Agenda item

The Panel considered the report on local government reorganisation June 2025 and were provided with a comprehensive update on the activities that the Council had undertaken since the interim plan had been submitted. 

It was confirmed that public engagement would be launched on 30 June 2025 and it had become clear that the options referenced in the report as H, I and boundary changes would now be referenced as 1, 2 and 3 which would be clearer for public engagement.  Hampshire County Council’s position had become clear following the publication of this report and included details of the options which they were separately working on.  Further information regarding the impact for this Council’s programme was covered in an appendix to the Cabinet report, which articulated in more detail the boundary change impact for the district should the boundary change model progress. 

Whilst some Panel members felt that boundary changes would be unlikely due to the complexity and length of the process, another expressed an opposing view that boundary changes were still possible, as the larger authorities had strongly different views and the government would be making the final decision. 

A member asked what would happen if the preferred option of the Council wasn’t taken forward.  It was clarified that the options being developed by the twelve Councils, along with KPMG, the public engagement and the submission to government whatever the outcome then each Council could still submit a final option as part of that process.  By engaging with the collective work, the Council was not being forced into having to pursue an option which wouldn’t be desirable. 

The survey data collated as part of the public engagement would have post code identifiers, so there would be a data set which identified specific area responses, and would be provided to members in due course.

It was acknowledged that the Council did not always receive a good level of participation and therefore it needed to be conveyed that the public engagement was a once in a generation opportunity to influence change and to encourage the public to respond.  Members raised concern that Hampshire County Council were undertaking their own engagement and that it could undermine the work being undertaken by the Council.  It was confirmed that when the Hampshire wide engagement went live there would be a significant increase in communications to ensure that public engagement, including asking Members to do the same with their communities, working with Parish and Town Councils and stakeholders.

It was acknowledged that the consultation had been commissioned by the twelve Councils who were working with KMPG on the options.   Members expressed concern that they had not seen the consultation to date.  Members would be expected to play a key role in promoting this and there would be other content that could be used such as leaflets and flyers, stakeholder emails, etc   An overview had been provided as part of the recent Members Briefing.  It was confirmed that if Town and Parish Councils required the Council to visit them to as part of the consultation engagement, to make contact with Officers.

It was confirmed that where there was currently a two-tier system a process of disaggregation would be undertaken and this would include an assessment in which part of adult social services would move from Hampshire County Council to a new unitary.  This would be a complex piece of work to understand how to deliver a safe, new Council.  Important work streams such as adult services had been taken forward with Officer Working Groups, working alongside other Councils, to develop a proposal as part of the geography of how services could be delivered and how that proposal can lead into the practicalities of the design of those new services.  It was confirmed that those work streams were already underway.  An action plan had been developed and recognised that a local based, preventative model with key stakeholders involved in the pathway had to include multiple agencies.

It was asked if there was a possibility that East Hampshire and Gosport Councils could come back into the fold or were there any other Councils likely to join them, as the fewer Councils that were working together, the less likely it was that those smaller Councils could be heard.  In response, it was confirmed that as part of the governance work stream that area committees would be looked at, the current twelve authorities recognised the strength of working together on a case for change.  Whilst there may be different options with the case for change that this Council didn’t support it gave the overall case for change a compelling stance. 

The steer from Group Leaders was to go for Option H, no boundary changes, as the Council did not want the New Forest to be split and needed all Councillors, once the consultation was launched to engage with their residents.  It was confirmed that there was an allegiance with Test Valley Borough Council and the Council was working with Winchester City Council.  Work was also being undertaken with East Hampshire District Council, although they preferred the three unitary Council model.  It was stated that Gosport Borough Council did not want local government reorganisation to happen and was therefore not engaging in the process, whilst the Isle of Wight needed to either make a case to join a new authority or to stay the same.  

A Panel member stated that they had asked the Leader of Hampshire County Council to attend a Boldre Parish Council meeting, whilst another Member had requested that they also attend a meeting at Lymington Town Council to receive a balance of information.  It was confirmed that New Forest District Council would also be invited to these events.

It was felt by a Panel member that if New Forest had to join into a unitary with Southampton, then it needed to include the whole of the District.  In response, it was confirmed that the Leader of the Council would not support any boundary changes, resulting in the district being split.