Local Residents Surnames L-Z submissions to the Hampshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Local Residents surnames L-Z. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hampshire County Personal Details: Name: Anthony Ludlow E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I object to any changes in the boundaries of the two Alton wards (Alton Town and Alton Rural). These were created by the Boundary Commission in its previous review, and they are working well. The proposals were adopted when I was County Councillor for Alton Town (including Holybourne). The Boundary Commission used my submission as an example of good practice. They agreed that there was more in common between Alton and Holybourne which are a continuous development. There is little in common between any of the surrounding villages and Alton, as they are well-separated from Alton. Rural villages are unlikely to share the same ambitions as a small town. There is little in common between Alton Town and the villages of Beech, Wield, Lasham and Bentworth. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6661 11/01/2016 New Milton New Milton is a continuous built up area which lies outside of the New Forest National Park. This area is bounded to the north by the B3055 (Bashley Cross Road), to the east by Danes Stream as far as the A337 (Lymington Road), to the south by the A337 as far as its junction with the B3058 (a roundabout), then by the B3058 (Milford Road) as far as Barton Common Road, and from there to the coastline. The western boundary follows the county boundary from the coast along Walkford Brook, along Gore Road and then the length of Stem Lane back up to the B3055. Two parts of this built up area have a further distinct geographic identity: • Barton-on-Sea, which is the area south of the A337 and west of the B3058 • Ashley, which is on the east side of the area All other parts of New Milton identify themselves solely as New Milton. Two parts of the Parish of New Milton lie outside of the continuous built up area: • an agricultural area south of the A337 and east of the B3058, which has very few inhabitants • the rural area west of Stem Lane and north of the B3055, which includes the village of Bashley; this is horticultural, agricultural and equestrian in character Problems with the current County Council divisions The fundamental problem is that the residents of New Milton who live north of the railway line are dependent upon the County Council facilities south of the railway line, notably the primary schools and the library. The railway line is therefore not an appropriate boundary. Before addressing objections to the existing county council divisions, which the Local Government Boundary Commission proposes to leave unchanged, it is worth considering some issues with the ward boundaries which mean that in some respects they are not good guides when constructing the council divisions. The greatest problem is the encroachment of the Brockenhurst division upon residential areas of New Milton, which fails to satisfy three of the statutory criteria the Commission must follow: • it does not deliver electoral equality • it does not reflect the interests and identities of local communities • it does not provide effective and convenient local government The artificial Milford & Hordle division is also objectionable because: • it does not reflect the interests and identities of local communities Problems with the ward boundaries The most obvious anomaly in the Hampshire wards for New Milton is that there is no ward for Ashley, despite the fact that it has a distinct historical, geographical identity, including two primary schools under the jurisdiction of Hampshire County Council. The northern part of Ashley is in the Fernhill ward, and the southern part in the highly artificial "Becton" ward. The other part of the "Becton" ward is an unconnected residential area on the eastern side of Barton-on-Sea. (This area may properly be called Becton). It would reflect local interests and identities much more closely if Ashley had its own ward. The diminished Becton ward could either have its western boundary moved further west until it is equal in size to the Barton ward, or else be merged into the Barton ward. The other serious anomaly is the inclusion of residential parts of New Milton (south of the B3055) in the Bashley ward. These are part of New Milton town, whereas Bashley is a rural district, and these residential areas ought to be part of the Fernhill ward which covers the rest of New Milton north of the railway line. The net effect of gaining these areas from Bashley and losing the area east of Oakwood Avenue to a newly created Ashley ward would be to leave the Fernhill ward much the same size. It is true that the population of the Bashley ward would be reduced, perhaps by as much as 50%, but its geographic area would only be reduced by about 20%, and the Boundary Commission is permitted to make allowances for this kind of thing in rural areas. Problems with the Brockenhurst Division The areas shown in magenta on the map are within the Brockenhurst division (the likely reason for this is that they are part of the Bashley ward; the rest of the Bashley ward does have similar characteristics to the rest of the Brockenhurst division). Hampshire County Council, in its submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission, states: “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.” In general terms this is an accurate description, but it strongly implies that residential areas of New Milton ought not to be included in the Brockenhurst division because they have so little in common with the rest of that division, which is rural and part of the New Forest National Park. These residential areas ought instead to be coupled with the rest of New Milton, with which they have everything in common. The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to reflect the interest and identities of local communities The Hampshire County Council submission lists a number of factors that: “make the present Brockenhurst division difficult for one Councillor to service.” Given the burdens placed upon the councillor for the Brockenhurst division, it is unreasonable to expect that person to properly represent the interests of a small part of the division that is on its fringe and very different in character from the rest of the division, and it is therefore unlikely that in practice residents of New Milton in the Brockenhurst division will be properly represented. Removing the areas south of the B3055 from the Brockenhurst division would relieve the Brockenhurst councillor of one burden. The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to provide effective and convenient local government Finally, there is no arithmetic necessity for parts of New Milton to be included in the Brockenhurst division. The projected electorates in 2021 for the Brockenhurst division, and for the other two divisions that are proposed to cover New Milton, are: • Brockenhurst 15,010 • New Milton 14,511 • Milford & Hordle 13,877 According to the Hampshire electorate data, the projected electorates in 2021 are 1056 for Bashley1 and 1112 for Bashley2. I have been unable to determine which of these is for rural Bashley and which for the New Milton parts, but the numbers are so close it makes little difference. Assuming Bashley2 is the New Milton areas, transferring 1112 from Brockenhurst to Milford & Hordle gives projected electorates of: • Brockenhurst 13,898 • New Milton 14,511 • Milford & Hordle 14,989 Transferring the areas south of the B3055 from the Brockenhurst division to Milford & Hordle would result in greater electoral equality (but note that there are other objections to the Milford & Hordle division). The Brockenhurst division fails the criterion: • to provide electoral equality Problems with the Milford & Hordle Division Most of New Milton north of the railway line, the Fernhill ward, is represented by the Milford & Hordle county council division. This area is shown in green on the map. Milford-on-Sea is a large coastal village and Hordle is a rural village, again fairly substantial. The division also includes the village of Everton which is similar to Hordle but perhaps a little less rural in character owing to its proximity to the A337. In contrast the Fernhill ward is a residential area of a town. As well as the different character of the Fernhill ward from the rest of the division, it is also geographically disjoint from it. The Fernhill ward is north of the railway and west of Danes Stream, whereas Milford, Hordle and Everton are south of the railway and east of Danes Stream. The natural connection between the two would be the southern part of Ashley, which is linked to Hordle by two roads (Ashley Lane and Hare Lane), however this part of Ashley is within the New Milton division and thus severed from its northern part. The coupling of the Fernhill ward with Milford and Hordle is therefore an artificial one, lacking any significant commonality. The Milford & Hordle division fails the criterion: • to reflect the interests and identities of local communities Solutions to the Problems Although the size of New Milton (too big for one county council division, not big enough for two) does present genuine difficulties when deciding upon boundaries, here are three solutions, any of which satisfies the criteria set for the Local Government Boundary Commission more successfully than the Draft Recommendations of the Commission (which propose no change to the existing divisions).