Local Residents Surnames L-Z submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from Local Residents surnames L-Z.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Ludlow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to any changes in the boundaries of the two Alton wards (Alton Town and Alton Rural). These were created by the Boundary Commission in its previous review, and they are working well. The proposals were adopted when I was County Councillor for Alton Town (including ). The Boundary Commission used my submission as an example of good practice. They agreed that there was more in common between Alton and Holybourne which are a continuous development. There is little in common between any of the surrounding villages and Alton, as they are well-separated from Alton. Rural villages are unlikely to share the same ambitions as a small town. There is little in common between Alton Town and the villages of Beech, Wield, and .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6661 11/01/2016

New Milton is a continuous built up area which lies outside of the New Forest National Park. This area is bounded to the north by the B3055 (Bashley Cross Road), to the east by Danes Stream as far as the A337 ( Road), to the south by the A337 as far as its junction with the B3058 (a roundabout), then by the B3058 (Milford Road) as far as Barton Common Road, and from there to the coastline. The western boundary follows the county boundary from the coast along Walkford Brook, along Gore Road and then the length of Stem Lane back up to the B3055. Two parts of this built up area have a further distinct geographic identity: • Barton-on-Sea, which is the area south of the A337 and west of the B3058 • Ashley, which is on the east side of the area All other parts of New Milton identify themselves solely as New Milton. Two parts of the Parish of New Milton lie outside of the continuous built up area: • an agricultural area south of the A337 and east of the B3058, which has very few inhabitants • the rural area west of Stem Lane and north of the B3055, which includes the village of Bashley; this is horticultural, agricultural and equestrian in character

Problems with the current County Council divisions The fundamental problem is that the residents of New Milton who live north of the railway line are dependent upon the County Council facilities south of the railway line, notably the primary schools and the library. The railway line is therefore not an appropriate boundary. Before addressing objections to the existing county council divisions, which the Local Government Boundary Commission proposes to leave unchanged, it is worth considering some issues with the ward boundaries which mean that in some respects they are not good guides when constructing the council divisions. The greatest problem is the encroachment of the division upon residential areas of New Milton, which fails to satisfy three of the statutory criteria the Commission must follow: • it does not deliver electoral equality • it does not reflect the interests and identities of local communities • it does not provide effective and convenient local government

The artificial Milford & division is also objectionable because: • it does not reflect the interests and identities of local communities

Problems with the ward boundaries The most obvious anomaly in the Hampshire wards for New Milton is that there is no ward for Ashley, despite the fact that it has a distinct historical, geographical identity, including two primary schools under the jurisdiction of Hampshire County Council. The northern part of Ashley is in the Fernhill ward, and the southern part in the highly artificial "Becton" ward. The other part of the "Becton" ward is an unconnected residential area on the eastern side of Barton-on-Sea. (This area may properly be called Becton). It would reflect local interests and identities much more closely if Ashley had its own ward. The diminished Becton ward could either have its western boundary moved further west until it is equal in size to the Barton ward, or else be merged into the Barton ward. The other serious anomaly is the inclusion of residential parts of New Milton (south of the B3055) in the Bashley ward. These are part of New Milton town, whereas Bashley is a rural district, and these residential areas ought to be part of the Fernhill ward which covers the rest of New Milton north of the railway line. The net effect of gaining these areas from Bashley and losing the area east of Oakwood Avenue to a newly created Ashley ward would be to leave the Fernhill ward much the same size. It is true that the population of the Bashley ward would be reduced, perhaps by as much as 50%, but its geographic area would only be reduced by about 20%, and the Boundary Commission is permitted to make allowances for this kind of thing in rural areas. Problems with the Brockenhurst Division The areas shown in magenta on the map are within the Brockenhurst division (the likely reason for this is that they are part of the Bashley ward; the rest of the Bashley ward does have similar characteristics to the rest of the Brockenhurst division). Hampshire County Council, in its submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission, states: “Communities in the New Forest are self contained and very distinct in nature and are centred upon villages or hamlets. Those in the Brockenhurst Division have little in common with the Waterside to its east, little in common with Lymington to its south, very little with New Milton to its west, nor with Lyndhurst to its north.”

In general terms this is an accurate description, but it strongly implies that residential areas of New Milton ought not to be included in the Brockenhurst division because they have so little in common with the rest of that division, which is rural and part of the New Forest National Park. These residential areas ought instead to be coupled with the rest of New Milton, with which they have everything in common. The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to reflect the interest and identities of local communities The Hampshire County Council submission lists a number of factors that: “make the present Brockenhurst division difficult for one Councillor to service.”

Given the burdens placed upon the councillor for the Brockenhurst division, it is unreasonable to expect that person to properly represent the interests of a small part of the division that is on its fringe and very different in character from the rest of the division, and it is therefore unlikely that in practice residents of New Milton in the Brockenhurst division will be properly represented. Removing the areas south of the B3055 from the Brockenhurst division would relieve the Brockenhurst councillor of one burden. The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to provide effective and convenient local government Finally, there is no arithmetic necessity for parts of New Milton to be included in the Brockenhurst division. The projected electorates in 2021 for the Brockenhurst division, and for the other two divisions that are proposed to cover New Milton, are: • Brockenhurst 15,010 • New Milton 14,511 • Milford & Hordle 13,877

According to the Hampshire electorate data, the projected electorates in 2021 are 1056 for Bashley1 and 1112 for Bashley2. I have been unable to determine which of these is for rural Bashley and which for the New Milton parts, but the numbers are so close it makes little difference. Assuming Bashley2 is the New Milton areas, transferring 1112 from Brockenhurst to Milford & Hordle gives projected electorates of: • Brockenhurst 13,898 • New Milton 14,511 • Milford & Hordle 14,989

Transferring the areas south of the B3055 from the Brockenhurst division to Milford & Hordle would result in greater electoral equality (but note that there are other objections to the Milford & Hordle division). The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to provide electoral equality

Problems with the Milford & Hordle Division Most of New Milton north of the railway line, the Fernhill ward, is represented by the Milford & Hordle county council division. This area is shown in green on the map. Milford-on-Sea is a large coastal village and Hordle is a rural village, again fairly substantial. The division also includes the village of Everton which is similar to Hordle but perhaps a little less rural in character owing to its proximity to the A337. In contrast the Fernhill ward is a residential area of a town. As well as the different character of the Fernhill ward from the rest of the division, it is also geographically disjoint from it. The Fernhill ward is north of the railway and west of Danes Stream, whereas Milford, Hordle and Everton are south of the railway and east of Danes Stream. The natural connection between the two would be the southern part of Ashley, which is linked to Hordle by two roads (Ashley Lane and Hare Lane), however this part of Ashley is within the New Milton division and thus severed from its northern part. The coupling of the Fernhill ward with Milford and Hordle is therefore an artificial one, lacking any significant commonality. The Milford & Hordle division fails the criterion: • to reflect the interests and identities of local communities

Solutions to the Problems Although the size of New Milton (too big for one county council division, not big enough for two) does present genuine difficulties when deciding upon boundaries, here are three solutions, any of which satisfies the criteria set for the Local Government Boundary Commission more successfully than the Draft Recommendations of the Commission (which propose no change to the existing divisions). All of these solutions assume that the residential areas of New Milton currently in the Brockenhurst division (ie those south of the B3055 and east of Stem Lane) are transferred out of the Brockenhurst division, because their presence in that division is indefensible. The starting point is therefore the following projected electorates for 2021: • Brockenhurst 13,898 • New Milton, Milford & Hordle 29,500

This represents greater electoral equality than the Draft Recommendations. The remaining question is how (if at all) to divide up New Milton, Milford & Hordle. My personal preference is for one two-member division, because such a division would include the whole of the New Milton built up area. It is a straightforward solution, and one that has already been adopted in three other Hampshire divisions. If two single member divisions are insisted upon, one option is to make the A337 the boundary. This ensures that all the parts of New Milton that have no other identity than New Milton are in the same division. It is a more complex solution because it would necessitate changes to the Lymington division. Another option is to make the B3058 the boundary. This does divide New Milton in two, but in a fairer and more cohesive manner than the present partition. It is simpler in the respect that it has no impact upon the Lymington division.

A Two-Member Division At present Milford and Hordle are artificially coupled with the Fernhill Ward of New Milton. The two parts have little in common. The problem is addressed at a stroke by combining the New Milton and Milford & Hordle divisions into a single two-member division (called New Milton, Milford & Hordle I suppose). There are precedents for this, because there are already three two-member divisions in Hampshire County Council (and they are retained in the Draft Recommendations). This solution has the great advantage of leaving the New Milton built up area, whose residents have far more in common with each other than with anybody outside of that area, undivided in its representation on Hampshire County Council. Because of the relatively high population density of the New Milton built up area, the combined division would be sufficiently geographically compact that it would not be burdensome for the county councillors. Of course, with this solution Milford and Hordle remain coupled with the Fernhill Ward, but they also become coupled with parts of New Milton with which they have more in common (for example Milford and Barton are both coastal districts, and Hordle has some similarities and affinity with Ashley). Likewise although the Fernhill Ward remains coupled with Milford and Hordle, it is also united with the rest of New Milton with which it has a great deal in common. Perhaps Milford and Hordle residents may not like losing their own division, but they are already dependent upon being coupled with a substantial portion of New Milton to make up the numbers for that division, and so the councillor for that division should not even now act exclusively in their interests. Milford and Hordle would constitute a sufficiently large proportion of a combined division that in practice it would be politically foolish for the councillors of such a division to neglect the interests of those villages. The fact that the incumbent County Councillor for New Milton is a resident of the Milford & Hordle division, and the incumbent County Councillor for Milford & Hordle is a resident of the New Milton division, shows that these two divisions have sufficient affinity to warrant a two- member division.

The A337 Boundary The A337 (Lymington Road) would make a better boundary between New Milton and Milford & Hordle than the railway line, which is the current boundary. Under this solution, the area south of the A337 (principally Barton-on-Sea) would be separated from New Milton and joined instead to Milford & Hordle. The rest of New Milton (including both parts of Ashley) would be united. I consider this inferior to the two-member solution because of the affinity of Barton-on-Sea with New Milton. In the Hampshire County Council submission to the Boundary Commission, Councillor Mel Kendal (the incumbent for the New Milton division) rightly observes: “Barton residents shop, with adequate bus routes, in New Milton town centre, which falls well within the division and is thus a good linkage for Barton residents who would not be able to identify with any other area. This makes it a coherent geographical and social unit of local government.”

However all of this is just as true for the residents of New Milton who live north of the railway line. We are unable to identify with any other area, and unlike the residents of Barton we do not have any geographical identity apart from New Milton. Unlike the Fernhill ward that is at present coupled to Milford & Hordle, Barton does at least have some things in common with Milford. Both are coastal districts, and both have a high proportion of retired residents. In summary, the combination of Fernhill with Milton and Becton north would be at least as cohesive as the present combination of Barton and Becton south with Milton and Becton north (Becton south and Becton north have no real connection), but the combination of Barton and Becton south with Milford & Hordle would be much more cohesive than the present combination of Fernhill with Milford & Hordle. Though the residents of Barton would be disadvantaged by this change, they would not be as badly disadvantaged as the residents of New Milton living north of the railway would be by no change. The Hampshire Electorate Data projects 2021 electorates of 2414 for Becton1 and 1757 for Becton2. I have been unable to determine which is Becton north (ie Ashley south) and Becton south (ie Becton proper), but my guess is that Becton1 is Ashley. In this solution, the New Milton division would consist of Bashley2 (1112), Fernhill (4913), Milton (5319) and Becton1 (2414). The Milford & Hordle division would consist of Barton (5021), Becton2 (1757), Milford (4215), Hordle (3335) and Everton (1414). This gives overall electorates of: • New Milton 13,758 • Milford & Hordle 15,742

This puts New Milton very close to the Hampshire average of 13,846, but Milford & Hordle would be too large to satisfy the criterion of electoral equality. Hence further adjustments are necessary, and these would have an impact upon other divisions. The obvious solution is to move Everton over to the Lymington division. This would reduce Milford & Hordle to an acceptable size of 14,328, at the expense of moving the problem on to Lymington. To compensate for the additional 1414 electors from Everton in the Lymington division, the 1305 electors of Boldre1 ( & Pilley) could be moved from the proposed Lymington & Boldre division back into the Brockenhurst division (cancelling out the gain made by Brockenhurst in transferring Bashley2 to New Milton). Could these additional changes be justified? Moving Boldre1 back in to Brockenhurst ought to be uncontroversial. That is where it is at present, it is part of the parish of Boldre & Sway and the Sway part of that parish is in the Brockenhurst division, it is a rural area of the same character as the rest of the Brockenhurst division. The cohesiveness of the Brockenhurst division would be improved by gaining Boldre1 and losing Bashley2, even though it would suffer a small deterioration in electoral equality. The Lymington division would have to retain its present name, as "Lymington & Boldre" makes no sense without Boldre. Moving Everton into Lymington is not so clear cut. Everton has some affinity with Lymington because of its position on the A337 main road, and Lymington is not large enough to be its own division without including some of the more rural surrounding areas. A significant objection is that Everton is the natural link between Hordle and Milford. Without it, there is still a route between Hordle and Milford via Downton, but undeniably Everton is the major connection point. On the other hand, there is a long standing unresolved problem with traffic using Fry's Lane in Everton illegally when travelling to and from Hordle. The highways are a County Council responsibility, so maybe some Everton residents would welcome being represented independently of Hordle? They are less likely to welcome being represented independently of Milford, though, as Everton is in the catchment area for Milford primary school.

The B3058 Boundary The B3058 (Station Road) that runs from north to south through New Milton would make a better boundary between New Milton and Milford & Hordle than the railway line, which is the current boundary. Under this solution, Barton-on-Sea and New Milton west form one division, Milford, Hordle and New Milton east (including Ashley) form the other division. I consider this inferior to the two-member solution because it divides New Milton. This solution is better than the present division because it unites Ashley in the same division, and because taken as a whole the east side of New Milton (particularly Ashley) has more in common with Hordle than the Fernhill ward. The division of New Milton into east and west does at least align with the natural catchment areas for the primary schools in the area, and education is a County Council responsibility. In this respect it is less arbitrary than the current north-south division. This solution retains the link between Barton and New Milton, and has no impact on other divisions. The arithmetic is not straightforward because the B3058 bisects the Fernhill, Milton and Becton wards and I am unable to determine exactly how to apply the Hampshire electorate data. I am fairly confident that Becton1 is Ashley and Becton2 is Becton, and that Fernhill 3 & 4 are the Chatsworth and North Milton estates (the two largest estates in the ward, both on the west side). I am guessing that Milton 1 & 2 are on the west and Milton3 is on the east. My estimates are therefore based upon a New Milton division consisting of Bashley2 (1112), Fernhill 3 & 4 (2963), Milton 1 & 2 (3658), Barton(5021) and Becton2 (1757), and a Milford & Hordle division consisting of Milton3 (1661), Fernhill 1 & 2 (1950), Becton1 (2414), Milford (4215), Hordle (3335) and Everton (1414). This gives overall electorates of: • New Milton 14,511 • Milford & Hordle 14,989

Remarkably, these are the same numbers as for the existing railway line boundary: Bashley2 and Fernhill 3 & 4 combined have 4075 projected electors, as do Milton3 and Becton1 combined, and those combinations swap divisions in this solution. There is therefore no net change in electoral equality in this solution, but a marked improvement in reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Michelle McDarmaid

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It would be appreciated that the council take into consideration that it may be a better option to move one of the areas within fleet council that is already warded and has boundaries with Ancells Farm and could move the Yateley East instead of splitting Elvetham Heath parish council and making a small parish that has a heavy degree of individuality and community spirit. This would also cause more financial cost to the council and in these time of strict savings would not be the best option.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6647 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: ANTHONY MCEWEN

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

iT IS A HUGE PITY THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT SOBERTON & NEWTOWN PARISH SHOULD BE SPLIT. tHE IMPORTANT THING, SURELY, IS NJOT JUST THE NUMBER OF ELECTORS, WHICH IN ANY CASE WIL BE WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS, BUT THAT THE VILLAGES WHICH SHARE A COMMON pARISH COUNCIL, ARE CONSDERED AS A WHOLE NOT SEPARATELY.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6614 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Keith Meakings

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The draft proposals show the village of Crampmoor being included under the Romsey Town division. It is currently part of Romsey Extra. I am greatly concerned that the needs of our small, rural community of Crampmoor would not be effectively represented if we are tacked onto an urban division. I understand that there are three main considerations that form the basis of an electoral review. I have set out my thoughts on these below. Reflect community identity and interests: I feel this is the key consideration. Crampmoor is separate from Romsey and has its own distinct character and identity. It’s a rural area set amidst farmland. Crampmoor has far more in common with the other small villages included in the proposed Romsey Rural division than it does with Romsey Town. Provide for effective and convenient local government: I believe the residents of Crampmoor would be much more effectively served by a councillor representing a rural area (as it is now) than it would be by a councillor who represents an almost entirely urban division. Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents: I would hope the small population of Crampmoor would have no great bearing on the overall balance, especially as your report predicts the electorate of Romsey Town will increase at a greater rate than Romsey Rural between now and 2021.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6648 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Alan Morgan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I note that under the draft proposals it is proposed that the small community at Chilcomb will continue to be included in the Itchen Valley ward. I would like to express my personal support for this recommendation as recent experience has confirmed that our issues are very similar to those of the rural communities in the Itchen Valley. As Clerk to the Chilcomb Parish meeting I believe that this view is shared by the majority of our Parishioners, although I have not sought a mandate to express a Community view.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6702 12/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: David Newmarch

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: none

Comment text:

I am a resident at Crampmoor and have just become aware of the proposed boundary change to Woodley, Crampmoor and Ganger from Romsey extra into Romsey town. I do not see the point of this change. The nature of this area has not changed over the past decade and remains a very rural area consistent with Romsey Extra to become Romsey rural. Also there are no plan afoot to significantly urbanise this area that would justify the immersion into the urban Romsey town. There can be no reason nor advantage to this change for change sake. We are content as we are. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6601 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Clive Palmer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Firstly I do not accept the necessity of reviewing the boundaries around Alton at this time. Surely it would be more appropriate to wait until the planned expansion of the town has gone ahead and the growth of population has settled down. Secondly, I do not agree with the separation of the Holybourne area from the rest of Alton Town. Holybourne is an integral part of the urban environment of the town.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6468 04/01/2016 Hinds, Alex

From: Sent: 10 January 2016 19:32 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: Romsey boundaries proposals

Dear Sir

Re: Local Government Boundary Commission for England on a new pattern of divisions.

The Boundary Commission's proposed changes to Romsey Town.

As a resident In Crampmoor, at present under polling district Woodley, boundaries altered such that there would be a transfer from Councillor R. Perry ( from Romsey Extra, now to be called Romsey Rural division ) to Councillor M. Cooper of Romsey Town division.

I and other residents of Crampmoor are not happy about this. We foresee that this might eventually be fully integrated as the regular town boundaries. We are very much a rural area and would like it to remain so.

There appears to have been no notification of these actions to the people residing in the areas concerned - no mention of it in the June or September 2015 Romsey Forum Minutes, nor in the Autumn/Winter Romsey Extra Newsletter. I have also not seen any reference to it in the Romsey Advertiser.

Please pass my concerns on to the Boundary Commission for their attention.

Thank you Ann Perrett

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Rosemary Ravenscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think the consultation period is far too short. I would prefer St. Faith's to stay as it is.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6321 17/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Marilyn Robson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing in response to your draft recommendations for Hampshire and how they will adversely impact Elvetham Heath Parish where I live. The draft recommendation for Fleet results in a new county division boundary falling across the middle of the small community of Elvetham Heath. This would result in the parish being divided into 2 wards – East and West – creating a boundary where no obvious division currently exists and where there is no need for areas to be separately represented. The parish is very cohesive, not very large and issues always affect the whole parish. For the Fleet area the county put forward two options. The Commission has chosen the one that was favoured by the local county councillor (Shayrn Wheale) rather than the one I consider to be the more practical one. I would ask the Commission to reconsider their decision. I believe that the alternative option that the county council put forward whereby the division boundary could be allied to existing district & parish ward boundaries - including the Pondtail area of Fleet in the Fleet North & Yateley East division is the more sensible option. Choosing to divide Elvetham Heath rather than move a boundary within an already warded area seems unnecessary when the alternative option achieves the same desired result. It would also undermine the cohesiveness of the small community of Elvetham Heath. I would therefore urge the Commission to reconsider its recommendation and look again at the alternative suggestion provided by the county council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6587 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Rockley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I make no submission on how to alter the map, but was staggered to find New Milton north of the railway line is lumped in with Milford and Hordle. I know anomalies exist in all administrations but think this one would be quite easy sort out and make the system more workable.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6369 17/12/2015

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 30 November 2015 15:35 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: County Boundary changes for Gosport in Hampshire

From: Alan Scard Sent: 30 November 2015 14:37 To: Cc: Subject: FW: County Boundary changes for Gosport in Hampshire

Dear Sir / Madam, 1. Further to my email below, looking at the wording again it is correct although it could have been better worded. 2. Looking at your map for including part of Leesland GM1 into the Hardway division can you please consider the following; The part of GM1 that is south of Forton Rd is mainly an Industrial Estate but does include Halliday Rd with 47 people and around 18 people living on the south side of Forton Rd itself. I suggest it would make sense to leave this part of GM1 within the Leesland & Town Division. Regards Alan

From: Alan Scard Sent: 30 November 2015 13:58 To: '[email protected]' Cc: Chris Carter Peter Langdon Subject: County Boundary changes for Gosport in Hampshire

Dear Sir / Madam,

From your website, see below, should the wording for Leesland and Town be EXCLUDED not included. Regards Alan

Gosport Borough Number of Cllrs Variance 2021 Description Detail Division name Bridgemary 1 ‐3% The Bridgemary area This division is based is on the borough on the county‐wide boundary to the proposals received west and bounded for Gosport Borough. by the A32 (Fareham We are satisfied that Road) to the east. Bridgemary division reflects local community identities and provides for good electoral equality. Hardway 1 ‐4% The Hardway area is This division is largely bordered by based on county‐wide Harbour proposals received 1 to the east and the for Gosport Borough. A32 (Brockhurst In order to provide Road) to the west. for clearer boundaries between Hardway and Leesland & Town divisions we have included Chilworth Grove, Lees Lane, Norman Road, St Johns Close and Trafalgar Square in Leesland & Town division. Lee 1 ‐6% Lee is located on the This division is based coast of the Solent. It on county‐wide is primarily a proposals received residential area. for Gosport Borough. We are satisfied that Lee division reflects communities and provides for good electoral equality. Leesland & Town 2 ‐9% This division This division is largely comprises the based on the county‐ Alverstoke, Ann’s Hill wide proposals and Clayhall areas. received for Gosport These areas are Borough. To improve located in the south electoral equality and of Gosport Borough. provide for clearer division boundaries, we have included Chilworth Grove, Lees Lane, Norman Road, St Johns Close and Trafalgar Square in this division. This reduces an electoral variance of ‐10%, as proposed in the county‐wide scheme. We consider our modifications better reflect the statutory criteria.

2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Andy Simmonds

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I previously objected to the proposals to take Mottisfont parish out of Central and place it in the newly named Romsey Rural division. My objections remain. The proposed changes are all about juggling the population numbers in each division. This is NOT acceptable. As stated previously Mottisfont is closely tied with Broughton and parishes to the north, not to the south where it has very little in common with those parishes. To me the proposed and unwanted changes seem to be a political move and nothing less. Councillor Andrew Gibson who represents Test Valley Central has stated publicly that he is happy for Mottisfont to remain in the Test Valley Central Division. Mottisfont is small and the population is low so nothing will be gained by moving it out of Test Valley Central and into an area where it does not belong. Would yo be kind enough to provide me with the names of the people on the committee behind the proposed changes

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6441 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Simpson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wise to comment about the proposed divisions in Hart, specifically, 'Fleet North & Yateley East', but also 'Hartley Wintney & Yateley West' which I do not believe reflect the statutory criteria. On the summary report pages, the test of 'Community Identity' suggests that there should be good transport links across the division, and highlights public transport. There is NO public transport between Fleet and Yateley, or between Hartley Wintney and Yateley - something I acutely feel as a disabled person. It asks whether there are recognisable interests, and community groups across the divisions - but as the names suggest, both these divisions 'bolt' together natural communities which have been split apart - namely Yateley, and Fleet. Surely it makes sense to build an electoral division around Yateley as ONE community (which includes Blackwater and Hawley, and possibly Eversley); and an electoral division around Fleet as ONE community - each with very different interests, boundaries, and community groups. Hartley Wintney more naturally looks west, towards Odiham, and Hook. To group together 'Yateley East' with 'Fleet North' makes absolutely no sense at all. I was born in the area, lived here until I was 18, and have just returned a year ago at the age of 44 years. My mother has lived in Yateley all her life, as has her mother. When I consulted with my immediate neighbours about the proposition, they were totally bemused. Fleet and Yateley are the two largest towns in , approx. five miles apart. Why would you split each of them, and then create a new division which mixes part of one, with part of another, particularly when they share no public transport link? Even if you do not accept this argument, then at the very least, the proposed name of the division is inappropriate. It includes Blackwater and Hawley - places in their own right which share some focus with Yateley, but absolutely none at all with Fleet. My proposal, which I have not tested, would be for a division for the whole of Yateley (which would include Blackwater and Hawley, and possibly Eversley); one for Fleet Town (which could include parts of Fleet North from the previous proposal, including Elvetham Heath - and if any levelling up is needed, this could be done with the division of Church Crookham & Ewshot, which is a more natural fit, and low on numbers). Similarly, Hartley Wintney would be a more natural fit for the division of Odiham and Hook, which could be renamed accordingly. This would increase its numbers which are currently a little low. I believe such a proposal would make a more natural community fit for Fleet and for Yateley (as well as surrounding population centres) reflecting community interests and identities, and could be a more equitable spread of population, thus providing good electoral quality.Crucially, in the case of Yateley and Fleet, it would be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries, and help deliver strong, effective and convenient local government. At the moment, local people often struggle to know who their local county councillor is because they do not know which side of an arbitrary boundary they fall on within Yateley or Fleet - this is patently absurd, particularly when it is written into the statutory criteria for your own consultation.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6297 15/12/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Graham Titterington

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of Alton I would like to comment on the Alton Town and Alton Rural wards. I think the proposed changes are retrograde. In particular Holybourne is now an integral part of the Alton built up area, and is part of the Alton Town Council area. There is a clear common interest between the residents of the 2 towns. Similarly the residents of and tend to identify with . Generally the residents of the surrounding villages have more common interest with the other villages than with Alton Town. Although I appreciate that "doughnuts" are not the ideal shape for wards, these proposals are less satisfactory than the existing division between the two wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6270 08/12/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Penny Webster-Brown

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I don't see the point of changing a system that is currently working very well for us here, for both rural and town ares. Leave well alone.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6271 08/12/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Bruce Willshire

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Just before Christmas I became aware of a rumour that we are to move from the rural parish of Romsey Extra to the Parish of Romsey town. I have to say that I was fairly dismissive of the rumour because I had not received anything formally from the council explaining this and I spent a short while looking through parish websites and could find nothing to substantiate these claims. However, I now find that it is true, and that there has been a consultation document available for some time and that an eight week consultation period expires on 11th (tomorrow). It does seem very strange that an obviously rural area such as Crampmoor would be lumped in with the town, and I am concerned that this part of ancient parish will be merged into Romsey Town. I am concerned that the needs of the rural residents of Romsey Extra will take second place to those of the town! I can see no advantage of doing this and I would appreciate seeing some rationale or the benefits behind such a proposal. I recall a document called “Crampmoor and Highwood Design Statement”. This part of ‘Look at Romsey’ was a project jointly sponsored by Romsey and District Society and Romsey Extra Parish Council, with additional financial support from Test Valley Borough Council, Romsey Town Council and Hampshire County Council. It also had the backing of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. This document (attached) neatly highlights the fact that Crampmoor is a rural location and I assume that this has not featured in the decision to change the status of our community. Unfortunately I am writing this letter far too late, because I only became aware of the formalities of this process yesterday.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6615 11/01/2016

Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

Village Setting & sparsely populated area known as Landscape, including Highwood. views

View across Tadburn valley

Ford of Tadburn Lake in Crampmoor Lane Crampmoor and Highwood are predominantly wooded, although Crampmoor and Highwood are there are open fields in Highwood, small settlements on the eastern both within the area and adjacent extremity of Romsey. Most of the to it. The woods are much settlement is on the slopes of the appreciated both to walk through valley created by the small stream and as scenery. There are some that has kept its Saxon name of pleasant views across the valley, Tadburn Lake. It rises in nearby especially from Highwood and woods and marshy land and is a views southward to Toothill and tributary of the River Test. In other hills of the Test valley. The addition a few houses have been little church of St Swithun’s at the built on the plateaux on either side junction of Halterworth Lane and of the valley. Winchester Road is a notable landmark in this area.

Level crossing in Halterworth Lane Highwood Lane A railway line cuts through the area Design Recommendation from west to east and runs close to the Tadburn Lake. The area to the ¾ St Swithun’s church building north consists of Crampmoor, is an important landscape Straight Mile and New Pond. feature and should be South of the railway line is the maintained as such.

3 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

gardens. A close, Groveley Way, Settlement Pattern was constructed in land on the north and contains six detached The houses are scattered along houses between Crampmoor Lane three primary roads which are and Straight Mile. joined on the west by part of Halterworth Lane. The A3090 passes along the north of this area. There are a few houses and a restaurant at the western end, where the road rises up to the Woodley area of Romsey. St Swithun’s Church is east of the junction with Halterworth Lane beyond which is the area known as New Pond, containing bungalows Garden in Crampmoor Lane on the southern side. They are separated from the main Opposite Groveley Way as far as carriageway by a service road and the eastern corner of Crampmoor grass verge that once formed the Lane, there are small fields, one of main road. This stretch of the which has been converted into A3090 is called Winchester Road. parkland. There are a few houses at the eastern end of Crampmoor Lane and on the southward section, near the Tadburn. Small streams drain this area. Crampmoor Lane continues across the railway and Tadburn Lake to intersect with Green Lane, but there are no buildings in this stretch or in the section of Green Lane that Mandarin Chef at the junction of is in Romsey Extra. Green Lane Winchester Road and Halterworth Lane joins Crampmoor Lane to The eastern stretch of the A3090 Highwood Lane through a steep- passes through woodland and is sided cutting. known as Straight Mile. Its trees Like Crampmoor Lane, Highwood make a very attractive approach to Lane contains a right-angle bend. Romsey. The houses here are There are a few houses about substantial detached buildings in halfway along the north-south large grounds set well back from section, and a scattering of houses the main road. Their access is via and bungalows on the east-west service roads, which were created section. Stroud School occupies in the 1950s. the angle between Green Lane and Crampmoor Lane opens off the Highwood Lane in Highwood A3090 and runs due east with a House and its grounds. There is a southern spur that takes it across complex of buildings associated Tadburn Lake and the railway. The with the school, few of which can houses and bungalows here are be seen from the road. almost all detached and those on the north side of the lane have long

4 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

Open & Other Spaces Public open spaces include the verges beside the A3090 in the New Pond area, and the service roads alongside Straight Mile. The southern service road leads to a Stroud School from Highwood Lane footpath in the neighbouring parish The only buildings in Halterworth of Ampfield forming a popular walk. Lane that are in Highwood and The stretch of Crampmoor Lane Crampmoor lie to the north of the south of the railway line is now railway level crossing. Some of closed to traffic and is maintained them are in a little close called St by Romsey Extra Parish Council as Swithun’s Close that is behind the a public footpath. church.

Tadburn Lake, Crampmoor Lane Halterworth Lane The other open spaces in this area Crampmoor contains two are all in private ownership and not commercial undertakings adjacent open to the public. They include to Halterworth Lane. There is a the grounds of Stroud School, garage that undertakes the full fields south of Crampmoor Lane range of activities associated with and those adjacent to the Tadburn. the motor trade. Slightly uphill and Residents of Highwood Lane all on the slope of Winchester Road is overlook extensive fields as do the Mandarin Chef restaurant. those on the western slope of the As might be expected in an area of A3090. low density housing, there are few recognisable building lines, Design Recommendation although where houses or ¾ Pedestrian access through bungalows were built as groups, the area should be some short lines exist. maintained and extended where practical.

Bungalows in Winchester Road

5 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

built, including that of the Mandarin Building Form e.g. Chef restaurant and a nearby height, shape etc. house. The restaurant building has There is no prevailing building form been much extended. in Crampmoor and Highwood. The In the inter-war period, a number of various houses reflect the fashions bungalows were built. These and aspirations of their owners. reflect both the prevailing fashion There were few houses here in and the unsuitability of the ground 1800. for anything taller. There is a row of them at New Pond and others scattered across the area. Those at New Pond are L-shaped, some with extensions to the front and others at the back.

Highwood House now Stroud School During the 19th century, Highwood House, now Stroud School was built, with attendant houses for employees both within the Bungalow in Highwood Lane immediate grounds and in Highwood Lane. After the restrictions on building and control of building materials were lifted in the 1950s, a number of houses were built across the area. These included the large houses along Straight Mile, the most recent of which is only a few years old and features an atrium. These houses are all individual and have wings and extensions giving a Estate cottages, Highwood Lane variety of footprints. In Crampmoor Lane a few farm cottages survive from a similar era. St Swithun’s Church dates from the 1850s.

House in Straight Mile The houses in Crampmoor and Highwood are two-storey high, and both they and the bungalows, St Swithun’s church c.1860 where extended, have usually been In the early years of the twentieth enlarged outwards rather than century, a few more houses were upwards.

6 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

Materials, Fenestration and Chimney Details

House in Crampmoor Lane There is a variety of parking provision, ranging from stand-alone garages, garages that are part of the house, parking places within Decoration in Crampmoor Lane the curtilage but in New Pond, there is no off-road provision. The houses are brick built with very little ornamentation. A few of the Design Recommendation nineteenth century houses have decorative ridge tiles and finials, ¾ Where there is a group of but these are exceptional. Apart buildings of the same type or from Highwood House and one or with the same or similar two houses in Highwood Lane, the characteristics, owners houses are built of header-bond should be encouraged to brick with no patterning. Some of maintain the unity of the the houses are painted. Highwood group. House, a Victorian building, is amongst the largest houses in the area. Its gabled bays include one that is in the Dutch style. Two of the former estate cottages are decorated with terra cotta panels commemorating Florence Horatia Suckling who lived at Highwood House in the years around 1900.

Terracotta panels in Highwood Lane Unusually for Romsey, most of the upper storeys of the houses are faced with the same materials as the ground floors. With very few exceptions, neither shiplap boards nor tile-hanging are to be found on the first floors. The sports hall at Stroud School is faced with horizontal boarding. The main part of the hall is flat-roofed but an annexe is roofed in variegated tiles.

7 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

The extensions of the Mandarin Chef have flat roofs. Some of the houses have gables or roof-lights let into the roof, often added after the house was built. Some properties have both.

Lodge house at Highwood A wide variety of windows is found. They include sash windows, Georgian style casement windows, leaded light style and picture windows with their large undivided Chimneys in Crampmoor Lane panes. Most of the older houses Chimneys are almost universal in have replaced their original these houses and one or two of the windows, some retaining the older ones are other than plain original style while others have rectangular shape. The chimney made substantial changes. pots vary between round and The houses and bungalows have square cross section and a few several styles of porches. Some of have decorative tops. the newer houses have roofs that extend over the front door to form a sheltered area. Others have elaborate porches, either open or enclosed. Some of these are under flat roofs and others under pitched roofs. Most of the houses with no external porches have their

front doors recessed, to give Roofscape in Highwood Lane people protection from the weather. The older houses have slate roofs. Some of the bungalows still have the diamond shaped asbestos-type tiles that were much used in the 1930s. A few houses have clay tiles, while the rest have modern red concrete tiles, some plain and some ridged. Some of the older houses have decorative ridge-tiles. The houses associated with

Highwood House have decorative barge boards around the gables.

8 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

behind St Swithun’s church and in Streets & Street either direction along Winchester Furniture Road. The surfaces of all the As is to be expected in this diverse roads and footways are tarmac. area, the roads are all very There are no decorative features, different. What they have in such as paving stones or brick common however is their rural feel: setts. they are very definitely country roads in appearance.

Crampmoor Lane There are grass verges where The Romsey end of the Straight Mile people can walk alongside some but not all the roads. These Traffic management has resulted in include some typical country many signs being placed along the verges that are cut by the highway roads, including those warning of authority from time to time and in the bend in Highwood Lane, those Crampmoor Lane, a stretch of warning of the level crossing in grass managed as lawn. Where Halterworth Lane and speed paths go through woodland, grass cameras on the A3090 in is largely absent. Winchester Road, amongst others. Their presence, while largely There are no street lights in this essential, reduces the ‘unspoiled’ area apart from the rear of St rural feel of the area. However the Swithun’s church, and opinion is milestone at the western end of divided about whether any would Straight Mile is a charming survival be desirable. of a by-gone age.

Bus shelter at Crampmoor Milestone at start of Straight Mile There are bus stops along the The only formal footways are found A3090, one unprotected, one with a in or near Halterworth Lane and in modern bus shelter the appearance the nearby stretch of Highwood of which is not wholly liked, and a Lane. There are also footways brick built shelter that is a feature of

9 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006 the New Pond area. The nearby oak trees. There is a notable stand telephone box and pillar box are of silver birch in Groveley Way. In appreciated, as is the pillar box in addition within the large gardens Highwood Lane. there are many unusual and ornamental trees.

Cables and signs in Halterworth Lane Service road alongside Straight Mile There are overhead cables in most of the area except for Straight Mile A stream runs down the side of and Groveley Way. These spoil Crampmoor Lane into Tadburn the views of individual roads. Even Lake. Tadburn Lake can be seen more obtrusive are the high voltage in both Crampmoor Lane where overhead power lines that march there is a ford and footbridge, and across the valley from Highwood to in Halterworth Lane where the road Woodley. crosses it in such a way that most drivers do not appreciate that there Design Recommendation is a bridge. ¾ If possible, overhead power lines should be removed, especially the high voltage ones.

Skyline, Groveley Way Trees, Hedges & Other The presence of so much Landscape Features woodland, and the waterways The A3090 cuts through woodland means that the area is rich in in Straight Mile thereby forming a wildlife, with a wide range of British splendid approach to Romsey for mammals, reptiles and amphibia which the area is renowned. The being seen frequently by local predominant species are beech people. In addition, the area has and oak. plentiful birdlife and many species are seen regularly. At the western end of this avenue, the road opens up and is decorated with a number of ornamental trees including a Lombardy poplar and several flowering prunus, thus continuing the sylvan theme. There are woodland trees along Highwood Lane and Crampmoor Lane, including some fine mature Highwood Lane

10 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

Boundary Features e.g. There are one or two brick walls, and some of them are topped with walls, fences, etc. hedges. In keeping with the diverse nature of this area, there is no prevailing style of enclosing land. Thus the big houses in Straight Mile rely on the trees and shrubs on their land to give them privacy, although they have fences that are fairly inconspicuous. They are further shielded from public gaze by being Fencing in Highwood Lane set back not only from the main road, but also from the service In addition on the corner of roads. Highwood Lane there is a set of railings of a style found on The bungalows in the New Pond nineteenth century parkland. area are likewise much sheltered Stroud School has an ornamental by trees especially at the eastern gate which with its logo which end while the individual bungalows makes a pleasant entrance there. have a mixture of low walls and low hedges. The houses west of Halterworth Lane have fairly high hedges.

Gate to Stroud School

Design Recommendation Gate in Crampmoor ¾ Boundary features e.g. In Crampmoor Lane, low hedging is fences should respect the the common mode of creating a style prevalent in the area. front boundary marker, although one or two houses have quite tall hedges. By contrast Groveley Way is largely open plan with low walls at the fronts of properties. St Swithun’s Close, Halterworth Lane and Highwood Lane similarly exhibit a mixture of low walls and hedges.

There are some examples of high wooden fences that are unscreened by plants and are visually intrusive in this rural landscape.

11 Crampmoor and Highwood Draft Statement V4 13/06/2006

Non Design Issues These will be sent separately to our various councillors but will not be included in the final design statement.

There is a need to face the implications of the traffic use of Highwood Lane as an unofficial eastern by-pass thereby spoiling the rural feel of the area. Planning decisions need to have regard to their effect on Highwood Lane.

12

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hampshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Jeremy Wood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Hello, I am convinced that Holybourne should remain part of the Alton Town division. Holybourne has more links with the town than it does with a division of villages lining the south and east of Alton. There is a change in the landscape which has been respected by the Town Council and being part of Alton Town has caused no problems in the past. What possible link can Holybourne have with , for instance? The very use of the word "Rural" demonstrates that planners could not find a coherent title to fit this area. I see no benefit in being part of a division which is so loosely connected by the word "rural". So, please have the strength of mind to leave us as we are - no change. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6632 11/01/2016