Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Brand, Linford, Murray, Osborne, O’Sullivan, Parker and Rippon-Swaine.

To note any declarations of interests made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interests must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

The Monitoring Officer referred to the advice which had been circulated to all members and confirmed that a dispensation had been granted, to enable all members to speak and vote on any recommendations, at minute 36 below, in respect of local government reorganisation.  This was because it could be argued that Members may have a disclosable pecuniary interest in potential local government reorganisation, by virtue of their receipt of a Members’ allowance as a Member of New Forest District Council.

The Monitoring Officer also specifically referred to those members who were also Hampshire County councillors, and clarified that they had a standing dispensation to enable them to participate at NFDC meetings, having regard to the allowance they received from HCC.

Finally, the Monitoring officer confirmed that his advice given did not extend to any other interests that might preclude Members from participating in the business of the meeting.

There were no other declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interests by Members.

The Leader introduced the report and expressed her thanks to all those who had been involved in the work undertaken get to the submission of the final proposals.  She highlighted that devolution or local government reorganisation was not sought by NFDC, but that there had been extensive work to do what was felt to be the best for new forest residents.  Keeping the forest whole had been the task, and she thanked all the Group Leaders for their united support, recognising the importance of having one voice.

Reference was made to the residents having one voice, wanting to keep the forest rural and whole. They did not want to join a city-based council and whilst they may shop or use services across the wider Hampshire region, this did not mean they should be subsumed into an urban structure that does not reflect their local needs.  It was highlighted that residents had told the council that life orientates around the forest, using the local businesses and facilities within the district.

Business and partners had been equally clear, wanting to keep the forest rural, and whole.  They valued dealing with a rural authority that listens and understands the complexity of the area. There were concerns over the potential loss of identity and localness.

The Leader felt that Option 1 was the only option to support.  In her view, it was the strongest option when assessed against the government’s criteria.  She spoke about the rigorous, collaborative process with 12 councils working together, supported by expert analysis and extensive engagement.

She considered Option 1 to:

·       Be a sustainable model that is the most balanced and locally responsive.

·       Create four new unitary councils, and crucially, for the New Forest and Mid Hampshire

·       Give a voice in the new Strategic Authority to the county’s rural and market towns and their communities.

·       Keep the forest whole, avoiding boundary changes that would split district communities. 

·       Deliver financial sustainability, with a payback period of just three years and annual savings of £63 million, backed by robust financial modelling and a clear implementation plan.

·       Best support public service reform.

·       Enable place-based working, neighbourhood empowerment, and local decision-making. 

·       Allow the design of services around communities, not forcing communities to fit around services.

In summing up, the Leader felt that Option 1 was the only option that truly reflects how people live and identify with their place. It was considered the only option that protected the rural character, the local voice, and the ability to lead for communities.

Cllr S Clarke proposed the following motion:

That in recognising the overwhelming support from residents, businesses, local organisations and stakeholders, who have clearly expressed a desire to;-

• Prioritise a rural identity and governance model that reflects the unique character and needs of the New Forest and Mid Hampshire; and
• Keep the Forest whole, avoiding any boundary changes that would divide the New Forest, the National Park and our historic communities.

The Council endorses the Cabinet recommendations to submit Option 1 for local government reorganisation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The Chairman confirmed that a supplementary agenda had been published the day before with seven questions to be asked at the meeting.  These had been reviewed by the Chief Executive, and those considered to be relevant to the business on the summons had been included in the supplement. 

The Chairman reported that, after taking advice, he considered that there were special circumstances to allow questions to be asked, as a matter of urgency under section 100B(4) of the 1972 Act in that they related to Local Government Reorganisation, the reason behind the calling of the special meeting.

Members were invited to put their questions under Standing Order 22, as follows:-

Cllrs Harrison, Rackham, McCarthy and M Clark withdrew their submitted questions at the meeting, in light of the debate on the previous item.  This was in relation to questions, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.  This left two remaining questions.

·       From Cllr Osborne to the Leader, Cllr Jill Cleary, regarding discussions with Hampshire County Council.

·       From Cllr A Wade to the Leader, Cllr Jill Cleary, regarding Options 2 and 3 and what they could mean for residents.

Note:  A copy of the full questions and replies are attached to these minutes.