As you may have seen in the news or on my regular weekly newsletters, the Boundary Commission for England has put forward proposals to redraw the Parliamentary map across the country. In south Hampshire, there is a proposal to divide the Meon Valley constituency up while creating a new constituency called Hamble Valley. I think these proposals create an unacceptable disruption to our system of representation, and my letter to the Commissioners and submission of an alternative is below. If you would like to support my comments, or make your own then you can do so by making a comment on the Boundary Commission using this link by Monday December 5th.
The full text of my proposal is too long to be pasted into the form on the Commission website, but I have created a Word file which you can download and edit, or a PDF of the proposal to attach to your own comments. Documents can be attached to your comment on the Boundary Commission website. If you have any trouble downloading either document, contact me and I can have a copy emailed directly to you. I realise the Commission website is not all that user-friendly so if you have any queries at all do let me know and I will do whatever I can to help.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in response to the Boundary Commissions initial proposals on the Parliamentary Constituency Review 2023. I note the Commission’s proposals to create a “Fareham and Waterlooville” constituency. As I shall explain, I think there is a better alternative proposal which I will return to, but I would firstly point out that I think your own proposed constituency should be renamed.
I would like to propose that the name “Fareham and Waterlooville” should be replaced by “Forest of Bere”, which much better reflects the makeup, character and history of the area it covers.
The Forest of Bere is the traditional name for this area of south Hampshire which stretches back to the 13th century when it was a royal hunting forest. It covered the area inland from the Solent, taking in modern Waterlooville, Cowplain, Fareham, Denmead, Boarhunt, Wickham, and Southwick. It is a description which live on today and is reflected in names such as “Berewood” for a major new development taking place between Waterlooville and Fareham.
Relatively little of the constituency you propose to create is made up of either Fareham or Waterlooville, and the constituency does not take in all of either community. Significant parts of both Fareham and Waterlooville will remain outside your proposed boundaries in the Havant and Hamble Valley constituencies.
Given the spread of smaller communities which make up most of the land area, and noting that you are proposing to create a County constituency, rather than a Borough one, I feel the name “Forest of Bere” is suitable. Indeed the area’s common heritage as part of this former royal forest would be an argument for its creation, given the lack of modern commonality between Waterlooville and Fareham.
However I would also like to support the counter-proposal which has also been put forward to you by Flick Drummond MP, which I will set out below.
It is my view that the radical changes involved in your existing proposals for south Hampshire constitute significant change for many, when there is an option of minimal change for the few.
The proposals forwarded by the Commission are, for south central Hampshire, radical and disruptive of proper representation for the people in Parliament.
They incur significant alterations for 4 constituencies (Meon Valley, Winchester, Eastleigh, Fareham), which involve considerable upheaval for communities within those constituencies. Villages and towns that have long been part of one community will now be divided and well-defined local authority boundaries will lose meaning. The proposals involve “lumping together” communities such as Fareham and Waterlooville which have little community of interest or shared outlooks except a shared proximity and relationships with Portsmouth adjoining them.
I appreciate that a couple of the constituencies in the review area, including Fareham, are significantly over quota with their current boundaries. In order to comply with the Commission’s remit, there must be change. However the present proposal is so disrespecting of long-standing community links and local government arrangements that I do not feel it can be acceptable. The counter proposal intends to minimise disruption, maintain the well-established community links and respect local authority boundaries.
I am of the opinion that the counter-proposal which has been put to you by Flick Drummond MP represents a better way of achieving the aims the Commission is tasked with.
It passes not only the numerical test, but meets the criteria surrounding minimal change, community cohesion, natural geography and keeps Local Authority crossovers to the same level as the proposals put forward by the Commission.
The detail of the counter-proposal I wish to support is set out below, and I thank you for taking the time to consider these comments.
Kind regards
Counter submission to the Boundary Commission for England initial proposals for the 2023 Review of Parliamentary constituencies.
1. A Meon Valley CC:
a. Cowplain, Hart Plain, Waterloo, Denmead, Southwick and Wickham, Whiteley and Shedfield, Bishop’s Waltham, Central Meon Valley. Moved from the current Fareham BC: Fareham East, Porchester West, Porchester East.
b. Meon Valley has been rocked over the past decade with constant turmoil regarding its status as a constituency. Residents have been part of a Fareham constituency, a Winchester constituency and in the late 2000s a Meon Valley constituency. Historically residents could also been part of Hampshire East, Havant, or Portsmouth North/Langstone. It is time for an extended period of stability by maintaining a Meon Valley seat.
c. Meon Valley as a constituency is naturally bordered by the green belt to the west separating it from the Borough of Eastleigh. To the south there is the physical border of the M27 which the constituency floats above, and westwards the A3(M) divides Waterlooville and Havant which forms an additional barrier.
d. Cowplain, Hart Plain and Waterloo constitute the same urban conurbation of Waterlooville Town. The wards are a single social, recreational and economic entity which functions as a single community and the largest urban area of the Meon Valley constituency.
e. These wards border Denmead and together the 4 wards share both primary and secondary school catchments. Residents of Denmead access Waterlooville for retail and leisure purposes. Together, they form a well-documented eastern urban fringe to the rural Hampshire heartland.
f. The Central Meon Valley constitutes the bedrock of the rural and agricultural community in south-east Hampshire. A scattering of villages and hamlets, a retained Meon Valley seat links these rural communities to their main retail and service centres of Whiteley and Bishop’s Waltham. Central Meon Valley has three GP surgeries and two others in close proximity, one in Bishop’s Waltham and one in Wickham, all of which support the adjoining wards. Children of school age in Central Meon valley can be educated at Swanmore School, part of the retained constituency.
g. Whiteley & Shedfield ward has a diversified economic and social footprint. Whiteley is largely commercial and residential, whilst Shedfield is rural, but the communities merge for employment and social enterprise. Connectivity is sustained by good road links and access to new development shopping village and business parks in Whiteley. Furthermore, the Whiteley & Shedfield ward is an integral part of the current constituency since Whiteley grew out of the Wickham parish whilst Shedfield, like Bishops Waltham and the Central Meon Valley wards continue to be a part of that united cluster of village communities: all of which are in the catchment for the same secondary school.
h. Whiteley and Shedfield has always been an integral part of the current constituency since Whiteley grew out of Wickham parish over the last decade. Shedfield continues to be part of the western cluster of village communities along with Bishop’s Waltham, Wickham, Curdridge and Swanmore. Fareham East, Porchester West, Porchester East.
i. These eastern Fareham seats form the current border between the constituencies of Fareham and Meon Valley. Their inclusion in a Meon Valley seat constitutes as little change as possible for these wards, and placing them alongside Denmead and the Waterlooville seats, only a minor adaption of the Boundary Commissions proposals.
j. Many electors in Portchester turn to Portsmouth City and Cosham for some commercial and public services, being assisted by the A27 link. This conduit loosens the reliance on Fareham town itself, opening cross community engagement beyond the Borough of Fareham.
k. Likewise, schoolchildren in the villages of Southwick and Boarhunt attend schools in Portchester, which demonstrates the established connectivity between some Meon Valley villages and some Fareham Borough wards.
l. Of all the Fareham town wards, Fareham East differs in its spatial structure. It offers a number of retail units, including high street, shopping arcades and both town centre and out of town shopping outlets, varied entertainment, recreational facilities and light industrial units. (The other Fareham town wards are largely dormitory, though they do include schools, colleges and the Borough’s leisure centre).
m. Whilst evidently serving electors of the other Fareham town wards for some services, Fareham east is the primary commercial hub for the southern wards of the current Meon Valley constituency, and constituency proposed in this document. The southern Meon villages such as Denmead, Southwick, Boarhunt, Wickham, Knowle are reliant on those commercial and public services and this proposal strengthens these existing ties.
n. Fareham East is split from the other Fareham towns by a series of main roads; Park Street, Trinity Street and then the A32 which runs north-south through the centre of the town, and a partial westeast split by the A27. The result is a well distinct district of the town, and further eastwards village communities such as Wallington.
o. The land mass of Fareham East to the north of the M27, which by area is larger than the built-up conurbation, is significantly rural and share many environmental, ecological and industry concerns of the Meon Valley wards. This part of the ward is especially well suited to being placed within a retained Meon Valley constituency.
p. The retention of a Meon Valley seat not only reduces disruption for those communities, but respects the coherence and connections between rural hamlets, villages and the urban fringe which serve them with vital services.
2. An Eastleigh BC:
a. Consisting of Eastleigh North, Eastleigh Central, Eastleigh South, Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath, Botley, Hedge End North, Hedge End South, West End North and West End South. Moved from Winchester: Chandlers Ford, polling districts CH5, CH6.
b. The aforementioned wards constitute the majority of the Borough of Eastleigh to the east of the M3 and largely to the north of the M27. They also form the mass of the current Eastleigh constituency.
c. We support the Boundary Commission’s work in trying to maintain the outline of an Eastleigh constituency, but we feel the addition of Hedge End and Botley is key to maintaining minimal change, community cohesion and respects both the local authority and the natural and man-made borders.
d. Eastleigh itself is made of the three wards which form a nuclei around the railway town. Those wards share retail and leisure facilities as much as they do school catchments, GP surgeries and other public and commercial services. They also serve many of the smaller communities, especially those to the east along such places as Bishopstoke and Fair Oak. As such the Eastleigh wards are irreducible as one unit to be represented in Parliament together.
e. Bishopstoke and Fair Oak & Horton Heath form the residential heartlands of the northern aspect of the constituency. Both wards are reliant on the major transport links, (Alan Drayton Way) to Eastleigh in the west, and Hedge End (Botley Road) in the south to access retail, recreational or leisure facilities, but also the major sites of employment in the constituency. The wards are not simply conduits of the larger towns nearby, they are lively communities, with dedicated parish councils and thriving village centres. They do share several school catchments with one another, as well as local issues that equally affect both wards.
f. Bordered by rural countryside, including ancient woodland and farmland, to the north and east, Bishopstoke, Fair Oak & Horton Heath are boundary wards not only to the Borough of Eastleigh, but to the urban fringe of the Solent corridor. They are thus indivisible not only of each other, but also to any constituency that carries the name of Eastleigh.
g. West End is in some respects an extension of the City of Southampton, but more so it is a bridge between the city and the outer suburbs, such as Hedge End. As such a link, West End has more in common, not to mention the numerous road and footpath links across the M27, with Hedge End than any other part of the Eastleigh Constituency. For example, Hedge End Running club, the boxing club and Hedge End cricket team are based at the Ageas bowl in West End, a major sport and fitness venue that many residents of the Borough of Eastleigh regularly use.
h. Hedge End, West End and Botley are represented together at a Local Area Committee on Eastleigh Borough Council. Hedge End South and West End South form the same division within Hampshire County Council, as do Hedge End North and Botley. For purposes of good public administration and to preserve historical links, their division at the Parliamentary level is undesirable. Together, they also form an important part of the M27 corridor with both the convenience and issues that arise from such infrastructure. It is important for these shared community values that all five of these wards are retained within the same constituency.
i. We were therefore concerned to see the removal of the Hedge End wards and Botley from the proposed Eastleigh Constituency in the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals. We agree that Hedge End and Botley are indivisible, especially given that the Botley ward forms part of the Hedge End conurbation, and their shared reliance on schools and health services. However, annexing them from Fair Oak and Horton Heath, but especially the West End wards does not, in our view, maintain close community ties or the reliance on shared economic and public services that our counter-proposal achieves. Chandler’s Ford, southern part of (polling districts CH5, CH6).
j. Compared to residents in the northern CH polling districts, those living in CH5 and CH6 are well connected to the conurbation of Eastleigh town and the current Eastleigh constituency. The A335 and Chestnut Avenue provide two links under the M3 which creates access to parts of the adjoining Eastleigh South ward, to which the southern polling districts of Chandler’s Ford border.
k. These polling districts are distinct from CH1, CH2, CH3 and CH4, not only in their proximity to the current Eastleigh constituency, but also in terms of transports links with 2 major roads, pedestrian routes and cycle lanes. There is also the direct train link into Eastleigh via Chandler’s Ford station.
l. There is some intersections with public services based in the Eastleigh constituency for electors living in CH5 and CH6.
m. Of note are the noticeably different architectural styles between the northern and southern polling districts. The CH5 and CH6 polling districts form the estates which were part of the early twentieth century extensions Eastleigh town, with late Edwardian to mid 1930s style estate housing. The northern polling districts are in places, later additions, with 1960s and 1970 housing, to accommodate the burgeoning population across Hampshire.
n. The two parts of Chandler’s Ford have a clear boundary in form of the brook and railway line, they share slightly different heritages and some divergence in the provision of local services.
o. We therefore submit our counter-proposal for an Eastleigh constituency which respects the current boundaries with minimal change and acknowledges the local authority boundary.
3. A Fareham BC:
a. Consisting of:: Locks Heath, Titchfield, Titchfield Common, Park Gate, Warsash, Sarisbury, Fareham North-West, Fareham North, Fareham West, Fareham South. Moved from the current Eastleigh BC: Bursledon & Hound and Hamble & Netley
b. As with the Borough of Eastleigh, we feel that where it is possible to keep well defined communities represented by the same Member of Parliament, we should do so. We therefore support the Boundary Commissions proposal to keep the Fareham wards of Locks Heath, Titchfield, Titchfield Common, Park Gate, Warsash, Sarisbury part of the same constituency. Additionally, our submission keeps the western ward and northern wards that make up Fareham town.
c. The Borough of Fareham contains two prominent commercial districts, the aforementioned Park Gate and Locks Heath and Fareham town itself, which fits specifically into Fareham East. Park Gate and Locks Heath provide considerable employment opportunities, office space, light industry, and retail outlets, including out of town shopping centres for the majority of residents in the west of the Borough, including those western Fareham town wards.
d. Together, these wards also form most of the residential areas Fareham Borough, which are considerably self-sustained public services such as school catchments and GP surgeries largely fitting the boundary defined in this proposal. We accept the loss of some community crossover between the Fareham East and Portchester wards, but these incur a degree of coherence with a retained Meon Valley seat, as discussed below. Bursledon & Hound and Hamble & Netley.
e. Bursledon & Hound and Hamble & Netley are the two southernmost wards in the Borough of Eastleigh, situated some 7miles away from Eastleigh town. Both as the crow flies and via road links, both Bursledon, Hamble and the villages around them are equidistance to Eastleigh and Fareham.
f. We note that under the Boundary Commissions proposals, Bursledon and Hamble would fall into the same constituency (named Hegde End) as Warsash and Sarisbury, along with Hedge End and Botley from Eastleigh and several wards from Fareham Borough’s respectively. We accept the logic of placing the Fareham wards together, along with Hamble and Bursledon, but it is our contention that it is not a prerequisite to bring in any other wards from the Borough of Eastleigh into such a seat.
g. Not only are Bursledon and Hamble the most distant of the wards from Eastleigh itself, the M27 acts as an effective northern buffer between the mass of the Borough of Eastleigh and the southern wards.
h. Bursledon, alongside Hamble, are akin to a peninsular of the Borough, bordered by the City of Southampton to the west and the River Hamble to the East. The river is the major source of economic activity, not only for the Bursledon and Hamble wards on the western shore, but also the Sarisbury and Warsash wards in the neighbouring Borough of Fareham.
i. Rather than being a physical barrier, the river acts as a conduit of a shared ecology and extensive marine industries. Like all populated small estuaries, the residents have not dissimilar interests and values in maintaining the environmental standards of the river, the habitats along both shorelines as well as the employment opportunities found in such sought after locations. It is with this in mind that they are well suited to being represented by the same Member in the House of Commons.
J. Furthermore, Bursledon enjoys direct road access to Sarisbury via the A27, which is a major thoroughfare through the ward, also taking traffic from Hamble via Hamble lane. Both are well served by public transport to the east towards Fareham, with numerous direct bus links and a direct train line on the Southampton to Portsmouth route.
k. Many electors in Bursledon and Hamble find high skilled employment either in the City of Southampton, or increasingly, in the Park Gate and Segensworth Business Park in the Borough of Fareham. The Segensworth Business Improvement District offers some of the most high-skilled, hightech employment opportunities in Hampshire, and it not surprising those working there, choose to live in the picturesque villages of Bursledon and Hamble. That sense of work and residential continuity are championed under our proposal.
l. All junior, primary and secondary school catchments are contained within the two wards, which additionally are well served with supermarkets, retail outlets and recreational facilities. For those services and activities not found within the wards, electors are just as likely to travel eastwards towards Fareham or westwards into Southampton as they are to travel north.
m. There is often less crossover need for residents to access commercial or public services north of the M27. Therefore, while we do not wish to lose any part of the current constituency, we can be confident that the residents of Bursledon & Hound and Hamble & Netley, can be well represented by their inclusion in a Fareham constituency.
n. As with Bursledon & Hound and Hamble & Netley, the M27 largely acts as a northern curtain to these Fareham Borough wards. The wards form part of the urbanised Solent corridor, whereas those wards north of the M27 constitute the rural Hampshire countryside and are represented by the City of Winchester at a local government level. These physical and political barriers are the evident border for a Fareham constituency.
o. Our proposal for a Fareham seat maintains as much of the current constituency as it is possible to do so, minimising the divisive splitting of Fareham and ensures a degree of greater continuity for the electorate of Fareham.
4. A Winchester CC:
a. Consisting of: Badger Farm and Oliver's Battery, Wonston and Micheldever, The Worthys, St Barnabas, St Paul, St Michael, St Luke, Colden Common and Twyford, St Bartholomew, Alresford and Itchen Valley, Hiltingbury, Chandler’s Ford (polling districts CH1, CH2, CH3, CH4). Moved from the current Meon Valley CC: Upper Meon Valley
b. The wards aforementioned have been a central part of a Winchester constituency for decades, with the Winchester City wards forming part of a constituency nearly a millennium old. Winchester city acts as the primary, if not only, major conurbation for employment, but also secondary healthcare, retail, leisure and recreational facilities for these wards. There is evident logic to maintain these wards within a Winchester constituency, and we fully support the Boundary Commission and other representations which achieve this. Upper Meon Valley
c. Upper Meon Valley is a sparsely populated ward, which currently forms the northernmost part of the Meon Valley CC. The ward is contiguous to both the City of Winchester and the market town of New Alresford, both in the current and the proposed Winchester CC.
d. As such, removal of Upper Meon Valley is justified by it’s orientation around Twyford and Winchester where most of its public services are. For example Twyford GP surgery in Twyford, the Alresford surgery in Alresford and secondary and tertiary clinical services in Royal County Hospital in Winchester. A number of school catchments for the Upper Meon Valley ward are also located in Winchester CC, such as the Sun Hill Infant and Junior Schools and the Perrins Academy in Alresford and the Westgate Secondary School in Winchester.
e. Aside from the use of public services based in and around Winchester city, residents in Upper Meon Valley see and view Winchester as their primary hub for economic, reactional and social activities. Electors may also opt to use services in New Alresford, a market town also in the current, and retained, constituency of Winchester.
f. Moving Upper Meon Valley to a Winchester constituency is a wholly logical move that will enhance the already existing links between the ward and the two urban areas that adjoin it.
g. In addition, we are of the view that to maintain minimal change, but also to address aspects of community cohesion the wards of Hiltingbury and the northern polling districts of Chandler’s Ford should remain in a Winchester constituency. We appreciate this differs from the initial proposals of the commissioners, as such we set out our case below: Hiltingbury
h. At the time of the next General Election, due in 2024, Hiltingbury would have been part of a Winchester constituency for nearly of 15 years. Despite the Local Authority crossover, there has never been any notable impact on good public administration. To the contrary, residents appreciate the difference between the Parliamentary and Local Authority boundaries, especially given the proximity to Winchester and the physical and geographic boundaries to the rest of the Borough of Eastleigh.
i. Hiltingbury is the northernmost ward in the Borough of Eastleigh, and the ward nearest to the City of Winchester, only 5 miles, or a 15-minute drive from Hiltingbury to Winchester city centre. (n.b. Hiltingbury is considerably closer to Winchester City centre than many of the other villages as suggested under the initial Boundary Commission proposals).
j. Hiltingbury is separated from the majority of the Borough of Eastleigh, and indeed Eastleigh town, by the M3 motorway, which creates a substantial eastern border of the ward. There is a single, rather convoluted, road link with wholly inadequate, and in places non-existent, pedestrian or cyclist access from Hiltingbury towards and into Eastleigh town. There are only 2 bus services towards Eastleigh, both of which are non-direct and travel southbound through Chandler’s Ford, before heading back towards Eastleigh town. There are, however, direct bus services from Hiltingbury to Winchester which underpin our belief in the coherence of maintaining Hiltingbury in a Winchester constituency.
k. The ward and community of Hiltingbury has little, or no, reliance on school or GP catchments from our proposed Eastleigh Constituency. In regard of essential public services Hiltingbury, as well as Chandler’s Ford, are well served from within. Indeed, and to the contrary, Thornden secondary school (situated in Hiltingbury) provides a catchment into the southern Winchester wards, as does the Fryern Surgery. It is these links we feel are best preserved by the status quo.
l. For retail, recreational and leisure facilities, the electors of Hilitingbury are well served by northern Chandler’s Ford. Chandler’s Ford, northern part of (polling districts CH1, CH2, CH3, CH4)
m. Similarly to Hiltingbury, Chandler’s Ford has been in the Winchester constituency for over a decade. The two wards very much constitute a pair, forming one Parish Council, sharing vital public and commercial services and nestled together to the northwest of the M3/M27 interchange, situated away from the mass of the Borough of Eastleigh.
n. Both wards utilise one road network, they access the same schools (Chandler’s Ford Infants, Fryern Infants and Junior, Scantabout primary school and Thornden and Toynbee secondary schools) and GP (Fryern and Brownhill) practices. While Hiltingbury is almost exclusively residential, the northern section of Chandler’s Ford offers a range of hospitality and retail outlets. Their footfall predominantly caters to residents in both wards. The Fryern Arcade and Winchester Road areas consist of numerous local convenience stores, banks, insurance agents, dentists, vets, hairdressers, coffee shops and supermarkets, to name a few.
o. Aside from the responsibilities of the Borough Council, the residents in the northern Chandler’s Ford area, like Hiltingbury, do not seek considerable access to services, public or commercial, from the other side of the M3. There are no direct road links from the northern part of the Chandler’s Ford, residents must travel southwards, crossing the brook and the railway line on one congested road, which serves as access to the main commuter route into Southampton.
p. The majority of bus links in Chandler’s Ford travel either northward towards Winchester or southward towards Southampton. There are some westward journeys to Romsey and the Test Valley region. There are only two services from Chandlers Ford into Eastleigh, the same services as those which serve Hiltingbury.
q. Both wards are Parished together under Chandler’s Ford Parish Council, which provides recreational facilities, indoor and outdoor sports pitches and courts, and a community centre. This again negates the needs for residents to travel into Eastleigh town and the services on offer there.
r. It is equally important to identify that while Hiltingbury and Chandler’s Ford share many similar attributes that we feel make them inseparable, the southern polling districts of Chandler’s Ford differ slightly.
s. There are two topographical distinctions, which we bring the commission’s attention to, and where we draw the boundary between our proposed Winchester and Eastleigh constituencies. We argue that the polling districts of CH5 and CH6 are moved to the Eastleigh constituency, on the basis they are south of both the railway line and Monk’s Brook (a small river) two barriers which form both a physical boundary and a natural border between the northern polling districts of Chandler’s Ford (CH1, CH2, CH3, CH4) the southern ones (CH5, CH6).
5. Additional Changes to Hampshire Constituencies
a. Valley Park retained in a Romsey and Southampton North CC - Valley Park is currently in the Romsey and Southampton North CC and falls under Test Valley Borough Council. It’s inclusion in an Eastleigh seat not only creates an orphan ward, but also loosens its natural connection to Romsey town and the Test Valley region.
b. Charlton and the Pentons retained in a North West Hampshire CC - Contiguous to the Andover conurbation and currently in the North West Hampshire CC, Charlton and the Pentons is well suited to being retained in the same seat as Andover.
c. Tadley and Pamber split between a North West Hampshire CC and a North East Hampshire CC -Tadley and Pamber are currently split between the constituencies of West Hampshire CC and a North East Hampshire CC. The two villages naturally look westwards and eastwards respectively and we see no issue in maintaining the status quo.
6. Conclusion
a. The counter-proposal as above retains 4 seats in a form most recognisable to their current boundaries. This supports good public administration for the residents in these constituencies and maintains well known links to Members of Parliament and local authorities. It furthermore provides stability for the Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Wards, and the Meon Valley wards which have experienced continual change over the past 3 decades. It is only right to provide them with continued stability.
b. We have focused on maintaining community cohesion, with seats based on their evident urban areas, and the villages and towns they serve. With Meon Valley, we retain a seat based on the rural heartland of south Hampshire. By preserving these links we guarantee that communities which share economic, transport, social and ecological issues can be represented as one unit.
c. This proposal is conscious of the need to protect the link between vital public services with the residents who rely on them. This is especially demonstrated by placing health and education providers in the same constituencies as the population they serve. Where we have made changes to either the current constituencies, or their boundaries as proposed by the commission, we have done so with this requirement in mind.
d. We have been able to use topographical features as the basis for our submission. By respecting the obvious boundaries created by roads, motorways and railway lines to name a few, we can form logical constituencies that are well understood by the electors living in them.
e. Our counter submission not only meets the criteria set out in law by quota, but also meets the other tests and expectations of the Boundary Commission. There are no ‘orphaned’ wards, our Local Authority / constituency crossover is the same as the BCE23 proposals and this is all achieved against the backdrop of minimising change.
f. We therefore commend this counter-proposal to the Boundary Commission.
Winchester CC
Alresford and Itchen Valley 6884
Badger Farm and Oliver's Battery 6354
Chandler's Ford (CH1, CH2, CH3, CH4) 5507
Colden Common and Twyford 4371
Hiltingbury 8286
St Barnabas 6602
St Bartholomew 6311
St Luke 3970
St Michael 6381
St Paul 6692
The Worthys 4791
Upper Meon Valley 4509
Wonston and Micheldever 5878
TOTAL 76536
Eastleigh BC
Bishopstoke 8484
Botley 4782
Chandler's Ford (CH5, CH6) 2941
Eastleigh Central 7634
Eastleigh North 7375
Eastleigh South 7383
Fair Oak and Horton Heath 8167
Hedge End North 7501
Hedge End South 8790
West End North 4566
West End South 4939
TOTAL 7256
Fareham BC
Bursledon and Hound North 6908
Fareham North 5621
Fareham North-West 5548
Fareham South 5505
Fareham West 5403
Hamble and Netley 7970
Locks Heath 5648
Park Gate 7137
Sarisbury 6018
Titchfield 5926
Titchfield Common 6052
Warsash 5536
TOTAL 73272
Meon Valley CC
Bishop's Waltham 6240
Central Meon Valley 7594
Cowplain 7434
Denmead 6494
Fareham East 5930
Hart Plain 7657
Portchester East 8883
Portchester West 5608
Southwick and Wickham 4790
Waterloo 8163
Whiteley and Shedfield 4634
TOTAL 73427
Romsey CC
Ampfield and Braishfield 2196
Anna 5058
Bassett 10150
Bellinger 2628
Blackwater 4936
Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams 6069
Harewood 2684
Mid Test 7308
North Baddesley 5886
Romsey Abbey 4877
Romsey Cupernham 6233
Romsey Tadburn 4686
Swaythling 8467
Valley Park 4729
TOTAL 75907
North West Hampshire CC
Tadley North, Kingsclere and Baughurst 8451
Whitchurch, Overton and Laverstoke 8011
Bourne Valley 2541
Andover Romans 5769
Andover Harroway 7142
Andover Millway 6776
Andover Winton 4826
Andover St Mary's 5893
Evingar 7359
Andover Downlands 3535
Charlton and the Pentons 2653
Sherborne St John and Rooksdown 6953
Tadley and Pamber (TD3, TD4, TD5) 6617
TOTAL 76526
North East Hampshire CC
Basing and Upton Grey 8069
Bramley 6399
Crookham East 5835
Crookham West and Ewshot 7597
Fleet Central 6490
Fleet East 5801
Fleet West 6416
Hartley Wintney 7182
Hook 6558
Odiham 6506
Tadley and Pamber (TD1, TD2) 2197
Yateley West 6453
TOTAL 75503
