Local Government Boundary Commission For Report No.580

Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties COUNTY OF HAM^SH.R cine its )ourx dries with DORSET, WEST SUSS cine WLT'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

t'Qll ENGLAND

REPORT NO .580 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell

Members Professor G E Cherry

Mr K F J Ennals

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr B Scholes THE RT. HON. CHRISTOPHER PATTEN MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES THE COUNTY OF AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH DORSET, WEST SUSSEX AND

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

1. On 27 January 1986 we wrote to Hampshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the county under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to all the principal local authorities and parishes in Hampshire and in the adjoining counties of Berkshire, Dorset, Isle of Wight, Surrey, West Sussex and Wiltshire; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to Members of Parliament with constituency interests and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments with an interest; the Wessex Health Authority; the public utilities; the English Tourist Board; port authorities in the county; the editors of the Municipal Journal and Local Government Chronicle and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The County Councils were requested to co-operate as necessary with each other and with the District Councils concerned, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the area concerned. The County Councils were also asked to ensure that the issue of the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of the police and to services in respect of which they have a statutory function, such as the administration of justice.

3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for local authorities, including those in the adjoining counties, and any other person or body interested in the review, to send to us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable and, if so, what they should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US

4. The submissions made to us included various recommendations for changes to Hampshire's boundary with all the adjoining counties. The suggestions for changes put forward in respect of the boundary between Hampshire and Surrey are being dealt with under the review of Surrey, which is still in progress. Our Report No. 558 dealt with the boundary between Hampshire and Berkshire and was sent to your predecessor on 31 August 1988. A suggestion for change to Hampshire's seaward boundary with the Isle of Wight is being considered in the context of a separate review under Section 71 of the Local Government Act 1972. This review, therefore, deals only with Hampshire's boundaries with Dorset, West Sussex and Wiltshire.

5. In response to our consultation letter we received 64 representations concerning those boundaries, from the County Councils of Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex and Wiltshire; the Borough and the District Councils of Chichester, Christchurch, East Dorset, East Hampshire, Havant, Kennet, , and ; the Parish Councils of East Dean, Ellingham, Kimpton, MiHand, South Tedworth, Stoughton, West Dean, and Winterslow; and the Cholderton Parish Meeting. There were additional comments from various interested organisations and from residents of Hampshire and adjoining counties.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND DORSET: OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS a. Sopley Park

6. Council in Hampshire recommended a small realignment of the boundary near Sopley Park, to follow the course of the River Avon and thereby place Sopley Park wholly in Hampshire. The Council maintained that Sopley Park's residents have their community of interest with Sopley in Hampshire. In addition, it suggested that a small area close to Sopley and south west of Sopley Park should be transferred from Hampshire to Dorset in order to eliminate the crossing of a short stretch of the River Avon by the present boundary in two places, which the Council considered to be administratively inconvenient. Both Dorset and Hampshire County Councils were in favour of the changes and we considered that the suggestions were sensible. We adopted them as our draft proposals, subject to minor adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey. b. Bransaore

7. The boundary between New Forest District and Christchurch Borough in Dorset meanders north and south of the Bournemouth/Southampton railway line near , and also divides properties in the area. We received four suggestions for changes to remedy the apparent anomalies. Dorset County Council recommended that the boundary be realigned to follow generally the south side of the railway line. Christchurch Borough Council recommended that the boundary should follow the railway line's north side. New Forest District Council, supported by Hampshire County Council, proposed that the boundary be moved to the south side of the railway line, and that about 28 properties in Road, Beckley Copse and Plantation Drive be transferred to its district from the Borough of Christchurch.

8. The District Council said that all these properties looked either to it or to Hampshire County Council for services and that, in fact, it owned some of them. A local resident also suggested that the boundary should follow the south side of the railway line except in one area containing three houses with access only via Dorset.

9. We accepted that the existing boundary was unsatisfactory, particularly where property was divided. However, we considered that three of the four changes suggested would still leave anomalies in areas where the boundary crossed the railway. We concluded that it would be preferable to realign the boundary along the south side of the railway line in order to produce a clearer boundary along this entire section and we therefore adopted Dorset County Council's suggestion as our draft proposal, amended to reflect minor adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey. c. Chewton Bunny

10. Dorset County Council, supported by Christchurch Borough Council, recommended the transfer of a small area in the Chewton Bunny Basin from New Forest District to the Borough of Christchurch, in order that maintenance of the Basin would become the responsibility of one authority. Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council objected and favoured the existing boundary. 11. We found insufficient justification for the change as there was no evidence that the existing arrangements caused practical difficulties. However, we noted that a small part of the boundary was undefined and meandered across the Walkford Brook. To eliminate this anomaly we adopted as our draft proposal Ordnance Survey's suggestion that the boundary be realigned to follow the centre line of the Walkford Brook, with a further minor adjustment south of the Brook.

d. Ringwood Forest

12. Dorset County Council, supported by East Dorset District Council, recommended the transfer of part of the B3081 which lies between Ebblake and Bakers Hanging, and land to the south west of it, from the Parish of Ellingham, and in New Forest District to East Dorset District. The County Council considered that the existing boundary did not follow any logical course related to physical features and that the whole of Ringwood Road, serving Verwood in Dorset, should be brought into that county.

13. Hampshire County Council, New Forest District Council, Ellingham Parish Council and a member of the public objected to the proposals. We could see no justification for them in terms of effective and convenient local government and no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements were unsatisfactory. However, we accepted Ordnance Survey's suggestion for a minor adjustment to remove a section of defaced boundary at Ebblake Bridge, and published it as our draft proposal. e. King Stream

14. New Forest District Council recommended realigning the county boundary to follow the course of the River Avon and thereby transfer a small area of water meadows from the Parish of St. Leonards and St. Ives (Dorset) to the Parish of Ringwood (Hampshire). It considered this would provide a better boundary in the area, the present boundary generally following the line of the River Avon. The County Councils of Dorset and Hampshire supported the suggestion and we accepted it, issuing a draft proposal accordingly.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND WEST SUSSEX: OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS f. The Mill Pond at Emsworth

15. Havant Borough Council recommended a boundary change west of the Mill Pond at Emsworth to transfer about twenty properties from Chichester District to the Borough. The Borough Council stated that the affected area was completely separated from West Sussex by a substantial stretch of water, thus making it a natural part of Hampshire. The Council also said that it already provided some local services to the'area.

16. Hampshire County Council did not oppose the proposal. West Sussex County Council and Chichester District Council both objected to it. We noted that the only access road to the southern part of the area passed through Hampshire and we were, therefore, minded to propose a change. However, rather than adopt Havant Borough Council's suggestion, we considered that the boundary should be realigned to follow the path along the embankment at the western side of the Mill Pond and, at its northern end, should place a property (a garage) in Hampshire before rejoining the existing boundary. We issued our draft proposal accordingly. g. Bramshott and Liphook/Liss/Rake

17. Hampshire County Council recommended a realignment of the boundary at Bramshott and Liphook, Liss, and Rake, in the District of East Hampshire, affecting those parishes and the parishes of Linen, Linchmere, Milland and Rogate in the District of Chichester. It was suggested that the A3 should form the new boundary in the areas of Rake and the Wheatsheaf and Chapel Commons, with a further realignment to follow Highfield Lane north east of Wheatsheaf Common. The County Council considered that this would remove various anomalies, including the division of a number of properties.

18. East Hampshire District Council and the Bramshott and Liphook Preservation Society supported the recommendation. West Sussex County Council opposed the change affecting Rake and Milland but not that at Highfield Lane. It considered that the use of the A3 as the boundary would split the communities of Rake and Hill Brow. Chichester District Council supported the County Council's submission and Milland Parish Council opposed the change affecting its parish.

19. A member of the public considered that the settlements east of Hill Brow could be placed in Hampshire and that a new parish could be formed to include properties at Durford Wood, Hill Brow, Rake and Langley. This suggestion involved the use of part of the A3 as a new boundary, with a further realignment near Highfield Lane to include the whole of Highfield School and cottages in Hampshire. We noted that the creation of a new parish would be outside the scope of this review but we took the view that, since Rake appeared to be a distinct community, it should not be divided by a county boundary. We therefore adopted as the basis of our draft proposals the suggested changes affecting Durford Wood, Hill Brow, Rake, Langley and Highfield Lane. The effect would be to transfer parts of the Parishes of Linchmere, Milland and Rogate in West Sussex to the Parishes of Bramshott and Liphook, and Liss, in Hampshire. h. Rowlands Castle

20. In addition to these changes, the same member of the public had suggested a further realignment of the boundary at Rowlands Castle, to transfer a number of properties on the west side of Finchdean Road from the Parish of Stoughton in the District of Chichester to the Parish of Rowlands Castle in the District of East Hampshire. Stoughton Parish Council, on the other hand, had stated that residents in its parish wished to remain in West Sussex and some residents of Rowlands Castle Parish wrote asking for the Hampshire part of Rowlands Castle to be transferred to West Sussex.

21. We noted that Rowlands Castle appears to form a single community, the greater part in Hampshire; that the properties on the west side of Finchdean Road seemed to form part of it; and that they lay some five miles away from Stoughton Village. We therefore concluded that it would be beneficial in terms of effective and convenient local government to transfer those properties from the Parish of Stoughton, West Sussex to the Parish of Rowlands Castle, Hampshire. We decided to issue a draft proposal accordingly, incorporating some minor adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE: OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS i. South Tedworth

22. Wiltshire County Council, supported by Kennet District Council, recommended the transfer of the whole of the Parish of South Tedworth from the Borough of Test Valley, Hampshire to the District of Kennet, Wiltshire. The County Council considered that the development of the adjoining Parishes of South Tedworth and North (on the Wiltshire side) had been determined by the presence of the military garrison and had taken no account of the county boundary, which makes co- ordination between the military, local authorities and other agencies difficult. It felt that the transfer of South Tedworth to Wiltshire would reflect the pattern of community life created by the army's presence and pointed out that most of the population lived on the Wiltshire side, with Tidworth being a single ecclesiastical parish and having one post office and a single community centre used by both parish councils.

23. Hampshire County Council, Test Valley Borough Council and South Tedworth Parish Council all objected to the recommendation. Hampshire County Council acknowledged the need for a change in the boundary, but made a counter-proposal to unite the area in Hampshire. It pointed out that South Tedworth's residents were reluctant to become part of a district with an administrative centre 20 miles away at Devizes. Hampshire County Council further cited instances of conflict of interest between the two counties on highway matters and in the provision of other services, which it considered would be resolved by the transfer of North Tidworth to its area. However, Wiltshire County Council argued that this distance presented no insurmountable administrative problems, whereas the loss of North Tidworth to Hampshire would reduce the rateable value of Kennet by 9%.

24. We noted that the local authorities agreed that some change was necessary, but differed as to what the change should be. We also saw that the suggested changes did not appear to have elicited any public reaction one way or the other. We recognised that the existing boundary was unsatisfactory, particularly where property and military establishments were divided, and we accepted that it did not reflect the pattern of community life. Taking into account the fact that the majority of the local population lives on the Wiltshire side and that most of the community services are situated there, we decided, on balance, to publish a draft proposal to transfer the Parish of South Tedworth to Wiltshire, incorporating minor adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey to produce a better defined boundary.

j. Faberstown/Ludgershall

25. Wiltshire County Council recommended the transfer of the Faberstown area of the Parish of Kimpton, in the District of Test Valley, Hampshire, to Ludgershall in the District of Rennet, Wiltshire. It considered that Faberstown and Ludgershall formed a single community with no distinct physical division. The County Council also said that Faberstown had few social or economic links with Kimpton and that residents shared the services and facilities at Ludgershall, leading to a community of interest. Kennet District Council and a member of the public supported the recommendation. However, Hampshire County Council and Kimpton Parish Council opposed it on the grounds that the two communities were separate and that it was only the post-war extension of Ludgershall that appeared to link them.

26. We took the view that Faberstown had little in common •with Kimpton village some three and half -miles aviay and considered that, notwithstanding the history of its development, it had become a continuation of Ludgershall and, to that extent, had more affinity with Ludgershall. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal based on Wiltshire County Council's recommendation, amended to reflect a minor adjustment suggested by Ordnance Survey.

10 k. Hale/Redlynch

27. New Forest District Council suggested a change to the boundary between the Parish of Redlynch in the District of Salisbury, Wiltshire, and the Parish of Hale in the District of New Forest, Hampshire. It recommended that the boundary be realigned along the B3080 to remedy the division of some properties and rear gardens. This would involve transferring a small area of Redlynch to Hale and a small part of Hale to Redlynch.

28. Hampshire County Council and Salisbury District Council supported the recommendation and the latter suggested the transfer, in addition, of Woodfalls Cross from Redlynch to Hale. We considered that the recommendations would provide a better boundary .and, bearing in mind the fact that there was local agreement to them, we published them as our draft proposals, subject to minor adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey.

1. West Dean

29. West Dean Parish Council, supported by Salisbury District Council, recommended that the village of West Dean should be united; it suggested that the part of the village currently lying in the Parish of West Tytherley in the Borough of Test Valley, Hampshire should be transferred to West Dean Parish in Wiltshire to achieve this. The Parish Council's submission stated that a survey in the village had shown that the majority of residents wished for no change to the boundary. However, the Parish Council considered that the village had no community of interest with East Dean or with West Tytherley (apart from, in the latter case, primary school education). Hampshire County Council, Test Valley Borough Cpuncil and the Parish Councils of East Dean and West Tytherley all objected.

11 30. We accepted the need for some change because the present boundary divided properties. However, we found West Dean Parish Council's suggestion went beyond what we considered necessary to unite the village, especially in view of the opposition from the Hampshire local authorities and residents. In the circumstances, we decided to adopt an alternative alignment as our draft proposal, in order to unite the village in Wiltshire by transferring a narrower strip of land. The draft proposal would also remove sections of undefined and defaced boundary. m. Winterslow/West Tytherley

31. Salisbury District Council recommended a minor adjustment to the county boundary near Tytherley Road, Winterslow in order to 'include the whole of public footpath No. 13 within Wiltshire, as suggested by Winterslow Parish Council. Hampshire County Council objected as it saw no benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We took a similar view and our interim decision was, therefore, to make no proposal. n. Cholderton

32. Salisbury District Council, supported by Cholderton Parish Meeting, suggested a realignment of the county boundary at Cholderton in order to include the whole of the Cholderton Estate and properties near Parkhouse Corner in its district, in Wiltshire. A map of the Estate provided by Cholderton Parish Meeting showed the eastern half of it to be in the Borough of Test Valley, Hampshire and the western half to be in the District of Salisbury. Both Salisbury District Council and Cholderton Parish Meeting considered that Cholderton village was the focal point of the area and the latter said that electors living on the Hampshire side of the Estate looked upon Cholderton as their village.

12 33. We did not consider that a boundary change should be made to coincide with private landownership and, notwithstanding the claimed links between the residents of the Estate and the village, we felt that there was insufficient justification, in terms of effective and convenient local government, for including the eastern half of Choldefton Estate, which was mainly rural, within the District of Salisbury. We concluded, therefore, that there were no good grounds for changing the existing boundary and our interim decision was to make no proposal.

PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

34. A letter, announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions to make no proposals in respect of Hampshire's boundaries with Dorset, West Sussex and Wiltshire was published on 21 December 1987. Having advertised the start of the review extensively not only throughout Hampshire but also in the neighbouring counties, we decided that, in view of the scattered and, in many cases minor, nature of our draft proposals and interim decisions, we needed to advertise them only in Hampshire and in the particular areas of adjoining counties affected. Similarly, copies of our letter were sent to the principal authorities directly concerned and to those persons and bodies who appeared to us to have, or who had expressed, an interest in the review of the lengths of boundary affected.

35. The County Councils of Hampshire, Dorset, West Sussex and Wiltshire were asked to arrange publication of a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions and to place copies of it on display at places where public notices are usually displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our draft proposals/interim decisions letter- on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 15 February 1988.

13 RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS: OUR FORMULATION OF FINAL PROPOSALS

36. In response to our draft proposals and interim decisions we received representations direct from all the County Councils concerned; the Borough and District Councils of Chichester, Christchurch, East Dorset, East Hampshire, Havant, Kennet, New Forest and Test Valley; and the Parish Councils of Bransgore, Cholderton, East Dean, Hale, Kimpton, Linchmere, Milland, Redlynch, Rogate, Rowlands Castle, Sopley, Southbourne, South Tedworth, Stoughton, West Dean and West Tytherley. A number of Members of Parliament - Mr Robert Key, Mr Michael Mates, Mr David Mitchell and Mr Anthony Nelson - wrote to us and also forwarded comments from their constituents. In addition we received comments from four local schools, four district/borough councillors and various local businesses, interested central government departments, and local bodies and organisations. Over 200 members of the public also made representations to us. As reguired by Section 60 of the Local Government Act 1972, we considered all these representations and reassessed our draft proposals and interim decisions in the light of them.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND DORSET a. Soplev Park

37. The County Councils of Hampshire and Dorset, New Forest District Council and Sopley Parish Council all supported our draft proposal. In view of this local agreement we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final. Our proposal is illustrated on Map 4 in the Appendix to this Report.

14 b. Bransaore

38. Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council did not support our draft proposal. Each agreed that it would provide a better boundary but they did not feel that such a 'tidying up' would have any great benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government. They drew our attention both to the desire of the Plantation Drive residents to remain in Hampshire (as evidenced by a poll conducted by Bransgore Parish Council) and the fact that three houses we proposed to transfer to Hampshire were only accessible from Dorset. Hampshire County Council said it would prefer only minimal change to clarify the boundary and avoid the division of property. Bransgore Parish Council requested us to reconsider our draft proposal. It had conducted a poll of 99 local residents affected by the proposal, the result of which was a majority in favour of remaining in Hampshire.

39. Dorset County Council and Christchurch Borough Council were, however, in favour of our draft proposal. A local company also considered that the railway line would be the most logical boundary and would reflect the pattern of community life.

40. We note that there is general agreement that our proposed boundary represents an improvement over the existing one and we consider that, despite their objections, the residents of Plantation Drive are clearly linked to the urban area in Dorset. As regards the few houses which appear only to have immediate access from Dorset, we feel that this will not present any insurmountable difficulty. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final. Our proposal is illustrated on Maps 2 and 3 in the Appendix to this Report.

15 c. Chewton Bunny

41. The County Councils of Hampshire and Dorset, Christchurch Borough Council and New Forest District Council all supported our draft proposal and, in view of this local agreement, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final. It is illustrated on Maps 1A to 1C in the Appendix to this Report. d. Ringwood Forest

42. Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council supported our very minor draft proposal. They considered that they had no difficulties in providing services or in operating suitable planning policies for Ringwood Forest and that the retention, in the main, of the existing boundary would allow them to preserve the open, rural and undeveloped nature of the area which, they feared, might be threatened by the urban growth in Dorset if it were transferred to that County.

43. Dorset County Council and East Dorset District Council both accepted our draft proposal. However, they would still have preferred that the larger area originally claimed be transferred to Dorset. They considered that the present boundary prevented a unified approach to the development and planning of the residential and industrial areas around Verwood.

44. We do not consider that any compelling evidence has been put forward to suggest that transferring a larger area of Ringwood Forest, as initially recommended by the Dorset local authorities, would have benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government. The existing arrangements including, where necessary, co-operation between the Hampshire and Dorset local authorities, appear to us to be effective and we have concluded that major change would be unjustified. We have decided, therefore, to confirm our draft proposal as

16 final; it is illustrated on Map 6 in the Appendix to this Report. e. King Stream

45. Hampshire and Dorset County Councils supported our draft proposal and East Dorset District Council had no objection to it. As it appears to be locally acceptable, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final. Our final proposal is shown on Map 5 in the Appendix to this Report.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND WEST SUSSEX f. The Mill Pond at Emsworth

46. Hampshire County Council supported our draft proposal. It felt that the geography of the area provided a compelling reason for change and agreed with Havant Borough Council's argument. West Sussex County Council and Chichester District Council opposed our draft proposal; they felt there was no evidence of problems with the administration of the area and drew our attention to the antiquity of the present boundary. However, Havant Borough Council, which was in favour of our draft proposal, said it already provided some services to the area precisely to avoid problems and extra costs to the other authorities and it felt that this fact, in itself, showed that there were inherent problems in the current situation. The Borough Council also considered that the pattern of community life pointed to the need for change in the area, and it did not accept that the boundary should remain unchanged simply because of its historical nature.

47. Mr Anthony Nelson MP agreed with West Sussex County Council's views and forwarded copies of letters from his constituents who opposed our proposal. In addition, we received eight representations.from members of the public who

17 all objected to our draft proposal. The main grounds of their objections were a reluctance to sever longstanding geographical, historical and social links with West Sussex and satisfaction with the services provided by the West Sussex local authorities. It was also pointed out that the residents transferred to Hampshire would lose their parish council representation. Southbourne Parish Council supported the desire of the residents for no change.

48. Notwithstanding the opposition of the West Sussex local authorities and of the residents affected by our proposal, we consider that the present boundary at the Mill Pond is quite clearly anomalous and that the properties we propose to transfer to Hampshire should form part of that county, being a continuation of the urban area west of the Mill Pond. We have decided, therefore, to confirm our draft proposal as our final proposal; it is shown on Map 13 in the Appendix to this Report. g. Bramshott and Liphook/Liss/Rake

49. Hampshire County Council accepted our draft proposals. • It forwarded letters from the Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council and a resident of Durford Wood. The Parish Council supported our draft proposals affecting Chapel and Wheatsheaf Commons and Highfield School on the grounds that the areas concerned were nearer to, and used the services provided by, Hampshire. The Durford Wood resident, currently living in Hampshire, said that his affinity was with West Sussex and he wished to be transferred to that County.

50. West Sussex County Council strongly opposed our draft proposals. It acknowledged the anomalies in the present boundary in Rake, but did not accept the existing boundary in the other areas where we had proposed change to be either anomalous or lacking in clarity. The County Council

18 considered the A3 to be so far removed from the existing boundary in the area to the east of Rake Village as to be inappropriate as an alternative boundary. The County Council felt that the areas proposed for transfer to be rural, with an affinity with rural West Sussex rather than with the more urban parishes in Hampshire; it therefore strongly urged us to withdraw our draft proposals for Durford Wood, Rake, Hill Brow, and the Wheatsheaf and Chapel Commons.

51. In the case of our proposal affecting Highfield School, the County Council said that this was a private school and not part of Liphook but of the rural community in West Sussex. The Council commended to us the use of Highfield Lane as the new county boundary - a proposal which, it said, had the agreement of all the principal local authorities. West Sussex County Council also forwarded a letter to us from Milland and Rake C.E. Primary School together with a petition from parents with children at the school, objecting to our proposal. The letter expressed concern about the future of the school should it be transferred to Hampshire. We received, direct, a representation from the school in the same vein.

52. East Hampshire District Council welcomed our proposal to incorporate the Wheatsheaf Enclosure in Hampshire and agreed with our overall proposed realignment of the boundary in this area which, it said, by allowing the A3 to run wholly through Hampshire, would reduce administrative difficulties. The District Council said it was aware of concern about the future of Rake School if it went into Hampshire and said it would wish to prevent the school's closure. The Council felt that Highfield School should remain in West Sussex and that Highfield Lane should form the new boundary. The Council considered that it would be logical to amend the existing boundary to eliminate the division of Rake.

19 53. Chichester District Council supported the objections to our draft proposals voiced by the other local authorities and by local residents. It considered that, in the case of Highfield School, Highfield Lane would be the best line for a new boundary. The Council felt it would be logical to have the school wholly in one county but saw no grounds for placing it in Hampshire.

54. In terms of the loss of properties, population and rate revenue, the District Council considered that our draft proposals would seriously affect the Parishes of Milland and Rogate; it also felt that there was no justification for including the Wheatsheaf Enclosure in Hampshire. The District Council acknowledged the existing boundary to be anomalous at Rake and Hill Brow and that this could be remedied by using the A3 as the new boundary but, in view of the residents' opposition to change and their assertions that the present boundary caused no inconvenience, the Council did not 'agree that our draft proposal would be beneficial in terms of effective and convenient local government. As to Durford Wood, the District Council considered the character of this area to be substantially different and separate from the more closely developed area at Hill Brow.

55. Rogate Parish Council registered its strong opposition to our draft proposals which, it considered, would amount to the loss of a vital part of its Parish. The Parish Council said that the affinity of the residents of the areas proposed for transfer lay with West Sussex, and pointed out that the . majority of the residents were opposed to change. As regards Chapel Common, the Parish Council suggested that, if the boundary were to be changed, then it should follow the railway line as this would be closer to the original boundary over the Common than our proposed line and it could be linked back to the A3. The Council felt that this alternative line would have the least effect on the community. A member of the

20 public also objected to our draft proposals on the grounds that they could affect the future maintenance of two recreati'on grounds owned by Rogate Parish Council.

56. Linchmere Parish Council felt that it would be logical to unite Highfield School in one county but considered that this would take no account of local feeling or history. The Parish Council did not feel the change would have benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government and it therefore strongly recommended that the existing boundary be retained. Although not affected by the other changes we had proposed, the Parish Council supported the other West Sussex Parishes which would be affected and which had objected to our proposals.

57. Milland Parish Council objected to our draft proposals. It considered that the loss of area, population and rate revenue which would result from the changes would have a very serious effect on the viability of the parish. It pointed out that the affected residents opposed the change and forwarded a petition, objecting to our draft proposals, from residents of Ripsley Park.

58. An East Hampshire District Councillor and a Chichester District Councillor wrote to express their objections to our draft proposals; the former also forwarded three letters from constituents who opposed the changes. The Governors of Milland and Rake C.E. School were opposed to our draft proposals on the grounds that the life of the school was inextricably linked with similar neighbouring rural schools in West Sussex and that they could see no benefit in the changes proposed; they were also concerned about the future of the school if it were to be transferred to Hampshire. The Diocese of Chichester Board of Education also objected to our draft proposal for Rake on the grounds that it would fcave an adverse effect on Rake School. The Board pointed out that Hampshire

21 County Council's educational policies for small schools were very different from those of West Sussex County Council and it feared that transferring the school to Hampshire could result in its closure.

59. Mr Anthony Nelson MP and Mr Michael Mates MP both forwarded correspondence from their constituents objecting to our draft proposals; some of their constituents also wrote to us direct. A further 104 representations were received direct from members of the public, local businesses and interested bodies; all except three were opposed to our draft proposals. These three comments all expressed the view that it was illogical for the single community of Rake to be split by the county boundary. The main objections to our draft proposals were (a) longstanding ties with, and loyalty to, West Sussex; (b) satisfaction with services in West Sussex - education, police and refuse collection were all mentioned - and planning policies (especially West Sussex's sympathetic view of these rural areas), and a corresponding fear of deterioration in services, with possible encroachment of development if transferred to Hampshire; (c) Hampshire's higher rates and more urban character; and (d) the traditional and historic nature of the boundary compared to the 'artificiality' of the proposed new boundary. It was suggested that only minimal change should be made to the boundary at Rake to eliminate the division of property. Two residents of the Highfield Lane area felt that the current boundary gave rise to problems of road maintenance and were in favour of clarifying it.

60. Highfield School

We note that there appears to be general acceptance by the local authorities that the boundary at Highfield School is anomalous and should be changed, and that the School should be united in one county (although disagreement has arisen over

22 which county that should be). Most of the local authorities support the use of Highfield Lane as an alternative new boundary (which would place the School wholly in West Sussex) and we consider this an acceptable alternative to our draft proposal both because it serves to unite the School and because it will provide a clear, identifiable boundary. We therefore make this alternative recommendation as our final proposal; it is illustrated on Map 11 in the Appendix to this Report.

61. Durford Wood. Rake and Hill Browf Wheatsheaf and Chapel Commons

We note that the affinity of Durford Wood's residents appears to lie with Rogate and West Sussex rather than Hampshire and a visit to the area confirmed that its physical character is different from the somewhat larger communities in Hampshire. We therefore consider that these factors, together with the considerable opposition to change from both residents and local authorities, warrant the withdrawal of our draft proposal.

62. We consider that the A3 in this area is a significant barrier which would provide a clearly recognisable boundary. However, it divides Rake and Hill Brow and we still feel that, to the extent that these are communities, they should not be divided by the county boundary. We have, however, been faced with great difficulty in trying to find a suitable new boundary and we recognise that problems would be caused by a boundary change, such as the transfer of Rake School to a different education system and the severing of its links with other small schools in West Sussex, which could outweigh any benefits from the change in terms of effective and convenient local government. In addition, we have taken full account of the intense local opposition to our draft proposals from residents and local authorities and we have concluded that the best course at present is for us to withdraw our

23 draft proposals. As our draft proposals for Durford Wood, Rake, Hill Brow, Wheatsheaf Common and Chapel Common are all physically linked we have decided to propose no change to this whole stretch of the Hampshire/West Sussex boundary.

63. We note that work is shortly to commence to re-route the A3 in the Liphook area and we consider that a fresh review of this boundary might be appropriate once the new road is complete and its effects on the pattern of community life have had time to emerge.

h. Rowlands Castle

64. Hampshire County Council did not object to our draft proposal. West Sussex County Council said it was unaware of any difficulties or additional costs caused by the present boundary and urged us to give due weight to the response of the local inhabitants; it felt there was no compelling reason for change. East Hampshire District Council said it acknowledged the logic of transferring the properties along Finchdean Road to Hampshire and pointed out that it had itself considered such a change but had not recommended it when a local poll showed the residents to be opposed. The Council felt that Woodberry Cottage in Woodberry Lane should also be in Hampshire. Chichester District Council said it did not accept that the properties in Finchdean Road should be seen as part of Rowlands Castle simply because of their proximity to that Parish. The Council considered the railway line to be a permanent, definitive boundary and pointed out that the residents did not want change.

65. Rowlands Castle Parish Council objected to our draft proposal. It said that a poll of residents in 1986 had established their desire for no change and our draft proposal had elicited the same reaction. Stoughton Parish Council also objected to our draft proposal and reiterated its previous

24 views on the matter. The Parish Council said it had received the strongest representations from the affected parishioners and they wished to remain in Stoughton Parish. The Stansted Park Foundation said that our proposed new boundary would leave a corner of the Park in Hampshire while most of it was in West Sussex. The Foundation considered it easier for it to work with one district council rather than two and objected to our draft proposal as being of no benefit to the Park.

66. We received 30 representations from members of the public and interested bodies. Mr Michael Mates MP and Mr Anthony Nelson MP also forwarded correspondence from their constituents concerning our draft proposal. One member of the public who commented on our draft proposal supported it - on the grounds that the existing boundary divided properties and that he felt that Hampshire's services were better than those of West Sussex. The objectors cited a variety of reasons against change, the main ones being (a) longstanding ties with, and loyalty to, West Sussex; (b) satisfaction with West Sussex services and planning policies; (c) fear of deterioration in services if transferred to Hampshire; and (d) fear of increased urban development if in Hampshire. People in the affected area said they felt an affinity with Chichester and West Sussex and that being five miles from Stoughton village did not cause them any difficulties with that Parish Council's services. There was a suggestion that, as an alternative boundary change, Rowlands Castle should be entirely in West Sussex or that only minimal change should be made to tidy up the boundary.

67. We note with some concern that there has been so much vocal opposition to our draft proposal from the residents who would be transferred to Hampshire. We believe much of it to be based on apprehension as to Hampshire's possible planning policy on which it is not our function to comment. However, * Finchdean Road does appear to be clearly part of Rowlands Castle; it is remote from the centre of the parish of

25 Stoughton and the county boundary is obviously anomalous in this area. We have considered alternatives to our draft proposal. We rejected the option of transferring the Parish of Rowlands Castle to West Sussex as we felt there was no justification for it. We also looked at the possibility of making only minimal changes to 'tidy-up' the boundary but we felt that this would just perpetuate the artificial division of the built-up area.

68. We have come to the conclusion that, our draft proposal still provides the best long-term solution to the present anomalous boundary at Rowlands Castle. We accept, however, that we should modify our draft proposal at the northern end of Woodberry Lane to avoid leaving part of Stansted Park in Hampshire. Subject to this minor amendment we confirm our draft proposal as final - it is illustrated on Map 12 in the Appendix to this Report.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF HAMPSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE i. South Tedworth

69. Hampshire County Council objected to our draft proposal; while it felt that a change to the boundary was necessary, it considered that the Tidworth Parishes should be united in . Hampshire. Wiltshire County Council supported our draft proposal and said it remained convinced that South Tedworth should be transferred to Wiltshire.

70. Test Valley Borough Council accepted the need for . unification of the Tidworth area but felt that this should be in Hampshire. It commissioned a MORI poll (which covered not only the Tidworth area but also Faberstown/Ludgershall and . West Dean) to ascertain residents' views, with reference to . the criteria set out in Department of the Environment Circular 33/78 (that a boundary should accord with the wishes of the

26 local inhabitants, reflect the pattern of community life and be conducive to effective and convenient local government). The Borough Council considered that, on the basis of the poll results, the merger of North and South Tidworth would have benefits, at county level in particular, in terms of effective and convenient local government, but that the wishes of the residents, especially in the Parish of South Tedworth, and the pattern of life in both North and South Tidworth, indicated support for North Tidworth to go into Hampshire.

71. Kennet District Council welcomed our draft proposal and reiterated its strong support for Wiltshire County Council's original recommendation. The District Council sought to counter each of Test Valley Borough Council's assertions concerning the provision of services in the area, the pattern of community life and the benefits to be derived from the change; it did not attach much weight to the MORI poll.

72. Mr David Mitchell MP reported that there was mounting opposition to our draft proposal among his constituents and said he agreed with the views expressed by Test Valley Borough Council. South Tedworth Parish Council was strongly opposed to our draft proposal which, it said, had aroused vehement and vocal opposition amongst residents. North Tidworth Parish Council's response to our draft proposal was included with Kennet District Council's submission to us; the Parish Council fully endorsed our proposal, which it felt would reflect a more balanced community life.

73. The Ministry of Defence had no objection to our draft proposal, which it said would lead to positive benefits for the army. The army itself, while expressing no view on which way unification should go, considered that the division of the military area by the county boundary hampered planning and the provision of services. Tidworth C.E. (Controlled) Primary * School objected to our proposal. The School is in South Tedworth and there were fears it would close if transferred to

27 Wiltshire since that County already had two primary schools in its area of Tidworth.

74. Five local businesses and nine members of the public also objected to our draft proposal on the grounds of (a) long residence in, and loyalty to, Hampshire; (b) satisfaction with Hampshire services and fear of deterioration in services if transferred to Wiltshire (in particular, loss of GAP travel concessions and free refuse sacks); (c) higher rates in Wiltshire; and (d) the ease of access to Hampshire's local authority offices as compared with the difficulty of reaching Wiltshire's.

75. We remain of the opinion that, as Tidworth is a single (military) town, it should not be divided by the county boundary and we note that the principal local authorities agree that the community should be united. We consider that it would be to the benefit of both the civilian and the army population for Tidworth to be administered by one County, one District and one Parish Council.

76. The local authorities continue to hold conflicting views about which County should contain Tidworth but there has been very little comment on the issue from members of the public. We had previously noted that over half of Tidworth is already in Wiltshire and it seems to us that there is also a broader logic in placing this garrison town wholly in Wiltshire, as that county, already has several similar settlements on . We find the argument that Hampshire and Test Valley local authorities are nearer less convincing than it seems because the Borough's offices and functions are split between Andover and , far to the south. The option of transferring North Tidworth to Hampshire seems to us to have, therefore, no clear advantage in this respect over our draft proposal.

28 77. On balance, we have concluded that our draft proposal offers the better solution to the boundary anomaly at Tidworth and we have decided to confirm it as our final proposal - it is illustrated on Maps 9 to 9H in the Appendix to this Report.

j. Faberstown/Ludgershall

78. Hampshire County Council objected to our draft proposal. It was concerned that Kimpton Parish Council might become unviable if it were to lose the Faberstown area. The County Council felt there would be little benefit from the change in terms of effective and convenient local government and questioned the inclusion in the proposed transfer of open fields to the east of the built-up area. Wiltshire County Council, however, supported our draft proposal.

79. Test Valley Borough Council considered that the residents of Faberstown had clearly indicated, in the MORI poll, that they wished to remain in Hampshire and that their pattern of community life was clearly geared to facilities in Test Valley rather than Kennet. (The Borough Council forwarded two letters from residents of Ludgershall and Faberstown which expressed a wish to transfer to Hampshire). It felt that there would be insufficient identifiable benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government to justify the change. Kennet District Council welcomed our draft proposal and asserted that Faberstown residents did use many of Ludgershall's facilities, and that the area was significantly detached from Kimpton Parish.

80. Mr David Mitchell MP wrote on behalf of his Kimpton constituents and said that it was generally felt we had not given enough weight to the wishes of residents and the pattern of community life in formulating our proposal. Mr Mitchell pointed out that the strong local objection to our draft proposal was based on (a) longstanding ties with Hampshire;

29 (b) the inconvenience of Devizes as an administrative centre (due to its distance from Faberstown and inaccessibility by public transport) especially in comparison with Andover; (c) Test Valley's provision of better services than Kennet, for example free refuse sacks, refuse collection from the door, and GAP travel tokens; and (d) Hampshire County Council's provision of better services than Wiltshire, for instance road maintenance and snow clearance.

81. Kimpton Parish Council was still strongly opposed to our draft proposal. It felt that the new boundary would create new anomalies. Ludgershall Parish Council's response to our proposal was included in Kennet District Council's submission to us. The Parish Council was well pleased with our proposal and had no further comment to make.

82. We also received 50 representations from members of the public - all but two of these objected to our proposal, their reasons being largely those summed up by Mr David Mitchell MP. One resident supported our draft proposal, stating that Ludgershall had plenty of facilities, all of which were used by Faberstown residents. Another resident was undecided about which county Faberstown should be in.

83. We consider that Faberstown is clearly part of the same urban area as Ludgershall, which, by contrast, has all the normal village amenities (such as a shop, pub, church and post office). It seems clear to us that Faberstown residents would use Ludgershall for such immediate needs. We feel this supports the appropriateness of our draft proposal but we agree that there seems to be less justification for including in the transferred area the open fields east of Faberstown. We note also that there had been some suggestions that Ludgershall should be transferred to Hampshire but that there was very little support for this more radical change. We have decided, therefore, to confirm our draft proposal as final.

30 final proposal is shown on Map 10 in the Appendix to this Report. k. Hale/Redlynch

84. Hampshire County Council supported our draft proposal and added that it could not support a change which did not take advantage of clear physical features. Wiltshire County Council and New Forest District Council were also in favour of our proposed new boundary. Redlynch Parish Council, however, protested strongly at our draft proposal as regards the piece of land along the Ridge (although it did not object to the proposed change as it affects Forest Road). The Parish Council put forward an alternative new boundary which it considered to be an acceptable compromise. Hale Parish Council commented on the disputed area of land (at Woodfalls Cross and the Ridge). It considered that Redlynch Parish Council's claim to this land had no validity. Hale Parish Council pointed out that its Parish was a specially protected heritage area in the South West Hampshire Structure Plan and that a good deal of urban development had taken place across the boundary in Wiltshire; it therefore viewed Redlynch Parish Council's claim with the gravest concern and affirmed its full support for our proposal, which it regarded as wholly reasonable and sympathetic to local needs.

85. We considered Redlynch Parish Council's alternative new boundary but concluded it would be unsatisfactory - although it would retain Woodfalls Cross and the disputed 'triangle' of land in Redlynch it would cross the B3080 twice in a haphazard manner and would leave a stretch of county boundary unrelated to features on the ground. In view of this, and of the general support for our proposal from the principal local authorities concerned, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final - it is illustrated on Map 7 in the Appendix * to this Report.

31 1. West Dean

86. Hampshire County Council objected to our draft proposal and expressed doubts about whether it would lead to improvements in terms of effective and convenient local government. The County Council said it would have preferred to see only minimal change to eliminate the division of property by the existing boundary. Alternatively, it suggested that West Dean should be wholly in Hampshire but its preference was for retaining the status quo. It pointed out that local surveys of residents' opinions had shown them to be against change. Wiltshire County Council put forward similar arguments in favour of uniting West Dean in its County as it had advanced for the transfer of South Tedworth and Faberstown to it.

87. Test Valley Borough Council opposed our draft proposal; it considered that the residents of West Dean had clearly indicated their wish to remain in Hampshire and that no case had been made to show identifiable benefits arising from the change in terms of effective and convenient local government.

88. Mr David Mitchell MP noted that the majority of West Dean's residents were against change and asked us to reconsider our proposal. Two local district councillors, one on Test Valley Borough Council and one on Salisbury District Council,, wrote to us, the former opposed our proposal and the latter was in favour of it.

89. . West Dean Parish Council accepted our proposed new boundary on the grounds that, while a smaller change than it had suggested, it would still unite the village. West Tytherley Parish Council reaffirmed its opposition to our draft proposal because the majority of the Hampshire residents of West Dean had voted to retain the existing boundary; East Dean Parish Council strongly opposed our proposal on the same grounds. West Tytherley (Controlled) Primary School's

32 Governors objected to our draft proposal and expressed concern over the effect it might have on the school. The Licensees of the Red Lion public house said theirs was the only property in West Dean actually divided by the existing boundary and that this caused them no administrative problems or inconvenience. The Wessex Regionalists objected to our draft proposal on the grounds that the majority of the residents were content with the existing boundary, which appeared to be of great antiquity.

90. We received 44 other letters from members of the public concerning West Dean. One resident supported our draft proposal, another asked that something be done to unite the village but was not particularly concerned in which County it should be. The other representations all objected to our draft proposal because of (a) longstanding ties with Hampshire; (b) higher rates in Wiltshire; and (c) the claimed superiority of Hampshire services (both at district and county level) compared to those supplied by Wiltshire. There was widespread dissatisfaction with West Dean Parish Council's decision to recommend the change, and suggestions were put forward that West Dean should be united in Hampshire or that only minimal changes should be made.

33 91. We note that our draft proposal has provoked extensive public reaction but that most of what has been said is a reiteration of previously submitted arguments. We remain of the view that it is an obvious anomaly that a single community should be divided by the county boundary and consider that West Dean should be united. We have considered the options of (a) making minimal changes to eliminate the division of property or (b) of uniting the village in Hampshire. However, we have concluded that minimal change would be unsatisfactory since it would do nothing to resolve the division of the community. We also note that there has been little support for uniting the village in Hampshire and that, in any case, the majority of the residents already live on the Wiltshire side.

92. We do not believe that the further representations we have received bring forward any substantial new material or arguments to invalidate our earlier conclusions and we have decided, therefore, to confirm our draft proposal as final. It is shown on Map 8 in the Appendix to this Report. m. Winterslow/West Tytherley

93. Hampshire County Council noted our interim decision to make no proposals in this area and did not comment further. Test Valley Borough Council welcomed our interim decision. In the absence of any other comments we conclude that our interim decision is acceptable locally and we therefore confirm it as final. n. Cholderton

94. Hampshire County Council noted our interim decision to make no proposals. The County Council said it could see no advantage in changing the boundary at Cholderton. Test Valley Borough Council welcomed our interim decision. Cholderton

34 Parish Meeting, however, asked us to reconsider our decision.

95. The Parish Meeting pointed out that, although we did not consider that change should be made to coincide with landownership, in fact its recommendation was based on natural features and had no other significance. The Parish Meeting thought it possible to transfer a more compact area, to achieve the same purpose of including in Cholderton those residents who look to it as their village, and considered that the current realignment of the A303(T) made it appropriate to do so. It provided an alternative new boundary which, it said, would bring 27 scattered dwellings into the Parish and would approximate to the ecclesiastical parish boundary. The Parish Meeting felt that it was anomalous that these few dwellings associated with Cholderton should remain in the Hampshire Parishes of , and Grately.

96. We note that our interim decision has elicited very little response, particularly from members of the public and that, apart from the Cholderton Parish Meeting, none of the local authorities in the area which responded has supported the transfer of the eastern half of the Cholderton Estate to Wiltshire. We have decided, therefore, to confirm our interim decision to make no proposal as final.

OUR FINAL PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

97. We have set out our conclusions for each length of Hampshire's boundary in paragraphs 36-96 above. Having considered the representations made to us we now commend them to you as our final proposals in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

PUBLICATION

98. A separate letter, enclosing copies of this Report is being sent to the County Councils of Hampshire, Dorset, West

35 Sussex and Wiltshire, asking them to deposit copies of the Report at their main offices for inspection for six months and to put notices to this effect on public notice-boards and in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter and it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not before six weeks from the date they are submitted to you. Copies of this Report, which includes small-scale maps, are also being sent to those who received our draft proposals letter and to those who responded in writing.

LS

Signed: G J Ellerton (Chairman)

J G Powell (Deputy Chairman)

G E Cherry

K F J Ennals

G R Prentice

Helen Sarkany

Brian Scholes

S T GARRISH Secretary 9 November 1989

36 )enc ix

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

HAMPSHIRE

AFFECTING DORSET, WILTSHIRE AND WEST SUSSEX

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary

Proposed County Boundary

Existing Boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM

WILTSHIRE

Maps 9 to 9H

HAMPSHIRE

WEST SUSSEX

DORSET

Maps IA to 1C Area Al

DORSET HAMPSHIRE

C) Crowm Copyright 1989 HAMPSHIRE \>c/

(J HAMPSHIRE o „ Q / G~ ^ I Q s % Q - ^-- r, .G / ^ © Crown Copyright 1969 *•" ^ — --•- HAMPSHIRE HAMPSHIRE HAMPSHIRE

C) Crown Copyright I9B9 : ,- -,. , Lowe•r Skt a Cop' t 'V''-'^---"-''i ''-"-!v ' " --.

HAMPSHIRE

DORSET

, (C) Crown Copyright 1969 Mop 5

ffU-'f. HAMPSHIRE - - tr

^ ~y- ' -T.- -T.- WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE

KM Ill-I5m North C'harl'ord

p V£) Crown Copyright 1989 hor . i * n n_ lr °- 'V-Hwth Copt.

WILTSHIRE HAMPSHIRE ^7::v/.,,\p;IVVI:\|-IWIIL Ti snircL SHIREi I'iJ^iSlls ^^^^^~^f^^^^^^^^^^m\t

.•*i»-«it^rt^;.t»'•""•*:"'"• • " ...'' *' '*"•. '•:' -"•}'''&

/I/ 11>^1x DT/^ N 1\

HAMPSHIRE WILTSHIRE

Area Bl

I If Im/t ,rff o \ 1 •'' -".' i a! . V\

HAMPSHIRE

C) Crown Copyright 1989 Map 9A Proposed WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE

C) Crown Copyrlflht 1989 Map 9B Proposed WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE

Area C2| Proposed WILTSHIRE

Area A

"o Area C4

HAMPSHIRE

-?/

Crown Copyright 1989 Map 9D : : ^ t'<$'ff.':;5 ' '''''

"~ ir **>" V f T""""""""~~ """' T7~" ~* /, I •!»,?* ** t \ f^

v : ft "^ "."*•-" ,,^:/- - ^^ -o : ---. jfc 1 \ ^^ Q« (1 ~ ' -—'•'•' ":--^^;_...- „ ^' Area El ^^ ft _ ft c" ft 0 6 "•-- i^^"' , ', 6 * ^F* __/ * . Q :; c - iHA i A M^ /I Dre c : r. ft H r^^~ fl 'i iv W Q I : .1 / ^~~^-^___l e_ 6 ' ' '. i / 0 ' Prt I , . *1T ' j i (duui.dV

' Area Dl . ft-_ KimptoK n Down '-. D Jit '

/I/

Crown Copyright 1989 >4 Proposed WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE WILTSHIRE

Area Fl

j— *>»ek . 7/

Area D3

HAMPSHIRE

Area E3

C; Crown CopyrlgM 1989 x/ Map 9G WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE

CJ Crown Copyright 1989 LUDGERSHALL WILTSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE HAMPSHIRE

WEST SUSSEX HAMPSHIRE WEST SUSSEX

^^ ?' ^C *-, -V'/rP't \ «O(XS* « ,. *'*•"j"-. . fl•-*.*- .' /iO\ -/\6-.- -." ,' .l'~ i* ' ^ yf \1 'V1» •• i-*»«• v • -\ O ^ . „ "•" o/% ^ ,--' " O;o-,YoA ;*-. -.A \ KX»A\O . *-» --•s;» ' A u_Cn HAMPSHIRE

WEST SUSSEX CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM NO. REF. NO. REF. TO

Dorset Hampshire A 1 Hampshire Dorset Al New Forest District Christchurch Borough Christchurch Borough New Forest District to CP Non Parished Area A Burton CP Sopley CP Barton Ward Chewton Ward Burton Ward Bransgore and Sopley Ward A9 New Milton ED Highcliffe ED Burton Grange ED Ringwood ED 1 Dorset Hampshire Hampshire Dorset Christchurch Borough New Forest District New Forest District Christchurch Borough Non Parished Area New Milton CP Soptey CP Burton CP i \f d. to H Burton Ward r^ ™^ Chewton Ward Barton Ward Bransgore and Sopley Ward B7 Hlghcliffe ED New Milton ED Ringwood ED Burton Grange ED

Hampshire Dorset Hampshire Dorset New Forest District Christchurch Borough New Forest District Christchurch Borough A Bransgore CP Non Parished Area C Sopley CP Non Parished Area Bransgore and Sopley Ward Chewton Ward Bransgore and Sopley Ward Jumpers Ward Ringwood ED Highcliffe ED Ringwood ED Commons ED

Dorset Hampshire Dorset Hampshire Christchurch Borough New Forest District Wimborne District New Forest District St Leonards and St Ives CP Sopley CP B Non Parished Area Bransgore CP A 2 Chewton Ward Bransgore and Sopley Ward 5 St Leonards and St Ives Cast Bransgore and Sopley Ward Highcliffe ED Ringwood ED Ward St Leonards and St Ives ED Ringwood ED

Hampshire Dorset Hampshire Dorset New Forest District Christchurch Borough New Forest District Wimborne District New Milton CP Non Parished Area A Ellingham, Harbrldge and Verwood CP c\P^ oc r-\ Milton Ward Chewton Ward Ibsley CP New Milton ED HiQhcliffe ED Ringwood North Ward Verwood Ward ED Verwood ED

Hampshire Dorset A New Forest District Christchurch Borough 3 M Bransgore CP Non Parished Area B Bransgore and Sopley Ward Grange Ward Ringwood ED Burton Grange Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA TO FROM NO. REF. FROM NO, REF. TO

Wiltshire Hampshire Hampshire Wiltshire Salisbury District New Forest District Test Valley Borough Kennet District Redly nch CP Hale CP A South Tedworth CP South Tedworth CP Redlynch Ward Forest North West Word Tedworth Ward North Tidworth Word Oownton ED Fordingbridge ED Andover Rural ED Collingbourne ED 7 Wiltshire Hampshire Wiltshire Rl Hampshire New Forest District Salisbury District D! Test Volley Borough Kennet District B Hale CP Redlynch CP to Shipton Bellinger CP South Tedworth CP Forest North West Word Redlynch Ward Tedworth Ward North Tidworth Word Fordingbrldge ED Downton ED B4 Andover Rural ED Collingbourne ED

Hampshire Wiltshire Cl to South Tedworth CP Shipton Bellinger CP Test Valley Borough Salisbury District C5 A West Tytherley CP West Dean CP Dun Valley Ward Alderbury Ward Hampshire Wiltshire Stockbridge and Weilow ED Alderbury ED 9 Dl Test Valley Borough Kennet District 8 to to Kimpton CP South Tedworth CP North Tidworth Ward Hampshire Wiltshire 9H D3 Tedworth Ward B Test Valley Borough Salisbury District Andover Rural ED Colllngbourne ED East Dean CP West Dean CP Dun Valley Ward Alderbury Ward El to South Tedworth CP Kimpton CP Stockbridge and Weilow ED Alderbury ED E5

Hampshire Wiltshire Hampshire Wiltshire Test Volley Borough Kennel District Test Volley Borough Kennet District ID A Kimpton CP Ludgershall CP to Kimpton CP North Tidworth CP Tedworth Ward Ludgershall Word Tedworth Word North Tidworth Word Andover Rural ED Collingbourne ED F4 Andover Rural ED Collingbourne ED

c^\ Wiltshire Hampshire Ol KenneT District Test Volley Borough to North Tidworth CP Kimpton CP North Tidworth Word Tedworth Ward G4 Collingbourne ED Andover Rural ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM NO. REF. NO. REF. TO

West Sussex Hampshire Chlchester District East Hampshire District Linchmere CP Bramshott and Llphook CP II At \ Llnchmere Word Bramshott and LIphook Word Fernhurst ED Bramshott ED

West Sussex Hampshire Chlchester District East Hampshire District B Stoughton CP Rowlands Castle CP Stoughton Word Rowlands Costle Ward Bourne ED Catherlngton ED 12 Hampshire West Sussex East Hampshire District Chlchester District Aft Rowlands Castle CP Stoughton CP n Rowlands Castle Ward Stoughton Ward u Catherlnglon ED Bourne ED

West Sussex Hampshire Chlchester District Ha v ant Borough 13 A Southbourne CP Non parlshed area Southbourne Ward Emsworth Ward Bourne ED Emsworth and St Faith's (East) • ED