Future of Local government in Hampshire

[peterl]

Purely by chance when visiting an attraction run by HCC yesterday, I found a consultation form about changes to local government in Hampshire. This is described as an open consultation with all options open, but essentially the following is being consulted on.

1. A combined authority for Hampshire which could take two forms

a. Whole county, or

b. • Heart of Hampshire Combined Authority –
covering part of Hampshire and made up of
Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, New Forest,
Rushmoor, Test Valley and Winchester district
councils and Hampshire County Council.

• Solent Combined Authority - covering part
of Hampshire and made up of Eastleigh,
East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport and
Havant district councils, Hampshire County
Council and the councils of Portsmouth,
Southampton and the Isle of Wight.

2. New unitary authorities for Hampshire

a. One unitary authority (excluding Southampton and Portsmouth), or
b. Three new unitary authorities

Greater Portsmouth: Portsmouth City
Council, the district councils of Fareham,
Gosport and Havant, and the services
provided by Hampshire County Council
in the area equivalent to these district
councils, would merge to create a new
Greater Portsmouth unitary council.

• Greater Southampton: Southampton City
Council, the district councils of New Forest
and Eastleigh and the services provided
by Hampshire County Council in the
area equivalent to these district councils
would merge to create a new Greater
Southampton unitary council.

• North Hampshire: The district councils of
Winchester, Basingstoke, East Hampshire,
Hart, Rushmoor and Test Valley and the
services provided by Hampshire County
Council in the area equivalent to these district
councils would merge to create a new North
Hampshire unitary council.

No doubt some people will want to express their views on these proposals and can do so here. You do not have to live in Hampshire to respond. I have made my views known and think that merging Southampton with the New Forest, two areas that have nothing at all in common, is particularly ill thought out.

[Deleted]

Do these greater unitary proposals have the endorsement of Southampton/Portsmouth?

[J.G.Harston]

I see no justifiable reason why Eastleigh is not part of Southampton - the boundary nearly slices through houses in places, and even actually slices a school in Thornhill in half. Other than that I don't have enough information to come to any conclusion, other than a feeling that Hampshire as a whole would be too big to be a unitary.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Aug 8, 2016 17:19:10 GMT @benjl said:

I'm in favour of abolishing the County Council and giving their powers to the constituent boroughs and districts. This has been done in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Berkshire, ect... so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

But, hem-hem, there's a lot of difference between the Metropolitan County Councils which were all abolished in 1986, and the non-metropolitan counties which remain.

I don't think any of Hampshire's districts have a smaller population than that of the smallest Unitary authority, Rutland, so all the lower tear councils should be able to stand on their own two feet financially.

I'm afraid you don't know much about how Rutland actually operates. In many major respects they have a partnership with Leicestershire because Rutland would be far too small on its own to run things like education or a social services department. Authorities that serve too small a population cannot operate effective services.

[Deleted]

Counties on the whole are far too large to form a single unitary authority. I favour the two-tier system nationwide and would prefer to see a return to the pre-1974 authorities if possible.

[johnhemming]

I wonder what the evidence base is for these proposals (in a general sense rather than specific). It feels like change for change sake.

[peterl]

But who would hold him to account? Essentially having an elected mayor with all the powers of a county council on one pair of shoulders and no one to hold him to account is a scary prospect.

[Adrian]

These proposals don't sound like they were proposed by local people, but were put together by government representatives who want to save as much money as possible. I think smaller unitaries of various sizes would be much better, e.g. Southampton; Portsmouth; Havant+East Hants; New Forest; Fareham+Gosport; Basingstoke+Hart+Rushmoor; Test Valley+Winchester+Eastleigh.

Map: ukelect.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/hants.png

How would people feel about a Christchurch & New Forest authority?

[peterl]

Christchurch, New forest and maybe even East Dorset in there would make a lot more sense than some of these proposals. They are at least similar areas in terms of being largely rural to small towns.

[Adrian]

Aug 8, 2016 21:42:56 GMT @benjl said:

Aug 8, 2016 21:29:04 GMT Adrian said:

These proposals don't sound like they were proposed by local people, but were put together by government representatives who want to save as much money as possible. I think smaller unitaries of various sizes would be much better, e.g. Southampton; Portsmouth; Havant+East Hants; New Forest; Fareham+Gosport; Basingstoke+Hart+Rushmoor; Test Valley+Winchester+Eastleigh.

How would people feel about a Christchurch & New Forest authority?

I would argue that if Eastleigh is combined with anywhere it must be Southampton. Just looking at a map you can see how outrageous the border is between the two areas. The line just cuts strait down the middle of residential streets and even peoples houses! I can only imagine the line is decades old and was drawn before Southampton expanded outwards.

Then move the boundary a few metres.

I really advise any town against becoming part of the neighbouring city. It is difficult to thrive under those circumstances. Maybe there are counter-examples (?) but look at Sutton Coldfield - a shadow of its former self since absorption by Birmingham - and contrast it with the success of independent Solihull.

The geographical concept of a city region is a valid one, and is important in strategic planning, but it's no way to run local government.

[Khunanup]

If you bear with me I'll give a full run down on what this is all about in the next couple of days when I've got a bit of time.

I will just confirm that, in reply to @strinity the proposals from HCC have no endorsement from Portsmouth or Southampton whatsoever.

[John Chanin]

Greater Portsmouth and Greater Southampton unitaries are eminently sensible. The exact boundaries would be a matter of discussion, but the eastern shore of the New Forest is certainly part of Greater Southampton, as is the whole of Eastleigh and the southern Test Valley. Greater Portsmouth includes Gosport, Fareham, Havant, and the urban west of East Hampshire around Horndean. The rest of Hampshire could be a single unitary or could retain a 2-tier structure with councils based on Winchester, Andover, Basingstoke and Rushmoor.

The rest of the New Forest is a bit of a problem. It would fit just as well in Greater Bournemouth as Greater Southampton.

[Pete Whitehead]

Aug 9, 2016 10:42:02 GMT John Chanin said:

Greater Portsmouth and Greater Southampton unitaries are eminently sensible. The exact boundaries would be a matter of discussion, but the eastern shore of the New Forest is certainly part of Greater Southampton, as is the whole of Eastleigh and the southern Test Valley. Greater Portsmouth includes Gosport, Fareham, Havant, and the urban west of East Hampshire around Horndean. The rest of Hampshire could be a single unitary or could retain a 2-tier structure with councils based on Winchester, Andover, Basingstoke and Rushmoor.

The rest of the New Forest is a bit of a problem. It would fit just as well in Greater Bournemouth as Greater Southampton.

Cetainly the western New Forest should go with Bournemouth/CHristchurch.
There is another case to be made, if we are going for Redcliffe-Maude style conurbation based authorities, for Hart and Rushmoor to join with Sandhurst from Bertkshire, and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham in an Aldershot centred unitary authority. Clearly that would be at odds with my attachment to traditional county boundaries (and for what it is worth that would also cross the boundaries of three of my Lander), but it is one of the more obvious conurbations which currently lacks any coordination.
On a separate detail, is there a case that the western part of Fareham district (Warsash, Sarisbury) looks more to Southampton than to Portsmouth? This is not a rhetorical question as I don't know the area and would welcome the views of Khunanup and Sharon  - certainly it is physically closer, but I can see that the Hamble forms a natural and obvious boundary here

[Sharon]

East of the Hamble, as far as I'm concerned, is more aligned with Portsmouth than Southampton.  

Having said that, Segensworth (just off the M27) is split between Fareham & Winchester Councils!

Natural territory for a Greater Southampton would be Eastleigh, the southern half of Test Valley, the eastern half of the New Forest plus parts of Winchester.

Can't say I like the idea of sprawling Local Authorities though...

[Arthur Figgis]

Aug 9, 2016 12:20:11 GMT @benjl said:

I have a feeling that any attempt to split the county boundary would be deeply unpopular with the locals affected.

Could always reverse the 1974 change that put Bournemouth in Dorset?

[peterl]

Aug 9, 2016 13:46:21 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

Aug 9, 2016 12:20:11 GMT @benjl said:

I have a feeling that any attempt to split the county boundary would be deeply unpopular with the locals affected.

Could always reverse the 1974 change that put Bournemouth in Dorset?

My mother, born in Southampton, has long advocated such a change.

[myth11]

you could end up like the proposed Nottinghamshire Derbyshire devolution area which is now down to most of notts with Bassetlaw deciding to join Sheffield City Region as full member and bits of Derbyshire with only Derby City Council,Bolsover District Council,Derbyshire Dales District Council and North East Derbyshire District Council joining as full members.