 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals retained 20 of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under the initial proposals it was proposed to have one constituency that crossed county boundaries - between East Sussex and Kent. Under the revised proposals, two further constituencies crossed county boundaries, one between Berkshire and Surrey, and one between East Sussex and Kent. 2 Number of representations received 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 2,900 representations regarding the South East region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● In Hampshire, the proposed transfer of the two Church Crookham wards to Aldershot constituency, and the proposal to transfer rural wards south of Winchester to the Test Valley constituency; ● In Milton Keynes, the proposal to transfer the ward of Wolverton to a largely rural Buckingham constituency; ● In Berkshire, the proposal to transfer Slough’s Chalvey ward to the Windsor constituency, and in Reading both the proposed inclusion of Mapledurham ward in Reading West, and the splitting of the Maiden Erlegh ward from the Lower Earley area; ● In Medway, the proposal to transfer Higham ward from Gravesham to Rochester and Strood constituency, with concerns in Thanet focused on the scale of change proposed; and ● In Brighton and Hove, the distribution of Hove wards across two constituencies. 4. In considering the evidence received, the Commission altered 51% of constituencies in the South East region: two of these constituencies were only subject to a change of name. 5. In the South East region, the Commission received a total of 2,511 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 5,438. This number includes all those who gave evidence at the public hearings. There were also a number of duplicate representations within this total, as well as 3 representations that made general comments that did not have any bearing on the substance of the initial or revised proposals. Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 17 70 Official political party 20 59 response Peer from House of Lords 0 1 Local councillor 69 311 Local authority 21 53 Parish or town council 46 104 Other organisation 26 99 Member of the public 2,312 4,741 Total 2,511 5,438 4 6. While many of the representations can be categorised as opposing the Commission’s revised proposals, there has been a degree of support for certain constituencies across the whole region. These include, but are not limited to, Chatham and The Mallings, Eastbourne, Gillingham and Rainham, Hastings and Rye, and across the West Sussex sub-region. Campaigns 7. As expected, throughout the region, representations from a number of organised campaigns were received. In the South East region, these were as follows:- Table 1C - Campaigns Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose Strength (no. of initial proposals signatories) Support for Gillingham and Rainham Constituency BCE-45966 Support 175 Support for Rochester and Strood Constituency BCE-48375 Support 5 Support for Chatham and Aylesford (Malling) BCE-48372 Support 3 Constituency Tell the Boundary Commission that Lordswood isn't BCE-51957 Oppose 337 part of Gillingham Support for the BCE's proposals for Lewes & BCE-48368 Support 5 5 Uckfield, and Brighton Kemptown and Seahaven Opposition to BCE's proposal to move the ward of BCE-51956 Oppose 368 Windlesham from the Surrey Heath constituency to the Windsor constituency 8. During the previous consultations the Commission received 20 campaigns in relation to the South East region. Of these, the first four listed above are similar to other campaigns received during earlier consultations. Major issues 9. Major issues that drew objection were as follows:- Berkshire and Surrey ● Moving Slough’s Chalvey ward to the Windsor constituency, to increase the electors in Windsor. ● The inclusion of Mapledurham ward in Reading West, from which it is detached, to increase electors in Reading West. ● The splitting of the Maiden Erlegh ward from the Lower Earley area, to increase electors in Reading East. ● Moving Windlesham ward from Surrey Heath to Windsor, across the Berkshire/Surrey boundary, to increase electors in Windsor. ● Moving Bucklebury and Basildon wards from Newbury to Reading West, to reduce electors in Newbury and increase them in Reading West. 6 ● Moving Thorpe ward from Runnymede and Weybridge to Spelthorne, to increase electors in Spelthorne. Many representations suggested Egham Hythe as an alternative, but this leaves Runnymede and Weybridge with too few electors. ● Moving Hersham South ward from Esher and Walton to Runnymede and Weybridge, to reduce electors in Esher and Walton, and increase electors in Runnymede and Weybridge. Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway ● The distribution of Hove wards across two constituencies. ● Moving Newhaven and Seaford into a Brighton Kemptown and Seahaven constituency. ● Moving Higham ward from Gravesham to Rochester and Strood constituency. ● The scale of change proposed in Thanet. ● Moving areas on the outskirts of Tunbridge Wells to a Tonbridge constituency. ● Moving Ticehurst to a Mid Kent and Ticehurst constituency. West Sussex ● There were no major issues that drew objections in this sub-region, but neither was there any significant support other than from the Conservative and Labour parties. 7 Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes ● The inclusion of two Milton Keynes borough wards from Stony Stratford, Tattenhoe or Wolverton in the Buckingham constituency. Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton ● Moving Colden Common and Twyford ward, and part of Compton Otterbourne ward, from Winchester to Test Valley. ● Moving the two Hart District wards of Church Crookham from North East Hampshire to Aldershot. ● Moving villages south and east of Andover from North West Hampshire to Test Valley. ● Moving the Test Valley Borough Council wards of either Blackwater and Dun Valley, or Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams to the New Forest East constituency. Isle of W ight ● Including East Cowes ward in the Isle of Wight West constituency. Oxfordshire ● Separating those parts of Bicester which lie outside its ring road, and local villages in the vicinity. 8 Final recommendations 10. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. Table 2 - Sub-regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations Berkshire Berkshire and Surrey Berkshire and Surrey Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway Kent, and Medway and Medway West Sussex West Sussex West Sussex Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton Southampton Southampton Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Oxfordshire Oxfordshire Oxfordshire 9 Surrey 11. The final recommendations have been formulated using the same sub-regions as the revised proposals. A small number of respondents suggested alternative sub-regions including Hampshire with Surrey, Brighton and Hove with East and West Sussex, and Berkshire with Oxfordshire. We considered these and feel they do not provide for any better solutions than the sub-regions above. We also received counter-proposals crossing regional boundaries, combining Hampshire and Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and South Northamptonshire, and Milton Keynes and South Northamptonshire. We have considered the evidence for these, and feel that they do not meet the exceptional and compelling case required to cross