Consultation outcome

Hampshire and the Solent devolution consultation response

Updated 17 July 2025

Introduction 

The government ran a statutory public consultation on the proposal to establish a Hampshire and the Solent Mayoral Combined County Authority which would include the areas of Hampshire County Council, Isle of Wight Council, Portsmouth City Council, and Southampton City Council. The consultation ran for 8 weeks.  

The purpose of this consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across this area. The results of this consultation form part of the assessment by the Secretary of State of whether the statutory tests to establish the proposed Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority (HSCCA) have been met.

The statutory tests are as follows: 

a) is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all the people who live or work in the area

b) is appropriate having regard to the need

         (i) to secure effective and convenient local government   

         (ii) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities   

c) that a public consultation has been carried out and no further consultation is necessary

Consultation process 

The government undertook an 8-week public consultation from 17 February to 13 April 2025 to engage and seek responses from a diverse range of interested parties. This included councils, public sector bodies, parish and town councils, local businesses, voluntary sector groups, and local residents. Consultation responses could be submitted through an online form, or in writing by email or post. 

To promote awareness of the consultation, the government undertook a series of engagement and promotional activities, including:  

• issued a press notice at the start and towards the end of the consultation for local and regional media

• a visit by the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to Southampton on 1 April and meeting with local leaders  

• a social media advertising campaign promoted the consultation on Facebook and Instagram. Across these platforms, 1.08 million impressions, and 5,546 video views were reported 

• distributing physical assets (4,000 flyers, 200 posters and 100 hard copy consultation documents)  

Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ran an in-person on 20 March in Portsmouth. Officials from MHCLG attended a further 4 stakeholder run events to provide information on the consultation:

• Solent Growth Partnership
• Portsmouth Business Leaders Forum comprising 100-150 business leaders
• Central South Group Business Leaders
• Hampshire Leadership Forum 

The 4 prospective constituent authorities also promoted the consultation:  

• The Isle of Wight council posted weekly to their Facebook page during the consultation, as well as running content on Instagram and LinkedIn. Physical assets were sent to all 6 libraries on the island, and update emails were sent to stakeholder groups such as Town, Parish, Community Councils, local authority staff, the Council Cabinet and all Councillors. 

• Southampton City Council reported a combined reach of 16,300 across Facebook and Instagram, 19,000 on LinkedIn and 1,900 on the Nextdoor community. Their centrally despatched E-Bulletins reached 51,000 through the City News and 20,000 through the ‘Your Say’ updates.  

• Portsmouth City Council notified us of a total reach of 49,400 on Facebook and Instagram for multiple posts during the consultation period. This included links to the consultation itself, as well as promoting the in-person event.  

• Hampshire County Council’s efforts included dedicated webpages on the Council’s own website, explainer videos, press releases, correspondence from the Leader to County Councillors, MPs, Parish and Town Councils, National Parks and other public sector stakeholders, articles in resident newsletters, and a combined reach across all online platforms of 304,200 with 441,600 separate impressions. 

Number of responses 

Overall, the consultation in Hampshire and the Solent resulted in 6,150 responses from individuals and organisations including: 

• 5,988 from members of the public and 162 from a range of organisations including the prospective constituent and other local councils, businesses, the voluntary and community sectors and academic institutions  

• 6,118 of the responses were received online, whilst 32 responses were via post  

Summary of responses  

Opinions were divided across respondents and themes set out in the consultation. While many respondents acknowledged the potential for improved coordination and investment, there was a strong emphasis on the need to protect local decision-making and respect regional differences. Submissions frequently noted that Hampshire and the Solent comprises urban centres, rural districts, coastal towns, and islands with distinct identities and needs, and that the governance of the HSCCA governance must reflect this complexity. 

Respondents in favour of the proposal said that it should provide opportunities for: 

• Governance and strategic leadership: Respondents in favour welcomed the opportunity for clearer leadership through a directly elected Mayor. They emphasised the benefit of having a single voice to represent the region’s interests on infrastructure, investment, and policy. Some viewed this as a way to raise the county’s profile nationally and to bring greater coherence across a fragmented landscape. 

• Environmental and climate coordination: Respondents in favour agreed that the HSCCA could enable more joined up environmental action. There was particular support for coordinated flood resilience planning and sustainability measures, especially around areas such as the New Forest and the Solent coast.  

• Improved social outcomes: Respondents in favour said how the HSCCA could help address deep inequality and improve services for underserved populations.  

• Unlocking investment and funding: Respondents in favour believed the HSCCA could attract additional government funding and unlock resources for local priorities. This was particularly welcomed by respondents from areas like the Isle of Wight and Totton, where local capacity to deliver large-scale infrastructure was seen as limited. The possibility of securing devolved budgets was also linked to better long-term planning for transport and housing. 

• Integrated Transport Planning: Respondents in favour expected that coordinated leadership could improve accessibility across the county, and support was often tied to the hope that the HSCCA could address challenges such as congestion in and around Southampton, poor rural links near Lymington and the New Forest, and ferry access from the Isle of Wight.  

Respondents who disagreed with the proposal expressed concerns about: 

• Governance and fair representation: Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that the proposal could lead to disproportionate influence by a single figure or a small number of larger councils. Respondents questioned whether a directly elected Mayor would fairly represent smaller districts or areas. They also noted a concern that local democratic structures, including district and parish councils, might be sidelined in strategic decisions, weakening accountability and reducing public trust. 

• Environmental risks and planning pressure: Respondents who disagreed were concerned that regional growth priorities might undermine conservation. Some also worried that infrastructure expansion could affect floodplains, green space, or protected habitats if decisions were driven by broad economic goals rather than local environmental needs. 

• Housing strategy and overdevelopment: Respondents who disagreed were concerned that a regional authority would prioritise housing numbers over community character, infrastructure readiness, or local planning decisions. Places such as Totton and Eling and parts of Winchester were referenced as already experiencing development pressure. 

• Transport imbalance and urban bias: Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that new transport strategies could prioritise urban or commuter routes at the expense of rural and coastal areas. 

• Administrative complexity: Respondents who disagreed were worried the proposal could lead to an additional layer of governance, creating bureaucracy, confusion, and overlap.  

Summaries of responses by questions are at Annex A.  

Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders and organisations, as outlined at Annex B. This included: 

Prospective constituent councils

Prospective constituent councils expressed strong support for devolution, highlighting its potential to unlock significant investment and enable greater strategic oversight in areas such as transport, skills, and housing. They believed that establishing the HSCCA would lead to a more joined-up approach across administrative boundaries, bringing long-term economic and social benefits. Respondents welcomed the opportunity for improved infrastructure, high-quality training provision, and enhanced local control over funding and strategic direction. The prospect of an elected Mayor with the ability to coordinate region-wide priorities was widely supported. Some authorities stressed the importance of governance safeguards to ensure constituent councils retain influence, especially in matters directly affecting their localities. Calls were made for fair representation and adequate resourcing to enable councils to participate fully and deliver the intended outcomes of the proposals. 

District councils

District councils supported better alignment of planning and infrastructure investment but called for safeguards to ensure continued influence over key decisions and community priorities. They were concerned by a risk of regional governance overlooking or diluting local knowledge. Examples included pressure on housing and infrastructure in towns like Totton to illustrate how local policy should remain in place. 

Town and parish councils

Town and parish councils highlighted the importance of small councils in delivering services, engaging residents, and representing distinct communities. They emphasised that governance needed to reflect differences across places such as Lymington and Totton and Eling. There were calls for a formal role for town and parish councils in the consultation and planning processes. 

Academic institutions

Academic institutions welcomed the opportunity to align skills and education with economic development priorities. Respondents welcomed the idea of clearer regional coordination, especially to support younger people entering the workforce. However, they stressed that educational strategy must remain long term and inclusive, with an emphasis on evidence and sustainability rather than short-term policy shifts. 

Charities and voluntary sector organisations

Charities and voluntary sector organisations focused on ensuring that community voices, social value, and small service providers remained central. Respondents expressed concerns that organisations embedded in communities might be sidelined if governance became more distant. There were calls for formal inclusion of the sector in strategic planning and for devolved funding to be accessible to smaller community groups, not just large organisations.  

Businesses

Businesses supported a more strategic and joined-up approach to regional planning, particularly in transport, housing, and skills. Respondents felt that currently complex governance structures created barriers to investment and planning. Several submissions supported the idea of a regional authority that could simplify these arrangements, but stressed that it must be responsive, business facing, and deliver clear outcomes. Some were concerned that the HSCCA might slow down development through added bureaucracy. 

Government response  

The government is grateful for the time and effort respondents took to respond to the consultation and provide informative views on the proposal. 

We were pleased to see many of the key benefits of devolution were acknowledged by respondents. Our firm belief remains that devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve, including: clear leadership that achieves joined-up delivery of public services, and represents a single voice on the stage of national politics for their region. Mayoral devolution lets Mayors use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive growth; their standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems; and their platform to tackle the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. It means they have skin in the game and are accountable to their citizens.   

A Mayor will unlock the benefits of devolution, securing vital investment which respondents expected would be crucial to delivering better outcomes for the communities and economies of HSCCA by supporting businesses to thrive and grow. Mayors will be expected to drive growth in their areas by adopting Local Growth Plans and achieving real strategic economic planning.   

We noted the concerns expressed on powers being moved further away from local people and communities, into a new layer of local government. This goes fundamentally counter to our goal; that devolution should see powers being transferred away from Westminster and London, and into the hands of local actors which understand the need of local communities best. Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies, giving communities a greater say in decisions that affect them.   

The government will continue to encourage prospective constituent councils to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders across the area to ensure the needs of communities are reflected in HSCCA’s decision-making. Alongside actively listening to feedback on governance, we will continue to stress the importance of close engagement with district, town and parish councils as part of the Strategic Authority. The HSCCA will also have responsibility for appointing non-constituent and associate members, which could include district, town and parish councils, wider business, charities or academic institutions’ representatives. Non-constituent members are representatives of an organisation whilst associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise. Additionally, to enable effective working with the public, private and voluntary sectors, we will explore a wide-ranging legal power for Strategic Authorities to deliver in their areas of competence. We will also explore enabling Mayors to promote economic, social, and environmental aims and convene stakeholders with a corresponding duty on public authorities to respond.  

In response to concerns that the creation of HSCCA and the election of a mayor may add further bureaucracy. In a region such as Hampshire and the Solent, devolution would initially sit on top of the existing two-tier structure of local government in some areas (with county and district councils). This is partly why, separately but alongside devolution, the government is also facilitating a programme of local government reorganisation for two-tier areas, with the intention of moving to a single tier (unitary councils). Fewer politicians, with the right powers, will streamline local government to focus on delivering for residents with clear roles and responsibilities for the future constituent councils and the combined county authority. As this consultation focusses on devolution only, we encourage respondents to engage on issues relating to local government reorganisation through discussions with all local councils currently involved in the process and through any future local consultation on the matter as relevant.   

Our intention is to work with local leaders and councillors to bring more recognition, change and growth to their area, including through ensuring the Mayor has strong visibility and a firm democratic mandate to ensure accountability to its local people. This will include, but is not limited to, the requirement to have an oversight and scrutiny committee, an audit committee, and a ‘Mayors Question Time’ for the public and the media to hold the Mayor to account.    

The government continues to firmly believe that a vital element of successful devolution is the ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account. The current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol, and the White Paper set out government’s intention to further improve accountability. Our intention remains to continuously improve the accountability system for devolution to ensure leaders and mayors are more accountable to the public for delivering change. 

On the role of the proposed HSCCA in environmental policies, the government is clear that it will be a crucial partner in achieving our clean power mission and support efforts to protect the natural environment and biodiversity of not only the local area but the whole of England. We recognise the unique strategic role that the HSCCA could play in planning our future energy system by operating across a functional economic area, tackling climate change and nature emergencies at the local and regional level. Local, place-based environmental leadership is an essential part of this. 

The government also noted aspirations and concerns around funding and investment. Through devolved funding, local communities are given the power to use their local knowledge to drive progress forward in their area, drive place-based economic regeneration, and increase local control over areas such as transport functions and devolution of Adult Skills Funding. Devolution allows for better coordination and more locally made decisions across transport, skills and employment support, housing and planning, health, the environment and climate change, business and research support, and better join up of public services. Policies across skills, innovation, and infrastructure are much more effective when used to complement each other. We have already seen the difference that can be made when local leaders and Mayors work together in the interests of the local population. It creates the right mix of local intelligence and capacity with strategic vision to address regional specific issues. 

We will confirm to constituent councils the Mayoral Capacity Funding of £1million for financial year 25/26. This funding is intended to help the HSCCA to set up and deliver its priorities effectively. We will also confirm the 30-year Investment Fund the area will receive as a core part of the devolution offer. 

Next steps 

Subject to the assessment on the statutory tests, the government will continue to work with Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Isle of Wight Council, and Southampton City Council to establish the HSCCA.  

If the constituent councils’ consent, the necessary secondary legislation will be laid in Parliament. If approved by Parliament, the Combined County Authority would be established in time for the first mayoral election to take place in May 2026. 

Annex A: Responses by questions 

Note: the percentages presented in the tables below are rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to this rounding, they may not sum up to 100% 

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority over the proposed geography will deliver benefits to the area? 

Respondents in favour of the proposed geography believed that a larger combined county authority could better address regional issues by overcoming fragmentation and enabling stronger collaboration across boundaries. They saw value in a unified approach to planning and investment that could reduce duplication and improve outcomes on key challenges such as transport, housing, and economic growth. For some, the potential for more coordinated governance across a shared economic area was a central advantage with some also seeing potential benefits in a larger authority managing shared regional challenges. Many raised concerns about scale, fairness, and democratic accountability. Some welcomed the chance for all areas, including smaller or more rural ones, to have a formal voice 

Respondents who disagreed argued that the area was too large and varied to be governed effectively under one structure. Feedback from the Isle of Wight included particular concerns over the proposed geography, with many residents expressing fears of being overlooked within a larger governance area and highlighted their unique challenges, such as reliance on ferry transport and an ageing population. They were concerned that this could lead to unequal resource distribution and decisions that did not reflect their local needs, particularly for rural areas. Several organisations pointed to the imbalance between population share and allocated representatives, in relation to Hampshire versus the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth, and Southampton.  

Table 1: responses to question 1

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	57%	17%	19%	2%	3%
Academic	63%	25%	0%	0%	13%
Business	59%	11%	30%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	71%	29%	0%	0%	0%
Elected representative	60%	40%	0%	0%	0%
Other	61%	13%	16%	11%	0%
Parish Council	35%	29%	24%	0%	12%
Town Council	50%	0%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	53%	16%	23%	2%	5%
Public	26%	9%	61%	0%	3%

Government response

For strategic decisions to drive growth, we need strong institutions at the right scale. The evidence is clear that to drive improved economic outcomes, we must devolve core levers over growth – like transport, skills, employment support and strategic planning – and align these across functional economic areas in which people live and work. Places have distinct economic networks where people and companies interact, which can be much bigger than individual towns or councils. 

The area already shares a single police force, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, and a Police and Crime Commissioner, as well as a single Fire and Rescue Authority. Where mayoral geographies align with police force and fire and rescue geographies, Mayors will be, by default, responsible for exercising Police and Crime Commissioner and Fire and Rescue Authority functions. This should drive more joined-up thinking and make it more likely that those services deliver for citizens.   

Aligning economic policies at this scale can help deliver productivity, because specialisms develop over the wider economic area separate to the individual towns or councils within it – such as a sector specialism needing a new research institute, or regional transport network to connect to new homes. Many public services are also delivered across large areas. 

Devolution cannot maximise opportunities to bring levers together unless devolved governance covers wider public service footprints too, so services like health and skills can be brought together – meaning residents get more services for their taxes. Where that alignment can be introduced, this will bolster the capacity of the state to deliver. This government firmly believes that directly elected mayors create visible leadership and greater accountability to deliver on the diverse needs of their local residents. 

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed governance arrangements for the Mayoral Combined County Authority? 

Those who agreed said the proposed structure could help reduce duplication, clarify accountability, and strengthen regional planning. Some organisations agreed the proposed structure aligns with existing structures and offers accountability through a single mayoral figure. Respondents appreciated that the model included representation from across the area and saw the introduction of a directly elected Mayor as offering clear leadership on strategic issues. Some noted that similar arrangements had worked well elsewhere and believed the voting system could support fair and representative decision-making. 

Those who disagreed claimed this would centralise decision-making at the expense of distinct local needs. A common concern was that decisions would be taken further away from communities, adding another layer of governance. Others questioned the lack of clarity and fear that less local control may marginalise specific sectors. Concerns about increased bureaucracy, inefficiency, and the potential negative impacts on service delivery were aired. 

Table 2: responses to question 2

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	41%	20%	33%	4%	2%
Academic	38%	38%	13%	0%	13%
Business	54%	11%	32%	3%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	0%	14%	86%	0%	0%
Elected representative	20%	20%	60%	0%	0%
Other	47%	11%	29%	11%	3%
Parish Council	12%	35%	47%	0%	6%
Town Council	0%	0%	50%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	40%	30%	26%	2%	2%
Public	24%	11%	62%	0%	3%

Government response

Directly elected Mayors creates visible leadership and greater accountability. Mayors have become vital local leaders, delivering on the promise of change in their area to drive growth, more joined-up delivery, and earning trust. Evidence from existing Mayoral areas in England shows that Mayors can use their mandate to change to take the difficult decisions needed, have the standing to convene local partners and tackle shared problems, have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that require a regional approach, are accountable to their citizens and represent their area on the national stage.  

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act established the Combined County Authority model to reflect the scale of delivery needed for devolved functions, such as strategic transport, which upper-tier local authorities are typically responsible for. By ensuring strategic decisions are made at the upper-tier level, with fewer constituent members, it allows for more streamlined decision-making to reduce bureaucracy. This streamlining also aligns with our longer-term ambitions to establish a single tier of local government to underpin Strategic Authorities, and any future unitary structures emerging from the local government reorganisation process will replace upper-tier authorities as constituent councils in the Hampshire and the Solent area.  

However, acknowledging the essential role district councils will play in delivery and the invaluable local perspective they can bring to the CCA until the local government reorganisation process has concluded, we expect effective levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between constituent members and district councils - for example through non-constituent membership - especially where the district council covers the primary city or economy in that county.  

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the economy of the area? 

Many welcomed the opportunity to unlock funding and apply consistent approaches across the region. There was strong support for directing investment to areas based on decisions by those with local knowledge and for developing region-wide strategies focused on, for example, job creation, adult education, business support, and innovation. Supporters argued that the MCCA could reduce fragmentation, attract inward investment, and promote sustainable growth by addressing the limitations of the current, often disjointed, governance arrangements.  

Those who disagreed highlighted the importance of addressing economic imbalances, particularly between the Isle of Wight and the mainland, and expressed concerns that distinctive local challenges would be overlooked by the singular approach of a Mayor. Some also questioned the motivation behind the plan, viewing it as a substitute for direct government funding rather than an attempt to empower local economies. There were fears that investment would be concentrated in metropolitan areas, disadvantaging rural communities. There was apprehension about the possibility of local authorities becoming financially responsible for the liabilities of others within the combined structure.  

Table 3: responses to question 3

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	56%	13%	23%	4%	3%
Academic	50%	25%	13%	0%	13%
Business	62%	5%	32%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	71%	29%	0%	0%	0%
Elected representative	80%	0%	20%	0%	0%
Other	55%	13%	16%	13%	3%
Parish Council	29%	18%	47%	0%	6%
Town Council	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	56%	14%	23%	2%	5%
Public	27%	11%	58%	0%	3%

Government response

The government acknowledges that HSCCA would need funding certainty to be able to plan for the long-term and get maximum impact from their spending. The 30-year investment funds will remain a core part of the Devolution offer to the area. The government will also provide support through Mayoral Capacity Funding to help with the costs of establishing the HSCCA. This funding, alongside the powers in the devolution White Paper, can be applied to meet local priorities in rural areas, and represent the floor, not the ceiling of government’s ambition for devolution. 

Council finances remain separate from HSCCA, such that council debt cannot be spread through the Combined County Authority.  

Through the English Devolution White Paper, the Department for Business and Trade will strengthen Mayors’ hand in attracting international investment and supporting businesses to thrive and grow. Mayors provide coherent leadership for their place, convening local partners to tackle shared problems and attracting inward investment. We’ve seen this already with Mayors like Tracy Brabin leading trade missions to drive growth in West Yorkshire. Devolution of Education powers empowers Mayors to create joined-up, holistic solutions to boost employment, skills and economic growth across their local labour markets.  

The government wants to build an economy that works for everyone, and to do this we need a new way of governing. To truly get growth in every corner of the country and put more money into people’s pockets, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central government to those that know their area best. 

Mayors will be equipped with a range of new powers and greater control of local funding across planning, infrastructure, transport, skills, business and energy, with strong and effective partnerships in place with councils and other partners to deliver the missions we have set out to transform the country. Alongside this, Mayors will have a statutory duty to produce Local Growth Plans, setting out a long-term vision for growth in their region over the next decade and a roadmap for how this can be achieved. 

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve social outcomes in the area? 

Those who agreed said the proposals could help reduce the postcode lottery in public services, tackle areas of persistent deprivation, and promote more consistent policymaking across councils. Many organisations that replied highlighted the potential to route funding and resources more effectively to address local social challenges such as health inequalities, skills gaps, and affordable housing shortages. Also, powers over regional transport, skills, and health were seen as a significant opportunity to align services and improve outcomes. Respondents believed a Combined County Authority could offer greater efficiency through economies of scale and shared expertise. 

Conversely, those who disagreed were concerned that bureaucracy would increase, reducing the ability of local people to influence decisions. Many questioned whether those in charge would understand or prioritise the needs of smaller or more rural communities. Numerous comments focused on the risk that social improvement efforts would prioritise urban centres like Southampton and Portsmouth at the expense of rural areas and the Isle of Wight. Others questioned whether HSCCA would be given sufficient resources or powers to make an impact, especially in areas like adult social care and affordable housing.  

Table 4: responses to question 4

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	47%	15%	28%	4%	6%
Academic	63%	25%	13%	0%	0%
Business	54%	5%	35%	3%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	29%	43%	29%	0%	0%
Elected representative	80%	0%	20%	0%	0%
Other	53%	13%	18%	11%	5%
Parish Council	18%	24%	47%	0%	12%
Town Council	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	42%	16%	30%	2%	9%
Public	21%	14%	61%	0%	4%

Government response

Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies. Devolution enables more decisions to be made by those who know their areas best, leading to better outcomes and a more efficient use of resources.  

When policy is made at a national level, even the best intentions can fall short and invite public objection if the communities who should benefit are left powerless in the decision-making process. Devolution gives communities a greater say in decisions that affect them, encourages the delivery of efficient, effective, and equitable local services, and to help the public hold their leaders to account for delivering change.     

The proposed mayoral combined county authority would have a specific duty in relation to health, which would ensure that health is and will remain a key priority in the exercise of its functions. The government has committed to ensuring all areas with Mayoral devolution have a long-term investment fund. Some examples of how existing combined or combined county authorities have used their powers and funding to improve social outcomes include the homelessness taskforce ran by the West Midlands Combined Authority or the Foundational Economy Innovation Fund which was established to help sectors such as health and social care, early education and childcare become more resilient. 

Other Combined County Authorities have taken specific steps to retain focus on communities concerned about being overlooked. For example, the North East Combined Authority (NECA) has specifically designated a member of the leadership Cabinet with a Rural portfolio to ensure equality of attention across all areas of the region. Mayors will also be able to appoint and renumerate commissioners to lead on key functions, giving them more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their area. They will not be members of the Strategic Authority, and the roles would be expected to reflect areas of competence. 

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve local government services in the area? 

Respondents who agreed with the proposals said that a Combined Authority could streamline operations, reduce duplication, and improve the responsiveness of local services. Some believed that a centralised structure could remove overlap between different councils, making service delivery more effective. Organisations in favour often highlighted opportunities to improve transport, housing, skills, and infrastructure through region-wide oversight. Positive views also emphasised the possibility of removing duplication and streamlining operations  

Those who disagreed were concerned that services could deteriorate, especially if staffing levels were cut or if resources were stretched further. Concern was expressed about the impact on the Isle of Wight, where respondents feared that losing local control would lead to poorer outcomes. There was apprehension about losing access to established district and borough councils and the risk of marginalising town, parish, and rural voices. Several also pointed to potential bureaucracy, complexity, and unclear funding commitments as barriers to success.  

Table 5: responses to question 5

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	49%	19%	25%	4%	2%
Academic	38%	50%	13%	0%	0%
Business	57%	8%	32%	3%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	43%	43%	14%	0%	0%
Elected representative	60%	20%	20%	0%	0%
Other	58%	16%	13%	11%	3%
Parish Council	18%	24%	53%	0%	6%
Town Council	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	44%	21%	28%	2%	5%
Public	22%	11%	63%	0%	3%

Government response

This government is committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, empowering local leaders and Mayors to make the right decisions for their communities, and working together to grow an inclusive economy, reform public services and secure better outcomes. 

The government has a clear ambition to rebuild and reform local government as the foundation of devolution, by getting the basics right and resetting the framework to ensure the sector is fit, legal and decent. As such, local government reorganisation is taking place in parallel to devolution across Hampshire and the Solent. However, they remain separate processes, and this consultation focussed on devolution only.  

Evidence shows that, under the right conditions, devolution can help solve key challenges with respect to local government services: 

• on growth, devolution to capable local leaders at strategic scales has been linked to higher productivity meaning more money in people’s pockets 

• when it comes to trust in politics, directly elected Mayors are the most recognisable local political figures, and people think more power should come down from national government 

• in other developed countries that introduced greater devolution, people were more satisfied with public service  

We recognise that there may be confusion between devolution and local government reorganisation. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Solent’s case, is the creation of a single tier of local government where there has previously been two tiers. Devolution is the creation of strategic tier of local government, that looks to bring together two or more local authorities, to make decisions over a strategic geography. HSCCA will not lead on delivery of local services such as waste, social care and libraries. Instead, it will take on additional devolved powers, functions and funding, which previously have been held by central government, as set out in the devolution framework. Upper-tier local authorities would take on vital leadership roles within HSCCA, representing their residents’ views, and continue to deliver the local services people rely on. 

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve the local natural environment and overall national environment? 

Respondents who supported the proposals believed they would enable more effective regional environmental planning, with greater authority to tackle pollution, manage water resources and apply consistent protection policies. They emphasised the value of a joined-up approach to climate change and nature recovery, noting that a single authority could better coordinate responses to longstanding issues such as sewage discharge and water quality. Organisations recognised the opportunity to align funding and policy for green energy, climate resilience, sustainable transport, and nature recovery.  

Conversely, respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that the changes would lead to increased housing and development at the expense of protected landscapes and green spaces, or questioned whether the authority would have the capacity or intent to address pollution in places like the Solent. There was opposition from some Isle of Wight stakeholders and rural districts, who were concerned about marginalisation and a lack of recognition of local environmental needs. There were also fears of a loss of local knowledge and influence, particularly from parish, town and District councils who believed current localised governance better understands environmental priorities. 

Table 6: responses to question 6

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	41%	24%	24%	5%	6%
Academic	50%	50%	0%	0%	0%
Business	49%	16%	30%	3%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	57%	43%	0%	0%	0%
Elected representative	40%	40%	20%	0%	0%
Other	50%	16%	13%	13%	8%
Parish Council	12%	24%	47%	0%	18%
Town Council	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	33%	28%	33%	2%	5%
Public	19%	18%	57%	0%	6%

Government response

The government is clear that the proposed HSCCA would be crucial partner in achieving our clean power mission and support efforts to protect the natural environment and biodiversity of not only the local area but the whole of England. This includes through joint work with Great British Energy through the Local Power Plan to support the roll out of small-medium renewable energy projects at the local level. 

The government also recognises the unique strategic role that HSCCA could play in planning our future energy system by operating across a functional economic area. To give it a meaningful role in planning our future energy system, the National Energy System Operator will engage with them as it develops Regional Energy Strategic Plans and provide a transparent route for local insights to inform energy system planning. 

In addition, the government is committed to establishing heat network zoning in England. Zoning coordinators within the proposed HSCCA would be able to designate areas as heat network zones, enabling the most appropriate level of local government to assume the role of heat network zoning coordinator and play a key role in the delivery of heat decarbonisation. 

HSCCA would also play a crucial role in preparing for the future and tackling climate change and nature emergencies at the local and regional level. Local, place-based environmental leadership is an essential part of this. Over time, we envisage it would be appointed the Local Nature Recovery Strategies responsible authority.  

Future opportunities for devolution and partnership working would also be explored with the proposed Combined County Authority, informed by the local expertise of constituent authorities, including the Isle of Wight Council. We would also explore how it could provide greater local leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, and a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making. This could be through the Mayoral Council, or the Council of Nations and Regions, giving HSCCA a significant voice in influencing national policy.    

Some of our existing Mayoral combined or combined county authorities use the investment fund to support environmental targets. For example, in York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority launched the Carbon Negative Challenge Fund to support ambitions to become England’s first carbon negative region. 

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the interests and needs of local communities and reflect local identities? 

Respondents in agreement said that this proposal could encourage collaboration to tackle shared community priorities. Supporters felt it could amplify community voices, support voluntary and peer-based initiatives, and deliver fairer funding, provided implementation is inclusive and representative. Some organisational respondents, particularly from the business sector, county council, and the academic sector, believed HSCCA could cultivate a shared identity across Hampshire and the Solent. 

A theme amongst those who disagreed, particularly from district councils, parish councils, and the voluntary and community sector, is the belief that HSCCA risks overshadowing smaller and rural communities in favour of urban centres like Southampton and Portsmouth. Respondents repeatedly expressed concerns that existing local identities could be weakened or ignored. Others feared that established relationships and understandings would be replaced with distant oversight. 

Table 7: responses to question 7

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	31%	22%	36%	5%	6%
Academic	63%	25%	13%	0%	0%
Business	41%	16%	41%	0%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	50%	50%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	0%	43%	43%	0%	14%
Elected representative	20%	20%	60%	0%	0%
Other	39%	21%	21%	16%	3%
Parish Council	6%	12%	71%	0%	12%
Town Council	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	26%	23%	40%	2%	9%
Public	18%	11%	68%	0%	3%

Government response

By pushing more power out of Whitehall, this government is undertaking major structural reform to deliver better democratic and economic outcomes for people and places across England. With more power devolved in England, people will see priorities for their area set locally, with policies tailored to needs and circumstances. 

This could include easier commutes through a single integrated transport system, skills and employment provision that are more relevant to local jobs, more houses that are matched with new infrastructure or support from public services that talk to each other and understand what support people need.   

HSSCA would be able to appoint a maximum of 5 non-constituent and associate members who can support the delivery of their work programme through their position, such as a district council, local NHS trust, the Police and Crime Commissioner, or a local registered provider serving as a non-constituent member. Associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise – for example, on active travel, or local businesses – and represent community voices at the highest level of the CCA.   

Annex B: Consultation respondents 

Respondents using the Citizen Space response form were asked to self-report on their respondent type. 

Respondent	Responses
Academic	8
Business	37
County Council	1
Unitary Council	4
District Council	7
Elected representative	5
Parish Council	17
Town Council	2
Voluntary and community sector or charity	43
Other	38
Public	5,988