AT A MEETING of the COUNTY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS REVIEW PANEL

held at THE CASTLE, WINCHESTER on 3 MARCH 2004

Present:

Councillors T. K. Thornber, CBE (Chairman); Mrs. S. E. Allbright; A. P. Collett;

C. R. H. Davidovitz; A. R. Ludlow; W. H. Wheeler.

Also in attendance: Councillor J. K. West

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members who believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting were required to declare their personal

interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the

meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

4. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 20 November 2002 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

5. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

There were no communications from the Chairman.

6. DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations.

7. PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW OF COUNTY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

The Panel considered the report of the Chief Executive (Item 5 in the Minute Book) setting out recommended responses to the draft recommendations published by the Boundary Committee for England on 13 January 2004 in connection with their periodic electoral review of electoral divisions in Hampshire. The draft recommendations had been analysed by members through arrangements made by the lead Members whose nomination the Leader had reported to the County Council in September 2002, and following meetings between the three political group leaders. Following consultation with the group leaders it had been agreed to identify minority group preferences in the report where these differed from the majority group's recommendation.

The Chief Executive reported the receipt of copies of representations made to the Boundary Committee by other local authorities and advised the Panel of their content. Given the closing date of 8 March for representations, there had not been the opportunity to consider these in any detail before reporting to the Panel.

The Panel considered each section of the Chief Executive's report.

i) Multi-member county electoral divisions

There was strong opposition by the Panel to the concept of multi-member county electoral divisions for the reasons detailed in the report. The Panel understood the Labour Group's reasons for not opposing the Boundary Committee's proposals for two-member divisions in Basingstoke and Havant.


ii) Draft recommendations by district

Eastleigh

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group clarified his Group's position on Eastleigh, namely that they continued to support Option B in the County Council's submission made in November 2002.


New Forest and Test Valley

There was no objection to the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations.

Winchester

The Chief Executive reported representations made by Winchester City Council to the Boundary Committee to the effect that the parish of Headbourne Worthy should be in Downlands Division rather than Itchen Valley in order to improve co-terminosity. On the face of it the Panel did not consider that this should be opposed.

Hart

An alternative proposal was described by Councillor A. P. Collett following consideration of the draft recommendations by Yateley Town Council very recently. Given that the lead Member for Hart and other local Members had not had the opportunity to consider the matter, it was agreed that a report by Councillor Collett on the alternative should be appended to the report of this meeting to the County Council on 4 March 2004.

The views of Crondall Parish Council on the draft recommendations concerning the parish were reported by the Chief Executive and noted.

Rushmoor

The Chief Executive reported representations which Rushmoor Borough Council had agreed to make to the Boundary Committee, the effect of which, given the unification of St. Marks Ward in Farnborough South, was to switch Manor Park Polling Districts RU and RT between Aldershot West and Aldershot East respectively. On the face of it, the Panel did not consider that this should be opposed but they noted that such an approach could, in due course, have an adverse impact on the size of the electorate on completion of Project Connaught, a major local development project.

Basingstoke

The Panel had no further comments.




Fareham

The Panel received the Liberal Democrat Group's alternative option (Item 5A in the Minute Book) for incorporation into the report to the County Council.

Gosport

The Panel received additional comments submitted by Councillor M. S. Geddes, the lead Member, to expand the reasons why the original submission for Gosport should be adopted in preference to the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations.

Havant

For clarification, the Panel revised the submitted text to delete the words in line 8 of the preamble ". . .leaving things as they are." and replace them with ". . .accepting the Boundary Committee's proposals".

East Hampshire

Councillor J. K. West spoke in support of the majority group's recommendation as shown on page 17 of the report. In relation to Finchdean, the Liberal Democrat and Labour Groups concurred with Councillor West's view that this should be reunited with the remainder of Rowlands Castle parish for county electoral purposes, the parish having been severed by the Boundary Committee's review of district wards. With that exception, the minority groups supported the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations.

The Chief Executive reported views submitted to the Boundary Committee by Hawkley and Whitehill Parish Councils and these were noted.

In order to accommodate further discussions in the event that the County Council was unable to reach a final conclusion at its meeting on 4 March, the Chief Executive suggested, and it was agreed, that he be authorised to agree the final submission with the three political group leaders in order to ensure that the County Council's response was made by 8 March 2004, the deadline set by the Boundary Committee.

RESOLVED:

That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the County Council:

i) That the County Council strongly opposes the establishment of multi-member county electoral divisions for the reasons set out in paragraph 2.7 in the report;


ii) That the proposals for Basingstoke, East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Hart, Havant, Rushmoor and Winchester set out in the report of the Chief Executive and the supplementary report of the Chief Executive be submitted to the Boundary Committee for England and that the Boundary Committee be advised of the minority groups views as included in the report;


iii) That the County Council raises no objection to the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for New Forest and Test Valley;


iv) That the Chief Executive be authorised to agree the text of the County Council's submission to the Boundary Committee for England with the three political group leaders in order to ensure that the County Council's response is made by 8 March 2004, the deadline set by the Boundary Committee.

js331