A letter from Isle of Wight Council leader Phil Jordan has been circulated to all councillors following Wednesday night’s Full Council meeting on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
The letter confirms the Council’s decision to withdraw from proposals that would have kept the Island as a stand-alone authority.
Decision explained
Councillor Jordan sets out that the decision means the Isle of Wight Council is no longer seeking an exception to national guidance, which requires a minimum population of 500,000 for any new unitary authority under the reorganisation process.
This step removes the Island from the business case being submitted to Government that had included options for it to continue as a single, separate council.
Future direction
As a result, the only options now under consideration by Government involve merging the Isle of Wight with a Mainland council.
The letter makes clear that the Council has chosen not to pursue the stand-alone option included in all of the scenarios presented in the business case.
Extension requested
However, Councillor Jordan has confirmed that he has asked to Ministry for an extension (the deadline is currently 26th September), with the view that an Extraordinary Full Council Meeting might be held and a vote taken that would see the Island returning to be part of a business case put to Government to remain as a unitary authority.
There re no guarantees that an extension will be granted. We’ll know more next week.
Email to councillors
The email to councillors can be read in full below.
Dear Councillors,
I understand there has been some discussion since the Full Council on Wednesday of this week as to the impact of the vote that was taken regarding local government reorganisation.
To clarify the position, there is a very strong risk that any view expressed by the council outside the formal decision-making processes set by government and the effect of the vote taken by full council on Wednesday could be treated as a non-compliant submission. It is therefore very likely that the effect of the vote not to support the case for change as set out in the appendix to the LGR report is therefore not a statement in support of maintaining the unitary authority status of the Isle of Wight Council. A decision purporting to just make the decision for the IOW to remain a unitary council would be unlikely to the accepted as it would be outside the statutory process. The Government itself is following a structured statutory process for LGR and they will be mindful of the risks of legal challenge to their decision-making should they not follow the criteria and process that has been set.
You do have the outcome of a motion from February expressing your view that you wished to remain a unitary authority and this is not changed, but that of itself is outside the statutory process and is not a formal response to the statutory invitation from the (former) Minister (see attached letter and Annex A in particular). This is a statutory invitation that requires a submission that covers the whole of the geographical area and whilst we may have expressed a preference, in order for an exceptions case to be submitted it needs to be part of a case for change for the whole of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight area.
Following the outcome of the motion in February , the Leader wrote to the (former) Minister and as requested, asked for an early view on the Island remaining a unitary authority. This letter and the response from the Minister is attached.
You have two options open for consideration:
- That the vote taken on Wednesday 17th September, is implemented and the response from the IWC to the Minister on LGR is that the IWC does not support a business case and the effect by association is not providing a case for exception for the Island.
- Seek an EFC to consider options (I understand this has been requested). This option has challenging administrative timescales. The Council has, as part of the LGR process been asked to respond formally to Government on or before 26th September 2025. Given that deadline and the possible need to hold an EFC, and the administrative timescales for holding such a meeting, I have asked MHCLG for an extension of time past 26th September to see whether they will accept a later submission. I await a response from them.
I am aware that there may be some suggestion that the Hampshire/E Hampshire proposal is something that the council should support. We would need to think very carefully how we frame this in any response to Government. The IOW council has not been party to that proposal, has not consulted on it and there is a risk that our proposal to support this and outside the statutory process and therefore non-compliant.
Regardless of whether the IOW support it or not, the Hampshire/E Hampshire proposal will be going to Government anyway and they will decide whether to consult on that proposal. We can consider this matter in more detail.
Officers will be working to establish the best way forward, taking a steer from members as to what they want to achieve.
Councillor Phil Jordan
Correspondence with the Ministry
