Hampshire County Council’s preferred option for the major shake-up in local government is on its way to Westminster.
Conservative county council cabinet members have backed the council’s “best option” for local government reorganisation (LGR) to create four unitary authorities: three on the mainland and one for the Isle of Wight.
As a result, Southampton, Eastleigh, New Forest and Test Valley would be merged into one single authority. At the same time, Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport, and Havant would each establish their own administrations.
East Hampshire District Council, Hart, Rushmoor, Basingstoke and Deane, and Winchester will be together in the north, and the Isle of Wight will remain a standalone authority.

At the cabinet meeting on Friday, the leader of the county council, Cllr Nick Adams-King, said that the proposal is “the best option”, ensuring financial resilience, retaining and improving services, and offering confidence to Hampshire residents that they will be able to engage with their councils.
Cllr Adams-King said: “We have put the people we serve at the heart of our proposal. To them, I promise that while we are here, we will continue to prioritise your care.
“To our staff, we recognise how hard you work and how excellent the service you provide. We will be with you throughout the process.
“To the people of Hampshire, we would work competently and professionally with all our colleagues to ensure the best possible outcome.”
In his speech, Cllr Adams-King also sent a message to the 14 leaders of the Hampshire authorities.
“Our job is done, and this should no longer be something about which we fall out. The decision is no longer ours. It is now up to the government. So, we need to move forward together with competence, professionalism and kindness.
“We should never forget this is not about us nor about the politicians, it is about the staff for whom we are responsible, the people we serve and those who rely upon our services most.”
Cllr Kirsty North said the submission is “the council’s best stab” at meeting the government criteria.
She said that in the last months, councils in the region “have been pitted against each other, when they should be working more closely together”.
She added: “Change is on the agenda, and it would be how it is enacted that it will be remembered.”
However, at the full council meeting on Wednesday, September 24, the plan was not supported by 15 members, who voted against it.
Among them was Cllr Edward Heron (Cons), who said the proposal is not welcomed by his residents in the New Forest.
He said: “I cannot possibly support it.
“I cannot vote for something that ties my district in the New Forest with Southampton, something that is absolutely opposed by those residents I represent. Equally, the residents of my area have little in common with those of Eastleigh.
“We are not doing what we want. We are not doing what our residents want. We are merely trying to meet the best requirements we can from a government minister who has no interest in our county, in our people or in helping us deliver the services our residents need.”
In support, the Labour Group leader, Cllr Kim Taylor, said the council’s proposal is the most “realistic”, “compliant” and one that “protects the frontline services”.
Cllr Taylor added: “Without a doubt, this proposal is not the most radical, but I think it is the most realistic. It doesn’t overpromise; it doesn’t underestimate the complexity of transition. It doesn’t gamble with the future of services or the frontline teams who deliver them.
“We do have a duty to lead with clarity and to submit a proposal that the government can trust and will serve residents well and could be implemented without disruption or delay.”
All proposals submitted by the 15 authorities in Hampshire must be received by Friday, September 26.
Following this, the central government will conduct a public consultation on LGR in the upcoming months, with a final decision expected in early 2026.
Under the current timeline, shadow authorities for the new councils would be established in 2027, before they go live the following year.
Comments
This article has no comments yet. Be the first to leave a comment.