Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
68
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 26th February 2026
6:30 PM
Thursday, 26th February 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 26th February 2026
9:30 PM
Thursday, 26th February 2026
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Chairman
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Leader of the Reform UK Group
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Business Engagement
Committee Member
Chair of the Resident Services & Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee and Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Chair of the South Ham & Buckskin Regeneration Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Councillor Paul Basham
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Hayley Eachus
Absent
Committee Member
Councillor Paul Gaskell
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Hannah Golding
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Councillor Tony Jones
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Samir Kotecha
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Alex Lee
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Jenny Vaux
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashfield, Carr, Durrant, Kotecha, Lee and Perry.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor Vaux declared an interest in relation to Item 9 – Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2026/27 to 2029/30.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2025
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Public minutes 18122025 1830 Council 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor held a minute silence in memory of Past Mayors Martin Biermann and Sean Keating, and former Chair of the Standards Committee Verity Murricane who had passed away since the last Council meeting.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 24 February 2026)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 24 February 2026)
Minutes
Question 1
From: Marcus Simpson
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Please can the action to understand the points below be added as a work item for the next regeneration scrutiny committee meeting in July:
Process – How will the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill be used if the threshold of 150 Homes is met to trigger a centralised decision.
Precedent – What constitutes it being in the public interest to displace residents and does shared ownership for a previous outright owner amount to a material detriment that is not in the public interest?
Outcome – Will that centralised decision result in impacted residents being displaced into properties not on a like for like basis due to the equivalence principle limiting their compensation to the lower financial value of the resident’s original property.
Answer
Thank you very much, Mr Mayor and thank you very much, Marcus for the question. You raised some interesting and very complex points and I absolutely agree that the committee is the right space in which to explore them properly. It gives them enough space to actually have a proper debate around these issues. As you might be aware, as the Portfolio Holder, I don’t have the right to set the agenda for committee meetings. That responsibility falls with the chair of the relevant committee. However, as far as I’m concerned, I support this. So, if the chair decides that they want to add this to the agenda then they do so with my complete support, and we can ensure that we produce the relevant officer reports.
Supplementary Question
Can I just ask the chair of the committee, is everything clear in that question? And would any of you like a copy of the reply I had back from the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government that basically explains all the legal jargon behind this because I’ve got a very very good reply that covers it all off. And if anybody would like a copy, please let me know and I’ll share it.
Answer
I’m very happy to discuss it with the chair of the committee. I’m not sure, Mr Mayor, if the chair is allowed to answer. But yes, all fine from my perspective.
Answer from the Chair of South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee- Cllr S Dillow.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree Marcus, the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a concern and the issue of centralised design over local planning where there are plans for 150 plus houses, is very much an issue that does concern me and residents. I think also obviously the issue of CPOs when compensation is based on the value of the existing home, it is a concern where the equivalence of the financial value of the home affected isn’t enough to enable residents to buy a home in an equivalent size and type. So, I think yeah, the offer of maybe shared ownership and things like that where homes wholly owned is a concern where it could be deemed as a material detriment if you’re offered shared ownership. So yeah, I would be pleased to ask officers to clarify the council’s position and make a presentation at a future meeting at my committee. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Shibaji Shrestha
To: Leader of the Council
Should the Government have allowed Hampshire County Council to increase its Council Tax by 15 per cent?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, thank you Shibaji for your question. I think you need to address this question to the Leader of Hampshire County Council because only he knows the intricate detail of why the County Council has got itself into such a financial mess that it would seek or need to ask the government for a 15% increase. We know the headline figures that have been published, but you need to know to ask them to hold them to account for the decisions and the decisions his Cabinet have made and his colleagues. Now we know that the County Council froze its council tax for a number of years. That took millions out of its base budget forever after. That was a political choice, and it’s had lasting consequences. We know that they have not transformed their services and as such, inflation and service pressure in social care and SEND has been a real concern for many residents. We know that the County Council is cutting services like the library, buses and they’re selling off education land. We know that the government rejected the idea of the 15% just like they did last year. And we know that the County Council Cabinet chose not to put that to a referendum and have instead chosen to use their reserves to bridge the gap just like they did last year. So, I look forward to you putting the question to the Leader of the County Council because I, like you look forward to hearing what his answer to that question is going to be.
Supplementary Question
They still can do by calling a referendum or will they ask them to do so?
Answer
Thank you Shibaji. They have chosen as far as we understand it not to call a referendum. They’ve chosen to use their reserves and they think, I think I’ve got my figures correct and I stand to be corrected by those people who were at County Council this afternoon. The budget gap was the best part of 102 million pounds this year and is projected to be thereabouts 230 million pounds next year.
Question 3
From: Shibaji Shrestha
To: Leader of the Council
Basingstoke has big problems with potholes. One of my local councillors in Brighton Hill says we had over 100 potholes appear in just one road (Sullivan Road) in the first two weeks in January.
Another was photographed next to newly painted yellow lines over a pothole. The third one went on South Today about it. And I am sure that other councillors representing other wards have had similar issues, as there were over 5,000 complaints about potholes in just one week at the end of January.
The Leader of the County Council has said that Hampshire Highways doesn't have enough money to fix our roads.
Has our Leader at Basingstoke and Deane raised this issue with his County counterpart, what response would he get if he did, and how can he influence the county to make sure it fixes our roads?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, and thank you again Shibaji for your question. I have raised the issue with the Leader of the County Council writing to him directly on the issue of potholes and roads. I am yet to receive a reply to my representation on behalf of residents of Basingstoke and Deane. Now Hampshire County Council have acknowledged that its budget allocation is insufficient to cover all the work suggested by its own road condition surveys. The numbers are quite extraordinary actually. The county has estimated it would cost £500 million to clear the road repair backlog. Meanwhile, Hampshire has paid out over £400,000 in compensation to motorists over just 3 years after dealing with 5,771 pothole related complaints. Now, the highest single year of those complaints was actually 23/24 when they nearly got 3,000 in one year. Hampshire faces a budget shortfall of £102 million this year, rising to £230 million next year. They are in financial freefall. Now they’ve made some very bad political decisions. Political gain was what they soughted and they’re now living with the consequences that have come home to roost. Hampshire have acknowledged that the number of repairs is actually declining compared to previous years despite the high demand. And is there any wonder therein that residents are angry? So that means we are seeing temporary repairs that we know will not last. We’re seeing the budget itself squeezed and residents are getting a much worse service as our roads continue to deteriorate. The government did actually put forward £14 million in 25/26 funding for Hampshire out of the £1.6 billion set aside for the road settlement. So just to put that into context, that’s £14 million set against an overall shortfall now of £500 million. Just to say and you asking your question, the point about South Today, Andrea was also on Meridian, so she did both. The newly photographed yellow lines of the potholes I think is a symbol of the actual institutional dysfunction. Let’s just think about that. If Hampshire County Council highways can fund a contractor to come out and paint lines on a road surface over a pothole, it can identify that the service beneath is defective. If they then come out and fill the pothole that they meant to do in the first place they then come back out again to paint the yellow lines over the pothole they’ve just repaired. It’s a ridiculous situation where the contractors also come out to fix potholes and completely ignore the ones that are right next door to the one they’re fixing. Whole roads are actually now, if you look at them in many cases across the borough like a patchwork quilt of repairs, holes and something in between where the materials they’ve used to fix them is giving way because it isn’t lasting very long. Now I’ve asked the Leader of the County Council what controls are in place to ensure contractors complete the patches to a satisfactory standard. I haven’t heard a reply yet. I know the weather hasn’t helped, but it can’t solely be blamed for a problem that’s got years year-on-year. So, I asked the County Council Leader: “What proposals do you have to address the pothole problem beyond simply soldiering on with a policy which at the moment doesn’t seem to be working?” Now the definition of insanity, we are told is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So if Hampshire County Council keeps prioritising reactive patching over planned preventative maintenance year after year while the backlog grows and the compensation claims rise, the current approach isn’t just underfunded, it’s structurally the wrong strategy, and continuing it while expecting the roads to improve would be, as the saying goes, insanity.
Supplementary Question
You already got the response from the County Council. So, what’s the next step to go from here? We are keeping same way of our roads or are we taking extra next step for that.
Answer
Thank you, Shibaji. Obviously, the future is the future of what happens with a future council and let’s wait for that decision to arrive in the next couple of weeks. But the reality is, Hampshire are stoking this for what then comes later, and that is an issue in itself. Whatever that council is in the future will have to pick this problem up and deal with it. Alongside that, what we can do and what we do do, what many of us do, is we report potholes on a regular basis. We hotspot them because we do it and get residents to help us do it. And you look on the County Council website and you can see the sheer volume of reports that are going unrepaired. So, this is an issue. Just in our own ward actually, I mean if you drive around the corner of Darlington Road and Paul and Laura will appreciate this, there is literally about 15 potholes outside the Vyne School in a very short stretch. And they’re not just potholes, I mean they are trenches. They’re about a good half a foot deep on occasion. And there is a trench that runs down the middle of the road. We’re waiting for it to be repaired like so many other roads are across the Borough. So, it is an issue. What we can do immediately is report it and get on top of it. And I really do look forward to what the Leader of the County Council comes back with in reply to the actual letter I’ve sent him and the questions I’ve asked him.
From: Marcus Simpson
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Please can the action to understand the points below be added as a work item for the next regeneration scrutiny committee meeting in July:
Process – How will the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill be used if the threshold of 150 Homes is met to trigger a centralised decision.
Precedent – What constitutes it being in the public interest to displace residents and does shared ownership for a previous outright owner amount to a material detriment that is not in the public interest?
Outcome – Will that centralised decision result in impacted residents being displaced into properties not on a like for like basis due to the equivalence principle limiting their compensation to the lower financial value of the resident’s original property.
Answer
Thank you very much, Mr Mayor and thank you very much, Marcus for the question. You raised some interesting and very complex points and I absolutely agree that the committee is the right space in which to explore them properly. It gives them enough space to actually have a proper debate around these issues. As you might be aware, as the Portfolio Holder, I don’t have the right to set the agenda for committee meetings. That responsibility falls with the chair of the relevant committee. However, as far as I’m concerned, I support this. So, if the chair decides that they want to add this to the agenda then they do so with my complete support, and we can ensure that we produce the relevant officer reports.
Supplementary Question
Can I just ask the chair of the committee, is everything clear in that question? And would any of you like a copy of the reply I had back from the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government that basically explains all the legal jargon behind this because I’ve got a very very good reply that covers it all off. And if anybody would like a copy, please let me know and I’ll share it.
Answer
I’m very happy to discuss it with the chair of the committee. I’m not sure, Mr Mayor, if the chair is allowed to answer. But yes, all fine from my perspective.
Answer from the Chair of South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee- Cllr S Dillow.
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I agree Marcus, the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a concern and the issue of centralised design over local planning where there are plans for 150 plus houses, is very much an issue that does concern me and residents. I think also obviously the issue of CPOs when compensation is based on the value of the existing home, it is a concern where the equivalence of the financial value of the home affected isn’t enough to enable residents to buy a home in an equivalent size and type. So, I think yeah, the offer of maybe shared ownership and things like that where homes wholly owned is a concern where it could be deemed as a material detriment if you’re offered shared ownership. So yeah, I would be pleased to ask officers to clarify the council’s position and make a presentation at a future meeting at my committee. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Shibaji Shrestha
To: Leader of the Council
Should the Government have allowed Hampshire County Council to increase its Council Tax by 15 per cent?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, thank you Shibaji for your question. I think you need to address this question to the Leader of Hampshire County Council because only he knows the intricate detail of why the County Council has got itself into such a financial mess that it would seek or need to ask the government for a 15% increase. We know the headline figures that have been published, but you need to know to ask them to hold them to account for the decisions and the decisions his Cabinet have made and his colleagues. Now we know that the County Council froze its council tax for a number of years. That took millions out of its base budget forever after. That was a political choice, and it’s had lasting consequences. We know that they have not transformed their services and as such, inflation and service pressure in social care and SEND has been a real concern for many residents. We know that the County Council is cutting services like the library, buses and they’re selling off education land. We know that the government rejected the idea of the 15% just like they did last year. And we know that the County Council Cabinet chose not to put that to a referendum and have instead chosen to use their reserves to bridge the gap just like they did last year. So, I look forward to you putting the question to the Leader of the County Council because I, like you look forward to hearing what his answer to that question is going to be.
Supplementary Question
They still can do by calling a referendum or will they ask them to do so?
Answer
Thank you Shibaji. They have chosen as far as we understand it not to call a referendum. They’ve chosen to use their reserves and they think, I think I’ve got my figures correct and I stand to be corrected by those people who were at County Council this afternoon. The budget gap was the best part of 102 million pounds this year and is projected to be thereabouts 230 million pounds next year.
Question 3
From: Shibaji Shrestha
To: Leader of the Council
Basingstoke has big problems with potholes. One of my local councillors in Brighton Hill says we had over 100 potholes appear in just one road (Sullivan Road) in the first two weeks in January.
Another was photographed next to newly painted yellow lines over a pothole. The third one went on South Today about it. And I am sure that other councillors representing other wards have had similar issues, as there were over 5,000 complaints about potholes in just one week at the end of January.
The Leader of the County Council has said that Hampshire Highways doesn't have enough money to fix our roads.
Has our Leader at Basingstoke and Deane raised this issue with his County counterpart, what response would he get if he did, and how can he influence the county to make sure it fixes our roads?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, and thank you again Shibaji for your question. I have raised the issue with the Leader of the County Council writing to him directly on the issue of potholes and roads. I am yet to receive a reply to my representation on behalf of residents of Basingstoke and Deane. Now Hampshire County Council have acknowledged that its budget allocation is insufficient to cover all the work suggested by its own road condition surveys. The numbers are quite extraordinary actually. The county has estimated it would cost £500 million to clear the road repair backlog. Meanwhile, Hampshire has paid out over £400,000 in compensation to motorists over just 3 years after dealing with 5,771 pothole related complaints. Now, the highest single year of those complaints was actually 23/24 when they nearly got 3,000 in one year. Hampshire faces a budget shortfall of £102 million this year, rising to £230 million next year. They are in financial freefall. Now they’ve made some very bad political decisions. Political gain was what they soughted and they’re now living with the consequences that have come home to roost. Hampshire have acknowledged that the number of repairs is actually declining compared to previous years despite the high demand. And is there any wonder therein that residents are angry? So that means we are seeing temporary repairs that we know will not last. We’re seeing the budget itself squeezed and residents are getting a much worse service as our roads continue to deteriorate. The government did actually put forward £14 million in 25/26 funding for Hampshire out of the £1.6 billion set aside for the road settlement. So just to put that into context, that’s £14 million set against an overall shortfall now of £500 million. Just to say and you asking your question, the point about South Today, Andrea was also on Meridian, so she did both. The newly photographed yellow lines of the potholes I think is a symbol of the actual institutional dysfunction. Let’s just think about that. If Hampshire County Council highways can fund a contractor to come out and paint lines on a road surface over a pothole, it can identify that the service beneath is defective. If they then come out and fill the pothole that they meant to do in the first place they then come back out again to paint the yellow lines over the pothole they’ve just repaired. It’s a ridiculous situation where the contractors also come out to fix potholes and completely ignore the ones that are right next door to the one they’re fixing. Whole roads are actually now, if you look at them in many cases across the borough like a patchwork quilt of repairs, holes and something in between where the materials they’ve used to fix them is giving way because it isn’t lasting very long. Now I’ve asked the Leader of the County Council what controls are in place to ensure contractors complete the patches to a satisfactory standard. I haven’t heard a reply yet. I know the weather hasn’t helped, but it can’t solely be blamed for a problem that’s got years year-on-year. So, I asked the County Council Leader: “What proposals do you have to address the pothole problem beyond simply soldiering on with a policy which at the moment doesn’t seem to be working?” Now the definition of insanity, we are told is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So if Hampshire County Council keeps prioritising reactive patching over planned preventative maintenance year after year while the backlog grows and the compensation claims rise, the current approach isn’t just underfunded, it’s structurally the wrong strategy, and continuing it while expecting the roads to improve would be, as the saying goes, insanity.
Supplementary Question
You already got the response from the County Council. So, what’s the next step to go from here? We are keeping same way of our roads or are we taking extra next step for that.
Answer
Thank you, Shibaji. Obviously, the future is the future of what happens with a future council and let’s wait for that decision to arrive in the next couple of weeks. But the reality is, Hampshire are stoking this for what then comes later, and that is an issue in itself. Whatever that council is in the future will have to pick this problem up and deal with it. Alongside that, what we can do and what we do do, what many of us do, is we report potholes on a regular basis. We hotspot them because we do it and get residents to help us do it. And you look on the County Council website and you can see the sheer volume of reports that are going unrepaired. So, this is an issue. Just in our own ward actually, I mean if you drive around the corner of Darlington Road and Paul and Laura will appreciate this, there is literally about 15 potholes outside the Vyne School in a very short stretch. And they’re not just potholes, I mean they are trenches. They’re about a good half a foot deep on occasion. And there is a trench that runs down the middle of the road. We’re waiting for it to be repaired like so many other roads are across the Borough. So, it is an issue. What we can do immediately is report it and get on top of it. And I really do look forward to what the Leader of the County Council comes back with in reply to the actual letter I’ve sent him and the questions I’ve asked him.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 24 February 2026)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 24 February 2026)
Minutes
No petitions were received.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside Bodies 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
There were no appointments or resignations to committees or outside bodies.
8
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2026/27 to 2029/30
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) and recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2026.
Attachments:
- Document MTFS and Budget Update Report 2026-27 to 2029-30 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 1 - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-27 to 2029-30 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 2 - Parish Precepts 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 3 - Council Tax Resolution 2026-27v2 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 4 - Financial Policies 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 5 - Key Financial Risks 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 6 - Consultation Responses 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS Appendix 7 - Financial Regulations Updated Feb 2026 18 Feb 2026
- Document MTFS and Budget Update Report 2026-27 to 2029-30 Amendment SUP 18 Feb 2026
- Document Independent- Revenue Budget Amendment - SIDs 18 Feb 2026
- Document Conservative Group - Revenue Budget Amendment - Business rate hardship fund 18 Feb 2026
- Document Conservative Group - Revenue Budget Amendment - free short stay car parking 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
The four Group Leaders delivered their annual budget speeches which covered a wide range of issues.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property proposed the revenue budget proposals for 2026/27, seconded by the Leader of the Council. The proposals delivered a four year balanced revenue budget for 2026/27, 2027/28, 2028/29 and 2029/30.
Amendments to the proposals were moved:
Amendment 1: Speed Indicator Devices (Road Safety Smileys)
Proposer: Cllr Basham
Seconder: Cllr Hart
The proposal is that the borough allocates £40,000 per annum from its Revenue Budget to source a pool of Speed Indicator Devices (SIDs) (up to ten) that can be placed and moved around the borough – parished or not.
It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the transfer to the MTFS risk reserve in the first three years of the MTFS, and the subsequent draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2029/30. This would offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS, and this would increase the budget gap in 2029/30 by £0.16M to £1.84M.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Cost of services - Speed Indicator Devices (Road Safety Smileys)
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.16
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.04)
0.12
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
The amendment was debated. Members raised a number of different areas in their respective wards that would benefit from the presence of the devices. It was highlighted that the small adjustment would bring a great deal of benefit to residents as it was raised as a common concern. The difference between the presence of the devices in parished areas to unparished areas was discussed and it was emphasised that parishes often funded the devices themselves. It was highlighted that part of the criteria for the installation of the devices was that they move to different areas within the borough. There was wide-ranging support for the amendment.
Upon a recorded vote there were 46 votes in favour of the amendment, none votes against and no abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 2: Business Rates Hardship Fund
Proposer: Cllr Mummalaneni
Seconder: Cllr Izett
The amendment proposes that the Council:
Establish a £0.20M Discretionary Business Rates Hardship Fund for 2026/27, targeted at pubs and small businesses facing increases in rateable value following revaluation 2026 for the financial year 2026/27; and small businesses and retail premises, including those whose opening is delayed because of fit?out work, pending planning approvals, or construction delays.
Delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Finance, in consultation with the Section 151 Officer to define eligibility criteria cap awards to ensure fairness and affordability. And prioritise independent and community-serving businesses.
Provide time-limited relief, designed to smooth the impact of sharp increases; support business viability and protect local employment and high streets while businesses adapt.
This amendment will:
Protect local pubs, which are often vital community assets.
Support independent traders and encourage new businesses to open.
Reduce vacancy rates and support town and village centre vitality.
Demonstrate that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council will act where national policy leaves gaps.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Business Rate Risk Reserve
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.20)
Business Rate Income
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The amendment was debated. During the debate it was recognised that small businesses, and particularly pubs, play an important role in communities and serving as recognisable community spaces. It was highlighted that the transition to the new business rate model would play a significant role and in conjunction with sensible criteria the fund would make a positive difference. It was raised that work in the town centre and higher footfall had played a role in helping businesses to survive. There was broad support for the amendment.
Upon a recorded vote there were 44 votes in favour of the amendment, none votes against and no abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 3: Supporting local businesses through parking incentives
Proposer: Cllr Dillow
Seconder: Cllr Mummalaneni
The amendment proposes that the Council:
Reintroduce a free short-stay parking period in Top of the Town car parks, to support: quick shopping trips; food and retail collections; delivery driver collections from local businesses; and increased turnover of parking spaces to encourage higher footfall.
Request officers to bring forward options for: Restoring the free one hour parking in Albert Yard, Castons Yard and Jacobs Yard; and monitoring of usage and economic impact.
Undertake a review after 12 months to assess the impact on town centre footfall; the feedback from businesses and overall parking income versus wider economic benefit.
Funding for this proposed amendment would come from reducing the proposed budget of £0.15M for enhanced street and public street cleaning, included in the Cabinet proposals in November 2025 by £0.09M to £0.06M per year.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Service costs – free 1 hour parking
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.36
Service costs – reduction to enhanced street and public space cleaning proposal
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.36)
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The amendment was debated. It was highlighted that the amendment would encourage short visits such as delivery and collections which were becoming a more frequent occurrence in those car parks. It was suggested that the current free evening parking, to support hospitality businesses had made a significant impact to the sector and introducing on-hour free parking would reduce the amount of time people spent in the town centre. During the debate the proposer and seconder agreed that the free one-hour parking would be for one year and funded from a reduction in transfer to reserves in 2026.27 which reduced the draw in 2029/30.
Upon a recorded vote there were 23 votes in favour of the amendment, 17 votes against and 6 abstentions. The amendment was carried.
The Chief Finance Officer informed Council the approved amendments had no overall impact on the forecast budget position for the first three years of the MTFS, however the forecast deficit in 2029/30 increased by £0.25M to £1.93M as set out in the tables below.
Amendments to Reports (Tables Shaded Green)
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2026/27 to 2029/30
Table 7 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 7 – Updated MTFS 2026/27 to 2029/30 February 2026
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
November 2025 Budget Gap
0.00
0.00
0.49
3.76
Central Items
Decrease in council tax base
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.09
Extended Producers Responsibility income
(0.30)
(0.30)
(0.30)
(0.40)
Manydown/Treasury Management Income
(0.25)
(0.01)
0.07
(0.18)
Property rental income
(0.18)
(0.12)
(0.13)
(0.12)
Additional insurance costs
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Net adjustments to employee pay budgets
0.06
0.29
0.23
0.23
LGFS
Net increase in grant income
(0.38)
(0.79)
(1.32)
(1.44)
Business Rates Reset
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Additional proposals
Cost Pressures
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Savings
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.20
Council Amendments
0.33
0.04
0.04
0.04
Use of Reserves
To/(from) MTFS Risk Reserve
0.22
0.22
0.21
(0.62)
To/(from) Business Rates Risk Reserve
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
0.00
February 2026 budget gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
(Decrease)/Increase in budget gap since November 2025 MTFS Update
0.00
0.00
(0.49)
(1.83)
Table 9 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 9 – Updated Medium Term Financial Forecast
Original Budget 2025/26
£M
Forecast Budget 2026/27
£M
Forecast Budget 2027/28
£M
Forecast Budget 2028/29
£M
Forecast Budget 2029/30
£M
Service costs
46.81
49.65
49.26
49.45
50.04
Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant
(1.03)
(1.28)
(1.30)
(1.31)
(1.34)
Extended Producer Responsibility Income
(1.22)
(2.30)
(2.00)
(1.70)
(1.50)
Net Cost of Services
44.56
46.07
45.96
46.44
47.20
Investment Property Trading Accounts
(19.12)
(19.60)
(19.80)
(19.90)
(19.91)
Interest and Investment Income
(6.44)
(6.64)
(5.80)
(5.17)
(4.89)
Council Tax Income (base)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
Council Tax Growth
0.00
(0.06)
(0.21)
(0.34)
(0.50)
Council Tax £5 Increase
0.00
(0.35)
(0.71)
(1.09)
(1.47)
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit (council tax)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Legacy Grants*
(7.87)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fair Funding Allocation - Revenue Support Grant
0.00
(4.33)
(4.81)
(5.27)
(5.38)
Fair Funding Allocation - Baseline Funding Level
0.00
(4.61)
(4.71)
(4.81)
(4.90)
Additional retained business rates above baseline funding level (statutory adjustments)
(0.65)
(0.18)
(0.27)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Other Grants
(0.35)
(0.31)
(0.31)
(0.29)
(0.28)
Corporate Income
(44.73)
(46.38)
(46.92)
(47.22)
(47.68)
Use of Revenue Budget to Finance Future Capital Spend
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Net Expenditure (Surplus) / Deficit
3.83
3.69
3.04
3.22
3.52
Contribution To / (From) Reserves:
Infrastructure Reserves
(0.47)
(0.50)
(0.50)
(0.50)
(0.50)
Earmarked Revenue Reserves
(1.16)
(0.86)
(0.45)
(0.23)
(0.23)
Risk Reserves
(2.20)
(2.33)
(2.09)
(2.49)
(0.86)
Total Contribution To (From) Reserves
(3.83)
(3.69)
(3.04)
(3.22)
(1.59)
Future Savings Requirement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
Council Tax Base
70,025.3
70,432.5
70,432.5
70,432.5
70,432.5
Band D Council Tax
146.42
151.42
156.42
161.42
166.42
The budget recommendations as amended were unanimously supported with 46 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions and therefore carried.
Resolved: That Council
note:
The S151 Officer’s (Chief Finance Officer) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves detailed in section 11.
That the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) on the 5 January 2026 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 70,432.5 Band D equivalents and for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as per Appendix 2.
The county, police and fire authority precepts detailed in Appendix 3.
That as the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by any major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2026/27 is excessive and the billing authority is therefore not required to hold a referendum, in accordance with section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
The risks and sensitivities within the financial forecasts highlighted in section 9 and in Appendix 5.
determine:
That for the purposes of section 35 (2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any expenses incurred by the Borough Council in the financial year 2026/27 in performing functions in a part of the district which elsewhere in the district are performed by a Parish Council, shall not be special expenses of the Borough Council. That its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2026/27 (£151.42 at Band D) reflects a £5.00 (3.41%) increase which is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
approve:
The net Council Tax requirement of £10.66M for 2026/27, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals and contributions to and from reserves summarised in sections 6 and 7.
The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1.
The financial policies set out in Appendix 4.
The updated Financial Regulations as detailed in Appendix 7 for inclusion in the council’s constitution.
That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2026/27 be £151.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3.
The Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix 3, which brings together the Borough’s Council Tax Requirement and that of the other major preceptors (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire and Rescue and The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire) and sets the Council Tax charges for 2026/27.
That the S151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2026/27 Council Taxes in the event that any of the precepting authorities change their precept calculation from that expected and reported at the Council meeting.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property proposed the revenue budget proposals for 2026/27, seconded by the Leader of the Council. The proposals delivered a four year balanced revenue budget for 2026/27, 2027/28, 2028/29 and 2029/30.
Amendments to the proposals were moved:
Amendment 1: Speed Indicator Devices (Road Safety Smileys)
Proposer: Cllr Basham
Seconder: Cllr Hart
The proposal is that the borough allocates £40,000 per annum from its Revenue Budget to source a pool of Speed Indicator Devices (SIDs) (up to ten) that can be placed and moved around the borough – parished or not.
It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the transfer to the MTFS risk reserve in the first three years of the MTFS, and the subsequent draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2029/30. This would offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS, and this would increase the budget gap in 2029/30 by £0.16M to £1.84M.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Cost of services - Speed Indicator Devices (Road Safety Smileys)
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.16
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.04)
0.12
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
The amendment was debated. Members raised a number of different areas in their respective wards that would benefit from the presence of the devices. It was highlighted that the small adjustment would bring a great deal of benefit to residents as it was raised as a common concern. The difference between the presence of the devices in parished areas to unparished areas was discussed and it was emphasised that parishes often funded the devices themselves. It was highlighted that part of the criteria for the installation of the devices was that they move to different areas within the borough. There was wide-ranging support for the amendment.
Upon a recorded vote there were 46 votes in favour of the amendment, none votes against and no abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 2: Business Rates Hardship Fund
Proposer: Cllr Mummalaneni
Seconder: Cllr Izett
The amendment proposes that the Council:
Establish a £0.20M Discretionary Business Rates Hardship Fund for 2026/27, targeted at pubs and small businesses facing increases in rateable value following revaluation 2026 for the financial year 2026/27; and small businesses and retail premises, including those whose opening is delayed because of fit?out work, pending planning approvals, or construction delays.
Delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Finance, in consultation with the Section 151 Officer to define eligibility criteria cap awards to ensure fairness and affordability. And prioritise independent and community-serving businesses.
Provide time-limited relief, designed to smooth the impact of sharp increases; support business viability and protect local employment and high streets while businesses adapt.
This amendment will:
Protect local pubs, which are often vital community assets.
Support independent traders and encourage new businesses to open.
Reduce vacancy rates and support town and village centre vitality.
Demonstrate that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council will act where national policy leaves gaps.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Business Rate Risk Reserve
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.20)
Business Rate Income
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The amendment was debated. During the debate it was recognised that small businesses, and particularly pubs, play an important role in communities and serving as recognisable community spaces. It was highlighted that the transition to the new business rate model would play a significant role and in conjunction with sensible criteria the fund would make a positive difference. It was raised that work in the town centre and higher footfall had played a role in helping businesses to survive. There was broad support for the amendment.
Upon a recorded vote there were 44 votes in favour of the amendment, none votes against and no abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 3: Supporting local businesses through parking incentives
Proposer: Cllr Dillow
Seconder: Cllr Mummalaneni
The amendment proposes that the Council:
Reintroduce a free short-stay parking period in Top of the Town car parks, to support: quick shopping trips; food and retail collections; delivery driver collections from local businesses; and increased turnover of parking spaces to encourage higher footfall.
Request officers to bring forward options for: Restoring the free one hour parking in Albert Yard, Castons Yard and Jacobs Yard; and monitoring of usage and economic impact.
Undertake a review after 12 months to assess the impact on town centre footfall; the feedback from businesses and overall parking income versus wider economic benefit.
Funding for this proposed amendment would come from reducing the proposed budget of £0.15M for enhanced street and public street cleaning, included in the Cabinet proposals in November 2025 by £0.09M to £0.06M per year.
Budget Proposal
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
Total
£M
Service costs – free 1 hour parking
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.36
Service costs – reduction to enhanced street and public space cleaning proposal
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.36)
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The amendment was debated. It was highlighted that the amendment would encourage short visits such as delivery and collections which were becoming a more frequent occurrence in those car parks. It was suggested that the current free evening parking, to support hospitality businesses had made a significant impact to the sector and introducing on-hour free parking would reduce the amount of time people spent in the town centre. During the debate the proposer and seconder agreed that the free one-hour parking would be for one year and funded from a reduction in transfer to reserves in 2026.27 which reduced the draw in 2029/30.
Upon a recorded vote there were 23 votes in favour of the amendment, 17 votes against and 6 abstentions. The amendment was carried.
The Chief Finance Officer informed Council the approved amendments had no overall impact on the forecast budget position for the first three years of the MTFS, however the forecast deficit in 2029/30 increased by £0.25M to £1.93M as set out in the tables below.
Amendments to Reports (Tables Shaded Green)
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2026/27 to 2029/30
Table 7 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 7 – Updated MTFS 2026/27 to 2029/30 February 2026
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
2029/30
£M
November 2025 Budget Gap
0.00
0.00
0.49
3.76
Central Items
Decrease in council tax base
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.09
Extended Producers Responsibility income
(0.30)
(0.30)
(0.30)
(0.40)
Manydown/Treasury Management Income
(0.25)
(0.01)
0.07
(0.18)
Property rental income
(0.18)
(0.12)
(0.13)
(0.12)
Additional insurance costs
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Net adjustments to employee pay budgets
0.06
0.29
0.23
0.23
LGFS
Net increase in grant income
(0.38)
(0.79)
(1.32)
(1.44)
Business Rates Reset
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Additional proposals
Cost Pressures
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Savings
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.20
Council Amendments
0.33
0.04
0.04
0.04
Use of Reserves
To/(from) MTFS Risk Reserve
0.22
0.22
0.21
(0.62)
To/(from) Business Rates Risk Reserve
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
0.00
February 2026 budget gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
(Decrease)/Increase in budget gap since November 2025 MTFS Update
0.00
0.00
(0.49)
(1.83)
Table 9 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 9 – Updated Medium Term Financial Forecast
Original Budget 2025/26
£M
Forecast Budget 2026/27
£M
Forecast Budget 2027/28
£M
Forecast Budget 2028/29
£M
Forecast Budget 2029/30
£M
Service costs
46.81
49.65
49.26
49.45
50.04
Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant
(1.03)
(1.28)
(1.30)
(1.31)
(1.34)
Extended Producer Responsibility Income
(1.22)
(2.30)
(2.00)
(1.70)
(1.50)
Net Cost of Services
44.56
46.07
45.96
46.44
47.20
Investment Property Trading Accounts
(19.12)
(19.60)
(19.80)
(19.90)
(19.91)
Interest and Investment Income
(6.44)
(6.64)
(5.80)
(5.17)
(4.89)
Council Tax Income (base)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
(10.25)
Council Tax Growth
0.00
(0.06)
(0.21)
(0.34)
(0.50)
Council Tax £5 Increase
0.00
(0.35)
(0.71)
(1.09)
(1.47)
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit (council tax)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Legacy Grants*
(7.87)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fair Funding Allocation - Revenue Support Grant
0.00
(4.33)
(4.81)
(5.27)
(5.38)
Fair Funding Allocation - Baseline Funding Level
0.00
(4.61)
(4.71)
(4.81)
(4.90)
Additional retained business rates above baseline funding level (statutory adjustments)
(0.65)
(0.18)
(0.27)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Other Grants
(0.35)
(0.31)
(0.31)
(0.29)
(0.28)
Corporate Income
(44.73)
(46.38)
(46.92)
(47.22)
(47.68)
Use of Revenue Budget to Finance Future Capital Spend
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Net Expenditure (Surplus) / Deficit
3.83
3.69
3.04
3.22
3.52
Contribution To / (From) Reserves:
Infrastructure Reserves
(0.47)
(0.50)
(0.50)
(0.50)
(0.50)
Earmarked Revenue Reserves
(1.16)
(0.86)
(0.45)
(0.23)
(0.23)
Risk Reserves
(2.20)
(2.33)
(2.09)
(2.49)
(0.86)
Total Contribution To (From) Reserves
(3.83)
(3.69)
(3.04)
(3.22)
(1.59)
Future Savings Requirement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
Council Tax Base
70,025.3
70,432.5
70,432.5
70,432.5
70,432.5
Band D Council Tax
146.42
151.42
156.42
161.42
166.42
The budget recommendations as amended were unanimously supported with 46 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions and therefore carried.
Resolved: That Council
note:
The S151 Officer’s (Chief Finance Officer) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves detailed in section 11.
That the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) on the 5 January 2026 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 70,432.5 Band D equivalents and for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as per Appendix 2.
The county, police and fire authority precepts detailed in Appendix 3.
That as the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by any major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2026/27 is excessive and the billing authority is therefore not required to hold a referendum, in accordance with section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
The risks and sensitivities within the financial forecasts highlighted in section 9 and in Appendix 5.
determine:
That for the purposes of section 35 (2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any expenses incurred by the Borough Council in the financial year 2026/27 in performing functions in a part of the district which elsewhere in the district are performed by a Parish Council, shall not be special expenses of the Borough Council. That its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2026/27 (£151.42 at Band D) reflects a £5.00 (3.41%) increase which is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
approve:
The net Council Tax requirement of £10.66M for 2026/27, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals and contributions to and from reserves summarised in sections 6 and 7.
The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1.
The financial policies set out in Appendix 4.
The updated Financial Regulations as detailed in Appendix 7 for inclusion in the council’s constitution.
That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2026/27 be £151.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3.
The Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix 3, which brings together the Borough’s Council Tax Requirement and that of the other major preceptors (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire and Rescue and The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire) and sets the Council Tax charges for 2026/27.
That the S151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2026/27 Council Taxes in the event that any of the precepting authorities change their precept calculation from that expected and reported at the Council meeting.
9
Capital Programme Update and Strategy Report 2025/26 to 2029/30
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) and recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2026.
Attachments:
- Document Capital Programme Update and Strategy Report for 202526 to 202930 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report which provided an update on the capital programme and Capital Programme Strategy for 2025/26 to 2029/30 for Council approval. The report highlighted that the programme included new priority additions of £31.140M for the development of these projects. These included, the building of a new Westside Community Centre in South Ham and £2.25m for the building of a community centre at Hounsome Fields. Extension of the Old Down Community Hall was highlighted, as was the £0.5m for the play area improvement plan. The building of a new leisure centre to replace the Aquadrome was highlighted as a key priority for the programme as was investment in the Chineham Medical Centre.
During the debate, concern was raised about the assessment of risks in relation to the Aquadrome and Leisure Park projects and the risk of exposure to external factors. Comments in support of the capital programme included the investment in sport pitches at a number of different sites across the borough and the investment in the building and updating of community centres. It was emphasised that the regeneration of community centres was assessed on the needs of residents.
Resolved: That Council
1. Agrees the addition of £31.140M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme underspends of £3.025M, which gives rise to a net increase of £28.115M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 to 6 and Appendix 2.
2. Approves the revised capital programme, which totals £129.276M (as detailed in sections 2 to 9 and Appendix 1) and the associated use of resources.
3. Approves expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.
4. Approves the rephasing and scheme virements as set out in sections 7 and 8 and as detailed in Appendix 3.
5. Notes that the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2029/30 based on the latest forecast of available resources.
6. Notes the CIL Spending Report attached as Appendix 4.
7. Approves the Capital Programme Strategy shown as Appendix 5, which includes the council’s Infrastructure List shown as Annex 2.
During the debate, concern was raised about the assessment of risks in relation to the Aquadrome and Leisure Park projects and the risk of exposure to external factors. Comments in support of the capital programme included the investment in sport pitches at a number of different sites across the borough and the investment in the building and updating of community centres. It was emphasised that the regeneration of community centres was assessed on the needs of residents.
Resolved: That Council
1. Agrees the addition of £31.140M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme underspends of £3.025M, which gives rise to a net increase of £28.115M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 to 6 and Appendix 2.
2. Approves the revised capital programme, which totals £129.276M (as detailed in sections 2 to 9 and Appendix 1) and the associated use of resources.
3. Approves expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.
4. Approves the rephasing and scheme virements as set out in sections 7 and 8 and as detailed in Appendix 3.
5. Notes that the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2029/30 based on the latest forecast of available resources.
6. Notes the CIL Spending Report attached as Appendix 4.
7. Approves the Capital Programme Strategy shown as Appendix 5, which includes the council’s Infrastructure List shown as Annex 2.
10
Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) 2026/27 - 2028/29
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2026
Cabinet request Council to approve recommendations 3 to 6 as set out in the report.
Cabinet request Council to approve recommendations 3 to 6 as set out in the report.
Attachments:
- Document SAMP 2026-2029 Report 18 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 1 Property Investment Strategy 18 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 2 Operational Property Strategy 18 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 3 Annual Property Plan 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
- Document EXEMPT - APPENDIX 4 Disposals and Lease Regears Target List 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
Council considered the report of the Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property. Council was requested to approve the recommendations from Cabinet.
Resolved: That Council
1. Approve the Strategic Asset Management Plan 2026/27 to 2028/29 which incorporates the Property Investment Strategy;
2. Approve the delegation to the Director of Regeneration, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) and the relevant portfolio holder for Property and Finance, to be able to make investment decisions within the approved Property Investment Strategy parameters and in accordance with the approved Annual Property Plan;
3. Retain the delegation levels from the previous approval at a limit of 5% of the overall property portfolio valuation;
4. Approve the process set out for the disposal of any surplus Operational assets and delegate disposal and lease and investment decisions to the Director of Regeneration.
Resolved: That Council
1. Approve the Strategic Asset Management Plan 2026/27 to 2028/29 which incorporates the Property Investment Strategy;
2. Approve the delegation to the Director of Regeneration, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) and the relevant portfolio holder for Property and Finance, to be able to make investment decisions within the approved Property Investment Strategy parameters and in accordance with the approved Annual Property Plan;
3. Retain the delegation levels from the previous approval at a limit of 5% of the overall property portfolio valuation;
4. Approve the process set out for the disposal of any surplus Operational assets and delegate disposal and lease and investment decisions to the Director of Regeneration.
11
Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the Treasury Management Policy Statement and proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27 which set the framework and limits for the delivery of the council’s Treasury Management Strategy.
Resolved: To approve
1) The Treasury Management Policy Statement.
2) The Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27.
Resolved: To approve
1) The Treasury Management Policy Statement.
2) The Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27.
12
Capital Investment Strategy 2026/27
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document Capital Investment Strategy 2026-27 Covering Report 18 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - Capital Investment Strategy 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) 2026-27 18 Feb 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the Capital Investment Strategy for 2026/27 and Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2026/27.
Resolved: Council approve:
1. The Capital Investment Strategy for 2026/27 (Appendix 1) which includes:
a. the Prudential Indicators for 2026/27 to 2029/30;
b. the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2026/27
2. The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2026/27 (Appendix 2).
Resolved: Council approve:
1. The Capital Investment Strategy for 2026/27 (Appendix 1) which includes:
a. the Prudential Indicators for 2026/27 to 2029/30;
b. the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2026/27
2. The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2026/27 (Appendix 2).
13
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
According to Nick Adams-King, Leader of Hampshire County Council, Hampshire doesn't have the money to fix our roads (Gazette online, 12th February). He says it needs £600m to bring our roads up to standard.
Setting aside the massive repairs backlog this represents, setting aside also the fact that his previous government scrapped HS2 north of Birmingham and his council failed to spend the money made available to them to fix potholes as a result, this £600m represents a sizeable headache for our future unitary councils who will have to repair what Hampshire has let fall into ruin.
A new North Hampshire council would require a proportion of this £600m to fix the roads it inherits. Has the Leader of the Council raised with the MHCLG the need for this money to be set aside so that the new councils replacing Hampshire can actually fix this problem?
Answer
Thank you Andy. Let me try and put this question into a bit of context. Given that Surrey Councils are facing some 6 billion pounds of debt and the government has only put £500 million on the table as a one-off debt repayment. I think it would be surprising if the government now stumped up £600 million or even a proportion of that for our roads, but you make a very good point. The County Council have allowed the roads to deteriorate and it’s going to take years to put that negligence right. You know, it’s no good blaming the current leader because he’s just the leader in a long line at County, and those previous leaders have played politics with the council’s finances. So let’s be clear where the blame lies for this situation. The repair backlog didn’t appear overnight. It accumulated over successive Conservative administrations. The County Council consistently made choices, including one of freezing council tax. Now that’s left the roads underfunded. Like many other services we are now being cut. Roads have a life cycle. If you don’t invest in the preventative surface dressing and resurfacing at the right time, a minor deterioration like we are seeing becomes a catastrophic failure and it is far more expensive. That’s going to land at our door. The County Council’s prioritised keeping council tax low over maintaining assets properly and now the residents are paying the price, literally, through damaged vehicles and pothole compensation claims. It’s the cumulative effect of the underinvestment, the poor coordination, the yellow line debacle where you go out twice to do the same thing, and the reactive only repair strategy that is the crisis. Now while we can make the point to government, and we will, I regret that I don’t believe they’re going to ride to our rescue on this one. I think we’re going to have to roll up our sleeves, do some serious hard work to make the new council work to the benefit of all residents. Now I know me and my colleagues are ready for that challenge, as I’m sure you are, but we are painfully aware of what we’re going to inherit from the County Council as has been made abundantly clear by many speakers this evening. We are here to serve in the public interest. That means we’re going to have to find some pretty inventive and quite good solutions to what are some of the key issues that we’re going to find in the next few years.
Supplementary Question
I think he’s answered it in part. I don’t expect him to get the money. I’m just asking if he will do his level best to get as much money as we can. The councils have been in a right mess thanks to the actions of Eric Pickles. I would just like an assurance from him that he will engage in constructive dialogue with the government and not seek to point fingers and make political points. We need to change our way, our approach, and our way of thinking on this if we’re going to do the best for our residents. Thank you.
Answer
I’ll keep it really quick. Andy, I can, because I think the way that we’ve approached LGR in this council and I think the way actually we’ve approached it as the 12 of us all working together, the 13 all in, if you think of Gosport as well. The way we’ve approached this, and I want to commend the officer team for the work that they’ve done in the way the bid was put together that represents all those councils and I include the Isle of Wight which is critically part of our team and the two cities, it’s not just the districts. The quality of that attests to the exact point you’re making. A sensible adult, mature conversation with MHCLG about the future of the councils in this area to the benefit of our residents. So yeah, I can really attest to that. You’re right. You’re absolutely spot on, yes is the answer to your question. But more than that, that engagement hopefully will bear some important fruit. It will bear good news for us in our relationship with MHCLG and the North Hampshire brand new unitary authority.
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
According to Nick Adams-King, Leader of Hampshire County Council, Hampshire doesn't have the money to fix our roads (Gazette online, 12th February). He says it needs £600m to bring our roads up to standard.
Setting aside the massive repairs backlog this represents, setting aside also the fact that his previous government scrapped HS2 north of Birmingham and his council failed to spend the money made available to them to fix potholes as a result, this £600m represents a sizeable headache for our future unitary councils who will have to repair what Hampshire has let fall into ruin.
A new North Hampshire council would require a proportion of this £600m to fix the roads it inherits. Has the Leader of the Council raised with the MHCLG the need for this money to be set aside so that the new councils replacing Hampshire can actually fix this problem?
Answer
Thank you Andy. Let me try and put this question into a bit of context. Given that Surrey Councils are facing some 6 billion pounds of debt and the government has only put £500 million on the table as a one-off debt repayment. I think it would be surprising if the government now stumped up £600 million or even a proportion of that for our roads, but you make a very good point. The County Council have allowed the roads to deteriorate and it’s going to take years to put that negligence right. You know, it’s no good blaming the current leader because he’s just the leader in a long line at County, and those previous leaders have played politics with the council’s finances. So let’s be clear where the blame lies for this situation. The repair backlog didn’t appear overnight. It accumulated over successive Conservative administrations. The County Council consistently made choices, including one of freezing council tax. Now that’s left the roads underfunded. Like many other services we are now being cut. Roads have a life cycle. If you don’t invest in the preventative surface dressing and resurfacing at the right time, a minor deterioration like we are seeing becomes a catastrophic failure and it is far more expensive. That’s going to land at our door. The County Council’s prioritised keeping council tax low over maintaining assets properly and now the residents are paying the price, literally, through damaged vehicles and pothole compensation claims. It’s the cumulative effect of the underinvestment, the poor coordination, the yellow line debacle where you go out twice to do the same thing, and the reactive only repair strategy that is the crisis. Now while we can make the point to government, and we will, I regret that I don’t believe they’re going to ride to our rescue on this one. I think we’re going to have to roll up our sleeves, do some serious hard work to make the new council work to the benefit of all residents. Now I know me and my colleagues are ready for that challenge, as I’m sure you are, but we are painfully aware of what we’re going to inherit from the County Council as has been made abundantly clear by many speakers this evening. We are here to serve in the public interest. That means we’re going to have to find some pretty inventive and quite good solutions to what are some of the key issues that we’re going to find in the next few years.
Supplementary Question
I think he’s answered it in part. I don’t expect him to get the money. I’m just asking if he will do his level best to get as much money as we can. The councils have been in a right mess thanks to the actions of Eric Pickles. I would just like an assurance from him that he will engage in constructive dialogue with the government and not seek to point fingers and make political points. We need to change our way, our approach, and our way of thinking on this if we’re going to do the best for our residents. Thank you.
Answer
I’ll keep it really quick. Andy, I can, because I think the way that we’ve approached LGR in this council and I think the way actually we’ve approached it as the 12 of us all working together, the 13 all in, if you think of Gosport as well. The way we’ve approached this, and I want to commend the officer team for the work that they’ve done in the way the bid was put together that represents all those councils and I include the Isle of Wight which is critically part of our team and the two cities, it’s not just the districts. The quality of that attests to the exact point you’re making. A sensible adult, mature conversation with MHCLG about the future of the councils in this area to the benefit of our residents. So yeah, I can really attest to that. You’re right. You’re absolutely spot on, yes is the answer to your question. But more than that, that engagement hopefully will bear some important fruit. It will bear good news for us in our relationship with MHCLG and the North Hampshire brand new unitary authority.
14
Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee
To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:
Committee
Meeting Date
Cabinet
9 December 2025
Development Control
10 December 2025
Resident Services O&S
16 December 2025
Council
18 December 2025
Cabinet
6 January 2026
Development Control
7 January 2026
South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration O&S
8 January 2026
Resident Services O&S
14 January 2026
Resources O&S
20 January 2026
Audit and Accounts
26 January 2026
Licensing
2 February 2026
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 February 2026
Cabinet
10 February 2026
Committee
Meeting Date
Cabinet
9 December 2025
Development Control
10 December 2025
Resident Services O&S
16 December 2025
Council
18 December 2025
Cabinet
6 January 2026
Development Control
7 January 2026
South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration O&S
8 January 2026
Resident Services O&S
14 January 2026
Resources O&S
20 January 2026
Audit and Accounts
26 January 2026
Licensing
2 February 2026
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 February 2026
Cabinet
10 February 2026
Minutes
There were no questions.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in