The Cabinet of Rushmoor Council met on Thursday 20 August 2026, approving an additional budget for the regeneration of Nos. 16-18 The Meads in Farnborough and agreeing to settle a right of light claim related to the Union Yard development.

Nos. 16-18 The Meads, Farnborough - Additional Budget Requirement

The Cabinet approved an increase to the capital budget for the regeneration project at Nos. 16-18 The Meads, Farnborough. The additional funding, totalling up to £35,000 for completion of works and a further £15,000 for contingency, will be funded from capital receipts balances. This decision aims to enable the completion of the building works by the end of September 2026.

Members were informed that unforeseen costs had arisen due to the complexity of ground conditions and the refurbishment of an ageing asset, leading to an overspend of the original budget. While supportive of the project's contribution to the regeneration of Farnborough town centre, concerns were raised about the project exceeding its allocated budget, a trend noted in other recent projects. Consequently, the Cabinet agreed that the method for calculating project budgets and contingencies should be thoroughly reviewed. The report detailed that the additional costs were attributed to foundations (£38,828), utilities and fire systems (£7,550), asbestos (£3,411), tenant requirements (£18,432), design complexities (£27,189), and additional preliminary costs due to delays (£10,707). The total capital budget for this project will now be £786,590.

Union Yard - Right of Light Claim - Empire Banqueting Hall

The Cabinet agreed to settle a compensation claim from the owners of a nearby property concerning an alleged interference with their right to light caused by the Union Yard development. This decision was made to avoid legal proceedings. The Cabinet approved the establishment of a Supplementary Budget within the Revenue Account, funded from the Stability and Resilience revenue reserve, to cover the settlement amount, which was detailed in an exempt report. Members queried the appropriateness of insurance against such claims, but were advised that this type of insurance was cost-prohibitive.