County approves next steps towards reorganisation judicial review

The council's cabinet unanimously voted to allow Hampshire's chief executive to proceed with a legal challenge, provided further counsel supports it, during an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday (9 June).

Hampshire, together with East Hampshire District Council, initially submitted a four-unitary proposal that would have created three new unitary authorities and retained the existing Isle of Wight Council.

However, the Government later backed a five-unitary approach submitted by seven of the county's borough and district councils, including Eastleigh, Fareham, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth, Rushmoor and Southampton councils.

In taking its decision, the Secretary of State concluded that the proposal "best met" the financial sustainability criterion.

But Hampshire claims that the approach would be financially unsustainable, pointing to analysis suggesting that the four-unitary approach would save £48m per annum, while the five-unitary plan would increase costs by around £31m per annum.

Speaking during the extraordinary cabinet meeting, Hampshire's leader, Cllr Nick Adams-King, said judicial review was a "significant step" requiring careful judgment, a clear legal basis, and a proper public-interest justification.

He added: "I should be clear that the final decision will not be made today, and it will only be made once we have further advice from our KC, and when we have been able to evaluate any response to our pre-action protocol [letter].

"But on the information we have so far, I do believe that those tests are met. At the heart of this matter is a very simple principle: If government is going to impose the most significant reorganisation of local government in Hampshire and the Solent for a generation, it must properly explain and justify the decisions it has taken.

"In my view, that's not happened. The Government has chosen to proceed on the basis of proposals which were developed under extreme time pressure, against arbitrary deadlines and without the level of shared evidence, financial analysis or consensus a decision of this magnitude demands."

The report considered by the cabinet stated that the Government's explanation for its decision "did no more than set out, at a very general level, a list of matters which the Secretary of State was said to have taken into account when taking his decision".

A letter to Hampshire "did not provide any explanation" of how the Secretary of State took relevant matters into account, Hampshire said.

It also claimed Hampshire was given a "generic" explanation, "demonstrated by the fact that a letter in materially identical terms had also been sent to at least one other local authority in relation to a decision in respect of their area".

The council estimates that both the county council’s legal costs and those of the Secretary of State would be less than £500,000 after the substantive stage.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government spokesperson said: “Local government reorganisation will put one council in charge of decisions in their area. This will speed up the construction of new homes and infrastructure, improve public services and boost regional growth to put more money in peoples’ pockets.”

Three other local authorities have issued pre-action protocol letters challenging reorganisation plans in their regions, though no proceedings have been issued so far.

Earlier this month New Forest District Council took what it described as “the difficult decision” not to pursue a judicial review of the Government's choice of model for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Hampshire and the Solent. This came after it received advice from barristers at 11KBW and 39 Essex Chambers.

Adam Carey