The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South West
Dorset
We considered Dorset as a sub-region on its own with an allocation of eight constituencies (the same as the existing number). In parts of the county we proposed only minor changes to the configuration of the existing constituencies.
The sub-region encompasses the two unitary authorities of Dorset, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP). Of the eight existing constituencies, six are within the permitted electorate range, while the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency has an electorate below the range, and the West Dorset constituency has an electorate above. All eight constituencies could remain entirely situated within the ceremonial county of Dorset without any need to cross county boundaries.
In formulating our initial proposals, we recognised that the Bournemouth East, Bournemouth West, Poole, and Christchurch constituencies currently have electorates within the permitted range. However, due to changes in local government ward boundaries, retaining these constituencies in their existing form would result in the splitting of several wards between constituencies. To avoid this, we realigned the constituency boundaries to reflect the new local government ward boundaries. This was the only change we proposed for these constituencies.
The new West Purbeck ward in the Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency had been extended to the coast, resulting in the bisecting of the existing South Dorset constituency. We proposed the inclusion of the whole of West Purbeck ward in the South Dorset constituency. Furthermore, we proposed extending the Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency northwards to encompass the Stour & Allen Vale ward, which was previously in the North Dorset constituency. We also proposed the inclusion of the whole of the Chalk Valleys, and Puddletown & Lower Winterborne wards in the North Dorset constituency.
To reduce the high electorate of the West Dorset constituency, we proposed a configuration that would not allow for the inclusion of both the Winterborne & Broadmayne, and Chickerell wards in the West Dorset constituency. Instead, we recommended transferring the Chickerell ward from the existing West Dorset constituency for the Upwey & Broadwey ward from the existing South Dorset constituency.
In response to the consultation on our initial proposals, the four Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole unitary authority constituencies garnered a considerable amount of support, given that they remain unchanged except for the necessary realignment with new ward boundaries. However, some respondents expressed their objection to East Dorset wards being included in the Christchurch constituency, while others objected to the renaming of the Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency to Mid Dorset and Poole North, claiming this was unnecessary and that the name should remain unchanged.
The inclusion of Chickerell ward in the South Dorset constituency, and Upwey & Broadwey ward in the West Dorset constituency, in particular, was very unpopular. Many representations argued that this configuration disrupted the area’s historic and local ties, and that the exclusion of Upwey & Broadwey from South Dorset and the inclusion of Chickerell did not take into account the geography and history of the area or the wishes of the people concerned. It was also suggested that Chickerell was a better fit in the West Dorset constituency and that its residents consider that they are not part of Weymouth and wish to be identified as a town in their own right, whereas Upwey & Broadwey had always been considered to be a part of Weymouth. Many representations therefore proposed for the Upwey & Broadwey ward to remain in the same constituency as Weymouth, since the ward followed the traditional main route to Weymouth town centre and was surrounded on three sides by other wards of Weymouth.
Our initial proposals led to over 250 objections concerning the Chalk Valleys ward. Residents in the Cerne Abbas and Piddle Valley areas were strongly opposed to their inclusion in the North Dorset constituency, as they felt their ties were with Dorchester and the West Dorset constituency. Many of these respondents considered that North Dorset and places such as Verwood, which were included in the North Dorset constituency, were far away and had little in common with their area.
We received representations from individuals offering an alternative configuration, as well as other counter proposals. It was generally accepted that there was no whole ward solution to resolve the issue, and that splitting wards between constituencies was the only way to properly address the constraints faced in the Dorset sub-region. It was claimed that local ties could be broken in many areas if we did not consider whether the circumstances in South Dorset, North Dorset, and West Dorset were exceptional enough to warrant constituencies that split wards. A counter proposal suggested the splitting of two wards: West Purbeck and Chalk Valleys. It was contended that a West Purbeck ward split would allow us to construct a Dorset sub-region with a similar pattern to existing constituencies, while also allowing the Upwey & Broadwey Ward to be included in the South Dorset constituency; the counter proposal suggested that four polling districts of the West Purbeck ward be included in the proposed North Dorset constituency, with the remainder of the ward included in our proposed South Dorset constituency. It was also proposed that a split in the Chalk Valleys ward would permit the Cerne Abbas and Piddle Valley areas to be included in West Dorset, the same constituency as the significant market town of Dorchester, with which the local residents claimed affinity.
After carefully reviewing the initial proposals and the evidence received, including the option of ward splits, our Assistant Commissioners made a site visit to the area to observe for themselves the wards in question and the community ties that have been suggested exist.
They concluded that none of the evidence provided during the consultation provided a compelling reason to alter the composition of any of the Dorset constituencies as proposed in our initial proposals, or in particular, to split any wards. They noted the support for our proposed constituencies in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole unitary authority and considered that, although there was a significant degree of opposition to our proposals in the south and west of the county, particularly from the Chalk Valleys and Upwey & Boadwey wards, we had proposed a cohesive set of constituencies without the need to divide wards. They also noted the support for our proposals from the qualifying political parties. We agreed, and made no further changes. However, we did consider that those who suggested it was unnecessary to change the original name of the proposed Mid Devon and Poole North constituency were correct, and we revised our initial proposals to change the name of the constituency back to its existing name of Mid Dorset and North Poole.
We received only a few representations for the two Bournemouth constituencies and Poole; there was support for our revised proposals, and unanimous support for our decision to amend our initial proposals and retain the original name of the Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency. However, we did receive a number of representations, which, while not suggesting a change to the configuration of the Christchurch constituency, called for it to be renamed Christchurch and East Dorset
We received no support for a previous proposal that sought to divide Dorset into two sub‑regions. However, a number of representations were received from the West Purbeck ward – particularly from the Bere Regis, Bloxworth and surrounding areas – that the ward should be split, with the areas in the north-west of the ward being retained within the Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency.
We again received significant opposition to the inclusion of the Chalk Valleys ward in the North Dorset constituency. Additionally, there was some additional opposition to the inclusion of the Chickerell ward in the South Dorset constituency, and there continued to be a significant number of representations still opposing the inclusion of the Upwey & Broadwey ward in the West Dorset constituency.
We have considered the evidence received and propose no changes to the boundaries or names of the proposed two Bournemouth constituencies, or the Christchurch and Poole constituencies.
After thorough consideration of all the relevant factors and careful examination of the affected areas, we considered that it would be prudent to undertake a further site visit to the North, West and South Dorset constituencies.
During the site visit to the Bere Regis and Bloxworth areas it was considered that these areas did indeed look eastwards towards the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency as suggested in the representations, and that the main lines of communication were east/west across this part of the ward.
Having visited the Weymouth area, we considered that including Chickerell in a constituency with Weymouth was appropriate. We observed that, along the Chickerell Road from Weymouth, the Charlestown area is at the eastern edge of the ward and was considered to be clearly an urban extension of Weymouth. We considered that the Chickerell Downs did not appear to be a dividing feature between Charlestown and Chickerell itself and, from the observations, and despite some of the claims in the representations, we considered Chickerell to also be suburban in nature and as much a part of the greater Weymouth area as was the Upwey & Broadwey ward. We therefore recommend no further amendments to our revised proposals with regard to the inclusion of the Chickerell ward with Weymouth in the South Dorset constituency.
We also observed the ties of the Upwey & Broadwey ward. We noted that the community of Broadwey is in the south of the Upwey & Broadwey ward and was suburban in nature, and certainly part of Weymouth. Upwey, in the north of the ward, had a more village-like feel about it, but still looked to Weymouth as the boundary with the rural Winterborne & Broadmayne ward to the north was clear. We also considered the large body of evidence that the communities of the ward overwhelmingly see themselves as part of Weymouth in the representations.
We visited the Chalk Valleys ward and observed it to be a very rural ward with scattered villages, lying some distance from the town of Dorchester (with the Charminster St. Mary’s ward lying between the ward and the town of Dorchester). We again considered the large body of evidence that was submitted, and have no doubt that residents of this area of Chalk Valleys ward would look towards Dorchester for shopping and services, as it is the nearest big town, but our observations did not lead us to conclude that, despite the local opposition to our proposals, there were sufficient grounds to warrant a splitting of the ward.
However, we considered that our revised proposals did divide communities in the Weymouth area, and in particular, the inclusion of the Upwey & Broadwey ward in the West Dorset constituency, and we were also mindful of the representations received during the consultations – and in particular, the consultation on our revised proposals – from residents in the north of the West Purbeck ward, from the Bere Regis and Bloxworth areas. We investigated a number of configurations using whole wards in an attempt to find a solution that would resolve these issues, but considered these would be disruptive to the existing pattern of constituencies or would break community ties in the Dorchester area.
We therefore considered that splitting a ward between constituencies could be justified. Having considered the evidence and visited the areas, we concluded that splitting the West Purbeck ward in the north of the ward – between the South Dorset, and Mid Dorset and North Poole constituencies – would better fit the statutory criteria in the Bere Regis and Bloxworth areas, which would be included within the constituency in which they were currently located: Mid Dorset and North Poole. Furthermore, such a split would also allow for a better fit of the statutory criteria in the Weymouth area with the inclusion of the Upwey & Broadwey ward in the South Dorset constituency; the ward is currently located in the existing South Dorset constituency. We therefore recommend that the WPU2 and WPU3 polling districts of the West Purbeck ward – which contain the Bere Regis, Bloxworth and surrounding areas – be included in the Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency. Such a split would closely follow the existing constituency boundary in this area.
We also recommend that the Upwey & Broadway ward be included in the South Dorset constituency, as has been suggested in the majority of the representations that have been received, and which the splitting of the West Purbeck ward would now allow.
We again considered whether it was necessary to split the Chalk Valleys ward, as had also been suggested by respondents. However, under the modified pattern of constituencies outlined above, we identified that it would be possible to include the whole of the Chalk Valleys ward in the West Dorset constituency. We considered that including the whole ward would better reflect the existing constituency and community identity as stated in the evidence we received. We considered whether this would detrimentally impact the shape of the North Dorset constituency but noted that, to some extent, this was determined by the shape of the Puddletown & Lower Winterborne ward. Finally, we considered whether to divide the Puddletown & Lower Winterborne ward between constituencies but considered this would provide no wider benefits across the region. Therefore, as part of our final recommendations, we propose that the Chalk Valleys ward be included in the West Dorset constituency.
Our final recommendations for Dorset are therefore for constituencies of: Bournemouth East; Bournemouth West; Christchurch; Mid Dorset and North Poole; North Dorset; Poole; South Dorset; and West Dorset. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
