The selected plan was not residents’ preferred option

The government selected Option 1A after assessing four proposals. Its decision was not a direct vote, and ministers were entitled to consider financial resilience, service delivery, geography, devolution and the views of public bodies alongside responses from residents.

That does not remove the need for a specific explanation. Among individuals living in the affected area, Option 1 received 63% positive responses across the consultation questions. The selected Option 1A received 27% positive and 59% negative responses. Named consultees moved in the opposite direction: their responses were most positive about Option 1A.

The published ministerial statement lists the assessment criteria but does not provide a detailed, criterion-by-criterion comparison explaining why the named-consultee preference outweighed the much larger body of individual responses. Consultation is not a referendum, but accountability requires more than saying that all evidence was considered.

During the Parliamentary approval process, government should publish the scoring, assumptions and comparative financial evidence used to choose Option 1A. Residents affected by parish boundary changes deserve an explanation tied to their communities, not only a regional conclusion.

Evidence

Sources used

1. Summary and analysis of consultation responses — Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2. Local Government Reorganisation — written statement — UK Parliament
3. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton — Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government