The Government’s decision to withdraw its Local Government Reorganisation decision for Hampshire and the Solent is significant.

It is worth being precise about what has happened: the decision taken earlier this year has been withdrawn, not merely paused, and ministers have launched a fresh review of the programme following updated legal advice. The Government has also confirmed that elections due in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries.

For me, this is not an argument against change. I have always accepted that local government must evolve, particularly when councils are under immense financial pressure and residents rightly expect services to be delivered as efficiently as possible.

But change on this scale has to be based on evidence.

Hampshire County Council challenged the Government’s original decision because we had serious concerns about the financial case behind it and about the sustainability of the councils it proposed to create. We repeatedly asked the Government to explain the justification for its decision, including its financial basis, before ultimately pursuing a judicial review.

Getting something as fundamental as the structure of local government wrong could have consequences lasting for decades.

That is why we pursued the legal challenge. It was not a decision taken lightly, nor was it about preserving existing structures for their own sake. It was about asking the Government to demonstrate that its chosen model was financially sustainable and would protect the services residents rely upon – particularly social care, SEND, education and highways.

The withdrawal now gives everyone the opportunity to reset.

There is, however, another issue which the Government needs to address: cost.

Across Hampshire, councils have spent substantial sums preparing for reorganisation because the Government required us to do so and set the timetable. Those costs include legal and professional advice, programme teams and practical implementation work.

But the real cost is wider than the invoices.

A very substantial amount of senior officer time has necessarily been diverted into planning for the abolition and replacement of existing councils. At Hampshire County Council, that is capacity which could otherwise have been focused on improving services, increasing productivity and developing the medium-term reforms and savings we need to put the authority on a sustainable footing.

We cannot recover that time.

But I do not believe Hampshire council taxpayers should also be left carrying the financial cost of a government-mandated process which the Government has now withdrawn.

That is why we will ask the county council to establish the full cost of LGR to Hampshire and press the Government to reimburse councils for expenditure incurred as a direct result of the process.

What matters now is what comes next.

Ministers should take the time to consider carefully what local government reform in Hampshire and the Solent should actually achieve before deciding what structures might deliver it.

Financial sustainability, community identity, democratic accountability and, above all, the protection of frontline services all need to be at the heart of that assessment.

Meanwhile, our focus at Hampshire County Council must be firmly on the job residents elected us to do: strengthening the organisation, improving services and delivering the savings and reforms necessary to put the council on the strongest possible footing for the years ahead.

This episode should not close the door on reform.

It should give us the opportunity to get it right.

*Cllr Nick Adams-King is the Conservative Leader of Hampshire County Council