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
- Turn housing allocations into a deliverable programmePortsmouth City Council, developers and Homes England · Counts proposal
- Prevent homelessness and show whether rented homes improvePortsmouth City Council housing services, landlords and local support organisations · Counts proposal
- Publish a costed plan for children needing extra supportPortsmouth City Council, schools, academy trusts and NHS services · Counts proposal
- Target access and prevention where health gaps are greatestNHS commissioners and providers, Portsmouth public health and community organisations · Counts proposal
- Connect port and university activity to local skillsPortsmouth City Council, port, university, colleges and employers · Counts proposal
- Measure what cleaner shipping and transport actually deliverPortsmouth City Council, Portsmouth International Port and transport operators · Counts proposal
- Track coastal protection through completion and upkeepCoastal Partners, Portsmouth City Council and the Environment Agency · Counts proposal
- Make new leisure facilities usable across the cityPortsmouth City Council and facility operators · Counts proposal
- Reduce repeated dumping at known hotspotsPortsmouth City Council environmental services, landlords and waste carriers · Counts proposal
- Connect water-company work to beach water resultsSouthern Water, Environment Agency and Portsmouth City Council · Counts proposal
- Link neighbourhood safety priorities to measured resultsSafer Portsmouth Partnership, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary and the council · Counts proposal
- Publish one record of promises, decisions and resultsPortsmouth City Council, Team Portsmouth partners and regional authority · Counts proposal
Counts proposal
Turn housing allocations into a deliverable programme
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council, developers and Homes England
Start soon
Publish the main obstacle and responsible body for each major housing site.
Build next
Agree infrastructure, funding and affordable-housing requirements before committing to delivery dates.
Longer term
Track completed homes and affordability against the agreed programme.
How to judge progress: Homes completed; affordable homes completed; delay against published milestones.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 308 homes against 2,702 required in the 2025 three-year delivery test.
Why this response: The delivery test shows a sustained shortfall; plan examination alone does not remove site constraints.
Trade-off: Faster delivery must still address flood risk, nature, infrastructure and genuinely affordable homes.
Cost and funding: Not costed. Each site needs an evidenced funding and infrastructure plan.
Counts proposal
Prevent homelessness and show whether rented homes improve
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council housing services, landlords and local support organisations
Start soon
Join up help with rent problems and publish clear licensing and inspection results.
Build next
Report hazards fixed, complaints resolved and moves from temporary accommodation into settled homes.
Longer term
Compare repeat homelessness and housing stability over time.
How to judge progress: Settled moves; repeat homelessness; hazards remedied; time to resolve complaints.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 608 households and 612 children in temporary accommodation on 31 March 2026; inspection-outcome baseline not established here.
Why this response: Temporary accommodation and shared-housing records show pressure, but neither measures housing quality or lasting stability.
Trade-off: Enforcement needs staff and can reduce room supply if unsafe homes close without replacement.
Cost and funding: Not costed; separate staffing, prevention support and replacement housing costs.
Counts proposal
Publish a costed plan for children needing extra support
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council, schools, academy trusts and NHS services
Start soon
Show where assessment and therapy queues build up and who is responsible for each wait.
Build next
Set out staffing and support options with costs, including help before attendance collapses.
Longer term
Track timely plans, attendance and family experience by need, without identifying children.
How to judge progress: Plans completed within 20 weeks; severe absence; waiting times and family experience.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 42.9% of plans on time in 2025; severe absence 3.54769% in 2024/25.
Why this response: The existing UK Facts action plan proposes a costed support plan; the current records show delays and severe absence.
Trade-off: Recruitment takes time and recurring support creates continuing costs; absence has more than one cause.
Cost and funding: Not costed; a published staffing and provision plan is needed before a total can be stated.
Counts proposal
Target access and prevention where health gaps are greatest
Who could act: NHS commissioners and providers, Portsmouth public health and community organisations
Start soon
Publish current service access and unmet need alongside existing health inequalities.
Build next
Test targeted access and prevention support in the communities with the clearest evidenced need.
Longer term
Track access, preventable ill health and whether gaps narrow.
How to judge progress: Waiting and access measures; uptake by neighbourhood; preventable-death rates over comparable periods.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Male and female inequality estimates are 9.4 and 7.8 years for 2022–24; dental use is not an unmet-demand measure.
Why this response: The city’s health gap is substantial; a city average can hide neighbourhood needs.
Trade-off: Resources moved to prevention may take years to improve outcomes and must not obscure urgent treatment needs.
Cost and funding: Not costed; requires an agreed service specification and workforce plan.
Counts proposal
Connect port and university activity to local skills
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council, port, university, colleges and employers
Start soon
Publish entry routes, apprenticeships and recruitment needs in one place.
Build next
Coordinate training with actual vacancies and support residents facing barriers to entry.
Longer term
Measure sustained jobs, progression and pay for residents rather than course enrolments alone.
How to judge progress: Training completions leading to sustained work; pay progression; employer participation.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Resident full-time median pay £36,022 versus £38,815 for jobs in Portsmouth, 2025.
Why this response: Large local institutions create opportunities, while workplace pay exceeds resident pay.
Trade-off: Skills training does not guarantee vacancies; transport, housing and childcare can still block access.
Cost and funding: Not costed; distinguish existing training budgets from any additional coordination and support.
Counts proposal
Measure what cleaner shipping and transport actually deliver
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council, Portsmouth International Port and transport operators
Start soon
Publish usage of shore power and the on-demand bus pilot alongside operating costs.
Build next
Assess air quality and access benefits, accounting for weather, traffic and who can use the service.
Longer term
Expand only where measured benefits and a funded operating plan support it.
How to judge progress: Connected vessel calls; electricity supplied; measured emissions; passenger journeys and cost per journey.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Sea Change is reported live; forecast savings from 2027 are not measured results. Pompey Link funding runs to March 2027.
Why this response: Sea Change is operational and Pompey Link is a time-limited pilot; both need outcome evidence.
Trade-off: New equipment and services need maintenance and electricity or subsidy; forecasts may not be achieved.
Cost and funding: No combined cost is published here; future expansion is uncosted.
Counts proposal
Track coastal protection through completion and upkeep
Who could act: Coastal Partners, Portsmouth City Council and the Environment Agency
Start soon
Show each remaining frontage, closure and delivery milestone.
Build next
Publish completion evidence and how maintenance and habitat obligations will be funded.
Longer term
Reassess protection as sea-level and flood models change.
How to judge progress: Frontages completed; independent inspections; maintenance delivered; residual modelled risk.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 2,849 properties in the high river/sea risk band in June 2026; do not treat this as the scheme-beneficiary count.
Why this response: Large coastal works address a material risk, but construction progress is different from maintained protection.
Trade-off: Works disrupt access and can affect habitats and heritage; protection cannot remove all flood risk.
Cost and funding: Use each scheme’s published budget; no new combined cost or benefit total is assumed.
Counts proposal
Make new leisure facilities usable across the city
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council and facility operators
Start soon
Publish opening stages, prices, accessible facilities and transport links.
Build next
Check who uses the facilities, who is excluded by cost or access, and what can be improved.
Longer term
Track sustained participation and operating costs alongside building condition.
How to judge progress: Participation by area; accessible sessions; affordability; maintenance and operating results.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Hilsea Lido reopened; Bransbury Park is under construction. Comparable participation baselines are not yet established here.
Why this response: Restored and new facilities create an opportunity, but completion alone does not demonstrate wider access.
Trade-off: Lower prices require a funding plan; access improvements compete with operating and maintenance budgets.
Cost and funding: Additional access measures are uncosted; do not reuse a capital budget as an operating-cost estimate.
Counts proposal
Reduce repeated dumping at known hotspots
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council environmental services, landlords and waste carriers
Start soon
Use council incident records to identify repeat locations and check collection barriers.
Build next
Combine targeted collections, clear disposal information and proportionate enforcement.
Longer term
Publish repeat-incident rates and costs, not only the total number of reports.
How to judge progress: Repeat incidents per hotspot; clearance times; cost per incident; justified enforcement outcomes.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 937 recorded incidents in 2024/25; a consistent hotspot recurrence baseline still needs publication.
Why this response: A falling total can still leave the same streets repeatedly affected.
Trade-off: Enforcement and extra collections cost money; higher reporting can initially increase recorded incidents.
Cost and funding: Not costed; compare additional collection and enforcement costs against avoided clear-up work.
Counts proposal
Connect water-company work to beach water results
Who could act: Southern Water, Environment Agency and Portsmouth City Council
Start soon
Link each promised improvement to its location, deadline and monitoring evidence.
Build next
Publish delivery progress and distinguish spills, rainfall, bathing samples and other pollution sources.
Longer term
Assess whether comparable water-quality results improve over several seasons.
How to judge progress: Completed works; overflow hours and volumes where measured; bathing-water samples and classification.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Southsea East Poor in 2025; The Henderson Road, Eastney overflow recorded 86 spills in 2025.
Why this response: The poor beach classification needs a clear route from investment to measured improvement.
Trade-off: Works cost money and cause disruption; rainfall and other sources complicate attribution.
Cost and funding: Use the operator’s approved project costs; no new local total is inferred.
Counts proposal
Link neighbourhood safety priorities to measured results
Who could act: Safer Portsmouth Partnership, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary and the council
Start soon
Publish the current local priorities alongside matched crime categories and reporting routes.
Build next
Explain the action, responsible service and review date for each priority.
Longer term
Track repeat harm and outcomes, while checking changes in reporting and recording.
How to judge progress: Matched-category trends; repeat victimisation where available; case outcomes; independently gathered resident experience.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: Keep the shared police feed’s exact window, coverage and population vintage beside each result; no invented ward target.
Why this response: Police.uk supplies local incident evidence, but it does not by itself explain causes or prove which intervention works.
Trade-off: More enforcement can raise recorded offences; targeting one location may move incidents elsewhere.
Cost and funding: Not costed; distinguish existing deployment from additional funded services.
Counts proposal
Publish one record of promises, decisions and results
Who could act: Portsmouth City Council, Team Portsmouth partners and regional authority
Start soon
Give each commitment a stable identifier, responsible organisation and next evidence date.
Build next
Link budget approvals, contracts, completion evidence and changes in scope.
Longer term
Keep a public history of outcomes and explain delays or abandoned proposals.
How to judge progress: Commitments with named owners, current milestones, verified spending and published outcomes.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: The retained partnership review found no single published progress ledger. Its review date is retained rather than silently refreshed.
Why this response: Residents should be able to trace the connection between a stated issue, a funded response and its result.
Trade-off: Maintaining a record takes staff time; missing evidence must not be presented as proof nothing happened.
Cost and funding: Not costed; should be assessed against existing reporting and democratic-services work.
