Local Government Boundary Commission For England 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 HAMPSHIRE AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH DORSET, WEST SUSSEX AND WILTSHIRE 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, New Forest, Salisbury and Test Valley; the Parish Councils of East Dean, Ellingham, Kimpton, MiHand, South Tedworth, Stoughton, West Dean, West Tytherley 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. New Forest District 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 Bransgore, 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 Ringwood 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, Harbridge and Ibsley 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.