Every few years a government decides it is time to re-organise local government (again). This is sometimes attempted with the best of intentions (e.g. to reflect changed settlement patterns, to enable better planning, to make it more efficient) and sometimes out of vindictive spite (as when the Thatcher government abolished the GLC and the metropolitan counties). The results of these attempts have been mixed, but they have never slowed the erosion of local government powers, functions and financial independence that has occurred over the last 80 years.
Last December the Government launched a fresh proposal in a White Paper called "English Devolution". The purpose of this proposal is to "redistribute political, social and economic power" as between central and local government and thus "rewire England and allow everyone
everywhere to realise their full potential."
Will it be any different this time? Below I have reproduced a paper that I have written in response to to a local consultation by 12 councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
How to re-organise local government in Hampshire
Introduction
This paper is a response to the consultation launched by 12 local councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight regarding the impending reorganisation of local government. (See this link).
In December 2024 the Government issued a White Paper, “English Devolution”, explaining its proposals to devolve certain powers and functions to newly created Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs), which would exercise those functions at a regional level. At the same time the Government has asked local councils within the proposed MCA area to bring forward proposals for merging their areas to produce larger authorities.
Personal status
I was brought up mainly in Portsmouth and went to school here from 1948 to 1960 before leaving to go to university. I returned to live here in 2006.
After graduating in 1963 I worked for six local councils in England and Scotland, retiring as a chief officer in Southampton in 1992. I was also an elected member of Birmingham City Council from 1995 to 1999. I am a (retired) Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
I therefore believe that I am professionally and politically well qualified to comment on local government re-organisation in Hampshire.
Criticisms of principles
Before discussing the options prepared by the 12 local authorities I wish to comment on the background and terms of reference of the current exercise.
1. Historical background
There have been a number of previous reports and attempts to reorganise local government and planning in Hampshire:
The Buchanan Report, 1966, which proposed a Southampton/Portsmouth linear city to accommodate major population growth. The proposal was opposed and rejected.
The Redcliffe-Maude report on local government reorganisation, 1969, which recommended two all-purpose unitary councils based on a greater Southampton and a greater Portsmouth. This was accepted in principle by the Labour government but rejected by the ensuing Conservative government.
The Local Government Act 1973 established a two-tier system, with powers and responsibilities divided between Hampshire County Council and the 12 District Councils, including Southampton and Portsmouth, which thus lost their independence.
In 1997 the independence of the two cities was restored by the creation of unitary councils within their existing boundaries, although the rest of Hampshire was left untouched.
The “Solent Deal” (2016), put forward by the government as a condition for devolution, proposed a mayoral combined authority consisting only of the two cities plus the Isle of Wight – but excluding the contiguous district councils, who, together with Hampshire County Council, opposed it and proposed a rival scheme. The proposal was obviously flawed and unviable and was withdrawn. (See also my 2016 blog article “The Solent deal is bonkers.”)
2. Regional planning
The primary justification underlying these various proposals to reorganise local government in south Hampshire is the need for regional planning – of housing, industry, transport, leisure, and waste disposal. Densely populated cities like Southampton and Portsmouth cannot reasonably be expected to accommodate their population or employment growth within their existing boundaries. Yet adjoining suburban and semi-rural districts are often reluctant to allocate land needed to meet these needs. As a result central governments have found it necessary to intervene and either impose Regional Spatial Strategies, sometimes against local opposition, or require planning authorities to co-operate - with limited success.
The size and extent of the “region” for planning purposes is a matter of some debate. A commonly used measure is the Travel to Work Area (TTWA), which roughly defines the area over which a city exerts the primary economic and social attraction. Thus, in the case of Portsmouth the TTWA extends to Petersfield in the north, Emsworth in the east, and Fareham in the west. In Southampton’s case, its TTWA extends to Winchester and Romsey in the north, Eastleigh in the east, and Lyndhurst in the New Forest in the west.
However, the Government has announced its firm intention to create a Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) comprising the whole of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight – an area that includes parts (only) of three further TTWAs (Andover, Basingstoke and Aldershot/Guildford). (See map). This proposed entity is obviously based on existing political and historic boundaries rather than the logic of economic geography.
3. Efficient size of local authority
At the same time as creating the Hampshire MCA, the government has also announced its intention to merge local authorities that do not meet a minimum population threshhold of 500 000. Thus, Hampshire will be reduced from 12 to 4 districts, and the precise grouping and boundaries are the subject of the present consultation.
The rationale for the Government’s proposal is the theory that fewer larger authorities can reduce duplication and make economies of scale and become more efficient, thereby achieving better value for money for local taxpayers. However, Ministers have produced no evidence for these claims, and it is noteworthy that some of the largest local authorities in England (such as Birmingham and Northamptonshire) have had to issue Section 114 Notices, effectively declaring themselves insolvent. Conversely, medium-sized authorities such as Portsmouth and Southampton are financially well managed and deliver a good service. Moreover, it is difficult to see how rubbish collection in Gosport would be more efficient if the authority were merged with Fareham and Havant – especially since this service is already subject to competitive tender.
4. Finance and powers
Although the English Devolution White Paper includes a chapter “Powers, Functions and Funding”, it has little new to say about the funding of local government – other than that MCAs will have greater discretion over the funds allocated to them by central government. There are no new devolved sources of income, and there is no question of the austerity squeeze imposed by the previous government (resulting in a real terms cut of 25% in local council resources) being relaxed.
The chapter does include extensive discussion of the division of powers between the MCA and what it calls “constituent authorities”. The general principle is that the MCA is expected to prepare “strategic” plans whereas the constituent authorities prepare local plans that must conform to the MCA’s strategic plan. However, the division of powers is not always clear (e.g land allocation for housing, bus franchising).
In effect the government is proposing to impose a structure that is not dissimilar to the two-tier system of local government that Portsmouth and Southampton were glad to escape from in 1997.
5. Local democracy, constitution and method of election
As the name implies the Mayoral Combined Authority will have a directly elected Mayor, but there is no provision for an elected assembly to which the Mayor would be accountable. Instead the Mayor will have to persuade representatives of the constituent authorities of the wisdom of the strategic plans and policies of the MCA. Whether the cause of locally accountable democracy is advanced or retarded by this arrangement is debatable. I have never understood why a directly elected mayor, elected for a fixed term, is somehow considered to be more democratic than a Council Leader who is accountable to an elected assembly and can be recalled and replaced at any time. However, It appears that this is a non-negotiable part of the Government’s proposal.
The White Paper is also silent on the question of how the mayor and the constituent councils will be elected. Historically, and even when Portsmouth and Southampton were part of the County Council electoral area (between 1974 and 1997), Hampshire was generally a reliably Conservative-controlled one-party state but with occasional interludes of “no overall control”. If this pattern is not to be repeated then a more proportional voting system than “First Past the Post” would need to be introduced. At the very least the Government should ensure that the mayor should be elected by a preferential voting system (such as was used for the first London and other mayoral elections – until the Conservatives scrapped it for partisan reasons).
Summary and conclusion on the Government’s proposals
The Government’s proposals have the merit that they recognise the need for regional planning of major functions such as transport, housing land, and economic development. However, it is questionable whether, in creating a Hampshire MCA, they have chosen the most appropriate geographical area for this strategic function.
Given that the regional planning function will be given to Hampshire MCA, there is no demonstrated need to merge medium sized Councils into larger areas. The argument for extending Portsmouth’s and Southampton’s boundaries to incorporate their respective Travel to Work Areas is that the TTWA is the appropriate area for regional (or at least subregional) planning. Yet it seems that these cities are to lose the very functions that would justify their enlargement! There is here a basic failure of reasoning.
The proposals partly reintroduce the two-tier system of local government that has been widely criticised on the grounds that it risks or causes duplication, conflicts and confusion.
Although increased discretion over allocated funding is welcome, the proposals do not bring significant new resources, and they do nothing to stabilise or restore the financial position of councils that have suffered the effects of austerity since 2010.
The proposals would not ensure that the new authorities are properly representative of their electors.
Comments on the options
Despite the obvious flaws in the proposed new system, there is no chance that it will be significantly changed, and it is therefore necessary to address the options that have been prepared by the 12 Hampshire councils in response to the Government’s request. These options are illustrated below:
All three options recognise the desirability of uniting the two cities with their respective subregional hinterlands. However, they differ in two respects:
Whether New Forest should be joined with Southampton – or with “mid Hampshire” (the area stretching from Andover to Petersfield)
Whether boundaries should be adjusted to include the suburban fringe of of the two cities.
It can be seen from the map of Travel to Work Areas that New Forest is clearly within the Southampton TTWA and is part of its immediate economic subregion. Its ties to Andover and Petersfield are much weaker, and main transport routes (both rail and road) from New Forest to Winchester and East Hampshire actually go through the urban area of Southampton. From the points of view of local planning or of service delivery it would be a geographical nonsense to join New Forest with mid Hampshire rather than with Southampton.
It appears from the BBC’s report that New Forest Council favours Option 1 and is opposed to a link with Southampton on the grounds that “linking us with an urban environment risks poorer services and bad planning decisions” and because of their desire to “keep the forest whole and embrace the rural nature of the communities”. These comments ignore the interdependence of town and country and suggest an underlying hostility to the city. In any case most of New Forest is within the National Park, which is a separate planning authority whose statutory objective is (inter alia) the conservation of the natural landscape and wildlife. The Council’s spokesperson’s comments are misguided and Option 1 should be rejected.
Option 2 is therefore greatly preferable to Option 1.
Option 3 shares with Option 1 the undesirable link with mid Hampshire and should also be rejected on that ground. However, it has the merit that it seeks to include a number of parishes that are effectively part of the urban area but which are excluded by the existing boundaries. If this positive feature could be transferred to Option 2, this would arguably be the best solution.
In conclusion therefore I would favour Option 2 but modified to include within the expanded council area the suburban parishes to the north of the cities (Romsey, Chandlers Ford, Whiteley, Horndean, Rowlands Castle etc). If New Forest continues to maintain its irrational opposition to the link with Southampton, the 12 Councils should submit both options and leave the issue to be decided by the Department of Communities, Housing and Local Government.
(C) Copyright Robin Paice 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment