Hampshire County Council Item 5

4 March 2004

Periodic Electoral Review of County Electoral Divisions

Supplementary report of the Chief Executive

Contact: David Hinxman, tel: 01962 847339; e-mail [email protected]

1. Introduction


1.1 This supplementary report follows from the meeting of the joint members panel of Group Leaders and Standards Committee County Councillor members held on 3 March 2004 and draws attention to elements of the report where further comment has been made.


2. District by District as they appear in the main report


2.1 Eastleigh

The Liberal Democrat Group's position was clarified. As a result, it is necessary to report that the Conservative and Labour Groups support the Boundary Committee's draft recommendation and the Liberal Democrat Group support Option B as submitted by the County Council to the Boundary Committee in November 2002.


2.2 Winchester


The Panel noted that Winchester City Council had made representations to the

Boundary Committee that Headbourn Worthy Parish should be in Downlands Division rather than Itchen Valley. The Panel was not opposed to this minor variation.

3.3 Hart

The Panel considered a possible improvement to the configuration Yateley East, North and West, Eversley, Blackwater and Hawley, Fleet North (part), Frogmore and Darby Green and Hartley Wintney wards as shown as Appendix I to this report. It was agreed to put the proposal to the Council. The Panel noted that Crondall Parish Council did not wish to be split between two County Electoral Divisions.

2.4 Rushmoor

The Chief Executive reported views expressed by Rushmoor Borough Council advocating that polling district RT should be in Aldershot West and that polling district RU should be in Aldershot East for social, economic and geographic reasons. The Panel was not opposed to this view which results in the following alternative electorates given the unification of St. Marks Ward within Farnborough South:

2001 2006


Aldershot East (with RT) 11696 12009
Aldershot West (with RU) 9963 10234

or

Aldershot East (with RU) 10367 10564

Aldershot West (with RT) 11292 11679

2.5 Basingstoke - as in main report

2.6 Fareham

The Liberal Democrat option for incorporation into main report is attached as

Appendix 2.

2.7 Gosport

To be added in page 10 after the words "There are two distinct communities".

Town Division

Town Division is predominantly large detached and semi-detached housing at the top end
of the market. There is some council housing in the Town Ward with a small area of
deprivation.

Leesland Division

Leesland Division is largely low cost terraced housing with some bungalows and a
number of housing association dwellings.

2.8 Havant

In the preamble on page 11 delete ". . .leaving things as they are." and replace with

". . .accepting the Boundary Committee's proposals."

2.9 East Hampshire

In the last sentence in this section as page 17 add the following words after ". . .draft recommendations":


"except that they believe that Finchdean should be reunited with the rest of Rowlands Castle parish in Catherington County Electoral Division so as to ensure co-terminosity with the parish boundary which more closely identifies this particular community, the parish having been severed by the review of district ward boundaries."


Views expressed by Hawkley Parish Council and Whitehill Town Council to the Boundary Committee were noted.

3. Conclusion

3.1 In the event that following debate at the Council meeting it is necessary to make further adjustments to the text for submission to the Boundary Committee it is proposed that this be agreed by the Chief Executive with the three political group leaders.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. As printed in the report ;

2. That the views concerning Basingstoke, East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Fareham,
Gosport, Hart, Havant, Rushmoor and Winchester as set out in the report and the
supplementary report of the Chief Executive be approved for submission to the
Boundary Committee for England;

3. That the County Council raises no objection to the Boundary Committee's draft
recommendation for the New Forest and Test Valley;


4. That, if necessary, the Chief Executive, in consultation with the three political
group leaders, be authorised to agree the final text of the County Council's
submission.

Appendix 1

Hart

The proposals for Hart have been uncontroversial as they produced five divisions of almost equal size with only Crondall and Fleet North wards being split. The proposed Hawley, Frogmore & Hartley Wintney Division, however, does not form a harmonious collection of communities, rather it is obvious that it is made up of the wards left over after the other four divisions have been formed. This has caused concern locally, but up until now no-one has been able to come up with a better proposal. Yateley Town Council, however, are now proposing an amendment along the lines set out below.

That the proposed "Eversley & Yateley" and "Hawley, Frogmore & Hartley Wintney" Divisions be altered to form the following two divisions:

"Hartley Wintney, Eversley and Western Yateley Division"

Comprising the Hartley Wintney, Eversley, Yateley North and Yateley West wards.

"Ancells, Blackwater and Eastern Yateley Division"

Comprising the Ancells part of Fleet North ward, plus Blackwater & Hawley, Frogmore & Darby Green and Yateley East wards.

The electorate numbers remain very close to the current proposal and no further wards are being split, but the community ties achieved by this proposal are much stronger.

Eversley, Hartley Wintney and Western Yateley Division	2001 electorate	2003 electorate	2006 projected electorate	2006 without Dilly Lane development
Eversley	2125	2084	2129	2129
Hartley Wintney	3942	3894	4274	4027
Yateley North	3880	3970	3824	3824
Yateley West	4021	4001	4006	4006
TOTAL	13,968	13,949	14,233	13,986

Ancells, Blackwater and Eastern Yateley Division	2001 electorate	2003 electorate	2006 projected electorate
Blackwater & H	3537	3512	3547
Fleet North (part)	1917	1901	1943
Frogmore & DG	4274	4252	4238
Yateley East	4179	4104	4160
TOTAL	13,907	13,769	13,888

Note: The 2006 projected electorate figures for Hartley Wintney ward include an assumed development at Dilly Lane. Since those figures were compiled this development will no longer happen within this timeframe. This would reduce the electorate in that ward by 247. (Source: Environment Department, Hampshire County Council.)

A major part of the thinking behind the current proposal was to keep the three "Yateley" wards together in one division. The flaw in this thinking, however, is that there are four Yateley wards, not three. The parish of Yateley also includes Frogmore & Darby Green and this is an area that already feels the forgotten end of the parish.

Yateley Town Council has worked hard to invest in community facilities in Frogmore & Darby Green and the Hart Community Safety Partnership is currently running a specific project in the deprived Hearsey Gardens estate. The Town Council is keen that Frogmore & Darby Green should not be severed from the rest of the parish in its county council representation.

Yateley Town Council is also aware that with three wards in the current Yateley Division and one in Hartley Wintney, it has always been served unequally by its two county councillors. That is no criticism of the individuals, but a recognition of the fact that the member for the current Hartley Wintney Division has always had to look after many other communities as well as Yateley West ward. The Town Council fears that the same will happen with Frogmore & Darby Green, exacerbating the feeling of severance.

In summary, therefore, the Town Council feels that it would be better to have two county councillors each representing half of the parish than continue with the current uneven representation.

In summary, therefore, the Town Council feels that it would be better to have two county councillors each representing half of the parish than continue with the current uneven representation. This proposal does not just benefit Yateley, however.

Eversley Parish Council is known to be unhappy at the current proposal as they fear becoming the forgotten end of a Yateley dominated division. Indeed, any candidate wanting to win the proposed Eversley & Yateley division would know that six sevenths of his/her electorate are in Yateley and are much easier to get around. The division will be won or lost in Yateley. It is quite clear, therefore, that Eversley's fears are well founded. This counter proposal creates a much more balanced division joining the four rural Eversley ward parishes up with Hartley Wintney, with its significant rural hinterlands.

Hartley Wintney has little in common with Blackwater & Hawley or Frogmore & Darby Green. This counter proposal reunites Hartley Wintney with its adjoining rural parishes to the north.

Part of Ancells is currently in Blackwater & Hawley parish and in both proposals Ancells will stay with Blackwater & Hawley ward.

Blackwater & Hawley has far more in common in Yateley than it does with Hartley Wintney.

The only significant argument against this counter proposal is that Yateley East will be in a separate division from Yateley North and Yateley West. It has to be accepted, however, that the four wards of Yateley parish put together are too large for one county division. A split is, therefore, unavoidable. This counter proposal maintains community links between Frogmore & Darby Green and the rest of Yateley, which is a far more important objective.

Appendix 2

Fareham

The Liberal Democrat Group have a different view for the Fareham Borough area on the following grounds:-

· Two Member Division in the Town Centre makes it very difficult for the two members to have defined areas of responsibility and for the electorate to know who best to approach.


· There is too large a differential in numbers of Electorate per councillor, i.e. 24%.


· The proposals although being co-terminate with current Ward boundaries do not take into consideration community ties.

The proposals are using 11 Ward boundaries as they are and only splitting 4 Wards to give better community ties. Also the percentage differential is only 5.3% if one excludes the Fareham Crofton Ward (all Divisions are nearly equal).

FAREHAM CROFTON HILL HEAD

STUBBINGTON

(As recommended by the Boundary Commission)

FAREHAM PORTCHESTER PORTCHESTER EAST

PORTCHESTER WEST 1, 2 AND 3

FAREHAM (1) EAST PORTCHESTER WEST 4

FAREHAM EAST

FAREHAM SOUTH

FAREHAM (2) WEST FAREHAM NORTH

FAREHAM NORTH WEST

FAREHAM WEST 1

FAREHAM SARISBURY SARISBURY

PARK GATE

LOCKS HEATH 1

FAREHAM WARSASH WARSASH

LOCKS HEATH 2, 3 AND 4

TITCHFIELD COMMON 3 AND 4

FAREHAM TITCHFIELD TITCHFIELD

FAREHAM WEST 2, 3 AND 4

TITCHFIELD COMMON 1 AND 2

CHART OF ELECTORATE AT 2006 AS PER THE ABOVE PROPOSALS

DIVISION	ELECTORATE AT 2006	HAMPSHIRE % DIFFERENCE
FAREHAM CROFTON	11,822	-6.6
FAREHAM PORTCHESTER	12,396	-2.0
FAREHAM TOWN (1) EAST	12,864	+1.7
FAREHAM TOWN (2) WEST	12,818	+1.3
FAREHAM SARISBURY	12,921	+2.1
FAREHAM WARSASH	12,697	+0.4
FAREHAM TITCHFIELD	12,247	-3.2

Hampshire percentage differentials are on the County average number.

This split in the Fareham Borough area into County Divisions fulfils the main criteria in that it keeps communities together and also provides as near as possible an equal number of electorate per County Division.

js329