Legal challenge over decision on reorganisation “would fail”, council told

On 25 March 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, decided to proceed with “Option 1A”.

This will split the district council’s current footprint into two new unitary councils, which are scheduled to begin delivering services in April 2028.

There will be four unitary authorities for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton overall, while Isle of Wight Council will remain as a standalone authority.

New Forest District Council’s preferred option had been to be part of a new Mid Hampshire unitary authority.

Following the Secretary of State’s decision, a petition to “Keep the New Forest Together” was launched, asking the district council to seek legal advice on the prospects of a challenge by way of a judicial review. It amassed more than 14,000 signatures.

In April a meeting of full council, by unanimous resolution, noted the petition and agreed that the Leader and Cabinet should carefully consider it, alongside updated legal counsel advice before deciding the next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest.

The local authority had already been in “active dialogue” with legal counsel on potential grounds of challenge to the government decision.

The report prepared for next week’s meeting said independent legal advice had been received from Jane Oldham of 11KBW and further supplemented by an opinion from Richard Harwood KC of 39 Essex Chambers.

“Independent advice concludes that, in Counsel’s opinion, ‘none of the potential grounds of challenge that the Secretary of State’s decision and the process leading up to it currently suggest are worth considering, have any real prospect of persuading a court that any material error of law has been made.’ Put another way, Counsel’s view is that ‘a challenge would fail’,” the report said.

It noted that the advice “emphasises that judicial review is not a merits appeal and the court will not substitute its judgement for that of the decision maker, particularly where decisions require judgement across complex factors.

“The advice explains that even if a legal error was established, the typical outcome is that the decision‑maker must take the decision again lawfully. Therefore, the Secretary of State could lawfully reach the same decision again. On that basis, it is important to note that successful judicial reviews do not generally deliver an outcome that ‘overturns’ the decision in substance.”

The report said the advice also highlighted the “highly likely” test under the Senior Courts Act 1981, “which can lead the court to refuse relief (and potentially permission) if the outcome would not have been substantially different in the absence of any alleged error”.

The report said the advice from Richard Harwood KC also concluded that judicial review of the decision would have no real prospects of success. “This further advice tested the grounds already being considered by the Council and sought to establish any further grounds for challenge.

“The KC advice concludes that the decision itself and process arriving at that decision does not disclose a legal error and that the process undertaken was ‘fair’.”

The Cabinet is therefore being asked “to determine how the Council best responds to the Government’s LGR decision, representing community interests over the next two years and beyond”.

The report recommendations include that Cabinet “Having considered the options set out in the report and the independent legal advice which concludes that there is not any real prospect of persuading a court that a material error of law has been made, and that a challenge would have no real prospects of success, considers the best way to represent the interests of the New Forest and its communities is not to pursue a formal judicial review, and instead to focus the Council’s efforts on formally championing the New Forest’s needs and required protections through the transition arrangements to new councils, while making clear to Government the Council’s continuing objection to the decision”.

It also recommends Cabinet note that the independent legal advice will be published in full “when the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the interest in withholding it.”

The New Forest Together campaign group, which was behind the petition, said on its Facebook page that it disagreed with the conclusion that there was no meaningful legal route left to challenge Option 1A, adding that it had received its own independent legal advice from specialist public law counsel.

“While we are not publishing detailed advice at this stage, we can confirm we have been advised there remain credible grounds to challenge aspects of the Government’s decision-making, particularly around:

• Financial sustainability: whether Option 1A genuinely meets the Government’s own tests
• Public service delivery: whether there is a strong long-term service model for Hampshire
• Evidence: whether ministers had sufficiently robust evidence before reaching a decision.”

New Forest Together added: “Our understanding is that this broadly aligns with Hampshire County Council’s position and the basis on which the County continues to pursue legal action.”

Hampshire County Council’s Leader, Cllr Nick Adams-King (Conservative), confirmed last week (21 May) that its new administration would “move immediately” to pursue a judicial review of the local government reorganisation outcome. 

He said: “We will stand up for Hampshire in the face of Local Government Reorganisation. I have been clear throughout: the outcome of this process has profound long-term consequences for our residents, our services, our staff, our finances and the identity of Hampshire itself.”