Agenda and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

 

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

 

The minutes were agreed by assent.

The Lord Mayor advised that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Derek North due to ill health.

There were no announcements which the Lord Mayor wished to make.

Deputations by members of the public may be made on any item where a decision is going to be taken. The request should be made in writing to the contact officer (james.harris@portsmouthcc.gov.uk) by 12 noon of the working day before the meeting (so Monday 24 February 2025 for this meeting), and must include the purpose of the deputation (for example, for or against the recommendations). Email requests are accepted.

The Lord Mayor advised that no oral deputation requests had been received for this meeting. 

Health Overview & Scrutiny Panel - change to Portsmouth Independent Party Group appointment

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy to replace Councillor Lee Tindal as a member of the panel.

It was RESOLVED that the following appointment be AGREED:

 

Health Overview & Scrutiny Panel

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy to replace Councillor Lee Tindal as a member of the panel.

 

It was RESOLVED that the following appointments be NOTED:

 

(I)             Councillor Nicholas Dorrington as the Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education. 

 

(II)           Councillor Nicholas Dorrington, in his capacity as the lead member for Children's Services, had been appointed to the Health & Wellbeing Board.

At the request of the Lord Mayor, and with the agreement of Council, this agenda item was considered following item 9 on the agenda 'Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35'.

 

Prior to consideration of this item, The Lord Mayor adjourned the meeting for 45 minutes between 4.01pm and 4.46pm to allow councillors time to read and fully consider the item before the debate.

 

The Lord Mayor advised that under Standing Order 26, the Leader of the Council had given notice of the below item of urgent business:

 

'Leader's statement to Full Council on Local Government Reorganisation'

 

In accordance with Standing Order 26, this had been forwarded to all group leaders and had also been circulated in full at the meeting within the supplementary matters' sheets.

 

The Lord Mayor advised that as a decision was required, under Standing Order 26d the standard rules of debate applied.

 

At the invitation of the Lord Mayor the Leader of the Council spoke to the item.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Cal Corkery

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

  

To add new point 12 at the end of the statement to read:

 

'12. Full council requests a full report and submission proposal to be brought back to a full council meeting detailing any suggested LGR submission for full council's consideration prior to a subsequent decision on the matter being made by Cabinet and submitted to the government.'

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Graham Heaney

Seconded by Councillor Charlotte Gerada

  

To delete all items under 'The Leader asks council to agree', apart from item 6.

 

To then add the following new paragraph:

 

'Full council requests a full report and submission proposal to be brought back to a full council meeting, detailing any suggested LGR submission for full council's consideration prior to a subsequent decision on the matter being made by Cabinet and submitted to the government.'

 

Following debate, the Leader agreed to subsume the amendment in the name of Councillor Cal Corkery into his statement, but not the amendment in the name of Councillor Graham Heaney.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 48b, eight councillors stood to request a recorded vote.

 

Upon the amendment standing in the name of Councillor Graham Heaney being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Yinka Adeniran	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Cal Corkery	Councillor George Fielding
Councillor Charlotte Gerada Councillor Graham Heaney Councillor George Madgwick Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Emily Strudwick	Councillor Rajah Ghosh Councillor Brian Madgwick Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Mary Vallely

The following members voted against

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Dave Ashmore
Councillor Chris Attwell	Councillor Kimberly Barrett
Councillor Simon Bosher	Councillor Hannah Brent
Councillor Stuart Brown	Councillor Peter Candlish
Councillor Matthew Cordy	Councillor Raymond Dent
Councillor Chris Dike	Councillor Nicholas Dorrington
Councillor Spencer Gardner	Councillor Ian Holder
Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson	Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Lee Tindal Councillor Matthew Winnington

The following member abstained from voting

 

Councillor Jason Fazackarley

 

The amendment standing in the name of Councillor Graham Heaney was therefore declared LOST.

 

Upon the substantive item put by the Leader incorporating the subsumed amendment in the name of Councillor Cal Corkery being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Dave Ashmore
Councillor Chris Attwell	Councillor Kimberly Barrett
Councillor Simon Bosher	Councillor Hannah Brent
Councillor Stuart Brown	Councillor Peter Candlish
Councillor Tom Coles	Councillor Cal Corkery
Councillor Nicholas Dorrington	Councillor Spencer Gardner
Councillor Rajah Ghosh	Councillor Ian Holder
Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Matthew Winnington	Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

 

The following members voted against

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy	Councillor Raymond Dent
Councillor Chris Dike	Councillor Brian Madgwick
Councillor George Madgwick Councillor Emily Strudwick	Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Lee Tindal

The following members abstained from voting

Councillor Yinka Adeniran	Councillor Jason Fazackarley
Councillor George Fielding	Councillor Charlotte Gerada
Councillor Graham Heaney Councillor Judith Smyth	Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Mary Vallely

The item put by the Leader, incorporating the subsumed amendment in the name of Councillor Cal Corkery, was therefore declared CARRIED.

 

Council therefore RESOLVED:

 

'Leader's statement to Full Council on Local Government Reorganisation

 

The Leader asks council to note that the government expects all local authorities in two tier areas, including smaller (which they have been clear includes Portsmouth City Council) or failing unitaries, to prepare  an outline submission on the following :    

 

Interim plans

 

An interim plan should be provided to Government on or before 21 March 2025.

 

This should set out your progress on developing proposals in line with the criteria and guidance. The level of detail that is possible at this stage may vary from place to place but the expectation is that one interim plan is jointly submitted by all councils in the area. It may be the case that the interim plan describes more than one potential proposal for your area, if there is more than one option under consideration.

 

The interim plan should:

 

a) Identify any barriers or challenges where further clarity or support would be helpful.

 

b) identify the likely options for the size and boundaries of new councils that will offer the best structures for delivery of high-quality and sustainable public services across the area, along with indicative efficiency saving opportunities.

 

c) include indicative costs and arrangements in relation to any options including planning for future service transformation opportunities.

 

d) include early views as to the councillor numbers that will ensure both effective democratic representation for all parts of the area, and also effective governance and decision-making arrangements which will balance the unique needs of your cities, towns, rural and coastal areas, in line with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England guidance.

 

e) include early views on how new structures will support devolution ambitions.

 

f) include a summary of local engagement that has been undertaken and any views expressed, along with your further plans for wide local engagement to help shape your developing proposals.

 

g) set out indicative costs of preparing proposals and standing up an implementation team as well as any arrangements proposed to coordinate potential capacity funding across the area.

 

h) set out any voluntary arrangements that have been agreed to keep all councils involved in discussions as this work moves forward and to help balance the decisions needed now to maintain service delivery and ensure value for money for council taxpayers, with those key decisions that will affect the future success of any new councils in the area.

 

The Leader also asks council to note:

 

?       That Government has retained its view, first expressed in the 16^th December White Paper, that a population of at least 500,000 is their preferred size for new unitaries and Government Minister Baroness Sharon Taylor, has confirmed that Portsmouth is too small and must expand. This was confirmed by her fellow minister, Jim McMahon, whose guidance letter earlier in February reiterated the minimum of 500k figure.

 

?       That he has written to both Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minster, and Jim McMahon, Minster for Local Government and Devolution, asking for assurances that Hampshire County Council's ongoing structural budget deficit, currently standing at over £180m annually, will be addressed prior to any Local Government Reorganisation in Hampshire and has not received responses to those letters (as of Mon 24^th February).

 

?       That he has also sought clarification on whether existing districts and boroughs can be broken up to better reflect communities  and that in wider guidance recently issued to the councils affected by LGR, it is clear that is possible but there is a high, evidence-based, bar set by government for that to be considered.

 

The Leader asks council to agree:

 

1.           That Portsmouth's position is that it is already a viable and financially stable unitary local authority and that we are all incredibly proud of the city that we serve and therefore we do not wish to be merged with       neighbouring district and borough councils. Council believes this is the best way to deliver sustainable public services for our city.

 

2.           Council notes that no London Borough, Metropolitan Boroughs or struggling unitaries like places in Berkshire - many of which are smaller or a similar size to Portsmouth - are not being asked to reorganise as part of this government plan and the rationale for why they are not, yet Portsmouth is, has never been explained.

 

3.           That this Council regrets government ruling out Portsmouth City Council remaining as it is and stating it will force reorganisation by as yet unadopted legislation or ministerial decree, where councils do not willingly offer new proposals to expand. Nonetheless, to avoid being 'done to' and have a voice in this process, Portsmouth City Council will work with other councils on outline plans supported by the answers to questions 'a' to 'h' set out above by 21^st March, which show us as part of a larger new unitary with a target population of 500,000. In doing so, we collectively want to ensure that whatever proposals are put forward that as councillors we will never lose sight of our local connection we as councillors and the Council have with our communities. And that whilst these discussions take place over the next few months that we will continue to deliver excellent day-to-day services to our residents.

 

4.         Also therefore, in order to ensure that any new unitary council incorporating Portsmouth reflects the views of communities, reflects functioning economic areas, has a sustainable council tax and business rates base and considers how communities access key facilities, including acute hospitals, council supports the breaking up of existing districts and boroughs as an essential tool in meeting these requirements and that much more work will be required  to get to fully correct boundaries for any new unitary incorporating Portsmouth than is possible by 21^st March. The ability to properly consult is paramount.

 

5.           In light of the above, this council believes that the amount of evidence required by government in such a short period of time is unreasonable and unrealistic and unlikely to properly evidence the validity and viability of that future council. Council notes that final proposals have to be submitted by 26^th September but feels that this too is an unrealistic deadline given the amount of work, evidence gathering and consultation required.

 

6.           The question of Hampshire County Council's ongoing structural deficit in its revenue budget of upwards of £180m per annum must be addressed by government before this council will consider endorsing any final proposals for its reorganisation. Portsmouth residents cannot and will not be lumbered with inheriting the debts and deficits of others that has built up over many years. Our residents should not pay the price of other poorly managed organisations, and also should not end up paying more council tax in the future as we are forced to merge with others, and possibly get less services.

 

7.             Council recognises that, for the reasons stated, it may well not be possible for all 15 local authorities to agree a single proposal for new boundaries by 21^st March and that it must be made clear to government that Portsmouth City Council believes that the changes being forced upon us, are likely to be a once in 50 year event and given the complexity and size of Hampshire, plus Hampshire County Council's financial position, the current timetable of shadow elections in 2027 with a new unitary in place by May 2028, is not realistic and more time should be allowed to do this well if government remains determined to force these changes through.

 

8.           Council understands that Local Government Reorganisation is being driven by the Treasury and  a report compiled by Price Waterhouse Cooper's, which was commissioned by the County Council Network and urges ministers to instead conduct their own review, with the full involvement of all councils, to understand the real issues facing the sector, which may provide different outcomes and trigger a rethink of this current process and a government commission to fully investigate what are currently largely assertions and points of view.

 

9.           Council believes, based on the experiences of those authorities that have already merged, including Somerset, that reorganisation alone will not fix the £8 billion funding gap that the LGA say is currently facing local government by 2028-29.

 

10.        Council reserves its right to consider triggering a judicial review if forced into a new unitary arrangement that it does not support.

 

11.        Council concludes that the conflation of Local Government Reorganisation with Devolution has caused unnecessary confusion, was brought forward despite no mention of it in the government's manifesto last summer, is rushed and without a proper evidence base, particularly for the need for successful smaller unitaries like Portsmouth to be forced into a larger structure and calls upon our MPs to support our position as laid out in this statement.

 

12.        Full council requests a full report and submission proposal to be brought back to a full council meeting detailing any suggested LGR submission for full council's consideration prior to a subsequent decision on the matter being made by Cabinet and submitted to the government.

To receive and consider the attached report and noting recommendation from Cabinet held on 11 February 2025. The report has also been considered by the Governance & Audit and Standards Committee.

Council Agenda item 8 (Cabinet Minute 10)

 

Treasury Management Mid-Year Review 2024/25

 

The recommendations contained in minute 10 of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2025 were approved unopposed.

 

RESOLVED that Council NOTED:                                        

 

(i)             That the Council's Treasury Management activities have remained within the Treasury Management Policy 2024/25 in the period up to 30 September 2024; and

 

(ii)           The actual Treasury Management indicators at 30 September 2024 set out in Appendix A.

To receive and consider the enclosed recommendations of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2025, the report for which is contained within the separate agenda supplement.

The Lord Mayor advised that the recommendations from the Cabinet meeting had previously been circulated and reminded councillors that the speaking time limit did not apply to group leaders on budget items.

 

The Lord Mayor then called Cabinet Minute 11, Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35.

 

This minute was opposed by Councillor George Madgwick.

 

It was therefore

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor Darren Sanders

 

That the recommendations contained Cabinet Minute 11, Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35 be approved.

 

The Lord Mayor invited the Leader of the Council, Councillor Steve Pitt, to speak to the Cabinet budget recommendations.

 

The Leader highlighted a typographical error within the report at recommendation 3.1, 9) which stated that a minimum savings requirement of £3m was required for 2025/26.  This was incorrect and the recommendation should have stated a £3m minimum savings requirement for 2026/27.

 

The Leader then spoke to the administration's budget proposals and commended them to council. He detailed the key budget pressures for the coming year and the circumstances behind them, the uncertainty around local government reorganisation, and detailed the priorities that the budget would support during 2025/26.

 

Councillor George Madgwick (Leader of the opposition) spoke in reply.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor George Madgwick

Seconded by Councillor Russell Simpson

 

That the recommendations set out in Appendix 2 attached to these minutes (Portsmouth Independent Party Group budget amendment) be adopted.

 

Councillor Madgwick spoke to his group's proposed budget amendment and commended the amendment to Council.

 

Councillor Charlotte Gerada (Labour Group Leader) then spoke in reply.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Charlotte Gerada

Seconded by Councillor Graham Heaney

 

That the recommendations set out in Appendix 3 attached to these minutes (Labour Group budget amendment) be adopted.

 

Councillor Gerada spoke to her group's proposed budget amendment and commended the amendment to Council.

 

Councillor Simon Bosher (Conservative Group Leader) then spoke in reply.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Simon Bosher

Seconded by Councillor Benedict Swann

 

That the recommendations set out in Appendix 4 attached to these minutes (Conservative Group budget amendment) be adopted.

 

Councillor Bosher spoke to his group's proposed budget amendment and commended the amendment to Council.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Lee Tindal

Seconded by Councillor Brian Madgwick

 

That the recommendations set out in Appendix 5 attached to these minutes be adopted.

 

Councillor Tindal then spoke to his proposed budget amendment and commended the amendment to Council. 

 

Following debate, the Lord Mayor called upon the Leader of the Council to sum up. 

 

In summing up, the Leader of the Council confirmed that he was happy to subsume the Conservative Group amendment in the name of Councillor Simon Bosher, but not the amendment in the name of Councillor Lee Tindal.

 

He confirmed that he was happy to subsume the following elements of the Labour Group amendment in the name of Councillor Charlotte Gerada:

 

Transport Portfolio (Additions to revenue Limits)	£
Feasibility Study - Raised Zebra Crossing on Lawrence Road in preparation for funding consideration in 2026/27 (continuation of Active Pompey Neighbourhood)	3,000

 

 

Scheme Additions / Increases (Additions to Capital Programme)	£
Transport Portfolio
Additional Lighting - Cornwallis Crescent	10,000
Safety Bollards - Outside Lawrence Arms and the Nell Gwynne Public House	5,000
Community Safety, Leisure & Sport Portfolio
Play Equipment Replacement for pre-school age children at Canoe Lake Splash Park	20,000

 

He also confirmed that he was happy to subsume the following element of the Portsmouth Independent Party Group amendment, albeit at £7,500 rather than £14,000.

 

Additions to Revenue Estimates

 

Increases to Portfolio Cash Limits
	£
Provision of funding for Paulsgrove Boxing Gym, to assist with replacement of support frames and gym equipment.	7,500

 

In respect of the refurbishment of the Gatscombe Park Play area, he confirmed that there would be an additional £15,000 added to the Capital programme, making a total of £30,000, to complete this existing capital scheme project under the Community Safety, Leisure & Sport Portfolio.

 

The Lord Mayor reminded councillors that all votes on the budget would be by recorded to comply the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

 

Council voted in turn on the Portsmouth Independent Party Group amendment, the Labour Group amendment and the amendment in the name of Councillor Lee Tindal.

 

Upon the Portsmouth Independent Party Group amendment standing in the name of Councillor George Madgwick in respect of the Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35 being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy	Councillor Raymond Dent
Councillor Chris Dike	Councillor Brian Madgwick
Councillor George Madgwick Councillor Emily Strudwick	Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Lee Tindal

 The following members voted against

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Yinka Adeniran
Councillor Dave Ashmore	Councillor Chris Attwell
Councillor Kimberly Barrett	Councillor Stuart Brown
Councillor Peter Candlish	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Nicholas Dorrington	Councillor George Fielding
Councillor Charlotte Gerada	Councillor Rajah Ghosh
Councillor Graham Heaney	Councillor Ian Holder
Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Mary Vallely Councillor Matthew Winnington	Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

 

The following members abstained from voting

 

Councillor Hannah Brent	Councillor Simon Bosher
Councillor Cal Corkery Councillor Spencer Gardner	Councillor Jason Fazackarley Councillor Benedict Swann

 

The Portsmouth Independent Party Group amendment was therefore declared LOST. 

 

Upon the Labour Group amendment standing in the name of Councillor Charlotte Gerada in respect of the Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35 being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Yinka Adeniran	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Raymond Dent	Councillor Chris Dike
Councillor George Fielding Councillor Rajah Ghosh Councillor Brian Madgwick Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Lee Tindal	Councillor Charlotte Gerada Councillor Graham Heaney Councillor George Madgwick Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Emily Strudwick Councillor Mary Vallely

The following members voted against

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Dave Ashmore
Councillor Chris Attwell	Councillor Kimberly Barrett
Councillor Simon Bosher	Councillor Hannah Brent
Councillor Stuart Brown	Councillor Peter Candlish
Councillor Matthew Cordy	Councillor Nicholas Dorrington
Councillor Spencer Gardner	Councillor Ian Holder
Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Matthew Winnington	Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

The following members abstained from voting

 

Councillor Cal Corkery

Councillor Jason Fazackarley

The Labour Group amendment was therefore declared LOST. 

 

Upon the amendment standing in the name of Councillor Lee Tindal in respect of the Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35 being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy	Councillor Raymond Dent
Councillor Chris Dike	Councillor Brian Madgwick
Councillor George Madgwick Councillor Emily Strudwick	Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Lee Tindal

The following members voted against

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Yinka Adeniran
Councillor Dave Ashmore	Councillor Chris Attwell
Councillor Kimberly Barrett	Councillor Simon Bosher
Councillor Hannah Brent	Councillor Stuart Brown
Councillor Peter Candlish	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Nicholas Dorrington	Councillor George Fielding
Councillor Spencer Gardner Councillor Rajah Ghosh Councillor Ian Holder Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Mary Vallely Councillor Matthew Winnington	Councillor Charlotte Gerada Councillor Graham Heaney Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

The following members abstained from voting

 

Councillor Cal Corkery

Councillor Jason Fazackarley

The amendment on the name of Councillor Lee Tindal was therefore declared LOST. 

 

Upon the original recommendations in Cabinet minute 11 Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35, incorporating the subsumed Conservative Group amendment and the elements of the Portsmouth Independent Party Group and Labour Group amendments subsumed by the Leader as previously detailed, along with an additional £15,000 of capital funding to complete the Gatscombe Park Play Area being put to the vote:

 

The following members voted in favour

 

Councillor Richard Adair Councillor Dave Ashmore	Councillor Yinka Adeniran Councillor Chris Attwell
Councillor Kimberly Barrett Councillor Hannah Brent	Councillor Simon Bosher Councillor Stuart Brown
Councillor Peter Candlish	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Cal Corkery	Councillor Raymond Dent
Councillor Chis Dike	Councillor Nicholas Dorrington
Councillor George Fielding	Councillor Spencer Gardner
Councillor Charlotte Gerada	Councillor Rajah Ghosh
Councillor Graham Heaney	Councillor Ian Holder
Councillor Suzy Horton Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Brian Madgwick Councillor Leonie Oliver Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Russell Simpson Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Mary Valley Councillor Matthew Winnington   No members voted against	Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Hugh Mason Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Lee Tindal Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

The following members abstained from voting

 

Councillor Matthew Cordy Councillor George Madgwick		Councillor Jason Fazackarley Councillor Emily Strudwick

The Cabinet recommendations in Cabinet minute 11 Portsmouth City Council - Budget & Council Tax 2025/26, Medium-Term Budget Forecast 2026/27 to 2028/29 & Capital Strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35, incorporating the subsumed Conservative Group amendment and the elements of the Portsmouth Independent Party Group and Labour Group amendments subsumed by the Leader previously detailed, along with an additional £15,000 capital funding to complete the Gatscombe Park Play Area were therefore APPROVED and declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED:

 

1 

2 

3 

3.1    That the following be approved in respect of the Council's Budget:

 

1)      The revised Revenue Estimates for the financial year 2024/25 and the Revenue Estimates for the financial year 2025/26 as set out in the General Fund Summary (Appendix A Amended, appended to these minutes as Appendix 1) including the changes described below but noting that:

The responsibility of the City Council is to approve the overall Budget and the associated cash limits of its Portfolios and Committees; it is not the responsibility of the City Council to approve any individual savings or additions within those Portfolios/Committees, that responsibility is reserved for Cabinet Members. The budget savings and additions in the tables below are therefore indicative only.

 

i)               Reductions to Revenue Estimates

 

Indicative Portfolio Savings Proposal	Impact on Level of Service & Service Outcomes	2025/26	2026/27 & Future Years
		£	£
Other Expenditure
Reduction in Transfer (to)/from reserves	Reduction in Transfer (to)/from reserves	(10,500)
Total		(10,500)

 

ii)             Additions to Revenue Estimates

 

	Increases to Portfolio Cash Limits	2025/26	2026/27 Future Years
		£	£
Community Safety, Leisure & Sport Portfolio
New	Contribution to Paulsgrove Boxing Gym, to assist with replacement of support frames and gym equipment.	7,500
Transport Portfolio
New	Feasibility Study - Raised Zebra Crossing on Lawrence Road in preparation for funding consideration in 2026/27 (continuation of Active Pompey Neighbourhood)	3,000
Total		10,500	0

 

2)      The Portfolio Cash Limits for the Revised Budget for 2024/25 and the Budget 2025/26 incorporating the savings amounts for each Portfolio and amounting to £2.0m as set out in Sections 7 and 11, respectively as amended by the following:

Portfolio / Committee	2025/26 £	Future Years £
Central Services Portfolio
Children, Families & Education Portfolio
Climate Change and Greening the City Portfolio
Community Safety, Leisure & Sport Portfolio	7,500
Community Wellbeing, Health & Care Portfolio
Culture, Regeneration & Economic Development Portfolio Environmental Services Portfolio
Housing & Tackling Homelessness Portfolio
Planning Policy & City Development Portfolio
Transport Portfolio	3,000
Other Expenditure	(10,500)
Total	0	0

 

3)      To maintain the overall financial resilience of the Council, any underspends arising at the year-end (outside of those made by Portfolios) be transferred either to Capital Resources to fund future Capital Programmes, the MTRS Reserve or General Reserves with the level of each transfer to be determined by the S.151 Officer.

4)         Any variation to the Council's funding arising from the final Local Government Finance Settlement be accommodated by a transfer to or from General Reserves.

5)         The S.151 Officer be given delegated authority to make any necessary adjustments to Cash Limits within the overall approved Budget and Budget Forecasts.

6)         That the level of Council Tax be increased by 2.99% for general purposes in accordance with the referendum threshold[1] for 2025/26 announced by Government (as calculated in recommendation 3.4 (d)).

7)         That the level of Council Tax be increased by a further 2.0% beyond the referendum threshold (as calculated in recommendation 3.4 (d)) to take advantage of the flexibility offered by Government to implement a "Social Care Precept", and that in accordance with the conditions of that flexibility, the full amount of the associated sum generated of £2,054,500 is passported direct to Adult Social Care.

8)         Managers be authorised to incur routine expenditure against the Cash Limits for 2025/26 as set out in Section 11.

9)         That a minimum savings requirement of £3m for 2026/27 be set at this stage but that this is kept under review, pending any significant impact on the Council's future Forecast that may arise during 2025/26.

10)      That the S.151 Officer be given delegated authority to make transfers to and from reserves to ensure that they are maintained as necessary and in particular, adjusted when reserves are no longer required or need to be replenished.

11)      The minimum level of General Reserves as at 31 March 2026 be maintained at £10.0m to reflect the known and expected budget and financial risks to the Council.

12)      The Revised Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2029/30 attached at Appendix E which includes all additions, deletions and amendments for slippage and re-phasing be amended by tables iii) and iv) below and approved.

 

iii)     Reductions to the Capital Programme (Appendices D & E)

 

Scheme Deletions / Reductions		£
Leader Portfolio
Reduce	Civic Futures (Formerly known as Civic Offices Relocation Scheme)	212,000
Total		212,000

 

iv)     Additions to Capital Programme (Appendices D & E)

 

 

Scheme Additions / Increases		£
Transport Portfolio
Add	Resurfacing of Kenyon Road (Copnor)	50,000
Add	Traffic Calming Measures for Sywell Crescent (Copnor)	112,000
Add	Additional Lighting - Cornwallis Crescent	10,000
Add	Safety Bollards - Outside Lawrence Arms and the Nell Gwynne Public House	5,000
Community Safety, Leisure & Sport Portfolio
Add	Gatcombe Park Play Area - completion of existing capital scheme	15,000
Add	Play Equipment Replacement for pre-school age children at Canoe Lake Splash Park	20,000
Total		212,000

 

13)      The S.151 Officer be given delegated authority to determine how each source of finance is used to fund the overall Capital Programme and to alter the overall mix of financing, as necessary, to maximise the flexibility of capital resources used and minimise the ongoing costs of borrowing to the Council.

14)      That the S.151 Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council be given delegated authority to release capital resources held back for any contingent items that might arise, and for any match funding requirements that may be required of the City Council in order to secure additional external capital funding (e.g. bids for funding from Government or any other external source).

15)      Subject to a satisfactory financial appraisal approved by the Director of Finance and S.151 Officer, the schemes described in Appendix D (as amended by tables iii) and iv) above be reflected within the recommended Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2029/30.

16)      Subject to a satisfactory financial appraisal approved by the S.151 Officer, that delegated authority to borrow up to £15m per year be granted in order that the Council can enter into transactions in an efficient and timely fashion and avoid the risk of lost opportunities which may be of a time critical nature .

17)      That the S.151 Officer be given delegated authority to amend the Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix F to accommodate any changes arising from this amendment.

18)      Part 1 of the Capital Strategy (Capital Expenditure and Aspirations) set out in Appendix G be approved.

19)      Part 2 of the Capital Strategy (Borrowing and Investing) set out in Appendix G be approved.

20)      Members have had regard for the Statement of the S.151 Officer in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 as set out in Section 16.

21)      Should any of the additional budget provisions set out in this amendment (Revenue or Capital) not be required for their intended purpose, that those sums be returned to replenish the Capital Scheme entitled " Civic Futures (Formerly known as Civic Offices Relocation Scheme).

3.2          That the following be noted in respect of the Council's Revenue Budget and Capital Programme: 

 

1)             The Budget Consultation 2024 at Appendix H

2)             The Revenue Estimates 2025/26 as set out in Appendix A have been prepared on the basis of a 2.0% tax increase for the "Social Care Precept" (amounting to £2,054,500) and that this is passported to Adult Social Care in order to provide for otherwise unfunded budget pressures

3)             The decision on the amount at which to set the Adult Social Care precept will be critical for the Social Care and wider health system in the City; in the event that the additional flexibility of the "Social Care Precept" and associated 2.0% tax increase is not taken, then equivalent savings will need to be made in Adult Social Care in 2025/26

4)             In general, any reduction to the proposed increase in the level of Council Tax for 2025/26 will require equivalent offsetting savings to be made for the Budget 2025/26 to be approved.  Each 1% reduction requires additional savings of £1,027,300 to be made

5)             The indicative savings proposals set out in Appendix C which are provided for the purpose of demonstrating to the Council that the Portfolio savings as recommended in paragraph 3.1 2) above, are robust and deliverable

6)             The likely impact of savings as set out in Appendix C

7)             That the responsibility of the Council is to approve the overall Budget and the associated cash limits of its Portfolios and Committees; it is not the responsibility of the Council to approve any individual savings within those Portfolios / Committees

8)             That it is the responsibility of the individual Portfolio Holders (not Full Council) to approve the individual savings proposals and the Portfolio Holder can therefore, in response to any consultation, alter, amend or substitute any of the indicative savings proposal(s) set out in Appendix C with alternative proposal(s) amounting to the same value within their Portfolio

9)             Managers will commence the implementation of the approved savings required and any necessary consultation process or notice process

10)          The Revenue Forecast for 2026/27 to 2028/29 as set out in Section 12 and Appendix B

11)          That, at this stage, the Council's Future Forecast for the 3 Year Period 2026/27 to 2028/29 is estimated to be a £9m Deficit; this is the Council's "central base case scenario" but due to the uncertainty associated with inflation, unavoidable cost pressures that may arise (particularly in Care Services), business rate appeals and the forthcoming overhaul of Local Government Funding, this could vary by +/- £6m

12)          The MTRS Reserve held to fund the upfront costs associated with Spend to Save Schemes, Invest to Save Schemes and redundancies will hold an uncommitted balance of £4.8m and will only be replenished in future from an approval to the transfer of any underspends, contributions from the Revenue Budget or transfers from other reserves which may no longer be required

13)          The Council's share of the Council Tax element of the Collection Fund surplus for 2024/25 is estimated to be £2,432,432

14)          The Council's share of the Business Rate element of the Collection Fund surplus for 2024/25 is estimated to be £1,246,432 

15)          The Retained Business Rate income[2] for 2025/26 is based on the estimated Business Rate element of the Collection Fund surplus as at March 2025, the Non Domestic Rates poundage for 2025/26 and estimated rateable values for 2025/26 and has been determined at £68,794,505

16)         That Cabinet Members, in consultation with the S.151 Officer, have authority to vary Capital Schemes and their associated funding within or across Portfolios to manage any potential overspending or funding shortfall or to respond to emerging priorities

17)         That Cabinet Members, in consultation with the S.151 Officer, have authority to vire funding between Portfolios (both Revenue and Capital Budgets) to manage any potential overspending or funding shortfall or to respond to emerging priorities

18)         The City Council note that Prudential Borrowing can only be used as a source of capital finance for Invest to Save Schemes.

 

3.3          That the S.151 Officer has determined that the Council Tax base for the financial year 2025/26 will be 59,340.0 [item T in the formula in Section 31 B(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)].

 

3.4          That the following amounts below be now calculated by the Council for the financial year 2025/26 in accordance with Section 31 and Sections 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

(a)	£616,413,305	Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act.
(b)	£508,555,734	Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.
(c)	£107,857,571	Being the amount by which the aggregate at 3.4 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3.4 (b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B(1) of the Act.
(d)	£1,817.62	Being the amount at 3.4(c) above (Item R), all divided by Item 3.3 above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.

 

         

(e) Valuation Bands (Portsmouth City Council)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,211.75	1,413.70	1,615.66	1,817.62	2,221.54	2,625.45	3,029.37	3,635.24

 

Being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 3.4(d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5 (1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in Valuation Band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings in different valuation bands.

 

3.5          That it be noted that for the financial year 2025/26, the Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner is consulting upon the following amounts for the precept to be issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

 

          Valuation Bands (Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner)

         

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
183.64	214.25	244.85	275.46	336.67	397.89	459.10	550.92

 

3.6          That it be noted that for the financial year 2025/26, for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority will be recommended to consider that the following amounts for the precept issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

 

 

Valuation Bands (Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
58.56	68.32	78.08	87.84	107.36	126.88	146.40	175.68

 

3.7          That having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 3.4(e), 3.5 and3.6 above, the Council, in accordance with Sections 31A, 31B and 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the financial year 2025/26 for each of the categories of dwellings shown on the next page:

 

Valuation Bands (Total Council Tax)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,453.95	1,696.27	1,938.59	2,180.92	2,665.57	3,150.22	3,634.87	4,361.84

 

3.8          The Council determines in accordance with Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26, which represents a 4.99% increase, is not excessive in accordance with the principles approved by the Secretary of State under Section 52ZC of the Act; and it be noted that:

 

i)        The 4.99% increase includes a 2.0% increase to support the delivery of Adult Social Care

ii)      As the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by a major precepting authority (the Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner or the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority) that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 is excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

3.9          The S.151 Officer be given delegated authority to implement any variation to the overall level of Council Tax arising from the final notification of the Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority precepts.

Two questions from members had been received under Standing Order No 17.

 

The first question was from Councillor Asghar Shah to the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Leisure & Sport, Councillor Lee Hunt.

 

'Can the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Leisure & Sport undertake to provide signage in all the parks, especially in Cosham, that can be understood by those with learning needs so that they can benefit from the city's green spaces?'

 

In reply, Councillor Hunt explained that the signage displayed in the city's parks and green spaces had accumulated over time and covered a range of purposes.  Signage commonly included:

 

·        legislative or government guidance, such as dog control measures and precautions over bird flu;

·        information, directional or site facility and contact details; and

·        interpretative panels and illustrative artwork that highlight particular areas or points of interest or promote green initiatives.

 

The majority of signage had involved engagement with the council's corporate communications team and be designed to the best practice guidelines in place at the time.  This included legislative and safety signage that was not otherwise available from suppliers to signage standards.

 

Some sites also displayed signage that was provided by third parties, such as that at King George V playing field provided to meet Football Foundation guidelines as part of the grant funded improvements.

 

As signs required replacement, or new signage requirements were identified, there was opportunity to review the current messaging, its design and display.

 

An example of responding to a specific need was the introduction of communication boards in play areas to support children with autism.  Following the initial installation, the demand had proven popular and had led to similar boards being installed to additional sites across the city, including at Cosham Park.

 

The Parks Team welcomed any suggestions of where signage could be improved, whether that be for general benefit or to meet an identified need and sought to respond where possible.

 

The second question was from Councillor Asghar Shah to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Steve Pitt.

 

'Can the cabinet member ensure that cultural opportunities are equally accessible to residents in both the north and south of the city and confirm that some sessions in the next programme of Portsmouth Bookfest and Over 60s events will be trialled at venues on the mainland?'

 

In reply, the Leader confirmed that BookFest was committed to making events available and accessible to residents throughout Portsmouth.

 

This year, during the half term, the programme featured several children's events based on the classic picture book, The Tiger Who Came To Tea, taking place at North End, Cosham and Paulsgrove Libraries.  Cosham Library was also the venue for a creative writing activity for children aged 7-11 and a writing workshop for adults.  Tigerboat Theatre were running special story sessions at Carnegie Library in Fratton and North End Library.  In previous years, BookFest had also presented events such as a Supernatural Writing workshop for adults at Wymering Manor.  When presenting events featuring more well-known or celebrity authors, the Library Service was required to offer venues with 200+ capacity and that necessitated theatre or University venues, rather than libraries.

 

The 60+ Festival sought to offer and encourage social interaction through a variety of events, sessions, talks and activities. The Events Team reached out to a variety of community groups and organisations across the city to compile the programme each year. In 2024 many events based in the north of the city were offered at Buckland, North End, Stamshaw, Hilsea and Cosham. We include within the existing distribution list community centres and libraries.

 

Sessions on digital library services had been offered as part of the 60+ Festival last year at North End Library and sessions took place in different venues each year. The council would continue to ensure the programme featured different library venues this year and would work with the Pompey Pensioners to identify available activities in the north of the city, as well as actively source additional activities on the mainland.

 

In response to supplementary questions the Leader of the Council confirmed:

 

·       Whilst event spaces in the north of the city were offered, event organisers often preferred Southsea Common, as this was particularly suited to large scale events.  The council was looking to alternate the venue for the annual fireworks display, and he confirmed that there was no north/south bias when selecting venues.

 

·       That he believed that events and the wider cultural offering in the city may be put under threat should a larger council area be formed as part of local government reorganisation. He highlighted that the council had prioritised the cultural offering in the city over many years, when others had not, and such non statutory services might therefore be put under risk should a larger council be formed.