Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the progress made on the development of final local government reorganisation proposals by September 2025;

2. Agreed that the priority for LGR proposals are:-

a.     Financially sustainable rural focused unitary council, bringing together the New Forest area with mid Hampshire.

b.     An authority that does not split the historic communities of the New Forest through boundary changes, or forces the district into an urban-led model.

3. Supports the active engagement in competing proposals for LGR in Hampshire and the Solent, to best represent and campaign for the above priorities, including the strong opposition to any proposals that involve boundary changes that would split the historic communities of the New Forest; and

4. Supports the establishment of the LGR Programme Governance and Member oversight arrangements detailed in the report, alongside current programme activity and spend incurred from the established LGR reserve.

KEY DECISION:

Yes

PORTFOLIO:

Leaders

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Leader introduced the item and spoke at length about NFDC’s views on the matter of LGR.

She encouraged all stakeholders to respond to the consultation on LGR. Cabinet heard that the Council’s focus would be on making the case for new, rural unitary authority of which the New Forest would be a key part of.

The Leader emphasised that Option 1 would be the natural fit for the District and that it would protect the residents of the New Forest while meeting their needs through service provision that was designed around them. Option 1 would also promote sustainable growth through rural practices and innovation.

The Leader explained that the new authority must maintain a connection with rural life and encouraged all stakeholders, residents and businesses to support Option 1.

The Leader made it clear that Option 2 would not be supported by NFDC. It was heard that Option 2 would make the New Forest an extension of a city, which fundamentally misunderstood the needs of the residents, businesses and the unique environment. All of these elements would need to be finely balanced to meet their needs of community and conservation, which Option 2 would not provide. Option 2 would lead to poorer services for New Forest residents and would risk the sustainability of the area going forward. NFDC has long adopted a planning approach which understood the pressures, duties and sensitivities that comes with managing land within the District.

Option 3, it was explained, would fracture NFDC and would split the historic footprint across two new Councils. The Leader stated that this would be an insult to the communities across the New Forest. Option 3 would ignore the rural identity of the communities within the Waterside. The residents of Hythe, Fawley, Totton and Marchwood did not identify with high-rise city centres and were more accustomed to the environment of rural life.

The Leader encouraged all consultation responders to oppose Option 2 and Option 3.

The Assistant Director, Strategy and Engagement provided further points of information on the report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9