The impact of Reform UK on Nottinghamshire County Council

drafted 2026-07-06 · accepted

← all councils · home

This council: flagship · Adult Social Care · Asylum and Migration · Children's services and safeguarding · Climate · Council Spending and Efficiency · Devolution and local government reorganisation · Heritage · Housing, planning and local plans · Outsourcing of public services · Roads, highways and potholes · SEND and home-to-school transport · Support for (or hostility to) women · Waste, recycling and bins

Reform UK has led Nottinghamshire County Council since May 2025 (source).

Reform UK took control of Nottinghamshire County Council and held its first Full Council meeting under the new administration on 22 May 2025.[1] Councillor Mick Barton (Reform) leads the council.[1] The Reform-led council declined to re-endorse the council's target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030, voting down an opposition motion to recommit to it.[2] It did not, however, scrap that 2030 target.[3] The administration commissioned an internal efficiency review of the council's finances, procurement and contracts.[4] It set out a plan to save about £44.9m over three years.[5] Its early efficiency savings included reducing the use of agency staff.[6][7]

Climate and the environment

The 2030 carbon-neutral target

The council declared a climate emergency in May 2021 and set a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.[3] After Reform took control, an opposition motion moved by Councillor Helen Faccio asking the council to recommit to that 2030 target was defeated on a recorded vote of 20 for to 37 against.[2] The motion had also urged the council to explore generating renewable energy on its own estate, using solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines.[8] The 2030 target itself was not scrapped, and an Overview Committee report later noted the council's next steps towards it.[3]

Solar farms

Asked about Nigel Farage's suggestion that Reform councils could refuse solar farms, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment, Councillor Bert Bingham, declined to adopt an opposing position and said he would keep an open mind.[9] The council took no formal step to oppose, refuse or restrict solar farms or battery storage on farmland.[9]

Pension fund and responsible investment

On 25 June 2026 the Nottinghamshire Pension Fund Committee voted to cease the Fund's membership of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, a responsible-investment body, having deferred the decision at its 30 April 2026 meeting.[10] The move was made on grounds of subscription cost, the resourcing it required, reduced value now that asset management sits with LGPS Central, and the risk that the Forum's views might not align with the Fund's investment beliefs; several members spoke against it, arguing the Forum gave a collective voice on stewardship at low relative cost.[10] The same committee had earlier endorsed progress on the Fund's Climate Action Plan on 11 December 2025 and resolved to keep monitoring its exposure to climate-related financial risk.[11]

Programmes that continued

The Reform-led Cabinet continued to progress the council's statutory Local Nature Recovery Strategy, resolving in September 2025 to finalise it for the Secretary of State with no delay or reduction recorded in the minutes.[12] Scrutiny of the council's carbon-neutrality progress recorded that new electric-vehicle charging points had been installed, with no pause or cancellation of that work in the minutes.[13]

Spending and efficiency

An efficiency review

At its meeting on 23 June 2025, the Reform-led Cabinet commissioned an internal efficiency review of the council's financial management, procurement and contract management, as part of budget-setting.[4] A Cabinet Working Group was set up to oversee the review, with the Section 151 Officer authorised to agree its scope.[4]

Reducing agency staff

The resulting Efficiency Working Group reported an in-year saving of £3m from cutting agency staff numbers and investing instead in training full-time employees.[6] At Full Council on 20 November 2025, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Stuart Matthews, said the council was on target to save £1.2m gross over the following year by reducing agency staff, particularly in social care.[7] He said the number of agency children's school workers had roughly halved over 18 months.[7]

The three-year savings plan

The administration set out a three-year savings plan in its Cabinet report of 6 November 2025: £18.3m in 2026/27, £15.5m in 2027/28 and £11.1m in 2028/29, about £44.9m in total.[5] A later financial monitoring report recorded the Cabinet Member as confident that the £44.2m of savings identified in the 2026/27 budget could be achieved, despite parts of the plan taking longer than expected to develop.[14] Cabinet recommended an annual revenue budget of £875.7m for 2026/27, later amended to £880.0m.[15]

No formal 'DOGE'-branded cost-cutting unit appears in the council's decisions; the term surfaces only as an opposition councillor's concern that a community grants fund might be caught up in such schemes.[16]

Adult social care

The care precept

At its meeting on 26 February 2026, the County Council set the council's element of council tax to rise by 3.99% in 2026/27.[17] The budget was carried by 40 votes to 20, after a Conservative Group amendment was rejected by 17 votes to 43.[17] The published minutes record only this single, combined increase and do not break out a separate adult social care precept.[17]

Provider fees

Cabinet approved the 2026/27 Adult Social Care and Support Market Annual Fee Review, an estimated £12.2m gross increase in provider fees, effective from 6 April 2026.[18] The net impact was to be contained within a £10.6m inflationary pressure bid in the 2026/27 budget.[18] The package was a smaller cash sum than the year before, when the 2025/26 fee review had approved a £28.2m distribution of increases.[19]

Charging

On 5 March 2026, Cabinet approved a refreshed Adult Social Care Charging Policy, introducing new flat-rate discretionary charges from 6 April 2026.[20] It also approved using full cost recovery modelling each year to review the cost of delivering the services behind those flat-rate charges.[20] The same decision applied home-based care rates to people remaining in reablement services while their long-term care and support is arranged.[21]

In-house services

The Adult Social Care and Public Health Select Committee was updated on the Day Opportunities Strategy 2022-27, under which the council's day service building locations had fallen from ten to eight.[22] Services had ceased at the former Mansfield and Netherfield sites, with people who used them supported to move to alternative locations.[22] A later scrutiny meeting was told that six people from the former Mansfield site and two from the former Netherfield site had not moved on to alternative day service provision.[23]

Children's services

At the 14 May 2026 County Council meeting, Cabinet Member for Children and Families Rory Green responded to a question on rising financial pressures from high-cost children's homes and external placements.[24] He said a placement breakdown could sharply increase costs, that the department had brought in a consultancy firm to strengthen decision-making, and that it was not in deficit.[24]

SEND and home-to-school transport

The high-needs budget

Nottinghamshire's Overview Committee was told in January and March 2026 that the council was carrying a deficit in its Dedicated Schools Grant high-needs block, driven by demand for SEND provision, a position it likened to that of many other authorities.[25] It expected government to take over SEND funding entirely from 2028, but no mechanism had yet been confirmed for how the negative balances councils were carrying would be managed in the meantime.[25]

A Local SEND Reform Plan

At the Children and Families Select Committee on 16 March 2026, officers said the council was developing a Local SEND Reform Plan to submit to government under a scheme that would write off 90% of a council's SEND deficit.[26] An amendment that would have required the Select Committee to review and approve that plan before its end-of-March 2026 submission was moved, debated and lost on a show of hands, so the committee did not secure a formal sign-off role before the plan went to government.[26]

Home-to-school transport

Cabinet's Budget 2026-27 proposals, put forward on 29 January 2026, included a proposed review of discretionary home-to-school transport schemes; a councillor declared an interest because it could affect Catholic schools.[27] The retrieved minutes record only that the review was proposed within the budget papers, not its conclusions or any confirmed change to eligibility or charges.[27]

EHCP timeliness

The Children and Families Select Committee was told on 14 July 2025 that Nottinghamshire's rate of EHCP assessments completed within the statutory timescale had risen from 4.5% to 47%, just above the then national average of 46%, following a 2023 Ofsted/CQC inspection that had found the Local Area Partnership failing on timely EHCP delivery.[28] A follow-up Ofsted/CQC monitoring inspection reported in October 2025 found the Partnership had taken effective action on that priority area; the council remained under continued monitoring.[28]

Roads and highways

The May 2026 highways motion

At Full Council on 14 May 2026, Councillor Neil Clarke MBE moved a motion, 'Protecting Local Highways from the Impact of National Housing Targets', seconded by Councillor Roger Upton, calling on the council to press government for a fairer share of Section 106, Section 278 and Community Infrastructure Levy developer contributions to fund new and existing highways infrastructure.[29] An amendment moved by Councillor Mike Robertson, seconded by Councillor Russell Dodd, recast the request around the incoming Infrastructure Levy; it was accepted by the mover and the altered substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.[29] As altered, the motion asks officers to bring forward a report reviewing the last five years of Section 106 and Section 278 agreements, alongside the district and borough councils' CIL infrastructure funding statements, to assess whether Nottinghamshire is receiving the maximum highways contributions it is entitled to.[30]

Highways funding and the capital programme

On 23 April 2026 Cabinet approved the Phase 2 Highways Capital and Revenue Programmes, including an additional Council Capital Maintenance Programme, and varied the Transport and Environment Portfolio Capital Programme by £15m to fund the Highways Improvement Programme, financed from borrowing.[31] At Place Select Committee on 8 December 2025, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment Bert Bingham presented a Highways Review reporting that Nottinghamshire has 2,760 miles of road with an estimated replacement value of £10bn, and that officers described the shortfall in highway asset maintenance funding as a national issue.[32] The council's stated ambition was to match or exceed current highway funding levels.[32] The same review told the committee that the East Midlands Combined County Authority was expected to invest £183m in highways and transport across all its constituent authorities, and members urged the Cabinet Member to secure Nottinghamshire's fair share.[33]

Waste and recycling

Officers told committee that Local Government Reorganisation had curtailed the council's medium-term waste planning and added further complexity to ongoing waste reforms, including uncertainty over which future authority would run recycling and disposal facilities.[34] Place Select Committee heard in December 2025 that food-waste caddy designs were being standardised jointly with the seven district and borough councils under the government's collection and packaging reforms, but that trials of different food-waste collection methods would not begin until September 2026.[35] The committee's resolution on implementing the reforms noted only the key milestones and preparations, without committing to a firm date for weekly food-waste collection across Nottinghamshire.[36]

Housing and planning

Housing targets

Nottinghamshire County Council has not formally objected to the government's mandatory standard-method housing targets; the only Full Council motion touching them, moved on 14 May 2026, accepted the targets as given and instead sought fairer developer contributions towards highways.[37] Councillor Neil Clarke MBE moved the motion, an amendment was accepted by the mover, and the altered substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.[37]

Local plans

As the upper-tier authority, the council does not maintain a housing Local Plan; that role sits with its constituent district and borough councils, and its own plan-making role covers minerals and waste.[38] On 18 September 2025 full Council adopted, rather than paused or withdrew, the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.[38] At the same meeting, a petition requesting an urgent review of the Minerals Local Plan was received and referred to the appropriate Cabinet Member; the corpus does not contain a record of that report or any resulting decision to pause, withdraw or delay the plan.[39]

A Green Belt refusal

On 16 December 2025 the Planning and Rights of Way Committee refused a minerals extraction application on Green Belt land at Mill Hill and Barton in Fabis, by a recorded vote of 4 in favour to 7 against, citing unconvincing need, uncertain hydrological impacts, unavoidable ecological harm and visual impact rather than Green Belt harm specifically.[40]

Devolution and reorganisation

Nottinghamshire's published minutes show no motion to postpone or cancel the scheduled County Council elections pending local government reorganisation; the elections went ahead as normal on 1 May 2025, and Full Council subsequently noted the outcome by resolution.[41] The council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), an existing mayoral combined county authority; it approved its priority areas for collaboration with EMCCA in 2025 and separately resolved to use its role as a constituent council to lobby the elected East Midlands Mayor on policy, including opposing a proposed tourism tax.[42] The Overview Committee was told that the proposal being developed under Option 1b would set out the case for two new unitary councils for Nottinghamshire, one serving the more urban communities in and around Nottingham and the other the more rural areas, towns and villages, a shift from the county's earlier single-unitary preference.[43] At an Extraordinary Full Council meeting on 2 September 2025, an amendment to reaffirm the council's earlier preference for the single-unitary Option 2 was defeated 39 votes to 16 (3 abstentions); the original motion, based on the PwC options appraisal's Option 1b, was then carried 43 votes to 11.[44] A Conservative-backed notice of motion that would have had the council oppose any reorganisation not backed by robust independently-verified evidence, and run a fuller public consultation before committing to a final proposal, was defeated 35 votes to 19 (2 abstentions); the council's formal position remained one of proceeding with reorganisation, not opposing it.[45] On 20 November 2025 Full Council voted 46 to 11 to approve the two-unitary proposal as the council's final proposal for local government reorganisation and recommended the Leader submit it to government under the statutory invitation.[46] The council's LGR proposal states that the new unitary authorities to be created for Nottinghamshire would themselves become EMCCA constituent authorities, so continued membership of the combined authority is built into the reorganisation proposal; no evidence was found in Nottinghamshire's published minutes of the council naming itself as being in a 'Devolution Priority Programme'.[47]

Outsourcing

Cabinet resolved on 23 June 2025 to commission a Member-led review of the council's Highway Services, part of the new administration's stated commitment to review the service, and established a Cabinet Working Group to carry it out.[48] At Full Council on 10 July 2025 the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment said the highway maintenance programme, delivered via the contractor VIA, had not been changed and was continuing as before while the working group's review was under way.[49] He confirmed the review had been commissioned, a working group appointed and visiting VIA East Midlands, with a report due back around October 2025.[50] Cabinet resolved on 6 November 2025 to endorse the outcomes of the Highways Review and for the working group to continue meeting quarterly to monitor an action plan, rather than record a decision to re-procure, restructure or insource the highways contract.[51] Overview Committee was told on 12 March 2026 that Via East Midlands, the council's highways and fleet management service, would deliver efficiencies through back-office and administrative savings which would not affect the delivery or scale of its frontline services, indicating the contract continued unchanged.[52]

Support for women

Overview Committee, scrutinising the draft Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Strategy 2026-2029, was told that core funding for the service is allocated to the council by population through the statutory Domestic Abuse Duty, that this funding would reduce following Local Government Reorganisation because the council area would be smaller, and that safe-accommodation services would need to be recommissioned from 2029 on the new council footprint.[53] The committee's recorded resolution only noted the strategy and asked for an implementation report after one year; the minutes do not record Cabinet or full Council deciding to commission, recommission, reduce or decommission safe-accommodation funding.[53] Nottinghamshire's published Cabinet minutes list ten members; as of the most recent meeting on 23 April 2026, nine of the ten names recorded are conventionally male first names and one, Dawn Justice, is a conventionally female first name, so the published executive arrangements record a majority-male Cabinet.[54]

References

1. At Nottinghamshire County Council's 22 May 2025 Full Council meeting (the first after Reform took control), Councillor Mike Adams asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Mick Barton (Reform), how the Council's flag-flying protocol on or in its buildings would change compared with the previous Conservative administration's approach; Barton's reply did not announce any change or decision — he said the administration would take time to determine its priorities and would consider the relevant Council Policies "at the appropriate point in time". No motion, vote, or protocol change was recorded, and no mention of the Pride flag specifically; the item is a question raised and deferred, not an adopted or proposed restriction. No later Full Council minutes present in the corpus (10 July 2025, 18 September 2025, 20 November 2025, 19 March 2026) return to the subject.
“We can consider the relevant Council Policies alongside this at the appropriate point in time.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
“Can the Leader of the Reform administration explain how the Count y Council’s flag flying protocol, on or in its buildings, will change in comparison with the previous Conservative administration’s approach?” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
“Improving services for local people and communitie s are important to me and the administration.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
2. At a full Council meeting after Reform took control, an opposition motion moved by Councillor Helen Faccio and seconded by Councillor Penny Gowland asking the Council to recommit to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 (through the Carbon Reduction Plan 2022-2032) was defeated on a recorded vote of 20 For to 37 Against, and the Chairman declared the motion had fallen — the ruling group declining to re-endorse the 2030 carbon-neutral target.
“The following 37 members voted ‘Against’ the motion” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“1) Recommits to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 through actions detailed in its Carbon Reduction Plan 2022-2032.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
3. Notwithstanding that, the Council's 2030 carbon neutrality target still stands: an Overview Committee report on the Council's climate change activities and climate emergency response (climate emergency declared May 2021) resolved to note the prioritisation of activities and next steps in addressing the Council's challenges in achieving the 2030 Carbon neutrality target — routine progress reporting, with no decision to scrap, defer or downgrade the target.
“in response to the climate change emergency declaration in May 2021.” Document, 3 July 2025 ↗
“next steps in addressing the Council’s challenges in achieving the 2030 Carbon neutrality target be noted.” Document, 3 July 2025 ↗
4. Nottinghamshire County Council's Reform-led Cabinet formally commissioned an internal efficiency review of the Council's financial management, procurement and contract management arrangements at its 23 June 2025 meeting (RESOLVED 2025/014), as part of the budget-setting process; a Cabinet Working Group (members appointed by the Leader) was established to oversee it, and authority was delegated to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Leader, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, to agree the review's detailed scope and programme.
“EFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS RESOLVED 2025/014 1) That an efficiency review of the Council’s financial management , procurement and contract management arrangements be commenced as part of the Council’s budget setting process.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
“2) That a Cabinet Working Group be established, members of which will be appointed by the Leader, to consider the work of the Efficiency Review and to report to Cabinet accordingly. 3) That authority be delegated to the Service Director – Finance, Infrastructure and Improvement (Section 151 Officer) in consultation with the Leader, the Chief Executive and Service Director Customers, Governance and Employees (Monitoring Officer) to agree the detailed scope and programme of the review.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
5. Nottinghamshire County Council's Reform administration (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Cllr Stuart Matthews) set out a three-year savings plan in its Cabinet report of 6 November 2025 underpinning the 2026/27 Medium-Term Financial Strategy: £18.3m in 2026/27, reducing to £15.5m in 2027/28 and £11.1m in 2028/29 (about £44.9m over three years), given in answer to a Full Council question from Cllr Stuart Bestwick on 20 November 2025 about the timing of the administration's savings.
“The savings plan shows £18.3 million next year, reducing to £15.5 million the year after and £11.1 million in the third year.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“Let’s turn to the plan set out in my report to Cabinet on 6 th November.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
6. By early 2026 the resulting Cabinet Efficiency Working Group reported initial outcomes to Overview Committee, citing an in-year saving of £3 million from reducing agency staff numbers and investing in training full-time employees, among other efficiencies; Overview Committee resolved (2026/006) that the Working Group's reports should keep coming back with figures and implementation dates included.
“Councillor Stuart Matthews, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, introduced the report which provided an update on the outcomes from the initial work of the Cabinet Efficiency Working Group.” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
“The C ouncil had already made in -year efficiencies by saving £3 million through reducing the number of agency staff and investing more in training full-time employees.” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
7. At Full Council on 20 November 2025, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Cllr Stuart Matthews) told members the administration was on target to save £1.2 million gross over the following 12 months by reducing agency staff use, particularly in the social care sector, and that this had already roughly halved the number of agency children's school workers in 18 months.
“we’re on target over the next 12 months to save £1.2 million gross on that, so that’s a good achievement.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“This has led to numbers of children’s school workers agency staff nearly halving in the last 18 months.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
8. The only wind-related record found in Nottinghamshire's published minutes is a Notice of Motion (moved by Cllr Helen Faccio, seconded by Cllr Penny Gowland, 2025) recommitting to carbon-neutral-by-2030 and urging exploration of renewable-energy generation on the council Estate via solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines — this is a climate-positive proposal, not a wind-farm restriction. The motion FELL on a recorded vote (20 For, 37 Against, 0 Abstain), with the Reform group majority voting against it. No mention of 'onshore wind', 'wind farm', or any planning objection/restriction targeting third-party wind farms or turbines appears anywhere in the corpus.
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“Strongly urges the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment to explore how the Estate can be used to generate renewable energy as far as possible, through the appropriate use of technologies such as of solar panels, wind turbines, and water turbines.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
9. At the new Reform administration's council meeting, in response to a question about Nigel Farage's suggestion that Reform councils could refuse solar farms, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment, Councillor Bert Bingham, declined to adopt any position opposing them, saying he would keep an open mind before coming to a public position; the only solar-farm resolution on record is a prior (Conservative-administration) resolution to make statutory-consultee representations on the environmental and infrastructure impacts, not a refusal or restriction. The council has taken no formal step to oppose, refuse or restrict solar farms or battery storage on farmland.
“I will keep an open mind and I need to get to grips with it to understand what is a complex situation before coming to a public position.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
“The Council resolved that when acting as a statutory consultee on solar farm applications, it would make representations clearly setting out the environmental and infrastructure impacts of any such applications.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
“Since the local elections, Nigel Farage has stated that Reform councils have the choice to say “no” to proposed solar farms.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
10. On 30 April 2026 the Pension Fund Committee considered a report on its Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) membership and deferred a decision; on 25 June 2026 the Chairman moved, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, that the Fund cease its LAPFF membership, citing the cost of subscription, the resourcing required, reduced value now that asset management sits with LGPS Central, and the risk that LAPFF's views may not align with the Fund's investment beliefs; several members spoke against the move, arguing LAPFF gives a collective voice on stewardship and responsible investment at low relative cost, but after debate the proposal was carried and Nottinghamshire Pension Fund ceased its LAPFF membership.
“Following debate, the proposal was put to the vote and it was” Minutes, 23 July 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED 2026/017 That the item be deferred to a future meeting.” Document, 30 April 2026 ↗
“A proposal was moved by the Chairman that the Nottinghamshire Pension Fund should cease its membership of LAPFF for the following reasons:” Minutes, 23 July 2026 ↗
“The proposal was seconded by the Vice Chairman.” Minutes, 23 July 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED 2026/034 1) That Nottinghamshire Pension Fund ceases its membership of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum.” Minutes, 23 July 2026 ↗
11. The Nottinghamshire Pension Fund Committee endorsed progress on its Climate Action Plan on 11 December 2025 and resolved to keep monitoring the Fund's exposure to climate-related financial risk, recording no reduction of the Fund's climate-risk or responsible-investment commitments at that meeting.
“RESOLVED 2025/48 To endorse the work that had been undertaken and to note the progress made against the Climate Action Plan, which going forward would be part of business as usual.” Document, 11 December 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED 2025/51 That members would continue monitoring the Fund’s exposure to financially material climate related risks, taking appropriate action to mitigate these risks if required.” Document, 11 December 2025 ↗
12. Under the Reform-led administration, Nottinghamshire County Council continued to progress its statutory Local Nature Recovery Strategy rather than delay or scale it back: following a 6-week public consultation (May-June 2025), the Cabinet (Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment, Councillor Bert Bingham) resolved on 18 September 2025 (RESOLVED 2025/020) to amend the draft LNRS to reflect consultation issues, circulate it to the Supporting Authorities for the required 28-day period from 22 September 2025, and notify the final version to the Secretary of State in November 2025 for publication. No delay, deprioritisation, under-resourcing or reduction to bare-minimum compliance of the LNRS or biodiversity duty is recorded in the minutes.
“the final version of the LNRS be notified to the Secretary of State in November 2025 and subsequently published” Document, 6 November 2025 ↗
“That the draft LNRS be amended to reflect the issues raised through the consultation process” Document, 6 November 2025 ↗
13. Overview Committee scrutiny of the Council's carbon-neutrality progress recorded that new EV charging points had been installed (for fleet vehicles and some wider public use) with usage data not yet available — the corpus shows Nottinghamshire proceeding with EV charging infrastructure in this period, with no minute recording a pause, cancellation, decline or hand-back of EV charging grant funding (LEVI/ORCS/OZEV not mentioned in any surfaced document).
“In relation to EV charging points, members were advised that new points had been put in for fleet vehicle s only, plus some for wider use, as they were newly installed there was not any data on usage yet.” Document, 3 July 2025 ↗
14. A subsequent Cabinet Financial Monitoring Report (Period 8, 2025/26) recorded the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources as confident that £44.2 million in savings identified in the 2026/27 Budget could be achieved, despite parts of the plan taking longer than anticipated to develop.
“The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources was confident that the £44.2 million in savings that had been identified in the 2026/27 Budget could be achieved” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
15. Cabinet formally resolved (RESOLVED 2026/003) to recommend to Full Council an Annual Revenue Budget of £875.670 million for 2026/27 and approval of the principles underlying the Medium-Term Financial Strategy; a later Cabinet report approved an amended Annual Revenue Budget of £880.007 million for 2026/27 together with an amended Medium-Term Financial Strategy.
“The Annual Revenue Budget for Nottinghamshire County Council be set at £875.670 million for 2026/27” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
“That the Annual Revenue Budget for Nottinghamshire County Council be set at £880.007 million for 2026/27, as set out in table 1 of the report, be approved” Document, 19 March 2026 ↗
16. The term 'DOGE' surfaces in the corpus only as an opposition councillor's rhetorical concern at the 18 September 2025 County Council meeting — that a community grants fund might be swept up in 'DOGE-like schemes' — not as any formal council decision to establish, invite in, or commission a DOGE-branded unit; no DOGE-named unit or scheme appears elsewhere in the corpus for this council.
“There is uncertainty that the fund may get swept up in the DOGE -like schemes that seek to save money, despite the long-term impact it could have on our most vulnerable and desperate residents.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
17. At County Council on 26 February 2026, the Annual Budget Report 2026-27 was moved by Councillor Stuart Matthews and seconded by Councillor Mick Barton; a Conservative Group amendment (moved by Councillor Stuart Bestwick, seconded by Councillor Sam Smith) was rejected 17 votes for to 43 against, and the original budget motion, which set the County Council element of Council Tax to rise by 3.99% in 2026/27, was carried 40 votes for to 20 against. The published minutes record only this single, combined Council Tax increase figure for 2026/27 and do not break it down into a separate adult social care precept component.
“4) That the County Council element of the Council Tax be increased by 3.99% in 2026/27. That the overall Band D tax rate be set at £1, 970.13 with the various bands of property as set out in paragraph 110 in appendix 2 of the report.” Document, 19 March 2026 ↗
“5. ANNUAL BUDGET REPORT 2026-27 Councillor Stuart Matthews introduced the report and moved a motion in terms of resolution 2026/002 below, which was seconded by Councillor Mick Barton. Councillor Stuart Bestwick moved the Conservative Group amendment, as printed in the Council agenda, which was seconded by Councillor Sam Smith.” Document, 19 March 2026 ↗
18. Cabinet resolved the 2026/27 Adult Social Care and Support Market Annual Fee Review, approving an estimated total of 12.210 million pounds gross increase to Adult Social Care fees in line with the uplifts proposed in the report, effective from 6 April 2026, with the net impact to be contained within a 10.566 million pound inflationary pressure bid in the 2026-27 budget. The document states only these figures; it does not itself compare the uplift to CPI.
“ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND SUPPORT MARKET ANNUAL FEE REVIEW FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2026-27 RESOLVED 2026/009 That the proposed distribution of an estimated total of £12.210 million gross increases to Adult Social Care fees in line with the proposed uplifts in the report be approved with effect from 6 April 2026 (with the net impact of the fee increases after receipt of additional income to be contained within the proposed inflationary pressure bid of £10.566 million submitted for approval as part of the 2026-27 budget proposals).” Document, 23 April 2026 ↗
19. For comparison, the prior year's equivalent fee review (2025/26) had approved a larger 28.2 million pound distribution of fee increases to Adult Social Care fees, effective 7 April 2025, showing the 2026/27 uplift package is a smaller cash sum than the year before.
“FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2025/26 RESOLVED 2025/009 That the proposed distribution of £28.2 million fee increases to Adult Social Care fees, in line with the proposed uplifts as outlined in the report, be approved with effect from 7 April 2025.” Document, 23 June 2025 ↗
20. Cabinet resolved on 5 March 2026 to approve a refreshed Adult Social Care Charging Policy, including new flat rate discretionary charges, to be implemented from 6 April 2026, and approved the annual use of full cost recovery modelling to review the costs of delivering the services associated with those flat rate discretionary charges.
“9. ADULT SOCIAL CARE CHARGING POLICY (INCLUDING FLAT RATE DISCRETIONARY CHARGES) RESOLVED 2026/007 1) That the refreshed Adult Social Care Charging Policy be approved. 2) That the flat rate charges included in the refreshed Policy be implemented from 6 April 2026.” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
“4) That the use of the full cost recovery modelling on an annual basis to review costs in delivering the services associated with the flat rate discretionary charges be approved.” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
21. The same Cabinet decision also approved using home-based care rates for people remaining in reablement services while their ongoing long-term care and support is arranged, with those rates to be reviewed annually alongside the home-based care rate review.
“5) That the use of home-based care rates for people that remain in reablement services whilst their ongoing long-term care and support is being arranged be approved and that these be reviewed in line with the home-based care rate review on an annual basis.” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
22. The Adult Social Care and Public Health Select Committee was told, in an update on the Day Opportunities Strategy 2022-27, that the council had reduced its day opportunities building locations from 10 to 8, and that services had ceased operating from the previous Mansfield and Netherfield locations at the end of 2024, with people using those services supported to move to alternative locations.
“Members noted that there had been a reduction in the number of building locations from 10 to eight . The following services were now being delivered: • 4 Community Hubs in Newark, Ashfield, Broxtowe and Worksop (Albion Close) • 2 Promoting Independence Hubs in Worksop Library and Bingham • 1 Specialist Dementia Hub in Ollerton • 1 Specialist Autism Hub in Gedling • 1 Employment Hub at Brooke Farm/ Newark satellite. The Service Director noted that services had ceased to operate from the previous Mansfield and Netherfield locations at the end of 2024.” Document, 21 July 2025 ↗
23. At a later scrutiny meeting reviewing the same strategy, officers confirmed that six individuals from the former Mansfield site and two from the former Netherfield site had not moved on to alternative day service provision after those sites closed.
“Six individuals from the previous Mansfield site and two from the Netherfield site had not moved to alternative day service provision.” Document, 21 July 2025 ↗
24. At the 14 May 2026 County Council meeting, responding to a question from Councillor Richard Darrington on rising financial pressures from high-cost children's homes and external placements, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Rory Green, acknowledged that a placement breakdown could sharply increase costs but said the department had brought in a consultancy firm to strengthen decision-making and that it was not in deficit.
“we’re making best use of the value of the money, so we’re not in deficit from that.” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“sometimes these complex issues can lead to a breakdown, and then you have to have an emergency which rockets the cost” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“How is this Council responding to increasing financial pressures associated with high cost children’s homes and external placements?” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
25. Nottinghamshire's Overview Committee was told in January and March 2026 that the Council was carrying a deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs Block driven by demand for SEND provision, a position it likened to many other authorities, with government expected to take over SEND funding from 2028 but no confirmed mechanism yet for how the negative balances councils are carrying will be managed in the meantime.
“In relation to a question regarding the budget deficit in the Dedicated Schools budget due to SEND costs and planned savings, Members were advised that the Council was now in a similar position to many other authorities.” Document, 15 January 2026 ↗
“The Government had recently announced it would be taking on SEND funding entirely from 2028, however there was no information yet regarding how the negative balances councils were carrying would be managed.” Document, 15 January 2026 ↗
“Members were advised that the service was demand led, and despite careful budget management was over budget.” Document, 12 March 2026 ↗
“Many councils were over budget in this area due to demand for SEND provision and the Government was expected to look at how HNB deficits could be managed early this year” Document, 12 March 2026 ↗
26. At the Children and Families Select Committee on 16 March 2026, officers said the Council was developing a Local SEND Reform Plan for submission to Government under a scheme that would write off 90% of a council's SEND deficit; an amendment requiring the Select Committee to review and approve that plan before its end-of-March 2026 submission was moved, debated and lost on a show of hands, so the Committee did not secure a formal sign-off role before the plan went to Government.
“With regards to the plans highlighted in the Education White Paper around councils providing a Local SEND Reform Plan to the Government in return for writing off 90% of their deficit in SEND funding, officers were currently working on the plan.” Minutes, 13 July 2026 ↗
“An amendment was proposed and seconded for a meeting of the Children and Families Select Committee to take place to review and approve the Council’s Local SEND Reform Plan before it was submitted to the Government at the end of March 2026.” Minutes, 13 July 2026 ↗
“Following a debate the Chairman put the amendment to the meeting and after a show of hands the Chairman declared that the amendment had fallen.” Minutes, 13 July 2026 ↗
27. Nottinghamshire Cabinet's Budget 2026-27 proposals, put to Cabinet on 29 January 2026 for recommendation to Full Council, included a proposed review of discretionary home-to-school transport schemes, disclosed in a councillor's declaration of interest because it could affect Catholic schools in the county; the retrieved minutes record only that the review was proposed within the budget papers, not its conclusions or any confirmed change to eligibility or charges.
“the proposed review of discretionary home to school transport schemes contained within the budget proposals” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗
28. The Children and Families Select Committee was told on 14 July 2025 that Nottinghamshire's rate of EHCP assessments completed within the statutory timescale had risen from 4.5% to 47%, just above the then national average of 46%, following a 2023 Ofsted/CQC Area SEND Inspection that had found the Local Area Partnership failing on timely EHCP delivery; a follow-up Ofsted/CQC monitoring inspection reported in October 2025 found the Partnership had taken “effective action” on that priority area, meaning the council is not recorded as below the national EHCP-timeliness rate and is not shown in these minutes to be subject to a formal SEND improvement notice, though it remained under continued Ofsted/CQC monitoring.
“Previously, the number of EHCP assessments completed by the Partnership to the statutory timescales stood at 4.5%. At present, this number was at 47%.” Document, 13 October 2025 ↗
“The current national average was 46%.” Document, 13 October 2025 ↗
“they reported that the Partnership had taken “effective action” in the two priority areas which had been highlighted in the previous Area Inspection back in January/February 2023.” Document, 1 December 2025 ↗
29. At Full Council on 14 May 2026, Councillor Neil Clarke MBE moved (seconded by Councillor Roger Upton) 'MOTION ONE - PROTECTING LOCAL HIGHWAYS FROM THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL HOUSING TARGETS', calling on the Council to press government for a fairer share of Section 106/278 and CIL developer contributions to fund new and existing highways infrastructure; an amendment moved by Councillor Mike Robertson (seconded by Councillor Russell Dodd), recasting the request around the incoming Infrastructure Levy model and adding a request for officers to review the last five years of Section 106/278 agreements and CIL infrastructure funding statements, was accepted by the mover and the altered substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.
“MOTION ONE – PROTECTING L OCAL HIGHWAYS FROM THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL HOUSING TARGETS A motion as set out below was moved by Councillor Neil Clarke MBE and seconded by Councillor Roger Upton” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“An amendment to the motion as set out below was moved by Councillor Mike Robertson and seconded by Councillor Russell Dodd” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“The amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and became the altered substantive motion.” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“Following a debate, the Chairman put the substantive motion (as altered) to the meeting and after a show of hands the Chairman declared it was carried and it was:- RESOLVED: 2026/023” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“requesting urgent action to introduce the proposed changes to Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions to” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
30. As altered, the resolved motion requests officers bring forward a report reviewing the last five years of Section 106 and Section 278 agreements, alongside district and borough councils' CIL infrastructure funding statements, to assess whether Nottinghamshire is receiving the maximum highways contributions it is entitled to.
“Request officers bring forward a report reviewing the last five years of Section 106 and Section 278 agreements , in addition to Nottinghamshire’s district and borough councils annual infrastructure funding statements relative to CIL, to assess whether Nottinghamshire County Council is receiving the maximum highways contributions it is entitled to” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
31. On 23 April 2026 Nottinghamshire's Cabinet resolved (2026/013) to approve the Phase 2 Highways Capital and Revenue Programmes -- including an additional Council Capital Maintenance Programme -- and to vary the Transport and Environment Portfolio Capital Programme by £15m to fund additional investment in the Highways Improvement Programme, financed from borrowing.
“4. PHASE 2 – HIGHWAYS CAPITAL AND REVENUE PROGRAMMES RESOLVED 2026/013 1) That the following programmes be approved for delivery (subject to the provisions set out in paragraphs 63, 64 and 67 of the report): a. the proposed additional Council Capital Maintenance Programme” Document, 11 June 2026 ↗
“2) That, subject to the support of the Corporate Asset Management Group, the Transport and Environment Portfolio Capital Programme be varied by £15m to reflect the additional investment in the Highways Improvement Programme funded from borrowing.” Document, 11 June 2026 ↗
32. At Place Select Committee on 8 December 2025, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment Councillor Bert Bingham presented the council's Highways Review, which reported that Nottinghamshire has 2,760 miles of road with an estimated replacement value of £10bn and that officers described the shortfall in funding for highway asset maintenance as a national issue, while stating the council's ambition was to match or exceed current highway funding levels.
“Regarding the Council’s ambition for the highway budget, officers confirmed the Council’s intention was to match or exceed current funding levels.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“Officers noted the deficit in funding allocated to drainage assets, explaining the issue of highway asset depreciation and backlog was a national issue.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“there were 2,760 miles of roads in Nottinghamshire which had an estimated replacement value of £10bln.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
33. The same Highways Review told the committee that the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) was expected to invest £183 million in highways and transport across all its constituent authorities, and members urged the Cabinet Member to ensure Nottinghamshire received a fair share.
“Members urged the Cabinet Member to ensure Nottinghamshire receive d a fair share of funding from EMCCA allocated across all areas.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“EMCCA was expected to invest £183mln in highways and transport across all constituent authorities.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
34. Officers told the committee that Local Government Reorganisation had curtailed the county's medium-term waste planning and added further complexity to ongoing waste reforms, including uncertainty over which future authority would run recycling and disposal facilities.
“LGR added another level of complexity to already ongoing waste reforms, particularly on account of proposals to split the county.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“Members were asked to note that the implementation of LGR had curtailed medium term planning” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
35. Nottinghamshire County Council's Place Select Committee heard in December 2025 that food-waste caddy designs were being standardised jointly with the seven district and borough councils under the Government's collection and packaging reforms, but that trials of different food-waste collection methods would not begin until September 2026.
“There would be trials in place from September 2026 aimed to assess how different methods of collecting food waste worked in practice.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“The designs and colours of the kitchen and street cabbies for food waste would be standardised across the seven districts and boroughs due to the upcoming changes in the structure of local government in Nottinghamshire created by LGR.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
36. The committee's resolution on implementing Collection and Packaging Reforms only noted the key milestones and preparations, without committing to a firm date for weekly food-waste collection to be running across Nottinghamshire.
“That the key milestones for the implementation of Collection and Packaging Refo rms in Nottinghamshire be noted.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
37. Nottinghamshire County Council has not formally objected to the government's mandatory standard-method housing targets; the only Full Council motion touching national housing targets, moved on 14 May 2026, accepted the targets as given and instead sought fairer developer contributions towards highways. Councillor Neil Clarke MBE moved the motion 'Protecting Local Highways from the Impact of National Housing Targets', seconded by Councillor Roger Upton, calling for the government to close loopholes in developer contribution rules; an amendment from Councillor Mike Robertson (seconded Councillor Russell Dodd) was accepted by the mover and the altered substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.
“The amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and became the altered substantive motion. Following a debate, the Chairman put the substantive motion (as altered) to the meeting and after a show of hands the Chairman declared it was carried” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“MOTION ONE – PROTECTING L OCAL HIGHWAYS FROM THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL HOUSING TARGETS A motion as set out below was moved by Councillor Neil Clarke MBE and seconded by Councillor Roger Upton” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
38. As the upper-tier authority, Nottinghamshire County Council does not maintain a housing Local Plan (that role sits with its constituent district and borough councils); its own plan-making role covers minerals and waste. On 18 September 2025 full Council adopted, rather than paused or withdrew, the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan: Councillor Bert Bingham moved the adoption motion, seconded by Councillor Mick Barton, and it was carried on a show of hands.
“NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAM WASTE LOCAL PLAN – ADOPTION Councillor Bert Bingham introduced the report and moved a motion in terms of resolution 2025/032 below. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mick Barton.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED: 2025/032 That full Council approve the adoption of the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan as contained in Appendix 3 of the report.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
39. At the same 18 September 2025 meeting, a petition from Councillor Stuart Matthews requesting an urgent review of the Minerals Local Plan was received and referred to the appropriate Cabinet Member for consideration, with a report to come back to Council in due course; the corpus does not contain a record of that report or any resulting decision to pause, withdraw or delay the Minerals Local Plan.
“Councillor Stuart Matthews regarding a request for an urgent review of the Minerals Local Plan” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED: 2025/029 That the petitions be referred to the appropriate Cabinet Member for consideration in accordance with the Procedure Rules, with a report being b rought back to Council in due course.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
40. On 16 December 2025 Nottinghamshire's Planning and Rights of Way Committee refused a minerals extraction application for Land at Mill Hill and Barton in Fabis, a site within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, after objectors and the local county councillor argued it failed the NPPF's 'very special circumstances' test for Green Belt development; a recorded vote saw only 4 members support granting permission against 7 against, and the motion to grant fell. The committee's resolution refused the application for reasons of unconvincing need, uncertain hydrological impacts, unavoidable ecological harm and visual impact, rather than citing Green Belt harm specifically as the refusal reason.
“The application failed to demonstrate “very special circumstances” required under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“That the application be refused for the following reasons: a) the need for the site was not compelling, the hydrological impacts were uncertain, there would be ecological harm which could not be avoided, and there would be visual impacts which were inherent to the site’s design going up an incline.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“The requisite number of Members requested a recorded vote, and it was ascertained that the following 4 members voted ‘For’ the motion” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“The site was within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
41. Nottinghamshire County Council's published minutes show no motion to postpone or cancel elections pending local government reorganisation. Instead, the scheduled County Council elections went ahead as normal on 1 May 2025 (the election that brought the Reform administration to power), and Full Council subsequently noted the outcome by resolution.
“RESOLVED: 2025/016 That the outcome of the County Council elections on 1 May 2025, as set out in Appendix A of the report, be noted.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
42. Nottinghamshire County Council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), an existing mayoral combined county authority; the Council formally approved its priority areas for collaboration with EMCCA in 2025 and separately resolved to use its role as a constituent council of EMCCA to lobby the elected East Midlands Mayor on policy (e.g. a proposed tourism tax), predating and continuing alongside the current LGR process.
“RESOLVED 2025/015 That the range of priority areas for collaboration for the Council to develop and deliver with the East Midlands Combined County Authority, as set out in the appendix to the report, be approved.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
“Uses its role as a constituent Counci l of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) to influence against any plans to introduce a tourism tax affecting Nottinghamshire and call on the East Midlands Mayor” Document, 14 May 2026 ↗
43. The Council's Overview Committee was told that the proposal being developed under Option 1b would set out the case for two new unitary councils for Nottinghamshire, one serving the more urban communities in and around Nottingham and the other serving the more rural areas, towns and villages, a shift from the county's earlier single-unitary preference.
“It was reported that t he proposal that was being developed w ould outline the case for developing two new successful unitary councils; one that w ould serve the more urban communities in and around Nottingham; and the other which would serve the more rural areas, towns and villages” Document, 27 November 2025 ↗
44. At an Extraordinary Full Council meeting on 2 September 2025, Councillor Sam Smith (seconded by Councillor Bruce Laughton) moved an amendment to reaffirm the Council's earlier preference for the single-unitary Option 2, but it was defeated by a recorded vote of 39 against to 16 for (3 abstentions); the original motion, based instead on the PwC options appraisal's Option 1b, was then carried by 43 votes to 11.
“The Chairman declared that the motion was carried and it was:- 5 RESVOLVED: 2025/028 That Council:” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“This Council re -affirms its preference for Option 2, as approved by Full Council on March 20 th, which would see the current Nottinghamshire County Council area form a Unitary Council and the current Nottingham City Council boundary remain as it is.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen. Following a debate on the original motion, the original motion was put to the meeting.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
45. A Conservative-backed notice of motion moved by Councillor Teresa Cullen (seconded by Councillor John Wilmott), which would have had the Council oppose any reorganisation not backed by robust independently-verified evidence and run a fuller public consultation before committing to a final proposal, was defeated 35 votes to 19 (2 abstentions); the Council's formal position therefore remained one of proceeding with reorganisation, not opposing it.
“This Council resolves to: 1) Oppose any reorganisation of Nottinghamshire’s local government structures that is not clearly supported by robust, independently verified evidence of service improvement. 2) Conduct a full and comprehensive consultation, not restricted to just the three interim proposals, with the public and stak eholders in Nottinghamshire before committing to any final proposal ahead of the November 2025 deadline.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen. The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 4.35pm.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
46. On 20 November 2025, Full Council voted 46 to 11 to approve this two-unitary proposal as the Council's final proposal for local government reorganisation and recommended that the Leader submit it to Government under the statutory invitation.
“That the documents attached in Appendices A and B of the report be approved as the Council ’s final proposal for local government reorganisation in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“That Council recommends that the Leader of the Council submit the proposal to government in accordance with the statutory invitation as the Council ’s final proposal for local government reorganisation.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“The Chairman declared the motion was carried and it was:- RESOLVED: 2025/041” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
47. The Council's LGR proposal states that the new unitary authorities to be created for Nottinghamshire would themselves become EMCCA constituent authorities, so continued membership of the East Midlands mayoral combined county authority is built into the reorganisation proposal rather than being a separate, newly agreed step; no evidence was found in Nottinghamshire's published minutes of the council naming itself as being in a 'Devolution Priority Programme'.
“It was reported that new unitary authorities in Nottinghamshire would become EMCCA constituent authorities.” Document, 27 November 2025 ↗
48. Nottinghamshire Cabinet resolved on 23 June 2025 to commission a Member-led review of the Council's Highway Services, part of the new administration's stated commitment to review the service, and established a Cabinet Working Group to carry it out.
“That a Member led review of the Council’s Highway Services takes place as described in the report, as part of the new administration’s commitment to review all aspects of this service area focussing on the potential for improved outcomes for residents.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
49. At Full Council on 10 July 2025 the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment said the highway maintenance programme, delivered via the contractor VIA, had not been changed and was continuing as before while the Cabinet Working Group's review was under way.
“We’ve also inherited a road maintenance program which we haven’t actually changed anything at the moment, so its continuing as was.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
50. At the same meeting the Cabinet Member confirmed a highways review had been commissioned, with a cabinet working group appointed and visiting VIA East Midlands, reporting back around October 2025.
“Yes, as I said, we have now commissioned a highways review, there’s a cabinet working group appointed. Our cabinet working group will be going out t o Via East Midlands next week and we’ve already scoped the report.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
51. Cabinet resolved on 6 November 2025 to endorse the outcomes of the Highways Review and for the Cabinet Member Working Group to continue meeting quarterly to monitor an action plan on highways matters, rather than record a decision to re-procure, restructure or insource the highways contract.
“That the Cabinet Member Working Group continues to meet on a quarterly basis to receive updates on progress from the Highways Review work, through the monitoring of an action plan and other related highways matters as outlined in the report.” Document, 18 December 2025 ↗
“That the outcomes from the Highways Review which had been taking place following on from the Cabinet decision of 25 June 2025 be endorsed.” Document, 18 December 2025 ↗
52. Overview Committee was told on 12 March 2026 that Via East Midlands, the Council's highways and fleet management service, would deliver efficiencies through back office and administrative savings which would not affect the delivery or scale of Via's frontline services, indicating the contract continued unchanged.
“Via East Midlands, the Council’s highways and fleet management service , would deliver efficiencies though back office and administrative savings, which would not affect the delivery or scale of Via’s frontline services.” Document, 7 May 2026 ↗
53. Nottinghamshire County Council's Overview Committee, scrutinising the draft Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Strategy (2026-2029) introduced by Councillor Dawn Justice, Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health, was told that core funding for the service was provided through the statutory Domestic Abuse Duty, allocated to the Council by population, that this funding would reduce following Local Government Reorganisation because the Council area would be smaller, and that safe-accommodation services would need to be recommissioned from 2029 on the new Council footprint. The Committee's recorded resolution only noted the Strategy and asked for an implementation report after one year; the retrieved minutes do not record Cabinet or full Council making a decision to commission, recommission, reduce or decommission Part 4 safe-accommodation funding.
“Councillor Dawn Justice, Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health introduced the report which provided the draft Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Strategy (2026-2029) for consideration and feedback from the Committee.” Document, 12 March 2026 ↗
“Core funding for the service was provided via the Domestic Abuse Duty which was allocated to the Council based on population numbers. This meant that the funding would reduce following LGR as the Council area would be smaller than it was currently. Services would need to be recommissioned from 2029 based on the new Council footprint following LGR.” Document, 12 March 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED 2026/002 1) That the considerations and comments of Overview Committee on the draft Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Strategy 2026-2029 be noted.” Document, 12 March 2026 ↗
54. Nottinghamshire County Council's published Cabinet minutes list its Cabinet membership as ten councillors: Mick Barton (Chairman), Dr John Doddy (Vice-Chairman), Barry Answer, Bert Bingham, Rory Green, Dawn Justice, Stuart Matthews, James Walker-Gurley, Martin Wright and Simon Wright; of the ten names recorded, nine (Barton, Doddy, Answer, Bingham, Green, Matthews, Walker-Gurley, Martin Wright, Simon Wright) are conventionally male first names and one (Dawn Justice) is a conventionally female first name, so the published executive arrangements record a majority-male Cabinet. This membership list was unchanged (bar recorded apologies) as of the most recent Cabinet meeting on 23 April 2026.
“minutes Meeting Cabinet Date Thursday 23 April 2026 (commencing at 10.30 am) membership COUNCILLORS Mick Barton (Chairman) Dr John Doddy (Vice-Chairman) - apologies Barry Answer Bert Bingham Rory Green Dawn Justice Stuart Matthews James Walker-Gurley Martin Wright - apologies Simon Wright - apologies” Document, 11 June 2026 ↗
“membership COUNCILLORS Mick Barton (Chairman) Dr John Doddy (Vice-Chairman) Barry Answer Bert Bingham Rory Green Dawn Justice Stuart Matthews James Walker-Gurley Martin Wright Simon Wright” Document, 5 March 2026 ↗