Portsmouth City Council to formally reject LGR

Portsmouth City Council is set to “reject” the government’s proposed council shake-up, while still outlining a preferred option should ministers press ahead.

Councils across the country must submit their Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) proposals by 26 September. 

The Labour government’s reforms would replace the current two-tier system, where counties share responsibilities with district and borough councils, with larger unitary authorities serving around 500,000 residents.

Portsmouth’s Liberal Democrat administration has opposed the plans from the start, arguing the city is financially stable and should be exempt. In its final submission the council will again urge ministers to “leave the city alone”.

A report to full council next week sets out a fall-back position should exclusion be refused. It favours a new authority combining Portsmouth with Fareham, Gosport and Havant – “Option 1”.

A “modification request” proposes adding Rowlands Castle, Horndean and Clanfield from East Hampshire, and Newlands Parish from Winchester – “Option 1A”. 

The council describes Option 1A as the “least detrimental” option. 

The administration states their approach is in line with public opinion, citing a recent survey where 82 per cent of nearly 4,000 locals said they’re against Portsmouth’s involvement in LGR.

Council leader Steve Pitt said: “We have consistently said Portsmouth should be left out of local government reorganisation, because we already have a single council that is financially stable and delivers strong local services to residents. This view is backed by our residents. 

“If the government does force change upon us, Portsmouth agrees with the vast majority of Hampshire councils that the best option for reorganisation is not to have less than four mainland unitary councils. 

“This would create councils that are big enough to meet the government’s criteria, and therefore a geography based on Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant and Fareham would be the best way to achieve that here if we are forced to.”

The council says it “acknowledges the risk” if ministers “ignore the council’s request”. 

It argues that Option 1A would better reflect community ties and create a stronger, more balanced authorities “set up to drive economic growth across the region”.

The twelve councils across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight have agreed that four new mainland unitary authorities would satisfy the government’s demands while ensuring effective services.

The authority comprising Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport and Havant has been dubbed “South East Hampshire”

“Mid Hampshire” would be formed from New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester and East Hampshire. 

“North Hampshire” would combine Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor. 

Southampton would merge with Eastleigh as “South West Hampshire” alongside nearby Test Valley and New Forest parishes.

In the draft letter to Steve Reed MP, the government’s housing secretary, Cllr Pitt argued that LGR will not solve funding pressures currently facing councils across the country.

He said it was a “reality” that new authorities would inherit deficits from predecessors such as Hampshire County Council’s £97m budget deficit in 2025/26.

It’s noted that HCC’s finance officer projected the deficit to increase by £70m for 2027/28 and a further £75m for 2028/29 “which would mean the deficit would be £281m at the point of LGR all other things being equal”.

Despite this, the £281m figure was not used in KGPM’s financial analysis in the report titled “Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong” which outlines councils preferred plans.

Despite this, Cllr Pitt estimates in his letter that a new South East Hampshire authority would have a budget deficit of £67m on day one.

Opposition

Councillor George Madgwick, leader of the Reform UK group, said that the liberal democrats are trying to “pull wool over people’s eyes” by claiming to reject LGR.

“If you actually read the report going to Cabinet, their own recommendations talk about submitting an option to the government. That’s not rejection. That’s spin, pure and simple.”

He further criticised the administration for not letting the full council decide on the submission in full council on September 23, instead opting for the cabinet meeting two days later.

“This is classic Lib Dem politics of saying one thing in the council chamber, another to residents, and hope nobody notices.”

Cllr Benedict Swann, Conservative member for Copnor, warned that the “concern is the finances”, accusing the Labour government of putting councils in an “unenviable position”. 

He said ministers must “make sure we can function from day one”, otherwise there was “no point in creating this authority if we’re going to go bankrupt”.

He added that the decision “affects all of us” and should go to full council. 

Swann also questioned the proposal, asking whether a councillor from Rowlands Castle could “speak with authority” on issues in Portsmouth, and vice versa.

The proposal will be debated at full council next Tuesday with the decision set for the following Thursday.

Residents can learn more about the process by reading the council report or KGPM’s “Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong” submission.