Publish one record of promises, decisions and results

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.

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

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

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

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.