Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the COUNTY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS REVIEW MEMBERS PANEL held at The Castle, Winchester on 20 November 2002.

PRESENT:

Councillors: Mrs S.E. Allbright; A.P. Collett; Mrs S.M. Glasspool, DL; A.R. Ludlow; P.A. Pierce; T.K. Thornber, CBE; W.H. Wheeler.

Also in attendance:

Councillors: J.V. Bryant; Mrs E.M. Byrom; C.R.H. Davidovitz; A.G. Dowden; E.F. Gale, MBE; Felicity Hindson, MBE; T.G. Knight; Mrs P.G. Peskett; R.H. Price; Mrs E.M.F. Randall; J.W. Stocks; J.K. West; M.J. Woodhall.

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED:

That Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE be appointed Chairman of the Panel.

2. PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW OF COUNTY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

With the agreement of the Chairman, given the need for the County Council's proposals to be submitted by 25 November 2002, the Panel considered the report and supplementary report of the Chief Executive (Item 2 and 2(a) in the Minute Book) setting out proposals for County Electoral Divisions having regard to the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. The guidance set out the legal and procedural framework for the review which was being undertaken by the Boundary Committee for England. The proposals in the report had been formulated where possible by way of local consultation between County Councillors as outlined by the Leader of the Council at the meeting of the Council on 19 September 2002. All Members of the Council had been invited to the meeting of the Panel in accordance with the Leader's invitation at the Council on 19 September. In a number of districts local consensus had not been reached and, after preliminary consideration of all the information submitted by Members, the Chief Executive had been asked by the Group Leaders to include alternative options. No option had priority over any other.

Robin Edwards, Principal Research Officer in the Environment Directorate, explained the methodology which had been applied to estimate the projected electorates for December 2006, emphasising that this reflected the dwelling supply available at April 2001. It did not reflect developments approved since then and, in line with the Boundary Committee's guidance, the figures quoted were cautious, therefore. However the Panel was mindful that the proposals had been formulated against a background of Hampshire being scheduled to experience the greatest growth in housing in South East England.

Members supported the approach taken by the Political Group Leaders in developing proposals and considered each district in turn. Throughout the discussions Members were mindful that, when the Boundary Committee for England published their recommendations, the County Council would have eight weeks within which to respond. It was agreed that, where information was received by the Chief Executive after the meeting, any suggestions not in accordance with the presumptions underpinning the formulation of proposals should be referred to the three Political Group Leaders for resolution.

Basingstoke and Deane

It was agreed that options A and B should be submitted to the Boundary Committee. In paragraph 3.1 "Fareham Western Wards" was substituted for "Whiteley" for accuracy. Minor alterations were also agreed in relation to the supporting text.

East Hampshire

Councillor A.R. Ludlow presented an adjustment to his suggestions which were shown as option B. The revision was accepted and is shown as Item 2(b) in the Minute Book. It was also agreed that the title "Butser" was preferred to "Causeway" and also that, to avoid confusion elsewhere in the County, "Downland" should be called "Alton Downland".

Eastleigh

Members preferred the title "Hamble le Rice and Netley" to "Hamble Peninsula" in option B but otherwise agreed the proposals.

Fareham

Subject to clarification of the electorate in relation to Fareham West, the proposals were agreed. The Panel confirmed that they considered that a two member division in the Borough would not be an appropriate solution.

Gosport

The proposals were agreed.

Hart

The proposals were agreed.

Havant

It was agreed that options A, B and C be submitted to the Boundary Committee given the difficulties experienced by the Chief Executive in obtaining reliable electoral data on which to base forecasts.

New Forest

The proposals in the report were agreed. Following comments by Councillor Mrs E.M.F. Randall it was agreed that any alternative suggestion should be with the Chief Executive by noon on Friday 22 November.

    Rushmoor

    The Panel noted that the numerical solution for Aldershot East and Aldershot West could be achieved by alternative means and it was agreed to refer to that in the submission to the Boundary Committee. It was also agreed that option B concerning Farnborough North and Farnborough West be submitted, this reflecting a recommendation made at the time of the Boundary Committee's review of Borough Wards.

    Test Valley

    Concerns were expressed about the suggested configuration of Borough Wards in County Electoral Divisions with particular reference to the Andover area. If alternative proposals could be put forward, the Panel asked that these be submitted to the Chief Executive by noon on Friday 22 November.

    Winchester

    It was noted that a second option for the rural part of the City Council's area would be submitted to the Chief Executive by noon on 22 November. It was agreed that option A would comprise the City of Winchester configured on a north/south basis together with the outstanding details, and option B would comprise the City of Winchester configured on an east/west basis together with the proposals for the rural areas as shown in the report. It was agreed that, to avoid confusion with the Division in East Hampshire, the "Downlands" Division should be known as "Winchester Downlands". The name "Winchester Southern Parishes" was agreed for the new County Electoral Division under option A and option B and, for clarification, the City Divisions would all be prefaced by the word "Winchester".

    RESOLVED:

      (i) That Councillors T.K. Thornber, A.P. Collett and W.H. Wheeler be authorised to agree any further options to be submitted to the Chief Executive between this meeting and submission of the County Council's scheme to the Boundary Committee for England on 25 November, where they do not confirm to the principles of equality of electorate, coterminosity and community interest as applied in the development of the proposals referred to in (ii) below;

      (ii) That the proposals set out in the report as revised at the meeting and amended as necessary in accordance with (i) above be submitted to the Boundary Committee for England by no later than 25 November 2002.

      (iii) That the proposals referred to in (ii) above be reported to the Council at its meeting on 28 November 2002.

5MM441202