Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
Hampshire faces huge cuts after plea for help is rejected Hampshire councillors will next month start looking for m...
Hampshire faces huge cuts after plea for help is rejected Hampshire councillors will next month start looking for millions of pounds in cuts after the government rejected a plea for help in funding a huge compensation payout.

The county council sought permission to borrow £18.5 million to spread the impact of a claim and associated court costs arising from a factory fire in 1990. The factory's insurance company won a High Court ruling that the fire service, and therefore the council, was negligent. The council is appealing against the ruling.

A council spokeswoman said paying legal costs and £16m compensation had virtually exhausted its reserves, leaving it with little to cushion an anticipated £21m gap next year between its cap and the spending needed to maintain services. She said the severity of cuts meant councillors would start the process next month, well ahead of the normal budget round.

Council leader Mike Hancock, describing the DoE announcement as 'another nail in the coffin', said the council is being punished for building up reserves.

He said: 'We raided every pot to meet the legal bill. Then the government tells us that because we were a sensible council, because we found the money in reserves, that we don't need help. That's unbelievable. If we have to make these cuts next year, it will hurt everyone in the community.'

A DoE spokesman said the loan required Treasury approval as it would have increased the public sector borrowing requirement and ministers felt a strong enough case had not been made.

'They have already paid it and they are appealing. We will be looking at what happens over a period of time,' he added.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.