Parish and Town Councils submissions to the Hampshire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from the Parish and Town Councils
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 13:41 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE - Attn: Alex Hinds, Richard Buck
From: Bernard Griffiths Sent: 03 August 2015 13:18 To: reviews
Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE ‐ Attn: Alex Hinds, Richard Buck
Dear Sirs,
I am responding on behalf of Abbotts Ann Parish Council, Andover, Hampshire, to the Electoral Review of Hampshire.
Abbotts Ann Parish Council supports the submission made by Andover Town Council in its entirety.
Abbotts Ann Parish Council wishes to register an interest in moving the electoral boundary of Abbotts Ann and the Anna Ward so that the part of the parish north of the A303, known as Burghclere Down, be absorbed into the urban conurbation of Andover and be appropriately warded.
Burghclere Down is already physically in the urban area of Andover, while the village of Abbotts Ann is still basically rural. The A303 is a natural geographical boundary between them.
The two communities have different interests and different priorities. Re-drawing the electoral boundaries would give more effective and appropriate representation to each community.
Yours truly,
Cllr Bernard Griffiths, Chairman, Abbotts Ann Parish Council
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 July 2015 15:53 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral review of Hampshire
From: Peter Storey Sent: 16 July 2015 15:27 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Hampshire
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above consultation.
Bishopstoke Parish Council feels strongly that the county divisions and borough wards should coincide and not cross over as at present as this causes much misunderstanding as to who is responsible for what. We would be very grateful if this recommendation could be accepted and acted upon.
Peter Storey Clerk to Bishopstoke Parish Council
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 30 July 2015 14:21 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
-----Original Message----- From: Enquiries Sent: 29 July 2015 14:49 To: reviews
Fiollowing a recent Council Meeing here are the views of Blackwater and Hawley Town Council.
"Blackwater and Hawley Town Council supports the Hampshire County Council submission for Hart District with the sole exception that we believe Option B for the transfer from the FLeet Division to the Yateley East,Blackwater & Ancells Division is far more appropriate than Option A.
Not only does Option A require the splitting of parish which is not currently warded, and the division of a district council ward which is not currently divided, but it will also mean that the County Councillor representing Blackwater and Hawley will have his or her attention divided unnecessarily among four towns and parish councils rather than three. With the limitations on any County Councillor's time, this would be to the detriment of our parish.
Notwithstanding the above, the Town Council believes that Hart District should be allocated six County Councillors in this review to reflect the growing population.
Mr T Gahagan Executive Officer
-- Blackwater and Hawley Town Council www.blackwaterandhawleytowncouncil.gov.uk
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not copy it re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. Blackwater and Hawley Town Council does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Blackwater and Hawley Town Council.
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 14:28 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire - consultation response from Botley Parish Council
From: Janet M Morgan Sent: 03 August 2015 14:25 To: reviews
Comments of Botley Parish Council to the public consultation on the electoral review of Hampshire County Council.
Eastleigh Borough County Council seats
It is the opinion of Botley Parish Council that neither of the two options proposed for adjusting the County Council seats within Eastleigh Borough would be acceptable to the residents of Botley.
The Parish Council believes strongly in the importance of established community identity and feels this should be given greatest priority when considering County electoral divisions. It is unreasonable that a small community such as Botley which is facing enormous changes through the onslaught of new development should have its democratic representation weakened by being divided up, divided to suit the interests of neighbouring communities just because they are larger.
The civil parish of Botley has three polling divisions Botley (HN), Botley (HP) and Botley (HO) which are currently represented within one county seat. The two proposals offered to Eastleigh Borough, of either retaining 7 county seats or extending to 8 county seats, both propose to separate the community between two county council seats. The Parish Council strongly objects to this proposal for summary division of an established community leaving it split between two county seats, both given 'bits' of Botley as add‐ons to balance numbers.
For these reasons Botley Parish Council requests reconsideration of the electoral boundary proposals in order to maintain the integrity of community identity.
Yours sincerely Mrs Janet Morgan Parish Clerk on behalf of Botley Parish Council
Botley Parish Council
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Peter Stanley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council
Comment text:
Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council consider that the name of the local ward should be amended from "Headley" to "Liphook, Headley and Grayshott". This is to reflect the designation of Liphook as a District Service Centre where the higher level of expansion is projected to occur. Liphook currently has three district councillors reflecting the higher population level compared to the other two parishes
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5744 27/07/2015
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 July 2015 09:35 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
From: Sally Jackson [ ] Sent: 16 July 2015 09:33 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Hampshire
Following a discussion at our Full Parish Council meeting on 13 July 2015, it was agreed to thank you for the consultation but to confirm that at this stage in the process Chineham Parish Council has no comments to. make
Kind Regards
Sally
Sally Jackson Clerk to Chineham Parish Council
www.chineham.gov.uk
This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected or Restricted information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti‐virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own anti‐virus checks before opening any documents. Chineham Parish Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e‐mail.
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Adrian Walmsley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Compton & Shawford Parish Council
Comment text:
Compton & Shawford Parish Council lies within Winchester Downlands Division. We do not see any reason to alter the boundary of Winchester Downlands Division We note that, on 2021 projections, the existing Downlands division will meet the requirement for electoral equality to within 1.6%, slightly better than the equivalent figure for 2014. We strongly desire that, in the interests of community coherence and effective local government, our District Ward continue to be contained within a single county division, even if the Commission sees fit to make changes to other parts of Winchester Downlands Division. These points are explained in more detail in the accompanying document.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5742 24/07/2015 Compton and Shawford Parish Council CS
PC
23 July 2015
Response to the LGBCE consultation on Hampshire County electoral division boundaries Compton & Shawford Parish is one of five parishes in a new Winchester District Ward which, the Boundary Commission decided, should be called Badger Farm & Olivers Battery. We had suggested Downlands South as an appropriate name. All four our of neighbouring parishes in the new ward agree with us that Downlands South would have been a more meaningful name for the new ward and is a name that “does what it says on the tin”. The whole of our new ward is contained within the current Winchester Downlands division of Hampshire County Council. We have considered our response under the Boundary Commission’s three objectives: 1. Electoral Equality: We note that the projected 2021 Hampshire electorate is 1,079,999, which means an average of 1 county councillor per 13,846 electors. The 2021 projected electorate of Winchester Downlands Division is 13,620. That meets the requirement for electoral equality to within 1.6%, a slight improvement over 2014 figures. Recommendation 1: There is no need for any change to Winchester Downlands Division to meet electoral equality. 2. Reflect the interests and identities of local communities. In our representation to the recent consultation on ward boundaries, we and our neighbours had argued very strongly for a new ward which would consist of the five parishes of Compton & Shawford, Otterbourne, Hursley, Olivers Battery and Badger Farm. We were delighted that the Boundary Commission accepted our proposal. Recommendation 2: We would be happy for Winchester Downlands Division to continue unaltered. But if the Boundary Commission is minded to make changes, we strongly request that, in the interest of community identity, our ward be not split across division boundaries. 3. Effective and convenient local government: As delivered by our District Councillors and County Councillor: Recommendation 3: effective local government is best served if our district ward is wholly contained within a single County Division, so that our District Councillors only have to liaise with a single County Councillor.
Councillor Adrian Walmsley
Approved at the PC meeting on 7 July 2015, with minor wording changes for clarity and to reflect the opinions of neighbouring parishes. Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 30 July 2015 15:30 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: electoral review of hampshire
From: mike derrick [ ] Sent: 30 July 2015 10:41 To: reviews
Dear Sirs In relation to the current consultation on the electoral review of Hampshire, Copythorne Parish Council wishes to make positive representations for change. Copythorne parish is presently warded for County, District and Parish Council electoral purposes. At County level, Copythorne North ward is currently part of the Fordingbridge Division while the Copythorne South ward is in the Lyndhurst Division. This is completely unnecessary for a parish of Copythorne’s size and is extremely inconvenient. While acknowledging that electoral quality is important, the present arrangements fail to satisfy the other criteria, namely: The pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identifies of local communities The electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government The best interests of Copythorne have previously been sacrificed purely on the grounds of electoral equality. There are no other justifiable reasons for splitting the parish. Neither the Parish Council nor local residents see any benefit in retaining the current arrangements. Warding also tends to be divisive and creates the impression in voters’ minds that elected representatives act only for the particular ward rather than for the Council as a whole. Copythorne has more direct links to Lyndhurst than Fordingbridge. The latter is extremely remote from Copythorne and has no common relationship. On this basis the Parish Council proposes that the whole of Copythorne should be included in the Lyndhurst Division. Based on the 2021 electoral projections this would help to address the electoral imbalance in the Lyndhurst Division. Whilst it would not help Fordingbridge it is suggested that the latter’s larger geographical area is justification not to use electoral equality as a prime consideration. The Parish Council therefore urges that proper regard be given to the effectiveness and convenience of electoral arrangements and the identity of the local community. Allocating the whole of Copythorne to the Lyndhurst Division would appropriately address these fundamental criteria. Regards, Mike Derrick Clerk to Copythorne Parish Council
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Claire Inglis
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Dogmersfield Parish Council
Comment text:
Reference the Odiham Ward - Submission on behalf of Dogmersfield Parish Council
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5777 03/08/2015 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 June 2015 09:04 To: Hinds, Alex Cc: Buck, Richard Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
From: Durleypc June 2015 21:13 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Hampshire
Dear Sir,
Durley Parish Council has considered the Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council and would like to support the recommendation that Hampshire County Council retains 78 Councillors. We also feel that it is important that Durley, Upham and Bishops Waltham parishes are grouped together in one Division as they are at present, especially bearing in mind that this will coincide with the recommendations for the new Ward Boundary at the City Council.
At present the Bishops Waltham Division is covered by Cllr Robert Humby and the area he covers is just about manageable. If the Division was larger in size then he, or any other elected County Councillor would not be able to visit the Parish Councils in his/her area, as it would be too large to cover adequately.
Therefore it has been recommended by Durley Parish Council that we continue to stay in the Bishops Waltham Division along with Upham and have one County Councillor for this Division.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Collins (Mrs) Clerk to Durley Parish Council
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Lindsay Burtenshaw
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council
Comment text:
On behalf of Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council I wish to make a submission on the LGBCE current review of the Division Boundaries for Hampshire County Council. Our Parish lies within the Fordingbridge Division and is represented by CCllr Edward Heron. ELlingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish is large in terms of geographical area (as indeed is the Fordingbridge Division) especially by comparison to the resident household population. Large geographical areas present significant challenges not only to us at parish level but especially to our representative CCllr Heron. However, we are fortunate to have an effective and communicative County Councillor who regularly attends Parish Council meetings and is on hand to deal with any issues or problems. We believe that this situation should be allowed to continue to ensure effective governance at local levels. We have read the consultation document, the reports prepared by Hampshire County Council and the submissions made by New Forest District Council and CCllr Heron and we concur and strongly support the conclusion made by CCllr Heron in that - 'Although the over representation would not be deemed to secure equality of representation, the existing Fordingbridge Division and status quo does achieve the Commission's other objectives of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and providing effective and convenient local government.'
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5798 04/08/2015
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 28 July 2015 14:26 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire Attachments: 20150728113418.pdf; 20150728113432.pdf
From: Cheryl Gosling [m Sent: 28 July 2015 11:45 To: reviews
Dear Mr Hinds
Thank you for consulting the Parish Council on the Electoral Review of Hampshire. Members of Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council considered their response to the consultation at the planning meeting held last night.
The County currently has one councillor covering Fair Oak, Horton Heath Parish and part of Bishopstoke. Currently this serves an electorate of 13,468. The Parish Council is expecting a further 1500 homes (approved planning) to be built up to the period of 2021. This includes the 950 homes proposed for an area west of Horton Heath which currently straddles the West End parish.
We therefore, recommend an extension from our boundary marked no 16 on the map attached (Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) to include part of no 69 (West End and Hedge End Grange Park). I have outlined in pink as shown on the second attachment.
The new community will be linked with the existing habitat of Horton Heath sharing new village facilities and schools. Splitting the community into two different boundaries will cause confusion and lack cohesion when dealing with local matters.
I hope that you find our suggestion favourable, please contact me if you require any further information.
Kind Regards Cheryl Gosling
Information contained in this email and any attachment is intended for the use of the addressee only and may be confidential. Any dissemination, distribution, copy or use of this communication without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error please immediately delete it from your system and notify us by return email. Whilst Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council has taken every reasonable precaution to protect against infection by software viruses, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus check prior to opening any attachment contained within this email. Any views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect those of Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council.
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 July 2015 13:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
Importance: High
From: Town Clerk ] Sent: 22 July 2015 13:32 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
Hedge End Town Council has considered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) study on the electoral review of Hampshire County Council. The Town Council wishes to submit the below views on the future electoral division boundaries for the Hampshire County Council as part of this valuable consultation process.
The Town Council believes that polling districts must be the ‘building blocks’ as to what comprises a County electoral division. Borough wards should not be split across County electoral divisions so as to maintain consistency and established communities in all electoral arrangements.
The Town Council members studied two projected drawn Maps ‘7’ and ‘8’ offering the case for and against an additional County Councillor for the Eastleigh Borough Council representation. Members unanimously agreed and felt that based on current electorate totals and projecting 2021 forecasts, Eastleigh should have an eighth County Councillor Member under Map ‘8’ tabled for discussion at the relevant meeting. Significant developments in the Borough justifies this view and Hedge End Grange Park and West End are not distinct communities. An additional County Councillor member would provide a closer representation of the communities and a clear voice for the Borough and avoids the unnecessary division of Grange Park.
Please record this consultation comment and opinion accordingly. It would also be helpful if you could please keep the Hedge End Town Council advised of developments in this regard.
Regards
Kevin Glyn‐Davies Town Clerk Hedge End Town Council
Tel: Fax: E‐mail: www.hedgeend‐tc.gov.uk Twitter: @hedgeendtown
1 Facebook: Hedge End Town Council
The contents of this email and attachments are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it is addressed and may be covered by legal professional privilege and confidentiality. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use, disclose, forward, distribute or copy the contents. Please contact Hedge End Town Council immediately on +44(0) 14 89780 440, then delete it. Unauthorised use, distribution or publication of this communication is prohibited under all circumstances.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error‐free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, Hedge End Town Council does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e‐mail transmission in any way. If verification is required, please request a hard‐copy version.
2 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 28 July 2015 08:57 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hampshire County Council Electoral Review
Importance: High
From: Town Clerk Sent: 27 July 2015 16:16 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
The Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council
Hedge End Town Council is the second most populous local council in Eastleigh Borough and the local council with the largest budget and most devolved services in the Borough as Eastleigh’s second urban area. The Town Council has 21 councillors elected in 7 wards currently from the Liberal Democrat (17) and Conservative (4) Parties. These wards form the building blocks for the three Borough wards of Grange Park, St John’s and Wildern.
Grange Park is the newer, post 1989, part of Hedge End and has a distinctive character from the remainder of the Town Council’s area. St John’s and Wildern form part of a wider urban area that includes one polling district of Botley Parish (HO) and part of one polling district of Bursledon Parish (BA).
The Town Council has considered the Electoral Review of Hampshire being conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
The Town Council notes the rapidly growing population of Hedge End, with 1,000 new homes planned in Grange Park over the next ten years and 250 in the part of Bursledon Parish that is part of Hedge End, closest to Hedge End St Johns.
The Town Council is concerned that Hedge End’s population is not under‐represented at the Borough and County Councils. It looks forward to taking part in the electoral review of Eastleigh Borough over the next 18 months to ensure appropriate representation for the community at Eastleigh Borough.
For the Review of Hampshire, the Town Council’s Finance & Administration Committee unanimously backed the version for Hedge End in the County Council’s “8 County Councillor” model for the Borough. It did so, noting that Hedge End’s electorate is now too large to have one County Councillor coterminous with its boundaries.
It did so mindful of future growth in the local electorate, a desire for “old” Hedge End, that is the wards of St John’s and Wildern, together with Botley HO and part of Bursledon BA, to share a County Councillor. The Town Council is aware that the Borough Council is looking to make this part of BA, north of
1 the motorway, into a new polling district. This is sensible in that this part of Bursledon, separated from the rest of the parish by the M27 motorway since the 1970s, looks to Hedge End for its services and it would be easier and more convenient for residents to vote in Hedge End.
It did so also recognising the benefits of keeping the Grange Park West (HG) and Grange Park East (HF) polling districts in one county division. There is no on‐the‐ground division between the two parts of Grange Park and separating their County Council representation between two divisions, one shared with West End and the other shared with other areas to the north including Bishopstoke, would be locally confusing.
The Town Council would of course gladly assist the Commission with any element of its Review.
Yours sincerely HEDGE END TOWN COUNCIL
Kevin Glyn‐Davies Town Clerk Hedge End Town Council
Tel:
Web: www.hedgeend‐tc.gov.uk Twitter: @hedgeendtown Facebook: Hedge End Town Council
The contents of this email and attachments are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it is addressed and may be covered by legal professional privilege and confidentiality. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use, disclose, forward, distribute or copy the contents. Please contact Hedge End Town Council immediately on +44(0) 14 89780 440, then delete it. Unauthorised use, distribution or publication of this communication is prohibited under all circumstances.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error‐free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, Hedge End Town Council does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e‐mail transmission in any way. If verification is required, please request a hard‐copy version.
2
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 28 July 2015 09:07 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Laverstoke & Freefolk PC Feedback re HCC boundary Attachments: L&F boundary proposal0001.jpg
From: Nicky Nicklin [ ] Sent: 27 July 2015 22:07 To: reviews
Subject: Laverstoke & Freefolk PC Feedback re HCC boundary
Hello
Lavertoke and Freefolk Parish Council have considered the HCC boundary review information and would like to propose the following division boundary as per the attached plan.
Current situation: Laverstoke and Freefolk are part of the Overton, Laverstoke & Steventon ward in the current county division of Candovers. The current Candovers division boundary extends from Laverstoke in the far west to Upton Grey in the east, Brown Candover in the south and Ibworth in the north. The electoral population is currently c. 11.8k.
Proposal: create a division to include the 2 Whitchurch parishes (Whitchurch & Hurstbourne Priors) as well as O, L & F ward and the Oakley and North Waltham ward. The red line on the attached map marks the proposed boundaries.
Our reasons for the proposal are numerous and would seem to meet with your stated aims:
1. B3400 common infrastructure/ traffic issues. There are no such links between the further reaches of the current Candovers Division. The B3400 is also the main route for sharing the 2. common community facilities & amenities e.g. Whitchurch & Overton are the shared local shopping areas; Basingstoke is the common primary shopping & leisure town for this area; Overton Rugby club based in Laverstoke serves whole area; the catchment secondary school for the majority of the area is Testbourne. (The M3 splits the sharing of these facilities in the current boundaries.) 3. More even population distribution. There are 13.6k people in our proposal. With currently over1.02m people in Hants and the request to maintain 78 councillors this is, effectively, a good proportional representation (1.02/78 = 13k) 2014 data 4. Closer geographical spread & identity as local community e.g. we are currently setting up a Men’s Shed Group and we consider Whitchurch & Overton as our local community to serve with this resource.
We do hope you will put our proposal forward for serious consideration
Krgds
Nicky
Nicky Nicklin
1 Clerk, Laverstoke and Freefolk Parish Council
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Chris Tee
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: LITTLETON & HARESTOCK PARISH COUNCIL
Comment text:
From the point of view of Littleton & Harestock Parish Council which has a HCC Councillor from Winchester Downlands, it is suggested that the current arrangement continues and this Parish Council is therefore served by only one HCC councillor. It might also be worth considering making the HCC Division coterminus with the recently revised Winchester City Council Ward for St Barnabas which has been revised to include a small change on its northern boundary in Harestock.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5677 14/07/2015 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 08:40 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral review of Hampshire
From: Sent: 01 August 2015 06:35 To: Fuller, Heather
Lockerley Parish Council would request no change to their electoral division boundary as a result of this review.
Regards
Clerk
From: "Heather Fuller" Sent: Tuesday, 26 May, 2015 4:07:36 PM Subject: Electoral review of Hampshire
Dear Parish or Town Clerk,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has formally commenced an electoral review of Hampshire County Council. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the review and seek your views on future electoral division boundaries for the council. I attach a copy of the letter sent to the Chief Executive of the Council, announcing the start of the electoral review, which also gives more information about the consultation and how local people and organisations can get involved.
The Commission is carrying out a review to deliver electoral equality for voters across the county. At present, some county councillors represent many more, or many fewer, electors than their colleagues elsewhere in the county. The review aims to correct those imbalances.
What is an electoral review?
The electoral review will recommend new electoral arrangements for Hampshire County Council. In particular, it will propose:
1. The total number of councillors elected to the council in the future. 2. The number of electoral divisions. 3. The number of councillors representing each division.
1 4. Division boundaries. 5. Names of divisions.
For parishes, the review can recommend changes to the electoral arrangements of parish and town councils i.e. the number, names and boundaries of parish wards and the number of parish councillors for each parish ward. However, this is only in circumstances where the parished area is to be divided between wards. Even in these circumstances, the Commission will not normally recommend any change to the number of councillors to be elected to a parish or town council. The Commission has no power to consider changes to the external boundaries of a parish or the creation of new parishes.
When?
Today 26 May 2015 is the start of a ten week public consultation during which the Commission is inviting proposals for new warding arrangements. The consultation will close on 3 August 2015. After considering all representations made during this consultation, the Commission intends to publish draft recommendations in Hampshire. There will then be a further period of consultation on the draft recommendations. Final recommendations are expected to be published in April 2016. The new electoral arrangements will come into effect at the local elections in 2017.
How to get involved?
This is a public consultation and we welcome views from individuals and organisations across the county on where they think new division patterns should be drawn. The Commission is minded to recommend that 78 councillors should be elected to Hampshire County Council in the future. It is now inviting proposals to help it draw up a pattern of divisions to accommodate 78 county councillors. In drawing up a pattern of electoral divisions, the Commission must balance three criteria, which are set out in law, namely:
To deliver electoral equality where each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county. That the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.
We are asking local people and organisations for their views as to the best pattern of divisions for the county which meet the requirements set out above.
The Commission will treat all submissions equally and will judge each case on its merits and against the statutory criteria. If you wish to put forward a view, we would also urge you to ensure that your submission is supported by evidence. For example, if you wish to argue that two parishes should be included in the same electoral division, make sure you tell the Commission why they should be together, providing evidence about community facilities, ties, organisations and amenities, rather than simply asserting that they belong together.
2 There is plenty more advice on our website about how you can get involved in the consultation and put your views forward. Log on to www.lgbce.org.uk to find out more. The website includes the technical guidance that explains the process and our policies as well as guidance on how to take part in each part of the process. We have set up a page on our site which is dedicated to the review of Hampshire where you can find all the relevant information.
You can also access interactive maps of the current division boundaries across the county on our specialist consultation portal. The portal also allows you to draw your own boundaries, mark areas of interest on the map and upload documents directly to the site. Log on to https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5188 to access the portal or find it via our main website.
Get in touch
We encourage as many people and organisations as possible to get involved with the consultation and we encourage local organisations and parish councils to engage their local networks and communities in the review.
View interactive maps of the county, draw your own boundaries and have your say at our specialist consultation portal at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5188.
Find out more about the review at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south- east/hampshire/hampshire-county-council.
Email your views to: [email protected].
Follow us on Twitter at: @lgbce.
Write to: Review Officer (Hampshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP
This phase consultation closes on 3 August 2015. We will write to you again when we open our consultation on draft recommendations.
Please note that the interests of transparency, copies of the all representations we receive during this review will be placed on our website. We remove any personal identifying information such as signatures and private residential addresses prior to placing any submissions in the public domain.
Yours sincerely
Alex Hinds 3 Review Officer [email protected]
Please note as of 27 April we have new contact details. Our new address is LGBCE, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP. Our new telephone number is 0330 500 1525.
4 Electoral Review of Hampshire
Views of Lyndhurst Parish Council
Some districts, wards etc have relatively recently been reviewed (e.g. Winchester), as a matter of cost and efficiency it would be sensible to suggest that any district/ward etc whose boundaries have been reviewed within the past three years should be exempt from a further review; The 5 year time frame of the proposed review is insufficient to take into account councils' long term plans for developments, housing and so forth, this is short termism and does not seen sensible or justifiable; The work of the boundary commission isn't entirely separate from the parliamentary boundary review as they use wards as the building blocks (here the equality of electors in wards is the key); Costs of each review range from £50-100K dependent on size of area; The Boundary Commission submits its report to Parliament and there is a ratification process. It can either be accepted or rejected, not amended. Notwithstanding the disparity in size of electorate between some wards, this parish council questions the need at this time to change parish boundaries and to increase both the number of councillors and wards. We base our assessment on that of economy given other areas of financial need such as health, education and so forth. We further suggest that there is no urgency to alter district/ward boundaries because unlike, for instance a GP and patients, a councillor tends to work on issues; the number of residents in his/her ward or district is in that sense irrelevant. We therefore recommend that for the foreseeable future plans to alter boundaries are put on hold. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Edwin Macknamara
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Martin Parish Council
Comment text:
Martin Parish is part of the Downland Ward in the North West Corner of Hampshire. It is rural in character and geographically large in area but the size of the electorate is below average. Any increase in the size of the ward's area or an increase in the numbers of electorate should also take into account the ability of any Elected Councillor to be able to represent that Ward and its constituents bearing in mind the criteria of Equal Representation, commonality between areas and also to remain conducive to effective government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5780 03/08/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hampshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Jeff Channing
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Mottisfont Parish Council
Comment text:
This comment is made on behalf of Mottisfont Parish Council. Mottisfont Parish Council is firmly of the view that the parish should remain within the Test Valley Central division of Hampshire County Council. The Council would resist any proposal that the parish should move into the neighbouring Romsey Extra division. Mottisfont is geographically a large parish but has only 275 electors and a parish precept £6,509. Its character, which it shares with neighbouring parishes, is very rural: the dominant landowner is the National Trust which owns Mottisfont Abbey and surrounding estate of 1,600 acres of largely farmland and woodland. There are two small settlements: the larger is Dunbridge which is located on a railway line running between Southampton and Salisbury, and the other, Mottisfont where virtually all the houses are owned and let by the Trust. The parish has a farm shop, a pub, village hall and a social club but few other facilities. Local residents use the train to commute to or shop in both Romsey and Salisbury. The regular bus service is very limited but a village bus is shared between Mottisfont and Broughton operated by volunteer drivers and supported by Hampshire County Council. It runs to Salisbury, Winchester and Romsey. Primary age children go to schools in neighbouring villages in Awbridge and Lockerley. For secondary education, the parish is in the Stockbridge catchment (Test Valley School). In terms of health care, some parish residents are registered with Stockbridge surgeries, including a branch of a Stockbridge practice in neighbouring Broughton. Others are registered with Romsey surgeries. Residents use hospitals in Winchester or Southampton and depending upon the surgery with which they are registered, may have access to health services at Romsey cottage hospital. Mottisfont church belongs to a benefice comprised of several other parishes – Broughton, Houghton and Bossington. Our parish clerk works for Mottisfont and several other parishes including Broughton and Awbridge. Mottisfont is therefore one of a group of mid-Test Valley parishes with a common and distinctive rural identity and quite different in character from the more urbanised parishes to the south, especially those in Romsey Extra with whom we have very little in common. We feel like we are part of central Test Valley. For these reasons, Mottisfont Parish Council proposes no change in our position within the Test Valley Central division of Hampshire County Council.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5784 03/08/2015
Chairman: Cllr Chris Wesson
Local Government Boundary Commission
Via e-mail: [email protected]
3 August 2015
Dear sir or madam,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE 2015
Having considered the above document Romsey Extra Parish Council has the following comment to make:
“Should Romsey Parish be split across two County Divisions (Romsey Extra and Romsey Town) as a result of the Electoral Review the Parish Council would object, due to the disparate nature of the parish it makes it very difficult to ward”.
Kind regards
Carol McFarland Clerk to the Council
CAROL McFARLAND CHRIS WESSON
Telephone/Fax: Telephone: Clerk to theClerk Council
Email: ofCouncil Chairman E-mail
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 19 June 2015 13:04 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral review of Hampshire
From: Selborne Parish council Clerk Sent: 19 June 2015 11:45 To: Fuller, Heather Subject: RE: Electoral review of Hampshire
Dear Heather
Selborne Parish Council have discussed the consultation on the Electoral Review of Hampshire, and have decided that they have no recommendations to give at this time. They will review this again when the draft recommendations are put out for consultation.
Regards
Philippa Penfold Clerk to Selborne Parish Council
Selborne Parish Council, Tel: Mobile: www.selborneparishcouncil.gov.uk
Please note that I work part time and am available online on a flexible basis. Information in this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the message from your system immediately.
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 26 May 2015 16:08 To: Undisclosed recipients: Subject: Electoral review of Hampshire
Dear Parish or Town Clerk,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has formally commenced an electoral review of Hampshire County Council. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the review and seek your views on future electoral division boundaries for the council. I attach a copy of the letter sent to the Chief Executive of the Council, announcing the start of the electoral review, which also gives more information about the consultation and how local people and organisations can get involved.
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 29 June 2015 11:20 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
From: Sue Holder ] Sent: 29 June 2015 10:46 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Hampshire
Sherfield English parish council would request NO changes to the parish as a result of this review.
Regards
Clerk
1 Note for Boundary Commission review of Hampshire County Council Division boundaries.
The Parish of Smannell is within the Andover North county division.
The parish has recently been broken into two characteristically distinct areas. The traditional one is of a group of villages and a rural community. The other is a new housing development, not yet complete, of some 2,000 dwellings situated in a “V” formed between parts of Andover Town and occupying some 10% of the parish but will have some 90% of the population.
The Parish of Enham Alamein, which shares a boundary with Smannell, has about one fifth of Augusta Park in its parish thus splitting the development. Augusta Park is separated from Smannell parish and Enham Alamein parish by a local gap set by Test Valley BC to maintain the character of the villages.
If boundaries are to change in North Andover division Augusta Park and the rural areas should be considered separately. Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 30 July 2015 15:32 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
From: John Smith [ ] Sent: 30 July 2015 10:38 To: reviews
Dear Sir or Madam,
On behalf of Steventon Parish Council I would like to reply to your letter and information sent to us on the 26th May, 2015, by confirming that the Parish Council have discussed the issues listed in your paper and we would like to reply as follows, Division of boundaries :- We wish to suggest that the boundaries remain unchanged as we are entirely satisfied with the present arrangement. Our local community we identify as the Parish of Steventon. We are a very rural village surrounded by farms and fields so we expect to have to travel in many directions to reach shops, places of entertainment and visiting friends. Our Parishioners use shops and leisure activities in many areas such as Basingstoke, Overton, Newbury, Winchester and Andover. We trust this information is of assistance,
Yours truly,
John H Smith ( Chairman )
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 July 2015 13:32 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: The Local Government Boundary electoral Review of Hampshire
From: Clerk [ ] Sent: 16 July 2015 13:31 To: reviews Subject: The Local Government Boundary electoral Review of Hampshire
16 July 2015
Dear Sir/Madam,
At the recent meeting of Swanmore Parish Council it was agreed to make the following response to the above review.
Swanmore Parish Council request that the recently agreed Winchester City Council boundaries be taken into account and a new ward formed combining Central and Upper Meon Valley areas.
Regards,
Aileen Garside (Mrs) Clerk to Swanmore Parish Council
Swanmore Parish Council
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email and all attachments immediately. This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information if you are not the intended recipient any reliance on use disclosure dissemination distribution or copying of this email or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. We do not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this email or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free.
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 31 July 2015 10:06 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral review of Hampshire
From: Pauline Butt Sent: 31 July 2015 10:01 To: reviews
For the attention of Alex Hinds and Richard Buck
Totton and Eling Town Council considered the Electoral Review of Hampshire at their Policy and Resources Committee on 15th July 2015 which was confirmed at Full Council on 29th July 2015. The decision was as follows:
RECOMMENDED That no comment be made on the document.
I trust the above is sufficient for your needs.
Derek Biggs Town Clerk Totton and Eling Town Council
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 26 June 2015 11:37 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire
From: Collins Sent: 26 June 2015 11:36 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Hampshire
Dear Sir,
Upham Parish Councillors agreed at their Monthly Parish Council Meeting this week that they would like to continue to be in a Division with Bishops Waltham and Durley and have a County Councillor who would cover all these villages including Upham as they have worked well together in the past and feel that they have very similar issues to deal with in the rural area.
Bishops Waltham is the nearest point for shops, doctors, dentist surgery etc. and Upham and Durley residents use these facilities. It ewould mak sense therefore to have the same Councillor representing all these parishes as they do at present.
Please could you take these comments into consideration when discussing the Division Boundaries for Hampshire.
Anne Collins Clerk to Upham Parish Council
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 30 June 2015 11:09 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral review of hampshire
From: Andrew Purr Clerk to Valley Park Parish Council ] Sent: 30 June 2015 09:51 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of hampshire
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving my Parish Council the opportunity to comment on the above review. Having considered the proposals, my Parish Council would like to see the 400 houses (the eastern portion of Valley Park) which are currently within the Eastleigh Borough area be included in the electoral ward of Baddesley County Division and no other alterations to take place as this would be detrimental to the effective working of the County Councillor, particularity in his ability to speedily resolve issues for his electorate.
Kind Regards
Andrew Purr Clerk to the Council
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 09:16 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Fordingbridge Ward, Hampshire
From: Edward Hale [ ] Sent: 02 August 2015 10:26 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
On behalf of Whitsbury Parish Council, I am writing to object to the proposal to increase the size of Fordingbridge ward on Hampshire County Council. The Parish Council considers that any review should take account of the number of parishes covered, not just the population. The Fordingbridge ward covers a large number of small parishes, and it would be difficult for the County Councillor to maintain contact with and represent all parishes if additional areas are added to the current ward
Yours faithfully Edward Hale Whitsbury Parish Clerk
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 09:22 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council
From: Carole Johnson [ ] Sent: 31 July 2015 10:28 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
Winchfield Parish Council which is currently in the Odiham Division would support a move to the Hartley Wintney/Eversley/West Yateley Division as this would align with the current District Ward boundaries.
Regards Carole Johnson Clerk to Winchfield Parish Council
1