
Hart Borough Council
Councillors:
32
Wards:
11
Committees:
14
Meetings (2025):
65
Meetings (2024):
60
Meeting
Cabinet - Hart
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 16th September 2025
7:00 PM
Tuesday, 16th September 2025
7:00 PM
End:
Tuesday, 16th September 2025
11:00 PM
Tuesday, 16th September 2025
11:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
16 Sep 2025
16 Sep 2025
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Digital and Communications

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Community Safety and Regulatory Services

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Development Management

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Climate Change and Corporate Services

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Housing and Community Services
Officer
Chief Executive
Daryl Phillips
In attendance
Officer
Executive Director, Corporate Services & S151 Officer
Graeme Clark
In attendance

Deputy Leader
Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder - Finance

Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Planning Policy
Officer
Planning Policy and Economic Development Manager
Daniel Hawes
In attendance
Officer
Digital, Customer & Change Manager
Steven Bennett
In attendance
Officer
Committee and Members Services Officer
Emma Evans1
In attendance
Agenda
1
Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2025 are attached for confirmation and signature as a correct record.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of Previous Meeting 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
The minutes of 7 August 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
2
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence from Members*.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee services before the meeting as soon as they know they will be absent.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee services before the meeting as soon as they know they will be absent.
Minutes
Apologies had been received from Cllrs Clarke, Collins and Oliver
3
Declarations of Interest
To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other interests*.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services before the meeting as soon as they know they may have an interest to declare.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services before the meeting as soon as they know they may have an interest to declare.
Minutes
No declarations made.
4
Chair's Announcements
Minutes
The Chairman explained that the date of the meeting had moved due to the timetable for Local Government Reorganisation.
5
Public Participation (Items on to the Agenda)
Anyone wishing to make a statement to the Committee should contact Committee Services at least two clear working days before the meeting. Further information can be found
online.
online.
Minutes
There were none.
6
Designating Eversley Parish as a Neighbourhood Area
To agree the designation of the parish of Eversley as a 'neighbourhood area' prior to the Parish Council preparing a neighbourhood plan.
Recommendation
Cabinet is requested to approve the designation of the parish of Eversley as a neighbourhood area as proposed by the Parish Council in its application
Recommendation
Cabinet is requested to approve the designation of the parish of Eversley as a neighbourhood area as proposed by the Parish Council in its application
Attachments:
- Document Designating Eversley Parish as a Neighbourhood Area 08 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Application to designate Eversley Parish as a neighbourhood area 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
To agree the designation of the parish of Eversley as a 'neighbourhood area' prior to the Parish Council preparing a neighbourhood plan.
The Portfolio holder for Planning Policy introduced the proposal to designate Eversley Parish as a neighbourhood plan area, noting it as one of the few remaining parishes in the district without such a plan. The entire parish is proposed as the neighbourhood area, aligning with regulations.
Proposed by; Cllr Cockarill; Seconded by Cllr Wildsmith
Members questioned alternative boundary definitions, especially considering a proposed housing development adjacent to Yateley.
Members heard that the parish could define its neighbourhood plan area differently from its boundaries, any changes must be agreed upon and cannot arbitrarily alter parish boundaries.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet approved the designation of the parish of Eversley as a neighbourhood area as proposed by the Parish Council in its application.
The Portfolio holder for Planning Policy introduced the proposal to designate Eversley Parish as a neighbourhood plan area, noting it as one of the few remaining parishes in the district without such a plan. The entire parish is proposed as the neighbourhood area, aligning with regulations.
Proposed by; Cllr Cockarill; Seconded by Cllr Wildsmith
Members questioned alternative boundary definitions, especially considering a proposed housing development adjacent to Yateley.
Members heard that the parish could define its neighbourhood plan area differently from its boundaries, any changes must be agreed upon and cannot arbitrarily alter parish boundaries.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet approved the designation of the parish of Eversley as a neighbourhood area as proposed by the Parish Council in its application.
7
Draft Local Plan Programme
Cabinet to consider the draft local plan programme, the resource implications, estimated costs and risks.
Recommendations
Cabinet is asked to consider the following recommendations:
i. That work on a new local plan should proceed in line with the
Project Initiation Document (PID).
ii. That a budget of £2,421,000 is agreed for expenditure on the local plan to the end of March 2028 with an additional £1.421m being allocated from the general fund working balance.
iii. To agree that the updated Local Development Scheme (timetable) at Appendix 2 is published and takes effect immediately.
iv. That if required under the forthcoming local plan-making regulations, the Portfolio Holder is given authority to issue a notice to commence plan-making, and to publish a ‘Local Plan Timetable’ and any subsequent updates.
Recommendations
Cabinet is asked to consider the following recommendations:
i. That work on a new local plan should proceed in line with the
Project Initiation Document (PID).
ii. That a budget of £2,421,000 is agreed for expenditure on the local plan to the end of March 2028 with an additional £1.421m being allocated from the general fund working balance.
iii. To agree that the updated Local Development Scheme (timetable) at Appendix 2 is published and takes effect immediately.
iv. That if required under the forthcoming local plan-making regulations, the Portfolio Holder is given authority to issue a notice to commence plan-making, and to publish a ‘Local Plan Timetable’ and any subsequent updates.
Attachments:
- Document Draft Local Plan Programme 08 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Project Initiation Document: Executive Summary 08 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Draft Local Development Scheme 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Portfolio holder for Planning Policy introduced the draft local plan programme, highlighted the need for a new local plan due to changes in national planning legislation and housing numbers, which have affected the district's ability to demonstrate a land supply to planning inspectors. The plan aims for adoption by October 2028, coinciding with the anticipated local government reorganisation (LGR).
Proposed by; Cllr Cockarill; Seconded by Cllr Quarterman
Members questioned:
· The challenging timeframe
· the future of the local plan post-reorganisation
· the feasibility of a joint local plan among merging authorities was discussed,
· Members emphasized the importance of progressing the plan swiftly to protect residents from speculative development.
Members heard:
· that the plan should be advanced enough for the new authority to adopt it, potentially alongside plans from neighbouring districts
· that differing stages and objectives among councils, made immediate joint planning challenging. Sharing evidence bases, particularly with Rushmoor, was seen as a practical approach.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet agreed the following recommendations:
i. That work on a new local plan should proceed in line with the Project Initiation Document (PID).
ii. That a budget of £2,421,000 is agreed for expenditure on the local plan to the end of March 2028 with an additional £1.421m being allocated from the general fund working balance.
iii.That the updated Local Development Scheme (timetable) at Appendix 2 is published and takes effect immediately.
iv.That if required under the forthcoming local plan-making regulations, the Portfolio Holder is given authority to issue a notice to commence plan-making, and to publish a ‘Local Plan Timetable’ and any subsequent updates.
Proposed by; Cllr Cockarill; Seconded by Cllr Quarterman
Members questioned:
· The challenging timeframe
· the future of the local plan post-reorganisation
· the feasibility of a joint local plan among merging authorities was discussed,
· Members emphasized the importance of progressing the plan swiftly to protect residents from speculative development.
Members heard:
· that the plan should be advanced enough for the new authority to adopt it, potentially alongside plans from neighbouring districts
· that differing stages and objectives among councils, made immediate joint planning challenging. Sharing evidence bases, particularly with Rushmoor, was seen as a practical approach.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet agreed the following recommendations:
i. That work on a new local plan should proceed in line with the Project Initiation Document (PID).
ii. That a budget of £2,421,000 is agreed for expenditure on the local plan to the end of March 2028 with an additional £1.421m being allocated from the general fund working balance.
iii.That the updated Local Development Scheme (timetable) at Appendix 2 is published and takes effect immediately.
iv.That if required under the forthcoming local plan-making regulations, the Portfolio Holder is given authority to issue a notice to commence plan-making, and to publish a ‘Local Plan Timetable’ and any subsequent updates.
8
Budget Strategy
The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and the annual budget-setting process are important decisions for the Council. This report sets out the approach and high-level actions aimed at supporting the budget-setting process for 2026/27 and beyond.
Recommendation
Cabinet is requested to agree the approach for budget setting
Recommendation
Cabinet is requested to agree the approach for budget setting
Attachments:
- Document Budget Strategy Cabinet September 2025 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Deputy Leader of the Council and Finance introduced this report that sets out the approach and high-level actions aimed at supporting the budget-setting process for 2026/27 and beyond.
Proposed by; Cllr Radley; Seconded by Cllr Neighbour
Members heard:
· A 3-year deal is expected, and the protection grant is being reduced
· The challenges of late government settlement notifications expected in late December.
· That the council anticipates a budget shortfall exceeding £1 million and plans to address this through savings and reserves to avoid abrupt reactions.
· The strategy includes cautious assumptions and preparation for unknowns such as government funding for food waste collection and the fairer funding review.
Members discussed:
· The length of the settlement period
· Whether planning performance agreements would be considered self-funding and outside the standard budget growth,
· The need for proper resourcing to ensure agreed service standards continued to be met.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet agreed the approach for budget setting.
Proposed by; Cllr Radley; Seconded by Cllr Neighbour
Members heard:
· A 3-year deal is expected, and the protection grant is being reduced
· The challenges of late government settlement notifications expected in late December.
· That the council anticipates a budget shortfall exceeding £1 million and plans to address this through savings and reserves to avoid abrupt reactions.
· The strategy includes cautious assumptions and preparation for unknowns such as government funding for food waste collection and the fairer funding review.
Members discussed:
· The length of the settlement period
· Whether planning performance agreements would be considered self-funding and outside the standard budget growth,
· The need for proper resourcing to ensure agreed service standards continued to be met.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet agreed the approach for budget setting.
9
Corporate Peer Challenge Action Plan
This report relates to the proposed draft Action Plan arising from the Local Government Association (LGA) 2025 Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) feedback report for Hart District Council.
Recommendation
Cabinet is asked to endorse in principle the Action Plan.
Recommendation
Cabinet is asked to endorse in principle the Action Plan.
Attachments:
- Document Corporate Peer Challenge Review Report 08 Sep 2025
- Document Peer Challenge Recommendations 08 Sep 2025
- Document Proposed Action Plan 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Leader of the Council introduced the draft Action Plan arising from the Local Government Association (LGA) 2025 Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) feedback report for Hart District Council. The plan included updating the corporate plan with a refresh rather than a full rewrite, given the limited remaining council term of 2.5 years.
Proposed by; Cllr Neighbour; Seconded by Cllr Wildsmith
Members heard:
· The focus includes service delivery improvements, customer experience, and preparing for the transition to the new authority.
· The Corporate Plan will be refreshed in November 2025.
· Further discussion on timing of the annual Resident survey will be necessary.
Members discussed:
· Consultation fatigue due to ongoing LGR-related surveys and emphasised realistic expectations about the scope of updates
· The importance of the peer challenge's recommendations to maintain ambition and service quality.
· AI efficiencies and service transformation.
· The legacy for residents of Hart.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet endorsed in principle the Action Plan.
Proposed by; Cllr Neighbour; Seconded by Cllr Wildsmith
Members heard:
· The focus includes service delivery improvements, customer experience, and preparing for the transition to the new authority.
· The Corporate Plan will be refreshed in November 2025.
· Further discussion on timing of the annual Resident survey will be necessary.
Members discussed:
· Consultation fatigue due to ongoing LGR-related surveys and emphasised realistic expectations about the scope of updates
· The importance of the peer challenge's recommendations to maintain ambition and service quality.
· AI efficiencies and service transformation.
· The legacy for residents of Hart.
Unanimously agreed.
Decision
Cabinet endorsed in principle the Action Plan.
10
Final Proposal for Local Government Reorganisation
In July 2025 Cabinet considered a report of the Chief Executive, which provided an update on the work underway to prepare the Council’s proposal for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). The proposal would set out how a single tier of local government could be established across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (HIOW). It must be submitted to government by the 26 September 2027
That proposal is now effectively complete, but it is still in minor editorial working draft form[1]. It is titled ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong”. An executive summary is attached to Appendix 1. The full document in its very advanced draft stage is attached to Appendix 2, and its associated technical appendices attached to Appendix 3.
This report requests that Cabinet recommends to Full Council that it endorses the submission of Option 1A (currently listed as Option 3 in the current draft) as the Council’s preference for local government reform across HIOW. Option 1A) is based on Option 1 but requests a modification based on a few select boundary changes. This submission is conditional upon this modification being approved by the Secretary of State using the modification powers under the 2007 Act as this represents the stronger case for change. The updated extract from the Case for Change relating to Option 1A is attached as Appendix 4.
Recommendation
That Full Council be recommended to endorse the following
i) Subject to the Case for Change document attached as Appendix 2 being modified or that a covering letter be submitted to include the following points:
a. Hart and Rushmoor have both received the 'Silver' Award in recognition of their efforts regarding the Military Covenant.
b. Natural England has acknowledged the exemplary work of Hart and Rushmoor in collaborating across county boundaries to protect the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Together, we have achieved Green Flag status for County Parks and developed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS), which supports future growth and housing delivery while also fostering SPA mitigation, ecological enhancement, and biodiversity net gain opportunities.
the Council supports the main Case for Change and specifically Option 1A (which is Option 1 as the core option but this wholly conditional upon a formal request to Government as part of the Council’s submission to undertake a modification to permit Option 1A) because the proposed boundary changes (as reflected in the Appendix 4) better meet government criteria, drive economic growth, create unitary authorities that reflect and serve cohesive communities, and realise the full potential of local government reorganisation.
ii) In the event of minor editorial changes being necessary to the main Case for Change, if they are agreed by all 12 councils, that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive is authorised to agree such amendments on behalf of Hart District Council.
The full proposal can be found here (Appendix 2): Full Proposal
The supporting appendices can be found here (Appendix 3): Supporting Appendices
[1] Note that as the case for change (Appendix 2) - ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong” is a ‘collective’ document, there are no opportunities to amend or substantially edit the text other than minor typographical errors in advance of submission to the government irrespective of any comments are made at Cabinet or Full Council.
That proposal is now effectively complete, but it is still in minor editorial working draft form[1]. It is titled ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong”. An executive summary is attached to Appendix 1. The full document in its very advanced draft stage is attached to Appendix 2, and its associated technical appendices attached to Appendix 3.
This report requests that Cabinet recommends to Full Council that it endorses the submission of Option 1A (currently listed as Option 3 in the current draft) as the Council’s preference for local government reform across HIOW. Option 1A) is based on Option 1 but requests a modification based on a few select boundary changes. This submission is conditional upon this modification being approved by the Secretary of State using the modification powers under the 2007 Act as this represents the stronger case for change. The updated extract from the Case for Change relating to Option 1A is attached as Appendix 4.
Recommendation
That Full Council be recommended to endorse the following
i) Subject to the Case for Change document attached as Appendix 2 being modified or that a covering letter be submitted to include the following points:
a. Hart and Rushmoor have both received the 'Silver' Award in recognition of their efforts regarding the Military Covenant.
b. Natural England has acknowledged the exemplary work of Hart and Rushmoor in collaborating across county boundaries to protect the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Together, we have achieved Green Flag status for County Parks and developed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS), which supports future growth and housing delivery while also fostering SPA mitigation, ecological enhancement, and biodiversity net gain opportunities.
the Council supports the main Case for Change and specifically Option 1A (which is Option 1 as the core option but this wholly conditional upon a formal request to Government as part of the Council’s submission to undertake a modification to permit Option 1A) because the proposed boundary changes (as reflected in the Appendix 4) better meet government criteria, drive economic growth, create unitary authorities that reflect and serve cohesive communities, and realise the full potential of local government reorganisation.
ii) In the event of minor editorial changes being necessary to the main Case for Change, if they are agreed by all 12 councils, that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive is authorised to agree such amendments on behalf of Hart District Council.
The full proposal can be found here (Appendix 2): Full Proposal
The supporting appendices can be found here (Appendix 3): Supporting Appendices
[1] Note that as the case for change (Appendix 2) - ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong” is a ‘collective’ document, there are no opportunities to amend or substantially edit the text other than minor typographical errors in advance of submission to the government irrespective of any comments are made at Cabinet or Full Council.
Attachments:
- Document Hart - LGR Cabinet 16 September 2025 update 2 08 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Executive Summary 08 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Option 1A revised 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
In July 2025 Cabinet considered a report of the Chief Executive, which provided an update on the work underway to prepare the Council’s proposal for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). The proposal would set out how a single tier of local government could be established across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (HIOW). It must be submitted to government by the 26 September 202.
The Chief Executive introduced the proposal, that is now effectively complete, but it is still in minor editorial working draft form. It is titled ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong”. An executive summary is attached to the report. The full document in its very advanced draft stage was attached to Appendix 2, and its associated technical appendices attached to Appendix 3.
This report requests that Cabinet recommends to Full Council that it endorses the submission of Option 1A (currently listed as Option 3 in the current draft) as the Council’s preference for local government 41 - 70 Page 3 reform across HIOW. Option 1A) is based on Option 1 but requests a modification based on a few select boundary changes. This submission is conditional upon this modification being approved by the Secretary of State using the modification powers under the 2007 Act as this represents the stronger case for change. The updated extract from the Case for Change relating to Option 1A is attached as Appendix 4.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee were thanked for their consideration of the report and helpful suggestions.
An amended recommendation (as below) was proposed by; Cllr Neighbour, Seconded by Cllr Quarterman.
Members heard:
· There was a tight timeline, with government consultation expected around November and final decisions by March.
· The council's submission includes three options for reorganisation, with a preferred option (1A) involving boundary changes primarily around Southampton and the New Forest areas.
· The proposal reflects a collaborative effort among 12 councils, supported by KPMG, aiming to present a robust evidence-based case to the government.
· The preferred option (1A) is supported for its economic and functional logic, despite some local reservations and alternative proposals.
· Operational preparations will begin immediately after submission.
· Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials have met with all areas.
· Future service design will be for the new Unitary Councils to decide.
Members discussed:
· The complexities of aligning diverse councils and the political sensitivities, especially regarding southern boundary adjustments.
· The necessity of including boundary changes in the submission to meet government criteria and avoid unbalanced authorities.
· That the government may ultimately decide differently, but the council's role is to present the best possible proposal.
· The importance of cooperation among neighbouring councils (e.g., Rushmoor, Basingstoke) to ensure a smooth transition.
· Members expressed mixed feelings about the imposed nature of LGR but acknowledged the need to work collaboratively for the benefit of residents.
· Concerns about issues not fully addressed by the reorganisation, such as health, social care, and school funding, were noted.
· The importance of preparing a legacy of effective service delivery and infrastructure support for the new authority.
· The preferred options of other affected authortities.
A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Neighbour, Quarterman, Radley, Wildsmith
Against: Cllr Cockarill (1)
Decision
That Full Council be RECOMMENDED to endorse the following:
Subject to the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ document attached as Appendix 2 being modified or that a covering letter be submitted to Secretary of State to include the following points:
1. Hart and Rushmoor have both received the 'Silver' Award in recognition of their efforts regarding the Military Covenant and
2. Natural England has acknowledged the exemplary work of Hart and Rushmoor in collaborating across county boundaries to protect the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Together, we have achieved Green Flag status for County Parks and developed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS), supporting future growth and housing delivery while fostering SPA mitigation, ecological enhancement, and biodiversity net gain opportunities.
The Council approves the proposed ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ submission to the Government by the 26 September 2025 deadline and by doing so confirms that:
1) A five-unitary Council Structure, with four new mainland unitary councils plus the Isle of Wight, would best meet the Government’s criteria and provide the most effective solution for local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
2) A unitary council based on the areas comprising Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, and Rushmoor is the best option for Hart as, in line with the assessment criteria, it represents the most effective and optimum balance of a council large enough to deliver high-quality services and value for money but small enough to be connected to the place and the needs of the people the council serves.
3) The Council fully endorses Option 1A, an adaptation of the core proposal Option 1, within the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ framework. The Council urges the Government to modify the original Option 1 proposal to incorporate Option 1A because the proposed boundary changes better meet government criteria, drive economic growth, create unitary authorities that reflect and serve cohesive communities, and realise the full potential of local government reorganisation.
4) In the event of minor editorial changes being necessary to the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ proposal, if all other 11 councils agree to them, the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader is authorised to approve such amendments on behalf of Hart District Council.
The Chief Executive introduced the proposal, that is now effectively complete, but it is still in minor editorial working draft form. It is titled ‘Close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong”. An executive summary is attached to the report. The full document in its very advanced draft stage was attached to Appendix 2, and its associated technical appendices attached to Appendix 3.
This report requests that Cabinet recommends to Full Council that it endorses the submission of Option 1A (currently listed as Option 3 in the current draft) as the Council’s preference for local government 41 - 70 Page 3 reform across HIOW. Option 1A) is based on Option 1 but requests a modification based on a few select boundary changes. This submission is conditional upon this modification being approved by the Secretary of State using the modification powers under the 2007 Act as this represents the stronger case for change. The updated extract from the Case for Change relating to Option 1A is attached as Appendix 4.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee were thanked for their consideration of the report and helpful suggestions.
An amended recommendation (as below) was proposed by; Cllr Neighbour, Seconded by Cllr Quarterman.
Members heard:
· There was a tight timeline, with government consultation expected around November and final decisions by March.
· The council's submission includes three options for reorganisation, with a preferred option (1A) involving boundary changes primarily around Southampton and the New Forest areas.
· The proposal reflects a collaborative effort among 12 councils, supported by KPMG, aiming to present a robust evidence-based case to the government.
· The preferred option (1A) is supported for its economic and functional logic, despite some local reservations and alternative proposals.
· Operational preparations will begin immediately after submission.
· Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials have met with all areas.
· Future service design will be for the new Unitary Councils to decide.
Members discussed:
· The complexities of aligning diverse councils and the political sensitivities, especially regarding southern boundary adjustments.
· The necessity of including boundary changes in the submission to meet government criteria and avoid unbalanced authorities.
· That the government may ultimately decide differently, but the council's role is to present the best possible proposal.
· The importance of cooperation among neighbouring councils (e.g., Rushmoor, Basingstoke) to ensure a smooth transition.
· Members expressed mixed feelings about the imposed nature of LGR but acknowledged the need to work collaboratively for the benefit of residents.
· Concerns about issues not fully addressed by the reorganisation, such as health, social care, and school funding, were noted.
· The importance of preparing a legacy of effective service delivery and infrastructure support for the new authority.
· The preferred options of other affected authortities.
A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Neighbour, Quarterman, Radley, Wildsmith
Against: Cllr Cockarill (1)
Decision
That Full Council be RECOMMENDED to endorse the following:
Subject to the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ document attached as Appendix 2 being modified or that a covering letter be submitted to Secretary of State to include the following points:
1. Hart and Rushmoor have both received the 'Silver' Award in recognition of their efforts regarding the Military Covenant and
2. Natural England has acknowledged the exemplary work of Hart and Rushmoor in collaborating across county boundaries to protect the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Together, we have achieved Green Flag status for County Parks and developed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS), supporting future growth and housing delivery while fostering SPA mitigation, ecological enhancement, and biodiversity net gain opportunities.
The Council approves the proposed ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ submission to the Government by the 26 September 2025 deadline and by doing so confirms that:
1) A five-unitary Council Structure, with four new mainland unitary councils plus the Isle of Wight, would best meet the Government’s criteria and provide the most effective solution for local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
2) A unitary council based on the areas comprising Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, and Rushmoor is the best option for Hart as, in line with the assessment criteria, it represents the most effective and optimum balance of a council large enough to deliver high-quality services and value for money but small enough to be connected to the place and the needs of the people the council serves.
3) The Council fully endorses Option 1A, an adaptation of the core proposal Option 1, within the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ framework. The Council urges the Government to modify the original Option 1 proposal to incorporate Option 1A because the proposed boundary changes better meet government criteria, drive economic growth, create unitary authorities that reflect and serve cohesive communities, and realise the full potential of local government reorganisation.
4) In the event of minor editorial changes being necessary to the ‘Close Enough to be Local, Big Enough to Stay Strong’ proposal, if all other 11 councils agree to them, the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader is authorised to approve such amendments on behalf of Hart District Council.
11
Cabinet Work Programme
To consider and amend the Cabinet Work Programme.
Attachments:
- Document 25 09 Cabinet Work Programme V4 08 Sep 2025
Minutes
Cabinet considered and amended the Cabinet Work Programme as follows:
· Development Management Resources paper to be considered at October meeting
· Development Management Resources paper to be considered at October meeting
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in