Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the CABINET of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at the Castle, Winchester on Monday, 11 March 2002.

PRESENT:

Councillors: T.K. Thornber, CBE (In the Chair); D.G. Allen; K.B. Estlin; Mrs. S.M. Glasspool, DL; Felicity Hindson; MBE; D.A. Kirk; J. Waddington; J.K. West;

M.J. Woodhall.

Also in attendance:

Councillors: A.P. Collett; B.D. Dash and W.H. Wheeler.

69 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2002 were confirmed as a correct record.

70 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

    (i) South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) - Purchase of Land for New Industrial Development at Harts Farm Way, Broadmarsh, Havant

    The Chairman referred to his membership of the Major Projects Committee of SEEDA and advised that the Agency had recently purchased an area of brownfield land at Harts Farm Way, Broadmarsh, Havant for the purpose of providing 11,000 square metres of industrial work space, principally in the high tech industry, which would result in the creation of approximately 170 new jobs.

    (ii) Government White Paper on Regional Government

    The Chairman drew attention to the results of a recent survey of 1000 people from various locations across the country into attitudes towards Local Government which had demonstrated strong support for retaining the current system of County government as opposed to regionalisation. The Cabinet agreed to his suggestion that the County Council should commission an independent study of the same type for Hampshire and use the results to inform its campaign for the retention of County Councils. The Chairman undertook to discuss with Leaders of other County Councils in the South East, the possibility of their following the County Council's lead in this matter.

71 REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES IN HAMPSHIRE

The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Executive (Item 3 in the Minute Book) following the publication of proposed parliamentary constituencies by the Boundary Commission for England. Following a full discussion the Cabinet submitted the following representations to the Boundary Commission having taken into account the provisions of the rules by which the Commission was guided:-

    (i) Winchester/Fareham - Whiteley

    In order to avoid dividing the Whiteley community, the County Council considers that Whiteley should be located wholly in either the Winchester Constituency or the Fareham Constituency.

    (ii) Meon Valley

    The County Council considers that, whilst the Commission's recommendations are based on electoral data at a fixed point in time, regard should be had to significant anticipated changes. In the Meon Valley the major development area west of Waterlooville is, in the County Council's view, such an issue. It will have a major impact in many ways, particularly in terms of the size of the electorate. The situation at Whiteley is an example of the anomalies which derive from failure to take major developments into account before building actually commences.

    The County Council is also concerned that the Meon Valley Constituency as proposed has no focal point, no centre of population to give it a clear identity.

    (iii) The villages to the south east of Alresford

    Local knowledge persuades the County Council that the villages to the south east of Alresford look towards Winchester rather than to the east of Hampshire. Accordingly, the County Council is opposed to their inclusion in the proposed East Hampshire Constituency.

    (iv) Basingstoke

    The County Council considers that the parishes of Oakley, Dummer and North Waltham have a stronger affinity with the town of Basingstoke than with north west Hampshire and accordingly should be included in the proposed Basingstoke Constituency.

    (v) New Forest East/West Constituencies

    The County Council considers that Boldre should remain in New Forest East and be joined by Sway rather than taking Boldre from New Forest East to join Sway in New Forest West. Both Boldre and Sway have greater affiliation with Brockenhurst in New Forest East than they have with New Forest West.

    (vi) Romsey

    The need to reflect local community interest effectively persuades the County Council that Bassett and Swaythling should not be included in the Romsey constituency. They look strongly to the City of Southampton and comprise defined entities within the area of that unitary authority. The County Council does not consider that the affinity between Romsey and its surrounding area with Bassett and Swaythling is such that they should be co-located in the same parliamentary constituency.

    (vii) Yateley

    The County Council is disappointed that the Commission's proposal divides Yateley between the Aldershot Constituency and North East Hampshire. The County Council considers that, with the interests of the local community in mind, the status quo should prevail albeit that retaining Yateley in the Aldershot Constituency will increase marginally the electorate above the usual tolerance.

    A copy of the decision sheet is set out as Appendix 1 to these Minutes.

5bM210302