Agenda and draft minutes

To note the names of apologies given and deputy members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed members.

Apologies for the meeting were noted as above.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Councillors or Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs), other registerable interests (ORIs) and non-registerable interests (NRIs) in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct.

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

No declarations were made.

No announcements were made.

That the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 16 September 2025 be approved and adopted.

To receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on matters which fall within the remit of the Committee

Members of the public and visiting councillors may speak at the Policy Committee, provided they have registered to speak three working days in advance.  Please complete this form (https://forms.office.com/r/Y87tufaV6G ) by 5pm on 19 November 2025 or call (01962) 848 264 for further details.

There were no comments or questions made during public participation

The Economy and Housing Policy Committee are asked to comment on the proposals contained within the attached Cabinet Report, ref CAB 3523

Councillor Mark Reach, Cabinet Member for Good Homes, introduced the report, ref CAB3523, which set out the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan and budget options. The introduction included the following points:

1.    The paper presented a balanced and viable HRA business plan that protected tenants' money.

2.    The main pressures on the HRA were macroeconomic factors, particularly interest rates and inflation, which impacted the HRA's £200 million debt. Consequently, the interest rate assumption was increased from 5% to 6%.

3.    Other financial pressures included a £1 million allocation to retrofit approximately 30 properties.

4.    Appendix 2 of the report outlined proposals for expenditure reductions, which were ranked according to their deliverability and would require further work to be fully developed.

The Economy and Housing Policy Committee was asked to comment on the proposals contained within the attached Cabinet Report, ref CAB 3523. The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

1.    A question was asked regarding the timing of the report's presentation to the committee, after it had previously been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet.

2.    Clarification was sought on the potential impact on tenants resulting from the proposed savings in Appendix 2, specifically the reduction in the estates improvement budget.

3.    A question was raised as to whether the risk of the stock condition survey not being ready in time to inform the major repair programme had been included as a costed risk within the financial projections.

4.    It was asked whether the proposed rent increase of CPI plus 1% was mandated by central government or if the council had discretion regarding it.

5.    A question was asked about the cumulative effect of CPI plus 1% rent increases on tenants and the potential impact on hardship and rent recovery rates.

6.    Further detail was requested on which specific service charges were expected to increase “significantly” as referenced in the report.

7.    Clarification was sought on whether service charge increases would affect all residents equally or be concentrated on certain tenants.

8.    A question was asked if anticipated additional costs associated with Awaab's Law, concerning responsiveness to damp and mould, were covered within the budget.

9.    A question was asked about the expected benefits, both for customer service and financially, from the implementation of the new MRI software module.

10.Clarification was sought on the benefits of having the stock condition survey in place in terms of future operational efficiency.

11.It was asked if any costs associated with the new maintenance contract had been factored into the financial plan.

12.An explanation was sought for the drivers behind the increase in turnover of void properties.

13.A query was raised as to whether the committee would undertake a more detailed review of the 30-year business plan, as Appendix 3 only detailed new builds until 2031/32.

These points were responded to by Simon Hendey, Strategic Director, and Councillor Mark Reach, Cabinet Member for Good Homes, accordingly.

RESOLVED:

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.     The Policy Committee are asked to review and comment on the work undertaken to develop the:

·       Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester Local Visitor Economy Partnership (LVEP)

·       Hampshire Destination Management Plan (DMP)

2.     The Policy Committee are asked to support the council’s role in facilitating the delivery of the LVEP and realising its benefits in supporting the visitor economy across the district. 

Councillor Lucille Thompson, Cabinet Member for Business and Culture introduced the report which included the following points:

1. The district’s visitor economy was significant, welcoming over 8 million visitors annually, which supported 5,760 local jobs and contributed £292 million to the local economy.
2. In May of this year, Winchester City Council, alongside Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, and Southampton City Council, gained Local Visitor Economy Partnership (LVEP) accreditation from Visit England.
3. The LVEP provided a strategic approach to grow the visitor economy across the county, strengthening Hampshire's profile as a world-class destination and showcasing the district's offer to a wider audience.
4. The partnership aimed to drive sustainable growth, with the potential to attract new investment and create jobs.
5. In the context of Local Government Reorganisation, the LVEP was timely and ensured the council played a leading role in shaping Hampshire’s future visitor economy.

The committee was asked to

1. Review and comment on the work undertaken to develop the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester Local Visitor Economy Partnership (LVEP) and the Hampshire Destination Management Plan (DMP)

2. Support the council's role in facilitating the delivery of the LVEP and realising its benefits in supporting the visitor economy across the district.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

1. A question was asked if there were any projections for an increase in visitor numbers or revenue as a result of the partnership, and what the associated risks were.
2. Clarification was sought regarding the £2,000 budget contribution and what this would cover.
3. A question was raised about the specific deliverables of the partnership and how its goals would be achieved.
4. An example was requested of how a working group would function and how its work would translate into deliverables for one of the local authorities within the partnership.
5. A concern was raised about the City Council potentially losing out on central government funding compared to other regions.
6. Given the existing success of Visit Winchester, a question was asked what the LVEP would enable the council to do that it was not already doing, particularly in attracting visitors from neighbouring areas like Portsmouth.
7. Clarification was sought on how the partnership would help promote sustainable travel within the district in support of the “Greener Faster” agenda.
8. A question was asked about how momentum would be maintained and whether the larger structure could hinder the ability to remain nimble at a local level.
9. Further detail was requested on what the £2,000 contribution provided and whether the council would consider investing more in the future if the partnership proved successful.
10. A question was raised about the risk of the Hampshire-wide plan causing the district to potentially lose business to other areas and how this would be measured.
11. Clarification was sought on whether the current membership of the shadow advisory board was a starting point, with an expectation that other organisations would join later.
12. In the context of local government reorganisation, a question was asked about the expected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Chairperson noted that the next meeting on 24 February would include consideration of the Tourism Strategy. He would also be discussing with officers a proposal for an interactive discussion on housing issues, including case studies to enhance understanding of challenges faced by officers in delivering the housing strategy and meeting residents’ needs.

RESOLVED:

The current work programme was noted.