New Forest Borough Council
Councillors:
48
Wards:
28
Committees:
14
Meetings (2026):
60
Meetings (2025):
80
Meeting
Council - New Forest
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 13th April 2026
6:30 PM
Monday, 13th April 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Monday, 13th April 2026
10:30 PM
Monday, 13th April 2026
10:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
13 Apr 2026
13 Apr 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Leader of the Council
Officer
Chief Executive
Kate Ryan
In attendance
Committee Member
Vice-Chairman of Council
Officer
Democratic ICT Officer
Daniel Reynafarje
In attendance
Officer
Assistant Director - Strategy and Engagement
Matt Wisdom
In attendance
Committee Member
Cllr Richard Frampton
Present, as expected
Officer
Strategic Director of Corporate Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Alan Bethune
In attendance
Officer
Sara Hamilton
In attendance
Officer
Chief Operations Officer and Deputy Chief Executive
Richard Knott
In attendance
Officer
Democratic Services Officer
Andy Rogers
In attendance
Officer
Principal Democratic Services Officer
Karen Wardle
In attendance
Agenda
0
Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Adams, Hartmann, Mballa, Reid and Young.
Minutes
1
Minutes
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026 as a correct record.
Attachments:
- Document Public minutes 26022026 1830 Council 01 Apr 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026, be confirmed.
That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026, be confirmed.
2
Declarations of Interests
To note any declarations of interests made by members in connection with an agenda item. The nature of the interests must also be specified.
Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.
Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.
Minutes
Cllr Heron declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5 (Notice of Petition) due to the petition organisers being his daughter and son in law. Cllrs Armstrong and Dunning declared a non-pecuniary interest in this agenda item, for transparency purposes, as they had signed the petition.
The Monitoring Officer clarified to members that in respect of this agenda item (Notice of Petition) a member signing the petition was not a disclosable pecuniary interest. Members could however declare a non-pecuniary interest, as having signed the petition, for transparency purposes and that this would be recorded in the minutes.
The Monitoring Officer clarified to members that in respect of this agenda item (Notice of Petition) a member signing the petition was not a disclosable pecuniary interest. Members could however declare a non-pecuniary interest, as having signed the petition, for transparency purposes and that this would be recorded in the minutes.
3
Chairman's Announcements
Minutes
The Chairman reported of the following civic engagements he had attended throughout the district and in Hampshire:
Within the district he had attended the Mayor of New Milton’s Civic Celebration, where awards were handed out to community champions from the town. He had also attended the Friends of the New Forest Airfields launch of Film and Lecture, held at the Heritage Centre in Bransgore.
Out of the District, the Chairman reported he had attended a Civic Day event in Winchester held at the Royal Logistics Corps Museum and two charitable events in Fareham and Southampton.
Finally, the Chairman reminded members that he would be holding his Civic Service on Sunday, 19April at 3pm at St Wins Church, Totton and he reported he would be delighted if members could support this important event.
Within the district he had attended the Mayor of New Milton’s Civic Celebration, where awards were handed out to community champions from the town. He had also attended the Friends of the New Forest Airfields launch of Film and Lecture, held at the Heritage Centre in Bransgore.
Out of the District, the Chairman reported he had attended a Civic Day event in Winchester held at the Royal Logistics Corps Museum and two charitable events in Fareham and Southampton.
Finally, the Chairman reminded members that he would be holding his Civic Service on Sunday, 19April at 3pm at St Wins Church, Totton and he reported he would be delighted if members could support this important event.
4
Leader's Announcements
Minutes
There were none.
5
Notice of Petition - Keep the New Forest Together
To consider the following live petition of 5,350 signatures (when submitted) to New Forest District Council regarding the Government’s decision on Local Government Reorganisation, from James and Emily Hartley-Binns, in accordance with the Council’s Petitions Scheme:-
“We are calling on New Forest District Council to take two immediate steps:
1. Seek a formal Counsel Opinion
NFDC should urgently instruct a specialist public?law barrister to review the process, the criteria and the consultation evidence to determine whether there are solid grounds for legal challenge. This work could be carried out in collaboration with Test Valley Borough Council, who are also at risk of seeing parts of their area absorbed into Southampton. A joint approach would strengthen the case, share expertise and demonstrate unified local opposition. This is a standard, responsible step for any council facing a decision of this scale. Seeking a formal Counsel’s Opinion is a logical, proportionate and relatively inexpensive first step. It does not commit NFDC to legal action, it simply allows a specialist public?law barrister to assess whether the Government’s decision?making process meets the required standards. This is the safest and most responsible way for the Council to ‘test the waters’ before considering a Judicial Review. It ensures that any further action is grounded in expert advice, shared evidence, and a clear understanding of the legal position.
2. Pursue a Judicial Review if the Counsel Opinion confirms there are grounds
If the legal advice supports it, NFDC must act swiftly and pursue a Judicial Review to contest the break?up of the New Forest District. The window to act is extremely short. Once the proposals move to the next stage, reversing them becomes far harder.”
Note: The petition organiser will present the petition for a maximum of five minutes. Councillors will then debate the petition for a maximum of 15 minutes.
“We are calling on New Forest District Council to take two immediate steps:
1. Seek a formal Counsel Opinion
NFDC should urgently instruct a specialist public?law barrister to review the process, the criteria and the consultation evidence to determine whether there are solid grounds for legal challenge. This work could be carried out in collaboration with Test Valley Borough Council, who are also at risk of seeing parts of their area absorbed into Southampton. A joint approach would strengthen the case, share expertise and demonstrate unified local opposition. This is a standard, responsible step for any council facing a decision of this scale. Seeking a formal Counsel’s Opinion is a logical, proportionate and relatively inexpensive first step. It does not commit NFDC to legal action, it simply allows a specialist public?law barrister to assess whether the Government’s decision?making process meets the required standards. This is the safest and most responsible way for the Council to ‘test the waters’ before considering a Judicial Review. It ensures that any further action is grounded in expert advice, shared evidence, and a clear understanding of the legal position.
2. Pursue a Judicial Review if the Counsel Opinion confirms there are grounds
If the legal advice supports it, NFDC must act swiftly and pursue a Judicial Review to contest the break?up of the New Forest District. The window to act is extremely short. Once the proposals move to the next stage, reversing them becomes far harder.”
Note: The petition organiser will present the petition for a maximum of five minutes. Councillors will then debate the petition for a maximum of 15 minutes.
Attachments:
- Document Petition Cover Letter 01 Apr 2026
- Document Petition Speech -Keep the New Forest Together 08 May 2026
Minutes
Cllr Heron declared a non-pecuniary due to the petition organisers being his daughter and son in law. Cllrs Armstrong and Dunning declared a non-pecuniary interest, for transparency purposes, as they had signed the petition.
The Chairman advised members, that the petition on the agenda had been started following the Government announcement of the Local Government Reorganisation decision for Hampshire. This would divide the New Forest district area across two new unitary councils from April 2028.
The Waterside parishes of Totton and Eling, Marchwood, Hythe and Dibden and Fawley would form part of a new unitary authority currently known as “South West Hampshire”, with Southampton, Eastleigh and some of the southern parishes of Test Valley.
The remaining area of the New Forest district would form part of a new unitary authority currently known as “Mid Hampshire” with the remaining areas of Test Valley, Winchester and East Hampshire.
The petition was still live and the link to the petition had been published with the Council agenda. It had, as of the morning of 13 April, received 13,115 signatures.
The Chairman reported he had been asked by officers to highlight that when the petition had been submitted to the Council, it had received 5,350 signatures, as outlined on the agenda. Furthermore, the Council’s petition scheme invites petitions from those who live, work or study in the NFDC area. There was a small proportion of signatories within the submitted petition from people outside of the area, for example those who live overseas. However, officers were satisfied that the petition met the threshold of 1,700 signatures for a Full Council debate.
The Chairman invited the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary to present a procedural motion.
Cllr Cleary presented the following motion to:
“Suspend the standing orders, specifically to extend the amount of debate time currently allowed on this item. The extension of time would be from 15 minutes to 30 minutes for the Council’s debate, whilst maintaining the normal time limit of 3 minutes per councillor.”
Cllr M Wade seconded the motion.
Put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.
The Chairman welcomed the petition organisers, James and Emily Hartley-Binns to the meeting, as well as the Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP for New Forest East, who was attending the meeting, in support of the petition.
James Hartley-Binns read out a statement of the petition, which sought to safeguard the future of the New Forest. The success of the campaign was highlighted showing the strength of public feeling and the two requests being sought through the petition.
The reasons were outlined behind the petition and the campaign which sought to keep the New Forest District together. The statement has been attached in full to the minutes as an Appendix.
Cllr Cleary as the Leader and relevant Portfolio Holder, was invited to address the meeting. She thanked the lead petitioners for attending the Council meeting and presenting the petition. The Leader welcomed and thanked the members of the public who had joined the Council meeting.
The Leader provided an updated position of the preparatory work, which had been undertaken by Council on this matter as follows:
In January 2026, the potential need for Counsel advice was considered to support the consultation response on all the 4 options that Government had decided were options. The Council voted to support only one option - Option One. This kept the district whole and would place the Council with other authorities with a mainly rural geography.
Counsel was asked to provide provisional advice on the boundary change option 1a, and in particular, whether the Government had the legal power to choose such an option. Following that advice, the District Council robustly questioned Government in the Council’s consultation response, submitted in January.
The Leader reported that when the Government had determined that option 1a had been agreed, apart from the initial shock and disbelief, about how they could agree to divide the Forest this way, the Leader reported that she had asked the executive team to revert back to Counsel and seek further opinion. This was to fully examine the legalities of the decision and formal written advice was now awaited.
Cllr Cleary then moved the following motion:
“That the Council notes the petition and that the Leader and the Cabinet will in due course carefully consider the petition and the updated advice when considering the appropriate next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest through this process.”
Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.
Members debated the petition and the motion presented by Cllr Cleary.
A summary of the debate is detailed below:
· Members commended the petition organisers, James and Emily Hartley-Binns on their petition, recognising its success and of the campaign, “Keep the Forest Together”. It demonstrated the strength of feeling of local residents and the communities in the New Forest. This was also recognised by councillors, with members of the public in attendance at the meeting and outside in the grounds of Appletree Court, in support of the petition.
The Government decision to divide the New Forest District Council area into two new unitary authorities was not supported by members. It was strongly felt by members that the district should be kept together and not divided into two. This was demonstrated by the Council voting unanimously to support Option 1.
· Members felt that the Government decision did not appear to take into account the formal consultation results, where residents and the council had supported option 1, to keep the Forest whole and therefore that the Government had ignored the consultation results.
· The communities in the Waterside and Totton considered themselves to be part of the New Forest. They did not identify with the city of Southampton. It was highlighted the LGR process proposed to support local communities, however the decision taken by Government would divide communities causing fragmentation.
· The view was expressed that the Government decision did not show an understanding of the unique character of Totton and the Waterside. It was highlighted that the two parts of the district shared unique characteristics in history, culture and local identify as well as the New Forest National Park. Dividing the forest up would erode these characteristics.
· Concern was expressed regarding the splitting up of the forest and that the Waterside area would be dominated by the needs of the city of Southampton and the borough of Eastleigh. That the urban centric priorities of a city and its infrastructure and housing targets would drown out consideration of the unique needs of the rural New Forest communities.
· It was felt that there would be additional pressure to provide more housing within the Waterside area, joining a more urban authority. There was concern that more housing development in this area would change the character of the Waterside villages and lead to urban sprawl.
· Members spoke about wanting to protect the heritage and integrity of the New Forest and of the strength and importance of doing this as one unit.
· The commoning system with rights to graze ponies and cattle on the land was highlighted. It would be more difficult to protect the landscape when the management was divided between two different authorities with different priorities. The back up grazing land located on the east of the Forest was also highlighted as being vital to support the commoners in the district.
· It was recognised that a significant amount of concern had been raised from those living in the east of the district. However, the decision also had an impact for those living in the west. A significant share of employment and economic activity was located on the eastern side of the district. This area provided a significant part of the joint financial strength of the district and removing this would upset the balance between the two new unitary areas. The division of the district into two new authorities would damage both parts of the district.
· The view was expressed that the Government decision had been made to support and grow the economy of Southampton, at the detriment of the New Forest district and its residents.
· The splitting of the district would have a huge impact and cost associated through needing to disaggregate all services provided by the council.
· It was highlighted that whilst the district was being split up, Hampshire County Council was also being divided and would be further divided within the district, within what was currently a coherent geography. The impact of this was unknown. There were a number of SEND schools located in the Waterside area attended by pupils across the district. It was questioned, for example, whether those living in the Southampton area, for example, would get priority in attending these schools over those living in the wider New Forest. It was therefore important to consider all the services provided by Hampshire County Council to those in the district and the impact of service provision in the new unitary authorities.
· One member spoke about partnership, highlighting that the decision to split the district into two would make it harder to influence and shape the new authorities in both directions. Members would be an “unequal partner” at the table. If the district was one unit members would be an equal voice alongside the other authorities which had remained as one unit.
· The impact on staff and officers was recognised, and their role to deliver services to residents. Managing the transition of one complex organisation into a new organisation would be a significant undertaking, but to manage this for two new organisations at the same time, would be even harder. This would also have a personal impact on staff.
· It was understood that at the start of the LGR process Government had suggested that there should not be any boundary changes, without ‘strong justification’.
· A member recognised that the Counsel view was important in determining whether there were solid grounds for a Judicial Review. It was acknowledged that there was a risk associated with challenging the Government. It was therefore important to try and get the best outcome for everyone in the district.
· During the debate some members indicated that they supported the petition.
· Members agreed that the Council should show their support, having listened to the views of the local community, through the petition and support the motion proposed by the Leader.
Cllr Cleary in her summing up thanked members for sharing their passion for the Forest at the meeting. She shared their frustration regarding the LGR decision taken by Government. The Leader thanked the petition organisers for bringing the matter into the public domain and that moving forward, the Counsel opinion was awaited to see whether there were solid grounds to challenge the decision. She expressed thanks to Sir Julian Lewis MP for his support. Finally, the Leader invited members to stand up and show their support in working together.
Upon being put to the vote, the motion proposed by Cllr Cleary was unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED:
That the Council notes the petition and that the Leader and the Cabinet will in due course, carefully consider the petition and the updated advice, when considering the appropriate next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest, through this process.
The Chairman advised members, that the petition on the agenda had been started following the Government announcement of the Local Government Reorganisation decision for Hampshire. This would divide the New Forest district area across two new unitary councils from April 2028.
The Waterside parishes of Totton and Eling, Marchwood, Hythe and Dibden and Fawley would form part of a new unitary authority currently known as “South West Hampshire”, with Southampton, Eastleigh and some of the southern parishes of Test Valley.
The remaining area of the New Forest district would form part of a new unitary authority currently known as “Mid Hampshire” with the remaining areas of Test Valley, Winchester and East Hampshire.
The petition was still live and the link to the petition had been published with the Council agenda. It had, as of the morning of 13 April, received 13,115 signatures.
The Chairman reported he had been asked by officers to highlight that when the petition had been submitted to the Council, it had received 5,350 signatures, as outlined on the agenda. Furthermore, the Council’s petition scheme invites petitions from those who live, work or study in the NFDC area. There was a small proportion of signatories within the submitted petition from people outside of the area, for example those who live overseas. However, officers were satisfied that the petition met the threshold of 1,700 signatures for a Full Council debate.
The Chairman invited the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary to present a procedural motion.
Cllr Cleary presented the following motion to:
“Suspend the standing orders, specifically to extend the amount of debate time currently allowed on this item. The extension of time would be from 15 minutes to 30 minutes for the Council’s debate, whilst maintaining the normal time limit of 3 minutes per councillor.”
Cllr M Wade seconded the motion.
Put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.
The Chairman welcomed the petition organisers, James and Emily Hartley-Binns to the meeting, as well as the Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP for New Forest East, who was attending the meeting, in support of the petition.
James Hartley-Binns read out a statement of the petition, which sought to safeguard the future of the New Forest. The success of the campaign was highlighted showing the strength of public feeling and the two requests being sought through the petition.
The reasons were outlined behind the petition and the campaign which sought to keep the New Forest District together. The statement has been attached in full to the minutes as an Appendix.
Cllr Cleary as the Leader and relevant Portfolio Holder, was invited to address the meeting. She thanked the lead petitioners for attending the Council meeting and presenting the petition. The Leader welcomed and thanked the members of the public who had joined the Council meeting.
The Leader provided an updated position of the preparatory work, which had been undertaken by Council on this matter as follows:
In January 2026, the potential need for Counsel advice was considered to support the consultation response on all the 4 options that Government had decided were options. The Council voted to support only one option - Option One. This kept the district whole and would place the Council with other authorities with a mainly rural geography.
Counsel was asked to provide provisional advice on the boundary change option 1a, and in particular, whether the Government had the legal power to choose such an option. Following that advice, the District Council robustly questioned Government in the Council’s consultation response, submitted in January.
The Leader reported that when the Government had determined that option 1a had been agreed, apart from the initial shock and disbelief, about how they could agree to divide the Forest this way, the Leader reported that she had asked the executive team to revert back to Counsel and seek further opinion. This was to fully examine the legalities of the decision and formal written advice was now awaited.
Cllr Cleary then moved the following motion:
“That the Council notes the petition and that the Leader and the Cabinet will in due course carefully consider the petition and the updated advice when considering the appropriate next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest through this process.”
Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.
Members debated the petition and the motion presented by Cllr Cleary.
A summary of the debate is detailed below:
· Members commended the petition organisers, James and Emily Hartley-Binns on their petition, recognising its success and of the campaign, “Keep the Forest Together”. It demonstrated the strength of feeling of local residents and the communities in the New Forest. This was also recognised by councillors, with members of the public in attendance at the meeting and outside in the grounds of Appletree Court, in support of the petition.
The Government decision to divide the New Forest District Council area into two new unitary authorities was not supported by members. It was strongly felt by members that the district should be kept together and not divided into two. This was demonstrated by the Council voting unanimously to support Option 1.
· Members felt that the Government decision did not appear to take into account the formal consultation results, where residents and the council had supported option 1, to keep the Forest whole and therefore that the Government had ignored the consultation results.
· The communities in the Waterside and Totton considered themselves to be part of the New Forest. They did not identify with the city of Southampton. It was highlighted the LGR process proposed to support local communities, however the decision taken by Government would divide communities causing fragmentation.
· The view was expressed that the Government decision did not show an understanding of the unique character of Totton and the Waterside. It was highlighted that the two parts of the district shared unique characteristics in history, culture and local identify as well as the New Forest National Park. Dividing the forest up would erode these characteristics.
· Concern was expressed regarding the splitting up of the forest and that the Waterside area would be dominated by the needs of the city of Southampton and the borough of Eastleigh. That the urban centric priorities of a city and its infrastructure and housing targets would drown out consideration of the unique needs of the rural New Forest communities.
· It was felt that there would be additional pressure to provide more housing within the Waterside area, joining a more urban authority. There was concern that more housing development in this area would change the character of the Waterside villages and lead to urban sprawl.
· Members spoke about wanting to protect the heritage and integrity of the New Forest and of the strength and importance of doing this as one unit.
· The commoning system with rights to graze ponies and cattle on the land was highlighted. It would be more difficult to protect the landscape when the management was divided between two different authorities with different priorities. The back up grazing land located on the east of the Forest was also highlighted as being vital to support the commoners in the district.
· It was recognised that a significant amount of concern had been raised from those living in the east of the district. However, the decision also had an impact for those living in the west. A significant share of employment and economic activity was located on the eastern side of the district. This area provided a significant part of the joint financial strength of the district and removing this would upset the balance between the two new unitary areas. The division of the district into two new authorities would damage both parts of the district.
· The view was expressed that the Government decision had been made to support and grow the economy of Southampton, at the detriment of the New Forest district and its residents.
· The splitting of the district would have a huge impact and cost associated through needing to disaggregate all services provided by the council.
· It was highlighted that whilst the district was being split up, Hampshire County Council was also being divided and would be further divided within the district, within what was currently a coherent geography. The impact of this was unknown. There were a number of SEND schools located in the Waterside area attended by pupils across the district. It was questioned, for example, whether those living in the Southampton area, for example, would get priority in attending these schools over those living in the wider New Forest. It was therefore important to consider all the services provided by Hampshire County Council to those in the district and the impact of service provision in the new unitary authorities.
· One member spoke about partnership, highlighting that the decision to split the district into two would make it harder to influence and shape the new authorities in both directions. Members would be an “unequal partner” at the table. If the district was one unit members would be an equal voice alongside the other authorities which had remained as one unit.
· The impact on staff and officers was recognised, and their role to deliver services to residents. Managing the transition of one complex organisation into a new organisation would be a significant undertaking, but to manage this for two new organisations at the same time, would be even harder. This would also have a personal impact on staff.
· It was understood that at the start of the LGR process Government had suggested that there should not be any boundary changes, without ‘strong justification’.
· A member recognised that the Counsel view was important in determining whether there were solid grounds for a Judicial Review. It was acknowledged that there was a risk associated with challenging the Government. It was therefore important to try and get the best outcome for everyone in the district.
· During the debate some members indicated that they supported the petition.
· Members agreed that the Council should show their support, having listened to the views of the local community, through the petition and support the motion proposed by the Leader.
Cllr Cleary in her summing up thanked members for sharing their passion for the Forest at the meeting. She shared their frustration regarding the LGR decision taken by Government. The Leader thanked the petition organisers for bringing the matter into the public domain and that moving forward, the Counsel opinion was awaited to see whether there were solid grounds to challenge the decision. She expressed thanks to Sir Julian Lewis MP for his support. Finally, the Leader invited members to stand up and show their support in working together.
Upon being put to the vote, the motion proposed by Cllr Cleary was unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED:
That the Council notes the petition and that the Leader and the Cabinet will in due course, carefully consider the petition and the updated advice, when considering the appropriate next steps to best represent the interests of the Forest, through this process.
6
Report of Cabinet - 4 March 2026
Attachments:
- Document Report of Cabinet - 4 March 2026 01 Apr 2026
Minutes
PART I – ITEMS RESOLVED BY CABINET
Item 1 – Domestic Abuse Strategy 2025-2028
A member welcomed the Domestic Abuse Strategy. It was acknowledged that the communication around how to report domestic abuse was carried out in a variety of way and it was suggested that the health and leisure centres be used for key messaging.
The Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing acknowledged this suggestion and would report back.
Item 2 – Housing Landlord Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Strategy
There were no speakers.
Item 3 – Draft Revised Allocations Policy
A member recognised that this policy, along with other housing polices might be fixed for a period of time due to LGR. It was questioned whether the policy would be carried over to the new authorities.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness recognised this and anticipated that the policy would be carried over to the new unitary authorities.
Item 4 – Draft Homelessness and Rough Sleep Strategy 2026-2031
There were no speakers on this item.
PART II – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
There were no items with recommendations to Council in this report.
Item 1 – Domestic Abuse Strategy 2025-2028
A member welcomed the Domestic Abuse Strategy. It was acknowledged that the communication around how to report domestic abuse was carried out in a variety of way and it was suggested that the health and leisure centres be used for key messaging.
The Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing acknowledged this suggestion and would report back.
Item 2 – Housing Landlord Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Strategy
There were no speakers.
Item 3 – Draft Revised Allocations Policy
A member recognised that this policy, along with other housing polices might be fixed for a period of time due to LGR. It was questioned whether the policy would be carried over to the new authorities.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness recognised this and anticipated that the policy would be carried over to the new unitary authorities.
Item 4 – Draft Homelessness and Rough Sleep Strategy 2026-2031
There were no speakers on this item.
PART II – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
There were no items with recommendations to Council in this report.
7
Report of Cabinet - 1 April 2026
Attachments:
- Document Report of Cabinet - 1 April 2026 01 Apr 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - Principal Risk Register 01 Apr 2026
Minutes
PART I – ITEMS RESOLVED BY CABINET
Item 1 – Corporate Plan: Key Performance Data for Quarter 3 2025-2026
There were no speakers on this item.
Item 2 – Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) extension review and summary of public consultation
A councillor supported the extension of the PSPOs and questioned how the education and awareness of PSPOs would be carried out, particularly for tourists to the area.
The Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing recognised this and reported that PSPOs enabled conversations to take place with members of the public to educate them. Improvements were also expected to be made to signage.
PART II – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Item 3 – Principal Risk Register Review
Cllr Cleary introduced the item and moved the recommendations. Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.
One member recognised that with LGR, it was likely that there would be new risks associated with this which had yet to be identified. It was highlighted that Principal Risk Register needed to be responsive to these new risks and be a flexible document.
The Leader agreed that there would be risks associated with LGR and that the register would be kept under regular review, this included being reported to the Audit Committee.
RESOLVED:
That the Principal Risk Register be adopted.
Item 1 – Corporate Plan: Key Performance Data for Quarter 3 2025-2026
There were no speakers on this item.
Item 2 – Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) extension review and summary of public consultation
A councillor supported the extension of the PSPOs and questioned how the education and awareness of PSPOs would be carried out, particularly for tourists to the area.
The Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing recognised this and reported that PSPOs enabled conversations to take place with members of the public to educate them. Improvements were also expected to be made to signage.
PART II – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Item 3 – Principal Risk Register Review
Cllr Cleary introduced the item and moved the recommendations. Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.
One member recognised that with LGR, it was likely that there would be new risks associated with this which had yet to be identified. It was highlighted that Principal Risk Register needed to be responsive to these new risks and be a flexible document.
The Leader agreed that there would be risks associated with LGR and that the register would be kept under regular review, this included being reported to the Audit Committee.
RESOLVED:
That the Principal Risk Register be adopted.
8
Questions
To ask questions under Standing Order 22. Questions received will be published ahead of the meeting. (Members are reminded that questions must be submitted to Democratic Services by no later than 12.00 noon, Wednesday, 8 April 2026).
Attachments:
- Document Questions - 13 April 2026 01 Apr 2026
- Document Questions and replies - 13 April 2026 08 May 2026
Minutes
Questions were put and answered under Standing Order 22, as follows:-
· From Cllr Dunning to the Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing, Cllr Poole, regarding the annual contribution from Lymington and Pennington Town Council towards CCTV provision.
· From Cllr Rackham to the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, Cllr S Davies regarding the impact of the new tenancy laws.
· From Cllr M Clark to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary, regarding financial protections for Waterside residents.
· From Cllr Dowd to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary, regarding the transfer of assets, reserves and historic investment.
· From Cllr Harrison the Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing, Cllr Poole regarding lithium-ion batteries and risks associated with them.
· From Cllr J Davies to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Tipp, regarding the role of the planning department in sewer connections for new developments.
· From Cllr Woods to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Blunden, regarding street cleanliness in Fordingbridge.
· From Cllr A Wade to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Tipp, regarding the planning inspectorate process in relation to the proposed development at the Former Policy Station site in Hythe.
Note: A copy of the full questions and replies are attached to these minutes.
· From Cllr Dunning to the Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing, Cllr Poole, regarding the annual contribution from Lymington and Pennington Town Council towards CCTV provision.
· From Cllr Rackham to the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, Cllr S Davies regarding the impact of the new tenancy laws.
· From Cllr M Clark to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary, regarding financial protections for Waterside residents.
· From Cllr Dowd to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary, regarding the transfer of assets, reserves and historic investment.
· From Cllr Harrison the Portfolio Holder for Community, Safety and Wellbeing, Cllr Poole regarding lithium-ion batteries and risks associated with them.
· From Cllr J Davies to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Tipp, regarding the role of the planning department in sewer connections for new developments.
· From Cllr Woods to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Blunden, regarding street cleanliness in Fordingbridge.
· From Cllr A Wade to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Tipp, regarding the planning inspectorate process in relation to the proposed development at the Former Policy Station site in Hythe.
Note: A copy of the full questions and replies are attached to these minutes.
9
Notice of Motion
In accordance with Standing Order 21, Cllr Thierry will move the following motion:-
That New Forest District Council ensures that every Councillor, should they so wish, can serve on at least one committee or panel position by amending the Council's Standing Orders.
Background
Currently, the council comprises 48 members drawn from various political interests and independents.
The current Standing Orders preclude membership of a committee or panel place and a vote in certain circumstances. The current system produces a two-tier committee or panel structure, which amounts to discrimination.
Major Council political parties and groupings have had the opportunity to address this discrepancy, but have failed to do so.
All Councillors elected to the New Forest District Council should have equal opportunity.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 42, the above motion, after being proposed and seconded (without speeches), should stand referred to the body within whose terms of reference the subject matter of the motions comes, or the Cabinet or such Committees or Panels that the Council may determined.
The Chairman may allow the motion to be dealt with at this meeting if they consider it urgent, convenient or conducive to the despatch of business.
That New Forest District Council ensures that every Councillor, should they so wish, can serve on at least one committee or panel position by amending the Council's Standing Orders.
Background
Currently, the council comprises 48 members drawn from various political interests and independents.
The current Standing Orders preclude membership of a committee or panel place and a vote in certain circumstances. The current system produces a two-tier committee or panel structure, which amounts to discrimination.
Major Council political parties and groupings have had the opportunity to address this discrepancy, but have failed to do so.
All Councillors elected to the New Forest District Council should have equal opportunity.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 42, the above motion, after being proposed and seconded (without speeches), should stand referred to the body within whose terms of reference the subject matter of the motions comes, or the Cabinet or such Committees or Panels that the Council may determined.
The Chairman may allow the motion to be dealt with at this meeting if they consider it urgent, convenient or conducive to the despatch of business.
Minutes
The proposer of the motion, Cllr Thierry had withdrawn the motion in advance of the meeting.
10
Allocation of seats and appointments to committees and panels
Attachments:
- Document Allocation of seats and appointments to committees and panels 01 Apr 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - Proportionality Table 01 Apr 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - Committee and Panel Memberships 01 Apr 2026
Minutes
Cllr Cleary presented the report and moved the recommendations. Cllr S Davies seconded the motion.
RESOLVED:
That the Council:-
1. considered the allocation of seats to committees and panels in accordance with the principles set out in the report, and in doing so, agreed to the allocation set out in the table in Appendix 1; and
2. appointed councillors to individual committees and panels, as identified in Appendix 2, for the remainder of the four year period ending May 2027.
RESOLVED:
That the Council:-
1. considered the allocation of seats to committees and panels in accordance with the principles set out in the report, and in doing so, agreed to the allocation set out in the table in Appendix 1; and
2. appointed councillors to individual committees and panels, as identified in Appendix 2, for the remainder of the four year period ending May 2027.
11
Nominations to the Offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
To consider and agree nominations to the Council meeting on 18 May 2026 for election to the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council for the following municipal year, in accordance with the Constitution.
The Conservative Group has nominated Cllr Penny for election to the office of Chairman and Cllr Rickman to the office of Vice-Chairman.
The Liberal Democrat Group has nominated Cllr J Davies for election to the office of Chairman and Cllr Rackham to the office of Vice-Chairman.
As these positions are contested, secret ballots will be held at the Council meeting.
The Conservative Group has nominated Cllr Penny for election to the office of Chairman and Cllr Rickman to the office of Vice-Chairman.
The Liberal Democrat Group has nominated Cllr J Davies for election to the office of Chairman and Cllr Rackham to the office of Vice-Chairman.
As these positions are contested, secret ballots will be held at the Council meeting.
Minutes
The Chairman invited Members to propose and second the nominations for the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council received in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
Cllr Sleep moved that Cllr Penny be the Council’s nomination for the office of Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Tipp seconded the motion.
Cllr M Wade moved that Cllr J Davies be the Council’s nomination for the office of Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr McCarthy seconded the motion.
Members debated the nominations.
Put to a secret ballot, Cllr Penny received the majority of votes.
Cllr Cleary moved that Cllr Rickman be the Council’s nomination for the office of Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Frampton seconded the motion.
Cllr M Clark moved that Cllr Rackham be the Council’s nomination for the office of Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Millar seconded the motion.
Members debated the nominations.
Put to a secret ballot, Cllr Rickman received the majority of votes.
RESOLVED:
That the Council’s Nominations for the Offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27, be as follows:-
Chairman – Cllr Penny
Vice-Chairman – Cllr Rickman
Cllr Sleep moved that Cllr Penny be the Council’s nomination for the office of Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Tipp seconded the motion.
Cllr M Wade moved that Cllr J Davies be the Council’s nomination for the office of Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr McCarthy seconded the motion.
Members debated the nominations.
Put to a secret ballot, Cllr Penny received the majority of votes.
Cllr Cleary moved that Cllr Rickman be the Council’s nomination for the office of Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Frampton seconded the motion.
Cllr M Clark moved that Cllr Rackham be the Council’s nomination for the office of Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27. Cllr Millar seconded the motion.
Members debated the nominations.
Put to a secret ballot, Cllr Rickman received the majority of votes.
RESOLVED:
That the Council’s Nominations for the Offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council for 2026/27, be as follows:-
Chairman – Cllr Penny
Vice-Chairman – Cllr Rickman
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in