Local places / Portsmouth

What could change—and how soon?

A practical action plan for Portsmouth. These proposals connect the local problems to organisations that could act and measures that could show progress.

The stages are suggested sequences, not promised deadlines. A council project has its own separately recorded delivery stage.

The plan at a glance

  1. Turn housing allocations into a deliverable programmePortsmouth City Council (planning policy, housing supply and the council’s site promoter team), as a proposal · Proposed action
  2. Secure usable employment space at Tipner West alongside its homesPortsmouth City Council, as site promoter and as local planning authority acting separately (proposed) · Proposed action
  3. Prevent homelessness and show whether rented homes improvePortsmouth City Council housing needs, advice and support and private sector housing services (proposed) · Proposed action
  4. Publish a costed plan for children needing extra supportPortsmouth City Council (children, families and education, with the finance director), as a proposal, working through the existing SEND and alternative provision partnership board · Proposed action
  5. Sustained small-group help in reading, writing and maths for pupils falling behindPortsmouth Education Partnership, with schools and academy trusts deciding whether to take part (a proposal, not an agreed role) · Proposed action
  6. Target access and prevention where health gaps are greatestPortsmouth City Council public health team, jointly with NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (proposed; neither has agreed) · Proposed action
  7. Test whether a hospital and university health innovation zone is worthwhileUniversity of Portsmouth with Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust (proposed; neither has agreed) · Proposed action
  8. Connect port, naval base, hospital and university jobs to local skillsPortsmouth City Council employment and skills team, building on Solent Business & Skills Solutions (proposed; not agreed) · Proposed action
  9. Open more council contracts to small and local firms, within the lawPortsmouth City Council procurement and contract management (proposed; not agreed) · Proposed action
  10. Measure what cleaner shipping and transport actually deliverPortsmouth City Council (proposed; as port owner, air quality authority and local transport authority) · Proposed action
  11. Join up safe cycle routes across Portsea IslandPortsmouth City Council (proposed; as local highway and transport authority) · Proposed action
  12. Track coastal protection through completion and upkeepPortsmouth City Council (proposed), as the lead authority for both schemes, with Coastal Partners preparing the register · Proposed action
  13. Connect water-company work to beach water resultsSouthern Water (proposed) for delivery reporting, with Portsmouth City Council (proposed) hosting the joined-up local record · Proposed action
  14. Make new leisure facilities usable across the cityPortsmouth City Council (proposed; as facility owner and contracting authority) · Proposed action
  15. Reduce repeated dumping at known hotspotsPortsmouth City Council, Safe, Clean & Tidy team (proposal; not agreed) · Proposed action
  16. Link neighbourhood safety priorities to measured resultsSafer Portsmouth Partnership (proposal; not agreed) · Proposed action
  17. Publish one record of promises, decisions and resultsPortsmouth City Council democratic services with finance (proposed; not agreed) · Proposed action

Proposed action

Turn housing allocations into a deliverable programme

Publish a site-by-site delivery tracker for Portsmouth’s main housing sites, showing each site’s stage, blockers, responsible body and affordable homes, and test a permanently affordable community land trust option on public land.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (planning policy, housing supply and the council’s site promoter team), as a proposal

Start soon

List every allocated and identified site with its current stage, using the council’s updated housing trajectory and matter statements

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Add affordable homes by tenure (social rent, affordable rent, shared ownership) and by route (new build or acquisition) to the tracker

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Report completions, occupied homes and affordable tenure against the adopted trajectory every year, and explain slippage by site

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Housing Delivery Test result; Net completions; Affordable completions by tenure and route; Sites moving stage; Homes held as permanently affordable.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Too few homes are being finished. Government counted about 308 net homes in the three years to March 2025, against 2,702 needed. The big sites that should supply most homes face hard barriers: flood defences, polluted land, protected bird habitat, road changes and weak viability. City Centre North has had a resolution to grant since 2023 but is being redesigned. Tipner West has an estimated £107m funding gap. Affordable completions vary sharply from year to year.

Who is affected: Households waiting for a settled or affordable home, including 608 households in temporary accommodation in March 2026; younger workers and families priced out by rents and prices; and residents near large sites who live with long-term vacant or derelict land.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Housing Delivery Test result Unrounded delivered figure 308.50, including a communal accommodation adjustment. Annual delivery: 8.7, 289.5 and 10.2 homes. Below 75% triggers an action plan, a 20% land supply buffer and the unmet-need test in NPPF policy S5(1)(j).11% (308 homes delivered against 2,702 required)HDT 2025 measurement: 2022/23 to 2024/25Portsmouth local planning authority (E06000044)
Net homes added, council monitoring Council monitoring figure. It is not on the same basis as the government test and the two series have not been reconciled.316 net homes2025/26 (year to 31 March 2026)Portsmouth City Council area
Affordable homes completed (all routes) 273 in 2023/24 and 177 in 2022/23. Acquisitions convert existing homes; they do not add to total housing stock.59 (41 bought existing homes, 18 newly built)2024/25Portsmouth (E06000044)
Affordable homes completed through planning schemes (gross) 149 of 311 (48%) in 2023/24. Different scope from the government affordable supply table.15 of 259 gross completions (6%)2024/25Portsmouth City Council area
Planned five-year housing land supply on adoption A forecast that depends on the inspectors’ conclusions and on 825 completions expected in 2026/27.5.37 years (council estimate)2027/28 to 2031/32, assuming adoption in spring 2027Portsmouth City Council area
House price to residents’ pay Median house price divided by median full-time resident annual pay. It measures individual pay, not household mortgage eligibility.7.22 times2025Portsmouth (E06000044)

What this would change

Aim: Turn the homes promised in the Local Plan into finished, occupied homes, with a clear share that local people on lower incomes can afford over the long term.

What success would mean: Completions rise towards the stepped requirement the inspectors finally accept, and the affordable share of completions becomes steadier. Each major site shows real progress from allocation to permission, start, completion and occupation. No numeric target is proposed here beyond the council’s own published trajectory, which is a forecast, not a commitment.

Publish and update a public site-by-site tracker covering every allocated and identified site. For each site it would show the planning stage, the main blocker (flood defence, contamination, habitat mitigation, road works, viability, vacant possession or funding), who must act, the next decision, and planned and actual affordable homes by tenure. Separate allocations, resolutions to grant, permissions, starts, completions and occupied homes. Use the council’s land at City Centre North, Tipner West and smaller council sites to test a permanently affordable community land trust option alongside existing council and housing association delivery.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (planning policy, housing supply and the council’s site promoter team), as a proposal. Partners: Homes England, Registered providers of social housing, Muse/ECF (appointed City Centre North master developer), Environment Agency and Coastal Partners (flood defences), Natural England (habitat mitigation), Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority (from its funding powers), A community land trust or community-led housing group, if one forms.

Powers: The council is the local planning authority and must keep an up-to-date plan, monitor delivery and, under NPPF Annex D, prepare a Housing Delivery Test action plan when delivery falls below 95% (nppf-2026). It owns City Centre North and Tipner West and can choose disposal terms, partners and tenure as landowner (pcc-m701, pcc-tipner-delivery-approach). It cannot force private developers to build out a permission, set government grant, or fund flood defences alone; the Infrastructure Delivery Plan says Tipner West defences must be funded by the developer (pcc-idp-2026). A community land trust would need its own legal form and governance; the council can transfer or lease land but must meet its own disposal and subsidy rules, which have not been checked here.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach: finish the Local Plan examination and deliver site by site. The council completes the examination (hearings run to 26 November 2026), relies on its trajectory, its 2024/25 Housing Delivery Test action plan, and project teams for City Centre North and Tipner West. Progress is reported in the annual monitoring report.
  • Proposed response: Public site-by-site delivery tracker with tenure reporting. Add a public tracker that reports each site’s stage, blocker, responsible body, next decision and affordable homes by tenure, refreshed at least twice a year and reconciled with the government test.
  • Proposed response: Community land trust or permanently affordable homes on council land. Test whether a community land trust, or a council-held covenant, could own or steward a share of homes on council sites so they stay affordable on resale or reletting. Needs a willing community group, land, finance and legal advice before any commitment.
  • Alternative: Council-led or partnership delivery only. Rely on council housebuilding, buy-backs and housing association partners, which already supplied most affordable homes in 2022/23 to 2024/25, without a new community body.
  • Alternative: Prioritise smaller, quicker sites. Concentrate effort on permissions and smaller sites that can start sooner, while large sites wait for funding. May raise early completions but adds little affordable housing because sites under ten homes do not have to provide it.

The council’s trajectory, the inspectors’ findings and Homes England funding decisions could all change the right choice. A tracker is low cost but does not itself build homes. A community land trust depends on a group forming, on land being made available below market value and on finance; national experience may not transfer to a dense island city where nearly all homes will be flats. Funding gaps at Tipner West and City Centre North could make cross-subsidy for permanent affordability harder.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Hearing dates (to 26 November 2026), adoption in spring 2027, the City Centre North completions start in 2029/30 and the Tipner West phasing are council statements or forecasts, not agreed delivery dates. Durations for the tracker and community land trust work are illustrative.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonList every allocated and identified site with its current stage, using the council’s updated housing trajectory and matter statementsPortsmouth City Council planning policy (proposed)Depends on: Updated trajectory in the Schedule of Supplementary ModificationsA first public site list separating allocations, resolutions to grant, permissions, starts and completions
Start soonReconcile the council’s annual net completions with the government Housing Delivery Test figures and publish the reasons for the differencesPortsmouth City Council planning policy (proposed)Depends on: Monitoring data from Hampshire County Council and MHCLGA short reconciliation note
Start soonPrepare the Housing Delivery Test action plan required after the 2025 measurementPortsmouth City Council planning policyDecision: Publication of the 2025 results on 17 August 2026 triggered the requirement; no new plan was found on 2 November 2026Updated action plan naming site barriers and actions
Build nextAdd affordable homes by tenure (social rent, affordable rent, shared ownership) and by route (new build or acquisition) to the trackerPortsmouth City Council housing supply (proposed)—Tenure table for each site and year
Build nextScope a community land trust option: identify a willing community group, candidate council land, legal form, governance, finance and resale or rent controlsPortsmouth City Council housing supply with a community-led housing adviser (proposed)Depends on: Interest from residents or an existing organisation · Decision: Cabinet decision on whether to offer land or a covenantFeasibility note with costs, risks and a go or no-go recommendation
Build nextSet out the funding route and timing for City Centre North and Tipner West enabling works, including any Homes England business casePortsmouth City Council site promoter teamDepends on: Homes England and combined authority funding decisionsPublished funding status for each strategic site
Longer termReport completions, occupied homes and affordable tenure against the adopted trajectory every year, and explain slippage by sitePortsmouth City Council planning policy (proposed)Decision: Adoption of the Portsmouth Local Plan, expected by the council in spring 2027Annual delivery report linked to the authority monitoring report
Longer termIf the feasibility work supports it, pilot a small permanently affordable scheme on council landCommunity land trust or registered provider partner with the council (proposed)—Pilot scheme with a lasting affordability mechanism

A first practical step: Anyone could compile and publish the site list from the council’s own September 2026 matter statements and trajectory, flagging which sites have only a resolution to grant. The council could then adopt or correct it.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. The tracker is mainly officer time; the community land trust feasibility study would need specialist legal and financial advice.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Updating the tracker twice a year would need monitoring staff time.
Capital or revenue
Tracker: revenue. Community land trust homes: capital (land, build or purchase) plus a small revenue cost for governance support.
Funding status
No funding identified for the tracker or a community land trust. Homes England’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026 to 2036 lists community-led housing as a national priority, but no Portsmouth bid was found.
Affordability
The council faces large funding gaps on its own strategic sites (about £107m at Tipner West). Giving land at below market value for permanent affordability would reduce receipts that could otherwise close those gaps.
Costing still needed
Estimate staff days for the tracker; for the community land trust, estimate land value forgone, build or purchase cost per home, grant per home, rent or resale levels, and long-term management costs.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents and councillors could see which sites are stuck and why, who must act, and whether affordable homes are actually being built. A permanently affordable model could stop discounts being lost when homes are resold. These benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • A tracker could be read as a delivery commitment when stages and dates remain forecasts.
  • Large sites may stay stalled because of funding gaps, whatever the reporting.
  • A community land trust may not find a group, land or finance, and could be small and slow.
  • Giving council land at below market value could worsen viability on strategic sites.
  • Different definitions (government test, council monitoring, affordable supply table) could confuse readers if not explained.

Who could gain or lose: Lower-income households, families in temporary accommodation and younger workers would gain most from more affordable homes. Shared ownership helps a different, higher-income group than social rent. Existing residents near big sites may face years of construction. Land given to a community trust benefits its members, so allocation rules need to be open and fair.

Environment: Strategic sites sit next to Portsmouth Harbour, which is protected for birds, and parts of Tipner West are in flood zones 2 and 3. Delivery must include habitat mitigation, nutrient neutrality and new sea defences.

Capacity: The council’s 2024/25 action plan linked part of past under-delivery to planning service performance. Tracking, reconciling data and supporting a community land trust would need staff time in planning policy, housing supply and legal services, none of which is costed or allocated here.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Housing Delivery Test resultNet homes delivered over three years as a share of homes required11% (308 of 2,702), HDT 2025hdt-2025-results · Portsmouth local planning authorityAnnual, when MHCLG publishes · MHCLG
Net completionsNet additional homes completed in the monitoring year (council method)316 in 2025/26pcc-table6 · Portsmouth City Council areaAnnual · Portsmouth City Council
Affordable completions by tenure and routeAffordable homes completed by social rent, affordable rent and shared ownership, split into new build and acquisitions59 in 2024/25 (41 acquisitions, 18 new build; 15 social rent, 41 affordable rent, 3 shared ownership)mhclg-ahs-open-data · Portsmouth (E06000044)Annual · MHCLG
Sites moving stageNumber of allocated sites moving from allocation to permission, start, completion and occupation each yearNo published baseline Gap: No tracker exists; the council publishes stages in its trajectory and monitoring report but not as a regular stage count.Proposed site tracker · Portsmouth City Council areaTwice a year (proposed) · Not agreed
Homes held as permanently affordableHomes with a legal mechanism that keeps them affordable on resale or reletting, such as community land trust ownershipNo published baseline Gap: No local count of permanently affordable or community-led homes was found.Not available · Portsmouth City Council areaAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed

Reassess when: Reassess when the inspectors report on the Local Plan, when MHCLG publishes the next Housing Delivery Test, or when Homes England decides on Tipner West or City Centre North funding.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The 2025 Housing Delivery Test result is 11%: 308 homes against 2,702 required.
  • The Local Plan was submitted on 18 March 2026 and hearings are running; Tipner West is now due to be heard on 19 November 2026.
  • City Centre North has had a resolution to grant since 25 October 2023 but the council now assumes 1,600 homes, not 2,300, and first completions in 2029/30.
  • Tipner West has an estimated funding gap of about £107m and no committed public funding.
  • Affordable completions fell from 273 in 2023/24 to 59 in 2024/25.

What is not known:

  • Why the government test and council monitoring give different annual totals for the same years.
  • How many homes on each site are or will be social rent.
  • Whether the inspectors will accept the stepped requirement and site trajectories.
  • Whether any community group in Portsmouth wants to form a community land trust.
  • When the Housing Delivery Test action plan responding to the 2025 result will be published.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will publish a site-by-site delivery tracker and how often.
  • Whether to reconcile and publish the differences between the government test and council monitoring.
  • Whether to commission a community land trust feasibility study and offer council land for it.
  • How affordable housing on council-owned strategic sites will be secured through disposal terms.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth Local Plan examination: Hearings in progress; Tipner West, Lakeside North Harbour and Horsea Island moved to 19 November 2026; housing land supply and viability on 26 November 2026 (as of 2026-10-21).
  • Housing Delivery Test Action Plan 2024/25: Published June 2025 in response to the 2023 test (26%); it names site constraints, market change, land assembly, nutrient neutrality and planning service performance (as of 2025-06).
  • City Centre North (22/01243/CS3): Resolution to grant conditional permission on 25 October 2023; promoter now preparing a revised application; master developer Muse/ECF appointed under a development management agreement (as of 2026-09-18).
  • Tipner West (Policy PLP3): Allocation under examination for about 1,000 homes and 25,000 m² employment; council owns the freehold but leaseholders remain; funding gap about £107m (as of 2026-09-18).
  • Tipner East (Policy PLP4): 835-home Vivid scheme (22/01292/FUL) under construction; 221-home Bellway scheme (21/01357/FUL) had a resolution to grant with permission expected in autumn 2026 (as of 2026-09-18).
  • Future Portsmouth Plan: Council started a new-system local plan on 14 July 2026; the current plan continues as a legacy plan (as of 2026-07-14).

UK Facts context: Housing supply: from permission to a finished home (National explainer of the stages from permission to completion; Portsmouth figures here are local.) · Housing remedies (National options and funding mechanisms; not a Portsmouth assessment.)

Next review: When the Local Plan inspectors issue their post-hearing letter or report, or when MHCLG publishes the next Housing Delivery Test measurement.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

  • housing-delivery-plan (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. This action; baseline 308 against 2,702 retained and verified; site tracker, tenure reporting and options added.
  • clt-housing (earlier ten suggestions): restored. Candidate option ‘Community land trust or permanently affordable homes on council land’ with scoping task, costs, risks and an evaluation metric. Not carried forward: The 17,700-home Local Plan target (not found; the submitted requirement is 11,369, proposed to change to 11,090); the target of several hundred trust homes by the early 2030s (no evidence); ‘tens of millions’ cost (no checkable origin); short-term letting claim (not sourced); MOD and Crown Estate land (no specific site found); London CLT and St Clements examples (not checked).

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Secure usable employment space at Tipner West alongside its homes

Make sure the 25,000 m² of industrial and marine-related workspace planned at Tipner West is phased, secured and monitored alongside its 1,000 homes, rather than left until last, and report what is actually built and usable.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council, as site promoter and as local planning authority acting separately (proposed)

Start soon

Publish how employment and housing phases are expected to align, reconciling the plan’s monitoring table (employment 2035 to 2040) with the March 2026 delivery paper (about 10,000 m² in years 5 to 10)

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Test the viability of options that bring serviced employment plots into phase 1

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Report Tipner West employment floorspace permitted, completed and occupied next to homes completed in every annual monitoring report

How to judge progress: Employment floorspace at Tipner West; Homes completed at Tipner West; Citywide industrial floorspace net change; Jobs on site.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Tipner West is one of the few large sites left for industrial jobs on Portsea Island. The plan under examination expects about 1,000 homes and 25,000 m² of employment space, but the delivery table puts homes from 2030 and employment space mainly in 2035 to 2040, with some after 2040. Without Tipner, the city would fall about 27,700 m² short of its industrial space need. The site has an estimated £107m funding gap, and more employment space makes that gap bigger.

Who is affected: People seeking skilled industrial, marine and manufacturing jobs in north Portsmouth; local firms needing modern workspace; future Tipner West residents; and taxpayers if public money is used to close the funding gap.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Employment floorspace planned at Tipner West Policy under examination, not a permission. The 2024 draft proposed 58,000 m² of marine-focused space; the council reduced it after the Secretary of State’s opinions on harm to protected habitats.About 25,000 m² (research and development, light industrial, general industrial and storage, including marine uses)Plan period 2025 to 2040 (submitted policy)Tipner West allocation, Portsmouth
Homes planned at Tipner West The council’s trajectory shows first homes in 2032/33.About 1,000 (400 in 2030 to 2035, 600 in 2035 to 2040)Plan period 2025 to 2040Tipner West allocation
Tipner West’s share of planned industrial floorspace supply Industrial need is 81,605 m²; supply including Tipner is 78,898 m². Calculated here from the council’s revised Table 7.1.25,000 of 78,898 m² (32%)Plan period 2025 to 2040Portsmouth City Council area
Estimated funding gap High-level, minimum estimate for the residential-led option; price base not stated. The employment-led option was estimated at about £174m.About £107mEstimate in March 2026 delivery paperTipner West
Net change in employment floorspace, citywide Planning completions; gross gain 189,959 m², gross loss 191,035 m².Net loss of 1,076 m² (offices minus 93,537 m²; industrial and storage plus 92,461 m²)April 2010 to March 2025Portsmouth City Council area

What this would change

Aim: Deliver usable employment space at Tipner West at a pace that keeps up with its homes, so the site adds jobs as well as housing.

What success would mean: Each housing phase is matched by an agreed amount of serviced, lettable employment floorspace, reported once built and once occupied. Any phasing ratio would be a proposal for testing through viability work, not an evidenced target.

Ask the council, as landowner and planning authority, to set out how employment space will be phased with homes. As landowner it can write employment milestones into any disposal or development agreement. As planning authority it can require a site-wide phasing and sequencing strategy under Policy PLP3 part 7, backed by conditions or a planning obligation that meets the legal tests. Test realistic options, including serviced employment plots in phase 1, before setting any requirement. Report employment floorspace permitted, completed and occupied at Tipner West alongside homes in the annual monitoring report.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council, as site promoter and as local planning authority acting separately (proposed). Partners: Homes England (funding and delivery options), Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority (possible funding from 2028), Environment Agency and Coastal Partners (sea defences), Natural England and the Tipner West Regulatory Panel (habitats), Portsmouth International Port, University of Portsmouth and local marine employers (demand testing), A future development partner.

Powers: Planning conditions must be necessary, relevant, precise, enforceable and reasonable, and cannot require payments or the transfer of land (nppf-2026, policy DM6). Planning obligations can only be a reason to grant permission if necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related to the development (cil-reg-122). Policy PLP3 part 7 already requires phasing and sequencing strategies for all proposals (pcc-addendum-2025). As freehold owner since January 2024, the council can also set delivery milestones in disposal or partnership contracts (pcc-tipner-delivery-approach). These powers cannot create demand for workspace, and a requirement that makes the scheme unviable may stall homes as well as jobs.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach: allocation with a site-wide phasing strategy. Policy PLP3 allocates about 25,000 m² employment and 1,000 homes, requires a masterplan, design code and phasing strategy, and lists employment for 2035 to 2040 in its monitoring table. Delivery depends on closing the funding gap with Homes England and others.
  • Proposed response: Tie employment milestones to housing phases through disposal terms and planning obligations. Agree serviced employment plots or a share of floorspace before a set number of homes are occupied, secured in the development agreement and, where lawful, by condition or planning obligation. Test the viability effect first.
  • Proposed response: Early serviced employment land in phase 1. Prepare and service employment plots, for example near the listed buildings in the north of the site, in the first phase, so that firms can build when demand exists. The council’s own March 2026 programme already suggests about 10,000 m² in years 5 to 10.
  • Alternative: Monitor and review rather than condition. Rely on annual monitoring and a policy review trigger if employment slips behind homes, avoiding extra cost or delay to housing.
  • Alternative: Relocate some industrial space need elsewhere. Seek other sites, such as Land West of Portsdown Technology Park or intensified industrial estates, if Tipner West employment proves unviable. No alternative site of this scale was identified in the plan.

The council’s optioneering found that more employment space increases the funding gap (employment-led option about £174m against £107m). A strict sequencing requirement could therefore slow homes. Demand for marine space at Tipner may also be weaker than the 2021 study assumed, because the current policy has no deep-water access. Market testing, viability and the inspectors’ findings could change the preferred option.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Hearing dates, the 2030 to 2040 delivery periods and the Harbour School relocation (earliest September 2030) are council forecasts or programmes, not agreed delivery dates. Other durations are illustrative.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonPublish how employment and housing phases are expected to align, reconciling the plan’s monitoring table (employment 2035 to 2040) with the March 2026 delivery paper (about 10,000 m² in years 5 to 10)Portsmouth City Council site promoter team (proposed)Depends on: Inspectors’ hearing on PLP3 on 19 November 2026A short public note on phasing assumptions
Start soonRaise employment phasing and monitoring at the Local Plan hearing on Tipner West and in any main modificationsRepresentors and the council as planning authorityDecision: Inspectors decide whether modifications are needed for soundnessHearing record and any modified wording
Start soonCommission independent market testing of demand for industrial and marine workspace at Tipner without deep-water accessPortsmouth City Council site promoter team (proposed)—Updated demand evidence
Build nextTest the viability of options that bring serviced employment plots into phase 1Portsmouth City Council with Homes England (proposed)Depends on: Homes England business case workViability comparison of phasing options
Build nextWrite employment delivery milestones into the disposal and delivery strategy and any development agreementPortsmouth City Council as landownerDecision: Cabinet approval of the disposal and delivery strategyContractual milestones for employment space
Build nextPrepare draft planning obligations and conditions for a phasing and sequencing strategy that meet the legal testsPortsmouth City Council as local planning authorityDepends on: Outline or hybrid planning applicationDraft heads of terms
Longer termReport Tipner West employment floorspace permitted, completed and occupied next to homes completed in every annual monitoring reportPortsmouth City Council planning policy (proposed)—Annual phase-by-phase table

A first practical step: Before the 19 November 2026 hearing, the council could publish a one-page note explaining how employment space will be phased with homes and what would trigger action if it slips.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Market testing and viability work would cost consultancy and officer time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Monitoring is part of existing annual reporting.
Capital or revenue
Market testing, viability and monitoring: revenue. Servicing employment plots early: capital, part of the wider site funding gap.
Funding status
No public funding committed for Tipner West delivery. The council says it is discussing funding with Homes England and may seek combined authority funding from April 2028.
Affordability
The site already has an estimated funding gap of about £107m. Bringing employment forward could increase early costs.
Costing still needed
Price the cost of servicing employment plots in phase 1, the effect on land value and gap funding, and compare with the residential-led baseline using the same assumptions as the council’s optioneering.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Keeps open the chance of industrial and marine jobs on the island, and avoids homes being completed while the employment land stays empty. Not quantified; jobs numbers are not estimated here.

Risks:

  • A strict sequencing rule could make the scheme unviable and delay homes.
  • Demand for industrial or marine space at Tipner may be weaker without deep-water access.
  • Habitat mitigation for the bird support area and the bridge could add cost and delay.
  • Leaseholders, including the Harbour School, must be relocated first; the council estimates five or more years.
  • Conditions or obligations that fail legal tests could be overturned on appeal.

Who could gain or lose: Industrial jobs could benefit residents without degrees in north Portsmouth. If homes are delayed by employment requirements, households needing homes lose out. Public money used to close the gap is a cost to taxpayers.

Environment: The site lies next to Portsmouth Harbour SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI and the Solent and Dorset Coast SPA. Development will lose part of a primary support area for waders and brent geese (about 6.66 ha), needing replacement habitat. Parts of the site are in flood zones 2 and 3 and need new sea defences and land raising. One bridge option could also affect Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar.

Capacity: The council promoter team, the planning authority and Homes England teams must work in parallel. The council’s evidence library lists separate planning-authority handling arrangements for Tipner West (July 2025), meant to keep its landowner and planning roles apart; the document itself was not reviewed here. Staff capacity was not assessed.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Employment floorspace at Tipner WestSquare metres permitted, completed and occupied, by phase0 m² completed; 25,000 m² allocated (not yet permitted) Gap: The monitoring report does not yet report Tipner West employment space by phase.pcc-addendum-2025 · Tipner WestAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (annual monitoring report)
Homes completed at Tipner WestNet homes completed by phase0; first completions forecast in 2032/33pcc-mainmods-v2 · Tipner WestAnnual · Portsmouth City Council
Citywide industrial floorspace net changeNet completions of industrial and storage floorspacePlus 92,461 m² net, April 2010 to March 2025pcc-amr-2425 · Portsmouth City Council areaAnnual · Portsmouth City Council
Jobs on siteEmployees working in completed employment space at Tipner WestNo published baseline Gap: No jobs estimate or survey method exists for the site.Not available · Tipner WestEvery two years (proposed) · Not agreed

Reassess when: Reassess after the inspectors report on Policy PLP3, when Homes England decides on a business case, or when a planning application for Tipner West is submitted.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The submitted policy allocates about 25,000 m² employment and 1,000 homes at Tipner West.
  • The council owns the freehold but leaseholders, including the Harbour School, remain.
  • The funding gap is estimated at about £107m and no public funding is committed.
  • The plan’s monitoring table puts employment space mainly in 2035 to 2040, after the first homes.
  • Tipner West is about a third of the city’s planned industrial floorspace supply.

What is not known:

  • Whether there is enough demand for industrial or marine space at Tipner without deep-water access.
  • How much employment space could be serviced in phase 1 and at what cost.
  • Whether the inspectors will modify Policy PLP3 on phasing.
  • The cost of the bridge options other than the discounted £25m to £30m option.
  • How many jobs the space would support.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether employment milestones are written into the disposal and delivery strategy.
  • Whether to seek phasing obligations in an outline or hybrid permission.
  • Whether to fund early servicing of employment land.

Existing work:

  • Policy PLP3: Tipner West (Local Plan Addendum): Under examination; hearing scheduled for 19 November 2026 (as of 2026-10-21).
  • Tipner West Regeneration Delivery Approach: March 2026 paper; Homes England agreed to explore delivery options; disposal and delivery strategy to follow (as of 2026-03).
  • Tipner Bridge feasibility and habitat risk assessment: Feasibility study (September 2025) and high-level Habitats Regulations risk assessment (September 2026); all three options carry a risk of adverse effect (as of 2026-09).
  • Council funding talks with Homes England: Meeting scheduled for October 2026, according to the council’s September 2026 statement; outcome not published (as of 2026-09-18).

Next review: When the inspectors publish findings on Policy PLP3 after the 19 November 2026 hearing.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

  • tipner-marine-jobs (earlier ten suggestions): restored. This action, with a new stable ID. The sequencing idea is kept and tested against viability evidence; options now include contract milestones, phasing obligations, early serviced plots and monitoring. Not carried forward: The 58,000 m² figure (it was the 2024 draft; the submitted policy says about 25,000 m²); the claim that this has no public cost (the council estimates a £107m gap and more employment raises it); the status ‘Under discussion’ (no evidence of discussion of this specific proposal).

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Prevent homelessness and show whether rented homes improve

Help households earlier, before notice turns into homelessness, move families out of temporary accommodation into settled homes, and publish what private-rented inspections find and fix, using the new powers in force since May 2026.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council housing needs, advice and support and private sector housing services (proposed)

Start soon

Publish the quarterly government homelessness figures for Portsmouth in plain terms, including prevention outcomes and temporary accommodation by household type

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Report progress on the 200-home temporary accommodation purchase programme, including homes bought and average length of stay

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Compare settled outcomes, repeat homelessness and hazard trends before and after May 2026 and adjust the mix of prevention, enforcement and supply

How to judge progress: Households in temporary accommodation; Prevention success; Category 1 hazards found in private rented homes; Repeat homelessness; Disrepair complaint response time; Time in temporary accommodation.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Temporary accommodation keeps rising: 608 households, including 612 children, on 31 March 2026, up from 565 households a year earlier. When the council’s duty to prevent homelessness ended in early 2026, about a third of households had secured a home for six months or more, against just over half across England. Over half became homeless. Section 21 notices drove nearly 4 in 10 prevention cases. The HMO register lists licences, not whether homes are safe.

Who is affected: Families with children in temporary accommodation, most of them single-parent households; single adults leaving private tenancies; private renters, including tenants in properties covered by 3,106 HMO licence records; and landlords facing new rules from May 2026.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Households in temporary accommodation 565 on 31 March 2025 (revised data). 6.9 per 1,000 households, against 2.8 in England outside London.60831 March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Households with children in temporary accommodation 293 on 31 March 2025.324 households (203 single-adult families)31 March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Children in temporary accommodation 578 on 31 March 2025; 636 on 31 December 2025.61231 March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Households in bed and breakfast 82 on 31 March 2025, of which 25 with children.55, none with children31 March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Prevention cases ending with a home for 6 months or more England 55%. 112 of 208 (54%) ended because the household became homeless; England 25%. October to December 2025: 73 of 228 (32%). One quarter of small numbers; treat as indicative.68 of 208 (33%)January to March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Prevention duties owed because of a section 21 notice England 17%. Section 21 was abolished for private tenancies from 1 May 2026, so this cause should change.103 of 262 (39%)January to March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Households owed the relief duty (already homeless)332January to March 2026Portsmouth (E06000044)
Private rented homes found with a serious (category 1) hazard after inspection Council return to government. The number of inspections and hazards removed is not shown in the source read.1552024/25Portsmouth (E06000044)
Records on the combined HMO register 3,071 distinct property references. A register record is not an inspection or a hazard finding.3,390 records: 3,106 licence records and 284 planning recordsOctober 2026 registerPortsmouth City Council area

What this would change

Aim: Fewer households become homeless, those who do move quickly into settled homes, and private rented homes become safer, with results published.

What success would mean: More prevention cases end with a secure home, fewer end in homelessness, fewer families stay long in temporary accommodation, and hazards found in rented homes are fixed promptly. Any numeric target would be a proposal; the council’s 2024 to 2029 strategy sets measures but no published numeric targets were found.

Reach households as soon as they receive notice or fall into rent arrears, through landlords, advice services, GPs and schools, with negotiation, arrears help and court representation. Use the new Renters’ Rights Act enforcement duty to act on illegal evictions and poor conditions. Expand settled exits from temporary accommodation, building on the council’s purchase of at least 200 homes. Publish, at least twice a year, prevention outcomes, temporary accommodation length of stay, inspections carried out, category 1 hazards found and fixed, and response times to disrepair complaints.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council housing needs, advice and support and private sector housing services (proposed). Partners: Registered providers of social housing, Private landlords and the Portsmouth and District Private Landlords Association, Advice services and the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service, NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight and schools (early referral), Department for Work and Pensions (benefit and arrears support).

Powers: The council has statutory homelessness duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and must publish a homelessness strategy (pcc-homelessness-strategy). From 1 May 2026 the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 abolished section 21 for private tenancies and placed a general enforcement duty on local housing authorities (sections 107 to 109), with new financial penalties and wider rent repayment orders (si-2026-421). Investigatory powers started on 27 December 2025 (rra-roadmap). The council licenses HMOs and can inspect and serve improvement notices under the Housing Act 2004. It cannot set rents in the private sector, and the private rented sector database, landlord ombudsman and Decent Homes Standard are not yet in force.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach: deliver the 2024 to 2029 Homelessness Strategy and buy homes for temporary accommodation. Continue the five-aim strategy, the 200-home purchase programme approved in March 2025, citywide additional HMO licensing and statutory reporting to government.
  • Proposed response: Earlier prevention plus published outcome reporting. Add early-warning referrals from landlords, advice services and benefits data, and publish prevention outcomes, temporary accommodation stays, inspections, hazards fixed and complaint response times.
  • Proposed response: Use the new enforcement duty in a targeted way. Focus inspections and penalties on the worst conditions and illegal evictions, using register, complaint and hazard data, and report what changed.
  • Alternative: Increase supply of settled homes only. Put extra resources into buying or leasing homes for settled lets rather than into prevention and enforcement. Faster relief for some households but does not address why people lose homes.

The effect of abolishing section 21 on homelessness is not yet known; new possession grounds could shift rather than reduce evictions. Costs and staff capacity have not been assessed, and the balance between prevention, enforcement and supply should be tested once two or more quarters of post-May 2026 data are published.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Renters’ Rights Act dates (27 December 2025 and 1 May 2026) are in force. Database (from late 2026), ombudsman sign-up (2028) and Decent Homes Standard dates are government plans. Other durations here are illustrative.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonPublish the quarterly government homelessness figures for Portsmouth in plain terms, including prevention outcomes and temporary accommodation by household typePortsmouth City Council housing needs service (proposed)—A short quarterly dashboard using published MHCLG data
Start soonSet up an early-referral route from landlords, letting agents and advice services when notice is served or arrears buildPortsmouth City Council housing needs service (proposed)Depends on: Landlord and advice-service agreementReferral protocol and count of early referrals
Start soonPublish 2025/26 private sector housing activity: inspections, category 1 hazards found and removed, notices and penaltiesPortsmouth City Council private sector housing (proposed)—Annual enforcement summary
Build nextReport progress on the 200-home temporary accommodation purchase programme, including homes bought and average length of stayPortsmouth City Council housing supplyDecision: End-of-year report requested by the Cabinet Member in March 2025Published progress report
Build nextAgree a method to measure repeat homelessness and complaint response timesPortsmouth City Council housing services (proposed)Depends on: Case-management data qualityDefinitions and first baseline
Build nextReview enforcement priorities under the Renters’ Rights Act duty and the expected private rented sector databasePortsmouth City Council private sector housing (proposed)Depends on: Database roll-out, which government plans from late 2026Updated enforcement policy
Longer termCompare settled outcomes, repeat homelessness and hazard trends before and after May 2026 and adjust the mix of prevention, enforcement and supplyPortsmouth City Council housing services (proposed)Decision: Next homelessness strategy reviewEvaluation report

A first practical step: Anyone could publish a one-page summary of Portsmouth’s latest MHCLG homelessness tables now; the council could add its own inspection and hazard data from its existing returns to government.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Setting up referral routes and reporting would need staff time and data work.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Extra prevention and enforcement staff would be a recurring revenue cost.
Capital or revenue
Prevention and enforcement: revenue. Temporary accommodation purchases: capital (£31.28m approved in March 2025 for at least 200 homes, held in the Housing Revenue Account).
Funding status
The purchase programme is approved and funded through Housing Revenue Account borrowing with a General Fund contribution of up to £1.87m. Government gave councils £18.2m nationally in 2025/26 for Renters’ Rights Act preparation; Portsmouth’s share was not checked. No funding identified for new reporting or prevention staff.
Affordability
Temporary accommodation is a pressure on council budgets; the council says spending has fallen since 2024, but the figures were not available to check.
Costing still needed
Estimate officer time for early referral and reporting; cost an enforcement caseload against expected penalty income; compare temporary accommodation nightly costs with purchased-home costs using council finance data.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Fewer moves and less time in temporary accommodation for families and children; safer homes for private renters; better information for residents and councillors. Not quantified.

Risks:

  • Enforcement can close unsafe rooms without replacement homes, adding to homelessness.
  • Landlords may leave the market or use new possession grounds, offsetting the end of section 21.
  • Prevention figures for one quarter are small and can swing; trends need several quarters.
  • Staff shortages could stop new reporting from being kept up.
  • Published data must not identify individual households or addresses.

Who could gain or lose: Single-parent families, mostly headed by women, make up most families in temporary accommodation. Private renters in central wards with many HMOs would gain from stronger enforcement. Some landlords and their tenants may lose out if properties close. Rough sleepers and single adults have different needs from families.

Capacity: The 2024 strategy notes officer caseloads and a target of around 35 cases per officer as a measure. Enforcement under the new duty and the coming database will need trained officers. The council’s current staffing and vacancy levels were not found in published sources read.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Households in temporary accommodationHouseholds in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter, total and with children608 total; 324 with children (31 March 2026)mhclg-homeless-lt-202603 · Portsmouth (E06000044)Quarterly · MHCLG
Prevention successShare of prevention duties ending with accommodation secured for 6 months or more68 of 208 (33%), January to March 2026mhclg-homeless-lt-202603 · Portsmouth (E06000044)Quarterly · MHCLG
Category 1 hazards found in private rented homesPrivate rented dwellings found on inspection to have one or more category 1 hazards155 in 2024/25 Gap: Inspections carried out and hazards removed are not published locally.mhclg-lahs-2425 · Portsmouth (E06000044)Annual · MHCLG (from council return)
Repeat homelessnessHouseholds who return as homeless within a set period after a settled outcomeNo published local baseline Gap: No published Portsmouth measure was found.Not available · PortsmouthAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed
Disrepair complaint response timeMedian days from a private renter’s complaint to inspection, and to hazard removalNo published local baseline Gap: No published council figure was found.Not available · PortsmouthTwice a year (proposed) · Not agreed
Time in temporary accommodationLength of stay for households leaving temporary accommodationNo baseline taken here Gap: Local length-of-stay data was not found in sources read.Not available · PortsmouthQuarterly (proposed) · Not agreed

Reassess when: Reassess when MHCLG publishes April to June 2026 data (the first quarter after section 21 abolition) and again after two further quarters, or when the private rented sector database starts in Portsmouth.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • 608 households and 612 children were in temporary accommodation on 31 March 2026.
  • About a third of prevention cases ended with a home secured in January to March 2026, against just over half in England.
  • Section 21 notices caused 39% of prevention duties in that quarter; section 21 was abolished for private tenancies from 1 May 2026.
  • The council approved £31.28m to buy at least 200 homes for temporary accommodation in 2025/26 and 2026/27.
  • 155 private rented homes were found with category 1 hazards in 2024/25.

What is not known:

  • How many of the 200 homes have been bought so far.
  • Average length of stay in temporary accommodation.
  • Repeat homelessness and complaint response times.
  • How many inspections were carried out and how many hazards were removed.
  • The effect of the Renters’ Rights Act on local evictions.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will publish quarterly homelessness and private-rented enforcement results.
  • How to prioritise inspections under the new enforcement duty.
  • Whether to fund early-referral work from existing budgets or new burdens funding.

Existing work:

  • Homelessness Strategy 2024 to 2029: Published February 2024 with five aims and a suite of measures (as of 2024-02).
  • Homes for Temporary Accommodation project: Approved 12 March 2025: at least 200 homes, £31.28m capital; mid-year update noted on 10 March 2026 (content not accessible) (as of 2026-03-10).
  • HMO register and citywide additional licensing: Register updated October 2026 with 3,106 licence records (as of 2026-10).
  • Renters’ Rights Act 2025 phase 1: In force from 1 May 2026, including the council enforcement duty (as of 2026-04-16).

UK Facts context: Renting: how much of renters’ income goes on rent? (National renting context; Portsmouth figures here are local.) · Houses in multiple occupation (National HMO explainer; local register figures are separate.)

Next review: When MHCLG publishes the April to June 2026 statutory homelessness tables, the first quarter after section 21 abolition.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

  • housing-prevention (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. This action. Baseline of 608 households and 612 children retained and verified; inspection baseline added from the government return; outcome measures defined. Not carried forward: The September 2026 register figure of 3,125 records is superseded by the October 2026 register (3,390 records, including 284 planning records).

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Publish a costed plan for children needing extra support

Set out, with costs, how Portsmouth could cut waits for assessments, give earlier speech, language and mental-health help, and plan local specialist places, now that the special-needs reserve is forecast to run out during 2026/27.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (children, families and education, with the finance director), as a proposal, working through the existing SEND and alternative provision partnership board

Start soon

Map the assessment route stage by stage and publish anonymised waiting times at each stage

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Appraise employing versus commissioning educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and mental-health practitioners

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Adapt the plan to national reform once legislation and funding rules are settled

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks; Severe absence; Waiting time from referral to therapy or mental-health assessment; Family experience of the assessment and support process; Dedicated Schools Grant balance.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Requests for an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment rose from 244 in 2019 to 590 in 2025. In 2025, 42.9% of new plans were issued within the 20-week limit, up from 1.6% in 2023 but below England (46.1%). Severe absence rose in every published year from 2018/19 to 2024/25 and is above Southampton, Hampshire and England. The council's reserve for this spending is being used up: in June 2026 it forecast a £1.05m shortfall by March 2027.

Who is affected: Children and young people aged 0 to 25 with special educational needs. In January 2026 about 6,700 pupils in Portsmouth schools had extra support (2,121 with an EHC plan and 4,592 on SEN support). The council maintained 2,616 EHC plans in all settings. Families, schools and the council's high needs budget are also affected.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks (excluding legal exceptions) Earlier years: 1.6% (3 of 192) in 2023 and 4.3% (21 of 485) in 2024. In 2024, 143 plans (29.5%) took more than 52 weeks; in 2025, 15 plans (2.9%). This measures when a plan is issued, not when support starts.42.9% (220 of 513). England 46.1%, Hampshire 52.0%, Southampton 80.0%Calendar year 2025Portsmouth City Council area (local authority responsible)
Requests for an EHC needs assessment590 requests (244 in 2019). In 2025, 72.2% of requests were decided in favour of assessmentCalendar years 2019 and 2025Portsmouth City Council area
EHC plans maintained by the council2,616 (1,513 in January 2019, a rise of 72.9%)January 2026Portsmouth City Council (all settings and ages)
Pupils with an EHC plan, share of all pupils in schools Portsmouth had the lowest share of the three local authorities in each year from 2021/22 to 2024/25 (for example 5.82% in January 2025) and moved above Southampton in January 2026.7.17%. England 6.04%, Hampshire 7.37%, Southampton 6.72%January 2026Pupils in all schools located in each area
Severe absence (pupils missing at least half of possible sessions) Portsmouth rose from 1.69% in 2018/19 through each published year (no full-year figure for 2019/20). By phase in 2024/25: primary 0.95% (England 0.93%), secondary 5.51% (England 3.88%), special schools 19.76% (England 6.91%).3.55% of pupil enrolments. Southampton 3.36%, Hampshire 2.44%, England 2.39%School year 2024/25State-funded primary, secondary and special schools in each area
Persistent absence (missing 10% or more of sessions)19.74%. Southampton 21.40%, Hampshire 15.77%, England 18.14%School year 2024/25State-funded schools in each area
Recorded reasons for absence, share of all possible sessions These are all pupils' sessions, not only severely absent pupils. Recorded codes describe how schools logged an absence, not its underlying cause.Overall 7.80% (England 6.78%). Illness 3.11% (England 3.22%). Other unauthorised 2.54% (England 1.56%). Temporary reduced timetable 0.44% (England 0.23%). Exclusion 0.21% (England 0.15%)School year 2024/25State-funded schools in each area
Primary need of pupils with an EHC planSpeech, language and communication 29.2% (England 22.1%, Southampton 21.5%). Social, emotional and mental health 24.6% (England 16.9%, Southampton 14.6%). Autism 26.0% (England 33.5%, Southampton 38.3%)January 2026Pupils with an EHC plan in state-funded and non-maintained special schools in each area (Portsmouth 2,090 pupils)
Dedicated Schools Grant reserve at year end The reserve is for the whole grant (schools, early years and high needs), not the high needs part alone. The February 2026 budget assumed a £5.0m opening reserve and forecast a £4.53m deficit; the actual opening reserve was £8.01m, so the July revision forecast £0.52m, and the June-based monitoring forecast £1.05m.£11.48m (31 March 2024), £11.13m (31 March 2025), £8.01m (31 March 2026, outturn before audit). Forecast at 30 June 2026: deficit of £1.05m at 31 March 2027Financial years 2023/24 to 2026/27Portsmouth City Council's schools grant after academy recoupment (central, early years and high needs blocks)
High needs spending against funding2025/26: high needs spending £4.8m above the high needs allocation, partly met by £3.0m of planned reserves. 2026/27 budget: high needs funding shortfall of £8.53m, met from the reserveFinancial years 2025/26 and 2026/27Portsmouth City Council
Placements outside the city's own schools The 2024 to 2029 strategy (April 2024 snapshot) reported 27 children in out-of-city schools and described dependence on out-of-city placements as low.56 pupils in independent or specialist settings (budget 44) and 52 receiving individual tuition (budget 13)Financial year 2025/26Pupils funded by Portsmouth City Council

What this would change

Aim: Give children with special educational needs timely assessment and the right help earlier, within a funding plan the council, schools and the NHS can sustain after the national accounting protection for school-grant deficits ends on 31 March 2028.

What success would mean: A published, costed plan that shows each option's staff, places, one-off and yearly costs and funding source; EHC plans issued on time at or above the England rate and staying there; fewer children reaching severe absence; shorter waits for therapy and mental-health help; and families reporting better experience. No numeric target is proposed here because no agreed local target was found.

The council, schools, the NHS and parents would publish one costed support plan alongside the refreshed SEND strategy planned for January 2027. It would map each step of the assessment route and where waits build up; compare employing more educational psychologists and therapists directly with buying more from NHS or private providers; size speech, language and mental-health support to Portsmouth's actual need mix; set out how many inclusion centre and special school places are needed; and plan help that reaches children before absence becomes severe. Each option would show staff numbers, one-off and yearly costs, funding source, and what changes if national reform alters funding.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (children, families and education, with the finance director), as a proposal, working through the existing SEND and alternative provision partnership board. Partners: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (joint commissioning of children's health services), NHS community children's therapy and mental-health services (Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust took over Solent NHS Trust's services in 2024; the current children's provider is to be confirmed), Portsmouth Schools Forum, Schools and academy trusts, including the trusts running the city's special schools, Portsmouth Parent Voice and young people's groups, Portsmouth Education Partnership, Department for Education.

Powers: The council has the legal duty to assess and issue EHC plans (the DfE measures the statutory 20-week limit) and sets the Dedicated Schools Grant budget, which is ring-fenced to the schools budget under the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations, with Schools Forum approving some elements (pcc-dsg-budget-2026-27). The integrated care board commissions children's health services jointly with the council (pcc-sendap-strategy-2024-29). The council cannot direct academies or NHS providers; it can commission, fund places and agree joint plans. National reform is not law: a consultation closed on 18 May 2026 and the Education for All Bill had not been introduced when last checked (hcl-cbp-10550).

Options

  • Current approach: Continue current approach. Keep the 2024 to 2029 strategy until the refresh planned for January 2027, set the grant budget year by year, and use the reserve to cover the high needs shortfall. This keeps services running but leaves no reserve after 2026/27 and no published costed choice between staffing and placement options.
  • Proposed response: Publish a costed support plan with the strategy refresh. Add a costed option appraisal to the January 2027 strategy refresh: assessment capacity, employed versus commissioned specialists, speech, language and mental-health support, inclusion bases and special places, each with yearly costs, funding and a progress measure.
  • Alternative: Wait for national reform before committing. Hold new commitments until the government responds to the consultation and legislation passes. This avoids building a model that national rules may change, but reformed support is not expected before September 2029, and current duties and waits continue meanwhile.
  • Alternative: Buy more assessment and therapy capacity. Expand contracts with NHS or private providers instead of employing staff. This may be quicker to start but can cost more per hour and depends on a limited supply of specialists.
  • Alternative: Prioritise local specialist and inclusion places. Focus on more inclusion centre and special school places to reduce costly out-of-city placements and individual tuition. This needs capital and takes longer, and does not by itself shorten assessment waits.

The balance between options depends on facts not yet published: where in the assessment route waits build up, the cost per assessment and per therapy hour under each delivery model, local vacancy rates for specialists, the number and type of places needed, and how much of the new national Experts at Hand and Inclusive Mainstream funding Portsmouth will receive. National reform could also change which children need an EHC plan from 2029/30.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. No durations are proposed. The only sourced dates are the strategy refresh planned for January 2027, the end of the accounting protection on 31 March 2028, and the national expectation that reformed support begins no earlier than September 2029. All other timing is illustrative and would need agreement by the bodies involved.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonMap the assessment route stage by stage and publish anonymised waiting times at each stagePortsmouth City Council SEN service (proposed)—Published map of the route with typical waits and the reasons plans miss 20 weeks
Start soonPublish a short reconciliation of the grant reserve: why it grew to £11.5m by March 2024, what it has funded since, and the forecast to March 2028Portsmouth City Council finance director (section 151 officer) (proposed)Decision: Report to Schools ForumPublic paper reconciling year-end balances with high needs spending
Start soonAnalyse severe absence by school phase, recorded reason and SEN status with schools, without identifying childrenPortsmouth City Council education service with schools (proposed)—Anonymised analysis separating illness, unauthorised absence, reduced timetables and exclusion
Build nextAppraise employing versus commissioning educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and mental-health practitionersCouncil and integrated care board joint commissioning team (proposed)Depends on: Cost and vacancy data from the council and NHS providers · Decision: Schools Forum and Cabinet Member decision on the 2027/28 grant budgetCosted options with staff numbers, yearly cost, risks and a preferred approach
Build nextProduce a place-sufficiency plan for inclusion centres and special schools linked to out-of-city placement trendsPortsmouth City Council school place planning (proposed)Depends on: Capital allocations from the Department for EducationPlan stating places needed by type and year, with capital and running costs shown separately
Build nextAgree a shared quarterly progress report covering assessment waits, therapy waits, attendance and family feedbackSEND and alternative provision partnership board (proposed)—Agreed measures, definitions and reporting body
Longer termAdapt the plan to national reform once legislation and funding rules are settledPortsmouth City Council with partners (proposed)Depends on: Education for All Bill and government consultation responseRevised plan covering transition of existing EHC plans from September 2029 onwards if the published timetable holds
Longer termIndependent evaluation of whether the chosen options shortened waits and reduced severe absenceTo be agreed; an independent evaluator is proposed—Published evaluation against the baselines above

A first practical step: A councillor or Schools Forum member could ask for a paper reconciling the grant reserve history and the high needs shortfall to be added to a future Schools Forum agenda. This needs no new spending and would test whether a costed plan is wanted.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Preparing the plan would mainly use existing officer time; no estimate has been published.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Extra employed or commissioned specialists would be continuing revenue costs, mostly from the high needs budget, which already has a funding shortfall of £8.53m in the 2026/27 budget.
Capital or revenue
Staffing and therapy are revenue. New inclusion or special places are capital, with separate running costs.
Funding status
No funding is identified for new provision. The £8.01m reserve at 31 March 2026 is committed to the 2026/27 shortfall. Portsmouth's share of national Experts at Hand and Inclusive Mainstream funding was not found.
Affordability
Headroom is very limited: the latest monitoring (June 2026) forecasts a £1.05m deficit by March 2027, and any deficit left at March 2028 could fall partly on the council's general budget, according to the council.
Costing still needed
Cost per completed assessment; cost and availability per therapy and psychology hour by delivery model; vacancy rates; place numbers by type with capital and running costs; local allocations of national reform funding; sensitivity to EHC plan growth.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Faster assessment would mean support decisions arrive sooner. Earlier speech, language and mental-health help could reduce how many children need specialist placements, though this is not yet shown for Portsmouth. A costed plan would make choices between staffing, places and placements visible before the reserve and the accounting protection run out.

Risks:

  • Specialist staff are hard to recruit; the council's SEN support service already underspent in 2025/26 partly because of difficulty filling posts.
  • Recurring staffing commitments create continuing costs at a time when the high needs budget is already short.
  • National reform could change eligibility and funding from 2029/30, so some local investment may need redesign.
  • Absence has several causes, so better SEND support alone may not reduce severe absence.
  • Publishing waits by stage could identify children if groups are small; figures need suppression rules.

Who could gain or lose: Children with speech, language, communication and mental-health needs make up a larger share of Portsmouth's EHC plans than nationally and could gain most. Families able to challenge decisions may currently get help faster; a clearer route could narrow that difference. Shifting money between schools, early years and high needs could leave some mainstream schools with less.

Capacity: Delivery depends on scarce educational psychologists, therapists and mental-health practitioners, on NHS providers' capacity, and on SEN case officers. The council also faces general budget pressure and possible future reorganisation, which is under government review.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
New EHC plans issued within 20 weeksPlans issued within 20 weeks as a share of all new plans issued in the calendar year, excluding legal exceptions42.9% in 2025dfe-ehc-timeliness · Portsmouth local authorityAnnual · Department for Education
Severe absencePupil enrolments missing 50% or more of possible sessions3.55% in 2024/25dfe-absence-pa · State-funded schools in PortsmouthAnnual · Department for Education
Waiting time from referral to therapy or mental-health assessmentTo be agreed with NHS providers; median and longest waits by serviceNot published Gap: No published local waiting-time baseline was found; reporting would need agreement with the integrated care board and providers.None found · PortsmouthQuarterly (proposed) · Not agreed
Family experience of the assessment and support processTo be designed with Portsmouth Parent VoiceNo current baseline found Gap: No regular published survey was found in searches on 2 November 2026.None found · PortsmouthAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed
Dedicated Schools Grant balanceYear-end reserve or deficit carried forward£8.01m at 31 March 2026; forecast deficit £1.05m at 31 March 2027pcc-dsg-q1-2026-27 · Portsmouth City CouncilQuarterly monitoring to Schools Forum · Portsmouth City Council

Reassess when: Reassess when the government responds to the SEND reform consultation or the Education for All Bill is introduced, when Portsmouth's national reform funding is announced, or when the refreshed local SEND strategy is published.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • EHC plan timeliness was 42.9% in 2025, below England's 46.1%.
  • Severe absence was 3.55% in 2024/25, highest of Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire, and especially high in secondary and special schools.
  • Speech, language and communication and social, emotional and mental health needs make up a larger share of EHC plans than in England.
  • The grant reserve fell from £11.13m to £8.01m in 2025/26 and is forecast to become a deficit during 2026/27.
  • The national accounting protection for these deficits applies to financial years ending by 31 March 2028.
  • The national schools white paper was published on 23 February 2026; it is not yet law.

What is not known:

  • Where in the assessment route the delays occur.
  • How many educational psychologists and therapists work for Portsmouth children, and how many posts are vacant.
  • Waiting times for therapy and children's mental-health services.
  • Why the reserve grew between 2020 and 2024: the accounts do not separate high needs from other parts of the grant.
  • How much national reform funding Portsmouth will receive and when.
  • What the council's SEND Reform Plan, mentioned on its website, contains.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether to attach a costed option appraisal to the January 2027 strategy refresh.
  • How to cover the high needs shortfall in 2027/28 once the reserve is used.
  • Whether to employ or commission additional specialist capacity.
  • How many and which kinds of local places to plan for.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth SEND and alternative provision strategy 2024 to 2029, with a refreshed strategy planned for January 2027: Current strategy in force; refresh in development with early consultation (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Dedicated Schools Grant 2026/27 budget and quarterly monitoring: Budget set February 2026, revised July 2026; June 2026 monitoring forecasts a £1.05m deficit by March 2027 (as of 2026-10-07).
  • St George's inclusion centre, 18 places: Included in council monitoring as opening from September 2026; opening not separately confirmed (as of 2026-10-07).
  • National schools white paper and SEND reform consultation: White paper published 23 February 2026; consultation closed 18 May 2026; no government response and no bill introduced at the Commons Library update of 11 September 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Local government reorganisation in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton: March 2026 decision withdrawn on 7 September 2026; under review with no new decision announced by 29 October 2026 (as of 2026-10-29).

UK Facts context: Special educational needs in England (National picture for England; national reform is set by government, local delivery by the council and partners.) · Attendance and missing education (National absence trends; schools and the council act locally.)

Next review: When the refreshed Portsmouth SEND strategy is published (planned January 2027), when the 2027/28 grant budget goes to Schools Forum, or when the Department for Education publishes 2026 EHC plan data, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Department for Education: New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks ↗ · checked 2026-10-03 · published 2026-06-25

    20426 / pc_plans_issued_20_weeks_ex;.schools.ehcp_20wk

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 55585aa0f650291013837d95c3ecfdbf001350680a1590365b1c3be42021a293; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • Education, health and care plans: Requests for an EHC needs assessment received during the calendar year ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: Calendar years 2019 to 2025; Area: England and local authorities; Location: Rows: new_la_code E06000044 and National; breakdown_topic beginning 'All'; request_source Total; request_type Total; request_outcome Total and 'Requests decided to assess'; Gzip SHA-256 be4d94e7ff589510cf44687cc2b3001446c881c6e4c6d91910962f7f86192c68.

  • Department for Education: Active education, health and care plans ↗ · checked 2026-10-03 · published 2026-06-25

    35188 / ehcplans;.schools.ehcp_plans

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 ab7f9b9c263827444071678ac1b14a185d9ae53ff9991e063942f9852d79075e; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • Special educational needs in England: Pupils in all schools, by type of SEN provision ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-11

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: January 2022 to January 2026; Area: England and local authorities (schools located in each area); Location: Rows: geographic_level Local authority or National, phase_type_grouping Total, establishment_type Total, hospital_school Total; columns pupil_count, pupil_percent; Data set version 1.1. Gzip SHA-256 41aa9cda9b1214fab11282de73d6830014435b46bcafded5b33c1cbfdce73bae.

  • Special educational needs in England: National curriculum year by type of SEN provision and type of need ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-11

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: January 2026; Area: England and local authorities; Location: Rows: time_period 202526, phase_type_grouping Total, sen_provision 'Education, health and care plan', each sen_primary_need; column total_pupil_count. Shares calculated against the sum of needs; Covers state-funded nursery, primary, secondary, special, alternative provision and non-maintained special schools (not independent schools). Gzip SHA-256 24cbb24eb18085ac3eeb2ffeaa3bc3f49560c06df64f3b04b114cf2a3419c7ca.

  • Department for Education: Severe absence — all school types ↗ · checked 2026-10-03 · published 2026-03-26

    11165 / enrolments_pa_50_exact_percent;.schools.severe_absence.all

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 190e8b7a0ef96f19da132794b30a32a17733077b70ab4394f76212c2bf3cf272; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • Pupil absence in schools in England: Absence sessions by reason ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03-26

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: School year 2024/25; Area: England and local authorities; Location: Rows: time_period 202425, phase_type_grouping Total, new_la_code E06000044 and National; columns session_count, session_percent by attendance_reason; Gzip SHA-256 176bd2601188a82c2503a84058af183c160eaaec3c3ca7f63b1722045a4cc0cf.

  • Portsmouth City Council Statement of Accounts 2024/25 (Annual Report) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial years 2023/24 and 2024/25; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Note 32, Dedicated Schools Grant, page 125: 'Carry forward to next year' row, Total columns (11,480 for 2023/24; 11,126 for 2024/25), and 'Brought forward from prior year' 9,912; PDF SHA-256 a3e1b9434a5ac83c16e1d2b674236e84ce275f9f3098f9896f48206e73eb0dc6. Columns split central expenditure and schools budget, not high needs.

  • Dedicated Schools Grant Budget 2026-27 (report to Cabinet Member, Children Families and Education, 12 February 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-12

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2026/27; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Recommendations 2.1.3 to 2.1.6 (page 1 to 2); paragraph 4.1 allocation table; paragraph 4.4; section 10 table (forecast carry forward 5.000, high needs gap 8.528, deficit 4,530); Appendix 1 high needs lines; PDF SHA-256 50268806e9d1a334681b9df037b5b991ca0b78b5e2c94c16f02bf4e3d2ee45ec. The democracy.portsmouth.gov.uk address returned a bot check; the moderngov address served the same document.

  • 2025-26 Dedicated Schools Grant Outturn and 2026-27 Revised Budget (report to Cabinet Member, 21 July 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-21

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial years 2025/26 and 2026/27; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Table 1 (page 2); paragraph 4.4; Table 3 (page 5); paragraph 8.18 and Table 10 (page 9); paragraph 8.25; Tables 11 to 13 (pages 11 to 13); PDF SHA-256 785547e8460b81bfe09eed4da2494fb2a017f331f2de97781a6efefb36b2531f. Outturn reported before external audit of the 2025/26 accounts.

  • Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) 2026-27 Quarter 1 Budget Monitoring and Revised Budget (report to Schools Forum, 7 October 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-07

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Forecast for 2026/27 as at 30 June 2026; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Paragraph 3.2 table (Forecast Carry Forward Balance 1,052); paragraph 3.3; Table 2; paragraph 6.2 (St Georges Inclusion Centre, 18 places from September 2026); PDF SHA-256 0b6bd2f5eec0f2f80c81a2233d2069b25b5b8ce94ab425f25a9ec5c211536857. A local newspaper report of 8 October 2026 described the position as a deficit of £2.06m; the council's own table shows a forecast carry-forward deficit of £1.052m, which is used here.

  • Portsmouth City Council: General reserves — February budget forecast ↗ · checked 2026-10-03

    page 40, section 15, Forecast Balance row, 2026/27 column;.council.forecast-general-reserves

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 292ae12144e81d79ae3dc6709db7ea265476d288b7a6115f8f181d695ddeb87b; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • Every Child Achieving and Thriving (schools white paper), with correction ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-23

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Area: England; Location: Printed page 50 (Targeted including Targeted Plus, and Specialist layers); page 54 (Experts at Hand, £1.8 billion over three years); pages 57 to 59 (transition from September 2029 and 2030; 50,000 specialist places; inclusion bases); PDF SHA-256 4c6bcecfe22f93c329117a2235ee95d41ccf464e5e642db2fdba7309916efffc. Policy proposals, not law. The term 'Inclusion Hub' does not appear.

  • SEND reform: putting children and young people first (consultation) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-23

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Area: England; Location: GOV.UK page metadata: opened 23 February 2026, closed 18 May 2026; status closed consultation, no outcome published

  • The Schools White Paper 2026: Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Reform (CBP-10550) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-11

    Primary publisher: House of Commons Library; Area: England; Location: Sections 'White paper proposals', 'Education for All Bill' and 'Implementation'; Secondary source used only for status at 11 September 2026: government had not responded; bill introduction date not confirmed; reformed system not expected before September 2029.

  • The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulations 2003, regulation 30L (deficit relating to schools budget) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England; Location: Regulation 30L(1) and (3): period beginning 1 April 2020 and ending 31 March 2028; Text as revised on legislation.gov.uk, version from 31 March 2026.

  • Review of local government reorganisation launched ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-07

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (GOV.UK); Area: England, including Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton; Location: Second paragraph: decisions on Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk withdrawn

  • Local government reorganisation: review update letters to council leaders ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-29

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (GOV.UK); Area: 15 areas including Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Location: Page summary: no new minded-to decisions announced for these 15 areas; Attached letters were not read in full.

  • Ofsted reports: Portsmouth City Council ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Ofsted; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Report list: latest local area SEND inspection dated 1 July 2019, published 24 September 2019; No newer area SEND inspection was listed on 2 November 2026.

  • Portsmouth SEND and alternative provision strategy ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs 2 and 'Relationship with SEND Reform': 2024 to 2029 strategy remains current; refresh planned for January 2027; a separate SEND Reform Plan is mentioned

  • Portsmouth SENDAP Strategy 2024 to 2029 (accessible Word document) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth SEND and alternative provision partnership; Period: Snapshot April 2024; Area: Portsmouth; Location: 'Our Context' (April 2024 snapshot list); 'Partnerships in Portsmouth' (integrated ICB and council commissioning; Solent NHS services for therapies and CAMHS; 10 inclusion centres; 5 special schools); priority actions including recommissioning therapy services in 2024/25; File SHA-256 8faf2e8a7ebe68d952f066d1e60d600a32f9f193a53c1f9076463351ed46b1cf. Whether therapy services were recommissioned in 2024/25 was not verified.

  • Pupil absence statistics: methodology ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Area: England; Location: Sections 3.2 (persistent absence rate) and 3.3 (severe absence rate); Read through a scraping service; the methodology calls these severely persistent absentees.

Where earlier ideas went

  • school-support-plan (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. Same ID and title. The one-line now/next/longer-term steps became the delivery table; the baseline (42.9%, 3.54769%) is kept and re-verified; the cost line stays Not costed with named costing work.
  • send-costed-plan (earlier ten suggestions): restored. Restored into school-support-plan: options for an assessment team, employed versus commissioned specialists, speech, language and mental-health provision, and inclusion or specialist places appear under options and delivery; reserve history, absence comparison and need mix appear as re-verified baselines; the reorganisation point appears under existing work. Not carried forward: Dropped or corrected: the 'four-tier model and Inclusion Hub requirement' (the white paper uses universal, targeted including targeted plus, and specialist layers, and inclusion bases; 'Inclusion Hub' was not found); the claim that the high needs block was underspent (accounts do not separate high needs, and high needs overspent its allocation in 2025/26); the budgeted −£4.5m for 2026/27 (superseded by July and October 2026 revisions); the 'Hampshire model' hub (not verified); 'low single-digit millions a year' staffing cost (no checkable source); the argument about defending the surplus in reorganisation negotiations (speculative); 'DfE high needs stability grant' and 'schools condition allocation' funding routes (not verified).

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Sustained small-group help in reading, writing and maths for pupils falling behind

Help Portsmouth primary schools offer regular small-group teaching in reading, writing and maths, kept going for several years, to pupils assessed as falling behind, so fewer disadvantaged children leave primary school below the expected standard.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth Education Partnership, with schools and academy trusts deciding whether to take part (a proposal, not an agreed role)

Start soon

Survey primary schools on current small-group and catch-up support, who delivers it, for how long and how it is funded

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Train teachers and teaching assistants in structured small-group teaching

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Publish yearly results and decide whether to continue, change or stop

How to judge progress: Disadvantaged pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2; All pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2; Progress of pupils receiving small-group help; Take-up and session attendance.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

In 2025/26 (provisional), 55% of Year 6 pupils in Portsmouth's state-funded schools met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, against 63% in England. Among disadvantaged pupils it was 43% (England 48%); among other pupils 64% (England 70%). So both groups trail their England peers. Portsmouth also has more disadvantaged pupils: 44% of its Year 6 cohort, against 33% nationally. The national tutoring subsidy ended after 2023/24.

Who is affected: Primary pupils, especially those assessed as falling behind and those in the Department for Education's disadvantaged group. About 1,030 of Portsmouth's 2,362 Year 6 pupils in 2025/26 were disadvantaged. Teachers and teaching assistants who would deliver sessions are also affected.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Year 6 pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths Revised 2024/25 figures: Portsmouth 54%, England 63%. Figures for 2025/26 will be revised in December 2026.55% (England 63%, Southampton 59%)School year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools in each local authority
Disadvantaged Year 6 pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths 2024/25: Portsmouth 42%, England 48%. 2018/19: Portsmouth 48%, England 51%.43% (445 of 1,030). England 48%School year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools in Portsmouth and England
Other (not disadvantaged) Year 6 pupils meeting the expected standard64% (849 of 1,332). England 70%School year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools in Portsmouth and England
Gap between other pupils and disadvantaged pupils Calculated from pupil counts. The local gap is similar to England's; the bigger difference is that both groups are below their England peers.20.5 percentage points in Portsmouth; 21.9 percentage points in EnglandSchool year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools
Share of Year 6 pupils who are disadvantaged43.6% (England 32.6%)School year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools
Disadvantaged pupils meeting the expected standard by subjectReading 57% (England 63%); writing 57% (England 60%); maths 56% (England 62%)School year 2025/26, provisionalPupils at state-funded schools
National disadvantage gap index at key stage 2 National index only; no Portsmouth equivalent is published in the data used here.3.22 in 2026, up from 3.16 in 20252025 and 2026, provisionalEngland

What this would change

Aim: Raise the share of Portsmouth pupils, especially disadvantaged pupils, who reach the expected standard in reading, writing and maths by the end of primary school, using an approach with reasonable evidence that schools can keep going year after year.

What success would mean: More disadvantaged and other pupils reaching the expected standard, moving towards their England peers over several years; pupils who receive small-group help making measurable progress on school assessments; and the programme still running after three years. No numeric target is proposed because none has been agreed or evidenced locally.

Schools that opt in would run small-group sessions of two to five pupils, about three times a week, for pupils identified through their own assessments as falling behind in reading, writing or maths. Sessions would be led by trained teachers or teaching assistants and linked to class teaching. The council and the Portsmouth Education Partnership would coordinate shared training, common assessment and a citywide evaluation, and help schools plan funding over several years rather than one. Pupils would be chosen by their own needs, not by the ward they live in.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth Education Partnership, with schools and academy trusts deciding whether to take part (a proposal, not an agreed role). Partners: Primary schools and academy trusts in Portsmouth, Portsmouth City Council education service, English and maths hubs serving the area, including the Solent Maths Hub, Education Endowment Foundation and its research school network (for evidence and evaluation advice), Parents and carers.

Powers: Schools and academy trusts decide how to use their budgets and pupil premium and how to organise teaching; the council cannot direct academies. The council and the Portsmouth Education Partnership can convene, train and coordinate (pep-strategy). Parental consent rules for withdrawing pupils from lessons were not checked; schools would need to follow their own policies and inform parents.

Options

  • Current approach: Each school decides alone. Schools continue to choose their own catch-up support from pupil premium and core budgets, with citywide priorities on early language, literacy and maths set by the education partnership. There is no shared citywide tutoring programme or evaluation since the national tutoring subsidy closed.
  • Proposed response: Coordinated, multi-year small-group tuition. Schools that opt in run structured small-group sessions for pupils assessed as falling behind, with shared training, common assessment and a citywide evaluation, planned over at least three school years.
  • Alternative: Invest in whole-class teaching and early reading. Use the money for teacher training, phonics and early language through national hubs, which reaches all pupils but gives less targeted help to those furthest behind.
  • Alternative: One-to-one tuition for the pupils furthest behind. More intensive for each pupil, but the Education Endowment Foundation reports small groups are more cost-effective, so fewer pupils could be reached for the same money.
  • Alternative: Target schools by ward deprivation. Direct help to schools in the most deprived wards. Not recommended on its own: where a pupil lives does not show their own needs, and many pupils who are behind live elsewhere.

Further appraisal could change the choice because the gap in Portsmouth is not only about disadvantage: other pupils are also below their England peers. That may favour whole-school teaching improvements alongside targeted groups. School capacity, staff time, existing interventions and the cost per pupil are not yet known, and the evidence summarised by the Education Endowment Foundation is rated moderate, with a large share of studies not independently evaluated.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Session length and frequency follow the Education Endowment Foundation summary. All other timings are illustrative and would depend on school decisions and funding. No start date has been agreed.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonSurvey primary schools on current small-group and catch-up support, who delivers it, for how long and how it is fundedPortsmouth Education Partnership (proposed)—Anonymised summary of current provision and gaps
Start soonAgree a shared way to identify pupils falling behind, using school assessments rather than home addressPortsmouth Education Partnership with headteachers (proposed)Decision: Agreement by participating schoolsShort common assessment guide
Start soonSeek advice on an evaluation design that can show whether the programme worksPortsmouth City Council education service (proposed)Depends on: Willingness of a research school or university partnerEvaluation plan with a comparison group and measures
Build nextTrain teachers and teaching assistants in structured small-group teachingParticipating schools with English and maths hubs (proposed)Depends on: Staff release time and training fundingTrained staff in each participating school
Build nextRun sessions for identified pupils, about three times a week in blocks of around ten weeks, as the evidence suggestsParticipating schools (proposed)Decision: School budget decisions for the coming yearRecords of pupils taking part and session attendance
Build nextProduce a costed, multi-year funding plan for participating schoolsSchools with council finance support (proposed)—Cost per pupil and funding source for at least three years
Longer termPublish yearly results and decide whether to continue, change or stopPortsmouth Education Partnership (proposed)Depends on: Key stage 2 results and school assessment data · Decision: Evaluation review after the first full school yearPublic annual report on take-up, progress and equity

A first practical step: The Portsmouth Education Partnership's literacy and maths groups could add a short survey of current small-group provision to their existing work. This needs no new funding and would show whether a shared programme adds anything to what schools already do.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Training, setting up common assessment and evaluation design would be one-off costs; no estimate has been made.
Recurring costs
Not costed. The Education Endowment Foundation rates small-group tuition as low cost, mostly recurring staff salaries. It reported that subsidised tutoring through the national programme cost an average of £70 to £100 per pupil for a 15-hour block in 2020 to 2021; that is a dated national figure, not a Portsmouth estimate.
Capital or revenue
Revenue only.
Funding status
No dedicated funding. The national tutoring subsidy closed after the 2023/24 school year. Schools could use pupil premium or core budgets, but those already pay for other support.
Affordability
Uncertain. The cost depends on the number of pupils, group size, who teaches and staff cover. Schools face competing pressures, and a shared programme would need multi-year funding to avoid stopping after one year.
Costing still needed
Count eligible pupils by school; estimate staff hours per pupil; price teacher and teaching assistant time; cost training, cover and evaluation; compare with current spending on catch-up support.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: If results match the Education Endowment Foundation average, pupils receiving small-group help could make around four months' extra progress over a year, more in reading than maths. Better reading and maths by age 11 supports later learning. A shared evaluation would show what works in Portsmouth's schools.

Risks:

  • Pupils taken out of lessons can miss other teaching unless sessions are carefully timed.
  • Funding may stop after a year while the gap persists, which would waste training and break continuity.
  • Quality may vary between schools, reducing impact; evidence shows staff training matters.
  • The evidence base is moderate and many studies were run by organisations connected to the programmes, so effects may be smaller in practice.
  • Teaching assistant and teacher time is limited, and using it for tuition may reduce other support.

Who could gain or lose: Targeting by individual assessment would reach pupils falling behind wherever they live. Disadvantaged pupils, who are a larger share of Portsmouth's cohort, could gain most. Schools with more pupils behind would need more resources, so funding rules matter. Pupils with special educational needs may need different support and should not be excluded by design.

Capacity: Delivery depends on staff time in each school, trained teaching assistants and cover. Schools already run their own interventions; the partnership's capacity to coordinate and evaluate has not been assessed.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Disadvantaged pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2DfE measure: share of disadvantaged pupils at the end of key stage 2 meeting the expected standard in all three43% in 2025/26 (provisional)dfe-ks2-la-characteristics · Pupils at state-funded schools in PortsmouthAnnual · Department for Education
All pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2DfE measure for all pupils55% in 2025/26 (provisional)dfe-ks2-la-characteristics · Pupils at state-funded schools in PortsmouthAnnual · Department for Education
Progress of pupils receiving small-group helpChange on agreed school assessments over the programme, compared with similar pupils not taking partNone yet Gap: No common assessment or comparison group exists; would need to be set up before sessions start.None · Participating schoolsTermly (proposed) · Not agreed
Take-up and session attendancePupils identified, pupils taking part and share of planned sessions attended, by disadvantage and SEN status, with small numbers suppressedNone yet Gap: Reporting arrangements not agreed.None · Participating schoolsTermly (proposed) · Not agreed

Reassess when: Reassess after revised 2025/26 key stage 2 results are published (December 2026), after the first full school year of any programme, or if national funding for tutoring or targeted support changes.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Portsmouth's key stage 2 results are below England for both disadvantaged and other pupils.
  • Portsmouth has a higher share of disadvantaged Year 6 pupils than England.
  • The Education Endowment Foundation summarises small-group tuition as moderate impact for low cost based on moderate evidence, with an average of four months' extra progress.
  • The National Tutoring Programme closed after the 2023/24 school year.
  • The Portsmouth Education Strategy 2023 to 2026 already prioritises early language and literacy, maths and attendance.

What is not known:

  • How much small-group tuition Portsmouth schools already provide and how it is funded.
  • Cost per pupil for a Portsmouth programme.
  • Whether schools have staff capacity to run sessions three times a week.
  • How results differ by school; school-level 2025/26 figures are due with the December revised release.
  • What will replace the Portsmouth Education Strategy after 2026.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the education partnership wants a shared programme or prefers school-by-school approaches.
  • How pupils would be identified and how parents would be informed.
  • How a multi-year programme would be funded.
  • Who would evaluate the programme and how results would be published.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth Education Strategy 2023 to 2026 (year 3 plan for 2025/26): priorities include early communication, language and literacy, a step change in maths (Solent Maths Hub) and attendance: In its final year; web page updated 19 February 2026 (as of 2026-02-19).
  • National Tutoring Programme: Closed; 2023/24 was the final funded year (as of 2025-03-25).
  • National reading measures in the schools white paper: National Year of Reading 2026, expanded reading training, and an announced statutory reading test in Year 8: Announced national policy; the Year 8 test is not yet in force (as of 2026-02-23).

UK Facts context: The disadvantage gap in England (National picture; schools and local partners decide local catch-up support.) · Attainment in England (National results context.)

Next review: When the Department for Education publishes revised 2025/26 key stage 2 results (due December 2026), or when the Portsmouth Education Partnership publishes its next education strategy.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Key stage 2 attainment: Attainment by region, local authority and pupil characteristics ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-10

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: School years 2018/19 to 2025/26 (2025/26 provisional); Area: England, regions and local authorities; Location: API query, data set version 1.2: locations Portsmouth (E06000044), Southampton (E06000045), England; filters Disadvantage status (Disadvantaged, Not known to be disadvantaged, Total); subjects reading, writing and maths combined, reading, writing, maths; all other filters Total; indicators percentage and number meeting the expected standard and number of eligible pupils; Query results (12 pages) saved in the research scratch folder and filtered with Python. The data set metadata does not state whether local authority figures are by school location; described here as pupils at state-funded schools in the local authority.

  • Key stage 2 attainment, academic year 2025/26 (provisional) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-10

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: School year 2025/26; Area: England; Location: Release page header (provisional; revised figures due December 2026) and disadvantage gap index headline (3.16 in 2025, 3.22 in 2026); Read through a web-fetch summary; the quoted index values and status were checked against the page text returned.

  • Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Small group tuition ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Education Endowment Foundation; Area: Evidence review, mainly international studies; Location: Headline 'Moderate impact for low cost based on moderate evidence'; impact +4 months; 'Behind the average' (primary +4, secondary +2, reading +4, maths +3, three sessions a week up to an hour over about 10 weeks); 'What does it cost' (£70 to £100 per pupil for 15-hour blocks, NTP year 1, 2020 to 21); 'How secure is the evidence' (62 studies; lost a padlock because many studies not independently evaluated); review last updated July 2021; Direct fetch returned HTTP 403; page read through a scraping service the same day.

  • National Tutoring Programme funding (withdrawn collection) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-03-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Education (GOV.UK); Area: England; Location: Withdrawal notice dated 25 March 2025: 'The National Tutoring Programme has now closed.'

  • National Tutoring Programme (NTP) grant funding: conditions of grant for 2023 to 2024 academic year ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Department for Education (GOV.UK); Area: England; Location: Paragraph 2.4, 'Funding arrangements in future years'; Page withdrawn 15 October 2025; text still available.

  • Portsmouth Education Strategy 2023 to 2026, Year 3: 2025-26 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-19

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth Education Partnership; Period: 2023 to 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Priorities table (priorities 1, 4 and 5 and their governance groups); Date is the page's last-modified date.

  • Every Child Achieving and Thriving (schools white paper), with correction ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-23

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Area: England; Location: Printed pages 26 to 27, 'Excellence in literacy and numeracy' (National Year of Reading 2026; statutory reading test for Year 8 announced); PDF SHA-256 4c6bcecfe22f93c329117a2235ee95d41ccf464e5e642db2fdba7309916efffc. Announced policy, not law.

Where earlier ideas went

  • pupil-premium (earlier ten suggestions): restored. Restored as its own action, literacy-numeracy: sustained structured small-group tuition is the candidate option; the warning that one-year funding undermines it is kept under risks; Education Endowment Foundation evidence is cited exactly. Not carried forward: Targeting by ward (Charles Dickens, Paulsgrove) dropped as the selection method because ward residence does not identify individual need; ward child-poverty figures (35.9%, 27.5%) from a Public Health Needs Summary linked only to the council homepage were not verified; 'National Tutoring Programme' removed as a funding route because it closed; 'Education Endowment Foundation partnership funding' not verified; 'low millions per year' cost dropped as unsourced; the KS4 ward-level success measure replaced by key stage 2 measures because ward-level school results would involve small numbers and the intervention is aimed at primary pupils.
  • school-support-plan (earlier 12-point plan): kept. Linked through the shared issue school-support; this new action covers attainment, while school-support-plan covers special educational needs and absence.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Target access and prevention where health gaps are greatest

Map GP, dental and prevention access by neighbourhood, then test practical ways to improve access where health gaps are largest, measuring uptake and outcomes openly.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council public health team, jointly with NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (proposed; neither has agreed)

Start soon

Agree a short list of indicators and the neighbourhood geography (ward or MSOA), with suppression rules for small numbers

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Select two or three test neighbourhoods using the agreed criteria and resident input

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Run the test, report uptake every six months and decide whether to extend, change or stop

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Adults seen by an NHS dentist in 24 months; Life-expectancy gap across deprivation; Preventable deaths under 75; Uptake of the test offer by neighbourhood; Patient experience of contacting a GP practice.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth people die earlier and spend fewer years in good health than the England average. Inside the city, life expectancy is about nine years lower for men and eight for women in the most deprived areas than in the least. Fewer adults use an NHS dentist than nationally. Use figures cannot show how many people tried and failed to get care, so the size of unmet need is unknown.

Who is affected: Residents of the most deprived neighbourhoods, especially Charles Dickens, Paulsgrove, Nelson, Fratton and St Thomas; adults without a regular NHS dentist; people with long-term conditions who need primary care. Some low-use areas have many students, whose needs differ.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Estimated life-expectancy gap across deprivation, men Modelled slope index. England: 10.4 years.9.4 years (range 7.7 to 11.1)2022-24Portsmouth
Estimated life-expectancy gap across deprivation, women England: 8.0 years.7.8 years (range 6.2 to 9.4)2022-24Portsmouth
Deaths before 75 from preventable causes England: 151 per 100,000. Age-standardised.192 per 100,0002022-24Portsmouth
Healthy life expectancy at birth England: 60.9 and 61.3. Wide uncertainty; statistically similar to England.Men 57.5 years; women 58.6 years2022-24Portsmouth
Adults seen by an NHS dentist in 24 months About 40% in England. Use, not need.30.2%24 months to March 2026Portsmouth (patient address)
Children seen by an NHS dentist in 12 months50.2%12 months to March 2026Portsmouth
Neighbourhoods in England’s most deprived 10%15 of 125 (12%)IoD2025Portsmouth LSOAs

What this would change

Aim: Improve access to prevention, primary care and dentistry for residents in the neighbourhoods with the greatest evidenced need, and measure whether gaps in use and health outcomes narrow over time.

What success would mean: More residents in the selected neighbourhoods using preventive checks, a GP practice and an NHS dentist, with use measured against a published baseline, and no fall in access elsewhere. Longer term, the life-expectancy gap and preventable deaths would narrow. No numeric target is proposed; any target would need agreement with the ICB and council.

Publish a joint access map that sets ward and neighbourhood figures for dental use, preventable deaths, life expectancy and deprivation side by side. Use it, with resident and practice input, to choose two or three neighbourhoods. In those areas, test practical routes agreed with commissioners: outreach health checks, help to register with a GP practice and an NHS dentist, targeted use of existing dental access schemes, and community-pharmacy prevention. Bransbury Park could host some sessions once open. Record uptake by area and publish results with small-number suppression.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council public health team, jointly with NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (proposed; neither has agreed). Partners: NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (integrated care board: commissions GP and NHS dental services), Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (community services), GP practices and primary care networks, Local dental practices and the University of Portsmouth Dental Academy, Community pharmacies, Voluntary and community organisations, Portsmouth Health and Wellbeing Board.

Powers: The council has a statutory duty to take steps it considers appropriate to improve residents’ health, including information, prevention services and facilities (National Health Service Act 2006, section 2B; source nhs-act-2b). It does not commission GP or NHS dental contracts; those sit with the integrated care board (source icb-dental-ahs shows the ICB running dental access schemes; source hiow-icb-2026 confirms the board after April 2026). Any change to GP or dental capacity therefore needs ICB agreement and funding. Data sharing for neighbourhood analysis must follow data-protection law and NHS information-governance rules.

Options

  • Current approach: Continue current separate arrangements. The council funds public health services, the ICB runs dental and GP commissioning schemes, and the Bransbury Park surgery replaces an existing practice. No shared neighbourhood access map or joint uptake reporting.
  • Proposed response: Joint access map plus targeted neighbourhood test. Publish a shared access map, choose two or three neighbourhoods by agreed criteria, and test outreach, registration help and existing dental schemes there, with uptake reported by area.
  • Alternative: Citywide universal offer. Spread the same prevention and access effort evenly across the city. Simpler and less stigmatising, but less likely to narrow the gap.
  • Alternative: Dental-first focus. Concentrate effort on NHS dental access for adults and children in low-use wards, using ICB urgent and additional-hours capacity and, later, the new dental school.

The choice depends on costs, workforce and what the ICB can fund, none of which is known. A neighbourhood test may show little change within a few years because outcomes such as life expectancy move slowly. Low dental use in student areas may not reflect need, so the selection criteria could change which areas are chosen.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. No durations are sourced or agreed. Any sequence shown is illustrative. Bransbury Park completion (winter 2027) is a contractor schedule, not a commitment.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonAgree a short list of indicators and the neighbourhood geography (ward or MSOA), with suppression rules for small numbersCouncil public health team (proposed)Depends on: Access to Fingertips, NHSBSA and IoD files (all public) · Decision: Health and Wellbeing Board agrees the methodPublished method note
Start soonPublish a first access map combining dental use by ward, MSOA life expectancy, preventable deaths and deprivationCouncil public health team (proposed)Depends on: Method notePublic map and data table
Start soonAsk the ICB what GP, dental and pharmacy capacity data it can share for Portsmouth neighbourhoodsCouncil with NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (proposed)Depends on: Information-governance agreementList of available measures and gaps
Build nextSelect two or three test neighbourhoods using the agreed criteria and resident inputCouncil and ICB jointly (proposed)Depends on: Access map · Decision: Joint sign-off of criteria and areasPublished selection and reasons
Build nextDesign and cost the test offer (outreach checks, registration help, dental sessions, pharmacy prevention) with providersICB with primary care networks and the council (proposed)Depends on: Workforce availability and funding source · Decision: Funding agreed or test not startedService specification and costed plan
Build nextSet up uptake recording by area and an evaluation plan with a comparison areaCouncil public health team (proposed)Depends on: Data-sharing agreementEvaluation protocol
Longer termRun the test, report uptake every six months and decide whether to extend, change or stopCouncil and ICB (proposed)Depends on: Funding for the test period · Decision: Review against the evaluation protocolPublic progress reports and decision record
Longer termTrack whether outcome gaps narrow over comparable three-year periodsCouncil public health team (proposed)Depends on: Annual Fingertips releasesTrend report

A first practical step: Publish a draft neighbourhood access table from the public Fingertips, NHSBSA and IoD files already checked here, and invite the ICB and council to correct or add to it. This needs no new data sharing or funding decision.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Mapping and method work would use existing public data and analyst time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Outreach staff, clinical sessions and data reporting would be recurring revenue costs.
Capital or revenue
Mostly revenue. No capital need identified beyond existing premises such as Bransbury Park.
Funding status
No funding identified. The council public health grant and ICB primary care budgets are existing allocations with competing demands; no allocation to this proposal was found.
Affordability
Unknown. Council budget pressures and ICB running-cost reductions are relevant constraints.
Costing still needed
Cost a specification for the test offer: staff grades and hours, clinical sessions, venue use, data work and evaluation, priced at current year rates with one-off and recurring costs separated.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Better information on where access is weakest; earlier detection of conditions; more residents registered with a GP and an NHS dentist in the selected areas. Health outcome benefits are uncertain and would take years to show.

Risks:

  • Moving staff or sessions to selected areas could lengthen waits elsewhere (displacement).
  • Dental and GP workforce shortages may prevent extra capacity being filled.
  • Use figures may be mistaken for need, especially in student-heavy wards.
  • Small-area reporting could identify individuals if suppression is weak.
  • Short test periods may show no change in outcomes and lead to premature closure.
  • NHS reorganisation could change who holds budgets and data during delivery.

Who could gain or lose: Residents of the most deprived neighbourhoods should gain most. Residents of areas not selected could lose out if capacity is moved rather than added. Targeting by area does not reach every disadvantaged person; people in less deprived areas with high need would still rely on the universal offer.

Capacity: GP and dental workforce is the main constraint. The new dental school will add trained dentists only from about 2030 onwards (training places from 2027). Council analysts and ICB data teams would need time for the mapping and evaluation.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Adults seen by an NHS dentist in 24 monthsAdults seen divided by adult population, by patient address30.2% Portsmouth; ward range 17.2% to 39.1% (to March 2026) Gap: Use only; no measure of people who tried and failed to get care at local level.NHSBSA Dental Statistics for England · Portsmouth and its wardsAnnual · NHS Business Services Authority (publisher)
Life-expectancy gap across deprivationSlope index of inequality in life expectancy at birthMen 9.4 years; women 7.8 years (2022-24)OHID Fingertips (inequality in life expectancy) · PortsmouthAnnual (three-year pooled) · Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (publisher)
Preventable deaths under 75Age-standardised rate per 100,000192 per 100,000 (2022-24)OHID Fingertips (preventable mortality under 75) · PortsmouthAnnual · Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (publisher)
Uptake of the test offer by neighbourhoodNumber of residents using outreach checks, registration help or dental sessions, by area, with small numbers suppressedNone: the offer does not exist Gap: Baseline, data source and reporting body all need agreement.To be agreed · Test and comparison neighbourhoodsSix-monthly (proposed) · Not agreed
Patient experience of contacting a GP practiceGP Patient Survey positive experience, aggregated from Portsmouth practicesNot established for Portsmouth Gap: Needs a weighted aggregation of practice results; not yet done.GP Patient Survey (practice level) · Portsmouth practicesAnnual · Not agreed

Reassess when: When a funding decision is made by the ICB or council; when the first access map is published; when NHSBSA publishes 2026/27 dental statistics; or if NHS commissioning responsibilities change again.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Life-expectancy gaps, preventable deaths and healthy life expectancy figures are published and verified for 2022-24.
  • Adult NHS dental use is about 30% in Portsmouth against about 40% in England.
  • 15 of 125 neighbourhoods are in England’s most deprived 10%.
  • A GP surgery is being built at Bransbury Park to replace an existing practice.
  • The University of Portsmouth has 25 dental training places from 2027.

What is not known:

  • How many residents tried and failed to get GP or dental care.
  • Portsmouth-only GP access and experience figures for 2025 or 2026.
  • Whether the ICB has capacity or funding for a targeted test.
  • The Portsmouth share of the ICB’s extra urgent dental appointments and how many were delivered.
  • The cost of any test offer.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council and ICB will jointly own a neighbourhood access map.
  • Which indicators and geography to use for selecting neighbourhoods.
  • Whether to fund a time-limited test, and from which budget.
  • Who reports uptake and how often.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2022-2030: Adopted strategy (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Bransbury Park leisure and healthcare hub (replacement GP surgery): Under construction; contractor schedules completion winter 2027 (as of 2026-10-05).
  • ICB dental additional hours scheme: Operating; participating practices include two in Portsmouth (page undated) (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Extra urgent dental appointments (national allocation to the ICB): 2025/26 purchase target of 30,032 for the whole ICB; delivery not verified (as of 2025-02-21).
  • University of Portsmouth dental school places: 25 places allocated; training from 2027 (as of 2026-06-03).

UK Facts context: Healthy life expectancy: how many years in good health? (National context. Local action here is separate and not a national assessment.) · Preventable illness: early deaths by deprivation (National evidence on preventable deaths.) · Primary care: can people get a GP appointment? (National GP access evidence; GP contracts are commissioned by ICBs, not the council.)

Next review: When NHSBSA publishes 2026/27 dental statistics (expected late summer 2027), or when OHID updates the 2023-25 life-expectancy gap in Fingertips, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Inequality in life expectancy at birth ↗ · checked 2026-10-03

    6912 / Value;.health.life_expectancy_inequality.male

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 7082752cb46d1917c9a02a144f92bf188d1a66360821bd9136c01739db31f044; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • Under 75 mortality rate from causes considered preventable ↗ · checked 2026-10-03

    24520 / Value;.health.preventable_u75

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 bfab8d7ca43fda99c3faaae5b84c58221496c68ca635d5a25baedc883103b487; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • OHID Fingertips: Healthy life expectancy at birth (indicator 90362) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (ONS estimates); Period: 2022-24; Area: Portsmouth (E06000044) and England; Location: Rows E06000044, Male and Female, 2022 - 24, Category blank; Survey-based (Annual Population Survey self-reported health) combined with mortality; wide confidence intervals for a single city.

  • OHID Fingertips Local Health: Life expectancy at birth by middle layer super output area (indicator 93283) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities; Period: 2019-23 (five years pooled); Area: Portsmouth MSOAs (2021 boundaries); Location: Rows Parent Code E06000044; Portsea E02006975 and Drayton & Farlington E02006821; two male MSOA values suppressed (Wymering, Southsea Prince Albert Road); Values flagged as based on provisional population data. Local Health profile (profile 143) offers MSOA indicators including emergency admissions and preventable deaths; ward-level area types were not offered in this profile on 2 November 2026.

  • Adults seen by an NHS dentist in 24 months ↗ · checked 2026-09-23

    .dental_la

    File check

    Preserved live record health

  • English Indices of Deprivation 2025, File 10: local authority district summaries (lower tier), v2 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-10-30

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Period: IoD2025 (indicators mostly 2022-24); Area: Portsmouth (E06000044) among 296 English local authority districts; Location: Sheet IMD, row 43: rank of average score 64; proportion of LSOAs in most deprived 10% 0.12; rank of local concentration 41; SHA-256 6c38a2fd3998e0caf76a3ef8da331613d52d6d0320065ccef346103fd9770a7e. Relative ranks, not absolute measures; 2025 and 2019 ranks are not a trend measure.

  • English Indices of Deprivation 2025, File 7: all ranks, scores, deciles and population denominators (LSOA 2021) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-10-30

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Period: IoD2025; Area: 125 Portsmouth LSOAs (2021); Location: Rows with LAD code E06000044; IMD decile column and Health Deprivation and Disability decile column; SHA-256 b1b716aa2e476449f987b9de3e08255b4794eabfd270626de5de18b2f5eff3ef. Counted: 15 of 125 LSOAs in IMD decile 1; 15 of 125 in health-domain decile 1.

  • Index of Multiple Deprivation for Portsmouth (JSNA page) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Section "Neighbourhoods most affected"; Council analysis assigning the 15 most-deprived LSOAs to wards (8 Charles Dickens, 3 Paulsgrove, 2 Nelson, 1 Fratton, 1 St Thomas). Ward assignment not independently recomputed.

  • Strengthening how we work for our population: changes on 1 April 2026 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (integrated care board); Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB area; Location: Opening paragraphs; Confirms the ICB continues under its name after the 1 April 2026 boundary change (North East Hampshire joined; Surrey Heath and Farnham left).

  • Our documents: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust; Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Location: Note at top of page; States the trust was formed in 2024 when Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Solent NHS Trust and some services from Isle of Wight NHS Trust and Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust merged. Solent NHS Trust no longer exists as a separate body.

  • Health and Wellbeing strategy 2022-2030 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council (Health and Wellbeing Board); Period: 2022-2030; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Section "What priorities have been identified for Portsmouth?"; Priorities: tackling poverty; improving educational attainment; positive relationships; housing; air quality and active travel.

  • Bransbury Park leisure centre: frequently asked questions ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Bransbury Park, Eastney, Portsmouth; Location: Question "Why have you included a GP surgery in the plans?"; The GP surgery replaces the Devonshire Avenue Surgery (Lighthouse Practice), agreed with the ICB. It is a replacement, not confirmed extra GP capacity.

  • Portsmouth's new leisure and neighbourhood health hub celebrates milestones ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-05

    Primary publisher: Willmott Dixon (council contractor); Area: Bransbury Park, Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs 1-3; Contractor statement: work started March 2026, completion scheduled winter 2027. A schedule, not a completed outcome.

  • Dentistry: additional hours scheme ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (integrated care board); Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Portsmouth practices listed; Location: Scheme description and provider table; No page date shown. Lists Maple House Dental Practice (London Road) and Perfect Smile Cosham among participating practices.

  • Dental patients to benefit from 700,000 extra urgent appointments ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-02-21

    Primary publisher: Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England; Period: 2025/26; Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Location: Table of ICB allocations, South East row; 30,032 additional urgent appointments to be purchased by the ICB. A purchase target, not appointments delivered to Portsmouth residents.

  • Brand new dental school places in 'dental deserts' ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-03

    Primary publisher: Department of Health and Social Care; Area: University of Portsmouth; Location: Summary and paragraphs 2-4; 25 dental training places each for University of East Anglia and University of Portsmouth; extra dentists trained from 2027 onwards.

  • University of Portsmouth steps closer to opening first Dental School in the South-East ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-01-15

    Primary publisher: University of Portsmouth; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Opening paragraphs; Dental Authority Status granted; existing Dental Academy trains dental nurses, hygienists and therapists.

  • National Health Service Act 2006, section 2B: functions of local authorities as to improvement of public health ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England and Wales; Location: Section 2B(1) and 2B(3)(a)-(g); Duty on each local authority to take steps it considers appropriate to improve the health of people in its area.

  • OHID Fingertips: % of patients who had a good experience when contacting their GP practice (indicator 94126) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (GP Patient Survey); Period: Latest loaded: 2024; Area: Sub-ICB locations only (Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB - 10R and - D9Y0V); no local authority breakdown; Location: Area names containing Hampshire and Isle Of Wight ICB; Used only to establish that a Portsmouth-only GP access measure is not published in this form. Not displayed as a Portsmouth baseline.

Where earlier ideas went

  • health-access-plan (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. health-access-plan (whole action) Not carried forward: The original owner wording is replaced by a proposed lead and partners; community services are now named under Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Test whether a hospital and university health innovation zone is worthwhile

Before any designation, study whether local health research is lost for lack of space or support, using firm, space and NHS adoption evidence, then decide whether to proceed.

Proposed lead: University of Portsmouth with Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust (proposed; neither has agreed)

Start soon

Agree the study questions and data sources between the university, hospital trust and council

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Build next

Survey firms and researchers on space needs and reasons for location choices

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

If justified, prepare a business case for the preferred option and seek funding

How to judge progress: Health-technology firms linked to Portsmouth institutions that remain and grow locally; Lab, clinical-trial and scale-up space delivered and occupied; Innovations adopted by local NHS services following local trials.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth has a university with strong knowledge-exchange scores and a university hospital trust with research and technology-trial units, but no single, published route for turning health research into local companies and adoption by the NHS. It is not known whether a lack of suitable lab or scale-up space is holding firms back, or whether firms move elsewhere for that reason.

Who is affected: Researchers, clinicians and early-stage health-technology firms; residents who could benefit from faster NHS adoption of tested innovations; graduates seeking skilled local work. Benefits for residents are uncertain and indirect.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships delivered by the university University figures; all sectors, not health only.More than 100 over two decades; £9.2m grants and £4.9m matched business fundingAbout 2005 to 2025 (cumulative)University of Portsmouth (all partners)
Hospital research infrastructurePortsmouth Research Hub (since 2021) and Portsmouth Technologies Trials UnitAs of 2 November 2026Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust

What this would change

Aim: Find out, with evidence, whether a hospital and university innovation zone would help local health research reach patients and local firms, and if so what form, place and governance would work.

What success would mean: A published feasibility study that measures current spin-outs, firms, space demand and NHS adoption, compares options, and leads to a clear decision to proceed, change or stop. Any later target for jobs or firms would be a proposal, not an evidenced outcome.

Commission a joint feasibility study before any designation. It would count health-technology firms and spin-outs linked to the university and hospital, where they locate and why; survey demand for lab, clinical-trial and scale-up space; review existing premises, including Ocean House and hospital or university estate; and set out governance, land, funding routes and conflicts with other land needs. It would keep research commercialisation separate from the health-access action.

Proposed lead: University of Portsmouth with Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust (proposed; neither has agreed). Partners: Portsmouth City Council (planning and economic development), Health Innovation Wessex, Wessex Health Partners, NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight (integrated care board), Local health-technology and life-sciences firms, Innovate UK (possible funder).

Powers: No body holds a statutory power to designate a health innovation zone. The university and trust can manage their own estates and partnerships within their governing rules; NHS trusts face restrictions on commercial use of land and on capital spending. The council’s role would be as planning authority and possible landowner. Any planning change needs the local plan process; any NHS land use needs trust board and, where applicable, NHS England approval. These limits were not checked in detail and need legal advice.

Options

  • Current approach: Continue existing partnerships. Rely on the university’s knowledge-exchange work, the hospital’s Research Hub and trials unit, Wessex Health Partners and Health Innovation Wessex, with no new zone or premises.
  • Proposed response: Feasibility study, then decide. A joint study measuring firms, space demand and adoption, with options and costs, before any designation or building.
  • Alternative: Light-touch network without premises. A named joint front door for firms and clinicians, using existing space and Health Innovation Wessex support, without a physical zone.
  • Alternative: Dedicated innovation building. The legacy idea: co-located clinical research, academic research and scale-up space. High cost and land use; only sensible if the study shows proven demand.

There is no current evidence on demand for space, the number of firms leaving, or costs. The study could show that the existing partnerships are enough, that a network is cheaper and as useful, or that space is the real constraint.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. No durations are sourced or agreed. The legacy timescale of 3 to 7 years is not carried forward because it had no stated basis.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonAgree the study questions and data sources between the university, hospital trust and councilUniversity of Portsmouth (proposed)Depends on: Willingness of partners · Decision: Partners agree terms of referencePublished terms of reference
Start soonCompile a list of health-technology firms and spin-outs linked to Portsmouth institutions, from Companies House and partner recordsUniversity with Health Innovation Wessex (proposed)Depends on: Partner dataFirm and spin-out baseline
Build nextSurvey firms and researchers on space needs and reasons for location choicesUniversity (proposed)Depends on: Firm baselineDemand evidence
Build nextReview existing premises, including Ocean House and university and hospital estate, and land conflictsCouncil with university and trust estates teams (proposed)Depends on: Estate dataPremises and land assessment
Build nextSet out options with costs, funding routes and governanceJoint steering group (proposed)Depends on: Demand and premises evidence · Decision: Boards of the university and trustOptions appraisal
Longer termIf justified, prepare a business case for the preferred option and seek fundingUniversity and trust (proposed)Depends on: Board decisions and funders · Decision: Funding secured or option droppedBusiness case or published decision to stop

A first practical step: Write to the university, hospital trust and Health Innovation Wessex asking what data they already hold on spin-outs, firm locations and space requests, and publish the answers. This needs no designation or spending decision.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. A feasibility study would need analyst and survey time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. A network or building would have running costs not yet estimated.
Capital or revenue
Study: revenue. Any building: capital plus running costs.
Funding status
No funding identified. Innovate UK, NHS innovation funding and university budgets are possible routes only; none has been approached or committed as far as found.
Affordability
Unknown. Hospital capital is constrained and competes with clinical needs.
Costing still needed
Cost the feasibility study first. If a building is considered, commission a costed estimate with price year, scope, land, fit-out and running costs.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Clearer evidence about whether local health research is lost to other places; possible faster adoption of tested technologies by local NHS services; possible skilled jobs. None of these benefits is evidenced yet, and a designation alone does not create jobs or health gains.

Risks:

  • Space alone may not keep firms in Portsmouth if funding, talent and customers are elsewhere.
  • Hospital land used for innovation could compete with clinical expansion or housing.
  • Partners may not share commercially sensitive data, weakening the study.
  • Effort could be diverted from basic health access, which affects more residents directly.
  • Public money could subsidise private firms without clear public return.

Who could gain or lose: Most direct gains would go to researchers, firms and skilled workers rather than residents in the most deprived areas. Wider benefits depend on local hiring and NHS adoption, which would need to be tracked.

Capacity: Requires analyst, estates and partnership staff at the university and trust, both of which have other pressures. Health Innovation Wessex has relevant expertise but covers a wide region.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Health-technology firms linked to Portsmouth institutions that remain and grow locallyCount of active firms with Portsmouth premises and a link to the university or trust, with employment where availableNot established Gap: No baseline exists; first task of the study.Companies House and partner records (to be compiled) · PortsmouthAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed
Lab, clinical-trial and scale-up space delivered and occupiedFloor area available and occupancy rateNot established Gap: No baseline.Estates records · PortsmouthAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed
Innovations adopted by local NHS services following local trialsNumber of technologies trialled locally then adopted by Portsmouth NHS servicesNot established Gap: Definition and data need agreement.Trust and Health Innovation Wessex records · Portsmouth NHS servicesAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed

Reassess when: When the feasibility study reports, or if a partner proposes premises or funding for an innovation site.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The university reports strong knowledge-exchange scores and more than 100 KTPs.
  • The hospital trust runs a Research Hub and a Technologies Trials Unit.
  • Both are partners in Wessex Health Partners with Health Innovation Wessex.
  • Technopole has become Ocean House under new ownership, offering offices and coworking.

What is not known:

  • How many health-technology firms have formed or left Portsmouth.
  • Whether lack of space is a real constraint.
  • Suitable land or buildings and their availability.
  • Costs and funding.
  • Whether any partner wants to lead.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the university and trust will jointly commission a feasibility study.
  • Who funds the study.
  • Whether the council would consider land or planning support.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth Research Hub and Portsmouth Technologies Trials Unit: Operating (as of 2026-11-02).
  • University of Portsmouth Institute of Life Sciences and Healthcare: Relaunched June 2025 (as of 2025-06-19).
  • Wessex Health Partners: Operating regional partnership (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Health Innovation Wessex: Operating regional network (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Ocean House (former Portsmouth Technopole): Being refurbished as coworking and offices (as of 2025-05-27).

UK Facts context: Innovation (National innovation evidence; a local zone is not assessed there.)

Next review: When the university or hospital trust publishes a new research or estates strategy, or within a year if no study is started.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • University of Portsmouth's economic and societal impact ranked highly in national assessment ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-09-23

    Primary publisher: University of Portsmouth; Area: University of Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs on KEF scores and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships; Self-reported by the university, citing Research England’s Knowledge Exchange Framework. KTP figures cover all subjects, not health only.

  • Spin out success allows for reinvestment in research ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2022-08-31

    Primary publisher: University of Portsmouth; Area: University of Portsmouth; Location: Paragraph on Spirogen; University says Spirogen was co-founded in 2000 by Professor David Thurston, a former pharmacist at the university, and that it sold its share.

  • UCL spin-out Spirogen sold to AstraZeneca for $200 million ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2013-12-02

    Primary publisher: NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre; Location: Opening paragraph; Contrary account: describes Spirogen as spun out of UCL by UCL Business in 2001.

  • The Future of Technopole: Ocean House Portsmouth ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-05-27

    Primary publisher: Ocean House (The Trafalgar Group); Area: Portsmouth; Location: Opening paragraphs; Says Portsmouth Technopole has joined The Trafalgar Group and is being reimagined as Ocean House: coworking, offices and meeting rooms. No laboratory or clinical space is mentioned.

  • Research and Innovation ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Sections on Portsmouth Research Hub and Portsmouth Technologies Trials Unit; Research Hub set up in 2021 by the trust and NIHR; the Technologies Trials Unit works with commercial partners, including small firms, on trials of new health technologies.

  • University of Portsmouth reinvents successful Institute to foster collaboration in life sciences and healthcare research ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-06-19

    Primary publisher: University of Portsmouth; Area: University of Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs on partners; Names Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust as an ongoing strategic partner in research and education; the university is a founding member of Wessex Health Partners.

  • Who are Wessex Health Partners? ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Wessex Health Partners; Area: Dorset, Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Location: Partner list and description; Regional academic health science partnership; partners include University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and Health Innovation Wessex.

  • Welcome to Health Innovation Wessex ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Health Innovation Wessex; Area: Wessex; Location: Page description and industry section; Regional health innovation network that supports NHS teams to find, test and adopt innovations and supports innovators. Formerly Wessex Academic Health Science Network (name change not checked against a primary dated source).

  • Maps of Solent Freeport tax sites ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2022-02-25

    Primary publisher: HM Revenue and Customs; Area: Solent; Location: Page body; last updated 14 October 2022; Designated tax sites: Dunsbury Park and Southampton Water (from 22 March 2022) and Navigator Quarter (from 14 October 2022).

  • Skills and Labour Market Strategy 2026-2030 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Page 23 (Health and Care) and page 24 (Life Sciences); PDF SHA-256 f4339489e4c0914f754b4ba39f9d94833921fe8926c58834fe6daa7d0472f3e0. Council strategy statements, mostly without cited data sources.

Where earlier ideas went

  • health-tech-cluster (earlier ten suggestions): restored. health-innovation (whole action) Not carried forward: Formal designation as the starting point; mid-single-digit-million cost estimate; RevoNA Bio and Spirogen spin-out claims; claim that university documents say scale-up space is missing; causal link to graduate retention; 3 to 7 year timescale.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Connect port, naval base, hospital and university jobs to local skills

Build a shared apprenticeship route across willing anchor employers, with outreach and support in higher-claimant wards, and publish starts, completion, retention and pay results.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council employment and skills team, building on Solent Business & Skills Solutions (proposed; not agreed)

Start soon

Map current apprenticeship routes, vacancies and entry requirements across anchor employers and publish them in one place

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Agree a pipeline charter with willing employers covering shared outreach, pre-apprenticeship places and data sharing

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Publish annual results: starts, achievements, retention after 12 months and pay progression, by ward group where numbers allow

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Apprenticeship starts by residents; Apprenticeship achievements; Sustained employment and pay after apprenticeship; Starts by residents of targeted wards; Resident and workplace median pay.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Large employers in Portsmouth, including the hospital, naval base, port, council and university, recruit apprentices separately. Apprenticeship starts by residents have been broadly flat, with fewer young starters, and the council says too few graduates stay. Residents in some wards are much more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than others. Pay for local jobs and residents’ pay are now close, but both remain below England.

Who is affected: Young people leaving school or college, especially in wards with high claimant rates such as Charles Dickens, St Thomas, Nelson and Fratton; adults changing careers; small firms without levy funds; anchor employers with skills shortages.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Typical full-time annual pay, residents England £41,140. Survey estimate with a margin of roughly plus or minus £3,200.£39,779April 2026 (provisional)Portsmouth residents
Typical full-time annual pay, jobs in Portsmouth England £41,198. The £703 difference from resident pay is within sampling error, so neither figure can be said to exceed the other.£40,482April 2026 (provisional)Jobs located in Portsmouth
Apprenticeship starts by Portsmouth residents 934 per 100,000 against 959 in England. Rounded to nearest 10.1,350 (under 19: 280; 19 to 24: 360; 25+: 700)2024/25 academic yearPortsmouth
Apprenticeship achievements Achievements in a year are not a completion rate for that year’s starters.7902024/25Portsmouth
Residents claiming unemployment-related benefits Not the same as unemployment.4.5% (ward range 1.4% to 7.2%)September 2026Portsmouth and wards

What this would change

Aim: Help more residents, especially young people in higher-claimant wards, start and finish apprenticeships with local anchor employers and stay in work with rising pay.

What success would mean: More starts and achievements by residents of the targeted wards, more apprentices still employed a year after finishing, and pay progression for those who complete, measured against the published baselines. No numeric target is proposed without employer agreement.

Create a shared apprenticeship pipeline across willing anchor employers. It would publish one list of entry routes and vacancies; run joint outreach with schools, City of Portsmouth College, UTC Portsmouth and youth services in higher-claimant wards; offer pre-apprenticeship support (maths and English, interview help, travel and childcare advice); and use levy transfer and new foundation apprenticeships for small firms in supply chains. Employers would share anonymised starts, completion and retention data so results can be published.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council employment and skills team, building on Solent Business & Skills Solutions (proposed; not agreed). Partners: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, BAE Systems Maritime Services (naval base), Royal Navy, Portsmouth International Port (council-owned), University of Portsmouth, City of Portsmouth College, UTC Portsmouth, Hampshire Chamber of Commerce (Solent LSIP), Jobcentre Plus (DWP), Local small and medium employers.

Powers: The council can run employment and skills services, transfer its own levy and broker apprenticeships (sources pcc-careers-apprenticeships, pcc-skills-strategy-2026). It cannot direct private employers, the Royal Navy or the NHS trust to recruit. Apprenticeship funding rules are set nationally by the Department for Education through the growth and skills levy (source govuk-gsl-factsheet). Employer data sharing would need each organisation’s agreement and data-protection compliance.

Options

  • Current approach: Continue separate schemes with council brokerage. Employers recruit separately; the council and Southampton run Solent Business & Skills Solutions and Transfer to Transform levy sharing; the 2026-2030 strategy relies on annual action plans.
  • Proposed response: Shared anchor-employer pipeline with ward outreach. One published route into apprenticeships across willing anchor employers, with pre-apprenticeship support and outreach in higher-claimant wards, and shared outcome data.
  • Alternative: Strengthen brokerage only. Expand Solent Business & Skills Solutions and levy transfer for small firms, without a formal anchor-employer pipeline. Cheaper, with less employer commitment needed.
  • Alternative: Sector academies. Separate employer-led academies for health and care, and for marine and defence engineering, building on UTC and college links.

Costs, employer willingness and the effect of new national funding rules are unknown. If employers will not share data or places, brokerage alone may be the realistic option. Sector academies may suit employers with very different training needs.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. No durations are sourced or agreed. The legacy 3 to 7 year timescale had no stated basis and is not carried forward.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonMap current apprenticeship routes, vacancies and entry requirements across anchor employers and publish them in one placeCouncil employment and skills team (proposed)Depends on: Employers share informationPublic apprenticeship route map
Start soonSet baselines from DfE data by age and level, and ask employers what retention and pay data they holdCouncil (proposed)Depends on: DfE data (public)Baseline note and data-gap list
Start soonCheck the council’s 2026-2030 annual action plan for overlap and agree how this action fitsCouncil (proposed)—Short alignment note
Build nextAgree a pipeline charter with willing employers covering shared outreach, pre-apprenticeship places and data sharingCouncil with anchor employers (proposed)Depends on: Employer agreement · Decision: At least two anchor employers signSigned charter or decision not to proceed
Build nextRun outreach and pre-apprenticeship support in two or three higher-claimant wards with schools, the college and Jobcentre PlusCouncil with City of Portsmouth College (proposed)Depends on: Funding for support staff · Decision: Funding agreedOutreach programme and participant counts
Longer termPublish annual results: starts, achievements, retention after 12 months and pay progression, by ward group where numbers allowCouncil (proposed)Depends on: Employer and DfE dataAnnual public report
Longer termReview whether to extend, change to brokerage only, or stopCouncil and employers (proposed)Decision: Evaluation resultsPublished decision

A first practical step: Publish a one-page map of current apprenticeship routes at the hospital, naval base, port, council, college and UTC, using their public pages, and invite employers to correct it.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Mapping and charter work would need staff time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Outreach workers, pre-apprenticeship support and data reporting would be recurring revenue costs.
Capital or revenue
Revenue.
Funding status
Apprenticeship training and assessment are funded through the growth and skills levy and government co-investment (existing national funding). No funding was found for the coordination, outreach or support proposed here; these are uncosted and unfunded.
Affordability
Unknown. Council budget pressure is a constraint; employer contributions have not been sought.
Costing still needed
Cost a small coordination team and outreach support at current rates, separate from levy-funded training, and identify which partner would pay.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Clearer routes into skilled local jobs; more starts by young people from higher-claimant wards; better use of unspent levy; evidence on retention and pay. Benefits depend on vacancies existing; training does not create jobs.

Risks:

  • Employers may not commit places or share data.
  • Vacancies may not match where residents live or the skills they have.
  • Transport, childcare and housing costs may still block access.
  • National funding rule changes could reduce some routes.
  • Targeting by ward may miss disadvantaged young people living elsewhere.
  • Results could be overstated if starts are counted without completions and retention.

Who could gain or lose: Young people and adults in higher-claimant wards should gain most. Existing staff upskilling could be squeezed if places shift to new entrants. Small firms could gain from levy transfer.

Capacity: Needs council skills staff, employer HR time and college capacity. The college and UTC already run employer partnerships.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Apprenticeship starts by residentsStarts in the academic year by learners in Portsmouth, by age1,350 in 2024/25 (under 19: 280; 19 to 24: 360)DfE Apprenticeships statistics · PortsmouthAnnual, with quarterly provisional updates · Department for Education (publisher)
Apprenticeship achievementsApprenticeships achieved in the academic year790 in 2024/25 Gap: Not a completion rate; a cohort completion rate for Portsmouth residents is not published.DfE Apprenticeships statistics · PortsmouthAnnual · Department for Education (publisher)
Sustained employment and pay after apprenticeshipShare in sustained employment and median earnings one to three years after finishingNot established for Portsmouth Gap: Local LEO breakdown not checked; employer data would need agreement.DfE further education outcomes (LEO) or employer records · Portsmouth residentsAnnual · Not agreed
Starts by residents of targeted wardsStarts through the pipeline by ward of residence, suppressed below 10None Gap: No baseline; requires new data collection.Pipeline records (proposed) · Targeted wardsAnnual (proposed) · Not agreed
Resident and workplace median payASHE full-time median gross annual pay£39,779 residents; £40,482 jobs (2026 provisional) Gap: City-wide measure; cannot isolate the effect of this action.ONS ASHE Tables 7 and 8 · PortsmouthAnnual · Office for National Statistics (publisher)

Reassess when: When DfE publishes final 2025/26 apprenticeship data; when ONS publishes revised 2026 ASHE in October 2027; or if national levy rules change again.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Resident and workplace pay medians for 2026 are published (provisional).
  • About 1,350 apprenticeships started in 2024/25.
  • The council runs levy transfer and apprenticeship brokerage with Southampton.
  • UTC Portsmouth, the college and the hospital trust already run apprenticeships or employer links.
  • National growth and skills levy changes took effect from August to October 2026.

What is not known:

  • Completion and retention rates for Portsmouth residents.
  • Current apprentice numbers at the naval base, port and hospital.
  • Whether employers would join a shared pipeline.
  • The definition and source of the 19% graduate retention figure.
  • Costs of coordination and outreach.
  • Whether a refreshed Solent LSIP exists.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will lead a shared pipeline.
  • Which employers commit places and data.
  • Who funds outreach and support.
  • Which wards to target and how to measure them.

Existing work:

  • Portsmouth Skills and Labour Market Strategy 2026-2030: Published March 2026; annual action plans proposed (as of 2026-03).
  • Solent Business & Skills Solutions and Transfer to Transform levy sharing: Operating (page updated February 2026) (as of 2026-02-23).
  • UTC Portsmouth employer partnerships: Operating; latest Ofsted inspection November 2025 (as of 2026-01-23).
  • Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust apprenticeships: Operating (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Growth and skills levy reforms (national): In force from August to October 2026 (as of 2026-09-02).

UK Facts context: Apprenticeships and technical routes (National apprenticeship evidence; funding rules are national, delivery here is local.) · Pay and security: is work paying more? (National pay context.) · Young people: routes into work, and what blocks them (National youth employment context.)

Next review: When DfE publishes final 2025/26 apprenticeship statistics with local authority data.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • ASHE Table 8 (place of residence by local authority), 2026 provisional: Table 8.7a Annual pay - Gross, and 8.7b CVs ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-22

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics; Period: April 2026 (tax year to 5 April 2026 for annual pay); Area: Portsmouth UA (E06000044) and England; Location: Workbook "PROV - Home Geography Table 8.7a Annual pay - Gross 2026", sheet Full-Time, row 250 (Portsmouth UA) column D Median; row 9 England; Table 8.7b row 250 column D (CV 4.1%); Zip SHA-256 35f86a3682ab3e7120011c4822dca47738eb00319d48f34f162111bbf1542253. Provisional; ONS revises in October 2027. Survey-based estimate. Nomis had not loaded 2026 values when queried on 2 November 2026.

  • ASHE Table 7 (place of work by local authority), 2026 provisional: Table 7.7a Annual pay - Gross, and 7.7b CVs ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-22

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics; Period: April 2026; Area: Portsmouth UA (E06000044) and England; Location: Workbook "PROV - Work Geography Table 7.7a Annual pay - Gross 2026", sheet Full-Time, row 250 column D; row 9 England; Table 7.7b row 250 column D (CV 4.1%); Zip SHA-256 f468a8056faa9ea83ed712eeacd067e19ed49fe72d53516f6fea8b496b7e4f87. Provisional survey estimate.

  • ASHE Table 8, 2025 revised: Table 8.7a Annual pay - Gross ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-22

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics; Period: April 2025; Area: Portsmouth UA; Location: Sheet Full-Time, row 250, column D; Zip SHA-256 bb7d01146f926364867a4f33d635b267dd10e40e2450020445b1a79cf7ef3c85. Revised 2025 resident median £35,817.9 replaces the provisional £36,022.

  • ASHE Table 7, 2025 revised: Table 7.7a Annual pay - Gross ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-22

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics; Period: April 2025; Area: Portsmouth UA; Location: Sheet Full-Time, row 250, column D; Zip SHA-256 250fb6a5184743cb01818fb4b87c4627ab0c9058011110b057ca121ce679a599. Revised 2025 workplace median £38,630.4 replaces the provisional £38,815.

  • Median gross annual pay, full-time residents ↗ · checked 2026-09-23

    .pay_resident

    File check

    Preserved live record work

  • Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings ↗ · checked 2026-09-23

    .pay_workplace

    File check

    Preserved live record work

  • Apprenticeships: Geography Region - starts, achievements, participation, population by age, level (data set a7743194) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-16

    Primary publisher: Department for Education; Period: 2020/21 to 2024/25 final full years; 2025/26 provisional August to April; Area: Portsmouth local authority (E06000044) and England; Location: geographic_level Local authority, new_la_code E06000044, apps_level Total, age_summary Total/Under 19/19-24/25+; CSV SHA-256 27a6503aa34216f1e4c3abd402aabc3fc0f0284d47616811e43fe937440f3c1a. Counts rounded to the nearest 10. Starts count apprenticeships, not people. Accredited official statistics.

  • Skills and Labour Market Strategy 2026-2030 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Page 4 (executive summary), page 6 (previous strategy outcomes), page 12 (apprenticeships and graduate retention), pages 24-25 (sectors, earnings), page 30 (annual action plans), page 31 (references); PDF SHA-256 f4339489e4c0914f754b4ba39f9d94833921fe8926c58834fe6daa7d0472f3e0; PDF metadata created 30 March 2026. Most figures are not referenced to a dataset or period.

  • Growth and Skills Levy: accessible version of GSL reforms factsheet ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-02

    Primary publisher: Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education (GOV.UK); Area: England; Location: Sections on foundation apprenticeships, units, payments, co-investment, levy expiry and withdrawn standards; Current national funding rules; describes changes from August to October 2026.

  • Apprenticeships: council careers portal ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth and Solent; Location: Sections on Solent Business & Skills Solutions and Transfer to Transform; Page modified 23 February 2026. Solent Business & Skills Solutions is described as a free service offered by Portsmouth and Southampton city councils; Transfer to Transform passes unspent levy to other employers.

  • Employers: UTC Portsmouth ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: UTC Portsmouth; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Introductory sentence and partner sections; Undated page. Names the University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth City Council, the Royal Navy, BAE Systems (Maritime Services), QinetiQ, NATS, Dstl, Airbus and others.

  • UTC Portsmouth: Ofsted inspection reports ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Ofsted; Area: UTC Portsmouth; Location: Latest inspection 18 November 2025, report published 23 January 2026; Report-card format; the page shows an Exceptional grade. Individual area grades were not read from the PDF.

  • Recruitment drive underway for apprentices at Portsmouth naval base ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2015-01-16

    Primary publisher: BAE Systems; Area: Portsmouth Naval Base; Location: Opening paragraphs; Historical evidence: 69 apprentice vacancies in 2015. Current numbers not found.

  • Apprenticeships ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust; Area: Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust; Location: Page body; Trust offers clinical and non-clinical apprenticeships at all levels; numbers not given.

  • All about Portsmouth: City of Portsmouth College ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: City of Portsmouth College; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Section "Why City of Portsmouth College?"; College created in 2021 from the merger of Portsmouth College and Highbury College; four sites.

  • Solent Local Skills Improvement Plan ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Hampshire Chamber of Commerce; Period: File last modified August 2023; Area: Solent LSIP area; Location: Whole document (not read in this pass); Document confirmed accessible (HTTP 200, PDF, 25.6 MB). Content not reviewed; referenced as reference 4 in the council strategy.

  • Nomis claimant count by ward (NM_162_1), September 2026 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics / DWP via Nomis; Period: September 2026; Area: Portsmouth and its 14 wards; Location: Rows measure "Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16-64"; Official statistics; counts people claiming unemployment-related benefits, which is not the same as unemployment. Ward denominators are census-based population estimates.

Where earlier ideas went

  • local-skills (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. local-skills (whole action) Not carried forward: 2025 provisional pay baseline replaced by 2026 provisional; title widened to name the hospital and naval base.
  • apprenticeship-hub (earlier ten suggestions): combined. local-skills: candidate option "Shared anchor-employer pipeline with ward outreach", intervention and evaluation Not carried forward: Low-millions set-up cost (no source); 19% described as graduate/apprentice retention (corrected to graduate retention, unsourced); Royal Navy/MOD and BAE named as responsible bodies (now partners, not owners); 3 to 7 year timescale.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Open more council contracts to small and local firms, within the law

Use a published contract pipeline, considered lots, supplier briefings and lawful reservation of smaller contracts to give small and local firms a fairer chance, and publish data to check whether it works.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council procurement and contract management (proposed; not agreed)

Start soon

Compare the public register with the Transparency Code fields and list what is missing (start dates, value basis, SME and voluntary flags).

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Publish a combined forward pipeline, including contracts below £2 million, at least once a year.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Publish an annual report on bids per competition, awards and spend by supplier size and type, and social value delivered, with the method.

How to judge progress: Tenders received per competition; Share of contract value with SMEs and voluntary organisations; Reserved below-threshold competitions; Pipeline lead time; Local supply-chain spend.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth City Council buys hundreds of services and works each year, from housing repairs to care and energy. Its public contract register does not show where suppliers are based or how big they are, so nobody can yet measure how much reaches small or local firms. Some lets are very large: the three housing repairs lots awarded in October 2026 each drew three bids and all went to one firm. The highways PFI, the largest annual contract listed, ends in March 2030 and its replacement is still being designed.

Who is affected: Small firms, charities and social enterprises that could supply the council; residents who rely on the services bought; council staff who run tenders and manage contracts; and council-tax payers, who gain from stronger competition and pay for any extra cost of smaller contracts.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Records on the council's public contract register Mixes current and expired contracts. Listed expiry dates may since have been extended.2,231 records, of which 1,273 have an expiry date on or after 2 November 2026Register as served on 2 November 2026Portsmouth City Council contracts
Stated annual value of current register records Not total contract spend: 510 current records give a total or fixed value instead. Estimates, not payments.About £184.7 million a year across the 760 current records labelled “Annual Estimated Value”; about £188.3 million across 795 records if similar labels are includedRegister as served on 2 November 2026Portsmouth City Council contracts
Current register records reaching expiry by 31 March 2028911 records; those with a stated annual value add to about £90.9 million a year (508 records) to £94.1 million (528 records), depending on which value labels are counted, including £26.0 million for housing repairs already re-letExpiry 2 November 2026 to 31 March 2028Portsmouth City Council contracts
Highways PFI contract end date The public register lists this contract with expiry 30 September 2029 and £25.0 million annual estimated value; the Cabinet date is used.31 March 2030 (contract began 2004, 25 years); options paper planned for Cabinet in Spring 2027Cabinet decision 27 October 2026Portsmouth highways
Housing and corporate property repairs re-let3 lots, 3 tenders per lot, all 3 lots awarded to one Portsmouth-registered firm not flagged as an SME; contracts 1 April 2027 to 31 March 2032, extendable to 2037Award notice 16 October 2026Portsmouth City Council
Share of contract value with small, local or voluntary suppliers An earlier local-spend share came from a freedom-of-information release that could not be re-read or reproduced, so it is not used.Not available from public dataNot applicablePortsmouth City Council

What this would change

Aim: Give capable small and local suppliers a fair chance to bid and win council work, increase competition, and protect value for money and legal compliance, while publishing data good enough to judge the result.

What success would mean: Proposed measures, not agreed targets: more bids per competition; a rising share of contracts and spend with small firms and voluntary organisations; suppliers using a published forward pipeline; and data that separates where suppliers are registered from local jobs and local supply-chain spend. No numeric target is proposed until a baseline exists.

1) Publish a cleaner contracts dataset with start dates, values on one basis, and small-firm and voluntary-sector flags, as the Transparency Code asks. 2) Extend the published pipeline to contracts below the £2 million legal minimum. 3) For each large let, publish the lots decision and consider limiting how many lots one supplier can win. 4) Use the 2026 Order to reserve suitable contracts below the legal thresholds to local or small suppliers, case by case. 5) Hold supplier briefings before major lets, starting with post-2030 highways services. 6) Report bids, winners and social value delivered each year.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council procurement and contract management (proposed; not agreed). Partners: Council service commissioners (housing, highways, adult and children's services), Local business and voluntary-sector support bodies (not yet identified or approached), Main contractors on large council contracts, Council legal services.

Powers: The council is the contracting authority for its own contracts. The Procurement Act 2023 requires it to consider lots before each tender (s.18), allows a cap on lots per supplier (s.23(4)), and requires regard to small-firm barriers (s.12(4), s.86). Since 4 February 2026 English councils may reserve competitions below the Act's thresholds to UK or local-area suppliers (SI 2026/94), and could already reserve them to small firms or voluntary organisations. Above threshold, contractor location remains a non-commercial matter under s.17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988, so local preference is not lawful there. Award criteria must relate to the contract (s.23(2)). Legal advice is needed before any criterion refers to location or local employment.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. Contract procedure rules in force since April 2025, a 2021 Social Value Policy, a signed small-business concordat, pipeline notices for some large lets and lots used in some procurements. The public register lacks supplier size and location, so results cannot be checked.
  • Proposed response: Pipeline, lots and data first. Publish a fuller contracts dataset and a longer pipeline, record each lots decision, consider caps on lots per supplier, and brief suppliers early. Low legal risk; uses existing duties; benefits depend on firms responding.
  • Alternative: Reserve suitable below-threshold contracts. Use the 2026 Order and existing discretion to reserve some competitions under the thresholds to local-area suppliers, small firms or voluntary organisations, where a competitive local market exists. Must still deliver value and competition.
  • Alternative: Supply-chain transparency on large contracts. Ask main contractors to advertise subcontract opportunities openly and report subcontract spend and prompt payment, without location quotas. Needs legal advice on how far such terms can go.
  • Alternative: Do minimum. Comply with the Act's notices and duties only. No extra cost, but no way to tell whether small or local firms are being shut out.

Market analysis for each major let may show that larger contracts give better value, or that few local firms can deliver. Legal advice may narrow what supply-chain terms are allowed. The council's own costs of running more, smaller contracts are unknown. Any of these could change the preferred mix.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Sequence and durations are illustrative and not agreed. The only sourced dates are the Spring 2027 Cabinet options paper and the 31 March 2030 end of the highways PFI.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonCompare the public register with the Transparency Code fields and list what is missing (start dates, value basis, SME and voluntary flags).Council procurement team (proposed)—Published data-gap note
Start soonAsk the council to publish the full freedom-of-information contracts extract, or an equivalent open file, so local-supplier figures can be reproduced.UK Facts or any resident (request); council information governance (response)—Open dataset or a dated refusal
Start soonAgree with council lawyers how 'local area' would be defined for Portsmouth under the 2026 Order, and which contract types are suitable.Council legal and procurement (proposed)Decision: Legal sign-off before any reserved competitionInternal guidance note
Build nextPublish a combined forward pipeline, including contracts below £2 million, at least once a year.Council procurement (proposed)Depends on: Service departments supplying planned letsPublished pipeline
Build nextRun market engagement on post-2030 highways services, including whether some work could be let in lots.Council PFI Expiry and Future Services programme (proposed)Depends on: Spring 2027 Cabinet options paper · Decision: Cabinet decision on the future operating modelMarket engagement report
Build nextPilot reserved below-threshold competitions in a few categories with an active local market and compare bids, prices and delivery with open competitions.Council procurement (proposed)Depends on: Legal guidance notePilot evaluation
Longer termPublish an annual report on bids per competition, awards and spend by supplier size and type, and social value delivered, with the method.Council procurement and finance (proposed)Depends on: Supplier size data collected at awardAnnual procurement outcomes report

A first practical step: Write to the council asking it to publish the contracts extract released under FOI2026/02585 as open data, and whether its register can show supplier size and start dates. This needs no council decision to send.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Data cleaning, legal advice and pilot design would need staff time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. More, smaller contracts may raise tendering and contract-management workload, and may change unit prices either way.
Capital or revenue
Revenue (staff time); no capital element identified.
Funding status
No funding identified or committed.
Affordability
Unknown. The council's own budget pressures apply; the earlier claim that no new funding is needed has no evidence and is withdrawn.
Costing still needed
Estimate officer hours per tender and per managed contract for current and lotted approaches; sample past lets to compare bids and prices; cost the data changes with the register supplier.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Possible benefits, not forecasts: more competition, more chances for small and local firms, and better public data on where council money goes. Any effect on local jobs is unmeasured and should not be assumed.

Risks:

  • Smaller lots can raise unit costs or management workload and reduce value for money.
  • Reserving competitions where few local firms exist can weaken competition.
  • A registered local address is not proof of local jobs; a 'letterbox' office could meet a location test.
  • Legal challenge if location is used above threshold or criteria do not relate to the contract.
  • Data improvements depend on the register supplier and officer time.

Who could gain or lose: Small local firms, social enterprises and their workers could gain. Larger firms and suppliers outside the area could lose some opportunities below threshold. If unit costs rise, service budgets carry the cost. Benefits may not reach the most deprived neighbourhoods unless measured.

Capacity: Depends on the size of the council's procurement and contract-management teams, which was not established. The PFI exit programme already has a dedicated team, which shows demand on scarce commercial staff.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Tenders received per competitionNumber of compliant bids per lot, by contract category3 per lot for the 2026 housing repairs re-let; no wider baseline Gap: No published series; reporting not agreedFind a Tender award notices; council tender records · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Share of contract value with SMEs and voluntary organisationsAnnual estimated contract value awarded to suppliers flagged SME or VCSE at award, divided by all awards in the yearNot available Gap: Register does not show SME or VCSE statusContract details notices; register if extended · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Reserved below-threshold competitionsNumber and value of competitions reserved by location, SME or VCSE status, with outcomesNot available Gap: No reporting arrangementBelow-threshold tender notices · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Pipeline lead timeMonths between first pipeline listing and tender notice for contracts over £30,000About 11 months for the housing repairs lets (pipeline 2 May 2025, tender 27 March 2026)Find a Tender notices · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · UK Facts or council (proposed)
Local supply-chain spendSpend by main contractors with subcontractors based in the local area, as reported by contractorsNot available Gap: No data collected; definition of local area neededContractor returns (would need contract terms) · Portsmouth and the defined local areaAnnual · Not agreed

Reassess when: When the Spring 2027 highways options paper is published, when the council's next pipeline notice appears, or if open contract data allow the local-supplier baseline to be rebuilt.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The public register lists 2,231 records but no supplier size or location.
  • The highways PFI ends on 31 March 2030; an options paper is planned for Spring 2027.
  • Housing repairs were re-let in three lots in October 2026, all to one supplier, with three bids per lot.
  • Councils may now reserve below-threshold competitions to local-area or UK suppliers, and to small firms or voluntary organisations.
  • Above threshold, contractor location cannot lawfully be used as a preference.

What is not known:

  • How much council spend reaches small, local or voluntary suppliers.
  • The value of contracts below the thresholds that could be reserved.
  • The full text of the council's 2025 contract procedure rules.
  • Whether the council reports social value delivered under its 2021 policy.
  • The cost of managing more, smaller contracts.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will publish an open contracts dataset with supplier size and start dates.
  • Whether and where to use below-threshold reservations, and how to define the local area.
  • How post-2030 highways services will be procured, including any lots.

Existing work:

  • Contract procedure rules (Part 3A of the constitution): In force since 1 April 2025 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Social Value Policy: Published March 2021; delivery reporting not established (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Small Business Concordat: Signed; voluntary code (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Housing and corporate repairs term contracts: Awarded 16 October 2026 in three lots; start 1 April 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • PFI Expiry and Future Services programme (highways): Approach endorsed by Cabinet 27 October 2026; options paper planned Spring 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).

UK Facts context: Public procurement (National context on UK public procurement. National law and policy; individual council contract decisions are local.)

Next review: When Portsmouth City Council publishes the Spring 2027 Cabinet options paper on post-2030 highways services, or its next Procurement Act pipeline notice, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Portsmouth City Council contract register (In-tend supplier portal) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council (hosted by In-tend); Period: Register as served on 2 November 2026; Area: Portsmouth City Council contracts; Location: Public register table: 'Showing 1 to 25 of 2,231 entries'. Full list read from the page's own data call (POST /portsmouthcc/ContractsRegister/GetContractsRegister, all rows, ordered by contract ID); response 528,494 characters, SHA-256 6e9ccc280486653e13cf3f0197910ebce92b709e546f2271ade1761dcbc89cbd (identical on two reads). Fields served: reference, title, supplier, expiry date, value summary. Contract detail view (GetContract) adds main contact, customer department, extension date and supplier phone. Records C00003065 (Highways PFI - Portsmouth), C00002924/C00002925 (housing repairs), C00005127 (Southsea Coastal Defence Scheme).; The public view shows no start date, no supplier address or postcode and no SME or voluntary-sector flag. Values are free text on mixed bases ('Annual Estimated Value', 'Fixed Value', 'IRO' totals, blank). 958 of the 2,231 records have an expiry date before 2 November 2026 or none, so the register mixes current and historic contracts.

  • PFI Expiry and Future Services Programme Update (Cabinet report) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Cabinet 27 October 2026; Area: Portsmouth City Council highways network; Location: Paragraphs 3.1-3.2 (contract history and end date), 7.2-7.4 (future services options; Cabinet paper planned Spring 2027), 11.1-11.4 (unitary charge, £587m estimated total contract value July 2004, funding split, forecast within budget). 9 pages.

  • Cabinet, Tuesday 27 October 2026: agenda and decisions ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-28

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Meeting 27 October 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Item 6, Decision 1: 'Noted the Council's current contractual and commercial position in relation to the PFI Highways Maintenance Contract and to note the contract ends on 31 March 2030.' Decisions 2-3 (dedicated team; DfT 2026 PFI Expiry Health Check 'Green' rating).

  • Portsmouth City Council - Term Service Contracts for the Repairs & Maintenance of Residential and Commercial Properties for Council Managed Assets - 2026 (contract award notice) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-16

    Primary publisher: Find a Tender service (Cabinet Office); notice by Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council housing and corporate property; Location: Notice 2026/S 000-097760, lots 1-3: lot titles, awarded supplier, SME/VCSE flags, supplier address, contract dates, tenders received per lot; procedure 'Competitive flexible procedure'.; Lot values in the notice (£310m, £310m and £145m excluding VAT) are notice estimates for the full possible term; they are not annual spend and are not used as a baseline.

  • Portsmouth City Council - Term Service Contract for the Repairs & Maintenance Residential and Commercial properties (UK1 pipeline notice) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-05-02

    Primary publisher: Find a Tender service; notice by Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Notice 2025/S 000-018809: two contracts (on-island and off-island), combined value 'in the region of £36M per annum', planned tender notice 26 May 2026.

  • Procurement Act 2023, section 12 (covered procurement: objectives) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Period: In force 24 February 2025; text up to date to 24 July 2026 per legislation.gov.uk; Area: United Kingdom; Location: s.12(1)(a)-(d) value for money, public benefit, information sharing, integrity; s.12(4) SMEs may face particular barriers, consider whether they can be removed or reduced.

  • Procurement Act 2023, section 18 (duty to consider lots) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: United Kingdom; Location: s.18(1)-(2): before a tender notice, consider whether the contract could be split and awarded by lots; if so, use lots or provide reasons for not doing so.

  • Procurement Act 2023, section 23 (award criteria) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: United Kingdom; Location: s.23(2)(a)-(d) criteria must relate to the subject-matter, be clear, measurable and specific, and proportionate; s.23(4) may limit the number of lots awarded to one supplier with an objective selection mechanism.

  • Procurement Act 2023, sections 86 and 87 (regulated below-threshold contracts) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: United Kingdom; Location: s.86(1): before inviting tenders for a regulated below-threshold contract, have regard to SME barriers; s.87(1),(3),(4)(b): below-threshold tender notice and contract details notice for contracts of not less than £30,000 (authorities other than central government). Section 86 read at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/54/section/86.

  • Procurement Act 2023, section 93 (pipeline notices) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: United Kingdom; Location: s.93(1)-(4): authorities expecting to pay more than £100 million under relevant contracts in the coming financial year must publish, within 56 days of its start, a pipeline notice of contracts over £2 million planned in the next 18 months.

  • Procurement Act 2023, Schedule 1 (threshold amounts) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2023-10-26

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Period: Amounts substituted from 1 January 2026 by SI 2025/1200; Area: United Kingdom; Location: Para 1(1) table: row 10 works contract £5,193,000; row 8 light touch contract £663,540; row 12 goods, services or works to a sub-central government authority £207,720.

  • The Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026 (SI 2026/94) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-03

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Period: Made 3 February 2026; in force 4 February 2026; Area: England; Location: Article 1(2) commencement; article 2 definitions (relevant contract = below-threshold contract to which s.17 of the Local Government Act 1988 applies); article 3(2)-(5) UK-based or local-area reservation and definition of 'based within' and 'local area'.

  • Guidance on reserving competitions for below-threshold contracts ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-12-03

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Period: Public update 16 February 2026; Area: England; Location: Paras 1-4 (policy and legal basis), 7 (in-scope authorities: best value authorities and parish councils), 10-11 (relevant contracts; Provider Selection Regime excluded), 12-17 (UK and local-area reservations; no other location restriction), 18-19 (SME/VCSE reservation already possible), 25-27 (value for money, not de facto direct award), 29-36 (notice wording).

  • Local Government Act 1988, section 17 (local and other public authority contracts: exclusion of non-commercial considerations) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England and Wales; Location: s.17(5)(e): the location of contractors' business activities or interests is a non-commercial matter.

  • Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, section 1 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England and Wales; Location: s.1(1)-(3): before procuring a public services contract the authority must consider how it might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area (text as amended for the Procurement Act 2023).

  • National Procurement Policy Statement (accessible PDF) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-02-12

    Primary publisher: Cabinet Office / Government Commercial Function; Period: In effect from 24 February 2025; Area: Contracting authorities under the Procurement Act 2023 (with listed exceptions); Location: Pages 2-4: 'Duration and review'; 'Delivering value for money' (value for money is 'always the overarching priority'); 'Driving economic growth' priority and action 1 'Maximise procurement spend with SMEs and VCSEs'; 'Delivering social and economic value' action 4. File SHA-256 8a13fb206a2f17fdeb105112c1f272f3bd3c0984bc065bfec453caab7110160a.

  • Local government transparency code 2015 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2015-02-27

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Area: England; Location: Part 2.1 paras 26-27 (quarterly publication), 28 (spending over £500) and the procurement information paragraphs (invitations to tender and contracts over £5,000, including 'whether or not the supplier is a small or medium sized enterprise and/or a voluntary or community sector organisation').

  • Guidance for reconciling publication requirements of the Procurement Act 2023 and the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-01-29

    Primary publisher: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Area: England; Location: Councils may publish tenders and contracts between £5,000 and £30,000 on the Central Digital Platform to discharge the Code's tender and contract provisions; other Code requirements continue.

  • Part 3A - Portsmouth City Council Contract Procedure Rules ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-04

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Header: 'Last updated: April 2025. As approved by Full Council on the 18th March 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025.'; The web page text was truncated when read; the linked PDF (media.portsmouth.gov.uk, May 2025) could not be retrieved on 2 November 2026. The rules' value bands and any lots, SME or social-value clauses were therefore not verified.

  • Social Value Policy, March 2021 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2021-03

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Title page date 'March 2021'; definition of 'Local Value' as benefits 'within the Portsmouth City postcode area'; methodology item to develop a Portsmouth Social Value Framework; reporting item 'Independent audit and published report'. Read through a PDF text parser; printed page numbers did not match the 21-page file.; No minimum social value evaluation weighting or contract value threshold was found in the policy text.

  • Small and medium enterprises concordat ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Page text: council 'has signed up to the Small Business Concordat', a 'voluntary, non-statutory code of practice'; aim is equal treatment, not competitive advantage. Signed document PDF dated by upload path 2020/04 (not opened).

  • Payments to suppliers ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council (excluding schools); Location: Monthly payments of £500 or more, published on data.portsmouth.gov.uk; supplier names of individuals and sole traders removed.

  • Tenders and contracts with the Council ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Sections 'Contract register' and 'GOV.UK contracts finder'; Says the register 'also provides all contract awards and procurement transparency code information' and disclaims errors or omissions.

  • UK Facts legacy record: Portsmouth contract spend and local supplier retention (FOI2026/02585) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-08

    Primary publisher: UK Facts (editorial record); Period: Contracts register as released 10 August 2026 under FOI2026/02585; Area: Portsmouth City Council contracts; Location: Repository file lib/data-registry/portsmouth-contracts.ts (CONTRACTS_ANNUAL_TOTAL, SUPPLIER_BANDS, CONTRACT_EXPIRY, TOP_SUPPLIERS, SPEND_CATEGORIES, SO_WHAT) and legacy suggestion contract-lotting-smes.; The FOI release itself is not published at the cited link (a general FOI page) and no copy was found in the repository or workspace. Its figures cannot be reproduced from the public register, which has no supplier postcodes and no consistent annual value.

Where earlier ideas went

  • contract-lotting-smes (earlier ten suggestions): restored. local-procurement (whole action) Not carried forward: All FOI2026/02585 figures (£414.6m, 2,326 contracts, £71.8m and 17.3% local, area bands, category shares, 'nearer 11%', £212m expiry, £147.1m construction); 'PFI locked until 2032' (corrected to 31 March 2030); £25.3m Ensign figure (register says £25.0m); required local subcontract share (legal risk above threshold); 'lots for firms of 10 to 50 staff' and 'lots under £2m' targets; 'low hundreds of thousands' cost and 'no new funding required' (no origin); named Solent Chamber of Commerce partner (not verified or approached).

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Measure what cleaner shipping and transport actually deliver

Publish how often ships use the new shore power, how much electricity they take and what emissions are avoided, and report nearby air quality and the Pompey Link bus pilot, so results can be judged against forecasts.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as port owner, air quality authority and local transport authority)

Start soon

Agree with the port which shore power figures can be published and at what level of aggregation.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Publish the first quarterly shore power summary with the method for estimating avoided emissions.

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Decide on any extension to the remaining two berths or further bus pilots using the published evidence and a costed operating plan.

How to judge progress: Share of eligible ship calls that connected to shore power; Electricity supplied to ships (MWh) and estimated CO2e avoided; Annual mean NO2 and PM2.5 at monitoring sites nearest the port; Pompey Link passengers and net cost per passenger journey.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

The port now offers shore power, so docked ships can switch off their engines. The port forecasts a large carbon saving from 2027, but it has published no figures on how often ships connect, how much electricity they use or what emissions are avoided. Operators say the electricity is too expensive, so use may stay low. Air quality and greenhouse gases are measured in separate ways, and bus and port money come from different budgets. Without clear reporting, residents cannot tell what these schemes achieve.

Who is affected: People who live and work near the port and along busy roads such as Alfred Road, London Road and the port approaches. Bus users in the north of the city served by the Pompey Link pilot. Council taxpayers, who part-funded the port works. Ferry and cruise operators deciding whether to plug in.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Annual mean nitrogen dioxide at London Road automatic station27.97 µg/m³ (objective 40)2025London Road monitoring station
Air Quality Management Areas in force5 (AQMAs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12)2025 monitoring year, reported October 2026Portsmouth
Territorial greenhouse gas emissions, all sources Excludes international shipping and most port-related ship emissions; cannot measure Sea Change.653 kt CO2e, of which transport 234 kt (36%)2024Portsmouth local authority area
Shore power connections, electricity supplied and emissions avoided Only a forecast of over 20,000 t CO2e a year from 2027 is published.Not publishedSince July–August 2026Portsmouth International Port
Pompey Link passengers and cost per journeyNot publishedPilot since 2025Paulsgrove, Port Solent and Cosham

What this would change

Aim: Show, in public and in plain numbers, whether shore power and local bus pilots are being used and what they change for air quality, carbon emissions and access.

What success would mean: Regular published figures for ship connections, electricity used and estimated emissions avoided, set against the forecast; air quality results near the port reported alongside them; and a published evaluation of Pompey Link before any decision to extend or end it. No numeric target is proposed, because no agreed baseline exists yet.

The council, as owner of the port and as local transport authority, would ask the port to publish a quarterly shore power summary: connected calls by vessel type, hours connected, electricity supplied, share of eligible calls that connected, and estimated emissions avoided with the method stated. The council would publish the port-area air quality monitoring sites and results from the existing network. For Pompey Link, it would publish passengers, cost per journey and who uses it before the funding decision. Bus and port reporting stay separate because their funding and purposes differ. Cycling is covered in the separate cycle-connections action.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as port owner, air quality authority and local transport authority). Partners: Portsmouth International Port, University of Portsmouth (Sea Change monitoring partner), Brittany Ferries and other port customers, Community First (Pompey Link operator), Stagecoach South and First Solent (bus enhanced partnership).

Powers: The council has statutory local air quality management duties and must report through the Annual Status Report (asr2026-summary). As local transport authority it holds the statutory Local Transport Plan and the bus enhanced partnership (ltp4-amr-2026, bsip-page). As owner of the port it can ask the port to publish operational data; this is an organisational choice, not a statutory power, and commercial data about individual operators may need to be aggregated. The council cannot make ships connect and does not set national electricity costs, which the port and operators say are the main barrier (seachange-whitepaper).

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. The port publishes the forecast and a white paper; the council publishes the air quality summary and runs the Pompey Link pilot. No usage or outcome figures are published for either.
  • Proposed response: Publish a shore power and bus pilot scorecard. Quarterly port figures on connections, electricity and estimated emissions avoided, with stated methods; port-area air quality sites named in the summary report; a published Pompey Link evaluation before the funding decision.
  • Alternative: Independent annual evaluation only. Ask the University of Portsmouth monitoring team to publish one annual evaluation of Sea Change air quality and carbon effects, with no quarterly data. Cheaper to run but slower and less transparent.
  • Alternative: Tie reporting to a connection incentive. Combine publication with a time-limited tariff support or berth-allocation rule to raise uptake. This would need costing, legal and subsidy-control advice, and is not appraised here.

Further appraisal may change the choice because the cost of data collection, commercial confidentiality with ship operators, and whether the monitoring network can separate port effects from traffic and weather are not yet known.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Durations are illustrative. The only sourced dates are the July–August 2026 start of shore power use, the 2027 forecast date and the Pompey Link funding end (March 2027 on the service page, May 2027 in the monitoring report).
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonAgree with the port which shore power figures can be published and at what level of aggregation.Portsmouth City Council with Portsmouth International PortDecision: Port and operators confirm what is commercially publishableAgreed data list and first publication date
Start soonIdentify which existing diffusion-tube and automatic monitoring sites are closest to the port berths and approach roads.Portsmouth City Council regulatory servicesDepends on: Full 2026 ASR (available on request)Published list of port-relevant monitoring sites and 2021–2025 results
Start soonPublish Pompey Link passengers, cost per journey and a short user survey summary.Portsmouth City Council transportDecision: Before the decision on funding after March or May 2027Pilot evaluation note
Build nextPublish the first quarterly shore power summary with the method for estimating avoided emissions.Portsmouth International PortDepends on: Agreed data listQuarterly summary
Build nextCompare air quality near the port before and after shore power, allowing for weather and traffic.University of Portsmouth with the councilDepends on: Monitoring data and baseline from the projectShort technical note with uncertainty
Longer termDecide on any extension to the remaining two berths or further bus pilots using the published evidence and a costed operating plan.Portsmouth City Council (as port owner and transport authority)Decision: Measured use and a funded operating planPublished decision with evidence

A first practical step: Write to the port asking which shore power usage figures it already collects and could publish in aggregate. This needs no new funding or approval.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Setting up reporting from data the port already holds is expected to be small, but this has not been estimated.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Staff time for quarterly publication and any extra monitoring analysis.
Capital or revenue
Mainly revenue (reporting and analysis). Existing Sea Change capital was £19.8m government funding plus £4.6m council match, with a separate council grid contribution given as £3.6m in the September 2026 white paper (seachange-whitepaper) and as £3m in the July 2026 press release (seachange-golive); the two sources have not been reconciled. None of this pays for reporting.
Funding status
No funding identified for reporting. Bus grant (£7.46m revenue over 2026/27–2028/29) is ring-fenced for bus projects and cannot pay for port works.
Affordability
Not assessed. Reporting costs should be estimated before any commitment.
Costing still needed
Estimate staff days for quarterly port reporting and an annual air quality comparison; confirm whether the Sea Change demonstrator budget already covers monitoring until the end of the demonstration period.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents and councillors could see whether a large public investment is used. Evidence would show whether low uptake needs action on electricity costs. A Pompey Link evaluation would support a fair decision on its future. Benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • Ship operators may connect rarely because electricity is expensive, so the forecast saving may not happen.
  • Air quality near the port is affected by traffic, weather and other sources, so changes may not be attributable to shore power.
  • Commercial confidentiality may limit what the port can publish about individual operators.
  • Reporting creates staff workload without new funding.
  • Local greenhouse gas statistics will not show the effect, which could be misread as failure or success.

Who could gain or lose: People living near the port and busy roads would gain most if ships plug in. Pompey Link users include people in areas without another bus route; ending the pilot without evaluation could leave them worse off. Public subsidy of electricity for ships would transfer money to operators and would need justification.

Environment: Shore power is intended to cut fuel burnt at berth, noise and local pollution. Its carbon effect depends on the electricity source; the port says supply is 100% renewable, which was not independently checked.

Capacity: The council runs the monitoring network and the port, but no dedicated reporting post was identified. The University of Portsmouth monitoring role is tied to the demonstrator period.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Share of eligible ship calls that connected to shore powerCalls at the three shore power berths where the vessel connected, divided by calls by vessels able to connectNot established Gap: No published baseline or agreed reporting arrangementPortsmouth International Port operational records · Portsmouth International PortQuarterly (proposed) · Portsmouth International Port (proposed)
Electricity supplied to ships (MWh) and estimated CO2e avoidedMetered shore power electricity; avoided emissions estimated with a stated fuel-displacement method, compared with the 20,000 t a year forecastNot established; forecast only Gap: No published data or methodPort metering; Sea Change project method · Portsmouth International PortQuarterly (proposed) · Portsmouth International Port (proposed)
Annual mean NO2 and PM2.5 at monitoring sites nearest the portAnnual means from existing diffusion tubes and automatic stations, compared with 2021–2025Site list not yet identified; London Road 27.97 µg/m³ is not port-specific Gap: Port-relevant sites need to be named; full ASR is not publicly postedAnnual Status Report · Port-adjacent monitoring sitesAnnual · Portsmouth City Council
Pompey Link passengers and net cost per passenger journeyPassenger journeys and council subsidy divided by journeysNot published Gap: No published figuresCouncil and Community First records · Paulsgrove, Port Solent and Cosham zonesQuarterly during pilot (proposed) · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)

Reassess when: Reassess when the port publishes any usage figures, when the 2027 Annual Status Report (2026 data) is published, or when the Pompey Link funding decision is due.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Sea Change serves the three busiest berths and began commercial use in July–August 2026.
  • Government provided £19.8m and the council £4.6m in match funding, plus a grid contribution.
  • The 20,000 t CO2e a year saving is a forecast from 2027.
  • Air quality objectives were met at relevant exposure in 2025, but most sites worsened compared with 2024.
  • Local greenhouse gas statistics do not capture international shipping.
  • Pompey Link is a pilot funded through the BSIP.

What is not known:

  • How many ships have connected and how much electricity they used.
  • The method behind the 20,000 t forecast.
  • Which monitoring sites best represent the port area.
  • Whether Pompey Link funding ends in March or May 2027, and its cost and use.
  • The shore power tariff and whether it is subsidised.
  • Whether three ships have yet connected at the same time.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council, as port owner, asks for regular public shore power reporting.
  • Whether to fund an independent evaluation after the demonstrator period.
  • Whether to extend, change or end Pompey Link, based on published evidence.

Existing work:

  • Sea Change shore power: Operating; first commercial connections July–August 2026 (as of 2026-09).
  • Annual Status Report of Air Quality 2026 (2025 data): Published as a summary to the 1 October 2026 meeting; full report on request (as of 2026-10-01).
  • Pompey Link on-demand bus pilot: Operating; funded to March 2027 (service page) or May 2027 (monitoring report) (as of 2026-10-05).
  • Portsmouth Bus Service Improvement Plan: £48.3m programme 2022–2026; new multi-year bus grant from 2026/27 (as of 2026-07-22).
  • Portsmouth Transport Strategy (LTP4) 2021–2038: Adopted October 2021; fourth monitoring report September 2026 (as of 2026-09-17).

Next review: When the port publishes shore power usage data, or when the council publishes the 2027 Annual Status Report summary, or at the Pompey Link funding decision.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Council-owned port: Sea Change shore power ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    Primary source: council-owned Portsmouth International Port, the project operator. Page says the project is live. More than 20,000 tonnes CO2e saved annually from 2027 remains a forecast, not measured benefit.

  • Plugging in: Portsmouth’s shore power journey and the future of clean ports (white paper) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth International Port with project partners and the British Ports Association; Area: Portsmouth International Port; Location: Page 7 (funding: £19.8m incl. £18.9m to the port, £4.6m council match; key details; system fully live July 2026; electricity 80–85% of the ship’s cost); page 8 (timeline; £3.6m council grid upgrade); page 13 (monitoring and PM2.5 baseline); page 14 (remaining two berths; connection costs); page 15 (first Brittany Ferries grid-powered departure 3 August 2026; cost conundrum); page 16 (UK electricity prices); PDF SHA-256 4b26acbcc1682dedc9c93d5e29c468a5695fad8285ec0d059a65f37c5b75f93d. Partner essays are promotional and interested-party views; no measured connections, electricity or emissions figures are published in it.

  • It’s electrifying – Portsmouth International Port’s shore power system goes live ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-24

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth International Port; Period: Published 24 July 2026, modified 11 August 2026; Area: Portsmouth International Port; Location: Paragraphs 2–5 (first connections in testing; up to three ships at once expected later in 2026; £19.8m DfT and £4.6m council); paragraph on £3m council grid funding; Gives the council grid contribution as £3 million; the September white paper gives £3.6 million. Not reconciled.

  • Portsmouth City Council: NO₂ annual mean — London Road ↗ · checked 2026-10-03

    Table 1, pages 4–5;.air.london-road.no2

    File check

    Retained original SHA256 0d4f2b2908d3a09cef2e2797035fde589addb0738a3c873b95d2b39fe227865c; Preserved live record portsmouth

  • 2005 to 2024 UK local and regional greenhouse gas emissions – data tables ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; Period: Calendar years 2005–2024; Area: Portsmouth local authority area (E06000044); Location: Sheet 1_1, row 5465 (2024): AB Transport Total 234.41, AA Transport Other 3.357, AT Grand Total 652.95, AV per capita 3.047; row 5446 (2005): AT 1409.18, AB 342.44; Accredited official statistics. Territorial, end-user basis. XLSX SHA-256 d51854b6b116adb81b0ff169225ca88d27d3a84f3e6a712f2790470e16458cb1. Release page updated 30 June 2026.

  • Local and regional greenhouse gas emissions estimates for 2005–2024: technical report ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; Area: UK local authorities; Location: Page 8 (some excluded sources not assigned to any local authority); pages 10–11 Table 1 (International aviation and shipping listed separately; excluded sectors marked in italics); page 12 (allocated shipping is inside Transport Other); page 56 (other transport sources); PDF SHA-256 84cbdc9ee699cdabd1fe360d18ac22c380f445665fda2ce32833ce6c1f87d8f1. Italic marking of excluded sectors could not be read from extracted text.

  • Council transport service: Pompey Link ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    Operating pilot funded until March 2027; continuation and savings are not assumed.

  • Bus Service Improvement Plan – Getting Portsmouth on the bus ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-17

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council (Travel Portsmouth); Area: Portsmouth; Location: Funding section (£48.3m confirmed April 2022: £13m revenue, £35.3m capital; delivered 2022–2026); partnership paragraph (enhanced partnership with Stagecoach South and First Solent); The page also quotes passenger growth figures (53% and, in a news item, 41%) on different bases; they are not used here.

  • LABG revenue allocations: 2026 to 2029 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-12-05

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport; Period: Updated 22 July 2026; financial years 2026/27 to 2028/29; Area: Portsmouth City Council (local transport authority); Location: Allocation table, Portsmouth City Council row: original 2026/27 £2,445,332; uplift £119,150; revised 2026/27 £2,564,482; 2027/28 £2,445,332; 2028/29 £2,445,332; total £7,455,146; Revenue only. Bus revenue and capital remain ring-fenced for bus projects (LTP4 implementation plan para 3.9).

  • Local Transport Plan 4 Annual Monitoring Report 2025/26 (Cabinet Member for Transport, 17 September 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-17

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2025/26; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 2.1–2.3 (strategy adopted October 2021; new four-year implementation plan 2026/27–2029/30 from July 2026); 4.2–4.5 (achievements incl. Kendalls Wharf crossing, LCWIP feasibility, 31 bike hangers, coast path live March 2026, Pompey Link extended to May 2027, 11.92m bus journeys); 5.4 (Walking and Cycling Strategy in development during 2026); PDF SHA-256 2ad101377d1423ff33d0abd4743c04ea1150328bac03f5ba385ac10e2d5f2e22. Council self-reporting; information-only report.

  • Local Transport Plan 4 – Implementation Plan 2026/2027 (Cabinet Member for Transport, 19 March 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03-19

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2026/27; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 1.1 (£1,495,000 implementation plan); 3.9–3.10 (Local Transport Consolidated Funding, four-year settlement, bus funding ring-fenced, Local Transport Delivery Plan due September 2026); appendix scheme table page 12 (Active Travel Infrastructure Improvements; seafront crossings near Canoe Lake); page 16 (Lake Road 280m segregated lanes; East-West Active Travel Corridor; Vivacity cameras and monitoring at 6 months and 2 years); PDF SHA-256 32463db351eef5c976e624813d3f5fc2078d4ee385eb0d549ee3dcedfe5786dc. The AMR says this plan was replaced in July 2026 by a 2026/27–2029/30 plan, which was not retrieved.

Where earlier ideas went

  • cleaner-transport (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. cleaner-transport Not carried forward: Nothing dropped. The claim that no combined cost is published is corrected: itemised Sea Change capital funding is now published. Cycling moved to the separate cycle-connections action.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Join up safe cycle routes across Portsea Island

Check how the city’s cycle routes, new crossings and rebuilt seafront paths connect, publish the gaps and dangerous junctions, and fix the most important ones in order, measuring use and safety before and after.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as local highway and transport authority)

Start soon

Map existing and committed cycle routes, including completed seafront frontages, and list gaps and junctions where routes break.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Appraise route options, including a seafront and Hilsea link, for cost, safety, access, pedestrian conflict, land ownership and maintenance.

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Deliver prioritised links as funding allows and publish before-and-after counts and casualty data.

How to judge progress: Adults cycling at least once a week; Pedal cyclist casualties, killed or seriously injured (severity-adjusted); Completed connected links; Cycle counts on improved links.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth has more people cycling each week than the England average, but the share fell between 2016 and 2023. New routes are being added in pieces: corridor schemes, crossings, and a two-way cycle path along each rebuilt seafront section. The city has no published check of whether these pieces join into continuous, safe routes. Police-reported cyclist casualties have fallen, but over 100 cyclists are still hurt each year, and casualty counts alone do not show risk.

Who is affected: People who cycle or would like to, including commuters, students, children travelling to school and disabled people using adapted cycles. Pedestrians who share paths. Residents near busy junctions. Drivers and bus users where road space changes.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Adults who cycle at least once a week (any purpose) Survey-based (Active Lives). Confidence interval about ±3.7 points. Last DfT edition.13.3% (England 10.1%)Year to November 2023Portsmouth
Police-reported pedal cyclist casualties121, of which 27 killed or seriously injured (unadjusted)2025Portsmouth, all roads
Severity-adjusted killed or seriously injured pedal cyclists, three-year average24.0 a year (2023–2025); 34.9 a year (2016–2018)2016–2018 and 2023–2025Portsmouth, all roads
Active travel funding allocated by DfT and Active Travel England£1,276,988 over 2026/27–2029/302026/27 to 2029/30Portsmouth
Completed safe links on a connected network No continuity audit has been published.Not established—Portsea Island

What this would change

Aim: Join existing and planned cycle routes, including the new seafront paths, into a connected network that people of different ages and abilities can use safely, starting with the gaps and junctions that matter most.

What success would mean: A published map of continuous links meeting national design guidance, with gaps and unsafe junctions named and a dated programme to fix them; more people cycling; and fewer cyclist and pedestrian casualties per trip. No numeric target is proposed until a usage baseline is agreed.

The council would audit how the LCWIP corridors, recent schemes and the seafront cycle paths connect, and publish a gap and junction list. It would appraise route options, including a seafront and Hilsea link, against cost, safety, accessibility, pedestrian conflict, land ownership and maintenance. The forthcoming Walking and Cycling Strategy would set the priority order. Schemes would use the existing active travel allocation and implementation plan, with counting before and after each scheme.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as local highway and transport authority). Partners: Active Travel England (funder), Southsea Coastal Scheme team, Portsmouth Cycle Forum and disability groups (already consulted on schemes), Sustrans (National Cycle Network routes), Hampshire and the Solent Combined Authority (future funding route).

Powers: The council is the local transport authority with a statutory Local Transport Plan (ltp4-amr-2026) and delivers schemes on roads it manages. Roads managed by National Highways are outside its control (ras0403 notes). Active Travel England allocates funding (ate-alloc-2026-30). Seafront works are delivered through the council-led Southsea Coastal Scheme, so cycle design there is tied to flood-defence approvals (scs-booklet-oct26). Land outside the highway, such as parks or Ministry of Defence land, needs owner agreement; ownership was not checked.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. Deliver LCWIP corridor schemes, crossings and the coastal cycle paths as separate projects, as funding allows, with a Walking and Cycling Strategy in preparation.
  • Proposed response: Connectivity audit and prioritised gap programme. Map how routes connect, publish gaps and unsafe junctions, and rank fixes in the Walking and Cycling Strategy, using the existing active travel allocation and before-and-after counts.
  • Alternative: Signposted Portsea Island circuit. The legacy idea: a signed leisure and commuter loop linking Hilsea, Eastney, the seafront and Old Portsmouth. Needs route definition, junction design and costing; may compete with commuter corridors for funds.
  • Alternative: Corridor-first. Concentrate funds on the LCWIP commuter corridors with the greatest potential cycling demand, accepting slower seafront and loop connections.

Further appraisal may change the choice because route lengths, junction costs, land ownership and expected use have not been measured, and the available active travel allocation (about £258,000 capital a year) is small relative to major junction works.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Durations are illustrative. Sourced dates are the coastal frontage forecasts (spring 2027 to late summer 2028), the Walking and Cycling Strategy work during 2026 and the 2026/27–2029/30 funding period.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonMap existing and committed cycle routes, including completed seafront frontages, and list gaps and junctions where routes break.Portsmouth City Council transport planning—Published connectivity map and gap list
Start soonCheck collision locations for cyclists and pedestrians over five years at each listed junction.Portsmouth City Council road safetyDepends on: STATS19 data for 2021–2025Junction risk table using consistent years
Start soonFeed the gap list into the Walking and Cycling Strategy being drafted in 2026.Portsmouth City CouncilDecision: Strategy consultationPriority list in the strategy
Build nextAppraise route options, including a seafront and Hilsea link, for cost, safety, access, pedestrian conflict, land ownership and maintenance.Portsmouth City Council with Active Travel EnglandDepends on: Gap list; land ownership checksOptions appraisal with cost ranges
Build nextInstall counters on candidate links before works start.Portsmouth City Council—Usage baseline per link
Longer termDeliver prioritised links as funding allows and publish before-and-after counts and casualty data.Portsmouth City CouncilDecision: Funding approval per schemeCompleted links and published evaluation

A first practical step: Publish a simple map showing which existing and newly built cycle routes connect and where they stop, using records the council already holds.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. The connectivity audit and options appraisal need a staff or consultant estimate. Construction costs depend on the chosen links.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Surface, lighting, signs and counter maintenance would add to highway maintenance budgets.
Capital or revenue
Both: capital for construction; revenue for planning, counting and promotion.
Funding status
Existing allocations: £258,433 capital a year (4 years) and £81,085 revenue a year (3 years) from DfT and Active Travel England for 2026/27–2029/30; £419,974 in 2025/26. These cover all active travel work, not this proposal. The coastal scheme budget is for flood defence.
Affordability
Not assessed. The allocation is small compared with major junction redesigns, so priorities would be needed.
Costing still needed
Cost the audit; then cost each candidate link with unit rates from recent Portsmouth schemes such as Lake Road and the East-West corridor, including maintenance.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Safer, more connected routes could make cycling practical for more people, reduce car trips and support health. Benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • Junction changes may reduce road capacity and slow buses or traffic, causing opposition.
  • Shared paths on the seafront can cause conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, especially at busy times.
  • Funding is small and spread across all active travel work.
  • Coastal construction dates may slip, delaying seafront links.
  • Survey estimates are imprecise, so small changes in cycling may not be detectable.

Who could gain or lose: People without cars, young people and those on low incomes could gain most from safe routes. Disabled people may gain or lose depending on design, kerbs and shared-path rules. Drivers may face slower journeys at some junctions.

Environment: More cycling could reduce car traffic and emissions. Construction on the seafront and at Hilsea interacts with protected habitats and heritage, handled through existing coastal scheme approvals.

Capacity: The council reports recent recruitment of project managers but also delays to internally funded schemes from resource constraints.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Adults cycling at least once a weekActive Lives Survey estimate, any purpose, adults aged 16 and over13.3% (year to Nov 2023, ±3.7) Gap: Later years published only by Sport England; reuse terms not confirmed, so link rather than republishDfT CW0302 (to 2023); Sport England Active Lives from 2024 · PortsmouthAnnual · Sport England (publisher)
Pedal cyclist casualties, killed or seriously injured (severity-adjusted)Police-reported casualties, three-year rolling average24.0 a year (2023–2025)DfT RAS0403 · Portsmouth, all roadsAnnual · Department for Transport
Completed connected linksKilometres and junctions on the agreed network meeting national cycle design guidanceNot established Gap: Network and standard not yet definedProposed council connectivity audit · Portsea IslandAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Cycle counts on improved linksAverage daily cycle flows from permanent and temporary counters, before and after worksNot established for most links Gap: Counts not routinely publishedCouncil Vivacity cameras and new counters · Scheme linksBefore, at 6 months and at 2 years (current council practice) · Portsmouth City Council

Reassess when: Reassess when the Walking and Cycling Strategy is published for consultation, when the 2026/27–2029/30 implementation plan or Local Transport Delivery Plan is read, and when each coastal frontage opens.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The LCWIP was approved in February 2022 and focuses on commuter corridors.
  • Several schemes have been built since, including Lake Road and the East-West corridor.
  • Rebuilt seafront frontages include two-way cycle paths.
  • Portsmouth has a defined active travel allocation for 2026/27–2029/30.
  • Cyclist casualties and weekly cycling both fell between 2016 and the latest years.

What is not known:

  • Whether completed sections join into continuous safe routes.
  • The length and cost of any circuit or missing links.
  • Land ownership on candidate links off the highway.
  • Cycle usage on most routes.
  • What the July 2026 implementation plan and Local Transport Delivery Plan allocate to cycling.
  • Whether e-scooters and e-bikes change risk; the Other vehicle casualty category has risen.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether to commission a connectivity audit.
  • Whether the Walking and Cycling Strategy should include a seafront and Hilsea link or circuit.
  • How to split the active travel allocation between corridors and connecting links.

Existing work:

  • Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (adopted document titled 2021–2031): Approved 24 February 2022 (as of 2022-02-24).
  • Walking and Cycling Strategy: In development during 2026 (as of 2026-09-17).
  • Southsea Coastal Scheme cycle paths: Frontage 3 open (April 2026); Frontage 5 East due spring 2027; Frontage 6 due late summer 2028 (as of 2026-10).
  • LTP4 implementation plan active travel schemes: 2026/27 plan approved March 2026; replaced by a four-year plan in July 2026 (as of 2026-09-17).
  • North Portsea Coastal Scheme final phase: Works until end of 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).

Next review: When Portsmouth publishes its Walking and Cycling Strategy for consultation, or when DfT publishes 2026 casualty data (expected July 2027).. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan 2020–2030: decision and minutes, Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation, 24 February 2022 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2022-02-24

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Decision 2 (approved the LCWIP as the basis of the active travel development strategy for the life of LTP4); minutes (funding for the short-term projects has not been identified; city centre removed from auditing)

  • Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan 2021–2031 (Appendix B, LCWIP Summary FINAL, adopted 24 February 2022) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2022-02-24

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Plan period 2021–2031 (decision item titled 2020–2030); Area: Portsmouth; Location: Page 9 (phased approach; secondary and tertiary networks for future iterations); page 19 (primary network audited; secondary and tertiary not audited); page 20 Figure 5 (East-West routes 601, 602, 801; Eastern corridor 108, 205, 301; Western corridor 307, 307a, 405, 503); page 21 (short 0–3, medium 3–5, longer 5–10 years); pages 32–36 (corridor and section priority tables, e.g. 802 Southsea Seafront to HM Naval Base; 603 Gosport to Southsea Seafront); Adopted version attached to the February 2022 decision. PDF SHA-256 bb2b78ab3873dc19e8627dc2cfd6d4074ad3d7449c0582a275c4bfbe50f3cdfa. The word DRAFT appears only as a drawing status on one appendix map. Route numbers match the earlier draft file.

  • Local Transport Plan 4 Annual Monitoring Report 2025/26 (Cabinet Member for Transport, 17 September 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-17

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2025/26; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 2.1–2.3 (strategy adopted October 2021; new four-year implementation plan 2026/27–2029/30 from July 2026); 4.2–4.5 (achievements incl. Kendalls Wharf crossing, LCWIP feasibility, 31 bike hangers, coast path live March 2026, Pompey Link extended to May 2027, 11.92m bus journeys); 5.4 (Walking and Cycling Strategy in development during 2026); PDF SHA-256 2ad101377d1423ff33d0abd4743c04ea1150328bac03f5ba385ac10e2d5f2e22. Council self-reporting; information-only report.

  • Local Transport Plan 4 – Implementation Plan 2026/2027 (Cabinet Member for Transport, 19 March 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03-19

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2026/27; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 1.1 (£1,495,000 implementation plan); 3.9–3.10 (Local Transport Consolidated Funding, four-year settlement, bus funding ring-fenced, Local Transport Delivery Plan due September 2026); appendix scheme table page 12 (Active Travel Infrastructure Improvements; seafront crossings near Canoe Lake); page 16 (Lake Road 280m segregated lanes; East-West Active Travel Corridor; Vivacity cameras and monitoring at 6 months and 2 years); PDF SHA-256 32463db351eef5c976e624813d3f5fc2078d4ee385eb0d549ee3dcedfe5786dc. The AMR says this plan was replaced in July 2026 by a 2026/27–2029/30 plan, which was not retrieved.

  • Active travel local transport authority allocations (2026/27 to 2029/30) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-17

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport and Active Travel England; Period: Financial years 2026/27 to 2029/30; Area: Portsmouth Unitary Authority; Location: Allocation table, Portsmouth Unitary Authority row: capital £258,433 a year over 4 years; resource £81,085 a year over 3 years; total £1,276,988

  • Consolidated Active Travel Fund: final allocations (2025 to 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-02-12

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport and Active Travel England; Period: Financial year 2025/26; updated 21 March 2025; Area: Portsmouth Unitary Authority; Location: Allocation table, Portsmouth Unitary Authority row: £419,974

  • RAS0403: Reported road collision and casualty numbers and rates by severity, road user type and local authority, 10 years up to 2025 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport; Period: Calendar years 2016–2025 (final results 2025); Area: Portsmouth local authority area (E06000044); Location: Sheet Road_user_type, Pedal Cyclist rows 987 (killed), 2643 (KSI unadjusted), 4299 (KSI adjusted), 5955 (all casualties); sheet Road_user_type_local rows 2211 and 4659 (locally managed roads); Notes sheet notes 1–4; ODS SHA-256 ac551fbf73f4b8ccb11dbfbdbf8bc312be2f897d3103260c1552483d602259d2. Police-reported casualties only. Serious injuries are severity-adjusted from 2016. Exact publication day not captured; the DfT tables index lists the RAS0403 update as July 2026.

  • CW0302: Proportion of adults who cycle, by purpose, frequency and local authority, England, November 2015 to November 2023 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2024-08-28

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport (analysis of Sport England Active Lives Survey); Period: Survey years to mid-November, 2016 to 2023; Area: Portsmouth (E06000044) and England; Location: Sheet CW0302 rows 2898–2909 (Portsmouth) and row 7 (England, any purpose, at least once per week); sheet CW0302_ci rows 2898–2899 (confidence intervals); sheet CW0302_sample; ODS SHA-256 a56d70db70042cb66fe25fec964ace0e69562b957f1cc53ee893a1ca169c7a92. Survey-based estimate. Final DfT edition: DfT says Active Lives walking and cycling figures are now published solely by Sport England.

  • Walking and cycling statistics (collection page) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport; Area: England; Location: Section Latest walking and cycling statistics: transition note; Active Lives statistics now published solely by Sport England; last DfT release 28 August 2024

  • Active Lives adult data ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Sport England; Area: England, regions and local authorities; Linked, not republished. No licence or reuse statement was found on the Active Lives data tables page on 2 November 2026, so values are not reproduced here.

  • Southsea Coastal Scheme booklet, October 2026 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council (Southsea Coastal Scheme); Area: Southsea seafront, Old Portsmouth to Eastney; Location: Page 2 (4.5km, over £180m, over 10,000 homes and 700 businesses); page 4 (phase dates); page 12 (Frontage 3 Southsea Common opened 2 April 2026, 3m two-way cycle lane); page 14 (Frontage 5 East two-way cycle route, completion spring 2027; Frontage 6 spring 2027 to late summer 2028); page 16 (Frontage 2 Clarence Pier from autumn 2027, subject to approvals); PDF SHA-256 9af9cdcf193a6cf030e1d5f9308b198e5f436cd0a18aaa2c095df46a72f1c37a. Coastal capital is a flood-defence budget, not a cycling budget.

  • Portsmouth City Council response to the Inspectors’ questions, Matter 2: housing need and requirement (M2.01) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs 2.1.1 to 2.1.2 and 2.2.2; table after 2.2.2

  • Council: Hilsea Lines, reopened lido and coastal works ↗ · checked 2026-10-17
  • UK Facts live: Portsmouth action plan (legacy ten suggestions) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: UK Facts; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Suggestion cycle-circuit (captured in inventory/legacy-ten-suggestions.json); Editorial source, not primary evidence. Its cited evidence was a UK Facts development-plan page, not a council document.

Where earlier ideas went

  • cycle-circuit (earlier ten suggestions): restored. cycle-connections (circuit kept as an alternative option) Not carried forward: The 12km length, mid-single-digit millions cost, 3–7 year timescale, Solent Transport funding route and the one-main-road claim were dropped as unverified. The evidence attributed to the Development Plan was a UK Facts page, not a council assessment.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Track coastal protection through completion and upkeep

Publish one dated record of every Southsea and North Portsea coastal frontage, from design to completion, then show who inspects and maintains each defence, how upkeep is funded and what flood risk remains afterwards.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed), as the lead authority for both schemes, with Coastal Partners preparing the register

Start soon

Compile a frontage-by-frontage list from the two scheme websites, with dates and status as published

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Ask the Environment Agency how and when completed frontages are reflected in national flood-risk maps and property counts

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Reassess protection when shoreline policy, sea-level allowances or national flood maps are updated

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Coastal sections completed; Properties in the high river and sea flood-risk band; Defences with a published inspection and maintenance arrangement; Upkeep spent compared with planned upkeep.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth is a low-lying island city. In June 2026 the Environment Agency placed 2,849 properties in its highest river and sea flood-risk band. Two large schemes are rebuilding the defences, but their progress is spread across separate websites, and the dates do not always match. Nothing published in one place shows who inspects the finished defences, how upkeep is paid for or how much risk is left once building stops.

Who is affected: Residents, businesses and visitors in Southsea, Eastney, Hilsea, Tipner, Anchorage Park and Milton. It also affects people who use the seafront paths, roads and beaches during works, including disabled people who need step-free routes. Wildlife sites and listed heritage along the shore are affected too.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Properties in the high river and sea flood-risk band (a 1 in 30 or greater chance of flooding in any year) This is modelled risk that already allows for defences and their condition. It counts properties in the whole city. It is not the number of homes a single scheme protects.2,849 propertiesJune 2026 assessmentPortsmouth local authority
Properties in any mapped river and sea flood-risk band11,827 propertiesJune 2026 assessmentPortsmouth local authority
Southsea Coastal Scheme sections finished Count of sections shown on the scheme's home page. Frontage 5 is split into West and East, so 6 numbered frontages make 7 sections.4 of 7 sections listed as completed; 1 under way; 2 planned for 2027 to 2028Scheme website, read 2 November 2026Southsea seafront, Old Portsmouth to Eastney (4.5 km)
North Portsea Coastal Scheme phases finished4 of 5 phases completed; phase 5 (Ports Creek and Hilsea Lines) mostly open, full completion expected in the second half of 2027Scheme website, updated 22 and 23 October 2026North Portsea Island, Tipner to Milton (8.4 km)
Government flood-defence money allocated to the Southsea scheme for 2026/27 Indicative one-year government investment. It is not the scheme's total cost and can change.£10.318 million (indicative)April 2026 to March 2027Portsea Island Flood Cell 1, Southsea scheme

What this would change

Aim: Make it easy for anyone to see, for each stretch of coast, whether the new defence is designed, being built, finished, inspected and maintained, who is responsible, and what flood risk remains.

What success would mean: Every Southsea frontage and North Portsea phase has a dated public status that matches the scheme records. The bodies responsible publish their inspection and maintenance arrangements and the funding source for upkeep. Modelled flood risk is reported before and after completion, with an explanation of what changed. No numeric risk-reduction target is proposed here because no published post-scheme baseline was found.

Build and publish a single coastal delivery register covering both schemes. For each frontage or phase it records the location, design stage, construction dates, closures and diversions, completion evidence and the body that will own and maintain the asset. Add how and how often it will be inspected, and the funding route for upkeep. Separately, ask the Environment Agency to explain when completed defences are reflected in its national flood-risk maps. Ask the council to report each year on maintenance carried out, path accessibility and how habitat measures are doing.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed), as the lead authority for both schemes, with Coastal Partners preparing the register. Partners: Coastal Partners (delivery partnership), Environment Agency (grant funder and national flood-risk mapping), VSBW joint venture and Knights Brown (scheme contractors, for construction status only), Ministry of Defence (owner of some Portsea Island frontage defences), Historic England and Natural England (heritage and habitat advice), SSE (cable works affecting Ports Creek completion).

Powers: Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, section 4, a coastal erosion risk management authority may carry out coast protection work it judges necessary to protect land in its area (cpa-1949-s4). The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 names the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, water companies and highway authorities as risk management authorities (fwma-2010-s6). The council can publish its own scheme information without new powers. It cannot require the Environment Agency to change national maps on a timetable, and it does not control defences owned by the Ministry of Defence. The North Solent Shoreline Management Plan says most open-coast defences on Portsea Island are maintained by the local authority, and others by the Ministry of Defence (smp-5api02).

Options

  • Current approach: Keep the current scheme updates. Each scheme runs its own website, bulletins and press releases. This works for construction news but does not join the two schemes, does not show upkeep or inspections, and has left some council pages out of date.
  • Proposed response: One public coastal delivery and upkeep register. A single page or dataset listing every frontage and phase, with its stage, dates, owner, inspection regime, upkeep funding and accessibility. It would be updated when a stage changes and reviewed each year.
  • Alternative: Annual coastal assurance report to councillors. A yearly report to a council committee covering completion, inspection results, maintenance spend and residual risk. This gives formal scrutiny but updates less often than a live register.
  • Alternative: Independent condition survey after each scheme finishes. Commission an independent survey of all new defences when each scheme completes, then publish a summary. This gives stronger assurance but has a cost that has not been estimated.

The choice depends on things not yet known: what inspection and maintenance arrangements already exist but are unpublished, what the Environment Agency already records about council-owned defences, and the cost of a register or independent survey. If complete upkeep records already exist, publishing them may be enough. If they do not, a survey may be needed first.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Construction dates come from the scheme websites and are the publishers' own expected dates. They are not guaranteed. All other timings in this plan are illustrative and have not been agreed by any body.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonCompile a frontage-by-frontage list from the two scheme websites, with dates and status as publishedPortsmouth City Council (proposed), with Coastal Partners—First draft register covering 7 Southsea sections and 5 North Portsea phases
Start soonFix out-of-date council pages, for example the Hilsea Lines page that still says sea-defence work runs until the end of 2026Portsmouth City Council (proposed)Depends on: Confirmed completion date from Coastal PartnersMatching dates across council and scheme pages
Start soonAsk the owners of each finished defence to set out who inspects it, how often, and from which budget it is maintainedPortsmouth City Council (proposed), with Coastal Partners and the Ministry of Defence—Published inspection and maintenance responsibilities, or a list of gaps
Build nextAsk the Environment Agency how and when completed frontages are reflected in national flood-risk maps and property countsPortsmouth City Council (proposed)Depends on: Environment Agency mapping update cycle · Decision: Agreement on whether a local before-and-after risk comparison can be publishedExplained change in modelled risk once each scheme is complete
Build nextEstimate the yearly upkeep cost of the new defences and name the funding sourcePortsmouth City Council (proposed)Decision: Council budget settingCosted upkeep line, separate from the capital build budgets
Build nextReport on access during and after works, including step-free routes, diversions and the Peronne Road Bridge closureCoastal Partners (proposed)—Accessibility section in the register
Longer termReassess protection when shoreline policy, sea-level allowances or national flood maps are updatedPortsmouth City Council and Environment Agency (proposed)Depends on: Shoreline management plan and national flood-risk updatesUpdated residual-risk statement
Longer termTrack how planting, reedbeds and habitat features are doing, and how beach levels change in front of new defencesCoastal Partners (proposed)—Periodic environmental monitoring summary

A first practical step: Anyone, including UK Facts, can compile the frontage list from the two scheme websites today. The council could publish it as a single table without any new decision, and mark which upkeep and inspection fields are still unknown.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Compiling a register is mainly staff time. An independent condition survey would cost more, but no estimate was found.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Yearly upkeep of the new defences is a real cost, but no published figure was found.
Capital or revenue
The schemes themselves are capital projects. Register upkeep and defence maintenance would mostly be revenue costs, so they cannot be paid from the capital build budgets.
Funding status
The build schemes are funded mainly by government flood-defence grant through the Environment Agency. No funding is identified for this proposal or for long-term upkeep.
Affordability
Unknown. The council's budget papers would need to show whether upkeep is already provided for.
Costing still needed
Get the asset owners' maintenance plans and whole-life cost estimates from the scheme business cases. Price a register (staff time) and an independent survey, separately.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents could check progress and upkeep in one place. Gaps in maintenance funding could be spotted before defences degrade. Councillors and funders would have a clear record. The benefit is better information and accountability. This proposal does not itself reduce flood risk.

Risks:

  • Completion dates keep moving, for example because of third-party works such as SSE's cable installation at Peronne Road Bridge.
  • Maintenance records may be held by several owners in different formats, so the register could be incomplete.
  • Readers may treat scheme protection claims, such as homes protected, as measured outcomes rather than design aims.
  • National flood-risk maps may lag behind completed works, so before-and-after comparisons could mislead.
  • Publishing detailed asset information may raise security concerns for some sites.

Who could gain or lose: People in the most exposed low-lying streets and those who rely on accessible seafront routes would gain most from clear information. Businesses on the seafront bear disruption during works. Upkeep costs fall on council budgets and so on all council taxpayers, while protection is concentrated in flood-prone areas.

Environment: Both schemes include habitat measures. Ports Creek has reedbeds, native planting and moat dredging, and Southsea has new planting. The shoreline plan warns that keeping defences can narrow and lower beaches, so beach management matters. Works sit next to protected harbour habitats.

Capacity: Coastal Partners already reports on both schemes. A register mainly needs coordination and data from the owners of defences. Inspection and maintenance capacity after completion is unknown.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Coastal sections completedNumber of Southsea sections and North Portsea phases marked completed by the scheme, with a completion dateSouthsea: 4 of 7 sections; North Portsea: 4 of 5 phases (2 November 2026)Scheme websites · Southsea and North Portsea coastlinesWhen a stage changes; checked quarterly · Coastal Partners (scheme websites)
Properties in the high river and sea flood-risk bandEnvironment Agency count of properties with a 1 in 30 or greater annual chance of flooding, allowing for defences2,849 (June 2026) Gap: It is not known when completed frontages feed into this count. It covers the whole city, not one scheme.Environment Agency risk of flooding from rivers and sea, properties at risk · Portsmouth local authorityWhen the Environment Agency republishes · Environment Agency
Defences with a published inspection and maintenance arrangementShare of completed frontages and phases with a named inspecting body, frequency and upkeep funding sourceNo published baseline found Gap: No baseline and no agreed reporting body.Proposed register · Portsmouth coastlineAnnual · Not agreed
Upkeep spent compared with planned upkeepYearly maintenance spending on new coastal defences compared with the planned amountNot published Gap: No published planned or actual upkeep figure was found.Council budget and outturn papers · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Not agreed

Reassess when: When either scheme reports full completion, when the Environment Agency republishes properties-at-risk figures, or when the shoreline management plan or national flood maps are updated.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • In June 2026, 2,849 Portsmouth properties were in the high river and sea flood-risk band and 11,827 were in any band, allowing for current defences.
  • The Southsea scheme runs 4.5 km from Old Portsmouth to Eastney. Four of its seven listed sections were shown as completed on 2 November 2026.
  • Frontage 6 (South Parade Pier to St George's Road) is expected to start in spring 2027 and finish in late summer 2028. Clarence Pier is still in final design, listed for 2027 to 2028.
  • The North Portsea scheme covers 8.4 km from Tipner to Milton. Most of its final phase opened on 23 October 2026, with full completion expected in the second half of 2027.
  • The government allocated an indicative £10.318 million in 2026/27 to the Southsea scheme.
  • The shoreline plan's policy for the Southsea open coast is to hold the line to 2105.

What is not known:

  • Who will inspect each completed defence, how often, and whether results will be published.
  • The yearly cost of maintaining the new defences and which budget pays for it.
  • How much modelled flood risk remains once each scheme is complete, and when national maps will reflect the new defences.
  • The current total cost and funding split for each scheme. The Southsea scheme's own pages give both 'more than £185M' and '£180m+'.
  • Whether North Portsea phase 5 still has government funding in 2026/27 under another project name.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will publish a joint register for both schemes.
  • Which body will report inspection and maintenance for each asset, including those owned by the Ministry of Defence.
  • How long-term upkeep will be funded and shown in the council budget.

Existing work:

  • Southsea Coastal Scheme (Flood Cell 1): Frontages 1, 3, 4 and 5 West completed; Frontage 5 East under way (2025 to 2027); Frontages 2 and 6 planned for 2027 to 2028: In construction (as of 2026-11-02).
  • North Portsea Coastal Scheme: phases 1 to 4 completed (2015 to 2024); phase 5 Ports Creek and Hilsea Lines mostly open, with completion expected in the second half of 2027: In construction, mostly open (as of 2026-10-23).
  • North Solent Shoreline Management Plan, policy unit 5API02 (Langstone Harbour entrance to Portsmouth Harbour entrance): hold the line in all three periods to 2105: Adopted policy (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Environment Agency Farlington Marshes embankment repairs and flood scheme (allocations for 2026/27): Funded for 2026/27 (indicative) (as of 2026-03-20).

UK Facts context: Portsmouth development plan (UK Facts local page) (A local page that covers the Southsea Coastal Scheme as a regeneration and flood-defence project. It is local context, not a national assessment.)

Next review: When the North Portsea scheme announces full completion (expected second half of 2027), when Southsea Frontage 6 starts (expected spring 2027), or when the Environment Agency next republishes properties-at-risk figures, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

  • coastal-delivery (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. All three stages (now, next and longer term), the measure and the baseline are kept. The baseline is re-verified (2,849 properties). The 'not a beneficiary count' caveat is kept in the baseline note. The stages are expanded into delivery tasks, evaluation rows and the frontage list in existing work. Not carried forward: The cost line 'Use each scheme's published budget' is replaced. The Southsea scheme's own pages give two different totals, so no single budget is shown as fact; the one-year £10.318 million government allocation is shown instead.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Connect water-company work to beach water results

Publish a dated, outfall-by-outfall record linking each Portsmouth storm overflow's spills to its regulated improvement deadline and progress. Report it alongside beach sample results, without claiming one causes the other.

Proposed lead: Southern Water (proposed) for delivery reporting, with Portsmouth City Council (proposed) hosting the joined-up local record

Start soon

Publish the outfall table built from the 2025 spill return and the regulator's programme, as in this plan

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Publish the findings of the Southsea East bathing water investigation and the Portsmouth and Langstone Harbour shellfish investigations

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Track the Fort Cumberland, Mainland Drayton, St Andrews Road and Budds Farm actions due by 31 March 2030, and the Henderson Road action due by 31 March 2035

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Counted spills and hours at each listed overflow; Improvement actions completed by their deadline; Bathing water classification; Pollution risk warnings at Southsea East.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Southsea East beach has been rated Poor for three years running (2023 to 2025). Seventeen storm overflows named or located in Portsmouth recorded 277 counted spills in 2025, most of them at the Eastney outfall. The regulator's programme already gives each overflow a deadline, but no public progress report brings these together. The Environment Agency also says the main suspected source at Southsea East is sewage leaking into groundwater, not storm overflows.

Who is affected: Swimmers, paddlers, water-sports users and families at Southsea East and Eastney. Shellfish harvesters and wildlife in Portsmouth and Langstone Harbours. Seafront businesses. Southern Water bill payers, who fund the works.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Southsea East bathing water classification Annual classification based on four seasons of samples (2022 to 2025). 2026 classification not yet published on 2 November 2026.Poor2025 (also Poor in 2023 and 2024; Sufficient in 2022; Good in 2021)Southsea East bathing water (ukj3100-16600)
Eastney bathing water classificationGood2025 (Good since 2023; Excellent 2015 to 2022)Eastney bathing water (ukj3100-16500)
Pollution risk warnings issued at Southsea East Short-term forecasts that pollution is likely. They are not measurements of a spill. The two Environment Agency sources count slightly differently and have not been reconciled.34 (Environment Agency profile); 35 days with a warning in the agency's daily forecast data2025 bathing seasonSouthsea East
Henderson Road, Eastney storm overflow Counted with the 12 to 24 hour method. The monitor worked for 97.5% of the year. The outlet is offshore and shares its grid reference with Budds Farm's storm outlet.86 counted spills; 499.6 hours of spillingCalendar year 2025Overflow SWS00416, outlet in the Solent (grid reference SZ 66790 93250)
All 17 storm overflows named or located in Portsmouth Sum of each overflow's counted spills. Overflows can spill at the same time, so this is not a count of separate events. Pier Road's monitor worked for only 50.4% of the year, so its count is incomplete.277 counted spills; 891.7 hours of spillingCalendar year 202517 Southern Water overflows selected by site name and outlet grid reference
Of which discharging to Portsmouth Harbour144 counted spills; 252.8 hours (10 overflows)Calendar year 2025Portsmouth-located overflows in the Portsmouth Harbour waterbody catchment
Of which discharging to Langstone Harbour47 counted spills; 139.3 hours (6 overflows)Calendar year 2025Portsmouth-located overflows in the Langstone Harbour waterbody catchment
Southern Water average spills per storm overflow Environment Agency monitoring average. Ofwat's target uses a different method, so the two cannot be compared directly.16.0 spills per overflow (977 overflows)Calendar year 2025Southern Water area, England

What this would change

Aim: Let residents check, for each overflow affecting Portsmouth's waters, what it spilled, what work is required, by when, who is responsible and whether it has been done. Show beach sample results and the Environment Agency's own source investigations alongside this record.

What success would mean: A public record exists for every overflow on the list, updated at least once a year after the Environment Agency's spill data is released. Each entry shows its regulatory deadline and whether the work is complete. Southern Water reports delivery against those deadlines. Beach classifications are reported alongside, with the source findings, so any improvement can be judged over several seasons. This plan sets no numeric spill or beach target of its own. The legal standards already set are described under powers.

Publish and maintain an outfall-level schedule (see existing work) built from three public sources: the Environment Agency's yearly spill returns, the regulator's 2025 to 2030 improvement programme and the bathing water results. Ask Southern Water to report against each dated action: started, complete or late, and spills afterwards. Ask the Environment Agency to publish the outcome of the Southsea East bathing water investigation, due by 30 April 2027. Keep the council's role in finding and fixing misconnected and leaking private drains visible, since the Environment Agency names leaking sewers as the main suspected source at Southsea East.

Proposed lead: Southern Water (proposed) for delivery reporting, with Portsmouth City Council (proposed) hosting the joined-up local record. Partners: Environment Agency (environmental regulator; spill data, improvement programme, bathing water monitoring), Ofwat (economic regulator; performance commitments and funding), Portsmouth City Council (beach manager and member of the Southsea East working group), Havant Borough Council (Budds Farm works lies in Havant), Chichester Harbour and Langstone Harbour bodies, and shellfish interests.

Powers: Southern Water has a legal duty to provide, improve and maintain public sewers (Water Industry Act 1991, section 94; wia-1991-s94). The Secretary of State must keep a plan to reduce storm overflow discharges (section 141A; wia-1991-s141A), currently the 2023 storm overflows discharge reduction plan. The Environment Agency sets and enforces permits and the improvement programme, and Ofwat sets funding and performance targets. Portsmouth City Council cannot direct Southern Water's investment. It can publish information, take part in investigations, deal with drainage it owns and press for delivery.

Options

  • Current approach: Rely on existing separate publications. Spill data, the regulator's programme, Southern Water news and beach results are each published in different places, and site-level progress is not reported. This costs nothing extra but leaves residents unable to track delivery.
  • Proposed response: Joined-up outfall schedule with yearly progress. One public table for Portsmouth's overflows linking 2025 spills, required action, deadline, status and later spills, plus beach results and investigation findings. It is refreshed each year when new spill data is released.
  • Alternative: Local water-quality partnership report. A yearly joint report from Southern Water, the Environment Agency and the council to a council scrutiny panel. This brings more formal accountability but needs all three bodies to agree.
  • Alternative: Focus on the Southsea East source investigation first. Put effort into the groundwater and leaking-sewer investigation at Southsea East, which the Environment Agency says is the main suspected cause there. Overflow reporting would follow.

The best option may change once the Southsea East and harbour shellfish investigations report (due 30 April 2027). If they confirm leaking sewers rather than overflows as the main cause at the beach, effort should shift towards sewer repair and misconnections. The cost of a joined-up record has not been estimated.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Deadlines are the completion dates in the Environment Agency's 2025 to 2030 improvement programme dataset. The regulators set them; they are not guaranteed outcomes. Other timings in this plan are illustrative and unagreed.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonPublish the outfall table built from the 2025 spill return and the regulator's programme, as in this planPortsmouth City Council (proposed), or UK Facts as an editorial record—Public table of 17 Portsmouth overflows plus Budds Farm, with deadlines
Start soonAsk Southern Water for the status of the actions due by 30 June 2027 (Pier Road, North End Avenue, Gladys Avenue, Mile End Road, Widley Road, Court Lane Cosham and others)Portsmouth City Council (proposed)Depends on: Southern Water responseStatus for each action: not started, under way or complete
Start soonConfirm whether the Stanley Road, Stamshaw bottleneck work is complete, and which overflows it servesSouthern Water (proposed)—Dated primary confirmation, or correction of press reports
Build nextPublish the findings of the Southsea East bathing water investigation and the Portsmouth and Langstone Harbour shellfish investigationsEnvironment Agency and Southern Water (proposed)Depends on: Investigations due by 30 April 2027 · Decision: Whether further sewer, drain or overflow work is needed at Southsea EastPublic summary of causes and next steps
Build nextAdd 2026 spill data and the 2026 beach classification to the table, keeping methods the samePortsmouth City Council (proposed)Depends on: Environment Agency releases (spill returns are usually published each March; classifications each November)Two-year comparison, labelled with monitor uptime
Build nextReport on council-led work on private drain misconnections and leaking private sewers near the pierPortsmouth City Council (proposed)—List of fixes and dates
Longer termTrack the Fort Cumberland, Mainland Drayton, St Andrews Road and Budds Farm actions due by 31 March 2030, and the Henderson Road action due by 31 March 2035Southern Water (proposed), checked by the Environment Agency—Completion evidence and spills after completion
Longer termJudge beach improvement over several seasons, not one year, alongside rainfall and source findingsEnvironment Agency (proposed)—Multi-season assessment

A first practical step: The outfall table in this plan can be published now from public data. Anyone can then ask Southern Water to confirm the status of the actions due by 30 June 2027. Neither step needs a decision by any authority.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Building the table is mainly staff time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. A yearly refresh is mainly staff time.
Capital or revenue
The reporting proposal is revenue. Southern Water's overflow works are capital, funded through customer bills under Ofwat's price controls; that funding cannot be assumed to pay for local reporting.
Funding status
No funding is identified for the reporting proposal. Ofwat's 2024 price review allowed Southern Water £1.06 billion for storm overflow improvements in 2025 to 2030 (as recorded by the Competition and Markets Authority). Site-level costs were not published in the sources read.
Affordability
Unknown for the reporting proposal.
Costing still needed
Estimate staff time for a yearly refresh. Ask Southern Water whether it already holds site-level progress data that could be published at little extra cost.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents and swimmers could see whether promised works are on time. Pressure would fall on the right body for each problem. Beach results would be easier to read in context. Any benefit to water quality comes from the works themselves, not from this reporting.

Risks:

  • Readers may assume an overflow near a beach causes poor results there. The Environment Agency says leaking sewers into groundwater are the main suspected source at Southsea East.
  • Spill counts depend on monitor uptime. Pier Road's monitor worked for only half of 2025, so year-to-year changes can be artefacts.
  • Rainfall varies a lot between years, so falling spills may reflect a drier year rather than completed works.
  • Deadlines may change through regulatory processes, and the record could go out of date.
  • Works such as storage tanks and street drainage schemes cause local disruption, cost bill payers money and can take land.

Who could gain or lose: Beach users and seafront businesses in Southsea and Eastney gain from clearer information. Harbour shellfish and wildlife interests benefit from the harbour-focused actions. Costs fall on all Southern Water bill payers across the region, including lower-income households. Works and street drainage schemes disrupt the streets where they are built.

Environment: Portsmouth and Langstone Harbours are protected wildlife sites and shellfish waters. The regulator's programme includes habitat and shellfish investigations for both harbours, due by 30 April 2027. Street drainage schemes can add greenery, but storage tanks need construction.

Capacity: The data already exists in public files. A yearly refresh needs one analyst with spreadsheet skills. Delivery of the works depends on Southern Water's capacity across a large programme.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Counted spills and hours at each listed overflowEnvironment Agency counted spills (12 to 24 hour method) and total duration, with monitor uptime2025: 277 counted spills and 891.7 hours across 17 Portsmouth overflows; Henderson Road 86 spills and 499.6 hoursEnvironment Agency storm overflow annual return · Each named overflowAnnual (usually March) · Environment Agency (data); Southern Water (returns)
Improvement actions completed by their deadlineNumber of improvement programme actions for the listed overflows confirmed complete by their completion dateNo completion reporting found on 2 November 2026; first deadlines 30 June 2027 Gap: No public site-level completion reporting was found.Environment Agency improvement programme dataset and Southern Water reporting · Portsmouth overflows and Budds FarmAnnual · Not agreed
Bathing water classificationEnvironment Agency annual classification (Excellent, Good, Sufficient or Poor) based on four seasons of samples2025: Southsea East Poor; Eastney GoodEnvironment Agency bathing water data · Southsea East and Eastney bathing watersAnnual (usually November) · Environment Agency
Pollution risk warnings at Southsea EastNumber of short-term pollution risk warnings issued in the season34 in 2025 on the profile (35 days in the daily forecast data)Environment Agency bathing water profile · Southsea EastAnnual · Environment Agency

Reassess when: When the Southsea East and harbour shellfish investigations report (due 30 April 2027), when the 2026 classifications and spill returns are published, or when the first actions fall due on 30 June 2027.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Southsea East was rated Poor in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Eastney has been rated Good since 2023, after Excellent from 2015 to 2022.
  • The Environment Agency believes sewage leaking from sewers into groundwater, under and just west of the pier, is the main pollution source at Southsea East. Several leaking private sewers were fixed between 2023 and 2025.
  • In 2025, Henderson Road, Eastney recorded 86 counted spills lasting 499.6 hours. Its outlet is in the Solent, offshore.
  • Seventeen overflows named or located in Portsmouth recorded 277 counted spills and 891.7 hours in 2025.
  • The regulator's 2025 to 2030 programme gives most Portsmouth overflows a deadline of 30 June 2027 or 31 March 2030, and Henderson Road a deadline of 31 March 2035.
  • Government policy requires storm overflows near coastal bathing waters to achieve on average no more than 3 discharges per bathing season (2 for Excellent waters) by 2035.

What is not known:

  • Whether any of the 2027 actions have started or finished.
  • Site-level costs of each action.
  • Whether the Stanley Road, Stamshaw work is complete. Only press reports say so, and Southern Water's undated page describes it as under way.
  • How much, if at all, each overflow affects bathing samples at Southsea East or Eastney.
  • The 2026 bathing water classifications, not yet published on 2 November 2026.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether Southern Water will publish site-level progress for Portsmouth overflows.
  • Which body hosts and updates the joined-up local record.
  • Whether the Environment Agency will publish a plain summary of the Southsea East investigation.

Existing work:

  • Henderson Road, Eastney overflow (SWS00416): storage plus street drainage measures, action 08SO103190a; 2025: 86 spills, 499.6 hours: Regulated action, deadline 31 March 2035 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Pier Road, Southsea overflow (SWS00664): storage plus street drainage measures, action 08SO103210a; 2025: 43 spills, 58.9 hours (monitor 50.4% operational): Regulated action, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Gladys Avenue, Portsmouth overflow (SWS00376): storage (street drainage preferred), action 08SO103263a; 2025: 39 spills, 98.7 hours: Regulated action, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • North End Avenue, Portsmouth overflow (SWS00608): storage plus street drainage measures, action 08SO103262a; 2025: 31 spills, 63.3 hours: Regulated action, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Court Lane, Cosham overflow (SWS00206): storage plus street drainage measures, action 08SO104788a; 2025: 22 spills, 85.9 hours: Regulated action, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Mile End Road No 1 and No 2 overflows (SWS00194, SWS00566): storage plus street drainage measures, actions 08SO103264a and 08SO103280a; 2025: 4 and 18 spills: Regulated actions, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Widley Road, Portsmouth overflow (SWS00946): storage plus street drainage measures, action 08SO103283a; 2025: 5 spills: Regulated action, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Holbrook Road, Newcomen Road, Stamshaw Road and Winstanley Road overflows: already meet the government spill limit; investigation to decide if works are needed for the harbour shellfish target: Regulated actions, deadline 30 June 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Fort Cumberland storm tanks, Eastney (SWS00325): storage (street drainage preferred), action 08SO104787a; 2025: 9 spills, 23.5 hours: Regulated action, deadline 31 March 2030 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Mainland Drayton (SWS00541) and St Andrews Road (SWS00807) overflows: storage plus street drainage measures, actions 08SO103237a and 08SO103278a: Regulated actions, deadline 31 March 2030 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Burrfields Road and Kirtley Close, Drayton overflows: already meet the government spill limit; investigation to decide if works are needed: Regulated actions, deadline 31 March 2030 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Budds Farm works, Havant: storm overflow storage plus street drainage (action 08SO103182a, deadline 31 March 2030); new monitoring (deadline 31 December 2026); 2025 storm tank outlet: 52 spills, 628.4 hours: Regulated actions (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Southsea East bathing water investigation (action 08SO101010a): Regulated investigation, deadline 30 April 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Portsmouth Harbour and Langstone Harbour shellfish, habitats and wildlife-site investigations: Regulated investigations, deadline 30 April 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Southern Water £170 million Portsmouth Harbour storm overflow reduction scheme: street drainage, water butts, downpipe disconnection, pumping and treatment upgrades across Portsmouth, Gosport, Fareham and Havant: Under way (undated company pages; no site list or dates published) (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Southsea East working group of the Environment Agency, Portsmouth City Council and Southern Water: sewer sealing and repairs, including private sewers fixed 2023 to 2025: Ongoing (as of 2026-11-02).

UK Facts context: Portsmouth sewage and water quality (UK Facts local issue page) (A local page on the live site. It is local context, not a national assessment. Its classification history lists 2021 as Sufficient, but Environment Agency data shows Good, so that page needs checking.)

Next review: When the Environment Agency publishes the 2026 bathing water classifications (expected late November 2026), the 2026 storm overflow returns (expected around March 2027) or the Southsea East investigation findings (due by 30 April 2027).. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

  • water-quality-plan (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. All three stages are kept and expanded into delivery tasks. The measure is kept as the evaluation rows. The baseline (Southsea East Poor in 2025; Henderson Road 86 spills) is re-verified and kept, with hours and monitor uptime added. The trade-off on rainfall and other sources is kept and strengthened with the Environment Agency's source findings.
  • sewage-timetable (earlier ten suggestions): restored. The dated outfall-level schedule is restored as the existing-work list, built from the regulator's 2025 to 2030 programme with each overflow's 2025 spills. The transparency ask becomes the candidate option and the delivery tasks. Its success measures (a published site timetable; falling spills at named outfalls) become evaluation rows. Stanley Road is kept as an item to confirm. Not carried forward: The figure '124 spills totalling 234 hours' for Portsmouth Harbour, taken from a secondary aggregator, is replaced by Environment Agency figures with a stated site list. The '£170m Three Harbours Partnership' label is corrected: Southern Water uses Three Harbours for Chichester, Langstone and Pagham, while £170m is its Portsmouth Harbour scheme. The claims 'no new cost' and 'no significant trade-offs' are replaced. Works carry costs and disruption, and the reporting is not costed. The premise that no site-level schedule exists is corrected: the regulator publishes dated actions, but delivery progress is not reported.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Make new leisure facilities usable across the city

Publish clear prices, concessions, hours, accessibility and travel options for Hilsea Lido, Bransbury Park and other council leisure facilities, and report anonymised use by area so that gaps in who benefits can be found and costed.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as facility owner and contracting authority)

Start soon

Review what the lido operating agreement and BH Live contract allow the council to ask for on prices, hours and data.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Collect quarterly use by postcode district, age band and concession type, suppressing small numbers.

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Decide on any targeted price, hours or transport changes using the gap analysis and a costed plan.

How to judge progress: Visits by postcode district and concession type; Published prices, concessions and hours; Adult physical activity level; Leisure card holders using each facility.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Hilsea Lido has reopened and a new leisure and health centre is being built at Bransbury Park. Opening a building does not mean everyone can use it. A lido swim costs £8, the pool is unheated, public hours are mostly early morning and late afternoon, and travel options and costs from different parts of the city have not been mapped. No one publishes who uses the facilities, from which areas, or who is priced out.

Who is affected: Residents on low incomes, children and families, older and disabled people, and people without cars, especially in areas far from Hilsea and Eastney. Council taxpayers if facilities need subsidy. Schools that may use the new learner pool.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Hilsea Lido adult pay-as-you-go swim£8 (£6 with Portsmouth Leisure Card)Prices published 2 November 2026Hilsea Lido
Hilsea Lido renovation capital cost Capital only; not a running cost.£7.6m (UK Government funded)Winter 2025 reportHilsea Lido
Bransbury Park centre completion Contractor schedule.Scheduled winter 2027As of March 2026Bransbury Park
Use of facilities by area, age or incomeNot published—Portsmouth
Adult physical activity levels Reuse terms not confirmed; follow the link for current values.Published by Sport England; not reproduced hereLatest Active Lives yearPortsmouth

What this would change

Aim: Make sure the city’s new and restored leisure facilities can be reached and afforded by residents across Portsmouth, and show who is using them.

What success would mean: Published, regularly updated information on prices, concessions, opening hours, access and transport for each facility, and anonymised use by area and concession type, so gaps can be seen and acted on. No participation target is proposed until a baseline exists.

The council, as owner, would ask operators to publish one clear access page per facility: prices and concessions, hours, accessible features and how to get there by bus, bike or Pompey Link. It would ask operators to report quarterly use by postcode district and concession type, with small numbers suppressed. Before Bransbury opens, it would publish the operating model, prices and concession scheme. Pricing or hours changes would be considered only after the data show who is missing and the cost is known.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as facility owner and contracting authority). Partners: Sea Lanes and South Downs Leisure (Hilsea Lido operator), BH Live (operator of council leisure centres), Bransbury Park operator (not yet confirmed), Portsmouth public health, Bus operators and Community First (Pompey Link), NHS primary care (Bransbury GP surgery).

Powers: The council owns Hilsea Lido and is building Bransbury Park (hilsea-lido-council, bransbury-page). Operators run the facilities and set prices within their agreements; the agreements were not reviewed, so the council’s power to require data, prices or hours is unknown. The council runs the Portsmouth Leisure Card (leisure-card-overview). As transport authority it can plan bus links but bus routes are run by commercial operators in partnership (ltp4-amr-2026).

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. Operators publish their own prices and hours; the Leisure Card gives discounts to eligible residents; no use data are published.
  • Proposed response: Access information plus anonymised use reporting. One access page per facility and quarterly use by postcode district and concession type, published by the council.
  • Alternative: Targeted access offer. Fund extra concession sessions, free swims or transport for specific groups, such as school holiday sessions for children on free school meals. Needs costing and evidence of who is missing.
  • Alternative: Wider leisure card eligibility. Extend the leisure card to more residents. Would reduce operator income or need council subsidy; not costed.

Further appraisal may change the choice because operator contracts, the cost of any concession or transport offer, and current use patterns are not known.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Durations are illustrative. The only sourced dates are the lido reopening (open by November 2026), Bransbury construction from early 2026 with completion scheduled winter 2027, and Pompey Link funding to March or May 2027.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonReview what the lido operating agreement and BH Live contract allow the council to ask for on prices, hours and data.Portsmouth City Council leisure service—Short note of contractual powers and gaps
Start soonPublish an access summary for Hilsea Lido: prices, concessions, hours, accessible features and transport options.Portsmouth City Council with Sea Lanes—Published access page
Start soonSet out the Bransbury operating model, prices and concessions before opening.Portsmouth City CouncilDecision: Operator appointment and pricing decisionPublished pricing and access plan
Build nextCollect quarterly use by postcode district, age band and concession type, suppressing small numbers.Facility operators (proposed)Depends on: Contract or voluntary agreementAnonymised quarterly use table
Build nextCompare use with population and deprivation by area to find who is under-represented.Portsmouth public health (proposed)—Gap analysis
Longer termDecide on any targeted price, hours or transport changes using the gap analysis and a costed plan.Portsmouth City CouncilDecision: Costed options and fundingPublished decision and follow-up data

A first practical step: Ask Sea Lanes and BH Live what anonymised use data they already hold by postcode district and concession type.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Publishing access information and setting up data returns.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Any extra concessions, sessions or transport would be recurring costs.
Capital or revenue
This proposal is mainly revenue. Construction budgets (£7.6m for the lido; Bransbury total not published) are capital and do not pay for access or running costs.
Funding status
No funding identified for access measures.
Affordability
Not assessed. The council says Bransbury is designed to run with minimal financial support, so new subsidies would need a source.
Costing still needed
Obtain operator income by ticket type to estimate the cost of extra concessions; cost staff time for reporting; check whether existing BSIP or active travel funds already cover transport links.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Better information could raise use by people who do not know about concessions or transport. Use data would show whether public investment reaches all areas. Health benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • Operators may resist publishing commercial data or changing prices.
  • Discounts could reduce operator income and need council subsidy.
  • Small numbers by area could identify individuals if not suppressed.
  • Pompey Link, which serves the lido, may end when pilot funding stops.
  • An unheated pool and short hours may limit use whatever the price.

Who could gain or lose: Low-income residents, families and disabled people stand to gain most from clear concessions and transport. Full-price users could face higher prices if concessions are funded internally. Areas far from Hilsea and Eastney may still be under-served.

Capacity: The council leisure team manages contracts but no dedicated access or data post was identified. Operators run booking systems that could produce the data.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Visits by postcode district and concession typeQuarterly admissions grouped by home postcode district and ticket type, small numbers suppressedNot established Gap: No published data; reporting not agreedOperator booking systems · Each facility; Portsmouth postcode districtsQuarterly (proposed) · Operators via the council (proposed)
Published prices, concessions and hoursStandard and concession prices and public opening hours for each facilityHilsea Lido £8 swim, £6 with leisure card; hours as published 2 November 2026Operator and council pages · Each facilityWhen changed; checked every 6 months · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Adult physical activity levelSport England Active Lives estimate of adults meeting its activity measureLinked to publisher; not reproduced Gap: Reuse terms not confirmed; cannot attribute changes to one facilitySport England Active Lives · PortsmouthAnnual · Sport England
Leisure card holders using each facilityAdmissions using the leisure card or BH Access CardNot established Gap: Not publishedOperators · Each facilityQuarterly (proposed) · Operators via the council (proposed)

Reassess when: Reassess when Bransbury Park’s operator and prices are published, after the first full year of the reopened lido, or if Pompey Link funding ends.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Hilsea Lido is open, run by Sea Lanes with South Downs Leisure, after a £7.6m government-funded renovation.
  • Standard and leisure card lido prices are published.
  • Bransbury Park is under construction, scheduled to finish in winter 2027.
  • The leisure card gives discounts to residents on means-tested benefits.
  • Pompey Link serves Hilsea Lido.

What is not known:

  • Who uses the facilities, from which areas.
  • Lido concession prices for under-24s, over-60s and disabled people.
  • The total Bransbury budget, its operator and its prices.
  • What operator contracts allow the council to require.
  • Whether the planned 2025 indoor facilities assessment was published.
  • Accessibility of changing rooms, toilets and routes beyond pool entry.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether to ask operators for anonymised use data.
  • Bransbury Park pricing and concession policy before opening.
  • Whether to fund any targeted access offer, and from what budget.

Existing work:

  • Hilsea Lido renovation and reopening: Open; operated by Sea Lanes with South Downs Leisure (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Bransbury Park leisure and healthcare hub: Under construction since early 2026; completion scheduled winter 2027 (as of 2026-03-25).
  • Portsmouth Leisure Card: Operating (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Free swimming for under-12s at BH Live pools in Portsmouth: Operating (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Pompey Link on-demand bus pilot (serves Hilsea Lido): Operating; funded to March or May 2027 (as of 2026-10-05).

Next review: When the Bransbury Park operator and prices are announced, or one year after the lido reopening date is confirmed.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • ID04 Initial Hearing Programme, version 7 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-21

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth Local Plan Inspectors / Programme Officer; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Pages 1 to 4: Days 1 to 12; Day 9 Thursday 19 November (PLP3, PLP5, PLP9, PLP10); Day 12 Thursday 26 November (Matters 14 and 15)

  • Council: Hilsea Lines, reopened lido and coastal works ↗ · checked 2026-10-17
  • Hilsea Lido (council project page) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Hilsea Lido; Location: Overview (renovated by the council, funded by UK government; now open; operated by Sea Lanes backed by South Downs Leisure)

  • Council Flagship, winter 2025, page 26 ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    £7.6m is the council’s stated lido renovation cost. It has a different scope/date from the reconstructed £7.75m Linear Park grant line.

  • Swimming at Hilsea Lido (prices, opening times and FAQs) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Hilsea Lido (operated by Sea Lanes with South Downs Leisure); Area: Hilsea Lido; Location: Opening Times table; Pay-per-swim prices; concession eligibility paragraph; Membership options; FAQs on pool depth and accessible entry lagoons, heating and capacity; Prices and hours as published on 2 November 2026; season not stated on the page. Concession prices are not shown on this page.

  • Portsmouth leisure card ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth (PO1–PO6 and some PO7 addresses); Location: Overview: residents receiving means-tested benefit; discounts on sports centres, pools, museums and more

  • Leisure card discount list ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Intro (up to 50% unless stated); BH Live Sports Centres (BH Access Card, up to 45%); Hilsea Lido (£6 swim, £10 swim and sauna, 20% off membership: £41.60 and £27.20 a month); Says discounts are subject to change.

  • Concessions ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: BH Live Active; Area: BH Live centres incl. Portsmouth; Location: Free swimming for children (under-12s swim free in all Portsmouth pools); Portsmouth Leisure Card (up to 40% off pay-as-you-go); Operator says up to 40%; council list says up to 45%. Not reconciled.

  • Council: Bransbury Park leisure and healthcare hub ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    Council describes the building work and appointed contractor; its citywide sport-investment total is not this project’s budget.

  • Why Bransbury Park ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Bransbury Park, Eastney; Location: Why section (on several bus routes; 35,796 people within 1.5km); Our commitments (25m four-lane pool and learner pool; operate with minimal financial support; GP surgery £1.5m recovered through rent; Eastney pool demolished; Wimbledon Park kept for a decade; indoor facilities assessment planned for 2025); What has been done (planning approved 18 Dec 2024; construction began early 2026)

  • Willmott Dixon starts Bransbury Park Leisure Centre for Portsmouth ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03-25

    Primary publisher: Willmott Dixon; Area: Bransbury Park; Location: Paragraphs 1–3: facilities; free-access floodlit multi-use games area; completion scheduled winter 2027; Contractor press release. Its figure of more than £40m council sport investment over a decade differs in scope from the council’s nearly £20m since 2017; neither is a project budget.

  • Council transport service: Pompey Link ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    Operating pilot funded until March 2027; continuation and savings are not assumed.

  • Local Transport Plan 4 Annual Monitoring Report 2025/26 (Cabinet Member for Transport, 17 September 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-17

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Financial year 2025/26; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 2.1–2.3 (strategy adopted October 2021; new four-year implementation plan 2026/27–2029/30 from July 2026); 4.2–4.5 (achievements incl. Kendalls Wharf crossing, LCWIP feasibility, 31 bike hangers, coast path live March 2026, Pompey Link extended to May 2027, 11.92m bus journeys); 5.4 (Walking and Cycling Strategy in development during 2026); PDF SHA-256 2ad101377d1423ff33d0abd4743c04ea1150328bac03f5ba385ac10e2d5f2e22. Council self-reporting; information-only report.

  • Active Lives adult data ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Sport England; Area: England, regions and local authorities; Linked, not republished. No licence or reuse statement was found on the Active Lives data tables page on 2 November 2026, so values are not reproduced here.

  • Walking and cycling statistics (collection page) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Department for Transport; Area: England; Location: Section Latest walking and cycling statistics: transition note; Active Lives statistics now published solely by Sport England; last DfT release 28 August 2024

Where earlier ideas went

  • accessible-leisure (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. accessible-leisure Not carried forward: Nothing dropped. The £7.75m Linear Park line and the £1m football facilities line were not rechecked and stay labelled as retained, unverified figures.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Reduce repeated dumping at known hotspots

Find the places where fly-tipping keeps coming back, match each with a practical fix, help residents check waste carriers before paying them, and publish repeat rates, clearance times and costs alongside fair enforcement.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council, Safe, Clean & Tidy team (proposal; not agreed)

Start soon

Write a definition of a repeat location (for example, a set number of incidents on the same street segment or alley within a set period) and test it on past records.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Pilot matched responses at a small number of hotspots, with comparison sites, for at least six months.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Publish a yearly fly-tipping report with repeat-location rates, clearance times, costs and enforcement outcomes, and decide whether to extend the approach citywide.

How to judge progress: Repeat-location rate; Total recorded incidents; Time to clear; Clearance cost; Enforcement outcomes; Register awareness.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth recorded 937 fly-tipping incidents in 2024/25, down from 1,092 the year before but above 751 in 2022/23. Most were household waste dumped on council land or pavements, and nearly half were van-sized loads. Nobody publishes how often the same streets are hit again, how fast waste is cleared or what clearance costs, so a falling total can hide repeat problems.

Who is affected: Residents of streets and alleys where dumping recurs, people who walk or use wheelchairs on blocked pavements, council cleansing and enforcement staff, and householders who pay unregistered collectors and can then be fined themselves.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Fly-tipping incidents recorded by the council 1,092 in 2023/24 and 751 in 2022/23. A fall of 14.2% in the latest year while England rose 9.1%.9372024/25Portsmouth local authority
Incidents per 1,000 people Defra warns that differences between councils partly reflect how actively they record incidents.4.4 (England 21)2024/25Portsmouth; England
Incidents mainly household waste Main waste type recorded by staff; it does not show who dumped it.77% (726 of 937); England 62%2024/25Portsmouth; England
Incidents recorded as small-van or transit-van loads Size is estimated by staff.48% (454 of 937)2024/25Portsmouth
Fixed penalty notices linked to fly-tipping 17 in 2023/24, all for duty of care. Also 203 duty-of-care inspections, 1 prosecution and 9 paid penalties in 2024/25.38 (6 for fly-tipping, 32 for householders' duty of care)2024/25Portsmouth
Repeat incidents at the same location The council's policy names hotspot mapping as a tool, but no location-level series was found.Not publishedNonePortsmouth
Clearance cost Portsmouth's clearance-cost cells in the Defra return are blank.Not published2024/25Portsmouth

What this would change

Aim: Reduce repeat dumping at the places that suffer most, clear what is dumped quickly, and help residents use legal disposal and registered carriers, while keeping enforcement fair and proportionate.

What success would mean: Fewer locations with repeated incidents and shorter gaps before waste is cleared, measured on a consistent definition over at least two full years, without dumping simply moving to nearby streets. No numeric target is proposed until a recurrence baseline exists.

Agree a written definition of a repeat location and publish a quarterly hotspot list from the council's own incident records. For each hotspot, check the likely cause (bin capacity, shared housing turnover, alley access, van-load dumping) and pick a matched response: extra or timed collections, signs and door-knocking, cameras under the council's policies, or duty-of-care checks. Run a plain-language campaign on checking the Environment Agency register before paying anyone to remove waste, timed to the new permitting regime from July 2027. Publish recurrence, clearance time, cost and enforcement outcomes together.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council, Safe, Clean & Tidy team (proposal; not agreed). Partners: Portsmouth City Council waste and cleansing services, Portsmouth City Council communications, Environment Agency (register and permitting), Housing associations and private landlords, including shared-housing landlords, Residents' and community groups.

Powers: The council can investigate fly-tipping and issue fixed penalties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including penalties to householders who breach their duty of care (s.34(2A) and s.34ZA). Its current scale and approach are set by its Safe, Clean & Tidy policies (from 13 July 2026 and September 2026). The Environment Agency runs the waste carrier register and, from July 2027, the new permitting regime (SI 2026/873). The council cannot itself licence carriers. Publicity and camera use are limited by data-protection and human-rights law.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. Patrols, reporting, clearance and the new penalty scale and publicity policy, with totals reported to Defra each year. No published repeat-location or cost measure.
  • Proposed response: Hotspot recurrence plan with a carrier-checking campaign. Define and publish repeat locations, match a cause-specific response to each, run a register-checking campaign, and report recurrence, clearance time, cost and enforcement outcomes together.
  • Alternative: Enforcement-led only. Concentrate extra officer time and cameras on hotspots and raise penalty volumes. Quicker to start, but risks moving dumping elsewhere and falling hardest on low-income households.
  • Alternative: Prevention-led only. Lower barriers to legal disposal (more free bulky collections, easier recycling-centre access) without new hotspot targeting. May help households most but has an ongoing cost and does not address van-load dumping.

The choice depends on what the hotspot analysis shows. If most repeat sites are linked to collection gaps, prevention may do more than enforcement. If van-load commercial dumping dominates, enforcement and the carrier campaign matter more. Costs of each option are unknown.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. Durations are illustrative and not agreed. The July 2027 date for the new carrier permitting regime comes from SI 2026/873; Defra's next annual fly-tipping release date was not confirmed.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonWrite a definition of a repeat location (for example, a set number of incidents on the same street segment or alley within a set period) and test it on past records.Council Safe, Clean & Tidy team with council data analysts (proposed)—Published definition and a back-calculated baseline for 2024/25 and 2025/26
Start soonMap 2025/26 incidents to identify current hotspots and check collection arrangements at each.Council Safe, Clean & Tidy and waste services (proposed)Depends on: Access to incident-level recordsHotspot list with likely cause noted for each
Start soonDraft resident messages on checking the Environment Agency register and keeping receipts, using the council's existing fly-tipping page wording.Council communications (proposed)—Draft campaign material ready for testing
Build nextPilot matched responses at a small number of hotspots, with comparison sites, for at least six months.Council Safe, Clean & Tidy team (proposed)Depends on: Baseline and hotspot list · Decision: Council agrees pilot sites and any extra collection or camera costsPilot report on recurrence, displacement to nearby streets, clearance time and cost
Build nextRun the register-checking campaign in pilot areas, aligned with Environment Agency guidance for the July 2027 permitting change.Council communications with Environment Agency (proposed)Depends on: Environment Agency guidance on the new regimeCampaign delivered; short resident survey on awareness before and after
Build nextStart recording clearance cost and time to clear for each incident.Council waste services (proposed)—Cost and clearance-time fields in the incident system
Longer termPublish a yearly fly-tipping report with repeat-location rates, clearance times, costs and enforcement outcomes, and decide whether to extend the approach citywide.Portsmouth City Council (proposed)Decision: Pilot evaluation shows fewer repeats without displacementAnnual public report and decision on scaling up

A first practical step: Council analysts could test a draft repeat-location definition on existing 2024/25 and 2025/26 incident records and share the results with the Safe, Clean & Tidy team. This uses data the council already holds and commits no one to a new service.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Likely items: analysis time, mapping, campaign design and any cameras for pilots.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Possible extra collections, officer time and annual reporting.
Capital or revenue
Mainly revenue; cameras would be capital.
Funding status
No funding identified. The council's September 2026 Cabinet report says its publicity policy would be met from existing resources; that does not cover this proposal.
Affordability
Unknown. The council is under budget pressure (see the public delivery record action); any extra collections would need to be set against clearance savings, which are not yet measured.
Costing still needed
Record clearance cost per incident for a sample period; cost officer time per hotspot visit; price extra collections and campaign materials; compare with clearance costs avoided.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Cleaner, safer pavements and alleys at the worst-hit places; fewer householders fined for using unregistered collectors; better evidence on whether enforcement and prevention work. Benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • Dumping moves to nearby streets rather than stopping.
  • Better reporting or targeting raises recorded incidents, which could be misread as failure.
  • Penalties fall on low-income or vulnerable households who could not afford legal disposal.
  • Camera use or publicity breaches privacy or misidentifies people.
  • Campaign messages go out of date as the carrier regime changes in 2027.
  • Pilot sites are too few to show a reliable effect.

Who could gain or lose: Households without a car, with limited money or in shared housing may find legal disposal harder, so they could gain from easier access and lose from stricter enforcement. Streets in denser, more deprived areas may gain most from fewer repeats. Duty-of-care penalties fall on householders, not on the rogue carriers who dumped the waste.

Environment: Less waste left on streets and in green spaces; possible extra vehicle trips from added collections.

Capacity: Depends on analyst time to link records and on Safe, Clean & Tidy officer capacity. Staffing numbers for the team were not found in published sources.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Repeat-location rateShare of locations with an incident that have another within a set period (period and definition to be agreed)Not published Gap: No baseline or agreed definition; reporting not agreedCouncil incident records · Portsmouth, street or alley segmentQuarterly · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Total recorded incidentsDefra WasteDataFlow total incidents, all-incidents basis937 in 2024/25Defra fly-tipping statistics (local authority dataset) · Portsmouth local authorityAnnual · Defra
Time to clearMedian working days from report to clearanceNot published Gap: Not published; reporting not agreedCouncil incident records · PortsmouthQuarterly · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Clearance costCost of clearing fly-tipping per year and per incidentNot published (blank in Defra return) Gap: No baselineCouncil finance and waste records · PortsmouthAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Enforcement outcomesFly-tipping and duty-of-care penalties issued and paid, prosecutions and results, by Defra category38 penalties, 9 paid, 1 prosecution in 2024/25Defra local authority dataset · PortsmouthAnnual · Defra
Register awarenessShare of residents who know how to check a waste carrierNo local baseline (28% nationally in 2021) Gap: No local dataProposed local survey question · PortsmouthBefore and after campaign · Not agreed

Reassess when: Reassess when Defra publishes 2025/26 local authority data, when the pilot report is available, or when the carrier permitting regime starts in July 2027.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • 937 incidents in 2024/25, down from 1,092 in 2023/24 (Defra).
  • Most Portsmouth incidents are household waste on council land or pavements.
  • The council adopted a new penalty scale from 13 July 2026 and a publicity policy from September 2026.
  • New carrier permitting rules were made on 22 July 2026 and mostly take effect in July 2027.

What is not known:

  • How many locations suffer repeat dumping.
  • How quickly waste is cleared and what it costs.
  • Who dumps the van-sized loads.
  • How many residents check carriers before paying them.
  • Whether recycling-centre booking or charges deter legal disposal in Portsmouth.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council will publish location-level recurrence data.
  • Which hotspots, if any, to pilot and with what budget.
  • How to balance prevention spending with enforcement.

Existing work:

  • Safe, Clean & Tidy Environmental Enforcement Policy with fly-tipping penalty matrix: In effect from 13 July 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Publicising Fly Tipping and Environmental Crime Cases Policy: Published; effective September 2026 (Cabinet report 22 September 2026) (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Bulky waste collection service with one free collection a year for Council Tax support recipients: Operating (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Waste carrier, broker and dealer reform (move into environmental permitting): Regulations made 22 July 2026; main provisions in force July 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).

UK Facts context: Portsmouth claims versus evidence (fly-tipping claim) (Local legacy page; its statement that Defra publishes no local household/commercial split should be corrected (see notes).)

Next review: When Defra publishes fly-tipping statistics for 2025/26, or when the Environment Agency issues guidance for the July 2027 carrier permitting regime, whichever is first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Fly-tipping incidents and actions taken reported by local authorities in England, 2012-13 to 2024-25 (v2, ODS) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (WasteDataFlow); Period: 2012/13 to 2024/25; Area: Portsmouth local authority (E06000044); Location: Sheet LA_incidents, header row 9, Portsmouth rows for 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (columns Total Incidents, land type, waste type, size, Mid population estimates, Incidents per 1,000 people, Reporting basis); sheet LA_actions, header row 10, same years (FPN, duty of care inspection, prosecution and outcome columns); Downloaded file SHA-256 f9d5eff2d132be2f193c957b23cbf5785b944495a666a0644018afe960270350. Cover sheet: originally published 9:30am 25 February 2026. Portsmouth reporting basis is All incidents. Clearance cost cells for Portsmouth are shown as ':' (not available).

  • Fly-tipping incidents and actions taken, national level data, 2007-08 to 2024-25 (v2, ODS) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-02-25

    Primary publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (WasteDataFlow); Period: 2007/08 to 2024/25; Area: England; Location: Sheet National_Level_Incidents rows for 2023/24 and 2024/25 (land type, waste type and size tables); sheet National_Level_Actions rows for 2024/25 (actions, FPN breakdown, prosecutions); SHA-256 f6553e540eea6b97102ef9c24d05229c0101b1c51ab61261010ac71a16c439e3. National totals include estimates for non-response and missing data, so they are not a simple sum of local authority rows.

  • Recorded fly-tipping incidents ↗ · checked 2026-09-23

    .flytipping

    File check

    Preserved live record streets

  • Safe, Clean & Tidy - Enforcement Policy (effective 13 July 2026, version 1) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Effective 13 July 2026; review every 3 years; Area: Portsmouth City Council area; Location: Section 3 Principles (Targeting); 6.2 Enforcement options; 6.4 FPN levels; 7 Public engagement; 8 Review and monitoring (key indicators, hotspot mapping, performance data may be published); Appendix A1 fly-tipping FPN matrix; SHA-256 2a1a86bed56249a3b8996691386fe142227dadafa19e962754679c7c5d8bd7bc. Linked from the council fly-tipping page. Cabinet Member for Environmental Services decision item, 1 July 2026 (democracy issue IId=34958).

  • Safe, Clean & Tidy - Publicising Fly Tipping & Environmental Crime Cases Policy, version 1.0 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Effective September 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Sections 2.3 (no publication of under-18s), 3.2 principles, 5 images and surveillance, 6.2 enforcement options; SHA-256 f929881ba3b6b5230fa32ad195b33babf3b6af0f76e3264ecb6d8c4362e00c1b. Linked from the council fly-tipping page, which indicates the policy is in use.

  • Cabinet report: Publicising Fly Tipping and Environmental Crime Cases Policy (22 September 2026) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Cabinet 22 September 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Para 3.3 (326 FPNs in 2025/26 for littering and fly-tipping); para 4.3 table of tonnes of fly-tipping collected 2015-2025; para 7.1 no direct financial implications; Read via Firecrawl PDF parse (direct download returned HTTP 403). The recommendation sheet in the PDF is unsigned; decision outcome not read. The tonnage table does not state whether years are calendar or financial years.

  • Fly-tipping and littering ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Sections: Getting rid of waste legally; Your legal responsibility for household waste; Before giving waste to someone else; Fly-tipping penalty costs; Undated web page.

  • Fixed penalty notice fines ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Rows: Not showing a waste transfer note; Not showing a waste carrier licence; Dumping waste without permission; Not taking care with household waste; Undated web page.

  • Portsmouth Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Overview: bookings and permits are now digital; phone option for PO1-PO6 and some PO7 residents; each booking counts as one of the 12 visits included with a van or trailer permit; customers outside Hampshire pay; Undated web page. Opening times and any DIY-waste charges were not on the retrieved overview text and were not verified.

  • Book a bulky waste collection ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Collection costs: from £40; one free collection in any rolling 12 months for Council Tax support recipients, up to 2 cubic metres; items not collected include building and DIY waste; Undated web page.

  • Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 34 (duty of care as respects waste), subsection 2A ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England and Wales; Location: s.34(2A): occupier of domestic property must take reasonable measures to transfer household waste only to an authorised person; Revised text as shown on legislation.gov.uk on retrieval date.

  • Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 34ZA (fixed penalty notices for breach of household waste duty of care) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England and Wales; Location: s.34ZA, including subsections (12)-(14) on authorised officers; Power for waste collection authorities to give FPNs to householders.

  • Register of Waste Carriers, Brokers and Dealers (public register search) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Environment Agency / Defra Data Services Platform; Area: England (Scottish and Welsh registrations also valid in England); Location: Search page text: upper and lower tier definitions; complete register download link; Live search tool; no individual registrations were looked up.

  • The Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/873 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-22

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Area: England (extends to England and Wales); Location: Regulation 1(2) commencement; Explanatory Note (regs 7, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30); Made 22 July 2026. Regs 1, 2 and 27-31 in force 21 days after making; the remainder at the end of 12 months beginning with the day the Regulations were made. Existing carriers, brokers and dealers move across on a timetable set by reg 28 and 30.

  • Waste Crime Action Plan ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-03-20

    Primary publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Area: England; Location: Regulatory reform for prevention (CBD reforms move carriers, brokers and dealers into environmental permitting); penalty points for fly-tipping drivers; Defra will soon consult on conditional cautions; Annex A list of measures; Policy paper. Statements of intent; consultation and penalty-point timing not verified here.

  • Fly-tipping: Drivers, deterrents and impacts (survey report) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2022-06-06

    Primary publisher: National Centre for Social Research (for Defra, via Air & Space Evidence); Period: Fieldwork 29 July to 19 August 2021; Area: England (1,969 adults on NatCen Panel); Location: Findings paragraphs (57% aware carriers must be licensed; 28% aware of online database; 11% knew they could be convicted; 56% of HWRC users had difficulties; 37% long queues); Methodology; Survey-based evidence. National, not Portsmouth. Probability panel, weighted; overall response rate 12%.

  • Issue - Safe, Clean & Tidy Environmental Enforcement Policy (Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, 1 July 2026, item 3) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-01

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Purpose of report and recommendations 1-3; Recommendation text seeks approval for the policy effective 13 July 2026 including the FPN matrix. The linked report PDFs returned HTTP 403 to automated retrieval; the decision record itself was not read.

Where earlier ideas went

  • cleaner-neighbourhoods (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. Whole action: now/next/longer-term steps became the delivery table; baseline 937 retained and verified; measures retained in evaluation (repeat incidents, clearance time, cost, justified enforcement).
  • waste-carrier-awareness (earlier ten suggestions): restored. Candidate option, intervention, delivery tasks (campaign draft, campaign with Environment Agency) and evaluation metric 'Register awareness'. Not carried forward: Unsourced funding route ('potential Defra local-authority engagement funding') and the 'Low' cost label; problem figures replaced by the latest year with the older rise kept as dated history.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Link neighbourhood safety priorities to measured results

Police, council and residents pick a few specific local problems each year, use matched data to understand them, act together, and publish what was done and whether harm fell, without identifying anyone.

Proposed lead: Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposal; not agreed)

Start soon

Agree a short list of candidate problems using matched sources: ONS recorded crime by category, Police.uk mapped data, council ASB records and the 2026 survey.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Run two or three problem-solving projects through the 4-weekly place meeting, each with a baseline and review date.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Review whether the projects reduced harm and repeat victimisation without moving it elsewhere, and decide whether to make published problem-solving part of the next partnership plan.

How to judge progress: Recorded crime by category; Project-area harm; Repeat victimisation; ASB experience and reporting; Case outcomes.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Police recorded 24,305 crimes in Portsmouth in the year to June 2026, 113.4 per 1,000 residents, similar to comparable cities but well above England. Some crimes, such as robbery, rose sharply in a year. In the council's 2026 survey, 77% of residents had seen or experienced anti-social behaviour, yet fewer than a quarter of incidents were reported. Partners do not publish which local problems they are working on or whether they improved.

Who is affected: Residents, workers and visitors in the city centre, Somerstown and Buckland, where people most often feel unsafe; women, disabled people, younger adults and ethnic minority residents, who report more fear or victimisation; repeat victims; and businesses facing shop theft.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Police recorded crime (excluding fraud) Rates use mid-2024 residents and overstate risk where many people visit or work.24,163 (112.7 per 1,000 residents); England 83.4 per 1,000April 2025 to March 2026Portsmouth community safety partnership area; England
Police recorded crime, latest 12 months24,305, down 1.7% from 24,718July 2025 to June 2026Portsmouth community safety partnership area
Crime rate compared with similar areas112.3 per 1,000; group average 108.7; within the normal rangeApril 2025 to March 2026Portsmouth and its most similar group
Mapped crimes and anti-social behaviour incidents Approximate locations; British Transport Police excluded; not comparable with recorded crime totals.23,794 crimes; 2,995 anti-social behaviour incidentsSeptember 2025 to August 202614 Portsmouth wards (May 2026 boundaries)
Residents who saw or experienced anti-social behaviour in past year Survey-based evidence; not a random sample.77%February-March 2026 surveyPortsmouth adults
Repeat victimisation Listed as a national outcome but no local figure found.Not publishedNonePortsmouth

What this would change

Aim: Tackle the specific local problems that harm residents most, with police, council, partners and residents agreeing what they are trying to change and checking whether it worked.

What success would mean: For each chosen problem, a measured fall in harm on a matched category and place over a sustained period, fewer repeat victims or locations, and residents reporting more confidence that reports lead to action. No numeric target is set until local baselines are agreed.

Use the partnership's existing 4-weekly place-based meeting to run a small number of problem-solving projects each year. For each: define the problem with matched categories and geography; analyse recorded crime, Police.uk data, council ASB records and survey results; choose a response (patrols, design changes, lighting, support or enforcement); set a review date; and publish a short public summary of the problem, actions and results. Add a 'you said, we did' feedback route so residents see what happened after reporting.

Proposed lead: Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposal; not agreed). Partners: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary (Portsmouth neighbourhood teams), Portsmouth City Council community safety and Safe, Clean & Tidy teams, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (until 2028 changes), Portsmouth City Council Public Health Intelligence Team, Residents' groups, businesses and Neighbourhood Watch, Housing providers and support services.

Powers: The council and police, as responsible authorities, must form a partnership strategy to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.6) and must consider crime effects in all their work (s.17). Victims can request an ASB case review (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 s.104). Police deployment is a matter for the Chief Constable; the PCC sets the police and crime plan until 2028. The partnership cannot direct police operations or publish personal data.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. The 2025-2028 plan focuses on violence, drug harm, young people and complex needs. Places of concern are reviewed every four weeks but results are not published.
  • Proposed response: Published problem-solving projects. A few defined local problems each year, each with matched data, an agreed response, a review date and a public summary of results.
  • Alternative: Visibility-led approach. Concentrate extra patrols and named officers in places where people feel unsafe. Supports reassurance but may not reduce harm without problem analysis.
  • Alternative: Public dashboard only. Publish matched crime, ASB and survey data by area without changing how problems are chosen. Low cost but does not ensure action.

The choice depends on partner capacity, data sharing and what the problem analysis shows. Evidence summarised by the Home Office supports combining visible presence, engagement and problem-solving, but the right mix for each Portsmouth problem is unknown.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. All durations are illustrative and not agreed. The 2025-2028 partnership plan period, the 2028 survey and the 2028 change to police governance are sourced dates.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonAgree a short list of candidate problems using matched sources: ONS recorded crime by category, Police.uk mapped data, council ASB records and the 2026 survey.Safer Portsmouth Partnership analysts (proposed)—Problem shortlist with data limits stated
Start soonAgree what can be published without identifying victims or suspects (small-number rules, no exact locations).Council information governance with police (proposed)—Publication and privacy rules
Start soonMap current reporting routes for crime and ASB and how residents hear back.Council community safety team with police (proposed)—Gap list for a feedback route
Build nextRun two or three problem-solving projects through the 4-weekly place meeting, each with a baseline and review date.Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposed)Depends on: Problem shortlist and data-sharing agreement · Decision: Partnership board agrees projects and any extra resourcesProject plans with matched measures
Build nextPublish a short summary for each project after review: the problem, actions, results and limits.Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposed)Depends on: Privacy rulesPublic project summaries
Build nextAdd local questions on reporting confidence and feedback to the next community safety survey.Council Public Health Intelligence Team (proposed)—Survey questions ready for the 2028 survey
Longer termReview whether the projects reduced harm and repeat victimisation without moving it elsewhere, and decide whether to make published problem-solving part of the next partnership plan.Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposed)Decision: Evaluation of first projects; police governance changes after 2028Evaluation report and decision for the next plan

A first practical step: The partnership's analysts could set out, for one place already discussed at the 4-weekly meeting, the matched crime categories, Police.uk data and survey findings side by side, with their limits. This uses existing data and commits no agency to new action.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Analyst time to set up matched data and privacy rules.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Analyst and officer time per project; any extra patrols, lighting or design work.
Capital or revenue
Mainly revenue; physical changes such as lighting would be capital.
Funding status
No funding identified. Existing police deployment and council services are funded separately; this plan does not assume new money.
Affordability
Unknown. Depends on spare analytical and officer capacity, which is not published.
Costing still needed
Estimate analyst days per project; record officer and council time spent; price any physical changes; separate existing deployment from new spending.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Clearer focus on the problems residents care about, better use of existing staff, and public evidence of what works. Benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

  • More patrols or reporting raise recorded crime and ASB, which could be misread as failure.
  • Problems move to nearby streets.
  • Published local data could identify victims or suspects.
  • Enforcement-led responses fall unevenly on young people or minority groups.
  • Partners lack capacity to sustain the work.
  • Police governance changes in 2028 disrupt arrangements.

Who could gain or lose: Residents in the areas where people feel least safe, women, disabled people and repeat victims could gain most. Young people and people with complex needs could lose if responses rely on enforcement rather than support. Residents of quieter areas may see less attention.

Capacity: Depends on the Public Health Intelligence Team, police analysts and neighbourhood officers. Their capacity is not published. The partnership already runs several statutory reviews and panels.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Recorded crime by categoryPolice recorded crime excluding fraud, by ONS headline category24,305 (year to June 2026)ONS police force area data tables, Table C2 · Portsmouth community safety partnership areaQuarterly · ONS
Project-area harmMatched category counts in each project area before and after, with a comparison areaTo be set per project Gap: No baseline; reporting not agreedPolice.uk and police records · Project areaPer project review · Safer Portsmouth Partnership (proposed)
Repeat victimisationShare of victims reporting another crime within 12 monthsNot published Gap: No published local figurePolice records · PortsmouthAnnual · Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary (proposed)
ASB experience and reportingShare of surveyed residents who witnessed or experienced ASB, and share who reported it77%; fewer than a quarter reported (2026)Portsmouth Community Safety Survey · Portsmouth adultsEvery two years · Portsmouth City Council Public Health Intelligence Team
Case outcomesShare of recorded crimes with a charge or summonsNot checked at Portsmouth level Gap: Local availability not confirmedHome Office outcomes open data · To be confirmed (force or partnership)Quarterly · Home Office

Reassess when: Reassess after the first project reviews, when the next strategic assessment is published, or when police governance changes in 2028.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • Police recorded 24,305 crimes in the year to June 2026, a rate similar to comparable cities.
  • Residents report high exposure to ASB and low reporting.
  • The partnership plan runs from 2025 to 2028.
  • PCCs are due to be abolished in 2028.

What is not known:

  • Local repeat-victimisation rates.
  • What the 4-weekly place meeting has achieved.
  • Local tool and van theft levels.
  • Whether outcomes data exist at Portsmouth level.
  • Whether a strategic assessment newer than 2023/24 exists.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the partnership will publish project summaries.
  • Which problems to tackle first.
  • What data police and council will share and publish.

Existing work:

  • Safer Portsmouth Partnership Community Safety Plan 2025-2028: Current (as of 2026-11-02).
  • 4-weekly Community Tactical Coordination Group (places of concern): Operating, per partnership page (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Portsmouth Community Safety Survey 2026: Published May 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Police and Crime Plan 2024-28 (More Police, Safer Streets 2): Current (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee: National programme; force ASB plans published by April 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).

UK Facts context: Antisocial behaviour: experience, perception, response (National page; local action is set by Portsmouth partners.) · Crime by type, area by area (National comparison page.)

Next review: When ONS publishes crime data for the year to September 2026, or when the partnership publishes a new strategic assessment.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Police force area data tables, year ending March 2026 (Tables C2, C4, P3) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics (police recorded crime from the Home Office); Period: April 2025 to March 2026; Area: Portsmouth Community Safety Partnership (E22000118 = Portsmouth E06000044); England; Location: Table C2 row 139 column G (24,163); Table C4 row 139 columns G (population mid-2024 rounded 214,300) and I (112.74); Table P3 row 10 (England, mid-2024 population 58,620,100, rate 83.45); Table P3 row 48 (Hampshire force 73.59); SHA-256 27d7884ef0e07dad01e602e48a430871ea2db1f558dbaa496e1f1f22e06c307f, identical to the receipt in data/counts/context/crime/E06000044.json. Official statistics, not accredited. Excludes fraud; British Transport Police offences not allocated to CSPs.

  • Police force area data tables, year ending June 2026 (Tables C2, C3, C4, C5, P3) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-22

    Primary publisher: Office for National Statistics (police recorded crime from the Home Office); Period: July 2025 to June 2026 (comparison year July 2024 to June 2025); Area: Portsmouth CSP; England; Location: Table C2 row 139 (24,305 total; robbery 408; vehicle offences 1,323; violence with injury 2,822; violence against the person 9,733); Table C5 row 139 (year ending June 2025: 24,718; robbery 269; vehicle 1,023; violence with injury 3,163); Table C3 row 139 (-1.67%); Table C4 row 139 (113.40 per 1,000, mid-2024 population); Table C2 'Unassigned Hampshire' 3,265; Notes - CSP notes 1, 2, 7; SHA-256 d28f75222ae1395cda4c415a20056251744d3b090fdd63c6802de893c2304ef3. Table C3's title says 'year ending March 2025 and year ending June 2026', but its values equal the change from Table C5 (year ending June 2025); treated as a title error. England rate in Table P3 uses mid-2025 population, while CSP rates use mid-2024, so England and Portsmouth rates in this release are not on the same denominator vintage.

  • Compare your area: Portsmouth ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Police.uk (source ONS); Period: Year ending March 2026; quarters to March 2026; Area: Portsmouth local policing area and its most similar group; Location: Crime in Portsmouth compared with crime in similar areas (table: Portsmouth 112.32; most similar group average 108.69; lower bound 70.93; upper bound 166.55); quarterly table; Read via Firecrawl scrape (direct request returned HTTP 403). Rate differs slightly from ONS Table C4 (112.74); Police.uk does not state its denominator on the page.

  • UK Facts ward-level Police.uk mapped records for Portsmouth (data/counts/areas.json) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: UK Facts repository from Police.uk street-level API; Period: September 2024 to August 2026 (monthly); Area: 14 Portsmouth electoral wards, May 2026 boundaries; Location: areas[slug=portsmouth].wards[*].crime.months; source police-street (generatedAt 2026-10-17T09:57Z; 72 request receipts); method text in sources[police-street].method; Agent summed the 14 wards' monthly crimeExclAsb and asb fields for September 2025-August 2026 and September 2024-August 2025. Not re-fetched from the API on 2 November 2026.

  • Police.uk open data and methods ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    Mapped incidents are not a measure of residents’ personal risk. Preserve coverage, missing months, exclusions, boundary vintage and denominator with each comparison.

  • data.police.uk changelog and known issues ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: data.police.uk; Area: England, Wales and Northern Ireland; Location: Known Issues (court outcomes from June 2019 onwards currently unavailable; British Transport Police ASB not provided since April 2016); monthly entries from August 2024 to August 2026 contain no Hampshire entries; Checked for missing Hampshire months in the displayed window.

  • Portsmouth Community Safety Survey 2026: Executive Summary ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-05

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council Public Health Intelligence Team; Period: Fieldwork February-March 2026; Area: Portsmouth (adults 18+); Location: Section 1 Background and methodology (1,074 face-to-face interviews; 352 separate online responses); 2 Representativeness; 3 Quality of life (65%); 4 ASB (77% witnessed or experienced; fewer than a quarter reported); 5 Fear and experience of crime (about a third victims; 22% cybercrime vs 16% in 2024; about half of crimes reported); 7 Places avoided; 9.1 Recommendations; SHA-256 359189e3c7091b1d38403f7fd618bf6ea58b192a11c1e5ee17f36529f33de344. Survey-based evidence; face-to-face sample at high-footfall locations, not a random sample; older people over-represented and some wards under-represented. Full report also published (Community-Safety-Survey-2026-accessible-aa.pdf), not read in full.

  • Safer Portsmouth Partnership: Our priorities and plan (Community Safety Plan 2025-2028) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council for the Safer Portsmouth Partnership; Period: 2025-2028; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Current Community Safety Plan and priorities (four priorities); 'How we address exploitation' (4-weekly Community Tactical Coordination Group); Young Futures pilot October 2025 to March 2026; Web page summary of the plan; the full plan document was not found linked on the page.

  • Executive summary: Strategic Assessment of Community Safety 2023/24 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2024-10-25

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council Public Health Intelligence Team; Period: 2023/24; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Section 1 Introduction (statutory annual assessment and three-year plan); Section 2 Overview of crime trends; SHA-256 9fc0f787d351ff55b44f0a159ab33268fa539c999fbbe16a6c0a71f83b4fa1c2. Latest strategic assessment linked from the council page on 2 November 2026.

  • Police and Crime Plan 2024-28: More Police, Safer Streets 2 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; Period: 2024-2028; Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight police force area; Location: Contents (six local priorities including Police Visibility and Engagement and Anti-Social Behaviour); pages 10-11 'I will' commitments (more Local Bobbies; hold Chief Constable to account for feedback and timely investigations); Anti-Social Behaviour section (ASB Task Force; £500k into 29 projects in 2024; £750k Home Office grant to local authorities for ASB wardens); SHA-256 ebd3498d63d9ad95bb9b1759c5c45b8a7d8c121d6d3893de168130c13e159628. File uploaded October 2026 and linked from https://www.hampshire-pcc.gov.uk/commissioner/police-crime-plan; plan launched 1 November 2024 (OPCC news item).

  • Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee Performance Framework (accessible) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-05-13

    Primary publisher: Home Office; Area: England and Wales; Location: Pillar 2 Community-led (named, contactable officer for every neighbourhood); Pillar 4 ASB; Outcomes list including 'Reduction of repeat victimisation'; evidence statement on targeted visible presence, engagement, problem-solving and procedural justice; Policy paper, page shows Updated 13 May 2025.

  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 6 (formulation and implementation of strategies) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk; Area: England and Wales; Location: s.6(1)(a)-(c); Duty on responsible authorities (the community safety partnership) to formulate and implement crime and disorder strategies.

  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 17 (duty to consider crime and disorder implications) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk; Area: England and Wales; Location: s.17(1)(a)-(d); Applies to the council, police and others listed.

  • Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, section 104 (ASB case reviews) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk; Area: England and Wales; Location: s.104(1), (2), (4); Relevant bodies must publish review procedures; threshold met where at least three qualifying complaints (or the number set locally).

  • Police and crime commissioners to be scrapped ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2025-11-13

    Primary publisher: Home Office; Area: England and Wales; Location: Paragraph: transition to the new model at the end of the next electoral cycle in 2028; Announcement; legislation and successor body for Hampshire not verified.

  • Community safety survey ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Page text (every two years since 2012, around 1,000 residents; 2024 key findings; document links for 2026 and 2024); The page's narrative still shows 2024 findings while linking the 2026 reports.

  • PCC Donna Jones launches her new Police and Crime Plan 2024-2028 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2024-11-01

    Primary publisher: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; Area: Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Location: Key takeaways paragraph; Press release; used only for the launch date and priority list.

  • Surge in neighbourhood police in communities fighting crime ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-04-07

    Primary publisher: Home Office; Area: England and Wales; Location: Paragraph: all police forces have now published antisocial behaviour action plans by their designated ASB lead; Government press release; force-level figures not checked.

Where earlier ideas went

  • neighbourhood-safety (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. Whole action: now/next/longer-term steps became the delivery table; measures (matched categories, repeat victimisation, outcomes, resident experience) became the evaluation table; trade-offs moved to risks; Police.uk caveats kept in baselines and claims.

Back to the top of this action

Proposed action

Publish one record of promises, decisions and results

Keep one public register that links each Portsmouth commitment to its decision, money, milestones, evidence and result, keeps original and revised dates visible, and keeps official commitments separate from proposals.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council democratic services with finance (proposed; not agreed)

Start soon

Count the Cabinet and Full Council decisions in the last 12 months that committed money or dates, to size the register.

+ 2 more tasks in the full delivery plan

Build next

Pilot the register on a handful of schemes, for example the highways PFI exit, the sheltered homes scheme and City Centre North.

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

Longer term

Extend the register to regional commitments affecting Portsmouth once the combined authority's programme is agreed, subject to its agreement.

+ 1 more task in the full delivery plan

How to judge progress: Coverage of qualifying decisions; Entries with current milestones; Corrections; Milestone slippage.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth's decisions, budgets and project updates are published, but in separate places: forward plans, Cabinet decision records, budget papers, scheme websites and procurement notices. In searches on 2 November 2026 we did not find one public record that follows a commitment from decision to result, keeps original and revised dates, and explains changes. A new combined authority for Hampshire and the Solent, set up in June 2026, adds another layer of decisions.

Who is affected: Residents trying to see whether promises were kept; councillors and scrutiny panels; local media; partner bodies; and council staff, who would maintain the record.

Starting point: measured figures
MeasureValuePeriodArea
Forward plan coverage Looks ahead only; it does not follow decisions to delivery.About three months ahead (23 October 2026 to 23 January 2027), listing decision maker, due date and lead officerPlan published 23 October 2026Portsmouth City Council
Cabinet decision recordsRecommendations and decisions published per item, for example 27 October 2026October 2026Portsmouth
Single public register of commitments and results Dated, qualified finding; not proof that none exists.None foundSearches on 2 November 2026Portsmouth
UK Facts' own project tracker Editorial records, not official. They disagree on some project stages.7 projects, last checked as a whole on 15 September 2026; a separate shared evidence package lists 10 projects with different stage labelsSeptember to October 2026Portsmouth
Regional layerCombined authority in force from 4 June 2026; first mayoral election 4 May 20282026-2028Hampshire and the Solent

What this would change

Aim: Let anyone trace a Portsmouth commitment from the decision that made it, through money and milestones, to the result, and see when and why it changed.

What success would mean: Proposed, not agreed: every Cabinet or Full Council decision that commits money or a date has a register entry soon after the decision; entries show original and current milestones and a change history; corrections are logged and made promptly; and official commitments are never mixed with proposals. No numeric target is proposed until the number of qualifying decisions is known.

Publish a public register, as a web page and open data file, with one row per official commitment: source decision, responsible body, budget and funding source, original milestone, current milestone, status, evidence link, change history, outcome measure and next review date. Start with Cabinet and Full Council decisions that commit money or dates, and major capital schemes. Keep editorial proposals, such as this action plan, in a separate labelled list. Publish how to report an error and a log of corrections. Update after each Cabinet cycle.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council democratic services with finance (proposed; not agreed). Partners: Council scrutiny panels, Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority (for regional commitments affecting Portsmouth), Delivery partners named in decisions, such as Coastal Partners and Portsmouth International Port, UK Facts and other independent trackers (as users and testers of the data).

Powers: No new legal power is needed for the council to publish information it already holds; it already publishes forward plans and decision records. We did not re-check the access-to-information regulations in this review. The council cannot direct other bodies, such as the combined authority or the NHS, to publish in its register, so their entries would depend on agreement. An independent register run by UK Facts would have no official status.

Options

  • Current approach: Current approach. Forward plans, Cabinet decisions, budget papers and procurement notices are published separately. UK Facts keeps its own editorial tracker. No single record follows commitments to results.
  • Proposed response: Council-run commitments register. A council register built from decision records and capital monitoring, with original and revised dates, change history and a correction process. Official status, but needs staff time.
  • Alternative: Add a commitments table to existing reports. Add a standard milestone and change table to existing capital or performance reports. Cheaper, but less searchable and still split across documents.
  • Alternative: Independent civic register. UK Facts or another independent group maintains the register from published sources. No council cost, but no official status and dependent on volunteer or editorial capacity.

The right choice depends on how many decisions would qualify each year, what the council's systems can export, and whether the council wants an official record. A pilot on a few schemes would show the real workload.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. All sequencing and durations are illustrative and not agreed. Sourced dates used here are the Spring 2027 PFI options paper, the 31 March 2030 PFI end date and the 4 May 2028 mayoral election.
StageTaskProposed leadDependencies and decisionsOutput
Start soonCount the Cabinet and Full Council decisions in the last 12 months that committed money or dates, to size the register.UK Facts (editorial) or council democratic services (proposed)—Published count and list
Start soonReconcile the two UK Facts project records into one, with a change history, and label it clearly as editorial.UK Facts—One editorial tracker with stage definitions
Start soonDraft a register template using the fields in this plan, informed by the government's major projects data fields.UK Facts (draft) for council consideration—Template and example rows
Build nextPilot the register on a handful of schemes, for example the highways PFI exit, the sheltered homes scheme and City Centre North.Portsmouth City Council (proposed)Depends on: Council willingness to pilot · Decision: Council decision to adopt or notPilot register and staff-time log
Build nextPublish a correction route and log, with a target response time set by the council.Portsmouth City Council (proposed)—Published correction policy
Longer termExtend the register to regional commitments affecting Portsmouth once the combined authority's programme is agreed, subject to its agreement.Portsmouth City Council with the combined authority (proposed)Depends on: Combined authority agreementJoint or linked register
Longer termReview whether the register is used and accurate, and decide whether to continue, change or stop it.Council scrutiny panel (proposed)—Review report

A first practical step: UK Facts can count last year's qualifying Cabinet decisions from public records and publish the list. This needs no council decision.

Costs and funding

One-off costs
Not costed. Setting up the template, back-filling current commitments and web publishing would need staff time.
Recurring costs
Not costed. Main cost is officer time to update entries after each Cabinet cycle and handle corrections.
Capital or revenue
Revenue (staff time). Existing web and committee systems may avoid capital spend; not confirmed.
Funding status
No funding identified or committed.
Affordability
Unknown. It should be assessed against existing democratic-services and finance reporting work.
Costing still needed
Count qualifying decisions per year; time the pilot updates per entry; check what the council's committee system can export; compare with the cost of adding a table to existing reports.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Possible benefits, not forecasts: clearer accountability, fewer disputes over what was promised, earlier warning of slippage, and less duplicated effort by journalists and trackers. Not quantified.

Risks:

  • Staff time diverted from delivery to reporting.
  • Entries go stale and give a false picture; missing evidence could be read as proof nothing happened.
  • Official commitments and proposals could be confused if labels are weak.
  • Partners may decline to supply data, leaving gaps.
  • Political pressure over how delays are described.

Who could gain or lose: Residents with less time or online access gain from one plain record but may still need offline routes. Areas with many projects get more scrutiny than areas with few. Council staff carry the workload.

Capacity: Depends on democratic services and finance capacity, which was not established. The council already runs a dedicated PFI exit team, a sign that skilled staff are in demand.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
MeasureDefinitionStarting pointSource and areaHow often · who reports
Coverage of qualifying decisionsShare of Cabinet and Full Council decisions committing money or dates that have a register entry within a set period after the decisionNo register exists Gap: Period and reporting not agreedRegister and decision records · Portsmouth City CouncilQuarterly · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Entries with current milestonesShare of open entries reviewed within their stated review dateNot available Gap: No registerRegister · Portsmouth City CouncilQuarterly · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
CorrectionsNumber of corrections logged and median days to correctNot available Gap: No correction processCorrection log · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Portsmouth City Council (proposed)
Milestone slippageShare of entries where the current milestone is later than the original, with reasonsNot available Gap: No registerRegister · Portsmouth City CouncilAnnual · Council scrutiny panel (proposed)

Reassess when: If the council publishes its own commitments or performance register, adopts the Corporate Plan 2026-2028 with a monitoring framework, or if the combined authority publishes a delivery tracker.

Where things stand

What is known:

  • The council publishes a forward plan about three months ahead and Cabinet decisions per item.
  • Official milestones exist in Cabinet papers, such as the Spring 2027 highways options paper.
  • The Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority has been in force since 4 June 2026.
  • UK Facts keeps two editorial project records that disagree on some stages.

What is not known:

  • How many decisions a year would qualify for the register.
  • Whether the council already reports commitments in a corporate performance report not found in this review.
  • What the council's systems can export.
  • Whether partners would supply data.

Decisions needed:

  • Whether the council wants an official register or prefers an independent one.
  • Which decisions qualify and who updates entries.
  • How corrections and disputes are handled.

Existing work:

  • Council forward plan of decisions: Published; current plan 23 October 2026 to 23 January 2027 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Cabinet agenda and decision records: Published per meeting; latest read 27 October 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority board: Established June 2026; meets regularly, next 16 November 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • UK Facts Portsmouth project tracker (editorial, not official): 7 projects; last whole check 15 September 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).
  • Government major projects data (national comparator): 2025-26 report published 13 July 2026 (as of 2026-11-02).

UK Facts context: Government delivery (UK Facts' national tracker of what the UK government has done, an editorial assessment. National, not local; shown as a comparable approach.)

Next review: When Portsmouth City Council adopts its Corporate Plan 2026-2028, or when the Spring 2027 highways options paper is published, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

  • Forward Plan 23 October 2026 to 23 January 2027 ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-23

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: 23 October 2026 to 23 January 2027; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Plan item list (4 items in the view read): Updates to Emergency Planning Arrangements; Disposal of Medina House; Corporate Plan 2026-2028; Primary Review Proposals. Fields: decision maker, decision due, lead officer, notice of proposed decision first published, anticipated restriction.; The view read used the site's EVT=106 filter; an unfiltered view may list more items.

  • Cabinet, Tuesday 27 October 2026: agenda and decisions ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-28

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Meeting 27 October 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Items 3-9 with recommendations and recorded decisions; item 6 (PFI expiry, decisions 1-5); item 9 (Disused Utility Store, decisions 2-3: 44 affordable sheltered homes approved in principle; £15.45m Housing Development Pipeline budget in the HRA Capital Programme approved by Council in February 2026, phased £0.5m 2026/27, £4.984m 2027/28, £4.984m 2028/29, £4.982m 2029/30).

  • PFI Expiry and Future Services Programme Update (Cabinet report) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10

    Primary publisher: Portsmouth City Council; Period: Cabinet 27 October 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Paragraphs 3.1 (contract ends 31 March 2030) and 7.3-7.4 (options paper planned for Spring 2027).

  • The Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/595) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-06-03

    Primary publisher: legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives); Period: Made 3 June 2026; in force the following day, except Part 5 (mayoral functions) from 8 May 2028; Area: Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Location: Preamble (consent of the four councils); regulation 1(2)-(3) commencement; regulation 2 ('constituent councils'); regulation 6(2) first mayoral election 4 May 2028 and 6(4) term begins 8 May 2028.

  • Regional authority board and published meeting records ↗ · checked 2026-10-17

    28 September meeting is listed as held; no September minutes linked at the check, so agenda proposals remain unconfirmed.

  • NISTA Major Projects Annual Report 2025-26 and data ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-07-13

    Primary publisher: National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (GOV.UK); Period: Data reported by departments on 31 March 2026; Area: UK government major projects; Location: Publication page summary; data CSV https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a4fb28da6586e258d371bfd/NISTA_Major_Projects_Annual_Report_2025-2026_Data.csv (SHA-256 434e3667308157be0539f4ce85f208e7b69af373a2638df457f40c1197d8524e): 189 project rows; columns include delivery confidence assessments, start and end dates, schedule narrative, financial-year baseline and forecast, variance, whole-life cost, benefits, evaluation plan link and named senior responsible owner.; A national comparator, used only as a design example.

  • UK Facts Portsmouth project delivery tracker (editorial record) ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-09-15

    Primary publisher: UK Facts; Period: As of 15 September 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: Repository file lib/data-registry/portsmouth-project-tracker.ts: TRACKER_AS_OF, TRACKED_PROJECTS (7 rows), TRACKER_METHOD_NOTE; rendered by components/hampshire/ProjectTracker.tsx on the development-plan page.; UK Facts' own manually assembled record, not an official council register.

  • Shared Portsmouth evidence package: projects ↗ · checked 2026-11-02

    Primary publisher: UK Facts / Facts Count (editorial record); Period: Stage dates 15 September to 17 October 2026; Area: Portsmouth; Location: data/counts/portsmouth.json 'projects' (10 entries with stage and stageAsOf); inventory/current-twelve-actions.json.; Editorial record shared by UK Facts dev and Facts Count; not an official register.

  • Council: Team Portsmouth and city vision ↗ · checked 2026-09-23

    Retained review of council committee papers and partnership follow-ups; no claim of an automatic daily search.

  • Portsmouth City Council housing and corporate repairs term contracts: contract award notice ↗ · checked 2026-11-02 · published 2026-10-16

    Primary publisher: Find a Tender service; notice by Portsmouth City Council; Area: Portsmouth City Council; Location: Notice 2026/S 000-097760: contract dates 1 April 2027 to 31 March 2032 (possible extension to 31 March 2037).; Used as an example of official milestone data already published in a structured form.

Where earlier ideas went

  • public-delivery-record (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. public-delivery-record (same ID and anchor) Not carried forward: Owner wording 'Portsmouth City Council, Team Portsmouth partners and regional authority' replaced by a proposed lead and named partners; legacy baseline kept only as dated history and replaced by a 2 November 2026 search finding.

Back to the top of this action