Portsmouth debates devolution and council reorganisation ahead of government submission

As part of the Labour government’s plans, devolution would shift powers and funding from central government to a strategic mayoral authority, while LGR could replace the current two-tier system with larger unitary councils.

This could involve Portsmouth joining up with neighbouring boroughs such as Fareham, Gosport, and Havant to create a larger unitary authority.

Councillors discussed the proposals at a full council meeting on 18 March, with the final decision on the council’s LGR position made by the cabinet the following day. The submission is due on 21 March.

Financial concerns over LGR

Council leader Steve Pitt warned that Portsmouth, a “perfectly stable and financially sound” local authority, could be forced into an unwanted unitary structure. He called Hampshire County Council’s (HCC) £136m deficit a “huge threat to our financial security”, warning that a new unitary authority could inherit a large portion.

Conservative group leader Simon Bosher strongly opposed the plan, calling it a “complete and utter mess.” He cited concerns from the council’s director of finance, who acknowledged LGR would “undoubtedly have an impact” on Portsmouth’s budget, though the full extent was unknown. Bosher warned the financial risks could be severe enough to bring the issue back to full council.

Independent councillor Cal Corkery supported devolution but questioned LGR, claiming it was a Treasury-driven initiative designed to erase struggling councils like HCC while keeping their deficits intact. He called it a “convenient political trick” and formally objected to the report, citing financial risks to residents.

Debate over transport and governance

Labour group leader Charlotte Gerada pushed for better public transport, which could be provided in a devolved county-wide authority. She argued that large-scale transport networks should not be limited to London and Manchester. She highlighted that 60 per cent of Portsmouth’s commuter trips are made by car and said an ambitious transport plan was the only way to avoid the “misery of the daily commute” while reaching net-zero carbon emissions.

Gerada presented an image of a tram network in Orléans, France—a city half the size of Portsmouth—but was met with ridicule. Liberal Democrat councillor Leonie Oliver sarcastically asked where the money for “lovely” and “shiny” trams would come from.

Councillor George Madgwick reminded the chamber that Liberal Democrat general election candidate Charlie Murphy had previously backed light rail, saying last year that “we cannot keep piling more cars onto the roads” and that a “genuine alternative” was needed.

Labour’s Graham Heaney noted that LGR had been happening gradually, with unitary councils already established in Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland. He argued that councils had been “hammered” by funding cuts since 2010 and suggested Portsmouth could design a new unitary authority that devolves power to communities. He criticised Portsmouth’s “highly centralised executive-dominated system”, where just nine cabinet members make key decisions.

He also questioned the government’s approach, stating it would be “absolute suicide” for Labour to allow newly created unitaries to start in immediate financial crisis.

Cabinet meeting raises further concerns

During the cabinet meeting, the council’s director of finance corrected a figure in the report, confirming HCC’s deficit was £136m, not £216m as previously discussed. Cllr Pitt was informed of this just an hour before the meeting.

Jon Woods, chair of Portsmouth City Unison, criticised the council’s report for failing to “stand up to central government” on LGR. He warned it underestimated the threat to council workers and failed to acknowledge trade unions as key stakeholders.

Woods said staff should not be expected to take on extra work for LGR, comparing it to “turkeys peeling the potatoes, setting the oven to roasting temperature and making their own stuffing.” He warned that if Unison members were forced into additional work, the union could consider industrial action.

Cllr Pitt described the submission agreed between Portsmouth and other Hampshire councils as a “camel”—a “horse designed by a committee”—saying it was a “lowest common denominator” document reflecting only what councils could agree on.

He warned that if Portsmouth refused to participate, the minister had made it “absolutely clear” that they would “use a ministerial directive and force it upon us.” Pitt confirmed he would write a letter outlining concerns raised by Unison and others unique to Portsmouth.