Hampshire County Council
Councillors:
78
Wards:
76
Committees:
49
Meetings (2025):
165
Meetings (2024):
156
Meeting
Extraordinary County Council - Hampshire
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 20th March 2025
10:15 AM
Thursday, 20th March 2025
10:15 AM
End:
Thursday, 20th March 2025
2:15 PM
Thursday, 20th March 2025
2:15 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
20 Mar 2025
20 Mar 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - HCC
Council Chamber - HCC
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Borough Councillor
Committee Member
Leader of the Council
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Hampshire 2050 - Finance
Committee Member
Chairman
Chairman of the Council
Vice-Chairman
Vice Chairman of the Council
Committee Member
Councillor Adrian Collett
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Dominic Hiscock
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies
To receive any apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Lulu Bowerman, Juliet Henderson, Adam Jackman, Mel Kendal, Phil North, Sarah Pankhurst, Tanya Park, Roger Price, Elaine Still and Michael Thierry and from Honorary Alderman Patricia Banks, Keith Chapman, Robin McIntosh and Pat West.
2
Declaration of Interests
All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members’ Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider, having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 4 of the Code, whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
Minutes
Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore, Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
The following Members declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 4 on the agenda, as members receiving allowances from Hampshire County Council and other local authorities within Hampshire, including the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority: Councillors Nick Adams-King, Prad Bains, Ryan Brent, Ann Briggs, Stephen Broomfield, Pamela Bryant, Graham Burgess, Joanne Burton, Mark Cooper, Tonia Craig, Alex Crawford, Chris Donnelly, Alan Dowden, David Drew, Barry Dunning, Peter Chegwyn, Liz Fairhurst, Michael Ford, Steve Forster, David Harrison, Pal Hayre, Keith House, Zoe Huggins, Wayne Irish, Gavin James, Rupert Kyrle, Alexis McEvoy, Lesley Meenaghan, Rob Mocatta, Arun Mummalaneni, Kirsty North, Louise Parker-Jones, Neville Penman, Stephen Philpott, Jackie Porter, Martin Tod, Andy Tree, Jacky Tustain, Rhydian Vaughan, Malcolm Wade, Malcolm Wallace, Jan Warwick and Jonathan Williams.
The following Members declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 5 on the agenda, as members receiving allowances from Hampshire County Council: Councillors Jackie Branson, Fran Carpenter, Roz Chadd, Adrian Collett, Rod Cooper, Debbie Curnow-Ford, Tim Davies, Jonathan Glen, Tim Groves, Marge Harvey, Edward Heron, Dominic Hiscock, Andrew Joy, Mark Kemp-Gee, Peter Latham, Keith Mans, Derek Mellor, Russell Oppenheimer, Stephen Parker, Lance Quantrill, Stephen Reid, Patricia Stallard, Kim Taylor, Tom Thacker and Bill Withers
It was noted that all Members had the benefit of a dispensation granted by the Conduct Advisory Panel enabling them to fully participate and vote in any business of the County Council where they may otherwise be prevented from doing so in consequence of being in receipt of a Member’s Allowance.
The following Members declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 4 on the agenda, as members receiving allowances from Hampshire County Council and other local authorities within Hampshire, including the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority: Councillors Nick Adams-King, Prad Bains, Ryan Brent, Ann Briggs, Stephen Broomfield, Pamela Bryant, Graham Burgess, Joanne Burton, Mark Cooper, Tonia Craig, Alex Crawford, Chris Donnelly, Alan Dowden, David Drew, Barry Dunning, Peter Chegwyn, Liz Fairhurst, Michael Ford, Steve Forster, David Harrison, Pal Hayre, Keith House, Zoe Huggins, Wayne Irish, Gavin James, Rupert Kyrle, Alexis McEvoy, Lesley Meenaghan, Rob Mocatta, Arun Mummalaneni, Kirsty North, Louise Parker-Jones, Neville Penman, Stephen Philpott, Jackie Porter, Martin Tod, Andy Tree, Jacky Tustain, Rhydian Vaughan, Malcolm Wade, Malcolm Wallace, Jan Warwick and Jonathan Williams.
The following Members declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 5 on the agenda, as members receiving allowances from Hampshire County Council: Councillors Jackie Branson, Fran Carpenter, Roz Chadd, Adrian Collett, Rod Cooper, Debbie Curnow-Ford, Tim Davies, Jonathan Glen, Tim Groves, Marge Harvey, Edward Heron, Dominic Hiscock, Andrew Joy, Mark Kemp-Gee, Peter Latham, Keith Mans, Derek Mellor, Russell Oppenheimer, Stephen Parker, Lance Quantrill, Stephen Reid, Patricia Stallard, Kim Taylor, Tom Thacker and Bill Withers
It was noted that all Members had the benefit of a dispensation granted by the Conduct Advisory Panel enabling them to fully participate and vote in any business of the County Council where they may otherwise be prevented from doing so in consequence of being in receipt of a Member’s Allowance.
3
Chairman's Announcements
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes
The Chairman reported that he had recently visited the Hampshire Record Office and attended a Hampshire Music Service concert at Romsey Abbey. He had also attended the presentation by the Lord-Lieutenant of Hampshire of British Empire Medals the previous week.
The Chairman proposed a variation to Standing Orders for items 4 and 5 on the agenda to adopt the budget sequence for length of speeches. The Council indicated agreement.
The Chairman proposed a variation to Standing Orders for items 4 and 5 on the agenda to adopt the budget sequence for length of speeches. The Council indicated agreement.
4
English Devolution White Paper - Response to Government's Devolution Consultation 
To consider a report from the Chief Executive, which summarises the background to the County Council’s devolution journey, the timeline provided by Government including key milestones in the Devolution Priority Programme and the proposed County Council response to the consultation.
Attachments:
- Document Covering Report 12 Mar 2025
- Document Cabinet Report 12 Mar 2025
Minutes
The Council considered a report of the Chief Executive, which summarised the background to the County Council’s devolution journey, the timeline provided by Government including key milestones in the Devolution Priority Programme and the proposed County Council response to the consultation.
In response to questions, the Leader acknowledged that climate strategy was not specified in the response which was due to working to a prescribed format from government, and that it would be reflected in the response. He confirmed that governance arrangements would be developed at a later stage, and that a future Combined Authority would not impact existing Council agreements and commitments, such as section 106 agreements.
Councillor Tod, seconded by Councillor Adams-King moved the following amendment in accordance with Standing Order 17.1.
Additions to original recommendation shown in bold font below:
With reference to the report annexed to this Council report, it is recommended that the County Council recommends that Cabinet agrees to submit the County Council’s proposed response, as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report, to the consultation launched by the Government on 17 February 2025 in relation to establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across Hampshire, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and SouthamptonSubject to :
(a) deletion of “without voting rights” in the answer to question 11 – in line with the guidance in paragraph 2.5 of the government consultation (“Decision making at the Combined County Authority”) - and replacement of “(i.e. Police, Health, Freeport)”, by “(e.g. District Councils, Police, Health, Freeport, National Parks)”
(b) In answer 15 – delegating authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Hampshire 2050, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to amend answer 15 by including reference to a statutory duty for a climate strategy for the combined authority area – for example by adding words to the effect of the addition below while remaining under the 1000 character limit:
“As in other areas, there would be significant advantages to putting in place a statutory duty for a climate strategy across the combined authority area. While the specific initiatives outlined in the ‘environment and climate change’ paragraph of the consultation are very welcome - our experience is that there will be faster progress with a more explicit overall strategy for the combined authority area.”
During debate, the following points were expressed:
- Concern over too many unelected members having decision-making power in a small strategic authority leading to poor democratic oversight, and request for a mechanism to ensure robust democratic accountability.
- Broad support for the amendment in relation to climate strategy, referencing regional coordination and environmental impacts
- Risk that a single Mayor would distance democracy from residents
- Benefits of cross-boundary cooperation and collaboration, provided no constraints from government
- Request for clarity on MPs roles and request that it be addressed in the next stages of the process
- General agreement that the current devolution proposal is the best current option for the county council.
Following debate, the Amendment was put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
With reference to the report annexed to the Council report, the County Council recommends that Cabinet agrees to submit the County Council’s proposed response, as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report, to the consultation launched by the Government on 17 February 2025 in relation to establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across Hampshire, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and Southampton subject to:
(a) deletion of “without voting rights” in the answer to question 11 – in line with the guidance in paragraph 2.5 of the government consultation (“Decision making at the Combined County Authority”) - and replacement of “(i.e. Police, Health, Freeport)”, by “(e.g. District Councils, Police, Health, Freeport, National Parks)”
(b) In answer 15 – delegating authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Hampshire 2050, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to amend answer 15 by including reference to a statutory duty for a climate strategy for the combined authority area – for example by adding words to the effect of the addition below while remaining under the 1000 character limit:
“As in other areas, there would be significant advantages to putting in place a statutory duty for a climate strategy across the combined authority area. While the specific initiatives outlined in the ‘environment and climate change’ paragraph of the consultation are very welcome - our experience is that there will be faster progress with a more explicit overall strategy for the combined authority area.”
In response to questions, the Leader acknowledged that climate strategy was not specified in the response which was due to working to a prescribed format from government, and that it would be reflected in the response. He confirmed that governance arrangements would be developed at a later stage, and that a future Combined Authority would not impact existing Council agreements and commitments, such as section 106 agreements.
Councillor Tod, seconded by Councillor Adams-King moved the following amendment in accordance with Standing Order 17.1.
Additions to original recommendation shown in bold font below:
With reference to the report annexed to this Council report, it is recommended that the County Council recommends that Cabinet agrees to submit the County Council’s proposed response, as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report, to the consultation launched by the Government on 17 February 2025 in relation to establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across Hampshire, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and SouthamptonSubject to :
(a) deletion of “without voting rights” in the answer to question 11 – in line with the guidance in paragraph 2.5 of the government consultation (“Decision making at the Combined County Authority”) - and replacement of “(i.e. Police, Health, Freeport)”, by “(e.g. District Councils, Police, Health, Freeport, National Parks)”
(b) In answer 15 – delegating authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Hampshire 2050, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to amend answer 15 by including reference to a statutory duty for a climate strategy for the combined authority area – for example by adding words to the effect of the addition below while remaining under the 1000 character limit:
“As in other areas, there would be significant advantages to putting in place a statutory duty for a climate strategy across the combined authority area. While the specific initiatives outlined in the ‘environment and climate change’ paragraph of the consultation are very welcome - our experience is that there will be faster progress with a more explicit overall strategy for the combined authority area.”
During debate, the following points were expressed:
- Concern over too many unelected members having decision-making power in a small strategic authority leading to poor democratic oversight, and request for a mechanism to ensure robust democratic accountability.
- Broad support for the amendment in relation to climate strategy, referencing regional coordination and environmental impacts
- Risk that a single Mayor would distance democracy from residents
- Benefits of cross-boundary cooperation and collaboration, provided no constraints from government
- Request for clarity on MPs roles and request that it be addressed in the next stages of the process
- General agreement that the current devolution proposal is the best current option for the county council.
Following debate, the Amendment was put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
With reference to the report annexed to the Council report, the County Council recommends that Cabinet agrees to submit the County Council’s proposed response, as set out in Appendix A to the Cabinet report, to the consultation launched by the Government on 17 February 2025 in relation to establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across Hampshire, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and Southampton subject to:
(a) deletion of “without voting rights” in the answer to question 11 – in line with the guidance in paragraph 2.5 of the government consultation (“Decision making at the Combined County Authority”) - and replacement of “(i.e. Police, Health, Freeport)”, by “(e.g. District Councils, Police, Health, Freeport, National Parks)”
(b) In answer 15 – delegating authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Hampshire 2050, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to amend answer 15 by including reference to a statutory duty for a climate strategy for the combined authority area – for example by adding words to the effect of the addition below while remaining under the 1000 character limit:
“As in other areas, there would be significant advantages to putting in place a statutory duty for a climate strategy across the combined authority area. While the specific initiatives outlined in the ‘environment and climate change’ paragraph of the consultation are very welcome - our experience is that there will be faster progress with a more explicit overall strategy for the combined authority area.”
5
English Devolution White Paper - Local Government Reorganisation
To consider a report from the Chief Executive which sets out the work undertaken in partnership with the other Local Authorities across Hampshire and the Solent Region to develop an Interim Plan for Local Government Reorganisation.
Attachments:
- Document Covering Report 12 Mar 2025
- Document Cabinet Report 12 Mar 2025
Minutes
The Council considered a report of the Chief Executive which sets out the work undertaken in partnership with the other Local Authorities across Hampshire and the Solent Region to develop an Interim Plan for Local Government Reorganisation.
Responding to questions, the Leader confirmed that discussions on geography of new unitary councils were taking place with existing district and unitary councils, and whatever the outcome and boundaries, new councils must be sustainable and deliver services in a self-sufficient way. There was much more work to do on actual costs and data analysis of potential future arrangements and implications for residents before redrawing areas or boundaries. It would be essential to comply with the guiding principles to ensure sustainability and cost effectiveness. The May 2025 elections had been postponed and were expected to be held in May 2026. He also confirmed that a more complete financial assessment would be carried out, and there was a commitment from all local authorities across the area to do so with shared information and data.
Councillor House, seconded by Councillor James moved the following amendment in accordance with Standing Order 17.1.
Delete recommendation 4 regarding guiding principles
In moving the amendment, Councillor House acknowledged that 15 Leaders across the area has worked incredibly hard to keep a consensus approach. He expressed concern that the proposed guiding principles may risk decision-making being based solely on financial constraints, rather than prioritising residents’ needs, and potentially lead to illogical geographical boundaries. He proposed deleting the principles and continuing open discussions to maintain unity across the area.
Councillors James, in seconding the amendment, suggested that the principles did not add value to a collaborative process.
During a full debate the following points were raised:
- support for the guiding principles, emphasising sustainability and effective service delivery across all new unitary authorities. Suggesting that all authorities involved in discussions should have guiding principles
- Concern that new unitaries may be mistaken for district mergers, underscoring the need for mitigation and better information sharing and suggestion for use of heat maps to visualise service demand and costs, and prevent creating a postcode lottery for services.
- Concern that the government’s approach to reorganisation is primarily urban-focused and driven by financial considerations rather than addressing structural or service needs. Decisions should be based on projected population figures and community needs
- Support for reorganisation that would ensure continued delivery of high-quality services
- Some support for a three-council solution over a higher number to ensure effectiveness.
- Concern that delaying final submission to November could disrupt plans for County Council elections in May 2026.
- Some concern that the proposal is confusing and complex, and that residents deserve clear assurances regarding its impact on strong, stable, and responsibly managed public services
- Lack of clarity for residents on how the proposals with impact them and the services they rely upon.
- Ongoing financial sustainability would rely on resolving the social care funding crisis.
Members thanked officers and Members from across the area for their work on the reports, acknowledging its diligence and fairness.
In response to the debate, the Leader acknowledged that the number and shape of proposed unitary councils may change throughout the process. He agreed the need to focus on the financial challenges and also to ensure that the sense of place for residents is maintained. It would be important to take the time to review and evidence the detail of the proposals going forward. It was vital that the council agreed on a position which protects the outstanding services and ensures their continued delivery regardless of the name of the council.
Following debate, the Amendment proposed by Councillor Keith House was put to the vote and lost.
The substantive recommendations were voted upon and agreed.
RESOLVED:
With reference to the report annexed to this Council report, it is recommended that the County Council recommends that Cabinet:
2. Notes the emerging journey for Local Government Reorganisation in Hampshire and the Solent including the consideration of emerging options.
3. Agrees that the capacity in which current and future County Council decisions are taken in respect of Local Government Reorganisation:
a. Represent all the people within the County Electoral Divisions.
b. Works to secure an outcome that continues to enable high-quality and effective public services for the residents, communities and visitors across Hampshire.
c. Appropriately represent all Upper Tier Local Government functions and responsibilities (statutory and non-statutory) currently delivered or enabled by Hampshire County Council, for which all County Councillors are currently accountable for.
4. Agrees the County Council’s specific guiding principles:
a. We will prioritise delivery of efficient, high quality public services, enhancing delivery through reform whilst avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of services.
b. We will safeguard service users, including vulnerable children and adults, by minimising risk to the services the County Council delivers and the potential threats from a lack of effective business continuity and appropriate future local government structures in the long-term.
c. We will seek to ensure organisations of the future have the best chance of being financially sustainable and resilient. Organisations will need to be sufficiently large to withstand financial shocks and smoothing of significant cost drivers such as demography and deprivation.
d. We will leverage anchor institutions as the basis of the most appropriate structures to underpin sustainable delivery that offers value-for-money for the taxpayer and minimises the cost of transition.
e. We recognise that any future Unitary Solution will require effective mechanisms to enable local identity, engagement and local growth ambitions (including Local Place/Regeneration Boards, Area Committees and potential future Development Corporations.
f. We want to ensure equity of representation in a future Mayoral Combined Authority. All mainland Unitary Authorities to have equitable representation and voting rights.
5. Agrees to collectively submit to Government the Interim Plan (Appendix A) ahead of the 21 March deadline across all 15 Local Authorities in Hampshire and the Solent, including the collectively agreed Guiding Principles:
a. Analysis will be based on economic geographies (principally Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth) that inform a sense of place, community, and economic growth. No decision has been made on the number of Unitaries.
b. Sense of place and coherent identity, structure and local connections will shape geographies.
c. To support the other principles, options considered will include those which have boundary changes, and those which do not have boundary changes.
d. Community engagement will be used to help shape final boundaries, prior to final submission.
e. Government criteria and guidance will be used to inform our proposal, as far as possible.
f. Proposals will ensure there are sensible population ratios between local authorities and any strategic authority, with options retaining equitable representation and voting rights.
g. Consideration will be given to the impact on crucial services.
h. Proposals will show how new structures will improve local government, service delivery and outcomes.
i. New proposed authorities must also be able to form a platform for financial sustainability, and resilience to withstand financial shocks.
6. Agrees that if any minor amendments to the proposed interim plan are agreed by the 15 Councils, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has delegated authority to approve the updated interim plan on behalf of Hampshire County Council.
Responding to questions, the Leader confirmed that discussions on geography of new unitary councils were taking place with existing district and unitary councils, and whatever the outcome and boundaries, new councils must be sustainable and deliver services in a self-sufficient way. There was much more work to do on actual costs and data analysis of potential future arrangements and implications for residents before redrawing areas or boundaries. It would be essential to comply with the guiding principles to ensure sustainability and cost effectiveness. The May 2025 elections had been postponed and were expected to be held in May 2026. He also confirmed that a more complete financial assessment would be carried out, and there was a commitment from all local authorities across the area to do so with shared information and data.
Councillor House, seconded by Councillor James moved the following amendment in accordance with Standing Order 17.1.
Delete recommendation 4 regarding guiding principles
In moving the amendment, Councillor House acknowledged that 15 Leaders across the area has worked incredibly hard to keep a consensus approach. He expressed concern that the proposed guiding principles may risk decision-making being based solely on financial constraints, rather than prioritising residents’ needs, and potentially lead to illogical geographical boundaries. He proposed deleting the principles and continuing open discussions to maintain unity across the area.
Councillors James, in seconding the amendment, suggested that the principles did not add value to a collaborative process.
During a full debate the following points were raised:
- support for the guiding principles, emphasising sustainability and effective service delivery across all new unitary authorities. Suggesting that all authorities involved in discussions should have guiding principles
- Concern that new unitaries may be mistaken for district mergers, underscoring the need for mitigation and better information sharing and suggestion for use of heat maps to visualise service demand and costs, and prevent creating a postcode lottery for services.
- Concern that the government’s approach to reorganisation is primarily urban-focused and driven by financial considerations rather than addressing structural or service needs. Decisions should be based on projected population figures and community needs
- Support for reorganisation that would ensure continued delivery of high-quality services
- Some support for a three-council solution over a higher number to ensure effectiveness.
- Concern that delaying final submission to November could disrupt plans for County Council elections in May 2026.
- Some concern that the proposal is confusing and complex, and that residents deserve clear assurances regarding its impact on strong, stable, and responsibly managed public services
- Lack of clarity for residents on how the proposals with impact them and the services they rely upon.
- Ongoing financial sustainability would rely on resolving the social care funding crisis.
Members thanked officers and Members from across the area for their work on the reports, acknowledging its diligence and fairness.
In response to the debate, the Leader acknowledged that the number and shape of proposed unitary councils may change throughout the process. He agreed the need to focus on the financial challenges and also to ensure that the sense of place for residents is maintained. It would be important to take the time to review and evidence the detail of the proposals going forward. It was vital that the council agreed on a position which protects the outstanding services and ensures their continued delivery regardless of the name of the council.
Following debate, the Amendment proposed by Councillor Keith House was put to the vote and lost.
The substantive recommendations were voted upon and agreed.
RESOLVED:
With reference to the report annexed to this Council report, it is recommended that the County Council recommends that Cabinet:
2. Notes the emerging journey for Local Government Reorganisation in Hampshire and the Solent including the consideration of emerging options.
3. Agrees that the capacity in which current and future County Council decisions are taken in respect of Local Government Reorganisation:
a. Represent all the people within the County Electoral Divisions.
b. Works to secure an outcome that continues to enable high-quality and effective public services for the residents, communities and visitors across Hampshire.
c. Appropriately represent all Upper Tier Local Government functions and responsibilities (statutory and non-statutory) currently delivered or enabled by Hampshire County Council, for which all County Councillors are currently accountable for.
4. Agrees the County Council’s specific guiding principles:
a. We will prioritise delivery of efficient, high quality public services, enhancing delivery through reform whilst avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of services.
b. We will safeguard service users, including vulnerable children and adults, by minimising risk to the services the County Council delivers and the potential threats from a lack of effective business continuity and appropriate future local government structures in the long-term.
c. We will seek to ensure organisations of the future have the best chance of being financially sustainable and resilient. Organisations will need to be sufficiently large to withstand financial shocks and smoothing of significant cost drivers such as demography and deprivation.
d. We will leverage anchor institutions as the basis of the most appropriate structures to underpin sustainable delivery that offers value-for-money for the taxpayer and minimises the cost of transition.
e. We recognise that any future Unitary Solution will require effective mechanisms to enable local identity, engagement and local growth ambitions (including Local Place/Regeneration Boards, Area Committees and potential future Development Corporations.
f. We want to ensure equity of representation in a future Mayoral Combined Authority. All mainland Unitary Authorities to have equitable representation and voting rights.
5. Agrees to collectively submit to Government the Interim Plan (Appendix A) ahead of the 21 March deadline across all 15 Local Authorities in Hampshire and the Solent, including the collectively agreed Guiding Principles:
a. Analysis will be based on economic geographies (principally Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth) that inform a sense of place, community, and economic growth. No decision has been made on the number of Unitaries.
b. Sense of place and coherent identity, structure and local connections will shape geographies.
c. To support the other principles, options considered will include those which have boundary changes, and those which do not have boundary changes.
d. Community engagement will be used to help shape final boundaries, prior to final submission.
e. Government criteria and guidance will be used to inform our proposal, as far as possible.
f. Proposals will ensure there are sensible population ratios between local authorities and any strategic authority, with options retaining equitable representation and voting rights.
g. Consideration will be given to the impact on crucial services.
h. Proposals will show how new structures will improve local government, service delivery and outcomes.
i. New proposed authorities must also be able to form a platform for financial sustainability, and resilience to withstand financial shocks.
6. Agrees that if any minor amendments to the proposed interim plan are agreed by the 15 Councils, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has delegated authority to approve the updated interim plan on behalf of Hampshire County Council.
6
Local Development Scheme
To consider a report of the Cabinet seeking approval of the revised Local Development Scheme.
Attachments:
- Document Covering Report 12 Mar 2025
- Document Cabinet Report 12 Mar 2025
- Document Cabinet Appendix 12 Mar 2025
Minutes
The Council considered a report of the Cabinet seeking approval of the revised Local Development Scheme.
In introducing the report, the Leader explained that the Development Scheme had been updated at the request of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, following changes to the indicative annual housing numbers expected to be planned for across Hampshire.
RESOLVED:
That the County Council approves the revised Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Scheme, which sets out the timetable and programme for the adoption, monitoring and subsequent review of the updated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, comes into effect from February 2025, as recommended by Cabinet
In introducing the report, the Leader explained that the Development Scheme had been updated at the request of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, following changes to the indicative annual housing numbers expected to be planned for across Hampshire.
RESOLVED:
That the County Council approves the revised Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Scheme, which sets out the timetable and programme for the adoption, monitoring and subsequent review of the updated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, comes into effect from February 2025, as recommended by Cabinet
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in