Hampshire County Council 4 March 2004 Periodic Electoral Review Members Panel Item 5 3 March 2004 Periodic Electoral Review of County Electoral Divisions Report of the Chief Executive

Contact: David Hinxman Ext: 7339 e-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction

1.1 At its meeting on 28 November 2002 the Council considered and approved its submission to the Boundary Committee for England in connection with the Boundary Committee's Review of County Electoral Divisions in Hampshire. On 13 January 2004, the Boundary Committee published its draft recommendations and invited public comment by 8 March 2004. This report sets out proposals for the County Council's response to the draft recommendations. Before consideration by the County Council on 4 March, the report will be considered by the Members Panel previously appointed to consider the matter, namely the three political group leaders and the County Councillors serving on the Standards Committee.

1.2 Minority Group solutions are identified in the report against particular proposals where these differ from the response recommended for particular areas

1.3 The report comprises four parts:

· consideration of the principle of multi-member electoral divisions;


· the draft recommendations to which it is suggested no objections
should be raised;


· the draft recommendations where minor change should be made;


· the draft recommendations which are strongly opposed by the County Council.

2. Multi-Member County Electoral Divisions

2.1 The Boundary Committee has made recommendations for two-member county electoral divisions in 15 of the 16 reviews for which it has so far published draft proposals. In its guidance on reviews, which the County Council took into account when making its submission in November 2002, the Boundary Committee acknowledged that there had not been reviews of any County Council area since the Local Government Act 2000 came into force, this Act for the first time making provision to allow multi-member divisions to be recommended. The principle is, therefore, untried and untested among County Councils.

2.2 In the government consultation paper `Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People' the government said `....that the (Electoral Commission) could, where possible, and over time, be asked to redefine electoral boundaries to increase the proportion of the electorate involved in each election.' This led to the provision in the Local Government Act 2000 for the Electoral Commission, via the Boundary Committee, to recommend multi-member divisions and to vary electoral cycles. The County Council was very concerned about these electoral proposals in its response to the consultation paper. It strongly supports all out four yearly elections, a significant reason being that whenever there is a County Council election, the whole electorate in the county Council's area is involved.

2.3 When it was formulating proposals for new divisions, Hampshire, like many other county councils, did not consider that there should be any multi-member divisions in its area. Its preference was that the County Council should be increased by three or four to 77/78 members, each of whom would represent a single member division, thereby promoting accountability, stability, continuity, community awareness and community leadership. These are all great strengths which multi-member divisions would erode.

2.4 Whilst the Boundary Committee has acknowledged that the County Council should be increased to 78 members, it also proposes that these should be spread across only 73 County Electoral Divisions. Five of the divisions in the draft recommendations, therefore, are two member divisions: two in Basingstoke and Deane and one each in Fareham, Gosport and Havant.

2.5 The Boundary Committee's proposals for multi-member divisions, both in Hampshire and other counties, appear to be a convenient means of securing equality of electorates whilst maintaining coterminosity with district ward boundaries. The Boundary Committee seems to have taken no account of the many very real disadvantages of multi-member divisions which would undermine efficient and effective local government. The five two-member divisions recommended would have electorates ranging from 22,500 to 27,200. Such electorates are as large as some of the smaller Parliamentary constituencies which are served by full time politicians with paid support.

2.6 In drawing up its own submission, the County Council found no evidence for putting forward proposals for other than single member divisions. The County Council has always taken great care to protect the interests of its many and diverse communities and, when addressed by the Boundary Committee's representatives in July 2002, members of the County Council placed great emphasis on that. Aim 4 of the County Council's Corporate Strategy - building strong and safe communities - reflects the high priority which the County Council places on community interest .

2.7 The following are the reasons why the County Council opposes multi-member divisions:-

· The divisions would contain electorates so large as to render efficient and effective community leadership beyond the capacity of part time County Councillors. County Councils with much smaller average electorates have made this point strongly;


· Councillors will find it very difficult to identify with parts of their division, particularly in terms of developing relationships with local communities because of the volume of work occasioned by larger electorates;


· Constituents will find it very difficult to identify with their local county councillors for similar reasons;


· There will be confusion among the electorate as to where responsibility lies between two elected members in a division of such scale;


· There will be an expectation among constituents that each member representing the division will know what their particular problems are and will be able to respond at any given time. This is wholly unrealistic - the very large electorate would not receive the level of attention which one member could give by sole commitment to an electorate half its size;


· Members' efficiency and effectiveness as community champions will be diluted by duplication of effort, workload and caseload thereby preventing them from meeting the expectations of an average sized electorate in a single member county electoral division;


· Political group representation on the Council would be distorted given that a two-member division on a four year election cycle has a strong potential to return two members from the same political group. As a result, minorities in the large two member division would be disadvantaged. The County Council has previously responded to Government consultations on electoral cycles expressing strong opposition, on grounds of instability, to other than four yearly elections and notes with interest that the Electoral Commission now recommends four yearly elections for all councils, contrary to the government's views as expressed in "In Touch with the People";


· Whether or not two members from the same political group are returned, such an arrangement has the potential for each member to pursue his/her own agenda to undermine the effectiveness of the other, again diluting the efficiency and effectiveness of two-member divisions and delivering inequality of service to the electorate. This would be particularly marked if members were returned with differing manifestos. If 2 members were returned from different political parties it is probable that they would attempt to cover the whole division. The workload of a 24,000 electorate would be unrealistic for unsupported councillors;


· Whilst multi-member divisions work in district and unitary authorities where ward electorates are much smaller, in large counties like Hampshire, with a large average electorate per division, the County Council believes that the demands placed upon any member in a multi member division will be such as to discredit the excellent reputation of the County Council if the pressures so created prevent the members from operating efficiently and effectively;


· Multi-member electoral divisions will not attract new candidates whose main objective is to act as a community champion, to represent everyone in his/her division, to identify with the division and to be known by the people within that division. These sound aspirations would be undermined and diluted due to the impact of the disadvantages described above and efficient and effective local government and the reputation of the County Council would suffer.

2.8 Whilst defining an area with approximately twice the average electorate and making provision for two county councillors provides a convenient average electorate per member and helps to maintain coterminosity, the County Council does not accept that these criteria should override the practical benefits of single member county electoral divisions. The disadvantages described above are inherent in any multi-member division. Very few county councils sought multi-member electoral divisions and, among those councils in respect of which draft recommendations were published last year, enquiries reveal that there is no widespread support for them. Those that were put forward at the outset of the review reflected the considered opinion of the local authorities involved who well know their local circumstances. The County Council believes that it and its community is best placed to advise on future electoral arrangements and that, in that respect, there is no evidence that the people of Hampshire want multi-member divisions. The Council, therefore, sees no grounds for supporting multi-member divisions in its area.

2.9 The County Council believes that the advantages of single member divisions should prevail so that the local communities may identify with their local County Councillor, be clear who their community leader is, and be reassured that single member constituencies will continue to form the cornerstone of efficient, effective, and excellent local government in Hampshire. The majority of Members have examined all five of the proposed two-member divisions and cannot support any of them. They also reject the suggested two-member division in Fleet and Crookham. They have considered whether there are any other locations where a two-member division would be appropriate, but the problems outlined above would exist anywhere in Hampshire.

3. The Boundary Committee's draft recommendations to which no objection is raised

3.1 Following consultation with the three political group leaders, it is considered that no objection should be raised to the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations in respect of the following:-

· Eastleigh


· New Forest

· Test Valley


· Winchester

4. The draft recommendations where minimal change should be made

Hart

4.1 The Boundary Committee indicate in their report that they have proposed adoption of the County Council's original submission but at the same time they sought local views on a two member division comprising all the Fleet and Church Crookham wards, part of their argument being an improvement in coterminosity. For the reasons strongly explained earlier in the report, two member divisions cannot be supported by the County Council. The County Council appreciates the Boundary Committee's view that there is a need to look at the Fleet and Church Crookham wards being served by two councillors. However, the seven wards add up to an electorate of 27,688 which would be the equivalent of approximately 14,000 per member. There would be a considerable effect on the adjoining divisions as follows:

· To the north the Frogmore, Hawley and Hartley Wintney division would be reduced by 1,929 (PA,QB2) Ancells Farm, to 12,073;


· To the south the proposed Church Crookham/Courtmoor division would be reduced by 2,399 (QJ) Ewshot, but that would need to be added to the proposed Odiham division and increase its electorate to 16,448.


This would produce a variation of between 12,073 and 16,448, way beyond the criteria set by the Boundary Committee and would result in an unacceptable degree of electoral inequality.

Nor does the County Council agree that the convenience of coterminosity should prevail over its own assessment of what arrangements will most suitably reflect local community interest. Projections for 2006 indicate a significant increase in that part of the Crondall electorate linked with Church Crookham but its inclusion in the proposed Odiham Division would increase the electoral division beyond acceptable margins. The County Council's proposals submitted in November 2002 reflect the links between the built up areas of Fleet, Church Crookham and Crondall and the County Council maintain strongly that this solution remains the best for the district.

Rushmoor

4.2 Whilst the generality of the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for Rushmoor are an appropriate solution, further consideration of the issues by members locally has resulted in a review of the County Council's position concerning how best to serve the electorate in St. Mark's Ward. The County Council believes that there is a strong case for maintaining county electoral divisions which recognise the boundary between the towns of Farnborough and Aldershot which together comprise Rushmoor Borough. It is considered anomalous, therefore, that part of St. Mark's Ward in Farnborough should be joined with Aldershot Wards for County Council elections but remain with Farnborough for borough elections. Following local consultation a clear view has come across that there will be confusion and discontent among Farnborough voters if they have to vote with Aldershot for County Council elections and with Farnborough for borough elections. The following proposal is put forward accordingly. Over the longer term beyond the period covered by this review, this solution will also take into account the growth in electorate associated with Project Connaught in the area of Aldershot West.

Aldershot West 2001 2006

Manor Park (RU) 1505 1617

Row Hill 4178 4160
Wellington 4280 4457
9963 (-19.4%) 10,234 (- 19.9%)

Farnborough South

Empress 4536 4631

Knellwood 4202 4260
St Marks 4674 4714

13412 (+ 8.5%) 13605 (+6.5%)

5. The draft recommendations which are strongly opposed by the County Council

5.1 As stated earlier in the report, the County Council is very strongly opposed to two-member county electoral divisions. The Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for two-member divisions all seek to improve coterminosity. Taking that into account as closely as possible whilst maintaining single member divisions which have all the advantages previously identified, leads the County Council to reaffirm parts of its original submission or make new proposals, details of which are given below.

5.2 Whilst not affected by a two-member division proposal, East Hampshire is also included in this section as an area where significant changes from the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations are put forward.

5.3 The following are the districts and the particular electoral divisions where the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations are strongly opposed:

Basingstoke

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups are opposed to two-member divisions. They consider single member divisions to be far more important than equality of electorate numbers in ensuring effective representation.

Their concern with regard to two member divisions includes:

· poorer representation of the general public due lack of clarity as to which

councillor is responsible


· if the two members elected are from the same political party they will in

practice divide the area between themselves in order to achieve a manageable workload. But the electorate will not necessarily be aware or recognise the arrangement


· if the two members are from different political parties it is probable that

they will attempt to cover the whole division. The workload associated with an electorate of 24,000 is unrealistic for a County Councillor without any dedicated support


· officers of the County Council will face increased and unnecessary

workload briefing on issues and responding to queries to two councillors on issues which would only affect one councillor if single member divisions were in place


· two-member divisions will generate the need for more clerical support than two single member divisions. This applies to notification of members on matters which relate to only one part of the two-member division, letters to residents from both members on the same subject and nomination to governing bodies and other outside organisations which would fall with a single member division.

All members therefore want to see the recommendations changed to create divisions with single member representation. There is however a difference of opinion as to the best way of achieving this. The majority group would wish to amend the Boundary Committee recommendations by splitting the two, two member divisions to create four single member divisions. They would accept the variation in electorate as less damaging in representational terms than the creation of two member divisions. The minority group would make major changes to the Boundary Committee Recommendations to create single member divisions of approximately equal electorates and at the same time recognise community affinity in respect of Brighton Hill North and South and Overton and Whitchurch.

Conservative Group recommendation (also supported by Labour with the exception of the 2 member division recommended by the Boundary Committee)

1) Divide the proposed Calleva, Kingsclere and Tadley division into:

Kingsclere and Tadley division comprised of Baughurst ward, Kingsclere ward, Tadley North ward and Tadley South ward.

2001 electorate 14,817 = +19.8%

2006 electorate: 14,832 = +16%

Calleva division comprised of Calleva ward, Sherborne St. John
Ward, and Pamber ward.

2001 electorate 8,937 = -27.7%

2006 electorate: 9,529 = -25.4%

2) Divide the proposed Basingstoke North division into:

Basingstoke North division comprised of Norden ward, Popley East ward and Popley West ward.

2001 electorate 12,432 =+0.6%

2006 electorate: 12,886 =+0.8%

Basingstoke North West division comprised of Brookvale and Kings Furlong ward, Rooksdown ward and Winklebury ward.

2001 electorate 11,635 =-5.9%

2006 electorate: 12,960 =+1.4%

Liberal Democrat Group recommendation:

Create ten divisions with the following composition:

Basingstoke Central division comprised of Brookvale and

Kings Furlong ward, Eastrop ward and South Ham ward

2001 electorate 13,320 =+7.7%

2006 electorate: 13,733 =+7.4%

Basingstoke North division comprised of Norden ward, Popley East

Ward and Popley West ward.

2001 electorate 12,432 =+0.6%

2006 electorate: 12,886 =+0.8%

Basingstoke North West division comprised of Buckskin ward,

Rooksdown ward and Winklebury ward.

2001 electorate 9,758=-21%

2006 electorate: 11,641=-8.9%

Basingstoke South division comprised of Brighton Hill North ward,

Brighton Hill South ward and Grove ward.

2001 electorate 12,562=+1.6%

2006 electorate: 12,387=-3.1%

Basingstoke South West division comprised of Hatch Warren ward

(excluding Beggarwood Lane) and Kempshott ward .

2001 electorate 11,122 =-10%

2006 electorate: 11,137 =-12.8%

Baughurst, Tadley and Pamber division comprised of Baughurst ward,Tadley North ward, Tadley South ward and Pamber ward.

2001 electorate 10,957 =-11.4%

2006 electorate: 13,189 =+3.2%

Calleva and Kingsclere division comprised of Burgclere ward, Calleva ward, Kingsclere ward and Sherborne St John ward.

2001 electorate 12,588 =+1.8%

2006 electorate: 13,156 = -2.9%

Candovers division comprised of Beggarwood part of Hatch Warren ward, Oakley and North Waltham ward, Steventon part of Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon ward, Upton Grey and The Candaovers ward

2001 electorate 8,424 =-31.9%

2006 electorate: 10,030 =-21.5%

Loddon division comprised of Basing ward and Chineham ward.

2001 electorate 11,704 =-5.3%

2006 electorate: 13,403 =+4.9%

Whitchurch and Clere division comprised of East Woodhay ward, Highclere and Bourne ward, Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon ward ( with the exception of Steventon) and Whitchurch ward.

2001 electorate 12,002 =-2.9%

2006 electorate: 12,310 =-3.7%

Fareham

Most note the Committee's comments in paragraph 113 that the two proposed options had one common division but "Otherwise, the proposals are different". With respect they point out that both options also contained recommendations to split the Town into two divisions. In this respect both options shared a common objective.

As this involved five wards the chances were, that there would have to be a ward split.

Had they not proposed a split, as the Committee have pointed out, the coterminosity in Option A would have increased from 71% to 100%.

Whilst understanding the convenience of coterminosity with the Borough wards there are sound reasons for not giving this priority in this particular case. More importantly for Fareham's electorate, the proposal originally put forward and reinforced now provides reasonable equality of voters across the borough albeit slightly above the county average given the built up nature of the areas in question, as follows at December 2001:

Fareham Central 13684 = + 11%

Fareham North 13535 = + 9%

The County Council considers that this compares favourably with their other proposals for Fareham Division which the Boundary Committee has accepted, namely:

Portchester +16%

Crofton -7%

Titchfield -14%

Warsash -14%

Sarisbury -19%

Option A highlighted the existing Fareham East `pinched' section that exists south of the railway viaduct and by adding this to the town centre (polling districts FE3 and FE4) it made the ideal ward split. This area when added to Fareham South and Fareham West was proposed as Fareham Central and the remainder of Fareham East, Fareham North and North West was proposed as Fareham North.

Without a split the County Councillor representing the "Town" division would have to be in close contact with 10 Borough Councillors and jointly service approximately 27,500 electors as opposed to his colleagues with an average of four Borough Councillors and an approximate electorate of 12,000.

It is worth noting that the role of County Councillor is not intended to be a full time occupation and the modern demands of servicing over 27,500 electors (albeit shared) would place an unacceptably high responsibility on the elected Councillor.

For the reasons mentioned above and in the original submission, they strongly urge the Boundary Committee to adopt Option A in its entirety.

These are the views of five of the Fareham County Councillors. Councillor Roger Price (Fareham Portchester) has been consulted and also disagrees with the Boundary Committee concept of a two member division for Fareham Town and will be making his own response.

There will be a separate submission by Councillor R. H. Price on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group.

Gosport

The County Council reaffirms its commitment to its original submission for Gosport. It was unanimously supported by the borough members and by the County Council as a whole. The County Council, however, cannot accept a two member division as proposed by the Boundary Committee for an amalgamated Town and Leesland division. The amalgamation of these two divisions would create a division with two members to represent 40% of the electorate in Gosport. For the reasons given earlier in the report this would create serious inequalities. Fundamentally, 60% of the electorate would be served by single member divisions with all the advantages that they bring and described earlier in the report, but 40% would suffer all the disadvantages in terms of diluted efficiency and effectiveness which the County Council believes inherent in two member divisions.

The County Council strongly opposes the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for Town and Leesland, therefore, and reaffirms its support for its original proposals. No other options were put forward by the County Council for Gosport. The original submission had unanimous support and reflected an excellent solution in terms of equality of electorates. These are restated here:

There are two distinct communities.

The reason given for amalgamation was to make the Division co-terminous. Lee and Bridgemary Divisions have split a District Ward so there is no logical reason for Town and Leesland to be treated differently.

It is considered that the original proposals put forward by the County Council are still the best option for true democracy.

Town Division would consist of Anglesea, Alverstoke and Town wards which all lie to the west of the main road between the town centre and Lee-on-the-Solent. Included is the polling district of GO3 which is part of Privett ward, and most of this district also lies to the west of the main road.

Electorate 2001: 11,525 = -6.8%

Electorate 2006: 12,140 = -1.9%

Leesland Division includes Leesland, Brockhurst and Christchurch wards and lies on the west of the main road from the town centre to Lee-on-the-Solent and to the east of the A32. Included in this division are the polling districts GO1 and GO2 which are part of the Privett ward. These lie mostly to the east of the Lee-on-the-Solent road with the exception of some roads which lie to the west but are adjacent to Leesland.

Electorate 2001: 12,679 = +2.6%

Electorate 2006: 12,875 = +3.3%

The County Council do not accept that the administrative benefits of coterminosity should override local views as to the best solution for the Gosport community and the Town and Leesland communities in particular. Furthermore, the Boundary Committee has accepted that coterminosity is not the solution for Lee and Bridgemary. It is considered that coterminosity is also not the solution for Town and Leesland either. The County Council strongly believes that its considered and unanimously supported solution remains the best and it commends the Boundary Committee to withdraw its own draft recommendation and adopt that originally submitted by the County Council for the Town and Leesland Divisions. The County Council remains unanimously strongly committed to its original submission in its entirety and accordingly seeks its adoption en bloc.

Havant

Preamble:

The leaders of the three political groups attended a meeting on Friday 23 January 2004, and unanimously came to the view that, in principle, multi-member county electoral divisions could not be supported. All eight Havant County Councillors were invited and agreed to attend a meeting on 5 February 2004 to discuss the Draft Recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Havant. However, the two Labour Councillors withdrew following local political pressure and because their perception is that their party interests are best served by leaving things as they are.

The meeting proceeded and the following is the submission of the remaining six Havant County Councillors -

Bearing in mind in carrying out these county reviews, the requirement is to have regard to:

· The statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by S1 2001 no. 3692, i.e. the need to -


- reflect the identities and interests of local communities;

- secure effective and convenient local government; and

- achieve equality of representation.

Therefore the creation of the multi-member county division proposed, Havant North and Bedhampton Hermitage, is completely incongruous. It includes four wards, Barncroft, Battins, Bondfields and Warren Park, comprising predominantly terraced houses and blocks of flats owned by Portsmouth and Hermitage Housing Associations - with Bedhampton ward, which comprises mainly owner-occupiers on estates of bungalows, houses and the conservation area of Old Bedhampton, containing significant listed buildings.

Thus bringing together communities that do not `reflect the identities and interests of distinct local communities'. There are indeed distinct differences.

The Leigh Park wards, including Battins, Bondfields, Warren Park and Barncroft, are designated as an area of deprivation and as such attract significant amounts of SRB funding to meet the needs of this deprived area.

Some of the current projects include the following -

The Apex Centre - created to provide construction training

The Greywell Training Centre - an IT and Learning Centre

Warren Park Multi Sport Centre

Warren Park Surestart Early Years Centre

Leigh Park Credit Union

Warren Park youth work

Cool to be Healthy

Leigh Park Enterprise Project, and many more.

Whether the proposed multi-member division including Bedhampton would compromise funding bids in the future is unclear, but would be certainly undesirable.

Furthermore, the sheer size of the division would make it extremely difficult to manage, albeit two councillors would serve it. It would also put these councillors at a distinct disadvantage to councillors in single member divisions, both in terms of the logistics of canvassing a `double division' and indeed the cost of having to leaflet on a regular basis an electorate twice the size of adjoining divisions. This would be most unfair.

There is also confusion in the minds of the electorate now, between borough and county councillors, and therefore a multi-member division would further confuse the situation and blur accountability.

There is evidence on record of some confusion when the Havant borough elections in 2002 took place, after the ward boundary changes. At that time the entire council stood down and some wards had two candidates and other wards had three candidates, and despite all the publicity and advice many electors only voted for one candidate.

After careful and effective consultation with local people, who believe they are in the best position to judge the division configurations that accurately reflect the identities and interests of our local communities, the Local Members therefore urge the Committee to reconsider the proposed Havant North and Bedhampton Hermitage county division and also the Emsworth & St Faith's county division, and request that the multi-member and single member divisions be altered to three single member divisions, as follows: -

EMSWORTH & ST. FAITH'S EAST

Dec 01 Dec 06

Emsworth 7822 7793 7793

St Faith's [E] 3186 3160 3160

St Faith's [W] [Part] 1482 1481 1575

[See Appendix 2]

12490 12434 12528

Emsworth village and surroundings residential areas north of the A27 comprise a community that considers itself distinct from the rest of Havant.

There is also more potential scope for an increase in residential building in this division in the future, than in Bedhampton Hermitage division.

BEDHAMPTON HERMITAGE

Bedhampton 6964 6934

Barncroft 4543 4515

St Faith's [W] [Part] 2202 2201

[Includes Langstone Village] 13709 13650

There are very similar communities in Old Bedhampton, parts of Havant Town Centre and Langstone Village, all of which have conservation areas. Indeed both Langstone and Bedhampton residents jealously seek to guard their `village' status.

A number of residents from Barncroft ward do, when asked their address, often state `Bedhampton' and so it is felt the melding of a less large ward of a different nature would not have any negative impact.

NB: It is highly unlikely that there will ever be electors resident in the Broadmarsh Coastal Area as this is designated for business and employment purposes, and indeed part of this area is a `Strategic Gap' as well.

HAVANT NORTH

Dec 01 Dec 06

Battins 4887 4861

Bondfields 5125 5062

Warren Park 4782 4709

14794 14632

These three wards are very similar, originally Portsmouth overspill council estates. Some of the dwellings were purchased under the `Right to Buy' scheme. The linking of these three wards in their entirety would serve the existing communities that are closely allied and well integrated.

At present the heart of Leigh Park is the Greywell Centre and this is indeed in the centre of the single member division we propose named Havant North, comprising Battins, Bondfields and Warren Park wards.

NB: The North Havant Residents' Association covers a very small geographic area bounded by the railway line in the east and south, Park Rd North, Petersfield Road to Crosslands Drive and New Lane. The number of electors in the area as at December 01 was 818 and December 2006 projected to be 815.

It was formed specifically to campaign on three issues, namely the removal of Wessex and Stonecroft and to stop the Oak Park Hospital project.

This resident's association does not represent the wider area of Leigh Park as you have obviously been led to believe by the Option C submission [Refer paragraph 135, Page 48, of Draft Recommendations]. It is fairly clear from some of the other features of Option C submission referred to in the Draft Recommendations that the authors do not know the area very well. It is therefore unfortunate so much weight has been given to them.

In conclusion, we support the proposals for the Divisions named as follows - 38 Cowplain & Hart Plain; 41 Hayling Island; 42 Purbrook & Stakes South; 43 Waterloo & Stakes North.

However, this submission strongly recommends three distinct divisions for the rest of the Borough of Havant, as outlined above, namely - Bedhampton Hermitage, Emsworth & St Faith's East, and

Havant North.

The information provided is based on `on the ground' knowledge of the entire area and in the interest of the communities each councillor would be required to serve.

Sue Allbright, Ian Beagley, Ted Gale, David Gillett, Robin McIntosh and Jenny Wride

Hampshire County Councillors for the Borough of Havant

The Liberal Democrat Group opposes the two-member division element of the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations but supports the other draft recommendations. The Labour Group accepts the Boundary Committee's recommendations as published.

APPENDIX 1

HAVANT BOROUGH - ST FAITH'S WARD - PART DB [WEST]

[Information from Full Register 2003 - 2004. Qualifying Date: 15 October 2003]

List of streets to be included in Bedhampton Hermitage Division -

Anderson Close 9

Burrows Close 13

Cedar Gardens 35

Centenary Gardens 39

Eastern Road 48

Elm Park Road 130

Elmleigh Road 61

Fern Drive 38

Gaulter Close 18

Havant Farm Close 34

Hodges Close 14

Lakeside Gardens 30

Leigh Road 104

Mavis Crescent 59

New Lane 87

Oak Park Drive 36

Old Copse Road 59

Petersfield Road 4

Riversdale Gardens 4

Russell Road 22

Slindon Gardens _12

856

APPENDIX 2

HAVANT BOROUGH - ST FAITH'S WARD - PART DB [EAST]

[Information from Full Register 2003 - 2004. Qualifying Date: 15 October 2003]

List of streets to add to the current St Faith's East area -

Beechworth Road 55

Bellair Road 48

Connaught Road 25

East Street 130

Elm Lane 2

Elm Road 22

Emsworth Road 72

Fairfield Road 44

Grove Road 83

Homewell 27

Juniper Square 181

Lower Grove Road 47

Lymbourn Road 54

Manor Close 54

Market Parade 60

Montgomery Road 21

Netherfield Close 21

North Close 34

North Street 15

Oaklands Road 139

Orchard Road 121

Park Road North 23

Park Road South 2

Pine Grove 24

Shawfield Road 15

South Close 8

South Street 44

The Parchment 41

Town Hall Road 19

Twittens Way 2

Wade Court Road 46

Wade Lane 16

Waterloo Road 56

West Street 14

Willow Close __10

1575

East Hampshire

Generally the 6 existing County Councillors accept the Boundary Committee's proposals for 7 Divisions.

On a small matter of detail: there appears no reason to perpetuate the division of the Parish of Rowlands Castle. If the Finchdean part is transferred out of Petersfield back to Catherington Division it will bring the figures closer; and maintain the Parish as an entity.

The present Councillors for the Petersfield area both strongly object to the Town and Rural proposal (although pleased to see the deletion from the original Option A scheme of "Ropley and Tisted Ward")

Councillor West, currently representing the Town and 9 out of the 11 Parishes, feels that being the link between the Town Council and those Parish Councils has been very useful for residents of both the town and the villages that "look to it".

Councillor Cartwright - and Liss Parish Council - feels there is absolutely nothing in common between Liss and Clanfield Parishes.

Seats 9 and 10 : as B.C. 2001 2006

Seat 11 Catherington (gains Finchdean) 12,471 = +0.9% 12,612 = -1.3%

Seat 12 : as B.C.

Seat 13 Petersfield Butser(Option A - which excluded Finchdean) 12,438 = +0.6% 12,600 = -1.4%

Seat 14 Petersfield Hangers(Option A less Ropley & Tisted) 11,217 = -9.3% 11,919 = -6.7%

Seat 15 : as B.C.

It will be noted that these figures give much better electoral equality.

The Liberal Democrat and Labour Groups support the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for Eastleigh, New Forest,
Test Valley and Winchester give no cause for concern. The Boundary
Committee's draft recommendations for Hart which reflect the County
Council's initial submission are also supported and should be reaffirmed. In
Rushmoor a minor change is proposed which it is considered will significantly

benefit the people of Aldershot and Farnborough. In the other districts, as will

have been seen from the report, the situation is more complex and it is

recommended that the views of all of the political groups be forwarded to the

Boundary Committee.

6.2 In that response the opportunity will also be taken to draw to the Boundary
Committee's attention errors which have been found in their report. These are
as follows. On page 11, the description of the constituent district wards, for

Fordingbridge the description should be "Parish of Bramshaw and Copythorne
North Parish Ward of Bramshaw, Copythorne North and Minstead Ward;
Downlands and Forest Ward; Fordingbridge Ward; Forest North West Ward.
For Lyndhurst the description should be Ashurst, Copythorne South and
Netley Marsh Ward; Parish of Minstead of Bramshaw, Copythorne North and
Minstead Ward; Bramsgore and Burley Ward; Lyndhurst Ward." In
Winchester, the reference to Option A in paragraph 36 on page 28 should read

Option B. In addition, they consistently mis-spell Portchester.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. 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;


2. That the proposals for Basingstoke, East Hampshire, Fareham,
Gosport, Hart, Havant and Rushmoor set out in the report 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;

3. That the County Council raises no objection to the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations for the following:-

Eastleigh


New Forest


Test Valley


Winchester

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB The list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclosed exempt or confidential information as defined in

the Act

Title Location

Members' comments Chief Executive's Department

PR5AIB/Council

js314