Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Adams, Hartmann, Mballa, Reid and Young.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026, be confirmed.

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.

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 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.

There were none.

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.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The proposer of the motion, Cllr Thierry had withdrawn the motion in advance of the meeting.

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.

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 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