Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 09:18 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of

From: Tetstall, Roger Sent: 31 July 2015 15:30 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Electoral Review of Hampshire

Dear Mr Jackson

I write in response to your letter dated 26th May 2015 seeking Borough Council’s views on future electoral division boundaries for Hampshire County Council.

We have, of course, had the benefit of correspondence with Mr Alex Hinds from the Commission who has re-assured us that the outcome of this review will not tie the hands of the Borough Council in our own review which is scheduled to begin in 2017.

Against this background, our comments on the present review are limited to those of two of our Borough Councillors as follows:

Cllr. Mark Cooper, Borough Councillor for the Tadburn ward of (and also County Councillor for Romsey Town)

I am not objecting to the addition of Romsey Extra's electoral ward UI to my Romsey Town Division, nor the name change to 'Romsey'.

Cllr. Alison Finlay, Borough Councillor for the Chilworth, and Ward

As one of the three ward councillors for Chilworth, Nursling & Rownhams ward and the councillor who lives in Chilworth, I have considerable knowledge of the parish of Chilworth. I have lived here for 37 years and know the majority of constituents.

I have the following comments to make on the Hampshire County Council (HCC) response, which proposes, among other matters to split Chilworth parish from its associated parishes of Nursling & Rownhams in the Romsey Extra division and attach it to the Baddesley division: a) It is unusual and, in my view, undesirable, to split a parish off from its neighbouring ward parishes. No clear justification aligning with the Commission’s key objectives has been provided within the HCC submission to substantiate this suggestion. b) The HCC submission states that for Baddesley division it is not strictly necessary to take action to achieve greater electoral equality, though it does state that pressure from Romsey

1 Extra and Test Valley Central divisions mean that some realignment will be necessary. It does not seek to clarify what this will be in respect of Baddesley, unfortunately. c) Chilworth Parish electors have advised me that they would prefer to remain within Romsey Extra division as they feel greater affinity with this division. It is, like much of Chilworth, largely rural. It is due to have large areas designated in the new local plan as Forest Parkland, adding to this rural feel. d) Additionally, Chilworth parish is unique in that it has the highest proportion of ethnic electors within the borough, who provide for diversity within the Romsey Extra division. e) If the objective of HCC ‘s suggested move of Chilworth Parish is to provide electoral balance, there are other ways in which such balance can be accomplished. Chilworth could remain in its present division and those areas proposed for a move from Test Valley Central into Romsey Extra could remain within Test Valley Central, thus evening out the electoral balance in this way. f) The justification for moving Test Valley Central electors into Romsey Extra is said to be because there is a need to include some Andover electors in Test Valley Central. This may not be necessary, in my view, since the number of Andover electors can still be accommodated within the three Andover divisions whilst still achieving electoral balance with the other four divisions within Test Valley borough, assuming Test Valley Central does not divest itself of electors into Romsey Extra division. Elsewhere in the report, HCC have suggested that it is appropriate to have greater numbers of voters in urban areas due to the compact nature of development there. g) HCC’s proposed renaming of Romsey and Romsey Extra divisions to Romsey Town and Romsey Rural respectively is to be welcomed. h) HCC’s proposed reorganisation of the north of Romsey Extra may not remove the doughnut effect though it does suggest moving Woodley into the town boundary, which seems sensible. It will need a boundary to be redrawn to remove the doughnut and more electors to move to achieve the necessary balance. Electors from the north east of Romsey Extra could join with Baddesley division electors, perhaps those from the Abbotswood and, most recently, the Ganger Farm development, a speculative development recently approved. i) Although this might seem to reduce the Romsey Extra division significantly, account needs to be taken of future developments. Some future development can be predicted based on past experience, such as that within the new local plan and extant permissions and most likely will have been included in the HCC proposals. But there are additional major developments which have been approved recently (or have a high probability of being approved before November), which are speculative and will not necessarily have been predicted in the HCC data. This likely influx of development, and hence, electors, is due to the change in government policy contained in the NPPF, whereby developments which would not formerly have been approved when the commission last conducted a review, are now being approved. Many of these are in Rownhams parish, within Chilworth & Rownhams ward and hence, with in Romsey Extra division. Whilst the Commission does not include speculative developments in its assessment, the planning environment has changed significantly since the commission last reviewed the area. Hence, I consider it might be wise to expect that a percentage of these speculative developments will be completed by 2021 when assessing Romsey Extra division’s electorate. j) In its assessments, I would have preferred HCC to have used a borough-wide average rather than a county-wide average, since there is no intention to move electors out of the borough boundary. Hence the estimated number of borough electors will still need to be divided between seven county councillors. I accept that the difference may be only marginal in some areas.

2