Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 15th October 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 15th October 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 15th October 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 15th October 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
15 Oct 2025
15 Oct 2025
Location:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Meeting Attendees
Public
Bob Foster Honorary Alderman
Expected
Public
Margaret Snaith-Tempia Honorary Alderman
Expected
Committee Member
Councillor Jonathan Brown
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Ms Sue Ballard
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Mrs June Cully
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Stephen Hammond
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor David Herridge
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Jamie Hutchison
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Robert Hylands
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Miss Dawn Kelly
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Philip Raffaelli CB FRCP
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Bob Maynard
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Mervin Bradley
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
NOTICE OF MOTION
Minutes
Notice was given of a suspension of standing orders 3.2.5 (b), to allow the presentation of a motion as follows.
Robust, lively and respectful political debate is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It is never acceptable for debate and disagreement to descend into abuse, threats and violence of any description, whether in person or online. The intimidation, personal attack and harassment of local politicians undermines democracy – preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election, and undermining public trust in democratic processes.
Gosport Borough Council notes the final report of The Jo Cox Civility Commission and commits to challenge the normalisation of abusive and aggressive behaviours against councillors, officers and contractors delivering public services for Gosport residents. This Council takes a zero tolerance approach to any form of language or action that risks compromising the safety and wellbeing of elected members and staff. Gosport Borough Council further commits to uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all its activities and interactions.
Therefore, this Council resolves:
A. To sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign, which aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate, and improve the response to and support those in public life facing abuse and intimidation.
B. That Group Leaders write to the leaders of their respective national parties (if applicable) to request their support for the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign.
C. That the Leader of the Council writes to the Minister for Local Government to support changes to legislation so that the home addresses of councillors are not published by default, the proposed legislation to come into effect as quickly as possible.
D. To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families. To also request the local Gosport District Police Inspector and the Borough Solicitor to investigate any complaints from councillors or members of staff about threatening, intimidatory or abusive behaviour from members of the public including members of political groups not currently represented on this Council.
E. That all councillors and officers are reminded of the process of how to report incidents of harassment and abuse.
F. That security and wellbeing resources are made available to all councillors through the Member Portal and included as part of the 2025 / 2026 Member Induction Programme
A Member advised that they proposed amendment to point D of the motion as follows
To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
Proposer Cllr Zoe Huggins
Seconder Cllr Stephen Philpott
Members felt that this was an important motion, and largely reflected what had been proposed by Councillor Huggins at the County Council.
Members acknowledged that there would always be difference in opinion but that debate and difference were respected. The national viral atmosphere that was being created with regard to those in the public eye was becoming an increased issue and Members in public office were fed up with it.
It was creating an atmosphere that was hateful, sometimes threatening and abusive and that this was unfair on Councillors, their partners and their families. There had been death threats and no one should have to tolerate such behaviour. The behaviour was distressing and offensive to all parties and that all Councillors were trying to do their best. In addition Members agreed to disagree and therefore supported the LGA’s debate not hate campaign.
MPS and Councillors have been murdered, had bricks through their windows, and no one should have to put up with such behaviour or intimidation.
Members should be reporting hate posts and such behaviour should be stopped.
A Member advised that the amendment addressed concerns that the motion changed the intent of the LGA motion, the statement was presented in a way that impacted all, and should apply to all.
It was reiterated there was nothing wrong with healthy debate and disagreement, but that abuse, threat and intimidation had no place. It was not design to shut down criticism or sanitise discussion that was passionate about was to allow Members to speak freely without repercussions that presented danger or threat to them.
It was not designed to supress accountability, but to protect from language that was offensive, including misogynistic.
Members detailed examples of how they/their families’ had been targeted with threats and intimidation and how Members of parties had suggested that opposing Councillors did not live in the ward they were representing as they had chosen to not publish their addresses in the interest of theirs and their families safety.
The threats and behaviour were preventing good people from applying to be in public office, the current behaviour wasn’t acceptable and reporting methods to the Police should be followed.
Members expressed their concern about hate speech and that in particular Facebook was being utilised, often with the comments providing the ground for hate speech. Members felt that previously sharing their home address made Councillors accessible to their constituents, but that increasingly it was proving to be impacting on Councillor’s safety.
Members reiterated that they welcomed the proposal and reflected on incidents where Councillors and MPS had been hurt, injured and threatened. This included on social media and tougher sentencing was coming forward for those convicted. Freedom of speech was welcome, but intimidation was not.
Members reflected that these actions were impacting on all Councillors and that safety should be paramount and that they should be able to undertake their duties without fear.
Members hoped that they could undertake their duties based on respect, humanitarianism and support rather than attack and abuse.
Members voted on the amendment as follows and it was carried.
That point D be amended to
To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
Members debated the substantive motion and it was agreed as follows.
Therefore, this Council resolves:
A. To sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign, which aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate, and improve the response to and support those in public life facing abuse and intimidation.
B. That Group Leaders write to the leaders of their respective national parties (if applicable) to request their support for the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign.
C. That the Leader of the Council writes to the Minister for Local Government to support changes to legislation so that the home addresses of councillors are not published by default, the proposed legislation to come into effect as quickly as possible.
D. To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
E. That all councillors and officers are reminded of the process of how to report incidents of harassment and abuse.
F. That security and wellbeing resources are made available to all councillors through the Member Portal and included as part of the 2025 / 2026 Member Induction Programme
Robust, lively and respectful political debate is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It is never acceptable for debate and disagreement to descend into abuse, threats and violence of any description, whether in person or online. The intimidation, personal attack and harassment of local politicians undermines democracy – preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election, and undermining public trust in democratic processes.
Gosport Borough Council notes the final report of The Jo Cox Civility Commission and commits to challenge the normalisation of abusive and aggressive behaviours against councillors, officers and contractors delivering public services for Gosport residents. This Council takes a zero tolerance approach to any form of language or action that risks compromising the safety and wellbeing of elected members and staff. Gosport Borough Council further commits to uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all its activities and interactions.
Therefore, this Council resolves:
A. To sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign, which aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate, and improve the response to and support those in public life facing abuse and intimidation.
B. That Group Leaders write to the leaders of their respective national parties (if applicable) to request their support for the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign.
C. That the Leader of the Council writes to the Minister for Local Government to support changes to legislation so that the home addresses of councillors are not published by default, the proposed legislation to come into effect as quickly as possible.
D. To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families. To also request the local Gosport District Police Inspector and the Borough Solicitor to investigate any complaints from councillors or members of staff about threatening, intimidatory or abusive behaviour from members of the public including members of political groups not currently represented on this Council.
E. That all councillors and officers are reminded of the process of how to report incidents of harassment and abuse.
F. That security and wellbeing resources are made available to all councillors through the Member Portal and included as part of the 2025 / 2026 Member Induction Programme
A Member advised that they proposed amendment to point D of the motion as follows
To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
Proposer Cllr Zoe Huggins
Seconder Cllr Stephen Philpott
Members felt that this was an important motion, and largely reflected what had been proposed by Councillor Huggins at the County Council.
Members acknowledged that there would always be difference in opinion but that debate and difference were respected. The national viral atmosphere that was being created with regard to those in the public eye was becoming an increased issue and Members in public office were fed up with it.
It was creating an atmosphere that was hateful, sometimes threatening and abusive and that this was unfair on Councillors, their partners and their families. There had been death threats and no one should have to tolerate such behaviour. The behaviour was distressing and offensive to all parties and that all Councillors were trying to do their best. In addition Members agreed to disagree and therefore supported the LGA’s debate not hate campaign.
MPS and Councillors have been murdered, had bricks through their windows, and no one should have to put up with such behaviour or intimidation.
Members should be reporting hate posts and such behaviour should be stopped.
A Member advised that the amendment addressed concerns that the motion changed the intent of the LGA motion, the statement was presented in a way that impacted all, and should apply to all.
It was reiterated there was nothing wrong with healthy debate and disagreement, but that abuse, threat and intimidation had no place. It was not design to shut down criticism or sanitise discussion that was passionate about was to allow Members to speak freely without repercussions that presented danger or threat to them.
It was not designed to supress accountability, but to protect from language that was offensive, including misogynistic.
Members detailed examples of how they/their families’ had been targeted with threats and intimidation and how Members of parties had suggested that opposing Councillors did not live in the ward they were representing as they had chosen to not publish their addresses in the interest of theirs and their families safety.
The threats and behaviour were preventing good people from applying to be in public office, the current behaviour wasn’t acceptable and reporting methods to the Police should be followed.
Members expressed their concern about hate speech and that in particular Facebook was being utilised, often with the comments providing the ground for hate speech. Members felt that previously sharing their home address made Councillors accessible to their constituents, but that increasingly it was proving to be impacting on Councillor’s safety.
Members reiterated that they welcomed the proposal and reflected on incidents where Councillors and MPS had been hurt, injured and threatened. This included on social media and tougher sentencing was coming forward for those convicted. Freedom of speech was welcome, but intimidation was not.
Members reflected that these actions were impacting on all Councillors and that safety should be paramount and that they should be able to undertake their duties without fear.
Members hoped that they could undertake their duties based on respect, humanitarianism and support rather than attack and abuse.
Members voted on the amendment as follows and it was carried.
That point D be amended to
To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
Members debated the substantive motion and it was agreed as follows.
Therefore, this Council resolves:
A. To sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign, which aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate, and improve the response to and support those in public life facing abuse and intimidation.
B. That Group Leaders write to the leaders of their respective national parties (if applicable) to request their support for the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign.
C. That the Leader of the Council writes to the Minister for Local Government to support changes to legislation so that the home addresses of councillors are not published by default, the proposed legislation to come into effect as quickly as possible.
D. To work with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner, the council's Solicitor, and local Gosport District Police Inspector to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting and investigating threats, intimidation, abusive behaviour, and other concerns about the safety of councillors, their families, and members of staff.
E. That all councillors and officers are reminded of the process of how to report incidents of harassment and abuse.
F. That security and wellbeing resources are made available to all councillors through the Member Portal and included as part of the 2025 / 2026 Member Induction Programme
1
To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting
Minutes
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Westerby.
2
Declarations of Interest
All Members are required to disclose at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any item(s) being considered at this meeting
Minutes
Councillor Huggins declared that she was a County Councillor on the climate change panel but had no decision making power with regard to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
3
Mayors Communications
Minutes
The Mayor advised that she had spent a large amount of time visiting events and activities across the Borough, this included the Michaelmas Fayre, the Car Rally, and Heritage Open Days. She had discussed with the Heritage Open Days Team about involving school children in the weekend and was impressed by the knowledge they had provided.
In addition she had held a charity talk evening, not only raising funds for her charities, but encouraging and inspiring others. She advised that her upcoming fundraising included running the Gosport Half Marathon and a race night.
She concluded by thanking the volunteers across the Borough who were delivering incredible support to the Borough, advising that she had hosted the Alver Valley Volunteers who worked hard to protect the valuable asset.
In addition she had held a charity talk evening, not only raising funds for her charities, but encouraging and inspiring others. She advised that her upcoming fundraising included running the Gosport Half Marathon and a race night.
She concluded by thanking the volunteers across the Borough who were delivering incredible support to the Borough, advising that she had hosted the Alver Valley Volunteers who worked hard to protect the valuable asset.
4
To confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 July 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting on 16 July 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 16/07/2025 Council 07 Oct 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16th July 2025 be signed as a true and correct record.
5
Deputations and Public Questions
(NOTE: Standing Order No. 3.4 requires that notice of a Deputation should be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON MONDAY 13 OCTOBER 2025 and likewise Standing Order No. 3.5 requires that notice of a Public Question should be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON MONDAY 13 OCTOBER 2025)
Minutes
It was agreed that to allow all questions that had been submitted to be answered that standing order 4.10.5 be suspended under standing order 3.2.5.
A Question in the name Mr Woods to Councillor Chegwyn.
On 01 October 2025 I asked the Policy and Organisation Board the following question, directed to and read by the Chairperson of the meeting and Council Leader, Cllr Chegwyn: 'Given the P&O Board under the Council Leader's Chairpersonship has approved and authorised over £906,000 of public funds to be spent on The Criterion Theatre project that has not moved on one step since the venue was purchased in 2022 (including a profit of £200,000 to the previous owner) will the Council Leader accept responsibility for this gross misappropriation of much needed taxpayer's money and offer his immediate resignation alongside other voting board members supporting this project go on record to apologise to Gosport's residents for their actions?"' Cllr Chegwyn's answer was, 'No'. My question is - who does the Leader of Gosport Borough Council believe should accept responsibility for this gross misappropriation of much needed taxpayer's money?"
Answer: In front of me are sat the following officers, the Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor who are all independent to party politics and professional and highly regarded officers that support this Council and oversee the decisions it makes. Mr Woods should either get evidence of misappropriation or a good defamation barrister.
A Question from Mr Webb to Councillor Chegwyn
Please can I ask Mr Chegwyn how GBC will address the major impact the new housing at Peel Common and within Gosport will have on the infrastructure of the town?
Answer: I am grateful for the question which raises a valid point, assuming that the development being referred to is on Newgate Lane, this was approved by Fareham Borough Council and Gosport Borough Council were only permitted to comment on it, not determine it. All planning applications considered by Gosport Borough Council are considered on their merits, in line with planning rules, but it was acknowledged that there needed to be provision for infrastructure like doctor’s surgeries. This was not the case for the Newgate Lane Development which was being accessed from a narrow road off of Brookers Lane. It was reiterated that sadly the application in question was not in the gift of Gosport Borough Council to have determined.
A question from Mr Towell to Councillor Chegwyn
Can the council reassure us that no member of council stands to profit from the reopening of the criterion centre, through their external business interests or otherwise, either now or in the future.
Answer: Yes, The Council operates a Code of Conduct which covers the declaration of pecuniary interests. All Councillors are bound by this and must not take part in discussions or voting and leave the room in the event they have a pecuniary interest.
A question from Mr Carter to Chegwyn
Answer: The Falklands gardens is one of the jewels in the borough’s crown and a real asset to our town and our local Falklands veterans.
However the main feature - the water fountain has been broken for over 18 months. Can you please confirm what the council is doing to fix this and tidy the area around it up?
It has been arranged to clean and tidy the area up, including a stone mason to clean the Lord Fieldhouse bust as it required specialist cleaning rather than wiping over as had been undertaken on carpark signs. With thanks to Kirsty Cope, Head of Public Spaces, the technical issues of the fountain were being investigated as there was issues with the proximity to the waterfront and wind direction impacting on the pump system as a result of water ingress. The Council was looking to spend wisely and would not be spending significant amounts of money on the repair if the cost was prohibitive and would consider a planting scheme.
In addition the administration had met with ex-service groups regarding locating a different or additional war memorial there. The area was sensitive and any amendments would be subject to consultation as the current site was so sensitive. It was also felt that any additional memorials should include provision for an Emergency Services memorial, but that any such changes would be consulted on.
A question from Mr Wroe to Councillor Chegwyn
Given that local government reorganisation is imminent and represents one of the most significant changes to local governance in a generation, can the Council explain why no public consultation, survey, or open meeting was held to seek the views of Gosport residents on this major change and its potential impact on local services and representation?
Answer: A fully independent public consultation was undertaken and 300 responses received and from the data obtained 77% of respondents did not support LGR and supported the hands off Gosport stance opposing the merger with Fareham, Havant and Portsmouth. A letter had been submitted, not supporting the proposal or the lines drawn on the map and did not agree to the formation of a greater Portsmouth Council. It was noted that Reform were supportive not to go ahead with LGR and it would not save money but cost councils more money.
Under standing order 5.2 the Council agreed to suspend standing orders to allow for the continuation of public questions to be answered outside of the 15 minute limit.
A question from Mr Figgins to Councillor Westerby, answered by Councillor Maynard
In light of concerns that the reported condition of some play park equipment does not match what is seen on site, can the Council confirm what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy and independence of play park safety inspections, and whether it will commission an independent inspection to verify the reports and ensure children’s safety is not being compromised?
Answer: I am assured that all play equipment is fit for purpose. With any equipment that is subject to hard use and abuse, there is a scheme of inspection in place that satisfies requirements and includes reports such as ROSPA.
A question from Mr Searle to Councillor Chegwyn
Why is the Council proposing to spend thousands of pounds on a new bandstand on Gosport waterfront when just over 100 metres away there is an already existing all-year-round entertainment space at the Millennium Time space Sundial which currently is in a filthy state, clearly damaged, obviously missing glass panels and clearly not being properly maintained?
Answer: The Time space and the sundial are not an entertainment space, it is used occasionally for the marine festival and other low level events. The People’s Park would present a different but appropriate entertainment space. Entertainment would also be of an appropriate level, jazz, shanty singers, rather than heavy rock and people would be able to enjoy the music whilst eating a meal or enjoying a drink. The timing of the music would also be appropriate.
A question from Julie Mundy to Councillor Chegwyn
I am a resident of Gosport and I am very concerned about the safety of all Gosport Councillors I have seen, over the last few months and increasing to daily, the hateful and dangerous use of Facebook to attack councillors and their families Our Councillors must be free to represent the people of Gosport without any hindrance or fear. Will the Leader follow the recommendations of The Crown Prosecution Service by reporting these issues to the police?
Answer: Yes some hateful behaviour by Reform UK is not acceptable.
We know where the hate is coming from and there should be respect for debate and respect for all views even when they are different. People that put themselves forward as Councillors do so to do their best for the Borough, photos of Councillors with the words ‘guilty’ on them cause anxiety and spread fear and concern for safety and incite behaviour that is not in the interest of local democracy. Councillors should not be attacked in this way, reports had been made to the Police and continue to do so, reflecting national security advice around the debate not hate motion that would later be proposed and would hopefully attract all party support.
A Question in the name Mr Woods to Councillor Chegwyn.
On 01 October 2025 I asked the Policy and Organisation Board the following question, directed to and read by the Chairperson of the meeting and Council Leader, Cllr Chegwyn: 'Given the P&O Board under the Council Leader's Chairpersonship has approved and authorised over £906,000 of public funds to be spent on The Criterion Theatre project that has not moved on one step since the venue was purchased in 2022 (including a profit of £200,000 to the previous owner) will the Council Leader accept responsibility for this gross misappropriation of much needed taxpayer's money and offer his immediate resignation alongside other voting board members supporting this project go on record to apologise to Gosport's residents for their actions?"' Cllr Chegwyn's answer was, 'No'. My question is - who does the Leader of Gosport Borough Council believe should accept responsibility for this gross misappropriation of much needed taxpayer's money?"
Answer: In front of me are sat the following officers, the Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor who are all independent to party politics and professional and highly regarded officers that support this Council and oversee the decisions it makes. Mr Woods should either get evidence of misappropriation or a good defamation barrister.
A Question from Mr Webb to Councillor Chegwyn
Please can I ask Mr Chegwyn how GBC will address the major impact the new housing at Peel Common and within Gosport will have on the infrastructure of the town?
Answer: I am grateful for the question which raises a valid point, assuming that the development being referred to is on Newgate Lane, this was approved by Fareham Borough Council and Gosport Borough Council were only permitted to comment on it, not determine it. All planning applications considered by Gosport Borough Council are considered on their merits, in line with planning rules, but it was acknowledged that there needed to be provision for infrastructure like doctor’s surgeries. This was not the case for the Newgate Lane Development which was being accessed from a narrow road off of Brookers Lane. It was reiterated that sadly the application in question was not in the gift of Gosport Borough Council to have determined.
A question from Mr Towell to Councillor Chegwyn
Can the council reassure us that no member of council stands to profit from the reopening of the criterion centre, through their external business interests or otherwise, either now or in the future.
Answer: Yes, The Council operates a Code of Conduct which covers the declaration of pecuniary interests. All Councillors are bound by this and must not take part in discussions or voting and leave the room in the event they have a pecuniary interest.
A question from Mr Carter to Chegwyn
Answer: The Falklands gardens is one of the jewels in the borough’s crown and a real asset to our town and our local Falklands veterans.
However the main feature - the water fountain has been broken for over 18 months. Can you please confirm what the council is doing to fix this and tidy the area around it up?
It has been arranged to clean and tidy the area up, including a stone mason to clean the Lord Fieldhouse bust as it required specialist cleaning rather than wiping over as had been undertaken on carpark signs. With thanks to Kirsty Cope, Head of Public Spaces, the technical issues of the fountain were being investigated as there was issues with the proximity to the waterfront and wind direction impacting on the pump system as a result of water ingress. The Council was looking to spend wisely and would not be spending significant amounts of money on the repair if the cost was prohibitive and would consider a planting scheme.
In addition the administration had met with ex-service groups regarding locating a different or additional war memorial there. The area was sensitive and any amendments would be subject to consultation as the current site was so sensitive. It was also felt that any additional memorials should include provision for an Emergency Services memorial, but that any such changes would be consulted on.
A question from Mr Wroe to Councillor Chegwyn
Given that local government reorganisation is imminent and represents one of the most significant changes to local governance in a generation, can the Council explain why no public consultation, survey, or open meeting was held to seek the views of Gosport residents on this major change and its potential impact on local services and representation?
Answer: A fully independent public consultation was undertaken and 300 responses received and from the data obtained 77% of respondents did not support LGR and supported the hands off Gosport stance opposing the merger with Fareham, Havant and Portsmouth. A letter had been submitted, not supporting the proposal or the lines drawn on the map and did not agree to the formation of a greater Portsmouth Council. It was noted that Reform were supportive not to go ahead with LGR and it would not save money but cost councils more money.
Under standing order 5.2 the Council agreed to suspend standing orders to allow for the continuation of public questions to be answered outside of the 15 minute limit.
A question from Mr Figgins to Councillor Westerby, answered by Councillor Maynard
In light of concerns that the reported condition of some play park equipment does not match what is seen on site, can the Council confirm what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy and independence of play park safety inspections, and whether it will commission an independent inspection to verify the reports and ensure children’s safety is not being compromised?
Answer: I am assured that all play equipment is fit for purpose. With any equipment that is subject to hard use and abuse, there is a scheme of inspection in place that satisfies requirements and includes reports such as ROSPA.
A question from Mr Searle to Councillor Chegwyn
Why is the Council proposing to spend thousands of pounds on a new bandstand on Gosport waterfront when just over 100 metres away there is an already existing all-year-round entertainment space at the Millennium Time space Sundial which currently is in a filthy state, clearly damaged, obviously missing glass panels and clearly not being properly maintained?
Answer: The Time space and the sundial are not an entertainment space, it is used occasionally for the marine festival and other low level events. The People’s Park would present a different but appropriate entertainment space. Entertainment would also be of an appropriate level, jazz, shanty singers, rather than heavy rock and people would be able to enjoy the music whilst eating a meal or enjoying a drink. The timing of the music would also be appropriate.
A question from Julie Mundy to Councillor Chegwyn
I am a resident of Gosport and I am very concerned about the safety of all Gosport Councillors I have seen, over the last few months and increasing to daily, the hateful and dangerous use of Facebook to attack councillors and their families Our Councillors must be free to represent the people of Gosport without any hindrance or fear. Will the Leader follow the recommendations of The Crown Prosecution Service by reporting these issues to the police?
Answer: Yes some hateful behaviour by Reform UK is not acceptable.
We know where the hate is coming from and there should be respect for debate and respect for all views even when they are different. People that put themselves forward as Councillors do so to do their best for the Borough, photos of Councillors with the words ‘guilty’ on them cause anxiety and spread fear and concern for safety and incite behaviour that is not in the interest of local democracy. Councillors should not be attacked in this way, reports had been made to the Police and continue to do so, reflecting national security advice around the debate not hate motion that would later be proposed and would hopefully attract all party support.
6
Members Questions
NOTE: Members are reminded that Standing Order No. 3.3 requires that Notice of Question pursuant to that Standing Order must be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER 2025 )
Minutes
It was agreed that Standing Order 4.8.6 be suspended under Standing Order 3.2.5 to allow all questions submitted to be answered
QUESTIONFROM CLLRPHILIP RAFFAELLI to CLLR CHEGWYN
Atthe P&OBoard meetingon 2July, theLiberal Democratparty Boardmembers voted to approvea furtherDirect Awardto Counterculture butwith aNote (1a}that Officers were to"seekalegalopinionregardingthe legalityofadirectawardbeingundertheUK procurementthreshold".WhatlegaladvicewasreceivedinthisregardandhasaDirect Award been made toCounterculture in respectof the spendapproved atthe 2 July P&O Board meeting?
Answer: Legal advice was sought at the cost of £6500 of tax payer’s money that the proposals for Counter Culture exceeded the threshold and therefore an award has not been made. Therefore no further engagement could be undertaken.
Supplementary question
Given the answer, would any future proposal have to come back to the Policy and Organisation Board for future consideration and consultation and will Counter Culture be barred from a future bid? In addition was the balcony that the venue was reliant on, viable and if it’s not would the project be immediately cancelled?
Answer: The balcony is completely safe and can be used going forward, yes it will come back to the Policy and Organisation Board and no, Counter Culture would not be barred from bidding for the work.
QUESTIONFROMCLLRZOEHUGGINS TO CLLR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
At theMay FullCouncil youstated in an answer toa pubic questionthat 'replacement planting oftrees issubject to change dueto the recentprocurement ofatreemanagementsoftwaresystemthatwillresultinthe comprehensivesurvey of allGosport Borough Council owned treesthat will provide abasis forfuturetreemanagement including theplantingofnewandreplacementtrees'couldyou givean updateon thecouncils treeplanting strategyand rewilding/wilding?
Answer: The new tree management system, Easytree, had been used so far to inspect 372 trees, they had been plotted across the Borough’s parks and open spaces. The ones recorded so far had been done to prioritise public safety.
It was currently too early to attract meaningful data, but the need for a rewilding strategy had been identified to ensure that the correct species and spaces were used, rather than being reactive and simply filling holes. This would form part of the review.
Supplementary question
In May the Friends of Stanley Park missed out on a mini forest and had missed out on a subsequent application due to a lack of strategy and the response that it was not being actively looked at to plant new trees, but manage existing trees. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy had identified Stanley Park as a prime location for the inclusion of new trees, as it would improve the habitat. It was questioned that the Council’s Climate Change Strategy and tree policy supported the inclusion of additional trees.
Answer: The Policy of rewilding and wilding was being considered with a plan and review and it was assured that the arborcultural officer would meet with the chairman of the Friends of Stanley Park to discuss further tree planting.
QUESTIONFROMCLLRLESLEYMEENAGHAN TO CLLR CHEGWYN
Theredundant fountainin FalklandGardens hasnow beenout of use for several years, and two glass panelsremain missingfrom the Time Space entrance canopy. Together,these issues give a poor first impressionto visitors andresidents alike and suggestneglect in oneof themost visibleparts of our seafront Can theChair pleaseexplain: What plans if any theCouncil hasto repairor replace the Falkland Gardens fountain; and when the damaged glass panels and rusting supportsat the Time Spaceentrance will be addressed? Because,as itstands, thisarea doesnot reflect thepride weshould all havein ourhometown.
Answer: I agree it is sad that the previous administration had let the area decline, and the question was similar to an earlier public question and it was appreciated that the area needed to improve. Work would be undertaken to establish the cost of what could be improved in the gateway to Gosport, which had been neglected for 25 years. The People’s Park would improve the area and there was a £38 million regeneration of the Gosport waterfront, including Levelling Up money obtained from the government, which had not been awarded to the previous administration.
It was acknowledged that the ward Councillor Cully has been persistent in her requests for improvement in the area and that the waterfront work would include artwork and interpretation boards, delivered before May.
Supplementary question. Thank you for the update, as it had been requested for three years, it would be helpful going forward if there was a timeline for the work as there was a large amount of concern and queries about it, so a timeline of improvements would be welcome.
Answer: Quotes on the fountain were currently being obtained and consideration was being given to improvements and the potential for a blue light memorial, costs for all elements were being considered and public opinions would be sought on improvements.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR ALAN SCARD TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Parking of contractors'vehicles, associated with construction workat the Haslar IRCin FortRoad, isa bigissue forresidents. Inorder to help local residents, when will the Licence for the Home Office to use Fort Road car parkbe signed off by the Council?"
Answer: The extra item being presented to the Council tonight addresses this, providing a licence and a lease for the car park with congratulations to the ward Councillor, Councillor Scard for his hard work on behalf of his residents for whom it had been distressing. The Home Office had also been keen to work towards a resolution.
Supplementary: I appreciate that I have been banging on about this for sometime, thank you for bringing it to the Council for consideration.
Answer: Congratulations once again to Cllr Scard for addressing, liaising with the Home Office and pushing for a good result for his residents.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR NAMDEO TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
With the Government requiring weekly food collections by 31st March 2026 what is Gosport’s timeline to meet this?
Answer
We are working with neighbouring authorities whilst awaiting information from Central government on collection resource systems for solutions to some ongoing issues. There is also DEFRA guidance outstanding, and in addition, as this was an implication for all authorities, there were supply and demand issues with equipment. There would therefore be a revised implementation date of October 2026.
Supplementary
What contingencies are in place if the deadlines aren’t met and what are the implications for the Local authority, has a risk assessment been undertaken with regard to missing the deadline?
Answer
Once DEFRA have confirmed further details, consideration can be given to the further details such as bins and locations will be considered and liaisons with project Integra will be undertaken.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CASEY TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
TheFriends ofStanley Parkwere recentlytold by GosportBorough Councilto takedown theirGreen Flag withno explanation given.In fact,they were stillflying the2023 flagas their2024 flagwas never passedto themand isstill sittingwith theCouncil. Allthe otherFriends Groupsthat have Green Flagshavebeenissuedthem.CanyoutellmewhyTheFriendsofStanleyParkwerenever includedinGosportBorough CouncilGreenFlagsapplication?
Answer: An error in the application process had been identified, which had led to the omission of Stanley Park, this could not be rectified after the closing date, or considered retrospectively but conversations had been undertaken to ensure this would not happen again and an apology had been issued.
Supplementary question
The Friends of Stanley Park were in possession of a flag that was believed to be for the Friends of Crescent Gardens, so there was confusion who the flag was for and why there were such errors.
Answer: Contact would be made with officers to discuss this further as it was appreciated there was embarrassment and disappointment.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR PHILPOTT TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
The Governmentset a response deadline,nine monthsafter their initialannouncement, for localauthorities to submit their proposals for LocalGovernment Reorganisation. That deadline was 26th September 2025.
Following adebate inthis Council Chamberon 5th Februarythe Leaderof theCouncil decided to withdrawfrom negotiationswith allof theother 14Hampshire andIsle ofWight Councils.
Itwasreportedinthepresson6thOctober2025thattheLeaderhadwrittentotheSecretary of Stateon Behalf ofGosport BoroughCouncil, butat thetime thisquestion wassubmitted, he hadnot divulged thefull contents ofhis letter and wasrefusing topublish it.
Will theLeader acceptthat thepeople ofGosport havea rightto knowwhat is inhis to the Secretary of State, andwill he nowpublish hisletter?
Answer: I have never refused to release the letter it has gone to the press and other Leaders.
A MIB had been sent to Members with details, and there was no polite request received. The letter would be released to anyone that asked. The Council had withdrawn from conversations that had led to other Councils paying KMPG over £100,000 and that this was a waste of money.
The proposals put forward are not in the best interests of Gosport and it wasn’t a withdrawal, it was not continuing with discussions on the submission.
Supplementary question: Will the letter be released.
Answer: The letter is available to anyone that requests it.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BURGESS TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD.
Canthe Chairmanof the Community Board informme of the coststo removethe burnt Fort and Tower,damage caused by persons unknown?
Answer: The cost of the removal including making good, which includes the surface is £6720.
Supplementary
Many other play areas in the Borough are in need of improvement, Grange, Lee on Solent seafront, Stokes Bay, how much is replacing and improving these facilities when upgrades to others could be made.
Answer: I don’t have the costs I will get them sent to you. It is a shame that money is spent on repairs following vandalism, rather than us being able to invest in new equipment.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR HAMMOND TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Please can you provide an update on the Criterion
Answer: The historic building had been purchased as it was one of the only remaining cinemas and theatre houses. Work was progressing well and whilst it was not as fast as was hoped, it was moving forward. There were a number of statutory milestones that needed to be reached, including surveying the balcony, and stages of RIBA, dealing with damp, asbestos and ensuring the roof was sound.
The Arts Council were investing in projects within the Borough as they could see the support the Council was giving to the arts, and it was reiterated that Council Tax payers money would not be spent on the Criterion, money would not be pulled away from other projects and services to fund it. There was a new project officer for the project and exploration was being made into funding streams. The market has been soft tested and there were 6 contractors interested in the work.
Supplementary question: Can you update on the viability of the project in the opinion of the industry.
Answer: The viability of the project various experts such as Hampshire Cultural Trust had been asked for their honest opinion as to whether the project was a waste of time and had been advised that it wasn’t. There were other similar venues like the Tivoli and the Regents Theatre that were operated in a similar way at no cost to the Council and that ticket revenue, grants and importantly food concessions would be a source of income. This was why it was important to open the concession as soon as possible and keep the promise of bringing the building back into use.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MEENAGHAN TO COUNCILLOR BALLARD.
While I acknowledge that the Council is currently progressing the construction of five new homes, this will clearly not come close to meeting the current need — with over 500 residents still on the housing waiting list and families continuing to live in cramped conditions. Could the Chair please outline the Council’s timeline and strategy for delivering a greater number of permanent homes, and when we can realistically expect to see more families moving into them?
Answer: The MP had raised in Parliament that there were 565 families on the waiting list In Gosport, but it was important to acknowledge that this wasn’t the homeless figure. Most were housed but their accommodation needs had changed. The statement of 5 new homes was incorrect as there were 15 new homes in Peel Common, in Bridgemary, in Forton and a planning application was in for Elson, so the total number was greater and more than the Conservative Council had produced. In addition there were buy backs, and the purchase of an additional hostel.
There were increasing difficulties with the renter’s reform Bill which had led to an increase in Landlords selling up and properties becoming unavailable.
Schemes were in place to support Council tenants to have deposits in advance and other methods of housing people were being explored.
Supplementary question: There was a typo and I meant 15 not 5. Tenants are reporting that their housing needs will not be met for 10 years, with children that should be in separate rooms together and by the time a suitable property is available they will likely have left home
Answer: It is not appropriate to comment on individual cases, but there was compassion and empathy for all those without the correct housing need.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR HAMMOND TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Can the Council Leader provide an update on Local Government Reorganisation.
This has already been covered but it remained to be seen if the Government proposal would be scrapped. A consultation had been undertaken which showed that the public, similarly to Reform were not in favour of the proposals and that local decisions should remain with local decision makers and that the hands off Gosport firmly remained. There was no timescale for the proposal and of the areas that had submitted, nothing had been finalised. In addition nothing formal had been agreed. Bigger was not better for Gosport.
QUESTIONFROM CLLRPHILIP RAFFAELLI to CLLR CHEGWYN
Atthe P&OBoard meetingon 2July, theLiberal Democratparty Boardmembers voted to approvea furtherDirect Awardto Counterculture butwith aNote (1a}that Officers were to"seekalegalopinionregardingthe legalityofadirectawardbeingundertheUK procurementthreshold".WhatlegaladvicewasreceivedinthisregardandhasaDirect Award been made toCounterculture in respectof the spendapproved atthe 2 July P&O Board meeting?
Answer: Legal advice was sought at the cost of £6500 of tax payer’s money that the proposals for Counter Culture exceeded the threshold and therefore an award has not been made. Therefore no further engagement could be undertaken.
Supplementary question
Given the answer, would any future proposal have to come back to the Policy and Organisation Board for future consideration and consultation and will Counter Culture be barred from a future bid? In addition was the balcony that the venue was reliant on, viable and if it’s not would the project be immediately cancelled?
Answer: The balcony is completely safe and can be used going forward, yes it will come back to the Policy and Organisation Board and no, Counter Culture would not be barred from bidding for the work.
QUESTIONFROMCLLRZOEHUGGINS TO CLLR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
At theMay FullCouncil youstated in an answer toa pubic questionthat 'replacement planting oftrees issubject to change dueto the recentprocurement ofatreemanagementsoftwaresystemthatwillresultinthe comprehensivesurvey of allGosport Borough Council owned treesthat will provide abasis forfuturetreemanagement including theplantingofnewandreplacementtrees'couldyou givean updateon thecouncils treeplanting strategyand rewilding/wilding?
Answer: The new tree management system, Easytree, had been used so far to inspect 372 trees, they had been plotted across the Borough’s parks and open spaces. The ones recorded so far had been done to prioritise public safety.
It was currently too early to attract meaningful data, but the need for a rewilding strategy had been identified to ensure that the correct species and spaces were used, rather than being reactive and simply filling holes. This would form part of the review.
Supplementary question
In May the Friends of Stanley Park missed out on a mini forest and had missed out on a subsequent application due to a lack of strategy and the response that it was not being actively looked at to plant new trees, but manage existing trees. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy had identified Stanley Park as a prime location for the inclusion of new trees, as it would improve the habitat. It was questioned that the Council’s Climate Change Strategy and tree policy supported the inclusion of additional trees.
Answer: The Policy of rewilding and wilding was being considered with a plan and review and it was assured that the arborcultural officer would meet with the chairman of the Friends of Stanley Park to discuss further tree planting.
QUESTIONFROMCLLRLESLEYMEENAGHAN TO CLLR CHEGWYN
Theredundant fountainin FalklandGardens hasnow beenout of use for several years, and two glass panelsremain missingfrom the Time Space entrance canopy. Together,these issues give a poor first impressionto visitors andresidents alike and suggestneglect in oneof themost visibleparts of our seafront Can theChair pleaseexplain: What plans if any theCouncil hasto repairor replace the Falkland Gardens fountain; and when the damaged glass panels and rusting supportsat the Time Spaceentrance will be addressed? Because,as itstands, thisarea doesnot reflect thepride weshould all havein ourhometown.
Answer: I agree it is sad that the previous administration had let the area decline, and the question was similar to an earlier public question and it was appreciated that the area needed to improve. Work would be undertaken to establish the cost of what could be improved in the gateway to Gosport, which had been neglected for 25 years. The People’s Park would improve the area and there was a £38 million regeneration of the Gosport waterfront, including Levelling Up money obtained from the government, which had not been awarded to the previous administration.
It was acknowledged that the ward Councillor Cully has been persistent in her requests for improvement in the area and that the waterfront work would include artwork and interpretation boards, delivered before May.
Supplementary question. Thank you for the update, as it had been requested for three years, it would be helpful going forward if there was a timeline for the work as there was a large amount of concern and queries about it, so a timeline of improvements would be welcome.
Answer: Quotes on the fountain were currently being obtained and consideration was being given to improvements and the potential for a blue light memorial, costs for all elements were being considered and public opinions would be sought on improvements.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR ALAN SCARD TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Parking of contractors'vehicles, associated with construction workat the Haslar IRCin FortRoad, isa bigissue forresidents. Inorder to help local residents, when will the Licence for the Home Office to use Fort Road car parkbe signed off by the Council?"
Answer: The extra item being presented to the Council tonight addresses this, providing a licence and a lease for the car park with congratulations to the ward Councillor, Councillor Scard for his hard work on behalf of his residents for whom it had been distressing. The Home Office had also been keen to work towards a resolution.
Supplementary: I appreciate that I have been banging on about this for sometime, thank you for bringing it to the Council for consideration.
Answer: Congratulations once again to Cllr Scard for addressing, liaising with the Home Office and pushing for a good result for his residents.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR NAMDEO TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
With the Government requiring weekly food collections by 31st March 2026 what is Gosport’s timeline to meet this?
Answer
We are working with neighbouring authorities whilst awaiting information from Central government on collection resource systems for solutions to some ongoing issues. There is also DEFRA guidance outstanding, and in addition, as this was an implication for all authorities, there were supply and demand issues with equipment. There would therefore be a revised implementation date of October 2026.
Supplementary
What contingencies are in place if the deadlines aren’t met and what are the implications for the Local authority, has a risk assessment been undertaken with regard to missing the deadline?
Answer
Once DEFRA have confirmed further details, consideration can be given to the further details such as bins and locations will be considered and liaisons with project Integra will be undertaken.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CASEY TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD
TheFriends ofStanley Parkwere recentlytold by GosportBorough Councilto takedown theirGreen Flag withno explanation given.In fact,they were stillflying the2023 flagas their2024 flagwas never passedto themand isstill sittingwith theCouncil. Allthe otherFriends Groupsthat have Green Flagshavebeenissuedthem.CanyoutellmewhyTheFriendsofStanleyParkwerenever includedinGosportBorough CouncilGreenFlagsapplication?
Answer: An error in the application process had been identified, which had led to the omission of Stanley Park, this could not be rectified after the closing date, or considered retrospectively but conversations had been undertaken to ensure this would not happen again and an apology had been issued.
Supplementary question
The Friends of Stanley Park were in possession of a flag that was believed to be for the Friends of Crescent Gardens, so there was confusion who the flag was for and why there were such errors.
Answer: Contact would be made with officers to discuss this further as it was appreciated there was embarrassment and disappointment.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR PHILPOTT TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
The Governmentset a response deadline,nine monthsafter their initialannouncement, for localauthorities to submit their proposals for LocalGovernment Reorganisation. That deadline was 26th September 2025.
Following adebate inthis Council Chamberon 5th Februarythe Leaderof theCouncil decided to withdrawfrom negotiationswith allof theother 14Hampshire andIsle ofWight Councils.
Itwasreportedinthepresson6thOctober2025thattheLeaderhadwrittentotheSecretary of Stateon Behalf ofGosport BoroughCouncil, butat thetime thisquestion wassubmitted, he hadnot divulged thefull contents ofhis letter and wasrefusing topublish it.
Will theLeader acceptthat thepeople ofGosport havea rightto knowwhat is inhis to the Secretary of State, andwill he nowpublish hisletter?
Answer: I have never refused to release the letter it has gone to the press and other Leaders.
A MIB had been sent to Members with details, and there was no polite request received. The letter would be released to anyone that asked. The Council had withdrawn from conversations that had led to other Councils paying KMPG over £100,000 and that this was a waste of money.
The proposals put forward are not in the best interests of Gosport and it wasn’t a withdrawal, it was not continuing with discussions on the submission.
Supplementary question: Will the letter be released.
Answer: The letter is available to anyone that requests it.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BURGESS TO COUNCILLOR WESTERBY, ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR MAYNARD.
Canthe Chairmanof the Community Board informme of the coststo removethe burnt Fort and Tower,damage caused by persons unknown?
Answer: The cost of the removal including making good, which includes the surface is £6720.
Supplementary
Many other play areas in the Borough are in need of improvement, Grange, Lee on Solent seafront, Stokes Bay, how much is replacing and improving these facilities when upgrades to others could be made.
Answer: I don’t have the costs I will get them sent to you. It is a shame that money is spent on repairs following vandalism, rather than us being able to invest in new equipment.
A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR HAMMOND TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Please can you provide an update on the Criterion
Answer: The historic building had been purchased as it was one of the only remaining cinemas and theatre houses. Work was progressing well and whilst it was not as fast as was hoped, it was moving forward. There were a number of statutory milestones that needed to be reached, including surveying the balcony, and stages of RIBA, dealing with damp, asbestos and ensuring the roof was sound.
The Arts Council were investing in projects within the Borough as they could see the support the Council was giving to the arts, and it was reiterated that Council Tax payers money would not be spent on the Criterion, money would not be pulled away from other projects and services to fund it. There was a new project officer for the project and exploration was being made into funding streams. The market has been soft tested and there were 6 contractors interested in the work.
Supplementary question: Can you update on the viability of the project in the opinion of the industry.
Answer: The viability of the project various experts such as Hampshire Cultural Trust had been asked for their honest opinion as to whether the project was a waste of time and had been advised that it wasn’t. There were other similar venues like the Tivoli and the Regents Theatre that were operated in a similar way at no cost to the Council and that ticket revenue, grants and importantly food concessions would be a source of income. This was why it was important to open the concession as soon as possible and keep the promise of bringing the building back into use.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MEENAGHAN TO COUNCILLOR BALLARD.
While I acknowledge that the Council is currently progressing the construction of five new homes, this will clearly not come close to meeting the current need — with over 500 residents still on the housing waiting list and families continuing to live in cramped conditions. Could the Chair please outline the Council’s timeline and strategy for delivering a greater number of permanent homes, and when we can realistically expect to see more families moving into them?
Answer: The MP had raised in Parliament that there were 565 families on the waiting list In Gosport, but it was important to acknowledge that this wasn’t the homeless figure. Most were housed but their accommodation needs had changed. The statement of 5 new homes was incorrect as there were 15 new homes in Peel Common, in Bridgemary, in Forton and a planning application was in for Elson, so the total number was greater and more than the Conservative Council had produced. In addition there were buy backs, and the purchase of an additional hostel.
There were increasing difficulties with the renter’s reform Bill which had led to an increase in Landlords selling up and properties becoming unavailable.
Schemes were in place to support Council tenants to have deposits in advance and other methods of housing people were being explored.
Supplementary question: There was a typo and I meant 15 not 5. Tenants are reporting that their housing needs will not be met for 10 years, with children that should be in separate rooms together and by the time a suitable property is available they will likely have left home
Answer: It is not appropriate to comment on individual cases, but there was compassion and empathy for all those without the correct housing need.
QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR HAMMOND TO COUNCILLOR CHEGWYN
Can the Council Leader provide an update on Local Government Reorganisation.
This has already been covered but it remained to be seen if the Government proposal would be scrapped. A consultation had been undertaken which showed that the public, similarly to Reform were not in favour of the proposals and that local decisions should remain with local decision makers and that the hands off Gosport firmly remained. There was no timescale for the proposal and of the areas that had submitted, nothing had been finalised. In addition nothing formal had been agreed. Bigger was not better for Gosport.
7
Part 1 Recommendation of the Policy and Organisation Board
Consideration of the Part I recommendation from the Policy and Organisation Board.
Attachments:
- Document P and O Part 1 07 Oct 2025
- Document Part I Minutes P and O 07 Oct 2025
- Document BCP P&O Board report 07 Oct 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the Part I report from the Policy and Organisation Board on 1st October 2025.
The other Council’s had agreed to the proposal and it was a good use of shared resources.
RESOLVED: That Gosport Borough Council
a. Enters into an agreement with Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council and Fareham Borough Council for the delivery of Building Control functions as set out in this report.
b. Delivers the Building Control function to all four Councils through the Building Control Partnership; and,
c. Delegates authority to the Building Control Partnership Manager after consultation with the Borough Solicitor to enter into such agreements as necessary and on such terms as are reasonable and to take any ancillary actions as are required to give effect to this proposal
The other Council’s had agreed to the proposal and it was a good use of shared resources.
RESOLVED: That Gosport Borough Council
a. Enters into an agreement with Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council and Fareham Borough Council for the delivery of Building Control functions as set out in this report.
b. Delivers the Building Control function to all four Councils through the Building Control Partnership; and,
c. Delegates authority to the Building Control Partnership Manager after consultation with the Borough Solicitor to enter into such agreements as necessary and on such terms as are reasonable and to take any ancillary actions as are required to give effect to this proposal
8
Part II Minutes of the Board of the Council
Housing Board - 24 September 2025
Policy and Organisation Board – 1 October 2025
Policy and Organisation Board – 1 October 2025
Attachments:
- Document Part II Minutes Housing 07 Oct 2025
- Document Part II Minutes P and O 07 Oct 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the Part II minutes of the following Boards be accepted.
Housing Board – 24 September 2025.
Members advised that they welcomed the work done to provide extra accommodation in the Borough to try and reduce the need for the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. The importance of a local connection was recognised as was the support for local communities.
Policy and Organisation Board – 1st October 2025
Members reiterated their gratitude for the work that Citizen’s Advice Gosport undertook and recognised its importance. It was recognised that the work undertaken by the staff and the volunteers benefited the Borough and the Council.
A Member reiterated concern that the Local Nature Recovery Strategy should not default to allowing credits to be bought off, and the protection of environmental buffers was important.
Members welcomed the improvement to play equipment, and the availability of funds to do so but expressed disappointment at the continuous vandalism that took place.
A Member welcomed the upcoming funding for the Pride in Place work in Rowner, as there had been a lack of funding for replacement play equipment in the area, but also recognised that this was to enhance the local area above what the Council should do, not replace it.
The rate of deprivation in the ward was significant, one of the most significant in the country and the ward Councillor advised that he would continue to campaign to ensure the residents received a fair deal from the Council.
Housing Board – 24 September 2025.
Members advised that they welcomed the work done to provide extra accommodation in the Borough to try and reduce the need for the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. The importance of a local connection was recognised as was the support for local communities.
Policy and Organisation Board – 1st October 2025
Members reiterated their gratitude for the work that Citizen’s Advice Gosport undertook and recognised its importance. It was recognised that the work undertaken by the staff and the volunteers benefited the Borough and the Council.
A Member reiterated concern that the Local Nature Recovery Strategy should not default to allowing credits to be bought off, and the protection of environmental buffers was important.
Members welcomed the improvement to play equipment, and the availability of funds to do so but expressed disappointment at the continuous vandalism that took place.
A Member welcomed the upcoming funding for the Pride in Place work in Rowner, as there had been a lack of funding for replacement play equipment in the area, but also recognised that this was to enhance the local area above what the Council should do, not replace it.
The rate of deprivation in the ward was significant, one of the most significant in the country and the ward Councillor advised that he would continue to campaign to ensure the residents received a fair deal from the Council.
9
LATE ITEM - LAND AT FORT ROAD CAR PARK
This report seeks approval for the granting of a short term licence and subsequent lease to The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, c/o The Home Office (The Home Office) on land to the south east of Fort Road.
The report is urgent because it provides a solution to the ongoing issues with contractor parking in the Fort Road area, and the longer term lease transaction falls outside of the scope of officer delegated authority.
The report is urgent because it provides a solution to the ongoing issues with contractor parking in the Fort Road area, and the longer term lease transaction falls outside of the scope of officer delegated authority.
Attachments:
- Document Council Report - Licence and lease of land at Fort Road Car Park FINAL 07 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Existing site plan 07 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 2 - Local Plan Summary 07 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Proposed car park scheme 07 Oct 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property detailing a request for approval for the granting of a short term licence and subsequent lease to The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, c/o The Home Office (The Home Office) on land to the south east of Fort Road.
The Council was advised that the report was urgent as it provided a solution to the ongoing issues with contractor parking in the Fort Road area, and the longer term lease transaction falls outside of the scope of officer delegated authority.
The Council was also advised that at the time of publication, the terms of the agreement had been confidential, but it had been subsequently confirmed that they could be made available to the public and as a result the exemption on them could be lifted.
The Council recognised the importance of the proposal in resolving the ongoing issues in the local area. The car park itself was subject to minimal public use and there would be a retention of public spaces for use.
It was recognised that there would be an income generation for the Council.
Members reiterated that the disruption from the site to the surrounding areas had been significant. It was acknowledged that the IRC would be developed and that this was mitigation for the residents.
Resolved:
That theCouncil approve:
i) The grant ofa sixmonth licence onthe landto thesouth eastof Fort Roadcar park toThe Secretaryof Statefor Housing, Communities & Local Government, c/o The Home Office for an upfront payment of
£45,000.
ii) The grant of a 10 year lease on the land comprising Fort Road car park and the land to the south east to The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities& LocalGovernment, c/oThe HomeOffice atan initialrent of £95,000 per annum with the initial five year rental payment made by March 31st 2026 at the latest.
The Council was advised that the report was urgent as it provided a solution to the ongoing issues with contractor parking in the Fort Road area, and the longer term lease transaction falls outside of the scope of officer delegated authority.
The Council was also advised that at the time of publication, the terms of the agreement had been confidential, but it had been subsequently confirmed that they could be made available to the public and as a result the exemption on them could be lifted.
The Council recognised the importance of the proposal in resolving the ongoing issues in the local area. The car park itself was subject to minimal public use and there would be a retention of public spaces for use.
It was recognised that there would be an income generation for the Council.
Members reiterated that the disruption from the site to the surrounding areas had been significant. It was acknowledged that the IRC would be developed and that this was mitigation for the residents.
Resolved:
That theCouncil approve:
i) The grant ofa sixmonth licence onthe landto thesouth eastof Fort Roadcar park toThe Secretaryof Statefor Housing, Communities & Local Government, c/o The Home Office for an upfront payment of
£45,000.
ii) The grant of a 10 year lease on the land comprising Fort Road car park and the land to the south east to The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities& LocalGovernment, c/oThe HomeOffice atan initialrent of £95,000 per annum with the initial five year rental payment made by March 31st 2026 at the latest.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in