sign in sign up
<<
Home , A32 road, Abbotts Barton, Alton Line, Blackwater Valley, Borough of Fareham, Borough of Havant

Jolyon Jackson CBE Chief Executive Chief Executive's O ffice Local Government Boundary The Castle, Commission for S O23 8UJ 14th Floor Millbank Tower Telephone Millbank Fax London Textphone SW1P 4QP www.hants.gov.uk

Enquiries to Andrew Smith My reference AJS/JN

Direct Line Your reference -

D a t e 22 July 2015 E - m a i l

Dear Jolyon,

FURTHER ELECTORAL REVIEW OF – PATTERN OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS SUBMISSION

Please find attached Hampshire County Council’s Proposed Pattern of Divisions submission which was approved by the full Council on 16 July 2015. The proposals have been prepared using the December 2014 electorate data, as supplied by our district/borough partners, and taking into account the three statutory criteria as set out in the Commission’s Guidance on how to prepare a Pattern of Divisions. The data we have used for this purpose is indicated in the report. The document has also been emailed to Alex Hinds.

The Council resolved to submit the Report in its entirety having given consideration to options for:

a) Alton Rural & Alton Town Divisions, b) District Area c) Fleet Division, Hart

In respect of a) above, the Council did not express a preference for Option 1 or Option 2, both of which are evidenced in pages 35-37.

In respect of b) above, two options are evidenced in the Report on pages 46-53, the ‘Eastleigh 7’ Model, and on pages 53-60 the ‘Eastleigh 8’ Model. Commentary on both options can be found on page 62. The Council expressed a preference for the Eastleigh 7 Model having taken into consideration the ‘minded to’ recommendation of the Commission that the County Council should remain at 78 Councillors and the three statutory criteria. This resolution was not supported by all Members present at the meeting.

Chief Executive Andrew Smith OBE MA DPA MBA

Hampshire County Council Further Electoral Review of Hampshire County Council Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England: Electoral Division Patterns – July 2015

9 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Contents

1. Introduction

2. & Deane

2.1. About Basingstoke & Deane 2.2. County Council Divisions in Basingstoke & Deane 2.3. Basingstoke Central 2.4. Basingstoke North 2.5. Basingstoke North West 2.6. Basingstoke South East 2.7. Basingstoke South West 2.8. Calleva & 2.9. Candovers 2.10. Loddon 2.11. & 2.12. Whitchurch & Clere 2.13. Proposals for Basingstoke & Deane

3. East Hampshire

3.1. About East Hampshire 3.2. County Council Divisions in East Hampshire 3.3. Alton Rural 3.4. Alton Town 3.5. , Whitehill & Lindford 3.6. Catherington 3.7. Headley 3.8. Butser 3.9. Petersfield Hangers 3.10. Proposals for East Hampshire

4. Eastleigh

4.1. About Eastleigh 4.2. County Council Divisions in Eastleigh 4.3. Eastleigh 7 Proposal – Seven Division Model 4.4. Bishopstoke & Fair Oak 4.5. Botley & 4.6. Chandler’s Ford 4.7. Eastleigh East

HF 9349561 - FINAL 10 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.8. Eastleigh West 4.9. Hamble 4.10. West End & Hedge End Grange Park 4.11. Proposals for Eastleigh – Eastleigh 7 4.12. Eastleigh 8 Proposal – Eight Division Model 4.13. Bishopstoke & Fair Oak 4.14. Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park 4.15. Chandlers Ford 4.16. Eastleigh North 4.17. Eastleigh South 4.18. Hamble 4.19. Hedge End 4.20. West End 4.21. Proposals for Eastleigh – Eastleigh 8 4.22. Commentary on Proposals for Eastleigh

5.

5.1. About Fareham 5.2. County Councillors in Fareham 5.3. Fareham Crofton 5.4. Fareham 5.5. Fareham 5.6. Fareham 5.7. Fareham Town 5.8. Fareham 5.9. Proposals for Fareham

6.

6.1. About Gosport 6.2. County Councillors in Gosport 6.3. Bridgemary 6.4. Hardway 6.5. Lee 6.6. Leesland & Town 6.7. Proposals for Gosport

7. Hart

7.1. About Hart 7.2. County Councillors in Hart 7.3. Church Crookham & Ewshot 7.4. Fleet

HF 9349561 - FINAL 11 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

7.5. Hartley Wintney, Eversley & West 7.6. Odiham 7.7. Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells 7.8. Proposals for Hart

8.

8.1. About Havant 8.2. County Councillors in Havant 8.3. & 8.4. & 8.5. & St. Faiths 8.6. 8.7. & Stakes South 8.8. Waterloo & Stakes North 8.9. Proposals for Havant

9.

9.1. About New Forest 9.2. County Council Divisions in New Forest 9.3. Brockenhurst 9.4. Dibden & Hythe 9.5. 9.6. 9.7. Lyndhurst 9.8. Milford & Hordle 9.9. 9.10. 9.11. South Waterside 9.12. Totton North 9.13. Totton South & 9.14. Proposals for New Forest

10.

10.1. About Rushmoor 10.2. County Council Divisions in Rushmoor 10.3. East 10.4. Aldershot West 10.5. Farnborough North 10.6. Farnborough South 10.7. Farnborough West

HF 9349561 - FINAL 12 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10.8. Proposals for Rushmoor

11.

11.1. About Test Valley 11.2. County Council Divisions in Test Valley 11.3. Andover North 11.4. Andover South 11.5. Andover West 11.6. Baddesley 11.7. Extra 11.8. Romsey Town 11.9. Test Valley Central 11.10. Proposals for Test Valley

12. Winchester

12.1. About Winchester 12.2. County Council Divisions in Winchester 12.3. Bishops Waltham 12.4. 12.5. Meon Valley 12.6. Winchester Downlands 12.7. Winchester Eastgate 12.8. Winchester Southern Parishes 12.9. Winchester Westgate 12.10. Proposals for Winchester

13. Conclusions on Proposed Electoral Division Patterns

HF 9349561 - FINAL 13 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1. Introduction

1.1. On 29 August 2014 the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (‘the Commission’) advised the County Council that the Commission had determined that a Further Electoral Review of the County Council’s Electoral Arrangements should take place.

1.2. So far as the County Council is concerned, Electoral Arrangements means:

1.2.1. The total number of County Councillors elected to the County Council;

1.2.2. the number and boundaries of Electoral Divisions in the County Council;

1.2.3. the number of County Councillors in respect of any Electoral Division; and

1.2.4. the name of any Electoral Division of the County Council.

1.3. In consequence of Paragraph 1.2.1 above a submission on Council Size, approved by the County Council on 13 April 2015, was made to the Commission. The submission on Council Size was that the County Council should remain with 78 County Councillors.

1.4. On 26 May 2015 the Commission advised the County Council that the Commission was minded to recommend that the size of the County Council should remain at 78 County Councillors. The Commission advised that it was now inviting proposals from the County Council, interested parties and members of the public on a pattern of Electoral Divisions to accommodate these 78 County Councillors.

1.5. In consideration of a pattern of Electoral Divisions, the County Council is advised that in exercise of its judgement the Commission will have regard to three statutory criteria, namely:

1.5.1. To deliver Electoral Equality, that is that each County Councillor should represent roughly the same number of registered electors as other County Councillors across the County Council;

1.5.2. that the pattern of Electoral Divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities and have readily identifiable boundaries; and

HF 9349561 - FINAL 14 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1.5.3. that the Electoral Arrangements of the County Council should provide for effective and convenient Local Government.

1.6. A map of existing Hampshire County Council Electoral Divisions together with a list of existing Hampshire County Council Electoral Divisions showing a comparison of divisions by size of geographical areas (hectares/square miles) are attached overleaf.

1.7. Mindful that once the Commission had made its minded to recommendation on Council Size the next stage in the process was consultation on Electoral Division Patterns, the County Council at its meeting on 13 April 2015 approved a proposal that a Members’ Working Group with representation from all Political Groups represented on the County Council be convened. Each Member of the Working Group would have a local co-ordinating role in respect of each District/Borough Council area, to make recommendations to Political Group Leaders on a proposed pattern of Electoral Divisions, having regard to the three statutory criteria set out Paragraph 1.5 above, prior to consideration of proposals by the County Council.

1.8. In the course of their work Members of the Members’ Working Group have conducted consultation with all other County Council Members within the District/Borough Council area allocated to them, with Leaders of District/Borough Councils, and local community groups and organisations. Members of the Members’ Working Group have also used their local knowledge in formulating proposals.

1.9. This submission sets out the views of Hampshire County Council in terms of Electoral Division Patterns, addressing these key areas, supported by evidence, including also a number of proposals in respect of changes to Electoral Division names, approved by the County Council on [ ].

HF 9349561 - FINAL 15 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of existing Hampshire County Council divisions

HF 9349561 - FINAL

19 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

2. Basingstoke & Deane

2.1. About Basingstoke & Deane

Basingstoke & Deane Borough is one of the largest districts in Hampshire. Covering the central section of north Hampshire, it comprises a substantial rural area around a single large urban area (the town of Basingstoke). The borough sits on the North Wessex Downs on some of the highest ground in Hampshire, and is the source of the , which runs south to , and the Loddon, which runs north to the Thames.

Basingstoke is a nationally important road and rail junction, being the point at which the main routes from London to the South West intersect with those from the South Coast to the Midlands. The M3 passes immediately to the south of the town, with the A34 and A303 crossing the western part of the district. The South West/West of England main railway lines provide a frequent service from Whitchurch, Overton and Basingstoke to Waterloo that allows easy commuting to London, while rail freight from the Port of runs north through Basingstoke. With strong links to Andover, Winchester, Alton, Farnborough, Reading and Newbury, the town is also a regional hub for financial, retail and service industries.

Basingstoke is an old settlement that gained in importance after the advent of the railway and the in the 19th century, but it remained a modest market town until after the Second World War, when it expanded rapidly through ‘London overspill’ development. The mean age in is below the Hampshire average and with a population in 2015 of over 170,000, it is the fastest-growing and second- largest district in Hampshire, with most of its recent growth taking place in and on the edges of Basingstoke Town. Pressure for Basingstoke to fulfil some of London’s unmet housing need is increasing and there are proposals to build a significant new community to the south and west of the town.

The rural part of the district is sparsely populated compared to Basingstoke Town, and features many characteristic Hampshire villages and small towns of which a number are fairly substantial, such as Whitchurch, Kingsclere and Tadley. Development has been considerably slower in the rural areas and there are environmental and planning constraints on growth including the presence of the Atomic Weapons Establishment just over the border in West .

HF 9349561 - FINAL 20 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Basingstoke & Deane

HF 9349561 - FINAL 21 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

2.2. County Council Divisions in Basingstoke & Deane

There are currently ten County Councillors from Basingstoke & Deane, each representing one division. The combination of factors described above means that by 2021 the divisions in Basingstoke Town will cover a larger number of registered electors than the projected Hampshire average of 13,846 per Councillor, while those in the rural areas will be below average.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Basingstoke Central 1 14,878 +13.7% 15,538 +12.2% Basingstoke North 1 15,105 +15.5% 17,788 +28.5% Basingstoke North 1 12,207 -6.7% 14,188 +2.5% West Basingstoke South 1 12,863 -1.7% 12,325 -11.0% East Basingstoke South 1 13,638 +4.3% 13,266 -4.2% West Calleva & Kingsclere 1 13,834 +5.8% 16,320 +17.9% Candovers 1 11,823 -9.6% 12,986 -6.2% Loddon 1 14,453 +10.5% 14,659 +5.9% Tadley & Baughurst 1 11,125 -14.9% 11,117 -19.7% Whitchurch & Clere 1 11,218 -14.2% 11,697 -15.5% Total 10 131,144 139,884

The proposal is to retain the same ten divisions for Basingstoke & Deane, each with one Councillor, but to adjust most of the divisions’ boundaries to provide a better degree of electoral equality without dividing natural communities or disturbing existing community arrangements. The proposed new pattern of divisions reflects the practicalities of travel in the area, and the Commission’s requirement that the pattern should provide for convenient and effective government – so the proposed urban divisions remain larger than the Hampshire average while the rural ones remain smaller. Two changes to the division names of Calleva & Kingsclere and of Whitchurch & Clere are proposed.

The proposals recognise that Basingstoke Town is a distinct area and, rather than arbitrarily mixing town and country or trying to span the M3, we have found it possible instead to provide much greater equality by reshuffling the boundaries within the urban area. However, it has not been possible to achieve this using only whole wards. The town has natural boundary lines, notably the railway line, a motorway, two major A roads and a ring road system. These roads should be seen more as serving an essential need for

HF 9349561 - FINAL 22 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

traffic flow, aiding the development of the town, rather than as barriers. They cut through several of the town wards, giving rise to the need for our divisions to contain split wards. However, it has also been possible to re-join one previously split ward.

The new pattern rectifies the rural imbalances by enlarging Tadley & Baughurst and Whitchurch & Clere and shrinking Calleva & Kingsclere. It has been necessary to split one ward and one parish to achieve this.

The proposals for Basingstoke & Deane were co-ordinated by Councillor Criss Connor, the Member for Basingstoke Central, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Basingstoke & Deane County Councillors.

2.3. Basingstoke Central

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,538 (+12.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the central part of Basingstoke Town, including the main shopping areas, the Anvil Concert Hall, the theatre, the two main libraries, the two museums and a major leisure park. Basingstoke Central lies south of the railway, north of an A road and is bounded by an A road to the east. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Brookvale & Kings Furlong  Eastrop  88% of

The forecast 2021 electorate in Basingstoke Central is well above the Hampshire average and it is necessary to make some significant boundary changes. It is proposed that Eastrop Ward be moved to Basingstoke South East, and to offset this loss by adding two polling districts from Norden Ward currently within Basingstoke North Division, which has a forecast electorate well above the county average. This part of Norden Ward is part of a community with close links to Brookvale even though it is separated by the railway. The Kingsclere Road represents a major route joining the two areas. New houses in this part of Norden are advertised as being within walking distance of the town centre and they use the same facilities (schools, shops etc.) as other Basingstoke Central residents.

Proposal for Basingstoke Central

 Transfer Eastrop to Basingstoke South East (-4,818)  Add Norden FY and FZ (+3,430)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 23 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,150 (+2.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.4. Basingstoke North

2021 Electorate Forecast: 17,788 (+28.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the northern part of Basingstoke Town and lies to the north of the South West Main Line. It stretches north into the area of that is west of the Basingstoke-Reading railway and is a well- established and close-knit area created by the development of council housing estates. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Popley East  Popley West  Norden

Following projected new development in Popley, the forecast 2021 electorate in Basingstoke North shows the second-highest variance above the average in all of Hampshire. It is therefore necessary to reassign more than 3,000 voters to another division. A simple solution is fortunately possible – as seen above we propose to transfer Norden FY and FZ to Basingstoke Central. The Popley wards have a close affinity and the ‘Oakridge village’ part of Norden already has well-established community links with the two Popley wards as they share the same surgery, schools, shops and community hall.

Proposal for Basingstoke North

 Transfer Norden FY and FZ to Basingstoke Central (-3,430)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,358 (+3.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.5. Basingstoke North West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,188 (+2.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the north-western part of Basingstoke Town and forms the western edge of the town. Although Basingstoke North West is cut by an A road, there are two bridges linking the parts and they both use the same schools as well as being served by the same bus route. The division currently includes the following wards:

HF 9349561 - FINAL 24 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Buckskin (96%) 

The forecast 2021 electorate in Basingstoke North West is only slightly above the Hampshire average and no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality. However, a minor change is proposed to better reflect natural communities by reuniting all of Buckskin ward within this division.

Proposal for Basingstoke North West

 Add Buckskin EV (+210)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,398 (+4.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.6. Basingstoke South East

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,325 (-11.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-eastern part of Basingstoke Town between the central town area and the M3, which forms a hard southern boundary. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Brighton Hill North  Brighton Hill South (95%)  Grove

The forecast 2021 electorate in Basingstoke South East is some way below the Hampshire average and changes are necessary to achieve better electoral equality. It is proposed that a whole ward from the eastern part of Basingstoke Central be added and that one polling district be moved to another division that already contains one from the same ward. This leaves a logical grouping that borders the town centre and has many natural links. While the revised electorate is only just under the +10% variance threshold, it is considered that this is the best solution available given the significant growth elsewhere in the town.

Proposal for Basingstoke South East

 Transfer Brighton Hill South EN to Basingstoke South West (-1,925)  Add Eastrop (+4,818)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 25 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,218 (+9.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.7. Basingstoke South West

20121 Electorate Forecast: 13,266 (-4.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-western tip of Basingstoke Town and lies between open country to the west and the hard boundary of the M3 to the south. This is a community that spans a major A road but has common facilities and well-established community links. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Brighton Hill South (5%)  Buckskin (4%)  Hatchwarren & Beggarwood   South Ham (12%)

The forecast 2021 electorate in Basingstoke South West is slightly below the Hampshire average and no changes are necessary to achieve better electoral equality. Nevertheless, given the necessary changes to Basingstoke South East we propose to add Brighton Hill South EN to this division, and as mentioned above the reunification of Buckskin ward is also proposed. These changes leave Basingstoke South West well within the +10% variance threshold.

Proposal for Basingstoke South West

 Transfer Buckskin EV to Basingstoke North West (-210)  Add Brighton Hill South EN (+1,925)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,981 (+8.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.8. Calleva & Kingsclere

2021 Electorate Forecast: 16,320 (+17.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers most of the borough north of Basingstoke town, including the Roman settlement of Calleva (now ) and A road links to Newbury and Reading. The division currently includes the following

HF 9349561 - FINAL 26 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

wards:

 Bramley & Sherfield  Kingsclere  & Silchester  Sherborne St. John

Following projected new development in Sherborne St. John, the forecast 2021 electorate in Calleva & Kingsclere is very significantly above the Hampshire average and changes are necessary to achieve better electoral equality. Pamber & Silchester and Sherborne St. John, which have been linked for a long time, make use of all the same school and community facilities. It is therefore proposed that Kingsclere parish (polling districts FX and FW) be reassigned to Whitchurch & Clere, which shares its Newbury- facing orientation. In addition it is proposed to transfer and Headley to Tadley & Baughurst, which needs to grow substantially. These changes leave Calleva & Kingsclere very close to the -10% threshold but it is not possible otherwise to bring the other two divisions in the area within - 10%.

Due to the transfer of Kingsclere it is necessary to rename this division Calleva.

Proposal for Calleva

 Transfer Kingsclere FW and FX to Whitchurch & Clere (-2,744)  Transfer Ashford Hill FT and Headley FU to Tadley & Baughurst (-1,042)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,534 (-9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.9. Candovers

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,986 (-6.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This is a large rural division covering most of the southern part of the Borough. It is split by two railway lines into Basingstoke as well as the M3 and the first stretch of the A303. Most of the settlements are small villages with the largest being Overton. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Oakley and  Overton & Steventon

HF 9349561 - FINAL 27 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

& The Candovers

The emerging local plan for Basingstoke & Deane maintains the M3 motorway as a boundary line for development with no major sites being proposed for the land to its south. The Candovers division, as currently drawn, is wholly compatible with the emerging plan and having no change protects its identity. No changes to this division are proposed, which represents several natural communities and remains well within the variance threshold.

Proposal for Candovers

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,986 (-6.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.10. Loddon

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,659 (+5.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This is a partly urban division to the east of Basingstoke, covering the space between Basingstoke Town and Hook as well as the parish of Chineham north of the town. Most settlements lie north of the three east-west travel corridors that run through the division (M3, A30 and South West Main Line). The division currently includes four whole parishes within the following wards:

 Basing  Chineham

There has been some development within these wards but being separated from Basingstoke Town by a major A road and the ring road system, they have a strong community identity. The Lychpit area of Basing Ward has a close affinity to the Chineham Ward in terms of housing mix and facilities used; for example both share the Chineham shopping centre as a significant local facility. Both the Basing and Chineham wards have shared use of two village halls that provide considerable community facilities. Finally, the Loddon Division is wholly within the Basingstoke Parliamentary constituency, rather than North East Hampshire, and it would break this coterminosity if voters were transferred to divisions to the north or south. No changes to this division are therefore proposed, which remains well within the variance threshold.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 28 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Loddon

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,659 (+5.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

2.11. Tadley & Baughurst

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,117 (-19.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This is a mostly rural division to the north-west of Basingstoke, with a single large settlement (Tadley). Tadley borders and is home to many employees of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston. The town’s close proximity to AWE limits the amount of new development that can take place as the Office for Nuclear Regulation is concerned to ensure that the area can be easily evacuated. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Baughurst & Tadley North  Tadley Central  Tadley South

Tadley & Baughurst is projected to have an electorate well below the Hampshire average and it is necessary to expand the division into neighbouring areas to achieve better electoral quality. It is proposed that the northern parts of Kingsclere Ward are added, as these areas already use the facilities within the community of Tadley, including schools and bus services both to Basingstoke and Newbury. It is also proposed to add polling district EZ from Whitchurch & Clere, making the division stretch across much of the district’s north central boundary with Berkshire. This latter change entails splitting a parish, but it brings Tadley & Baughurst within the -10% threshold and it is difficult to find another solution that does not stretch into completely different communities.

Proposal for Tadley & Baughurst

 Add Ashford Hill FT and Headley FU (+1,042)  Add Bishops Green EZ (+534)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,693 (-8.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 29 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

2.12. Whitchurch & Clere

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,697 (-15.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This large rural division covers the western section of the borough. The A34 trunk road runs north-south through the whole division, while the London- Exeter railway passes through its largest settlement, Whitchurch. The division currently includes the following wards:

, &  Whitchurch

Whitchurch & Clere is projected to have an electorate well below the Hampshire average and it is necessary to expand the division into neighbouring areas to achieve better electoral quality. It is therefore proposed that Kingsclere parish (FX and FW polling districts) be added. This brings all of the ‘Cleres’ together, with the town of Whitchurch providing the required facilities for this community, which looks more towards Newbury than Basingstoke. To offset this addition, as seen above, it is proposed to transfer Bishops Green EZ to Tadley & Baughurst. These changes bring Whitchurch & Clere’s forecast electorate almost exactly to the Hampshire average.

For the reasons set out above, it is proposed to rename this division Whitchurch and The Cleres.

Proposal for Whitchurch & The Cleres

 Add Kingsclere FX and FW (+2,744)  Transfer Bishops Green EZ to Tadley & Baughurst (-534)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,907 (+0.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 30 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

2.13. Proposals for Basingstoke & Deane

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Basingstoke 1 15,538 +12.2% 14,150 +2.2% Central Basingstoke North 1 17,788 +28.5% 14,358 +3.7% Basingstoke North 1 14,188 +2.5% 14,398 +4.0% West Basingstoke South 1 12,325 -11.0% 15,218 +9.9% East Basingstoke South 1 13,266 -4.2% 14,981 +8.2% West Calleva 1 16,320 +17.9% 12,534 -9.5% Candovers 1 12,986 -6.2% 12,986 -6.2% Loddon 1 14,659 +5.9% 14,659 +5.9% Tadley & 1 11,117 -19.7% 12,693 -8.3% Baughurst Whitchurch & The 1 11,697 -15.5% 13,907 +0.4% Cleres Total 10 139,884 139,884

HF 9349561 - FINAL 31 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Basingstoke & Deane

Proposed division boundaries shown are approximate, based on polling district boundaries mapped using the best information available from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

HF 9349561 - FINAL 32 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

3. East Hampshire

3.1. About East Hampshire

The district of East Hampshire forms most of the eastern edge of Hampshire and borders and . It is a largely rural district, much of which is inside the National Park. There are two large and historic market towns in East Hampshire: Alton in the north and Petersfield further south. At the extreme south of the district there are urban settlements that blend into the built-up areas of the neighbouring .

Alton and Petersfield lie along the principal travel corridors in the district: east-west from Guildford to Winchester along the A31, and north-south from Guildford to along the A3 and the mainline railway. Both offer excellent journey times to Waterloo and are home to many London commuters. As a result house prices around Alton and Petersfield are among the highest in the county.

Rural East Hampshire is home to many characteristic Hampshire villages, including Selborne, , Bentley and Buriton. The centre of the district is dominated by the National Park and there are significant areas of forest. One effect of the two corridors and the National Park area is that the north and south of the district are not especially well linked.

East Hampshire is a mid-sized district in terms of population, with 118,000 residents in 2015. With constraints on growth in the National Park, development has historically tended to be focused on the two main travel corridors. However, significant new development is now planned to take place in Whitehill-Bordon, East Hampshire’s third-largest settlement. This town is located between the A3 and the A31 in the east of the district and is the site of an Army barracks that is in the process of being vacated. The first tranche of 1,200 homes will be delivered by 2021.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 33 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in East Hampshire

HF 9349561 - FINAL 34 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

3.2. County Council Divisions in East Hampshire

There are currently seven County Councillors from East Hampshire, each representing one division. The two Alton divisions are forecast to have a larger electorate than the Hampshire average in 2021, while the other divisions are all forecast to be below the average size, particularly Petersfield Hangers, which lies wholly within the National Park.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Alton Rural 1 13,762 +5.2% 14,260 +3.0% Alton Town 1 12,780 -2.3% 14,578 +5.3% Bordon Whitehill & 1 9,940 -24.0% 12,901 -6.8% Lindford Catherington 1 11,769 -10.0% 12,882 -7.0% Headley 1 12,608 -3.6% 12,952 -6.5% Petersfield Butser 1 12,714 -2.8% 13,293 -4.0% Petersfield Hangers 1 11,349 -13.2% 11,612 -16.1% Total 7 84,922 92,478

A difficulty in creating divisions with approximately equal electorates in East Hampshire is that the South Downs National Park Authority has an extremely restrictive policy on new housing development. This places development pressure on areas outside the National Park, where the electorate inevitably increases at a faster rate. Meanwhile the divisions located within the National Park may show a static or even reducing electorate, and to achieve electoral equality would have to be expanded to unmanageable proportions. This problem also applies in Winchester and New Forest districts.

The proposal is that the same seven divisions for East Hampshire be retained, each with one Councillor, but to adjust several division boundaries to provide a better degree of electoral equality without dividing natural communities or disturbing existing community arrangements. The new pattern requires the splitting of one ward, which is acceptable to the two current Councillors involved. There is an option to unify a currently split ward to achieve more uniform electorate sizes in the Alton area, and this has been set out below. One change to the division name of Bordon, Whitehill & Lindford is proposed.

These proposals recognise particularly that further growth is likely to take place in Whitehill-Bordon, so although this division shows a -7% variance against the Hampshire average this is regarded as a prudent arrangement

HF 9349561 - FINAL 35 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

and one which reflects the natural community that exists in and around the town.

The proposals for East Hampshire, including presenting two options for Alton Rural and Alton Town, were co-ordinated by Councillor Mark Kemp-Gee, the Member for Alton Rural, and were discussed with and agreed by all current East Hampshire County Councillors.

3.3. Alton Rural

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,260 (+3.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

As its name suggests, this is a wholly rural division surrounding the town of Alton (i.e. a ‘doughnut’ division), and is the third-largest division in Hampshire. Alton Rural consists mainly of small villages but there are larger settlements such as Four Marks and Ropley along the A31, which bisects the division through the middle. The lower part of Alton Rural is within the South Downs National Park.

The Member for Alton Rural, Councillor Mark Kemp-Gee, comments: “Although the division covers some 90 square miles there are many similarities with the 18 or so parishes and villages with a strong farming and self-help theme running through all the different communities which have many connections between each other. There is an extensive network of small B roads and C roads and unclassified lanes and BOATs (Byways Open to All Traffic) linking all the parishes in the division – many forming part of the old droving roads network. The electorate know by and large how the system works; certainly all the parish councils are very familiar with the local government boundaries and excellent communication and relations obtain between the County Councillors and all seven District Councillors that serve the same patch, which is why there may be a case to unite the Holybourne and Froyle Ward within this division (see below). The proportions are not too bad, being roughly 10 miles x 10 miles with residents able to be in contact with Winchester and Petersfield relatively easily because of good east/west and north/south A roads.”

The division currently includes the following wards:

 Binsted & Bentley  Downland  Four Marks & Medstead  Holybourne & Froyle (42%)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 36 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Ropley & Tisted  Selborne

Alton Rural’s electorate in 2021 is projected to be only 3% above the Hampshire average, so no change is necessary to meet the requirement for electoral equality. However, the need to reassign voters to Petersfield Hangers requires the transfer of a whole ward to that division. This takes Alton Rural extremely close to the -10% variance threshold, so to offset this an option exists to reunite the ward of Holybourne and Froyle by moving the 58% of that ward currently within the Alton Town division to Alton Rural. This would loosen the ‘doughnut’ in the sense that there would be less of a stark separation between the two divisions, and would be the preferred option if minimising electorate variance was paramount. Both options are set out below.

It is recognised that the Commission prefers not to have ‘doughnut’ divisions such as Alton Rural; however, there is no way of avoiding this without extending Alton Town significantly to the north (further increasing its positive variance against the average electorate) or splitting the area covered by the two divisions equally on an east/west basis, which would divide the community of Alton.

Proposal for Alton Rural – Option 1

 Move Ropley & Tisted to Petersfield Hangers (-1,786)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,474 (-9.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

Proposal for Alton Rural – Option 2

 Move Ropley & Tisted to Petersfield Hangers (-1,786)  Add Alton Holybourne AD (+1,527)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,001 (+1.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.4. Alton Town

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,578 (+5.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

As described above, the Alton Town Division is wholly encircled by Alton Rural and comprises all of the urban area of Alton and Holybourne. The dual-carriageway A31 passes through the south of the division and the A339 forms a natural western feature that splits polling district Alton Whitedown

HF 9349561 - FINAL 37 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

AF. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Alton Amery  Alton Ashdell  Alton Eastbrooke  Alton Westbrooke  Alton Whitedown  Alton Wooteys  Holybourne & Froyle (58%)

Alton Town’s electorate in 2021 is projected to be just over 5% above the Hampshire average, so no change is necessary to meet the requirement for electoral equality. However, as mentioned above, the option exists to reunite the 58% of Holybourne and Froyle ward (polling district AD), at the eastern end of the town, with the 42% of the same ward currently within Alton Rural. There is a view that the ward area currently within Alton Town forms a natural part of the town community, so retaining the status quo would be the preferred option if maintaining this community identity was paramount. Both options are set out below.

Proposal for Alton Town – Option 1

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,578 (+5.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

Proposal for Alton Town – Option 2

 Move Alton Holybourne AD to Alton Rural (-1,527)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,051 (-5.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.5. Bordon, Whitehill & Lindford

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,901 (-6.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the built-up area of Whitehill Bordon and south along the A325, which runs the length of the division. The division currently includes the following wards:  Linford  Whitehill Chase  Whitehill Deadwater  Whitehill Hogmoor

HF 9349561 - FINAL 38 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Whitehill Pinewood  Whitehill Walldown

Bordon, Whitehill & Lindford is projected to have a 2021 electorate of nearly 7% below the Hampshire average. While this is relatively close to the -10% variance threshold, with a strong focus on new development in the area in the medium term it is considered important to keep the identity of this community intact and therefore no changes are proposed.

However, there is a need to correct a historical mistake in the naming of this division, which should properly be Whitehill, Bordon & Lindford. Councillor Adam Carew, the Member for Bordon, Whitehill & Lindford, comments:

“The name of this division has been wrong since its inception in 2005 due to a minuting mistake at an East Hampshire District Council Community Forum being carried forward. It was supposed to be Whitehill, Bordon & Lindford NOT Bordon, Whitehill & Lindford. Bordon is legally part of Whitehill Parish and has been since 1929. So Whitehill always comes first. This is why we have a Whitehill Town Council not a Bordon Town Council or even a Whitehill & Bordon Town Council. Local people are very keen that the division name is changed to Whitehill, Bordon & Lindford, which will ensure that everyone gets the name of our community historically and legally correct, which is essential for a town about to double in size.”

For these reasons it is proposed that this division be renamed Whitehill, Bordon & Lindford.

Proposal for Whitehill, Bordon & Lindford

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,901 (-6.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.6. Catherington

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,882 (-7.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern wards of East Hampshire, which are more urban in nature and are linked with Havant and to the south. The A3 runs through Catherington, becoming the A3(M) and carrying a lot of traffic to Portsmouth. The division currently includes the following wards:

Catherington & Lovedean  Horndean Downs

HF 9349561 - FINAL 39 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Horndean Hazleton & Blendworth  Horndean Kings  Horndean Murray  Rowlands Castle

Like Bordon Whitehill & Lindford, Catherington is projected to have a 2021 electorate of nearly 7% below the Hampshire average. However, the same considerations about future growth do not apply and we propose to mitigate this variance by transferring Finchdean BY from Petersfield Butser into Catherington. Finchdean is in the parish of Rowlands Castle but is – against the sense of local community – located in Clanfield ward. The remainder of Clanfield Ward is west of the A3(M), which is a hard natural barrier separating it from Finchdean, whose electors gravitate to Rowlands Castle ward and parish and treat the Catherington County Councillor as their own.

Proposal for Catherington

 Add Finchdean BY (+153)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,035 (-5.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.7. Headley

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,952 (-6.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division forms a ‘bulge’ on the eastern side of Hampshire that pushes into Surrey and West Sussex. It comprises several large villages/small towns and includes a stretch of the A3 and the Portsmouth railway in its southern part. Headley’s three rural parishes share many common interests and cultural values with useful sharing and learning between them. Examples quoted by Councillor Ferris Cowper, the Member for Headley, are ‘Party in Grayshott’/Liphook Carnival, and Liphook in Bloom/Gardens of Grayshott. The parish of Headley shares many activities with the other two that surround it, not least the recently opened Greenacres natural burial site and the long-standing and important local gap. Councillor Cowper reports that local councils share useful resources such as the parish lengthsman and Community Speedwatch, while the parish clerks in Headley and Grayshott get together often to share knowledge, experience and training opportunities. Councillor Cowper comments further:

“As a County Councillor I find the harmony of the division boundary with the three parishes to be integral to my local job performance and caseload. It’s

HF 9349561 - FINAL 40 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

also of great importance to the credibility of local government that my division is perfectly co-terminous with the six district council wards.”

The division currently includes the following wards:

 Bramshott & Liphook  Grayshott  Headley

Headley is projected to have a similar 2021 electorate variance to Catherington and Bordon Whitehill and Lindford (-6.5%) i.e. below the forecast Hampshire average but within the -10% threshold. Headley forms a distinct area of East Hampshire that cannot be enlarged north, east or south due to its unique position on the county border, while westward expansion would encroach on Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford, which as described above is also a distinct community with a below-average electorate. Therefore no changes are proposed to Headley’s boundary.

Proposal for Headley

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,952 (-6.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.8. Petersfield Butser

Electorate Forecast: 13,293 (-4.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern half of the town of Petersfield, including the railway station and central shopping area. It also stretches south and west across a substantial portion of the National Park including and Queen Elizabeth Country Park. The A3 runs south through the division to Portsmouth and the A272 west to Winchester. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Clanfield & Finchdean  East Meon  Petersfield Bell Hill  Petersfield Causeway  Petersfield Heath  Petersfield St. Peter's

Petersfield Butser is projected to have a small negative electorate variance in 2021 (-4.0%) so no action is strictly necessary to achieve electoral equality.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 41 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

However, as described above it is proposed that Finchdean BY be transferred to Catherington to better reflect real local communities. The number of voters involved is small and this proposal leaves Petersfield Butser comfortably within the threshold.

Proposal for Petersfield Butser

 Move Finchdean BY to Catherington (-153)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,140 (-5.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

3.9. Petersfield Hangers

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,612 (-16.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the northern half of the town of Petersfield, and extends across the National Park with the A3 and the Portsmouth railway forming the main travel corridor. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Froxfield & Steep  Liss  Petersfield Rother  Petersfield St. Mary's  The Hangers & Forest

Petersfield Hangers is projected to have a large negative electorate variance in 2021 so it is necessary to enlarge the division to encompass more voters. As described above it is proposed that the whole of Ropley & Tisted Ward be transferred from Alton Rural into Petersfield Hangers, forming a natural north-western extension to the division. Although this extension crosses the A32, it also follows the path of the Ropley-Petersfield road and therefore continues to allow for practical and convenient government.

Proposal for Petersfield Hangers

 Add Ropley & Tisted ward (+1,786)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,398 (-3.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 42 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

3.10. Proposals for East Hampshire – Option 1

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Alton Rural 1 14,260 +3.0% 12,474 -9.9% Alton Town 1 14,578 +5.3% 14,578 +5.3% Catherington 1 12,882 -7.0% 13,035 -5.9% Headley 1 12,952 -6.5% 12,952 -6.5% Petersfield Butser 1 13,293 -4.0% 13,140 -5.1% Petersfield 1 11,612 -16.1% 13,398 -3.2% Hangers Whitehill, Bordon & 1 12,901 -6.8% 12,901 -6.8% Lindford Total 7 92,478 92,478

3.11. Proposals for East Hampshire – Option 2

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Alton Rural 1 14,260 +3.0% 14,001 +1.1% Alton Town 1 14,578 +5.3% 13,051 -5.7% Catherington 1 12,882 -7.0% 13,035 -5.9% Headley 1 12,952 -6.5% 12,952 -6.5% Petersfield Butser 1 13,293 -4.0% 13,140 -5.1% Petersfield 1 11,612 -16.1% 13,398 -3.2% Hangers Whitehill, Bordon & 1 12,901 -6.8% 12,901 -6.8% Lindford Total 7 92,478 92,478

HF 9349561 - FINAL 43 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in East Hampshire

HF 9349561 - FINAL 44 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4. Eastleigh

4.1. About Eastleigh

Eastleigh Borough is a primarily urban district curled around the north and east flanks of the city of Southampton, with which it shares many economic, social and cultural links. It has a long eastern boundary with Winchester district and the , separating it from Fareham, while in the west Chandler’s Ford merges into southern Test Valley. Eastleigh is home to Southampton Airport, the Ageas Bowl (home of Hampshire County Cricket Club), two motorways and some of the most important railway infrastructure in the south of England. Eastleigh also has many significant natural features such as the River Itchen and its associated SSSI, three Country Parks, the Hamble peninsula and numerous green gaps between main settlements.

The population of Eastleigh Borough in 2015 is around 128,000 people. The main settlements are the urban area of Eastleigh town (including Chander’s Ford), Bishopstoke/Fair Oak and Hedge End. Eastleigh has a strong history in transport industries, growing originally on the back of its critical position at the intersection of two railways, and the large railway works that grew up alongside. There are long-standing proposals for a major redevelopment of the railway works area. Parallel to the railway routes run two motorways that are critical to the wider Hampshire economy: the M3, running south from Winchester, and the M27, which runs southeast from west of Southampton towards Fareham and Portsmouth and serves Southampton Airport. The airport site, where the first Spitfire test flights took off, is located south of Eastleigh station and has its own Parkway station with journey times of 70 minutes to London. It serves the whole South Coast region and has connections to around 40 UK and European destinations.

Eastleigh’s position between Southampton and Winchester has created strong north-south commuting flows and the town, which has seen considerable new housing development, is home to many people who work in those two cities. However, development around Hedge End and Botley, including a proposal for new significant housing around Boorley Green, is increasing the east-west movements from those areas.

While many residents look to Southampton for retail and leisure services, Eastleigh has a strong retail economy featuring two large centres: the Swan Centre in Eastleigh town and a large retail park near Hedge End. Hamble-le- Rice and are well-known sailing centres and historic villages and there is significant leisure development around the Ageas Bowl at West End.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 45 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Eastleigh

HF 9349561 - FINAL 46 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.2. County Council Divisions in Eastleigh

There are currently seven County Councillors from Eastleigh, each representing one division.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Bishopstoke & Fair 1 13,468 +3.0% 15,168 +9.5% Oak Botley & Hedge End 1 14,540 +11.2% 15,614 +12.8% Chandler's Ford 1 12,097 -7.5% 12,540 -9.4% Eastleigh East 1 12,605 -3.6% 13,883 +0.3% Eastleigh West 1 15,177 +16.0% 15,963 +15.3% Hamble 1 14,475 +10.7% 15,488 +11.9% West End & Hedge 1 14,521 +11.0% 16,312 +17.8% End Grange Park Total 7 96,883 104,968

There is forecast to be considerable development in parts of Eastleigh in the medium term, and the future electorate in five of the divisions is forecast to be above or close to the +10% variance threshold. One division is forecast to be well below the county average. With the average electorate per division in Eastleigh being 8.3% above the county average, there has been little room for manoeuvre in bringing all divisions within or close to the +10% threshold.

Reflecting these numerical pressures, two differing options have been proposed for Eastleigh, a seven-division model (‘Eastleigh 7’) and an eight- division model (‘Eastleigh 8’). Of the seven current County Councillors in Eastleigh, four County Councillors prefer the seven-division model and three County Councillors prefer the eight-division model. Eastleigh 7 is a model for redrawing the boundaries of the existing seven county Council divisions to achieve greater equality within the tight +10% window. Eastleigh 8 envisages there being eight divisions in Eastleigh and accordingly draws new boundaries, albeit as near as possible to existing arrangements. Both proposals are described below.

Because many of the divisions have the same name under both models, the Eastleigh divisions are described throughout as per this example:

 “Hamble” = current Hamble division  “Hamble7” = Hamble division as proposed under Eastleigh 7 model

HF 9349561 - FINAL 47 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 “Hamble8” = Hamble division as proposed under Eastleigh 8 model

The proposals for both Eastleigh 7 and Eastleigh 8 were co-ordinated by Councillor Keith House, the Member for Hamble.

4.3. Eastleigh 7 Proposal: Seven-division model

The seven-division model proposes a realignment of division boundaries throughout the borough to achieve greater electoral equality, and several new division names to reflect the proposed boundaries. The Eastleigh 7 proposal preserves natural communities as far as possible, but envisages the splitting of some parishes, which is regrettable but necessary if relative equality is to be achieved.

In the north of the borough the main pressure comes from Chandler’s Ford, which needs to increase to achieve a higher degree of equality. This means that it is necessary to shift the boundaries of the northern Eastleigh divisions to the east. In the south the main pressure emanates from West End and Hedge End Grange Park, where the forecast electorate in 2021 is 17.8% above the County Council average. Name changes to the divisions of Bishopstoke & Fair Oak, Eastleigh East, Eastleigh West and West End & Hedge End Grange Park are proposed.

4.4. Bishopstoke & Fair Oak

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,168 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers almost all of the area east of the River Itchen and north of the railway line, bordering Winchester district to the east. It is primarily made up of the villages of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath, which while adjacent to each other are considered separate communities. The main road through Bishopstoke and Fair Oak is the north-south B3354, which is a busy route that acts as a local alternative to the M3. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Bishopstoke East  Bishopstoke West  Fair Oak & Horton Heath

Pressures from elsewhere in the borough particularly Chandler’s Ford, which needs to grow to achieve a higher degree of equality, means that it is necessary to shift the boundaries of the northern Eastleigh divisions to the

HF 9349561 - FINAL 48 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

east. It is therefore proposed that the majority of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak be retained but that polling districts AB and AD be transferred to the proposed Eastleigh North and Bishopstoke West7 division.

Without some expansion to offset this, the Bishopstoke & Fair Oak Division will have a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well below the county average, increasing the pressure on other divisions. As the division is on the eastern edge of Eastleigh, it is not able to expand in this direction; nor can it expand south given that there is only open country between the existing division and the railway. It is therefore proposed to extend this division to encompass HP and HF polling districts from divisions to the southeast. This proposed extension follows the route of the B3354, which forms a natural link, and allows the remaining divisions in the borough to be brought within (or extremely close to) the +10% threshold.

To reflect these changes, it is proposed that this division be renamed Bishopstoke East, Fair Oak & Grange Park East7.

Proposal for Bishopstoke East, Fair Oak and Grange Park East7

 Move Bishopstoke West AB and AD to Eastleigh North & Bishopstoke West7 (-2,520)  Add Botley HP and Hedge End Grange Park HF (3,110)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,758 (+13.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.5. Botley & Hedge End

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,614 (+12.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the lower central part of the borough and encompasses the village of Botley, which is relatively small, and the town of Hedge End, which contains the majority of the division’s voters. The division is crossed by several significant travel corridors: the M27 in the west, the east-west A334, the B3354 mentioned above, and the Eastleigh-Fareham railway line. The River Hamble and Winchester district form a hard eastern boundary. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Botley  Hedge End St. John's  Hedge End Wildern

HF 9349561 - FINAL 49 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

This division is forecast to have an electorate slightly over the +10% variance threshold and it would be preferable to reduce it slightly. As described above, this can be achieved through the transfer of polling district Botley HP to another division. Otherwise this division retains a distinct identity and we propose to make no further changes.

Proposal for Botley & Hedge End7

 Move Botley HP to Bishopstoke East, Fair Oak & Grange Park East7 (- 642)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,972 (+8.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.6. Chandler's Ford

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,540 (-9.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division forms the north-western tip of Eastleigh borough. Chandler’s Ford has natural boundaries on all sides: it adjoins two other districts (Test Valley to the west and Winchester, with which it shares a Member of Parliament, to the north); the M3 runs down its eastern flank; and the Eastleigh-Romsey railway forms much of its southern boundary. The Chandler’s Ford area is distinct from Eastleigh town, featuring its own shops and services and a different mix of housing. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Chandler's Ford (East)  Hiltingbury East  Hiltingbury West

This is the only division in Eastleigh that is forecast to have an electorate in 2021 that is below the county average – indeed it is very close to the -10% threshold. Given the pressure elsewhere in the borough, it is therefore necessary to expand this division. A simple solution is proposed whereby the two westernmost polling districts in the Chandler’s Ford West ward are transferred into the Chandler’s Ford7 division.

Proposal for Chandler's Ford7

 Add Chandler’s Ford West CD and CE (+2,790)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,330 (+10.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 50 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.7. Eastleigh East

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,883 (+0.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is really the north-eastern, rather than eastern, section of Eastleigh town. It covers Eastleigh town centre including the railway station and yards, the western edge of Bishopstoke and the northern part of Eastleigh town as far as the M3. It is a mix of residential, retail and commercial/industrial areas whose defining feature is the South West Main Line, which enters from the north and splits after Eastleigh station. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Bishopstoke West  Eastleigh Central  Eastleigh North

This division is forecast to have an electorate almost exactly on the 2021 Hampshire average, so no change would be necessary were it not for pressures arising elsewhere, notably in Chandlers Ford. As seen above, it is proposed that two further polling districts from Bishopstoke be transferred into this division, bringing all four Bishopstoke West polling districts into the same division. To offset this it is proposed that Eastleigh DE be transferred out into a new Eastleigh South7 division, leaving a more logical north/south split in the town’s divisions and relieving pressure on other divisions. It also makes sense to use the Eastleigh-Fareham line as a southern boundary given the fact that there is no easy crossing-point. The revised electorate is close to the +10% variance threshold but as noted above this is to be expected given Eastleigh’s high average forecast electorate.

To reflect these changes, it is proposed that this division be renamed Eastleigh North & Bishopstoke West7.

Proposal for Eastleigh North & Bishopstoke West7

 Add Bishopstoke West AB and AD (+2,520)  Move Eastleigh DE to Eastleigh South7 (-1,198)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,205 (+9.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 51 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.8. Eastleigh West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,963 (+15.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is the south-western section of Eastleigh town and includes Southampton Airport, Lakeside Country Park, Fleming Park, the southernmost stretch of the M3 and residential areas to the west bordering Test Valley. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Chandler's Ford (West)  Eastleigh Central  Eastleigh South

Eastleigh West is forecast to have an electorate significantly above the 2021 Hampshire average, so it is necessary to reallocate some areas to other divisions. As seen above it is proposed that the two westernmost Chandler’s Ford West wards be transferred to the Chandler’s Ford7 division, which is a more logical community arrangement given that they are both in Chandler’s Ford parish, and to offset this by adding Eastleigh DE from the current Eastleigh East Division. It is considered that the net result is a more sensible division covering the entirety of the southern section of Eastleigh’s urban area.

To reflect these changes, it is proposed that this division be renamed Eastleigh South7.

Proposal for Eastleigh South7

 Transfer Chandler’s Ford West CD and CE to Chandler’s Ford7 division (-2,790)  Add Eastleigh DE (+1,198)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,371 (+3.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.9. Hamble

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,488 (+11.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the Hamble peninsula and has unbreachable boundaries on three sides: the River Hamble and Fareham district to the east, to the south and the city of Southampton to the west. Hamble division also has the M27 running through its northern section. The

HF 9349561 - FINAL 52 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

division therefore has a natural geographically determined shape, although its current boundary includes an anomalous sliver (Bursledon BD polling district) extending northwest towards West End, which is actually part of West End parish and was included within Hamble to achieve electoral quality in a previous review. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Bursledon & Old  Hamble-le-Rice & Butlocks Heath  Netley Abbey

Hamble is forecast to have an electorate above the 2021 Hampshire average, so it would be preferable to reallocate some areas to other divisions. This can be achieved be transferring the ‘West End sliver’ to a different division to the north, restoring the natural Hamble community boundary.

Proposal for Hamble7

 Transfer Bursledon Kanes Hill No. 4 (BD) to West End & Grange Park West7 (-649)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,839 (+7.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.10. West End & Hedge End Grange Park

2021 Electorate Forecast: 16,312 (+17.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division includes a long stretch of the M27 to the north of which is a large area of open country in the centre of Eastleigh borough, including Itchen Valley Country Park, and to the south the settlements of Townhill Farm and West End, which merge into the built-up area of the city of Southampton. It also includes the Ageas Bowl and the part of Hedge End immediately south of the Eastleigh-Fareham railway. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Hedge End Grange Park  West End North  West End South

West End & Hedge End Grange Park is forecast to have an electorate very significantly above the 2021 Hampshire average so it is necessary to transfer some 2,500 voters to other divisions. As noted above it is proposed that

HF 9349561 - FINAL 53 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Hedge End Grange Park HF polling district be transferred to the new Bishopstoke East, Fair Oak & Grange Park East7 division.

As also seen above, it is proposed that a much smaller number of voters in Bursledon BD polling district (the ‘West End sliver’) be added to this division. While this does not look necessarily logical on a simple map, Bursledon BD is actually part of West End parish and shares the same community links with Bitterne ward in Southampton. This unifies all of West End parish in one division. In addition, the M27 is a hard boundary and it is considered it makes more sense to include these voters in the West End Division, which is on the same side of the motorway, than over the road to the east.

To reflect these changes it is proposed that this division be renamed West End & Grange Park West7.

Proposal for West End and Grange Park West7

 Transfer Hedge End Grange Park (HF) to Bishopstoke East, Fair Oak & Grange Park East7 (-2,468)  Add Bursledon Kanes Hill No. 4 (BD) (+649)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,493 (+4.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.11. Proposals for Eastleigh – Eastleigh 7

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Bishopstoke East, 1 15,168 +9.5% 15,758 +13.8 % Fair Oak and Grange Park East7 Botley and Hedge 1 15,614 +12.8% 14,972 +8.1% End7 Chandler's Ford7 1 12,540 -9.4% 15,330 +10.7% Eastleigh North 1 13,883 +0.3% 15,205 +9.9% and Bishopstoke West7 Eastleigh South7 1 15,963 +15.3% 14,371 +3.8% Hamble7 1 15,488 +11.9% 14,839 +7.2% West End and 1 16,312 +17.8% 14,493 +4.7% Grange Park West7 Total 7 104,968 104,968

HF 9349561 - FINAL 54 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Eastleigh (7-division option)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 55 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.12. Eastleigh 8 Proposal: Eight-division model

The Eastleigh 8 model effectively creates a new division in the centre of the borough around the town of Hedge End, where three other divisions currently converge. This recognises the existence of Hedge End as a natural community and its continued growth over the next few years. As a result, there is a shrinking of the boundaries of the three current southern divisions, allowing for West End to be consolidated into one division.

Under the Eastleigh 8 model the north of the borough does not experience the eastward pressure that is a feature of the Eastleigh 7 model. However, the opportunity has still been taken to consolidate Bishopstoke in one division and give Eastleigh town a north-south split.

In terms of forecast electorate size, the expansion to eight divisions means that most of the new divisions would be below the county average of 13,846 voters in 2021, with only Hamble8 and Eastleigh South8 above average. Under the Eastleigh 8 model, all divisions are within the +/- 10% threshold with the exception of the proposed West End8 division (-18.8%), which is explained below.

Because this model proposes eight divisions rather than the current seven, it is difficult to compare existing and proposed new boundaries in a meaningful way. The comparisons below assume that the ‘extra’ division is the proposed Hedge End8 division, which is created from parts of other divisions that extend into the Hedge End community. The other seven proposed divisions use the existing division boundaries as a starting-point. No increase in the total number of County Councillors is assumed and the electorate variance is calculated against the same average as the Eastleigh 7 model i.e. 13,846 voters per Councillor.

4.13. Bishopstoke & Fair Oak8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,168 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the eight-division model the boundaries of the existing Bishopstoke & Fair Oak Division are shifted slightly to the west by transferring AI and AJ polling districts from Fair Oak to the proposed new Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park8 division, and adding AA and AC polling districts from the current Eastleigh East Division. This reunites all of Bishopstoke in one division, reunifying a split borough ward, along with the northern polling

HF 9349561 - FINAL 56 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

district from Fair Oak parish. The resulting division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below average but well within the +/- 10% threshold.

No name change is proposed for this division under the eight-division model.

Proposal for Bishopstoke and Fair Oak8

 Use existing Bishopstoke & Fair Oak division as a starting-point  Transfer polling districts Fair Oak & Horton Heath No. 2 (AI) and Fair Oak & Horton Heath No. 3 (AJ) to Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park8 (-4,526)  Add Bishopstoke North West No. 1 (AA) and Bishopstoke North West No. 2 (AC) (+2,292)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,934 (-6.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.14. Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,614 (+12.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the eight-division model this division consists of the AI and AJ polling districts from Bishopstoke & Fair Oak, the HN and HP polling districts from Botley & Hedge End, and the HF and HG polling districts from West End & Grange Park. This creates a division based on the eastern parts of the borough, linked by the B3354 Winchester Road corridor and major new development areas at Boorley Green and Horton Heath. The resulting division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below average but well within the +/-10% threshold.

Proposal for Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park8

 Use existing Botley & Hedge End division as a starting-point  Add polling districts Fair Oak & Horton Heath No. 2 (AI) and Fair Oak & Horton Heath No. 3 (AJ) (+4,526)  Add Hedge End Grange Park East (HF) and Hedge End Grange Park West (HG) (+5,722)  Transfer the following polling districts to the proposed Hedge End8 division: HA, HB, HC, HD, HE, HO (-12,827)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 57 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,035 (-5.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.15. Chandler's Ford8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,540 (-9.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the eight-division model this division remains the same as it is now, which has the benefit of continuity of representation and community identity. The division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below average but just within the +/-10% threshold.

Proposal for Chandler’s Ford8

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,540 (-9.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.16. Eastleigh North8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,883 (+0.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

As with the seven-division model, under the eight-division model the divisions for Eastleigh town are arranged more on a north-south than an east-west basis. The proposed Eastleigh North8 division consists of the existing Eastleigh East Division save the exclusion of two polling districts in Bishopstoke parish (as seen above) and the addition of DA polling district from the current Eastleigh West Division. This contains all of Eastleigh town in two divisions and repatriates two Bishopstoke parish polling districts to join the remainder of Bishopstoke. The division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below average but within the +/-10% threshold.

Proposal for Eastleigh North8

 Use existing Eastleigh East division as a starting-point  Transfer Bishopstoke North West No. 1 (AA) and Bishopstoke North West No. 2 (AC) to Bishopstoke & Fair Oak8 (-2,292)  Add Eastleigh Central No. 1 (DA) (+1,225)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 58 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,816 (-7.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.17. Eastleigh South8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,963 (+15.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the eight-division model this division consists of the existing Eastleigh West Division save the transfer of DA polling district to the proposed Eastleigh North8 Division. The proposed Eastleigh South8 Division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is above average but within the +/-10% threshold.

Proposal for Eastleigh South8

 Use existing Eastleigh West division as a starting-point  Transfer Eastleigh Central No. 1 (DA) to Eastleigh North8 (-1,225)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,738 (+6.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.18. Hamble8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,488 (+11.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the eight-division model this division consists of the existing Hamble Division save for the exclusion of BD polling district (the ‘West End sliver’ described above) and BA polling district north of the M27. This retains the three southern parishes within one division save for a small portion of Bursledon parish, with the motorway forming an appropriate northern boundary. The proposed Hamble8 Division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is very close to the Hampshire average.

Proposal for Hamble8

 Use existing Hamble division as a starting-point  Transfer Bursledon Kanes Hill No. 4 (BD) to West End8 (-649)  Transfer the part of Bursledon No. 1 (BA) north of the M27 to Hedge End8 (-591)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 59 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,248 (+2.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.19. Hedge End8

2021 Electorate Forecast: N/A (‘extra’ division)

Under the Eastleigh 8 model this division consists of the western half of the existing Botley & Hedge End Division (Hedge End Grange Park Ward) and the part of BA polling district north of the M27 from the current Hamble Division. This allows for the urban area of Hedge End outside of Grange Park to be one division. The addition of part of BA polling district would have the benefit of assisting Eastleigh Borough Council in its review of polling districts, uniting a new development area and allowing more local voting in this area. The proposed Hedge End8 Division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly below the Hampshire average of 13,846 voters per Councillor.

Proposal for Hedge End8

 ‘Extra’ division based around Hedge End community  Include the following polling districts from the current Botley & Hedge End Division: HA, HB, HC, HD, HE, HO (+12,827)  Include the part of Bursledon No. 1 (BA) north of the M27 (+591)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,418 (-3.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.20. West End8

2021 Electorate Forecast: 16,312 (+17.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

Under the Eastleigh 8 model this division consists of the part of the existing West End and Grange Park Division that is West End parish, with the exclusion of Hedge End Grange Park Ward and the addition of BD polling district from Hamble Division. This allows for West End parish to be one complete division. The proposed West End8 Division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well below the Hampshire average, but it is locally expected that further development not currently reflected in our forecasts will come forward in the medium term.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 60 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for West End8

 Use existing West End & Hedge End Grange Park Division as a starting-point  Transfer Hedge End Grange Park East (HF) and Hedge End Grange Park West (HG) to Botley, Fair Oak South & Grange Park8 (-5,722)  Add Bursledon Kanes Hill No. 4 (BD) (+649)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 11,239 (-18.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

4.21. Proposals for Eastleigh – Eastleigh 8

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Bishopstoke & 1 15,168 +9.5% 12,934 -6.6% Fair Oak8 Botley, Fair Oak 1 15,614 +12.8% 13,035 -5.9% South & Grange Park8 Chandler's Ford8 1 12,540 -9.4% 12,540 -9.4% Eastleigh North8 1 13,883 +0.3% 12,816 -7.4% Eastleigh South8 1 15,963 +15.3% 14,738 +6.4% Hamble8 1 15,488 +11.9% 14,248 +2.9% Hedge End8 1 N/A N/A 13,418 -3.1% West End8 1 16,312 +17.8% 11,239 -18.8% Total 8 104,968 104,968

HF 9349561 - FINAL 61 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Eastleigh (8-division option)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 62 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

4.22. Commentary on Proposals for Eastleigh

As indicated at Paragraph 4.2 of this submission, there is not a universally favoured option for Eastleigh.

It is understood that the reason for the Eight-division proposal is that if the distribution of County Councillors across Districts were to be proportional to each District’s share of registered electors in 2021 in numerical terms, Eastleigh would have 7.6 County Councillors, that is 8 when rounded up rather than the current 7, and that an eight-division model would therefore better satisfy the first of the three strategy criteria the Commission is required to have regard to in exercise of its judgement on Electoral Division Patterns. It is however recognised that any proposal of the County Council should have regard to all three statutory criteria and it is therefore considered, in light of the Commission’s guidance, that it would be inappropriate to put forward any submission in respect of individual Electoral Division Patterns on numerical data alone.

The County Council is also mindful of the Commission’s ‘minded to’ recommendation that the County Council should remain at 78 County Councillors, and the County Council has based its submission on proposed Electoral Division Patterns across the Districts of the County Council overall having regard to the three statutory criteria, working within a Council size of 78 Members. Having regard to the three statutory criteria, the view is that a seven-division model in Eastleigh is the best fit in the allocation of County Councillors overall, and is consistent with the Commission’s decision on Council Size.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 63 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

5. Fareham

5.1. About Fareham

The is a coastal, mainly urban district lying between the cities of Southampton and Portsmouth. The largest settlements are Fareham town, Portchester, and , with a large new development planned at Welborne, north of Fareham town. The district also includes , a well-known nature reserve and the point where the flows out to the Solent. Fareham borders the River Hamble to the west, Winchester district to the north and Gosport to the south and has a short boundary with Portsmouth to the east. The district is unparished.

The principal road corridors through Fareham are the east-west M27, the parallel A27 further south and the A32, which runs north to Alton and south to Gosport. Fareham is the sole through-route for commuting into/out of Gosport, which together with high traffic flows along the motorway mean that routes through Fareham can be congested. There are local rail connections to Eastleigh, Southampton, Portsmouth and Brighton.

Fareham has strong economic links with Portsmouth and many people who work in Portsmouth live in Fareham. The Solent Enterprise Zone at the former naval airfield HMS Daedalus lies mainly within Fareham. This is a significant commercial development which is expected to bring 3,500 jobs into the borough by 2025.

The population of Fareham in 2015 is around 114,000. Development in Fareham in recent times has been spread all over the borough. Stubbington grew substantially after the Second World War but elsewhere in the borough the environmental constraints around Titchfield, the various water boundaries and the nature of the Gosport peninsula have meant that development has been slower than in many other parts of the county. As a result the average electorate in Fareham is lower than the Hampshire average.

However, a significant change to the number and distribution of Fareham’s voters in the medium term will come in the form of a new town planned to be built at Welborne. This site is to the north of Fareham town, over the M27 near junction 10, and is located within the Fareham Town division. The first tranche of 1,000 homes is projected to be completed by 2021.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 64 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Fareham

HF 9349561 - FINAL 65 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

5.2. County Council Divisions in Fareham

There are currently seven County Councillors from Fareham, five representing single-Member divisions and two representing a joint division.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Fareham Crofton 1 11,729 -10.3% 11,665 -15.8% Fareham Portchester 1 14,491 +10.8% 14,117 +2.0% Fareham Sarisbury 1 12,026 -8.1% 13,456 -2.8% Fareham Titchfield 1 11,759 -10.1% 11,641 -15.9% Fareham Town 2 27,946 +6.8% 30,883 +11.5% Fareham Warsash 1 11,188 -14.5% 11,214 -19.0% Total 7 89,139 92,976

Of the six divisions only Fareham Portchester and Fareham Sarisbury are forecast to fall within the +/-10% variance threshold. Fareham Town has a projected 2021 electorate more than 10% in excess of the Hampshire average while the electorates in Fareham Crofton, Titchfield and Warsash are projected to be more than 10% below. The proposals address this imbalance between the divisions by expanding Warsash and Titchfield to the east at the expense of Fareham Town. The proposed new pattern of divisions would leave all the divisions in Fareham with a 2021 electorate variance well within the 10% tolerance with the exception of Fareham Crofton which, as explained below, we propose should remain as it is on the grounds of community identity.

No changes to the names of any Fareham divisions are proposed (but see Fareham Crofton below).

The proposals for Fareham were co-ordinated by Councillor Peter Latham, one of the two Members for Fareham Town, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Fareham County Councillors.

5.3. Fareham Crofton

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,665 (-15.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-eastern section of the borough including the large coastal village of Stubbington (which now incorporates old settlements including Crofton and ), the Maritime Warfare School at HMS

HF 9349561 - FINAL 66 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Collingwood and the Solent Enterprise Zone at HMS Daedalus. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Hill Head  Stubbington

Fareham Crofton is forecast to have an electorate significantly below the 2021 Hampshire average so in normal circumstances it would be desirable to enlarge the division into other areas. However, no obvious solution presents itself as the community is physically isolated and there are constraints to expansion on all sides. Councillor Latham comments:

“Stubbington and Hill Head (the Crofton division) is a community set apart from the rest of the borough. Its boundaries are clearly defined by the sea to the south, Gosport to the east, a strategic gap and a possible Stubbington by-pass to the north and open fields towards Titchfield in the west. It has its own small town with excellent shopping facilities, a community centre, sports pitches, churches and a vibrant medical practice. It has a strong identity and community spirit which is separate from the rest of the borough. I have consulted with the local Member and he agrees with this assessment.”

Given these strong reasons, Fareham Crofton is regarded as a natural geographic exception to the -10% threshold and no changes are proposed to its boundaries.

Councillor Chris Wood, the current Member for Fareham Crofton, proposed that the name of Fareham Crofton should be changed to Stubbington & Hill Head. This was not supported by other Fareham Members and therefore this proposal is not recommended.

Proposal for Fareham Crofton

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 11,665 (-15.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.4. Fareham Portchester

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,117 (+2.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the eastern section of the borough. It is bounded by Hill to the north, adjoins the city of Portsmouth to the east and forms the northern shore of . The M27 runs along its northern edge and the A27 through the middle of the division. The division

HF 9349561 - FINAL 67 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

currently includes the following wards:

 Portchester East  Portchester West

Fareham Portchester is forecast to have an electorate just above the 2021 Hampshire average so no change is strictly necessary to achieve electoral equality. However, within the division is a residential area north of Cams Hall clearly defined by Down End Road, the A27, the slipway from the motorway and fields to the north. This area merges into Fareham Town and, Members believe, shares no interest or identity with Portchester. The facilities used by the residents of this area are far more likely to be in Fareham Town than Portchester. If this and the other changes to Fareham Town are agreed (see below), both Fareham Town and Portchester will have a forecast electorate almost exactly equal to the Hampshire average.

It is therefore proposed that this area should transfer from Portchester into Fareham Town, a proposal which is supported by the current Member for Fareham Portchester.

Proposal for Fareham Portchester

 Transfer part of polling district PW4 defined by Down End Road, the A27, the slipway from the motorway and the fields to the north to Fareham Town (-508)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,609 (-1.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.5. Fareham Sarisbury

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,456 (-2.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the north-western section of the borough including various smaller settlements such as Swanwick, and Sarisbury. The National Air traffic Control service is based in Swanwick. Fareham Sarisbury is divided by both the M27 and the Portsmouth-Southampton railway running east-west in parallel through the central section. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Sarisbury

Fareham Sarisbury is forecast to have an electorate only just below the 2021 Hampshire average so no changes are necessary to achieve electoral

HF 9349561 - FINAL 68 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

equality. The area has a distinct identity and given the constraints imposed by the River Hamble and the district border with Winchester no changes are proposed to the division boundary.

Proposal for Fareham Sarisbury

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,456 (-2.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.6. Fareham Titchfield

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,641 (-15.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the central section of Fareham and is centred around the village of Titchfield, with built-up areas to the west and east, Titchfield Abbey to the north and Titchfield Haven to the south. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Titchfield Common  Titchfield

Like Fareham Crofton, Fareham Titchfield is forecast to have an electorate significantly below the 2021 Hampshire average, but its connections to other built-up areas do not merit a similar exception being applied. To achieve electoral equality it is necessary to transfer polling districts from western Fareham Town into Titchfield, and others from western Titchfield into Warsash (see below). FW2, FW3 and FW4 adjoin the current built-up area in Fareham Titchfield and it is believed that this solution does not infringe community identity.

Proposal for Fareham Titchfield

 Add polling districts FW2, FW3 and FW4 (+3,919)  Transfer polling districts TC3 and TC4 into Fareham Warsash (-2,455)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,105 (-5.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.7. Fareham Town

2021 Electorate Forecast: 30,883 (+11.5% against Hampshire average)

This two-Member division covers both the main urban area of Fareham town and the large rural area north of the M27 that bulges into Winchester district,

HF 9349561 - FINAL 69 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

which is the site of the future Welborne development. The M27 runs through Fareham Town with the A27 running in parallel and linking with the A32 from Gosport to join the motorway at junction 11. Fareham Town is served by two railway lines linking it with Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Fareham East  Fareham North West  Fareham North  Fareham South  Fareham West

Fareham Town is forecast to have an electorate some way above the 2021 Hampshire average, in excess of the +10% threshold. As described above, to achieve electoral equality it is necessary to transfer polling districts from Fareham Town westwards into Titchfield.

As part of this process we have re-examined whether Fareham Town should continue to be a two-Member division. The arrangement has worked well over the past ten years, and Members believe that we should maintain the status quo in the town rather than draw an arbitrary line through the middle of it, or from north to south or east to west. There is also significant change coming with the development of Welborne so some stability in terms of representation would be helpful. No changes are therefore proposed to this arrangement.

Proposal for Fareham Town

 Transfer polling districts FW2, FW3 and FW4 into Fareham Titchfield (-3,919)  Add part of polling district PW4 defined by Down End Road, the A27, the slipway from the motorway and the fields to the north (+508)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 27,472 (-0.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.8. Fareham Warsash

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,214 (-19.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-western section of the borough and includes Warsash and the central part of Locks Heath as well as a large area of open country and farmland fronting the Solent. The division currently includes the

HF 9349561 - FINAL 70 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

following wards:

 Locks Heath  Warsash

Fareham Warsash is forecast to have an electorate very significantly below the 2021 Hampshire average, so (as described above) to achieve electoral equality it is necessary to add polling districts from Titchfield. TC3 and TC4 adjoin the current built-up area in Fareham Warsash and it is believed that this solution does not infringe community identity.

Proposal for Fareham Warsash

 Add polling districts TC3 and TC4 (+2,455)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,669 (-1.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

5.9. Proposals for Fareham

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Fareham Crofton 1 11,665 -15.8% 11,665 -15.8% Fareham 1 14,117 +2.0% 13,609 -1.7% Portchester Fareham Sarisbury 1 13,456 -2.8% 13,456 -2.8% Fareham Titchfield 1 11,641 -15.9% 13,105 -5.4% Fareham Town 2 30,883 +11.5% 27,472 -0.8% Fareham Warsash 1 11,214 -19.0% 13,669 -1.3% Total 7 92,976 92,976

HF 9349561 - FINAL 71 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Fareham

Proposed division boundaries shown are approximate, based on polling district boundaries mapped using the best information available from Fareham Borough Council

HF 9349561 - FINAL 72 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

6. Gosport

6.1. About Gosport

Gosport Borough is the smallest district in Hampshire and unique in being a peninsula. Gosport has a long and continuing association with the Armed Forces and its strategic position at the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour means that it has for centuries been associated with marine activity, particularly Portsmouth’s Naval Base. HMS Dolphin at Fort Blockhouse was an active submarine base between 1904 and 1998. The activity associated with the Navy has declined over a long period and many naval installations, such as Fort Brockhurst, have been opened to the public as tourism and heritage sites. The harbour area has been redeveloped as a marina.

Gosport has long suffered from inward access problems dictated by its peninsular geography. Following the loss of many naval jobs, there is now significant car-based commuting out of Gosport, causing congestion particularly along the A32 and Newgate Lane. A branch railway for passengers ran from Fareham to central Gosport until 1953 but this line was downgraded to a freight line and then closed in 1969. Part of the route is now being developed as an express bus corridor. Gosport is now the largest town in Britain without an operational railway station but the town benefits from a frequent ferry link to Portsmouth city, Portsmouth Harbour station and the Gunwharf Quays retail centre. It is expected that the redevelopment of HMS Daedalus, whose southern part is in Gosport, as an Enterprise Zone will being much-needed local employment.

There are no parishes in Gosport but each division has community associations that readily identify with their areas and promote activity. Gosport offers many marine-related leisure activities and as a low-lying peninsula is extremely popular among cyclists and walkers, with fine views towards the Solent. The borough has one of the highest rates of cycle commuting in the country.

Gosport has a population of 83,000 in 2015. Some areas in the borough are among the most deprived in Hampshire, featuring relatively high unemployment, lower educational attainment and poorer health. New development is constrained by a number of physical factors, principally lack of supply of suitable land. During the last 50 years there has been considerable expansion of the urban area; but the remaining open space, much of it still in Ministry of Defence ownership, is a finite resource that is highly valued by local residents and visitors.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 73 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Gosport

HF 9349561 - FINAL 74 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

6.2. County Council Divisions in Gosport

There are currently five County Councillors from Gosport, three representing single-Member divisions and two representing a joint division. Gosport’s physical constraints mean that development has been limited in recent years, and the average division electorate is therefore smaller in Gosport than in other districts.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Bridgemary 1 12,473 -4.6% 12,092 -12.7% Hardway 1 11,232 -14.1% 11,215 -19.0% Lee 1 13,556 +3.6% 14,404 +4.0% Leesland & Town 2 25,115 -4.0% 27,316 -1.4% Total 5 62,376 65,027

The County Council’s proposals for Gosport are driven by the need to bring Bridgemary and Hardway divisions up to an acceptable size in terms of electoral equality. Relatively simple transfers of polling districts from the other two divisions bring all four forecast electorates within 10% of the county average – although all four are below the Hampshire average of 13,846 voters per Councillor. No changes to division names or the two-member arrangement in Leesland & Town are proposed.

The proposals for Gosport were co-ordinated by Councillor Chris Carter, one of the two Members for Leesland & Town, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Gosport County Councillors other than Councillor Peter Chegwyn, the Member for Hardway, who stated that he believes Leesland & Town should no longer be a two-Member division.

6.3. Bridgemary

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,092 (-12.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the northern part of the borough and adjoins Portsmouth Harbour and Fareham borough. The busy A32 runs through the centre of Bridgemary, separating residential areas in the west from commercial land in the east. The division currently includes the following wards:

HF 9349561 - FINAL 75 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Bridgemary North  Bridgemary South  Peel Common  Rowner and Holbrook (56%)

Bridgemary has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well below the Hampshire average and it is necessary to add some voters to this division. Bridgemary is bounded by Fareham borough to the north and west and by Ministry of Defence land and commercial development to the east, but a natural solution lies to the south. It is proposed that Rowner & Holbrook ward be unified by transferring the 44% of that ward currently in Lee Division to Bridgemary.

Proposal for Bridgemary

 Add polling districts Rowner and Holbrook GP3 and GP4 (+1,396)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,488 (-2.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

6.4. Hardway

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,215 (-19.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the area to the north of Gosport town centre and includes the historic naval forts of Brockhurst and Elson. Hardway including Elson is a very distinct, long-established area of Gosport which has seen development in the waterfront area. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Elson  Forton  Hardway

Hardway has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is very significantly below the Hampshire average and it is necessary to add some voters to this division. Hardway is bounded by Ministry of Defence land to the north and Portsmouth Harbour on the eastern side, with Forton Road forming a south-western boundary. Given the need for Bridgemary to expand, there is no option of expanding to the north. However, a natural solution in the south is to add Leesland GM1 and Brockhurst GE1 polling districts from Leesland & Town Division, both of which feature sections of Forton Road as an identifiable boundary. The proposal to bring polling districts south of Forton Road into Hardway division reflects the fact that there is a natural community on both

HF 9349561 - FINAL 76 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

sides of this road that is brought together, rather than divided, by the road. It is believed that the new arrangement will be more logical for local community groups.

Proposal for Hardway

 Add polling districts Leesland GM1 and Brockhurst GE1 (+2,349)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,564 (-2.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

6.5. Lee

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,404 (+4.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the western part of Gosport borough including the geographically separate town of Lee-on-Solent. Lee features a nature reserve, a long stretch of coast looking out to the and the southern portion of the Daedalus Enterprise Zone. With adjacent open space there is a natural boundary between Lee and the Privett area of Gosport. The area is well served by community groups who readily identify with activity in the area. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Grange  Lee East  Lee West  Rowner & Holbrook (44%)

Lee has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly above the Hampshire average and it is not necessary to add voters to achieve equality. As seen above, however, there is a need for Bridgemary to expand and it is proposed that polling districts Rowner and Holbrook GP3 and GP4 be transferred to that division.

Proposal for Lee

 Transfer polling districts Rowner and Holbrook GP3 and GP4 to Bridgemary (-1,396)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,008 (-6.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 77 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

6.6. Leesland & Town

2021 Electorate Forecast: 27,316 (-1.4% against Hampshire average)

This two-Member division covers the western part of Gosport Borough including all of the town centre, the village of Alverstoke, Haslar Creek and the southern coastline. The eastern edges form part of the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour and a busy ferry service crosses the Harbour from Town ward. The division is bounded on three sides by Portsmouth Harbour and the Solent which with the A32 road form effective boundaries. The Town area is readily identified by residents as the focal area of Gosport as this includes the Gosport Borough Council offices, the County Discovery Centre, and many other facilities including a twice-weekly market. There are a variety of community groups across the division including the centrally-located Gosport community centre.

The division currently includes the following wards:

 Alverstoke  Anglesey  Brockhurst  Christchurch  Leesland  Privett  Town

Leesland & Town has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is just above the Hampshire average and it is not necessary to add voters to achieve equality. As seen above, however, there is a need for Hardway to expand and we therefore propose to transfer polling districts Leesland GM1 and Brockhurst GE1 to that division. This leaves Leesland & Town just within the -10% variance, but this is more acceptable than it would be with a normal division as Leesland & Town has two Members covering nearly 25,000 voters.

As part of this process it has been re-examined whether Leesland & Town should continue to be a two-Member division, an arrangement introduced as part of a previous boundary review. A combination of factors – the geography of the Gosport peninsula, the pattern of residential development across Gosport, and the very large sites in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence – mean that it is not possible to split the division without producing a significant negative variance in one of the two divisions of well below -10%. In addition to this consideration, the two relevant Councillors believe that having two Members works well for the division. We therefore propose no

HF 9349561 - FINAL 78 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

change to this arrangement (although see above regarding Councillor Chegwyn’s view).

Proposal for Leesland & Town

 Transfer polling districts polling districts Leesland GM1 and Brockhurst GE1 to Hardway (-2,349)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 24,967 (-9.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

6.7. Proposals for Gosport

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Bridgemary 1 12,092 -12.7% 13,488 -2.6% Hardway 1 11,215 -19.0% 13,564 -2.0% Lee 1 14,404 +4.0% 13,008 -6.1% Leesland & Town 2 27,316 -1.4% 24,967 -9.8% Total 5 65,027 65,027

HF 9349561 - FINAL 79 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Gosport

HF 9349561 - FINAL 80 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

7. Hart

7.1. About Hart

Hart is a medium-sized district in the north-east of Hampshire. It is classified by the Government as rural but features some sizeable settlements including Fleet, Hook and Yateley. The district is split by two very busy strategic travel corridors connecting the South West to London: the M3 and the South West Main Line. To the north and south, however, most of the district is forested or farmed, and has much in common with other rural districts in Hampshire.

In economic and travel terms Hart ‘faces’ as much east towards Farnborough, Surrey and London as west and south towards Hampshire. The is a local micro-economy that encompasses several towns from the Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire borders, including Yateley. Historically residential development was mainly focused on the east-west travel corridor. Winchfield was the original terminus of the South West Main Line and was promoted by the railway company as a destination for day excursions from London, which then attracted many people to live in the area. The M3 through Hart opened in the 1970s and this attracted further development along the corridor, particularly in Fleet and Hook.

The population of Hart in 2015 is around 94,000. Residents of Hart are regularly listed as being among the most healthy and prosperous in the country on a range of indicators. Quality of life indicators including employment, income, access to leisure facilities and physical health are high in Hart. With easy commuting to London, average house prices are the highest in Hampshire and over 26,000 people commute out of Hart daily.

Demand for housing in Hart is strong and developers have brought forward a number of major developments in recent years including Elvetham Heath, Queen Elizabeth Barracks and proposals for a new Garden Community around Winchfield. Partly due to this, County Council divisions in Hart have a high average forecast electorate compared to other districts in Hampshire.

Hart has long-standing and thriving connections with both the Army and the Royal Air Force. The district includes a number of current and former military establishments including RAF Odiham, the RAF’s Chinook helicopter base, and Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Church Crookham. Proximity to other major military establishments outside its boundaries, such as , Sandhurst and Aldershot, means that Hart is also home to many servicemen and women and companies supplying products and services to the military.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 81 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Hart

HF 9349561 - FINAL 82 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

7.2. County Council Divisions in Hart

There are currently five County Councillors from Hart, each representing one division, and it is proposed that this continues to be the case.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Church Crookham & 1 13,655 4.4% 15,162 +9.5% Ewshot Fleet 1 15,807 +20.8% 16,703 +20.6% Hartley Wintney, 1 13,858 +5.9% 13,984 +1.0% Eversley & Yateley West Odiham 1 13,605 +4.0% 15,717 +13.5% Yateley East, 1 13,764 +5.2% 13,684 -1.2% Blackwater & Ancells Total 5 70,689 75,250

The average electorate in Hart is 15,050, only 180 voters below the +10% variance threshold, so there are tight constraints on any proposals for a new pattern of divisions. The County Council’s proposals do not radically redraw the map as we found that this approach caused greater division of communities than exists at present; instead it is proposed to adjust the boundaries of existing divisions sufficiently to bring all the electorates within the +10% threshold except Fleet (marginally over at +10.1%). The County Council has tried to match as best we can the natural communities in the district, and in fact a number of the changes reunite parishes or wards that were split in previous boundary reviews. There are two options for achieving the transfer of voters from Fleet to Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells, and these are explained below, including the County Council’s preferred option.

It is proposed that the names of two divisions (Odiham and Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells) be changed to reflect the changed boundaries.

The proposals for Hart were co-ordinated by Councillor Adrian Collett, the Member for Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Hart County Councillors.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 83 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

7.3. Church Crookham & Ewshot

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,162 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern part of the built-up area of Fleet town, Crookham village in the west and wooded areas separating Fleet and Aldershot in the east. In the middle of the division lies Queen Elizabeth Barracks which is a major development area. The A287 - Basingstoke road runs through the lower part of Church Crookham & Ewshot. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Crookham East  Crookham West & Ewshot (94%)  Fleet Central (22%)

Church Crookham & Ewshot has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well above the Hampshire average and only just within the +10% threshold. Although this division contains part of Fleet (which is too large for one division) the boundary between the two divisions in the built-up area is the Basingstoke Canal, which is well recognised and understood locally. The more rural parishes of Crookham Village and Ewshot both look naturally towards Church Crookham. For these reasons together with the pressures elsewhere in the district and the recognised communities that exist within Church Crookham & Ewshot, it is proposed that no changes be made to the boundaries of this division.

Proposal for Church Crookham & Ewshot

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,162 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

7.4. Fleet

2021 Electorate Forecast: 16,703 (+20.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers Fleet town centre including the main shopping area, district council offices and train station, and also the modern settlement of Elvetham Heath between the railway and the M3, which forms a hard northern boundary. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Crookham West & Ewshot (6%)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 84 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Fleet Central (78%)  Fleet East (68%)  Fleet West

Fleet has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is very significantly above the Hampshire average and it is necessary to reduce the geographical size of the division to bring it within or near to the +10% threshold. Two options for transferring some voters from Fleet into Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells, which has a forecast electorate just below the Hampshire average, have been examined. Both options involve a similar number of voters and there are arguments for and against each one.

Option A envisages moving 1,457 voters from the eastern half of Elvetham Heath parish.

In favour of Option A is the argument that it reflects the centre of historic Fleet, with the Basingstoke Canal for the southern boundary and the railway line for most of the northern boundary. Elvetham Heath and Ancells are both relatively new developments and have a natural connection at a to the East with Yateley and to the West with Fleet. Both Ancells and Elvetham Heath have their own shops, community centres and pubs. Against Option A is the fact that Elvetham Heath parish and Fleet West Ward would both have to be split.

Option A is supported by the Member for Fleet, Councillor Sharyn Wheale, and Fleet Town Council.

Option B envisages moving 1,453 voters from the northern half of Pondtail ward.

In favour of Option B is the argument that Pondtail is part of the same Fleet East Ward as Ancells, unlike Elvetham Heath which is in Fleet West, and Fleet parish is already divided into polling districts. Against Option B is the fact that Pondtail has a strong urban identity within Fleet, both historically and today. Pondtail is convenient and closely accessible to the town centre by a good network of roads, and is aligned with all the facilities within close walking distance to Fleet town centre. Elvetham Heath and Ancells are both separated from Fleet by a busy railway line and Ancells is also separated from Pondtail by Fleet Pond, a natural lake. There is no obvious division between the remaining part of Pondtail or between Pondtail and Fleet.

Option B is supported by Elvetham Heath Parish Council.

On balance the County Council recommends Option A as being the most logical but, if the Commission should be reluctant to split Elvetham Heath parish, Option B is considered acceptable as the fall back position.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 85 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Fleet

 Transfer the eastern half of Elvetham Heath parish into Yateley East Blackwater & Ancells (-1,457)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,246 (+10.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

7.5. Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,984 (+1.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This large rural division covers the northern part of Hart, bordering Berkshire. There are two main settlements: the large village of Hartley Wintney and the western half of the town of Yateley, which is split into two wards. The M3 forms a good part of the southern boundary and the A30 runs through the centre of the division. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Hartley Wintney (92%)  Yateley East (11%)  Yateley West

Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is only just above the Hampshire average and no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality in this division, but there are pressures arising elsewhere in the district that need addressing. It is therefore proposed that the whole of Winchfield parish, which is the 8% of the Hartley Wintney District Ward currently within the Odiham Division, be added, to unite it with the rest of the Hartley Wintney Ward. This proposal has unanimous local support.

It is also proposed that the boundary between the Yateley Lakes and Yateley Centre polling districts be moved back to the historic Mill Lane boundary. These are polling districts within the same parish and the move will have little impact on community identity.

Adding Winchfield parish unites the whole of the largely rural Hartley Wintney District Ward into the same county division, whilst changing the eastern boundary of the Yateley Lakes polling district in Yateley to Mill Lane goes back to a long-established boundary, which existed for many years, instead of dividing the Firglen Drive estate down the middle. As the north-western division of Hart, the Hartley Wintney, Eversley and Yateley parishes all share connections via the A30.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 86 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Finally it is proposed to make a minor amendment to the south-western boundary with Odiham Division to reflect recently changed parish boundaries.

Proposal for Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West

 Add Hartley Wintney (8%) from Odiham (+539)  Move the boundary between the Yateley Lakes and Yateley Centre polling districts within the Yateley Village Ward to Mill Lane (+236)  Realign the divisional boundary to the new Rotherwick/Mattingley parish boundary following the recent parish review (+15)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,774 (+6.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

7.6. Odiham

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,717 (+13.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This is another large rural division with only two main settlements: the village of Odiham, which adjoins the RAF Chinook base, and the town of Hook, which has a station on the South West Main Line and is the UK headquarters for large employers including Virgin Media and Hewlett-Packard. A substantial new ‘garden community’ development around Winchfield is now being proposed. The A287 provides a good connection between Hook, Odiham and Crondall. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Hartley Wintney (8%)  Hook  Odiham

Odiham has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is significantly above the Hampshire average and it is necessary to reduce the geographical size of the division to bring it within or near to the +10% threshold.

With the proposed transfer of Winchfield parish to the Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West Division (described above), this division will neatly comprise the two district wards of Odiham and Hook. It therefore makes sense to rename the division Odiham & Hook to reflect that the division is centred on Odiham, but also that a significant proportion of the population of the division live in Hook, and to reflect the two district council wards.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 87 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

As described above, it is also proposed to make a minor amendment to the south-western boundary with Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West division to reflect recently changed parish boundaries.

Proposal for Odiham & Hook

 Winchfield parish to Hartley Wintney, Eversley & Yateley West (-539)  Realign the divisional boundary to the new Rotherwick/Mattingley parish boundary following the recent parish review (-15)  Rename division Odiham & Hook

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,163 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

7.7. Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,684 (-1.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the north-eastern tip of and has a mixed geography and settlement pattern. North of the A30 and along the eastern edge it is built up and merges into the Blackwater Valley shared with Berkshire and Surrey. The central section is rural while south of the M3 the division includes a part of the Fleet area and the Pyestock military research centre. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Blackwater & Hawley  Fleet East (32%)  Yateley East (89%)

Yateley East, Blackwater & Ancells has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is just under the Hampshire average and no change to its boundary is strictly necessary. However, as described above, it is proposed that i) the eastern half of Elvetham Heath be moved into this division to create a more equal balance with Fleet division and ii) that the boundary between the Yateley Lakes and Yateley Centre polling districts be moved back to the historic Mill Lane boundary. To reflect these changes it is proposed that this division be renamed Yateley East, Blackwater & North East Fleet.

These changes would benefit this division as follows: Fleet Railway Station is the closest station to Yateley, which is the second largest town in Hampshire (after Gosport) without a functioning railway station. Fleet is also the main shopping town for Hart District and is where the District Council Offices are located. The proposed new boundaries of this north-eastern division of Hart therefore reflect well established connections. Ancells has long established links with Blackwater & Hawley parish, with half of the estate having been in

HF 9349561 - FINAL 88 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

the parish until a boundary change a few years ago. On the existing boundary Ancells is the only part of Hart within this division, but these proposals will mean that it would no longer be alone, with everything north of the railway line and east of Turner's Wood united into one division.

Proposal for Yateley East, Blackwater & North East Fleet

 Add the eastern half of Elvetham Heath parish (+1,457)  Move the boundary between the Yateley Lakes and Yateley Centre polling districts within the Yateley Village ward to Mill Lane (-236)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,905 (+7.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

7.8. Proposals for Hart

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Church Crookham 1 15,162 +9.5% 15,162 +9.5% & Ewshot Fleet 1 16,703 +20.6% 15,246 +10.1% Hartley Wintney, 1 13,984 +1.0% 14,774 +6.7% Eversley & Yateley West Odiham & Hook 1 15,717 +13.5% 15,163 +9.5% Yateley East, 1 13,684 -1.2% 14,905 +7.6% Blackwater & North East Fleet Total 5 75,250 75,250

HF 9349561 - FINAL 89 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Hart

HF 9349561 - FINAL 90 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

8. Havant

8.1. About Havant

Havant Borough is the south-easternmost district in Hampshire, adjoining West Sussex and the city of Portsmouth. While relatively small in geographical terms, Havant has a significant population (123,000 in 2015) and plays a major role in the economy of this area of the county.

Due to its position between Portsmouth, Petersfield and Chichester, Havant has long been the crossing-point of two major corridors, both of which have determined the shape of today’s road and rail networks. The north-south route between Portsmouth and London passes through Havant in the form of the A3/A3(M) and the Portsmouth Line railway, giving good access to Surrey and London Waterloo. Meanwhile the east-west coastal M27/A27 route passes through the middle of the borough en-route between and Chichester/Brighton. Major road and rail routes and junctions are therefore a defining feature of Havant’s economic geography.

The borough is made up of three distinct areas, each with their own character and with natural boundaries between them:  Hayling Island, separated from the rest of the borough by Langstone and Chichester Harbours  The area west of the A3(M) centred around Waterlooville  The area east of the A3(M), covering three different communities (Emsworth, Havant and Bedhampton) plus the Leigh Park estate

Development in Havant has happened over a long period but there was a sharp increase after the Second World War when agricultural land north of Havant town was redeveloped into the Leigh Park estate. This large residential area was created to house Portsmouth residents whose homes had been destroyed by bombing. Other areas have also been developed and Waterlooville and Havant in particular are now large urban settlements.

Havant is a varied borough and there are many contrasts between, for example, the urban centres on the mainland and the pastoral centre of Hayling Island. Some parts of Havant, notably the Leigh Park area but also parts of Waterlooville, show relatively high levels of deprivation. The borough’s position on two harbours means that marine leisure activities are a central part of the local economy, with Hayling Island being a renowned centre for windsurfing and a Lifeboat Station.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 91 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Havant

HF 9349561 - FINAL 92 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

8.2. County Council Divisions in Havant

There are currently seven County Councillors from Havant, five representing single-Member divisions and two representing a joint division.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Bedhampton & Leigh 2 26,602 +1.7% 27,193 -1.8% Park Cowplain & Hart Plain 1 12,078 -7.7% 12,386 -10.5% Emsworth & St. Faiths 1 15,246 +16.6% 17,577 +26.9% Hayling Island 1 14,235 +8.8% 15,004 +8.4% Purbrook & Stakes 1 12,523 -4.3% 12,726 -8.1% South Waterloo & Stakes 1 13,275 +1.5% 13,676 -1.2% North Total 7 93,959 98,562

The County Council’s proposal is that in future there should be seven Councillors, each representing one single-Member division. The current two- Member Division of Bedhampton & Leigh Park would then be split into two divisions, each with a new division name. The reasons for this proposed change are set out below. No other name changes are proposed.

Devising boundary changes to divisions within Havant is made difficult by the fact that the natural separation of the borough into three areas, as described above, provides constraints to possible solutions to the current variations in the size of the electorate in future divisions. The County Council’s proposal treats the three area boundaries as inviolate.

The proposals for Havant were co-ordinated by Councillor Liz Fairhurst, one of the two Members for Bedhampton & Leigh Park, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Havant County Councillors.

8.3. Bedhampton & Leigh Park

2021 Electorate Forecast: 27,193 (-1.8% against Hampshire average)

This division covers the central part of Havant Borough including most of the town centre other than the south-east part around the station. Most of the

HF 9349561 - FINAL 93 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

division is densely built-up, including the large post-war development of Leigh Park. However, there is open country to the north, which adjoins Staunton Country Park. The A3(M) forms a hard eastern boundary and joins the A27/M27 at the southernmost end of the division. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Barncroft  Battins  Bedhampton  Bondfields  Warren Park

Bedhampton & Leigh Park has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well within the +/-10% threshold, so no action is strictly necessary to achieve electoral equality. However, there are significant pressures arising from Emsworth & St Faiths, so action is needed to transfer voters from that division into Bedhampton & Leigh Park. This should not however be done without considering the future of Bedhampton & Leigh Park as a two-Member division. Councillor Liz Fairhurst comments:

“The Bedhampton & Leigh Park double division was only created in 2004 and has not worked well. It contains four of the most deprived wards in Hampshire and thus produces a much higher caseload than other divisions, and it is also politically unsettled. It has always been represented by two councillors from different political parties (Labour/Liberal Democrat, Conservative/Liberal Democrat, Conservative/UKIP), and no political party has a strong hold over it. Hence it is a constant political battleground (at both county and borough levels).

This increased workload will only get worse as by 2021 the electorate in the current double division will increase from the current 26,602 to 28,395 (with the transfer from Emsworth & St Faiths – see below) and will form a 300- degree arc around St Faiths so that people from the north east corner of the constituency will be lumped together with those from the south west corner.”

It is therefore proposed that two single councillor divisions be re-created of approximately equal size: North West Havant and North East Havant. This proposal is supported by both County Councillors currently representing the double division. The area which would be covered by each new division is set out below and in both cases represents the best contiguous grouping of wards and polling districts that absorbs St Faiths’ excess.

Proposal for North West Havant

 Bedhampton, Barncroft and the Warren (polling district HC of Warren Park Ward), with a forecast electorate in 2021 of 14,114. This is a

HF 9349561 - FINAL 94 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

continuous area, which overcomes the arbitrary local authority dividing line between Bedhampton and Barncroft wards and adds part of Leigh Park that has a separate identity from the rest. Polling district DA from St Faiths lies on the boundary of St Faiths and Bedhampton and would transfer to this new division (+584).

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,698 (+6.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

Proposal for North East Havant

 The remainder of Leigh Park: Battins, Warren Park Ward below Middle Park Way (part of the Leigh Park community, although in the same ward as the Warren), and Bondfields, with a forecast electorate in 2021 of 13,079. Polling district DE from St Faiths, which is geographically next to Bondfields, would be transferred to this new division (+2,002).

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,081 (+8.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

Councillor Fairhurst comments: “This proposal brings together the wards and polling districts that are closest geographically and avoids, as far as possible, splitting communities. The new names are required as even the single divisions proposed bring together people from different communities. The electorate of polling district DE think of themselves as living in or Havant and certainly not Leigh Park, and North West Havant includes polling district DA from Havant, and the communities of Bedhampton, Barncroft and the Warren.”

8.4. Cowplain & Hart Plain

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,386 (-10.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division represents the northern tip of the borough west of the A3(M). It is almost completely built-up and merges into settlements in the south of East Hampshire. To the west, however, there is a gap between Cowplain & Hart Plain and in Winchester district, and the division also includes Queen's Inclosure Woods, a remnant of the original Forest of Bere. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Cowplain (79%)  Hart Plain (82%)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 95 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Like the other divisions west of the A3(M), Cowplain & Hart Plain has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well below the Hampshire average and it would be preferable to increase the geographical size of the division to bring it within or near to the -10% threshold. However, as noted above, the area west of the A3(M) is a distinct part of Havant that is extremely difficult to extend to areas east and south because the road is such a significant physical barrier. Furthermore, of the five wards that comprise the three divisions, three are split between divisions. There is no solution that brings all three divisions with the -10% threshold. However, to better reflect natural local communities it is proposed that polling district Hart Plain LE be transferred from Waterloo & Stakes North as this unites Hart Plain ward within one division.

Proposal for Cowplain & Hart Plain

 Add Hart Plain LE (+1,476)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,862 (+0.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

8.5. Emsworth & St. Faiths

2021 Electorate Forecast: 17,577 (+26.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-eastern tip of Hampshire. It includes two main settlements: the village of Emsworth and the ward of St Faiths, the south- eastern part of Havant town. Away from the town Emsworth and St Faiths is tightly bounded by , West Sussex and the district of East Hampshire. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Emsworth  St. Faiths

Following significant new housing development, Emsworth & St Faiths has a forecast electorate in 2021 that shows the third-highest variance above the average in Hampshire. It is therefore essential to reduce the geographical size of the division to bring it within or near to the +10% threshold. The only option is to move polling districts nearest to the current Bedhampton & Leigh Park into the proposed new North West Havant and North East Havant divisions. DA polling district was previously part of Bedhampton and Members report that many of the residents felt it was not right to be added to St Faiths. There is no particular link between DE polling district and Leigh Park, but without this move Emsworth & St Faiths remains far too big.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 96 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Emsworth & St. Faiths

 Transfer polling district St Faiths DA to North West Havant (-584)  Transfer polling district St Faiths DE to North East Havant (-2,002)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,991 (+9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

8.6. Hayling Island

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,004 (+8.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is the only island division in Hampshire. Hayling Island lies between Langstone Harbour and , to the south of Havant Town. It is connected to the mainland by a single bridge and to Eastney in Portsmouth by a (commercially vulnerable) ferry service. Most of the residents live in the south of the island, away from the Havant end. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Hayling East  Hayling West

Due to its island geography Hayling Island is a natural electoral division and could not easily be joined to one on the mainland. Fortunately its projected 2021 electorate falls within the +10% threshold and no changes are proposed to this division.

Proposal for Hayling Island

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,004 (+8.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

8.7. Purbrook & Stakes South

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,726 (-8.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern part of the Waterlooville area. It is bounded by the A3(M) in the east, Portsmouth city in the south and Winchester district in the west. Purbrook & Stakes South is heavily built-up, with some further development to come as part of the Newlands development shared with Winchester district, but there is also an area of open country to the south. The division currently includes the following

HF 9349561 - FINAL 97 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

wards:

 Purbrook  Stakes (68%)

Purbrook & Stakes South has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the Hampshire average and it would be preferable to increase the geographical size of the division to bring it within or near to the county average. However, as noted above the A3(M) makes transferring boundaries between the east and west part of Havant impossible without rupturing the natural local communities that exist on each side. Given that Purbrook & Stakes South’s projected electorate is within the -10% threshold no changes are therefore proposed to this division.

Proposal for Purbrook & Stakes South

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,726 (-8.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

8.8. Waterloo & Stakes North

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,676 (-1.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the central part of Waterlooville including the main shopping and commercial areas and parts of wards shared with other divisions. It developed as a stopping-point along the route of the old London- Portsmouth road (the A3); the division is now entirely built-up and will adjoin the new settlement of Newlands to the west. Like the other divisions on this side of Havant, Waterloo & Stakes North has a hard boundary on its eastern flank in the form of the A3(M). The division currently includes the following wards:

 Cowplain (21%)  Hart Plain (18%)  Stakes (32%)  Waterloo

Waterloo & Stakes North has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly below the Hampshire average and no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality. However, as noted above we propose to unite Hart Plain ward within one division. Transferring Hart Plan LE polling district to Cowplain & Hart Plain reflects the natural local community, but leaves

HF 9349561 - FINAL 98 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Waterloo & Stakes North slightly outside the -10% threshold. The County Council believes this to be the preferable solution but the County Council would accept it if the Commission did not agree.

Proposal for Waterloo & Stakes North

 Transfer Hart Plain LE to Cowplain & Hart Plain (-1,476)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,200 (-11.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

8.9. Proposals for Havant

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) North East Havant Share of Share of -1.8% 15,081 +8.9% 2 27,193 North West Havant Share of Share of -1.8% 14,698 +6.2% 2 27,193 Cowplain & Hart 1 12,386 -10.5% 13,862 +0.1% Plain Emsworth & St. 1 17,577 +26.9% 14,991 +8.3% Faiths Hayling Island 1 15,004 +8.4% 15,004 +8.4% Purbrook & Stakes 1 12,726 -8.1% 12,726 -8.1% South Waterloo & Stakes 1 13,676 -1.2% 12,200 -11.9% North Total 7 98,562 98,562

HF 9349561 - FINAL 99 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Havant

HF 9349561 - FINAL 100 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

9. New Forest

9.1. About New Forest

New Forest district is the largest in Hampshire, occupying its south-western corner. Physically it is almost detached from the rest of the county and its boundaries with , and the sea are much longer than its Hampshire boundaries (Test Valley and Southampton). The forest was famously created by William I for the purpose of deer hunting and the place where William II was killed by an arrow is marked by the Rufus Stone.

The most significant feature of the district is the New Forest National Park, which is almost all contained within the district. The heathlands, grasslands, wetlands and woodlands of the National Park dominate the interior of the district and determine its usage and development. The unique governance and historic traditions of the New Forest, with several groups and organisations whose rights are laid down by Act of Parliament, make being a County Councillor in the New Forest somewhat different.

With a 2015 population of nearly 180,000 and a median age of 47, New Forest is the oldest and populous district in Hampshire, although at current rates of growth Basingstoke & Deane will overtake it in the next few years. New Forest is primarily rural in terms of its area, but there are two large built- up areas along Southampton Water and the western Solent. Significant settlements include Totton, Hythe, Lyndhurst, New Milton and Ringwood. Only a fraction of the district’s residents live in the National Park and house prices in the rural areas are among the highest in Hampshire.

Economically and in travel terms the New Forest looks in several different directions. The principal corridor is from the Southampton area down and across to the Bournemouth area. The cross-border links in this southwest corner are extremely strong, reflecting the fact that until 1974 (within living memory for many local residents) the boroughs of Bournemouth and Christchurch were part of Hampshire. There are also strong connections to Salisbury to the north, and to the Isle of Wight. The Waterside area is home to some significant energy and marine-related industry including the Fawley refinery and bases for companies serving the Port of Southampton.

The South West Main Line crosses the district and there are people who commute daily to London from as far away as Brockenhurst and New Milton. There is also a shuttle service between Brockenhurst and Lymington connecting to the Isle of Wight ferry from Lymington to Yarmouth.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 101 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in New Forest

HF 9349561 - FINAL 102 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

9.2. County Council Divisions in New Forest

There are currently eleven County Councillors from New Forest, each representing one division, and the County Council’s proposal is that this will remain the case.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Brockenhurst 1 11,400 -12.8% 11,302 -18.4% Dibden & Hythe 1 14,640 +11.9% 14,371 +3.8% Fordingbridge 1 11,417 -12.7% 11,300 -18.4% Lymington 1 12,398 -5.2% 13,174 -4.9% Lyndhurst 1 12,345 -5.6% 12,875 -7.0% Milford & Hordle 1 13,774 +5.3% 13,877 +0.2% New Milton 1 14,037 +7.3% 14,511 +4.8% Ringwood 1 11,924 -8.8% 12,227 -11.7% South Waterside 1 12,728 -2.7% 12,602 -9.0% Totton North 1 13,012 -0.5% 12,890 -6.9% Totton South & 1 14,223 +8.7% 13,781 -0.5% Marchwood Total 11 141,898 142,910

Many of the New Forest divisions, particularly rural divisions such as Brockenhurst or Fordingbridge, are forecast to have a 2021 electorate well below the Hampshire average, and in normal circumstances we would look to expand the extent of those divisions in order to achieve greater electoral equality. However, there are a range of unique considerations that apply in the New Forest and make enlarging the electorate of any of the eleven divisions problematic.

For example, there are particular problems of representational complexity and delay in decision-making in the divisions which are located wholly or partly inside the New Forest National Park, in terms of the necessity to consult with the following agencies who have powers of veto, on even the most minor of matters such as the siting of broadband cabinets, grit bins for winter weather or the slightest re-alignment of country lanes etc. These are Natural England, the Court of Verderers, the Forestry Commission, the National Park Authority, Council and parish councils, as well as the Commoners Defence Association who have much influence, and rights under statute. This creates an unusually heavy and complicated caseload for many New Forest County Councillors.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 103 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Policy constraints in the New Forest also cause difficulty in creating divisions with more equal electorates. The National Park Authority for New Forest has adopted a policy which effectively bans housing development within its boundary. This places development pressure on the Waterside and Lymington areas, which are outside its boundary, and causes Brockenhurst and Fordingbridge to continue with a static or reducing electorate, and Lyndhurst and Ringwood to increase by only 530 and 303 voters respectively over the next six years.

Equally, the unique geography of New Forest district, with its huge and largely empty interior and limited transport network, constrains the alteration of boundaries. Urban areas on the Waterside and the south coast requiring expansion cannot satisfactorily be expanded into the National Park because the low population density means they would have to stretch miles into completely different terrain and communities to achieve any significant increase. Similarly, expanding a rural division would entail huge geographic expansion, to unmanageable proportions, when the existing divisions are hard enough to serve as a Councillor due to their size. In setting division boundaries we are also conscious that the boundaries of the National Park have centuries of common acceptance behind them, and would wish not to infringe them further if possible.

Finally, a general principle has been adopted across the county that it is practical and logical for County Councillors in urban areas to have a larger electorate, because the travel distances and community facilities are located in a compact area. The County Council’s proposals therefore envisage the urban divisions continuing to have a higher electorate than the rural divisions.

In adopting this principle the County Council is relying on the principle outlined in the Commission’s guidance document How to propose a pattern of wards page 11: “We will look at the geographic size of the ward or division and try to ensure that it is not so large that it would be difficult for a councillor to represent.”

For these reasons the County Council’s proposal for New Forest is to retain the current boundaries for all divisions, and to retain the current division names.

The proposals for New Forest were co-ordinated by Councillor Jacqui England, the Member for Lymington, and were discussed with and agreed by all current New Forest County Councillors.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 104 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

9.3. Brockenhurst

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,302 (-18.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers almost all of the New Forest National Park south of Lyndhurst. It is the fourth-largest division in Hampshire, covering 85 square miles in a rough triangle formed by the A35, the A326 and the National Park’s coastal boundary. Brockenhurst and Sway are the largest settlements. The London-Weymouth railway runs through the middle of Brockenhurst and there are three stations in the division. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Bashley  Boldre & Sway  Brockenhurst & Forest South East

Communities in the New Forest are self-contained and very distinct in nature and are centred upon villages or hamlets. Those in the Brockenhurst Division have little in common with the Waterside to its east, little in common with Lymington to its south, very little with New Milton to its west, nor with Lyndhurst to its north. The distances between the Waterside, Lyndhurst and the western areas cover miles of open countryside or forest, and represent natural gaps and boundaries.

As noted above, any large rural division brings particular challenges for elected representatives. The Brockenhurst division:

 has eight parish councils, so attending throughout the year in the evenings and in all weathers entails up to 50-mile round trips for the County Councillor;  has a major sixth form college, attracting 5,000 students;  hosts the New Forest Show, attracting 90,000 visitors;  is a major railhead; and  has a number of camping sites which contribute to some 13 million visitor days per annum in the New Forest.

Such numbers bring problems for the infrastructure of the division and for its facilities in general. Each of the above factors, in addition to the considerations listed at the start of this chapter, increases the workload of the County Councillor; taken together they make the present Brockenhurst division difficult for one Councillor to service. On these grounds no increase to its boundaries and its electorate is proposed.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 105 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Brockenhurst

Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 11,302 (-18.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.4. Dibden & Hythe

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,371 (+3.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the settlement of Hythe and small outlying areas. It has Southampton Water on its eastern boundary, the A326 and National Park on the western side, Marchwood to the north and Fawley to the south. Hythe is connected to central Southampton by a ferry service. Dibden & Hythe Division includes a large empty area along Southampton Water known as . This division currently includes the following wards:

 Butts Ash & Dibden Purlieu  Dibden & Hythe East  Hythe West & Langdown

Dibden & Hythe has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is only slightly above the average in Hampshire, so no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality. Furthermore, it is difficult to see where change could be achieved without rupturing community identity. The only potential direction is north into/south from Marchwood, but this would entail leaping the Military Port with its railway into a completely separate community.

Councillor Malcolm Wade, the Member for Dibden & Hythe, reports that residents have not forgotten that during a previous boundary review, in order to achieve electoral equality a portion of Hythe and Dibden Parish was transferred to the division now called South Waterside. That portion of Hythe and Dibden (still a Hythe and Dibden Parish ward) is now represented by a County Councillor who represents the area centred around Fawley, an entirely different community. The local Member’s view is that this has not worked and is concerned that local governance may not be well served by “slicing off portions of one community and giving it to a larger community”.

On these grounds no changes to Dibden & Hythe are proposed.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 106 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Dibden & Hythe

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,371 (+3.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.5. Fordingbridge

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,300 (-18.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is the second-largest in Hampshire and covers the north- western section of New Forest district. The division is centred around the valley of the River Avon, but it extends from Ower Services on the M27 near Southampton in the east beyond the A354 Salisbury-Blandford road in the west, the extreme western edge of Hampshire. This breadth makes Fordingbridge one of the most physically challenging divisions in Hampshire for the local Member. However, highway communications are generally good with the A338 providing connection along the Avon Valley and the B3078 linking Fordingbridge with Godshill and Bramshaw. The A31 to the south of Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley and Bramshaw parishes provides a relatively clear southern boundary to the division with the noticeable exception of Copythorne, of which the majority of the Copythorne North polling area lies to the south of the A31. Copythorne North was added to this division during a previous boundary review against district council advice.

Fordingbridge encompasses three relatively disparate areas:

1. Five parishes (, Damerham, Martin, Rockbourne & Whitsbury) are wholly or partly within the Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and form the majority of the Downlands & Forest ward. 2. Eight parishes (Bramshaw, Breamore, Copythorne, Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley, Fordingbridge, Godshill, Hale & Hyde) are wholly or partly within the New Forest National Park, with strong social and cultural links to the open New Forest. 3. Fordingbridge parish as an historical market town exhibits strong individual characteristics and acts as a focal point and key shopping area for a number of the surrounding communities within the Fordingbridge division.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 107 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

This division currently includes the following wards:

 Bramshaw Copythorne North & Minstead  Downlands & Forest  Fordingbridge  Forest North West

Many of the considerations regarding practical boundaries for large rural divisions that apply to Brockenhurst also apply to Fordingbridge. In addition, Fordingbridge has long borders with Dorset and Wiltshire, making any extension in those directions impossible. Councillor Edward Heron, the Member for Fordingbridge, comments:

“The comments made by New Forest District Council to the previous review undertaken in 2002-2004 were largely correct in that representing such a geographically large and dispersed division does present significant challenges. I seek to regularly attend Parish (and the Town) Council meetings, usually attending over 75% of meetings. Some parishes regularly meet on the same date, for example Bramshaw, Copythorne and Ellingham; Harbridge & Ibsley parish councils coincide most months…if I miss any of their meetings it may be three months between my attendances.”

“Whilst the current situation is manageable, although far from ideal, I do not think that the addition of any further parishes within the Fordingbridge division would be sustainable.”

Proposal for Fordingbridge

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 11,300 (-18.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.6. Lymington

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,174 (-4.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the town of Lymington and its associated shoreline. Lymington is bordered to the north by the National Park and to the south by the western Solent. The town acts as a local service centre for the southern New Forest and is a busy centre for marine leisure activity. A ferry service operates from Lymington to Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight and there is a shuttle train service between Lymington and Brockenhurst.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 108 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Councillor Jacqui England, the Member for Lymington, comments:

“Lymington acts as a hub to surrounding areas as a support mechanism for shopping, social, library, hospital, hospice and doctors’ surgeries. The boundaries are constrained by the geographical infrastructure and the lack of development restricted by NPA Guidelines. The area’s dynamics change with the seasonal patterns and the impact of the increase in visitor numbers has upon the communities and services. The case load is diverse because of the nature of the population and their needs.”

This division currently includes the following wards:

 Buckland  Lymington Town  Pennington

Lymington has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is only slightly below the average in Hampshire, so no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality. Other divisions have a lower forecast electorate but given the considerations listed above about the difficulty of expanding outwards into the National Park, no changes to Lymington are proposed.

Proposal for Lymington

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,174 (-4.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.7. Lyndhurst

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,875 (-7.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the town of Lyndhurst and the central strip of the New Forest National Park. Like Fordingbridge it is immensely long, stretching from the border of the city of Southampton all the way down to the border of Christchurch in Dorset. As a result it covers a collection of communities rather than a single one, with Lyndhurst town being the most obvious. The northern and southern boundaries are roughly determined by the two major roads that run through central New Forest from north-east to south-west: the A35 and the M27/A31. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Ashurst Copythorne South & Netley Marsh  Bramshaw Copythorne North & Minstead

HF 9349561 - FINAL 109 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

 Bransgore & Burley  Lyndhurst

Lyndhurst has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average in Hampshire but within the -10% threshold, so no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality. Given the considerations expressed above therefore no change to Lyndhurst is proposed.

Proposal for Lyndhurst

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,875 (-7.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.8. Milford & Hordle

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,877 (+0.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the coastal area west of Lymington, including the seaside community of Milford-on-Sea, but also stretches inland into the Fernhill area of New Milton, where it is bounded by the South West Main Line. The A337 coastal road runs through the centre of the division. Milford & Hordle includes Hurst Castle, which is the southernmost point in Hampshire. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Fernhill - New Forest  Hordle  Milford

Milford & Hordle has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is almost exactly on the average for Hampshire, so no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality and no changes are proposed to its boundaries.

Proposal for Milford & Hordle

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,877 (+0.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 110 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

9.9. New Milton

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,511 (+4.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers southern New Milton and the coastal community of Barton-on-Sea. The division is bordered by the sea to the south, the railway to the north, the border with Dorset to the west and designated green space bounded by the main B3058 road to the east. New Milton developed as a coaching stop on the Lymington-Christchurch road and grew rapidly after the railway station was built in 1888. The coast at Barton-on-Sea is a tourist attraction and features notable fossil deposits and a popular coast path. The population in Barton-on-Sea has a higher average age than anywhere else in Hampshire. Councillor Mel Kendal, the Member for New Milton, comments:

“New Milton division is coterminous with New Milton Town Council, which serves Barton-on-Sea and New Milton south of the railway line. Barton residents shop, with adequate bus routes, in New Milton town centre, which falls well within the division and is thus a good linkage for Barton residents who would not be able to identify with any other area. This makes it a coherent geographical and social unit of local government.”

This division currently includes the following wards:

 Barton  Becton  Milton

New Milton has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly above the average for Hampshire, so no change is necessary to achieve electoral equality therefore no changes are proposed to its boundaries.

Proposal for New Milton

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,511 (+4.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 111 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

9.10. Ringwood

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,227 (-11.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers all of the town of Ringwood and a number of villages to the south along the Avon Valley. Ringwood is the point at which the A31, the main strategic road across the New Forest, crosses the north-south A338 running from Salisbury to Christchurch. To the west the division adjoins Dorset for more than half the length of its boundary, while the eastern half of Ringwood division is located in the National Park. The division of Ringwood includes the only green belt land in Hampshire. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Ringwood East & Sopley  Ringwood North  Ringwood South

Ringwood has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire and slightly below the -10% threshold. In normal circumstances the County Council would seek to expand its geographical coverage to achieve greater electoral equality, but as explained above the only two divisions that adjoin Ringwood (Lyndhurst and Fordingbridge) are well below the average, so this division cannot be expanded without worsening the imbalance. Councillor Steve Rippon-Swaine, the Member for Ringwood, also reports that it is locally accepted that further housing development will come forward during the period to 2021. For these reasons no changes to Ringwood’s boundaries are proposed.

Proposal for Ringwood

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,227 (-11.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.11. South Waterside

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,602 (-9.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-eastern tip of New Forest district. Its most notable feature is the Fawley oil refinery, but it also includes Lepe Country Park, Calshot Castle, a section of the National Park and a number of villages. Due to its location on the extremity of Southampton Water, South

HF 9349561 - FINAL 112 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Waterside Division is somewhat isolated from the rest of Hampshire. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Fawley Blackfield & Langley  Furzedown & Hardley  Holbury & North Blackfield

South Waterside has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire but within the -10% threshold. In normal circumstances the County Council would seek to expand its geographical coverage slightly to achieve greater electoral equality, but the only real option for doing this is north into Hythe, which has a completely different community identity and looks north to Southampton and Totton rather than south. The local Member regards the division as being manageable and, with the possible exception of Furzedown, having natural boundaries, bordered as it is on the west by the New Forest, on the east by the Southampton Water and on the south by the Solent. For these reasons no changes to South Waterside’s boundaries are proposed.

Proposal for South Waterside

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,602 (-9.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.12. Totton North

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,890 (-6.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the central and western parts of the town of Totton, which stands at the head of Southampton Water, and is effectively the entrance to New Forest district. The division borders Test Valley district to the east and the A326 and the National Park to the west. Totton’s main industrial area is within Totton North. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Totton Central  Totton North  Totton West

Totton North has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire but comfortably within the -10% threshold. In normal circumstances the County Council might seek to expand its geographical

HF 9349561 - FINAL 113 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

coverage slightly to achieve greater electoral equality, but this cannot be achieved without expansion into the New Forest National Park, from which the wholly built-up Totton area is very different. Councillor Chris Lagdon, the Member for Totton North, comments that it should remain “an individual division represented by an individual County Councillor because it is in the main very different from other areas within the New Forest, in that it was planned to be as it is; not an area which was added to piecemeal over the years, but planned with its miles of green routes, churches, schools and community centres.”

For these reasons no changes to Totton North’s boundaries are proposed.

Proposal for Totton North

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,890 (-6.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.13. Totton South & Marchwood

2021 Electorate Forecast: 13,781 (-0.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern and eastern parts of the town of Totton, as well as Marchwood further south. The division borders Southampton Water to the east and extends slightly into the National Park to the west. Near Marchwood village along the waterfront are some notable industrial installations, including an incinerator and a power station as well as the UK’s only Military Port. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Marchwood  Totton East  Totton South

Totton South & Marchwood has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is almost exactly on the average for Hampshire, so no action is necessary to achieve greater electoral equality. It is also hard to see any way in which the division’s boundaries could be changed without infringing natural communities. According to Councillor David Harrison, the Member for Totton South & Marchwood, expanding to incorporate Ashurst “would have the disadvantage of creating too large a division and again making a division of three very different communities…residents in Totton South (a defined urban area) would be very upset to find that they have been effectively separated from the rest of the town and lumped in with two villages.”

HF 9349561 - FINAL 114 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Expansion to the south is theoretically possible – but this would mean crossing the large open space of Dibden Bay into Dibden & Hythe. For these reasons no changes to Totton South & Marchwood’s boundaries are proposed.

Proposal for Totton South & Marchwood

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,871 (-0.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

9.14. Proposals for New Forest

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Brockenhurst 1 11,302 -18.4% 11,302 -18.4% Dibden & Hythe 1 14,371 +3.8% 14,371 +3.8% Fordingbridge 1 11,300 -18.4% 11,300 -18.4% Lymington 1 13,174 -4.9% 13,174 -4.9% Lyndhurst 1 12,875 -7.0% 12,875 -7.0% Milford & Hordle 1 13,877 +0.2% 13,877 +0.2% New Milton 1 14,511 +4.8% 14,511 +4.8% Ringwood 1 12,227 -11.7% 12,227 -11.7% South Waterside 1 12,602 -9.0% 12,602 -9.0% Totton North 1 12,890 -6.9% 12,890 -6.9% Totton South & 1 13,781 -0.5% 13,781 -0.5% Marchwood Total 11 142,910 142,910

HF 9349561 - FINAL 115 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in New Forest

HF 9349561 - FINAL 116 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10. Rushmoor

10.1. About Rushmoor

The borough of Rushmoor forms Hampshire’s north-eastern tip and it is very closely linked with the adjoining parts of Surrey, including Camberley and Farnham. Rushmoor consists principally of two towns, Farnborough and Aldershot, which are separate communities but merge into each other in the central part of the borough. Aldershot is best known as the home of the British Army and Farnborough is famous for its International Air Show.

Rushmoor lies on the main travel corridor between London and the South West, with the M3 and South West Main Line running straight through Farnborough town and the Alton line through Aldershot. Journey times to London from Farnborough are the shortest in Hampshire, and many people commute from Rushmoor to London. There are also north-south connections along the Blackwater Valley.

Aldershot developed rapidly as a garrison town after the first permanent training camp for the British Army was built there during the Crimean War. The current garrison population is around 10,000 service personnel, and there are significant areas of the borough that are reserved for military training. A major redevelopment of part of the garrison area is under way and will result in 4,000 homes and new community facilities being built as part of a new community called Wellesley. This significant regeneration project is expected to bring significant economic benefits for the town, which is among the less thriving areas of Hampshire.

Farnborough is a successful centre for technology companies but is known around the world for its association with aviation, defence and aerospace. Farnborough Airport saw the UK’s first powered flight in 1908 and it is now the UK’s top business airport, playing host to the International Air Show, a week-long trade exhibition and public display.

The population of Rushmoor in 2015 is about 95,000, making it the third- smallest in Hampshire. It is also by some way the youngest, with a medium age of 36, six years below the county average. Both towns have a number of wards that are among the most deprived in Hampshire, with relatively lower levels of employment, income and health. Rushmoor is one of a number of areas in Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire that has been affected by a 2009 Government decision to allow Gurkha veterans with more than four years’ service to settle in the UK with their families. Many Gurkhas had been based in Aldershot and other nearby military bases, so Rushmoor has seen very significant growth in its Nepalese population.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 117 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Rushmoor

HF 9349561 - FINAL 118 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10.2. County Council Divisions in Rushmoor

There are currently five County Councillors from Rushmoor, each representing one division, and the County Council’s proposal is that this should remain the case.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Aldershot East 1 13,099 +0.1% 12,753 -7.9% Aldershot West 1 11,571 -11.5% 15,467 +11.7% Farnborough North 1 12,619 -3.5% 12,654 -8.6% Farnborough South 1 14,298 +9.3% 14,396 +4.0% Farnborough West 1 13,716 +4.9% 12,527 -9.5% Total 5 65,303 67,797

The most significant factor by far driving the need to adjust the division boundaries in Rushmoor is the sharp growth in the forecast electorate in Aldershot West. This is due to the significant Wellesley development that is taking place on the site of a former Army barracks in that division. As a result we propose some realignment of the boundaries to reduce the size of Aldershot West and augment neighbouring divisions. However, the County Council has sought to keep the changes minimal, and moreover to reflect long-standing community identities, the proposed new boundaries are within the original pre-2013 ward boundaries. No changes to division names are proposed.

Where changes are proposed the County Council has sought to ensure that there is a good level of shared interest in the relevant communities. There are no rural areas in Rushmoor; the whole borough is urban/suburban infrastructure and therefore the new boundaries do not fundamentally change the character of the divisions or move voters away from shared travel corridors, shopping areas and community centres. In several cases the County Council is proposing that part-wards revert to where they were before, thus recreating a feeling of being part of a local community with a proud and distinct identity.

The proposals for Rushmoor were co-ordinated by Councillor Mark Staplehurst, the Member for Farnborough West, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Rushmoor County Councillors.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 119 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10.3. Aldershot East

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,753 (-7.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the eastern half of Aldershot town and is bordered by the railway to the north and Surrey to the east. It is a wholly built-up division comprising three distinct communities with strong links both to the rest of the town and also to settlements across the A331 in Surrey. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Aldershot Park (95%)  Manor Park (58%)  North Town (97%)

Aldershot East has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire but within the -10% threshold. Given the significant growth forecast within Aldershot West (see below) it is necessary to expand its boundaries slightly to the west to achieve greater electoral equality. Three polling districts have been identified as follows:

 Aldershot Park B (1): this small area will fit neatly into the Aldershot East division, which includes almost all of the rest of Aldershot Park ward;  North Town A (1): again, this is an ‘orphan’ area of a ward that is otherwise almost all in Aldershot East;  North Town B (1): this area between the A331 and the railway fits much more logically in Aldershot East and including it brings all of North Town ward within this division.

Under this proposal both North Town B(1) and Aldershot Park B (1) are both returned to where they were prior to the district ward boundary change in 2013.

Proposal for Aldershot East

 Add Aldershot Park B (1) (+250)  Add North Town A (1) (+156)  Add North Town B (1) (+2)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,161 (-4.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 120 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10.4. Aldershot West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,467 (+11.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the western half of Aldershot town including the town centre and the railway station. Notably it also includes the Aldershot garrison and a large redevelopment of former Ministry of Defence land (‘Wellesley’) is taking place within this ward over the next few years, which accounts for the large growth in the forecast electorate. Aldershot West is bounded by Surrey to the south, Hart district beyond the woodland to the west and Farnborough Airport to the north. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Aldershot Park (5%)  Manor Park (42%)  North Town (3%)  Rowhill  St. Mark's (16%)  Wellington

Aldershot West has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is significantly above the average for Hampshire. As explained above, the proposal is to transfer three polling districts to Aldershot East to achieve better electoral equality. In addition, the County Council proposes to move St Marks A (1), which covers the North Camp area, to Farnborough South. This polling district is the old Army quarters sold off by the Ministry of Defence. These, as in Cove, are part of North Camp Village and not Aldershot so by bringing them into North Camp (Farnborough) means they retain their proper identity and place back within their own community of North Camp Village. The proposal reunites this polling district with the rest of St Mark’s ward.

Proposal for Aldershot West

 Transfer Aldershot Park B (1) to Aldershot East (-250)  Transfer North Town A (1) to Aldershot East (-156)  Transfer North Town B (1) to Aldershot East (-2)  Transfer St Mark’s A (1) to Farnborough South (-896)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,163 (-4.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 121 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

10.5. Farnborough North

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,654 (-8.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers all of Farnborough north of the M3 as well as Cherrywood Ward and the northern part of Empress Ward. The division is bounded by Hart district to the north and Surrey, the A331 and the to the east. This division currently includes the following wards:

 Cherrywood  Empress (24%)  Fernhill - Rushmoor  West Heath

Farnborough North has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire but within the -10% threshold. In normal circumstances the County Council might seek to expand its geographical coverage slightly to achieve greater electoral equality, but there is no simple solution that does not unacceptably disrupt community identity. With an acceptable balance achieved elsewhere in the borough the County Council does not propose any changes to be made to Farnborough North.

Proposal for Farnborough North

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,654 (-8.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

10.6. Farnborough South

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,396 (+4.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the central part of Rushmoor borough, including Farnborough town centre, the main shopping area and railway station, the airport and Farnborough Park. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Cove & Southwood (20%)  Empress (76%)  Knellwood  St. Mark's (84%)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 122 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Farnborough South has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly above the average for Hampshire, so no action is required to achieve greater electoral equality. However, as seen above, pressures from Aldershot West have caused us to propose moving the remaining part of St Mark’s Ward into this division, which creates a knock-on requirement to move a similar number of voters into Farnborough West. The County Council therefore proposes that Cove and Southwood B, which is part of Cove and Southwood Ward and therefore part of Cove within the parish boundary, be moved into West Farnborough. This proposal brings Farnborough South’s electorate closer to the forecast Hampshire average.

Proposal for Farnborough South

 Add St Mark’s A (1) (+896)  Transfer Cove and Southwood B to Farnborough West (-1,044)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,248 (+2.9% against forecast Hampshire average)

10.7. Farnborough West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,527 (-9.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the north-western part of Rushmoor borough, including the Cove, Southwood and West Heath areas of Farnborough town. Farnborough West is bounded by the M3 to the north, Hart district to the west and the airport to the south, and the South West Main Line cuts straight through its centre. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Cove & Southwood (80%)  St. John's  West Heath

Farnborough West has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the average for Hampshire but within the -10% threshold, so it would be preferable to take some action to achieve greater electoral equality. As seen above, the proposal is that Cove and Southwood B be moved from Farnborough South into Farnborough West. This area will now be within the division that includes the rest of Cove village rather than the division centred around Farnborough town – a change that Members believe reflects local reference. St Christopher’s Church is the hub within the community and the changes make the streets coming into West Farnborough an integral part of that community, as these streets are part of the same estate and demographic community groups that the Church is situated in. This proposal

HF 9349561 - FINAL 123 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

increases Farnborough West’s electorate so that it is only just under the forecast Hampshire average.

Proposal for Farnborough West

 Add Cove and Southwood B (+1,044)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,571 (-2.0% against forecast Hampshire average)

10.8. Proposals for Rushmoor

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Aldershot East 1 12,753 -7.9% 13,161 -4.9% Aldershot West 1 15,467 +11.7% 14,163 2.3% Farnborough North 1 12,654 -8.6% 12,654 -8.6% Farnborough South 1 14,396 +4.0% 14,248 2.9% Farnborough West 1 12,527 -9.5% 13,571 -2.0% Total 5 67,797 67,797

HF 9349561 - FINAL 124 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Rushmoor

HF 9349561 - FINAL 125 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

11. Test Valley

11.1. About Test Valley

The Borough of Test Valley forms the western flank of Hampshire. It is an extremely ‘tall’ district, nearly 30 miles from top to bottom. The district touches the New Forest National Park in the south and the North Wessex Downs AONB in the north. Test Valley has a long border with Wiltshire and strong connections to Salisbury and Salisbury Plain, making it the point at which the South East starts to become the West Country.

Test Valley has a population in 2015 of just over 120,000. The district is overwhelmingly rural, with only two large urban areas: Andover and Romsey. These towns are at opposite ends of the district and, reflecting their history as separate districts prior to 1974, the connections between the two are not very strong. The Borough Council, for example, has separate Planning Committees for North and South, which complicates the task of representing the central Test Valley area as a County Councillor. The centre of the district is very sparsely populated with a single main settlement at Stockbridge, a much-valued local service centre but relatively small in population terms and linked as much to Winchester as Romsey or Andover.

Both towns are located on strategic travel corridors. Andover is a key station on the West of England main line and (with Grateley) home to many London commuters, while the ‘Andover Bypass’ was one of the first stretches of the A303 to be built, linking London and the South West. In housing terms Andover grew significantly after the Second World War and is still growing today. It has also attracted significant employment on the former Andover Airfield site, including the Land Army Headquarters, a reflection of the town’s strong military heritage and connection to Salisbury Plain.

Romsey is situated on the Salisbury-Southampton corridor and has close links with both cities as well as Winchester. However, Romsey is a true market town and an economic centre in its own right. The Test flood plain has constrained development on the west side of the town but it has grown to the east and has a large development currently taking place in Abbotswood. South of Romsey lie the M27 and settlements connecting Test Valley to urban south Hampshire including Valley Park and Chilworth.

Outside the towns the settlement pattern in the district is characterised by typical Hampshire villages and hamlets, many of them located along the world-famous River Test, which flows south to Southampton Water, and its tributaries. The Test is a chalk stream renowned in particular for trout, and it attracts fly fishermen from around the world.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 126 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Test Valley

HF 9349561 - FINAL 127 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

11.2. County Council Divisions in Test Valley

There are currently seven County Councillors from Test Valley, each representing one division, and the County Council’s proposal is that this should remain the case.

Existing divisions – registered and forecast electorate

Division name Members 2014 2014 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Andover North 1 15,395 +17.7% 19,875 +43.5% Andover South 1 12,151 -7.1% 11,950 -13.7% Andover West 1 12,958 -0.9% 12,952 -6.5% Baddesley 1 13,159 +0.6% 12,793 -7.6% Romsey Extra 1 12,771 -2.4% 14,493 +4.7% Romsey Town 1 11,871 -9.2% 12,131 -12.4% Test Valley Central 1 14,617 +11.8% 14,638 +5.7% Total 7 92,922 98,832

Across Test Valley there are three divisions (Romsey Extra, Test Valley Central, and most of all, Andover North) that will see new development up to 2021 and therefore an increased electorate. Other divisions are forecast to have a lower than average electorate. This has meant that there is a need to alter the boundaries of all the divisions a little, re-distributing some wards and polling districts to balance the total electorate, but the proposals do not change the balance and nature of the divisions greatly.

In formulating new proposals for Test Valley the County Council’s priorities were:

 To retain seven divisions;  To endeavour to meet the requirements of the Commission in full and to respect the parliamentary boundaries on community grounds, if possible;  If appropriate, to allow urban divisions to have larger electorates than the rural divisions given that they are more physically compact;  To give serious consideration to existing community arrangements.

Reflecting the proposed new boundaries for the current Romsey Extra and Romsey Town divisions, it is proposed that they be renamed Romsey Rural and Romsey respectively. No other changes to division names are proposed.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 128 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

The proposals for Test Valley were co-ordinated by Councillor Andrew Gibson, the Member for Test Valley Central, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Test Valley County Councillors, except in the case of Baddesley division (see below).

11.3 Andover North

2021 Electorate Forecast: 19,875 (+43.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the western part of Andover town and all the area north of Andover. It is a varied division, including the town centre, residential areas and industrial estates in the south and, at its northern end bordering Wiltshire, some of the most sparsely-populated rural areas in Hampshire. The A343 Andover-Newbury road is the principal travel corridor. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Alamein  Bourne Valley  St. Mary's

Following significant new housing development Andover North is growing very fast – in fact the division has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is further above the Hampshire average than any other in the county. It is therefore essential to reduce its geographical extent to achieve greater electoral equality. This can only be done at the southern end where Andover North meets three other divisions. It is proposed that one polling district be moved to each of the other three in a way that links them with their most logical neighbouring community. This brings Andover North’s variance down from +44% to under +5%.

Proposal for Andover North

 Transfer UP-St Mary 1 to Andover South (-1,706)  Transfer SF-Alamein 3 to Andover West (-2,053)  Transfer VO-St Mary 7 to Test Valley Central (-1,606)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,510 (+4.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.4 Andover South

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,950 (-13.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the southern part of Andover town and some small outlying areas between the town and the A303. Andover South is primarily

HF 9349561 - FINAL 129 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

residential but it also includes the recent commercial development area at Andover Airfield. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Millway  Winton

Andover South has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well below the Hampshire average and it is therefore necessary to increase its area to achieve greater electoral equality. As seen above, the proposal is that this is achieved by enlarging the division at its eastern end with the addition of an urban polling district from Andover North, bringing the forecast Andover South electorate up to just under the Hampshire average.

Proposal for Andover South

 Add UP-St Marys 1 (+1,706)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,656 (-1.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.5 Andover West

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,952 (-6.5% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the north-western part of Andover town and all of the area west of the town, which borders Salisbury Plain. The defining feature of this division is the dual-carriageway A303 trunk road, which runs through the centre and is a nationally significant route between London and the West Country. Grateley is a major rural commuter station, with fast journey times to Salisbury, Basingstoke, and London. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Amport  Charlton  Harroway  Penton Bellinger

Andover West has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the Hampshire average but within the -10% threshold, so it is not strictly necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. As seen above however, pressure arising from Andover North means that it is proposed that an urban polling district be added where the two divisions meet north of Andover town.

Proposal for Andover South

 Add SF-Alamein 3 (+2,053)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 130 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,005 (+8.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.6 Baddesley

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,793 (-7.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the south-eastern part of Test Valley and borders Winchester and Eastleigh districts. It is largely rural in nature but has two significant settlements: North Baddesley and Valley Park, which adjoins Chander’s Ford. The division therefore connects the urban south of Hampshire with the rural centre of Test Valley. The busy A3090 Romsey- Winchester road passes through Baddesley. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Ampfield & Braishfield  North Baddesley  Valley Park

Baddesley has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is below the Hampshire average but within the -10% threshold, so it is not strictly necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. However, pressure arising from Romsey Extra and Test Valley Central means that some realignment in this part of Test Valley is necessary. It is proposed that the adjacent polling district SS-Chilworth be moved from Romsey Extra into this division. The A27 from North Baddesley continues into Chilworth, which also includes the junction of the M3 and M27. The proposal brings Baddesley’s forecast electorate almost exactly to the Hampshire average.

This proposal met with the support of the majority of Test Valley Members but Councillor Alan Dowden, the Member for Baddesley, indicated his preference for the division’s boundaries to remain unchanged.

Proposal for Baddesley

 Add SS-Chilworth (+1,077)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,870 (+0.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.7 Romsey Extra

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,493 (+4.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers a large primarily rural area around the town of Romsey, comprising numerous villages and a new development area north of the town

HF 9349561 - FINAL 131 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

called Abbotswood. It extends east to the borders of Eastleigh and Southampton, and west to Wiltshire. A number of major roads criss-cross this division including the M27, the north-south A3057 and the A27/A36 to Salisbury. The River Test and the Salisbury-Southampton railway run north- south through Romsey Extra. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Blackwater  Chilworth, Nursling & Rownhams  Romsey Extra

Romsey Extra has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is above the Hampshire average but within the +10% threshold, so it would not normally be necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. However, the below-average electorate forecast for Romsey Town requires the expansion of that division and this can only be done by extending into Romsey Extra. It is therefore proposed that UI-Romsey Extra 1 be moved into the Romsey Town division. Similarly, as seen above it is proposed that SS-Chilworth be moved to Baddesley to bring that division closer to the average.

To offset these changes, it is proposed that the whole of Dun Valley Ward, which looks to Romsey in terms of travel and is part of the Romsey-based parliamentary constituency, and TT-Michelmersh, which reaches within a mile of Romsey at its southern end, be added to this division.

The proposed changes mean that the Romsey Extra division is no longer coterminous with Romsey Extra parish. As a result, it is proposed that this division be renamed Romsey Rural.

Proposal for Romsey Rural

 Transfer SS-Chilworth to Baddesley (-1,077)  Transfer UI-Romsey Extra 1 to Romsey Town (-2,354)  Add Dun Valley (+1,708)  Add TT-Michelmersh (+698)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,468 (-2.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.8 Romsey Town

2021 Electorate Forecast: 12,131 (-12.4% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers only the town of Romsey and is currently surrounded by Romsey Extra. The town has strong links to Southampton and Salisbury, to which it is linked by train, and also to Winchester. Romsey is smaller than

HF 9349561 - FINAL 132 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

many other market towns but has a strong and separate identity. The River Test, the town’s canals and Romsey Abbey are defining features of Romsey. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Abbey  Cupernham  Tadburn

Most new development in the Romsey area is taking place outside the division boundaries, meaning that Romsey Town is forecast to have an electorate in 2021 that is well below the Hampshire average. It is therefore necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. As seen above, it is proposed that the division’s extent be increased by adding UI- Romsey Extra 1 from the current Romsey Extra division. This expands Romsey Town outside the historic town area and into Romsey Extra parish, and it is therefore proposed to remove the ‘Town’ reference and rename this division Romsey.

Proposal for Romsey

 Add UI-Romsey Extra 1 (+2,354)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,485 (+4.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

11.9 Test Valley Central

2021 Electorate Forecast: 14,638 (+5.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is by some way the largest in Hampshire and covers the entire central area of the district, an area of over 120 square miles. Test Valley Central has a long border with Wiltshire, stretches east almost as far as Basingstoke & Deane district, and connects the outskirts of Romsey with those of Andover. The division is wholly rural and includes some 23 parishes. In the middle lies the local service centre of Stockbridge, which has a long trading history due to its location at the intersection of the River Test and the Salisbury-Winchester road. The division currently includes the following wards:

 Anna  Broughton & Stockbridge  Dun Valley  Harewood  Kings Somborne & Michelmersh  Over Wallop

HF 9349561 - FINAL 133 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Test Valley Central has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is above the Hampshire average but within the +10% threshold, so it is not strictly necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. However, pressure arising from Andover North means that this division needs to expand in the north and shrink in the south. This will orient the division more towards Andover and reduce its geographical extent, making for more practical arrangements. As seen above, it is proposed that VO-St Marys 7 in the north be added and Dun Valley and TT-Michelmersh be transferred to Romsey Rural, bringing Test Valley Central to almost exactly the Hampshire average.

Proposal for Test Valley Central

 Add VO-St Marys 7 (+1,606)  Transfer Dun Valley to Romsey Rural (-1,708)  Transfer TT-Michelmersh to Romsey Rural (-698)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,838 (-0.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

Proposals for Test Valley

Division name Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 Electorate Variance Electorate Variance (Existing (Existing (Proposed) (Proposed) Forecast) Forecast) Andover North 1 19,875 +43.5% 14,510 +4.8% Andover South 1 11,950 -13.7% 13,656 -1.4% Andover West 1 12,952 -6.5% 15,005 +8.4% Baddesley 1 12,793 -7.6% 13,870 +0.2% Romsey Rural 1 14,493 +4.7% 13,468 -2.7% Romsey 1 12,131 -12.4% 14,485 +4.6% Test Valley Central 1 14,638 +5.7% 13,838 -0.1% Total 7 98,832 98,832

HF 9349561 - FINAL 134 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Test Valley

HF 9349561 - FINAL 135 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

12. Winchester

12.1. About Winchester

Winchester district is formally known as Winchester City but its boundaries encompass a huge area of rural central Hampshire as well as the itself. It is the second-largest district in the county and extends from the A303 near Andover to the M27 near Portsmouth, adjoining more district and unitary councils than any other in Hampshire (seven). Much of the central part of the district is within the South Downs National Park. Winchester is renowned for its many footpaths including the South Downs Way, and two chalk rivers (Itchen and Meon) flow south through the district.

The dominant northeast-southwest travel corridor in Hampshire flows through the northern part of the district, along both the South West Main Line and the M3. A second railway links the city to Portsmouth while the A34, which meets the M3 just outside Winchester, is the key strategic route between the South Coast and the Midlands. The A31 runs east from Winchester to Alton and Farnham. All of these major roads intersect at Winchester and traffic congestion is frequently a problem.

Lying right in the centre of Hampshire, Winchester is the historic county town and was both a Roman settlement (Venta Belgarum) and the ancient capital of Wessex. Historically it has been famous for its Cathedral, College and Castle, in whose Great Hall King Arthur’s Round Table still hangs. In modern times the city plays a crucial role as the administrative centre for the county. In addition to County and City Council headquarters, the Royal County Hospital, the County Court, Winchester Prison and are all located in Winchester. There are also four market towns in Winchester: Bishops Waltham, Wickham, Denmead and Alresford.

The National Park occupies a significant portion of Winchester district, restricting new development and thereby creating development pressure on other areas. North of the city there has long been a strategic gap, so most recent development has taken place in the south around and Newlands (west of Waterlooville). Barton Farm, a large development in the northern part of Winchester city, has recently begun construction.

The population of Winchester in 2015 is just under 120,000 and is notable for having on average the most highly-qualified residents in Hampshire. With good links to London and elsewhere, house prices in Winchester are among the highest in the South East. Many of the people who work in the city live in more affordable areas such as Eastleigh or Southampton.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 136 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Existing County Council Divisions in Winchester

Map shows ward boundaries prior to the 2015 Winchester City Council boundary review

HF 9349561 - FINAL

138 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

the new City Council wards, and where they are not they follow the previous ward and division boundaries.

The County Council has tried, where possible, not to split communities and to come up with proposals which make both geographic and community sense. In one case it has been necessary to split one parish () although as previously stated this follows the line of the district ward prior to 2015.

Beyond the City Council boundary review, there have been two main challenges to successfully completing this exercise. The lead Member for Winchester, Councillor Rob Humby, produced 32 different models with a variety of configurations and connotations. The model proposed below represents the best balance between the Commission’s three criteria.

For the non-city areas, the challenge has been the size of the divisions. The Winchester Councillors have tried to divide the Southern Parishes, Meon Valley and Bishops Waltham divisions to fit within the required electorate variance while taking into account the priorities of communities, divisional size and geographic realities (such as not splitting communities). A particular issue in the rural divisions is the restrictive policies of the South Downs National Park regarding new housing development, which means that the electorate in these areas increases more slowly than in the urban areas.

After discussion with Members, it has been agreed that no changes should be proposed to the Downlands and Itchen Valley Divisions (but see note*** about Barton Farm in the current Sparsholt ward, which is split between these two divisions, below).

The City of Winchester has proved to be an entirely different challenge. Here, there is no configuration which is satisfactory to satisfy both electorate variance requirements and community cohesion. After consultation with Members and with an eye to the three criteria and the final recommendations of the City Council ward boundary review, it is proposed to prioritise community cohesion. The result is that our proposal, which represents the only workable model, leaves both the Eastgate and Westgate divisions above 10% variance. The Winchester Members would therefore wish to state their strong view that the priority of any future boundary review must be to consider giving the city of Winchester a third Member.

There are two wards in Winchester where the polling district electoral forecasts have been recalculated and reapportioned to take account of planned major development, i.e. Barton Farm in the current Sparsholt ward and North Whiteley in the current & ward.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 139 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

In each case, instead of applying the ward-level growth (which already takes account of the planned development) across all the constituent polling districts equally, a specific forecast has been calculated for the polling district in which the major development is planned to take place and then the ward- level remainder has been re-distributed to the remaining polling districts. Thus the ward-level electorate forecast remains the same, but is distributed differently, and more accurately, between its constituent polling districts.

*** The current Sparsholt ward is additionally complicated in that it is already split between two electoral divisions with the planned major development taking place on the Itchen Valley side of the boundary, leading to an increase in the original electorate forecasts on that side (WW ) and a reduction from the original forecasts on the Winchester Downlands side of the boundary (WP and XX Sparsholt). The electorate forecasts between the two divisions have been reapportioned on a more accurate basis and these are highlighted in yellow in the tables.

The proposals for Winchester were co-ordinated by Councillor Rob Humby, the Member for Bishops Waltham, and were discussed with and agreed by all current Winchester County Councillors.

12.3 Bishops Waltham

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,415 (+11.3% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the area stretching southwest from the city of Winchester. The main settlements are Twyford, and Bishops Waltham. The division is a relatively long one from north to south, but does not have a main route running through it. The northern half of Bishops Waltham division is within the National Park and the area is also known for Bishops Waltham Palace and Marwell Zoo. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 Bishops Waltham  Colden Common & Twyford  Owslebury & Curdridge

Bishops Waltham has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is above the Hampshire average and in excess of the +10% threshold, so it is necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality. With Meon Valley needing to increase and Southern Parishes needing to reduce their respective electorates, a balanced realignment across the three is proposed that sees an exchange of polling districts between Meon Valley and Bishops Waltham to reduce Meon Valley’s physical size and focus it more in the south, with Bishops Waltham more in the centre of the district. Less

HF 9349561 - FINAL 140 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

extensive exchanges of polling districts with Southern Parishes are also proposed.

Proposal for Bishops Waltham

 Add WB, WD, WH, WI, XC and XZ from Meon Valley (+1,709)  Transfer WQ to Meon Valley (-3,285)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 13,839 (-0.1% against forecast Hampshire average)

12.4 Itchen Valley

2021 Reapportioned Electorate Forecast: 14,615 (+5.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers a large area north and north-east of the city of Winchester and borders Test Valley, Basingstoke & Deane and East Hampshire districts. The division has strong links in all directions as it is crossed by three busy trunk roads that meet at Winchester: the A34, M3 and A31. The South West Main Line runs through the division and there is a station at . The upper reaches of the River Itchen flow through this division and its lower half is within the South Downs National Park. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 Itchen Valley   Sparsholt (27%)  The Alresfords  & Micheldever (51%)

Itchen Valley has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is slightly below the Hampshire average. However, as described above we have more precisely recalculated the distribution of voters in the current Sparsholt ward in order to better reflect the real impact of the Barton Farm development. The effect of this is to increase the electorate in this division without any change to the boundaries, but to a level that is still well within the +10% threshold.

The lack of an obvious discrete community to move into the Itchen Valley Division from the city makes it impossible to make changes without splitting communities in a way that would not be compliant with the Commission’s criteria. Additionally, the added complication of the in-progress major development at Barton Farm makes justifying moving city wards into rural divisions even more difficult as this would be inconsistent with district ward boundaries and split the new district ward of .

For these reasons we propose no changes to Itchen Valley.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 141 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Itchen Valley

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,615 (+5.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

12.5 Meon Valley

2021 Electorate Forecast: 11,553 (-16.6% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division is the largest in Winchester and covers a 75-square mile rural area in the centre of the district. The division is made up entirely of villages and is almost wholly within the South Downs National Park. Meon Valley, as its name suggests, straddles the course of the River Meon and the parallel A32, and features many long-distance footpaths including the South Downs Way. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 Cheriton & , Soberton & Hambledon  & Newtown  Upper Meon Valley

Meon Valley has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is significantly below the Hampshire average and it is necessary to change its boundaries to achieve better electoral equality. As seen above, an exchange of polling districts with its neighbouring districts is proposed that gives the southern part of Winchester district a better balance. Under these proposals Whiteley and Curdridge are added to Meon Valley as these (with Shedfield, which is already a part of Meon Valley) make up the new district 'Whiteley and Shedfield' ward. This change not only balances the variances but brings the ward into alignment with new district ward boundaries.

The proposed transfer to Meon Valley of polling districts Curdridge WQ and Whiteley YE is supported by the fact that the development of North Whiteley will connect the current Whiteley area with Curbridge, including two new access roads.

Proposal for Meon Valley

 Transfer WB, WD, WH, WI, XC and XZ to Bishops Waltham (-1,709)  Transfer XU to Southern Parishes (-1,042)  Add WQ from Bishops Waltham (+3,285)  Add YE from Southern Parishes (+2,425)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 142 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,512 (+4.8% against forecast Hampshire average)

12.6 Winchester Downlands

2021 Reapportioned Electorate Forecast: 12,437 (-10.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers all of the area to the east of the city of Winchester. The majority of its residents live on the edges of the city, including the large suburb of Oliver’s Battery; other settlements include the villages of , Sparsholt, and . The M3 runs through the south of the division and further east the division is bounded by the River Itchen and the railway. Farley Mount Country Park is located in Winchester Downlands. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 Compton & Otterbourne  Littleton & Harestock  Olivers Battery &  Sparsholt (73%)  Wonston & Micheldever (49%)

Winchester Downlands has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is just below the Hampshire average. However, as described above the distribution of voters in the current Sparsholt ward has been more precisely recalculated in order to better reflect the real impact of the Barton Farm development. The effect of this is the reverse of the effect for Itchen Valley: the electorate in this division decreases without any change to the boundaries. Although the proposed electorate variance is just below the -10% threshold, as with Itchen Valley the lack of a discrete community to move into the ward from the city makes it impossible to make changes without splitting communities in a way which would not be compliant with the Commission’s criteria. For example, polling districts YQ1 and YQ2 are inherently part of Stanmore and could not be split from YR without dividing the Stanmore community against all sense of local identity.

For these reasons no change to the boundaries of Winchester Downlands are proposed.

Proposal for Winchester Downlands

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 12,437 (-10.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

HF 9349561 - FINAL 143 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

12.7 Winchester Eastgate

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,811 (+14.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the centre and eastern parts of the city of Winchester and is bounded by the M3 in the east. It includes all of the central shopping areas, the Cathedral, Winchester College and other well-known landmarks, as well as many residential areas and the Winnall industrial estate. The River Itchen flows through Winchester Eastgate. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 St. Bartholomew  St. John & All Saints  St. Michael

Winchester Eastgate has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is some way above the Hampshire average and in normal circumstances we would look to reduce its size to achieve better electoral equality. However, the adjacent Winchester Westgate has the same problem, so this could only be achieved by transferring voters to one of the rural divisions around the city. Despite many attempts we have found that there is no practical way to split off a whole community from this division. Although, on paper, moving a ward into Downlands or Itchen Valley may appear desirable, to do so would split the city community and infringe one of the Commission’s three criteria (community identity).

The Commission itself in its recently concluded review of Winchester City Council’s ward boundaries has made no change to the Winchester city boundaries that transferred city voters to one of the rural divisions – the only change is to extend a city ward slightly outwards (St Barnabas now incorporating Harestock) rather than a rural ward inwards.

Councillors Fiona Mather and Martin Tod, the Members for Winchester Eastgate and Westgate respectively, comment as follows:

“The of Winchester City is currently divided between two County Council divisions: Winchester Eastgate and Winchester Westgate. Each division is made up of three of the existing six wards.

Winchester Eastgate, the area east of the railway line with the addition of Sleepers Hill and the Sparkford Road area (YP), contains the communities of St Cross, the Cathedral, Winchester College, the Barracks, Winnall, Highcliffe, Waterside, Hyde, , the Courtenay Road area, Northfields estate and the city streets to the north of the High Street.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 144 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Winchester Westgate, the area west of the railway line, contains the communities of Stanmore, the area round Kings School, Fulflood, Orams Arbour, the Poets' Estate, Chilbolton Avenue, Weeke and Teg Down.

None of the distinct communities should be divided between divisions nor would it be appropriate and conducive to effective representation, for example, to add Stanmore, Weeke or Teg Down (edge of city communities) to the Downlands division. Those areas have more in common with neighbouring city communities than they do with the satellite villages.

The Sleepers Hill/West Hill/Sparkford communities (YP) have more in common with the neighbouring communities of St Cross and the Barracks than they do with communities the other side of the Romsey Road eg Orams Arbour, Fulflood and the Poets' Estate so they would be more effectively represented as part of Winchester Eastgate than Winchester Westgate.

We recommend no changes to the existing boundaries of Winchester Eastgate and Westgate divisions.”

For these reasons no change to the boundaries of Winchester Eastgate are proposed. This proposal is strongly supported by both the Members for the city divisions.

Proposal for Winchester Eastgate

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,811 (+14.2% against forecast Hampshire average)

12.8 Winchester Southern Parishes

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,747 (+13.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the entire southern stretch of the district, extending from the borders of Havant and East Hampshire in the east almost as far as the River Hamble in the west. This division is largely rural, but it is almost all outside the National Park and adjoins some built-up areas of south Hampshire. Winchester Southern Parishes is seeing significant growth from the Newlands development just west of Waterlooville. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

& Southwick  Denmead  Whiteley  Wickham

HF 9349561 - FINAL 145 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Winchester Southern Parishes has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is well above the Hampshire average and it is necessary to reduce its size to achieve better equality. As seen above, a limited realignment of the southern divisions, of which the consequence for this division is that one polling district (YE Whiteley) is lost to Meon Valley and one gained in return (XU Newtown) is proposed. Soberton parish is split by the addition of XU but this was previously the case with the ward boundary, and the transfer is necessary in order to bring Meon Valley within the +10% threshold. Denmead and Wickham have been retained as complete settlements within the division.

Proposal for Winchester Southern Parishes

 Add XU (+1,042)  Transfer YE to Meon Valley (-2,425)

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 14,364 (+3.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

12.9 Winchester Westgate

2021 Electorate Forecast: 15,737 (+13.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

This division covers the western part of the city of Winchester. It is principally residential, including distinct areas such as Fulflood and Stanmore. The western edge of this division is open countryside and is the starting-point for people walking the Clarendon Way to Salisbury. Prior to the 2015 boundary review the division included the following wards:

 St. Barnabas  St. Luke  St. Paul

Like Eastgate, Winchester Westgate has a forecast electorate in 2021 that is some way above the Hampshire average and in normal circumstances we would look to reduce its size to achieve better electoral equality. However, exactly the same objections apply and, for the same reasons quoted in paragraph 12.7 above, it has not been possible to identify a solution that would satisfactorily meet all three of the Commission’s criteria. This conclusion is supported by the new city ward boundaries, which in terms of the outer limits of the city are almost exactly as they were with the exception of Harestock now being included in St Barnabas ward.

For these reasons no change to the boundaries of Winchester Westgate is proposed. This proposal is strongly supported by both the Members for the city divisions.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 146 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Proposal for Winchester Westgate

 Retain whole of current division

Proposed 2021 Electorate: 15,737 (+13.7% against forecast Hampshire average)

Proposals for Winchester

Division Members 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 name Electorate Reapportioned Variance Electorate Variance Forecast Forecast (Proposed) (Proposed) (see above ***) Bishops 1 15,415 +11.3% 13,839 -0.1% Waltham Itchen 1 13,432 14,615 +5.6% 14,615 +5.6% Valley Meon 1 11,553 -16.6% 14,512 +4.8% Valley Winchester 1 13,620 12,437 -10.2% 12,437 -10.2% Downlands Winchester 1 15,811 +14.2% 15,811 +14.2% Eastgate Winchester 1 15,747 +13.7% 14,364 +3.7% Southern Parishes Winchester 1 15,737 +13.7% 15,737 +13.7% Westgate Total 7 101,315 101,315 101,315

HF 9349561 - FINAL 147 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Map of Proposed County Council Divisions in Winchester

HF 9349561 - FINAL 148 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

13. Conclusions on Proposed Electoral Division Patterns

13.1. The County Council’s submission on proposed Electoral Division Patterns is based on the three statutory criteria of: electoral equality, community identity, and effective and convenient local government, as referred to in Paragraph 1.5 of this submission. In making its submission the County Council has worked within the Commission’s “minded to” recommendation of 78 Members.

13.2. In making its submission the County Council has aimed to achieve electoral equality as far as possible, but taking into account local interest and communities, geographical boundaries, and the need to ensure that the pattern of electoral divisions proposed works in terms of size and topography of geographical area, both rural and urban, effectiveness of representation, and the requirement to work within the parameters of existing District Council boundaries.

13.3. 67 proposed electoral divisions are within a plus/minus 10% variance of registered voters based on 2021 electoral forecast figures1. Of the remaining nine divisions the reasons for the variance, supported by evidence taking account of all three statutory criteria, are explained in the submission. The County Council is not proposing any change to the number of Councillors in any District Council area.

13.4. A number of name changes are proposed in respect of existing electoral divisions and proposed new electoral divisions, where it is considered that a new name better reflects communities within the proposed divisions. Proposed name changes are detailed within individual electoral division proposals. Overall the proposal is to change 12 of the current division names becoming 13 if the split of the existing two Member division of Bedhampton and Leigh Park into two single Member divisions is accepted.

13.5. In drawing up its proposals the County Council has sought as far as possible to make County Council divisions coterminous with District Council wards. However with 11 districts within the overall area of the County Council, and the statutory requirement not to split District Council boundaries, this has not always been possible to achieve. Some district wards have been split in order to achieve an acceptable level of electoral equality. In such cases preserving the natural contours of the local community has been the guiding principle. In some cases it has been possible to ‘reunite’ previously split District Council wards. Overall based on a proposed total number of 76

1 Measured to nearest whole percentage point. Winchester Downlands (-10.2%) and Fleet (+10.1%) have been rounded to -10% and +10% respectively and are included in the 67 figure.

HF 9349561 - FINAL 149 CHIEF EXECUTIVE

electoral divisions, 35 divisions (46%) consist of whole District Council wards (or existing split District Council wards), and 41 divisions (54%) incorporate one or more split District Council wards.

13.6. Currently the County Council has two ‘doughnut’ divisions – Alton Rural and Romsey Extra. In its proposal Alton Rural remains a doughnut division. The renamed Romsey Rural is however no longer a doughnut division. Increased electoral equality has also been achieved. There are no proposals for detached electoral divisions.

13.7. In order to achieve better electoral equality the proposal includes three split polling districts affecting five electoral divisions; one in Fareham affecting two electoral divisions, and two in Hart affecting three electoral divisions (both Options). The proposal also involves a total of 18 split parishes, six of which are new. Of the 13 parishes split by the current arrangements, eight are unchanged, four remain split but in different ways, and one has been reunited under the new proposals for East Hampshire.

13.8. Currently there are three two-member electoral divisions: Leesland & Town in Gosport, Fareham Town in Fareham, and Bedhampton & Leigh Park in Havant. It is proposed that the existing two member divisions of Leesland & Town and Fareham Town remain as both work well, but that the existing two member division in Bedhampton & Leigh Park be split into two single- member electoral divisions for reasons explained in the report.

13.9. The County Council is very mindful that efficiency of cost is important, particularly at a time when Councils are facing unprecedented pressure on finance. The County Council has based its proposal on Electoral Division Patterns on the Commission’s “minded to” recommendation that the County Council should remain at 78 Members, and accordingly recommends the proposals as set out in this submission to the Commission.

HF 9349561 - FINAL