The Governance Committee of Southampton City Council was scheduled to convene on 15 September 2025, to discuss devolution, local government reorganisation, and the annual report on the Members' Code of Conduct. The meeting was open to the public.

Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation

The committee was scheduled to review a report from Councillor Winning, Leader of the Council, regarding devolution and local government reorganisation (LGR). The report pack included a proposal to be submitted to the government by Southampton City Council.

The report pack included an update on devolution across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and a summary of the process undertaken to develop the LGR proposal.

The report pack stated that on 5 February 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State Angela Rayner announced that Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (referred to by the Government as Hampshire and the Solent) had been accepted onto the priority programme.

The report pack also stated that statutory instruments had now been confirmed and would be laid in parliament in the autumn with a strategic authority established in early 2026 in advance of the first mayoral election in May 2026.

The report pack noted that the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had confirmed that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) would transfer into the Mayoral County Combined Authority (MCCA) in April 2027.

The report pack stated that the government set out its vision for local government reorganisation in the English Devolution White Paper. This would mean the structure and responsibilities of local authorities would be reconfigured. The government indicated that population sizes of circa 500,000 are preferable.

The report pack stated that on 5 February 2025, the Leader and Chief Executive of SCC, alongside all other Local Authority Leaders and Chief Executives in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (HIOW), received a letter requiring the Council to work with authorities across HIOW to submit proposals for local government reorganisation across the region. The letter included six criteria and guidance the government would consider proposals against.

The six criteria the government would assess proposals against were listed as:

• A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government.
• Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.
• Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens.
• Proposals should show how Councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views.
• New unitary structures must support devolution arrangements.
• New unitary structures should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.

The report pack stated that KPMG were commissioned to work on behalf of all the 15 councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to assess the options for unitary councils against the six criteria set out in the letter from the Minister.

The report pack stated that following the interim plan submission in March, SCC worked collaboratively with the other 14 councils and KPMG to carry out a detailed appraisal of the options with careful consideration of the government criteria and the agreed guiding principles utilising a large amount of economic, community, service and financial data. This process undertook a detailed appraisal of eight options, considering between two and five unitary councils to replace the existing council structure.

The report pack stated that in May 2025, following the completion of the appraisal process, the assessment showed that four new unitary councils for mainland Hampshire with the Isle of Wight remaining an independent island authority would best meet the government criteria and the guiding principles agreed by all 15 councils in the interim plan.

The report pack stated that following the appraisal process, Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council withdrew from the regional process to develop an alternative proposal with fewer unitary authorities on the mainland, and that Gosport Borough Council also withdrew as they could not support any of the options.

The report pack stated that the remaining 12 councils had continued to work together to develop a full proposal to submit to government. The councils were listed as:

• Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
• Eastleigh Borough Council
• Fareham Borough Council
• Hart District Council
• Havant Borough Council
• Isle of Wight Council
• New Forest District Council
• Portsmouth City Council
• Rushmoor Borough Council
• Southampton City Council
• Test Valley Borough Council
• Winchester City Council

The report pack stated that the proposal detailed three configurations developed through this work, all variations with four unitaries on the mainland, with the Isle of Wight remaining independent, and that each variation was based on establishing a unitary council centred around the four major urban economies and population centres of Southampton, Portsmouth, Winchester and Basingstoke.

The report pack included a map illustrating the three options:

• Option 1, which was developed using existing boundaries, would see the New Forest form part of 'Mid Hampshire' (including Test Valley, Winchester and East Hants).
• Option 2, which was also developed using existing boundaries, would see the New Forest form part of 'South West Hampshire' (including Southampton and Eastleigh).
• Option 3, which was the option recommended to be supported by Southampton City Council, proposed small but critical changes to the existing boundaries.

The report pack stated that Option 3 would see the creation of a new unitary in the south west of the region formed by the existing boundaries of Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council joined with the parishes of Valley Park, Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams, Totton and Eling, Marchwood Hythe and Dibden and Fawley. The south east of the region would develop a new unitary that comprised of the existing boundaries of Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth, Havant, and the parishes of Newlands, Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle.

The report pack stated that a range of engagement had been carried out to inform the proposal, including engagement with residents and communities, and key partner organisations and stakeholders.

The report pack stated that the Leaders and Chief Executives of the 12 councils had met regularly and spent extensive time analysing and discussing the data presented at points throughout the past few months and the development of the proposals, and that as a result of these discussions the majority of the 12 councils were expected to support the option three and the proposed changes to boundaries.

The report pack stated that the Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council proposal could be found on the Hampshire County Council website, and that there were concerns that the proposed unitary authorities covered very large populations and geographic areas, mixing urban and rural communities, which raised doubts about whether they could represent and meet the differing needs of local people.

The report pack stated that submission of the proposal was an Executive Decision and as such would be made by Cabinet, and that in advance of this and to ensure opportunity for review, the draft proposal would be discussed at the Group Leaders meeting, a full Member briefing, and at Council before a formal decision at a Cabinet meeting prior to the submission deadline date of 26 September.

The report pack stated that once the final proposals were submitted, the government had confirmed that a public consultation would be held, expected towards the end of this calendar year, with a decision on which proposals to implement expected early in 2026.

The report pack stated that Structural Change Orders would then need to go through parliament, likely to happen in autumn 2026, and that there would then be elections to the shadow authorities for the new unitary Councils in May 2027, with those shadow authorities overseeing the implementation of the new unitaries with them replacing the existing councils on the 1 April 2028.

The report pack stated that the business case submission included an indicative financial case which was set out in section 7 and appendix 5 to the full proposal, and was also covered in section 4, criteria 2 in the full proposal.

The report pack stated that the analysis undertaken looked at the incremental costs and benefits of local government reorganisation, and that the case used a number of assumptions based on learning from other LGR programmes to provide estimates of disaggregation costs, implementation costs and recurring savings, and that the analysis showed that the options in the proposal would breakeven between 2.3 and 3.1 years.

The report pack stated that the base case was estimated to deliver annual recurring savings of £63.9M for the region, driven from right sizing the organisations and service contract consolidation, and that at present the financial modelling was focused on the general fund activities and had not looked at the Dedicated Schools Grant impact or the Housing Revenue Account.

The report pack stated that the modelling did not look at resolving the existing funding gaps in individual authorities but it did examine the implications of LGR and determines that the options put forward would have an overall positive impact on the financial situations of the councils.

The report pack stated that there were no property implications at this stage, but that there would be significant legal implications as the proposals move forward not least in relation to some employees potentially being subject to TUPE transfers, significant contract novation and termination amongst other matters.

The report pack stated that lack of capacity to support the delivery of devolution, LGR and ensure continuity of service delivery was identified as a strategic risk for SCC given its complexity and timescale for delivery, and that there was a risk that the Government decides to implement a competing proposal that is not supported by the Council.

The report pack included as appendices:

• Appendix 1 - Invite letter
• Appendix 2 - Interim plan submission
• Appendix 3 - Interim plan feedback
• Appendix 4a - Full Proposal to Government
• Appendix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendix 1

Annual Report on the Members' Code of Conduct and Member Training and Development

The committee was also scheduled to consider the annual report on the Members' Code of Conduct and Member Training and Development. The report pack outlined the impact of the code, a summary of complaints received, and any action taken.

The report pack stated that the Council adopted a revised Members' Code of Conduct consistent with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 in 2012, and that since then, the Standards Sub-Committee had not had cause to meet to consider any allegations of breach of the Members' Code of Conduct until late 2024.

The report pack stated that the Code was publicised and training was provided to elected members to ensure both awareness and compliance, and that all members had completed their Register of Interests and were reminded annually of the need to keep it updated.

The report pack stated that the Council had a responsibility for making arrangements to receive and consider complaints against its councillors, and had adopted a procedure whereby Stage 1 was receipt and initial consideration and, where appropriate, informal resolution, by the Monitoring Officer, and that where warranted, at Stage 2, the Governance Committee would determine the complaint following a detailed investigation by the Monitoring Officer or someone on his behalf, should that be required.

The report pack stated that over the year in question ten formal complaints (including those more particularly referenced below) or further informal queries had been received, and that save in respect of the specific complaints referred to in paragraph 11 below, all issues / complaints had been resolved by the Monitoring Officer, having been investigated as appropriate, informally resolved and/or rejected and/or advice given to the complainant at Stage 1 of the complaints procedure, meaning that there had been no references to or determinations or findings of a failure to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct by the Committee.

The report pack stated that the Monitoring Officer had received six written formal complaints regarding councillors in the year which required preliminary investigation, and that all complaints, formal and informal, were taken seriously and investigated proportionately as appropriate.

The report pack stated that when a complaint was submitted which provided the relevant information, the Monitoring Officer would consider and decide as to whether it would be treated as a valid complaint or not, and that where it was considered valid, the Monitoring Officer may deal with the matter under delegated powers unless, after consultation with the Designated Independent Person if appropriate, it was considered that the breach was potentially serious enough to merit putting before the Standards Sub Committee for determination.

The report pack stated that two complaints met the threshold for investigation, and four did not, and that the four complaints received that did not meet the threshold were determined at an early stage and the complainant advised of the reasons, and that Members against whom a complaint is made are generally not advised at this preliminary stage as complaints are treated in confidence.

The report pack stated that the two complaints that did meet the threshold for investigation (raised by the former Interim Chief Executive against two councillors and relating to matters associated with the September 2024 Council meeting/report appointing the Council's Returning Officer and linked matters) were dealt with by an external independent investigator on behalf of the Deputy Monitoring Officer.

The report pack stated that following investigation one complaint was not upheld and the parties notified accordingly, and that as the complaint was not upheld the details of the complaint remain confidential.

The report pack stated that the second (linked) complaint relating to the posting of a comment about the former Interim Chief Executive on 'Linked In' was upheld and reported in detail to the Governance Committee on 14th April 2025, and that Councillor Rob Harwood breached Sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the Council's Code of Conduct for Members (treating others with respect, bringing the Council into disrepute and bullying) in relation to a comment posted on LinkedIn.

The report pack stated that Councillor Rob Harwood, at his own instigation, offered to resolve the matter by way of retraction of the comment, an apology to Mr Travers (the Interim Chief Executive) and an offer to meet to 'clear the air', and that the Deputy Monitoring Officer assessed that offer in accordance with the Code of Conduct, investigation procedure and Constitution and under the authority delegated to them agreed, following consultation with the complainant, to accept that offer as an alternative to proceeding to a full standard Sub-Committee hearing on the matter.

The report pack stated that the currently adopted Model Code of Conduct for Members had been in place since 2012 and for consistency followed a standard template used by most authorities pan Hampshire, and that in the winter 2024 the Government consulted on revisions to the standards regime, and that the council awaited to see what changes would be either mandated or recommended as a result and the timescale for doing so.

The report pack stated that as part of the current Governance and Constitution Review being undertaken by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS), the opportunity would be taken to refresh the Code as appropriate, taking on board best practice elsewhere but being cognisant that there was little flexibility in the core content and standards to which councillors must abide, and that as with any changes to the Constitution these would be brought to this committee with the intention they are ultimately considered by Council in November 2025.

The report pack stated that if a member wishes to apply for a dispensation to allow them to take part in a meeting with a disclosable pecuniary interest, they must submit a written application to the Monitoring Officer, and that applications are then decided by him or by the Governance Committee.

The report pack stated that the Localism Act 2011 substantially changed the rules on interests, and was incomplete in order to permit members to carry out their full duties in relation to being able to vote on the budget, and that therefore, annually before Full Council, all members are granted a blanket dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to allow them to take part in the decision to approve the Council's budget and set the Council Tax bands, and that no other dispensations have been applied for.

The report pack stated that the Council strives to provide its members with all the resources they need to develop themselves to their full potential and undertake their duties in an informed and lawful way, and that members should be well trained, knowledgeable and possess a diverse set of skills to navigate the increasing complexity of their elect roles, supporting good governance and to perform their public duties effectively.

The report pack stated that annual training is available and recommended for those members who sit on regulatory bodies such as the Licensing Committee and the Planning and Rights of Way Committee, and that this had been delivered post May 2025 AGM, and that all members, but specifically Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Aspiring Chairs had been offered the opportunity to attend an LGA-led masterclass on 'Chairing Skills'.

The report pack stated that Group Leaders approve core training that is to be funded from the training budget for each municipal year, and that the remaining budget is allocated per group on a proportionate basis, and that Group Leaders are actively encouraged to identify relevant development opportunities within each group.

The report pack stated that during 2024/2025 members had engaged well with development opportunities offered via the LGA Leadership Programme, and that some members of the Cabinet had also undertaken peer mentoring again via the LGA, and that Group Leaders continue to be supportive of the training and development programme and encourage member engagement, but that attendance however is an ongoing issue.

The report pack stated that the majority of sessions are recorded, and these recordings are published via Member Zone on SharePoint, along with supporting presentation and transcript summary, enabling members to access all learning and development materials at a time that suits them.

The report pack stated that the existing training and development programme is regularly reviewed and endorsed by the LGA, and that whilst the programme is broadly delivering a good variety of induction and directorate-based learning, further work to support member development is required, and that as 2025 is a fallow year it is also a good opportunity to review induction arrangements and documentation.

The report pack stated that the recent Corporate Peer Challenge report identified minor inconsistencies within the offer and training can be disconnected from key and emerging themes, and that whilst not a key recommendation in the CPC Action Plan, it would be remiss not to reflect on this feedback and explore ways to incorporate a more tailored approach to development, incorporating different learning styles and needs.

The report pack stated that Group Leaders agreed to identify a training lead from each Group to work with the Democratic & Member Services Manager to reshape the programme, and that this is part of the wider 'Good Governance' workstream, and that a refocussed development programme should also include regular briefing opportunities linked to the five mission areas as set out in the Southampton 2035 City Plan.

The report pack stated that the member induction, development and training programme will continue to offer a range of learning, development and briefing opportunities utilising internal and external events, online resources and support via the LGA and other third-party providers, and that this will also include any mandatory training.

The report pack stated that recently the Government has consulted on the remit of the planning function and role of the Planning Committee, and that this has included a proposal that there should be mandatory training for those sitting on PROW i.e. the decision makers, and that without attendance councillors would not be able to take their seat on PROW, and that in essence that is the informal position adopted now to ensure natural justice prevails in decision making but, in the future, if the law is passed, it will be mandated.

The report pack stated that the training currently provided is considered best practice and may well meet the criteria, so as it stands the Council is in a good position.

The report pack stated that the requirement for members to register any gifts or hospitality received in their capacity as an elected member is currently set at a minimum of £50, and that minimal notifications have been made which probably reflect the limited quantity and value of any received, and that this requirement does, however, exclude anything relevant to elected members who are the Lord Mayor or Sherriff when acting in those capacities ie civic gifts and lunches etc they attend.