To help in our preparation of the Council’s submission (and all of our own personal submissions) The Chairman of the Parish Council has produced this document that provides the consultation headline proposals and then provides the questions to be answered at the end of the 4 proposals. Note that the 3rd proposal below from seven Councils includes an extra question because of the implications of boundary changes. That extra question is given in blue text after the proposal details. This we, believe, is the dangerous option for the Southern Parishes as this seeks to shift no less than eleven parishes into the 2 City-based Unitary Authorities and this must be firmly resisted. At the end of the document links are provided, the first one is the high-level information from which this document has been derived and then there are the links to the specific 4 proposals in detail.
Consultation on the Proposal from Hampshire County Council & East Hampshire District Council (This was the proposal that we supported as a Parish Council)
Consultation for 4 unitary councils:
Mid North: Basingstoke and Deane, East Hampshire, Hart, Rushmoor, Winchester.
West: Eastleigh, New Forest, Southampton, Test Valley.
South East: Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth.
Isle of Wight: Isle of Wight to remain unchanged
Consultation on the Proposal from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, New Forest District Council and Test Valley Borough Council
Consultation for 5 unitary councils:
North: Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, Rushmoor.
Mid: East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester.
South East: Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth.
South West: Eastleigh, Southampton.
Isle of Wight: Isle of Wight to remain unchanged
Please note that this is referred to as Option 1 in their submission.
Consultation on the Proposal from Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Hart District Council, Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Rushmoor Borough Council and Southampton City Council
Consultation for 5 unitary councils:
North: Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, Rushmoor.
Mid: East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester, (less 11 parishes from all four areas).
South East: Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, (plus 3 parishes of East Hampshire and 1 parish of Winchester).
South West: Eastleigh, Southampton, (plus 4 parishes from New Forest and 3 parishes from Test Valley).
Isle of Wight: Isle of Wight to remain unchanged.
Please note that this is referred to as Option 1a in their submission.
This proposal is accompanied by a request for boundary change to split existing districts between new unitary councils. Please answer the questions on the proposal including the modifications. We will also ask you an additional question on whether you think there is a strong justification for these splits. That has been given at the end of the common questions for all.
Consultation on the Proposal from Winchester City Council
Consultation for 5 unitary councils:
North: Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, Rushmoor.
Mid: East Hampshire, Test Valley, Winchester.
South East: Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth.
South West: Eastleigh, New Forest, Southampton.
Isle of Wight: Isle of Wight to remain unchanged.
Please note that this is referred to as Option 2 in their submission.
List of Questions to be answered for each option.
Firstly, every respondent has to tell the Government about themselves:
1. What is your name?
(Required)
2. Are you responding as an individual or providing an official response on behalf of an organisation?
(Required)
Individual
Official response on behalf of an organisation
Member of Parliament
3. Have you been invited to respond as a named consultee?
(Required)
Yes
No RCPC is not a named consultee, Neither is any other Parish or Town Council but we can all make submissions as a Council and as individuals.
4. In which council area is your address? (if you are responding as an individual this is your home address. If you are responding as an organisation this is your organisation address)
(Required)
Hampshire County Council
Isle of Wight Council
Portsmouth City Council
Southampton City Council
Not in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth or Southampton
5. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please let us know the organisation’s name:
Organisation
6. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please let us know your position within the organisation:
Position in organisation
7. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please select the type of organisation from the options below:
Business
Education
Health
Local government – principal council within the invitation area
Local government – neighbouring council
Local government – parish/town council
Local government – other
Other public sector
National body
Police and Fire
Voluntary sector
Other
8. What is your email address?
Email Address (Required)
Secondly, read statement on no personal data:
Please read and tick the box before proceeding with the consultation
(Required)
The sections for each proposal in this consultation include free text boxes where you can explain your answers. Please tick this box to confirm that you will not include information which may identify an individual in these boxes
Then comes the questions about each of the 4 proposals on which the Government is seeking views. Questions 1 to 9 are common to all but for the 3rd proposal, as indicated earlier, there is an extra question and also an extra free-text box to fill in, which is give at the end in blue text:
1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
2. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
4. To what extent do you agree or disagree that this proposal will put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing, particularly given that some councils in the area are in in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
More information – As of 19 Nov 25, within the Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton area, Southampton City Council had received in-principle Exceptional Financial Support to support their 2025/26 budget. This council will not necessarily be in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support in future financial years.
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
6. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
7. To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements, for example, the establishment of a strategic authority?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
8. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
9. If you would like to, please use the free text box to explain the answers you have provided to questions 1-8 referring to the question numbers as part of your answer. You may also use the box to provide any other comments you have on this proposal.
Text box to add further comments
10. I confirm that I have not included any information that identifies an individual in the free text box.
Yes
Below is the extra question and free text box for the 3rd proposal
10. This proposal is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of State considers boundary change. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal sets out a strong public services
and financial sustainability justification for boundary change?
Dropdown answers — Please Select — Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree Don’t know
11. If you would like to, please use this free text box to explain your answer to question 10.
Text box to add further comments
12. I confirm that I have not included any information that identifies an individual in the free text box.
Yes
You also need to take note of the information below, particularly at the end re the Boundary changes.
Guidance from the Secretary of State for proposals for unitary local government
Criteria for unitary local government
1) A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government.
• a) Proposals should be for sensible economic areas, with an appropriate tax base which does not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area.
• b) Proposals should be for a sensible geography which will help to increase housing supply and meet local needs.
• c) Proposals should be supported by robust evidence and analysis and include an explanation of the outcomes it is expected to achieve, including evidence of estimated costs/benefits and
local engagement.
• d) Proposals should describe clearly the single tier local government structures it is putting forward for the whole of the area, and explain how, if implemented, these are expected to
achieve the outcomes described.
2) Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.
• a) As a guiding principle, new councils should aim for a population of 500,000 or more.
• b) There may be certain scenarios in which this 500,000 figure does not make sense for an area, including on devolution, and this rationale should be set out in a proposal.
• c) Efficiencies should be identified to help improve councils’ finances and make sure that council taxpayers are getting the best possible value for their money.
• d) Proposals should set out how an area will seek to manage transition costs, including planning for future service transformation opportunities from existing budgets, including from
the flexible use of capital receipts that can support authorities in taking forward transformation and invest-to-save projects.
• e) For areas covering councils that are in Best Value intervention and/or in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support, proposals must additionally demonstrate how reorganisation may
contribute to putting local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing and what area-specific arrangements may be necessary to make new structures viable.
• f) In general, as with previous restructures, there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation. For areas where there are
exceptional circumstances where there has been failure linked to capital practices, proposals should reflect the extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally,
including as part of efficiencies possible through reorganisation.
3) Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens.
• a) Proposals should show how new structures will improve local government and service delivery, and should avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services.
• b) Opportunities to deliver public service reform should be identified, including where they will lead to better value for money.
• c) Consideration should be given to the impacts for crucial services such as social care, children’s services, SEND and homelessness, and for wider public services including for public
safety.
4) Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views.
• a) It is for councils to decide how best to engage locally in a meaningful and constructive way and this engagement activity should be evidenced in your proposal.
• b) Proposals should consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance.
• c) Proposals should include evidence of local engagement, an explanation of the views that have been put forward and how concerns will be addressed.
5) New unitary structures must support devolution arrangements.
• a) Proposals will need to consider and set out for areas where there is already a Combined Authority (CA) or a Combined County Authority (CCA) established or a decision has been taken
by government to work with the area to establish one, how that institution and its governance arrangements will need to change to continue to function effectively; and set out
clearly (where applicable) whether this proposal is supported by the CA/CCA /Mayor.
• b) Where no CA or CCA is already established or agreed then the proposal should set out how it will help unlock devolution.
• c) Proposals should ensure there are sensible population size ratios between local authorities and any strategic authority, with timelines that work for both priorities.
6) New unitary structures should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
• a) Proposals will need to explain plans to make sure that communities are engaged.
• b) Where there are already arrangements in place it should be explained how these will enable strong community engagement.
Boundary Changes
a) Existing district areas should be considered the building blocks for your proposals, but where there is a strong justification more complex boundary changes will be considered.
b) There will need to be a strong public services and financial sustainability related justification for any proposals that involve boundary changes, or that affect wider public services, such
as fire and rescue authorities, due to the likely additional costs and complexities of implementation.
My final comments
The essential information has been provided above but this is the link to:
Open consultation – Proposals for local government reorganisation in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton
A summary of these proposals, as well as links to the full submissions and other information in relation to re-organisation can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-government-reorganisation-in-hampshire-isle-of-wight-portsmouth-and-southampton/proposals-for-local-government-reorganisation-in-hampshire-isle-of-wight-portsmouth-and-southampton
Below are the links to the specific submissions (these links can also be found through the above higher-level link.
Submissions from councils.
The proposals received by MHCLG by the deadline of 26 September are set out above. The detailed information and supporting analysis within these 4 proposals can be found by clicking the links below:
• Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council
• Basingstoke and Deane District Council, New Forest District Council and Test Valley Borough Council – shown as Option 1
• Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Hart District Council, Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Rushmoor Borough Council and Southampton City Council – shown
as Option 1a
• Winchester City Council – shown as Option 2
