Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Policy and Organisation Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 26th November 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 26th November 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 26th November 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 26th November 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
26 Nov 2025
26 Nov 2025
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Kirsty Cox
Apologies, sent representative
Committee Member
Councillor Jamie Hutchison
Present, as expected
Vice-Chair
Councillor Robert Hylands
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Philip Raffaelli CB FRCP
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Mrs June Cully
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Stephen Hammond
Present, as substitute
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
To receive apologies for non attendance.
Minutes
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Cox.
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 Chegwyn and Councillor Philpott advised that with regard to the Fareham and Gosport Transport plan, they were County Councillors, but that did not impact their decision making on this item.
3
Minutes of the meeting of the board held on 1st October 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 1st October 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 01/10/2025 Policy and Organisation Board 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 1st October 2025 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 24 November 2025. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
There were none.
5
Public Questions - Standing order 3.5
(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 24 November 2025).
Minutes
There were two public questions. The Chairman advised that he would not answer them as those asking the questions were not present. He advised that he was disgusted that a member of the Reform UK party was questioning disrespect to the Falklands Gardens when member of the Reform party had called for a by election following the death of Councillor Maynard within 72 hours of his passing, rather than waiting for his funeral to pass as was standard practice.
6
Cross Reference from the Community and Environment Board - Simpler Recycling - Food Waste
This report is a cross reference from the Community and Environment Board.
Attachments:
- Document 06 C and E Part 1 18 Nov 2025
- Document 6 Minutes C&E for Part I 18 Nov 2025
- Document 6 Simpler Recycling 18 Nov 2025
- Document 6 Food Waste EIA 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Waste, a cross reference from the Community and Environment Board. The report was to for the approval of the additional £70,000 spend to implement the food waste scheme.
The Board was advised that discussions were ongoing and that in Hampshire it was Havant and Gosport that would not meet the deadline, and it was unknown as to whether there would be a penalty for this. It was acknowledged that there was still a significant wait time for vehicles and for caddies.
The Board was advised that some Councils in the north of the county had received dispensation, and that it was likely that Gosport was on track for a delivery time of June or July once the process had been agreed with Defra but there were a significant amount of Councils across the country that would not meet the deadline. In addition it was advised that some Council’s had published a start date, but were now having to backtrack, and that this was not the way Gosport wanted to progress. It was also acknowledged that there was a significant education piece to be undertaken to support food waste recycling delivery.
A Member questioned the process moving forward with bags utilised for the food waste. These were not paid for from the £70,000 requested but from the transitional fund. It was recognised that these would cover the first year, but it would be for the Council to continue to decide if they would pay moving forward. It was noted in Council’s where food waste was already up and running, that the rates of recycling suffered a drop if the provision of bags from the Council was removed.
Members were also advised that the Council were not responsible for collecting waste from businesses, therefore this was not being considered as part of the report.
Members welcomed the officer’s report and the work that had gone into it.
RESOLVED:
i) theP&O Board approve the ordersfor vehiclesand containersto be made as soon as possible to secure delivery slots for summer 2026.
And acknowledge that the Community and Environment Board
ii) agreedthe implementation offood wastecollections fromOctober 2026is proposedto DEFRA and WRAP.
iii) agreedthat more detailwas neededand afurther reportwith regardsto theimpact oftwin stream recycling collections be presented to this board during 2026.
That the Community and Environment Board noted:
vi) theprogress beingmade ofprocuring vehiclesand containers
vii) that the Council’s communications team would take the lead in developing a communicationsplan forthe implementationof allaspects of“Simpler Recycling”
viii) thata briefingis tobe arrangedwith allmembers toexplain theimplications of“Simpler Recycling”
(ix) the progress being made to comply with the collection and packaging reforms, whichinclude simpler recycling.
The Board was advised that discussions were ongoing and that in Hampshire it was Havant and Gosport that would not meet the deadline, and it was unknown as to whether there would be a penalty for this. It was acknowledged that there was still a significant wait time for vehicles and for caddies.
The Board was advised that some Councils in the north of the county had received dispensation, and that it was likely that Gosport was on track for a delivery time of June or July once the process had been agreed with Defra but there were a significant amount of Councils across the country that would not meet the deadline. In addition it was advised that some Council’s had published a start date, but were now having to backtrack, and that this was not the way Gosport wanted to progress. It was also acknowledged that there was a significant education piece to be undertaken to support food waste recycling delivery.
A Member questioned the process moving forward with bags utilised for the food waste. These were not paid for from the £70,000 requested but from the transitional fund. It was recognised that these would cover the first year, but it would be for the Council to continue to decide if they would pay moving forward. It was noted in Council’s where food waste was already up and running, that the rates of recycling suffered a drop if the provision of bags from the Council was removed.
Members were also advised that the Council were not responsible for collecting waste from businesses, therefore this was not being considered as part of the report.
Members welcomed the officer’s report and the work that had gone into it.
RESOLVED:
i) theP&O Board approve the ordersfor vehiclesand containersto be made as soon as possible to secure delivery slots for summer 2026.
And acknowledge that the Community and Environment Board
ii) agreedthe implementation offood wastecollections fromOctober 2026is proposedto DEFRA and WRAP.
iii) agreedthat more detailwas neededand afurther reportwith regardsto theimpact oftwin stream recycling collections be presented to this board during 2026.
That the Community and Environment Board noted:
vi) theprogress beingmade ofprocuring vehiclesand containers
vii) that the Council’s communications team would take the lead in developing a communicationsplan forthe implementationof allaspects of“Simpler Recycling”
viii) thata briefingis tobe arrangedwith allmembers toexplain theimplications of“Simpler Recycling”
(ix) the progress being made to comply with the collection and packaging reforms, whichinclude simpler recycling.
7
Amendments to the adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document
To consider amendments to the adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted February 2014) to ensure it reflects the latest bin requirements and collection arrangements resulting from the Government’s incoming Simpler Recycling changes.
Attachments:
- Document 07 Report-Design SPD Amendments (Final) 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1-Proposed amendments (Final) - showing changes 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Planning Policy Manager detailing a request to consider amendments to the adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted February 2014) to ensure it reflects the latest bin requirements and collection arrangements resulting from the Government’s incoming Simpler Recycling changes.
The Board was advised that this followed on from the previous report as it allowed for changes to be made to the document, to reflect the need for the inclusion of the provision of storage for food waste disposal.
The Board was advised that awareness of the need for such provision was being identified in preapplication advice, but that the inclusion of it in the SPD formalised it within the guidance.
Members welcomed the report and the consideration of food waste storage within the planning process.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the amendments to the adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document, as set out in Appendix 1.
The Board was advised that this followed on from the previous report as it allowed for changes to be made to the document, to reflect the need for the inclusion of the provision of storage for food waste disposal.
The Board was advised that awareness of the need for such provision was being identified in preapplication advice, but that the inclusion of it in the SPD formalised it within the guidance.
Members welcomed the report and the consideration of food waste storage within the planning process.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the amendments to the adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document, as set out in Appendix 1.
8
Proposed Changes to Establishment - Housing Options Department
To seek Board approval for an increase in the staffing establishment of the Housing Options Department in response to sustained service demand and strategic priorities.
Attachments:
- Document 08 Request for increase to Establishment 18 Nov 2025
- Document 08 Request for increase to Establishment IAA 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Housing seeking approval for an increase in the staffing establishment of the Housing options department in response to sustained service demand and strategic priorities.
The Board was advised that there was a continual demand for the service and that there was no financial increase as a result of the proposal.
Members sought clarification around the staffing of the Housing department, and it was advised that the Housing options and the Housing landlord services formed two different strands of the department.
The changes required approval as they were an increase to the establishment, but not to the financial costs. The Board was advised that there was still an additional need for resource within the landlord strand.
Members were advised that the exisiting, temporary, posts were providing valuable support to residents with their housing needs, helping them to remain in properties.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the change from a temporary to a permanent position of the Housing Options Assistant resulting in a permanent increase in the establishment.
That the Board notes that the current secondment for the Move-on Coordinator post is to be made permanent and this will replace the vacant Housing Advisor post.
The Board was advised that there was a continual demand for the service and that there was no financial increase as a result of the proposal.
Members sought clarification around the staffing of the Housing department, and it was advised that the Housing options and the Housing landlord services formed two different strands of the department.
The changes required approval as they were an increase to the establishment, but not to the financial costs. The Board was advised that there was still an additional need for resource within the landlord strand.
Members were advised that the exisiting, temporary, posts were providing valuable support to residents with their housing needs, helping them to remain in properties.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the change from a temporary to a permanent position of the Housing Options Assistant resulting in a permanent increase in the establishment.
That the Board notes that the current secondment for the Move-on Coordinator post is to be made permanent and this will replace the vacant Housing Advisor post.
9
Corporate Legionella Management Policy
The purpose of this policy is to outline our approach to the management of water systems to help reduce the risk of residents being exposed to legionella and other bacteria and to ensure that we meet our statutory and legislative obligations.
Attachments:
- Document 09 Legionella Management Policy Report 18 Nov 2025
- Document 09 GBC policy Legionella Management Policy DRAFT Version 3 18 Nov 2025
- Document 09 GBC Appendix 2 - Guidance and Processes for Monitoring Hot and Cold water systems 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Interim Head of Assets dealing the Legionella Management Policy
The Board was advised that the Policy updated the previous 2016 policy and covered all GBC buildings and premises and non HRA assets, and all Council HRA assets.
Members sought clarification with regard to the previous policy and were advised that it was not believed to have been presented to a Board for approval, they also felt that it would be useful for the Board to have seen the previous policy in order to make comparisons and identified what had changed.
Members queried whether inspections had previously not been undertaken but it was confirmed that they had been and that this was to ensure that moving forward the policy was clear and the tracking auditable.
Members felt that the wording around the current position could have been clearer but welcomed the implementation and adoption of a formal policy and robust record keeping.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the proposed Legionella Management Policy.
The Board was advised that the Policy updated the previous 2016 policy and covered all GBC buildings and premises and non HRA assets, and all Council HRA assets.
Members sought clarification with regard to the previous policy and were advised that it was not believed to have been presented to a Board for approval, they also felt that it would be useful for the Board to have seen the previous policy in order to make comparisons and identified what had changed.
Members queried whether inspections had previously not been undertaken but it was confirmed that they had been and that this was to ensure that moving forward the policy was clear and the tracking auditable.
Members felt that the wording around the current position could have been clearer but welcomed the implementation and adoption of a formal policy and robust record keeping.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the proposed Legionella Management Policy.
10
Annual Governance Statement 2024/25
To seek approval from Members in regards to the final Annual Governance Statement (AGS) 2024/25 (Appendix A)
Attachments:
- Document 01 Covering report AGS 2425 PO final 18 Nov 2025
- Document 01 Appendix A - Annual Governance Statement GBC 2425 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Internal Auditor seeking approval from Members in regards to the final Annual Governance Statement (AGS) 2024/25 (Appendix A)
A Member advised that they felt that it was an untrue statement that all Members were able to be represented on the Board, due to current proportionality rules. In addition, there were ongoing issues with regard to reports being presented to Boards late, and confidential reports when it was not believed it was required for them to be confidential.
In addition, recent reports had been sent straight to Full Council for decision, rather than considered at Board, which allowed for a scrutiny process. Concern around transparency had also been shown in the refusal to answer a public question at this meeting.
A Board member advised that not all County Councillors had seats on Boards and Committees across the County Council.
The Board was advised that audit results across the Council were improving and that risks and audit actions were being routinely consdidered at the Council’s Management Team meetings. In addition the Corporate Governance Group was also supporting improvements across the Council.
Members were reassured by the work being undertaken by the Council with regards to complaints.
RESOLVED: That the Annual Governance Statement 2024/2025 be approved.
A Member advised that they felt that it was an untrue statement that all Members were able to be represented on the Board, due to current proportionality rules. In addition, there were ongoing issues with regard to reports being presented to Boards late, and confidential reports when it was not believed it was required for them to be confidential.
In addition, recent reports had been sent straight to Full Council for decision, rather than considered at Board, which allowed for a scrutiny process. Concern around transparency had also been shown in the refusal to answer a public question at this meeting.
A Board member advised that not all County Councillors had seats on Boards and Committees across the County Council.
The Board was advised that audit results across the Council were improving and that risks and audit actions were being routinely consdidered at the Council’s Management Team meetings. In addition the Corporate Governance Group was also supporting improvements across the Council.
Members were reassured by the work being undertaken by the Council with regards to complaints.
RESOLVED: That the Annual Governance Statement 2024/2025 be approved.
11
External Audit/ EY
Report to follow – EY report available for inspection in the Town Hall
Attachments:
- Document EY - covering report 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the External Auditor, setting out the status of the 2024/25 audit.
The Board was advised that there had still been a few draft items outstanding on publication of the agenda. Updates and highlights included that capacity issues identified within the finance team had begun to be resolved. The Factors impacting the execution of the audit were listed and updates and progress had been made.
Areas of significant risk had been highlighted and observations made, with some resolutions being achieved. The detail of these was explained to the Board with the remedial actions being advised. The Board were also advised of the potential progress actions to full assurance.
The Chairman advised that in response to an uncertainty around the accuracy of the Members register of interests, all elected Members were written to annually and asked to complete them.
Capacity issues in finance had been identified in the CPC review and were now on the way to being resolved.
Members accepted previous audits had been impacted as a result of backlog as from the pandemic and that this was universal across all authorities, there had been improvements since then but their also continued to be areas of concern.
Members recognised much improvement had been made as a result of findings from the audit and the CPC, including increased engagement with the LGA
The Board was advised that there were gaps in assurance from 2022/23 but that these had been improved on and the assurance for 2024/25 reflected this.
These included the additional control measures for sign off, addressing capacity issues. Overstatements had also been identified and declared.
RESOLVED: The Board noted the report.
The Board was advised that there had still been a few draft items outstanding on publication of the agenda. Updates and highlights included that capacity issues identified within the finance team had begun to be resolved. The Factors impacting the execution of the audit were listed and updates and progress had been made.
Areas of significant risk had been highlighted and observations made, with some resolutions being achieved. The detail of these was explained to the Board with the remedial actions being advised. The Board were also advised of the potential progress actions to full assurance.
The Chairman advised that in response to an uncertainty around the accuracy of the Members register of interests, all elected Members were written to annually and asked to complete them.
Capacity issues in finance had been identified in the CPC review and were now on the way to being resolved.
Members accepted previous audits had been impacted as a result of backlog as from the pandemic and that this was universal across all authorities, there had been improvements since then but their also continued to be areas of concern.
Members recognised much improvement had been made as a result of findings from the audit and the CPC, including increased engagement with the LGA
The Board was advised that there were gaps in assurance from 2022/23 but that these had been improved on and the assurance for 2024/25 reflected this.
These included the additional control measures for sign off, addressing capacity issues. Overstatements had also been identified and declared.
RESOLVED: The Board noted the report.
12
Final Accounts and Reports narrative
Report to follow
Attachments:
- Document 12 Final Accounts Report to P&O v2 (2) 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Finance detailing the outturn position for the 2024/25 financial year and recommends the approval of the Statement of Accounts for 2024/25.
The Board was provided with an update on the underspend compared to the revised budget of £989,000, with £834,000 transferred from the Revenue Financing Reserve.
Clarification was sought on the revaluation methodology of PPE, and the difference between Existing Use Valuations and Depreciated Replacement Costs (DRC).
It was noted that a misstatement had occurred as a result of the use of EUV, it had been requested that this be changed to the use of DRC, however, unintentionally, a change in supplier had led to EUV being used again. Tighter process checks would be implemented moving forward to prevent any future misevaluation.
RESOLVED:
That the
i) Board note the outturn position summarised in the report and the Narrative Report contained in the Statement of Accounts (Appendix A)
ii) The Board approve the Letter of Representation at Appendix B (not included in report issued and will follow separately).
The Board delegate to the Borough Treasurer in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board the decision to agree any final changes to the financial statement arising from the completion of the audit
The Board was provided with an update on the underspend compared to the revised budget of £989,000, with £834,000 transferred from the Revenue Financing Reserve.
Clarification was sought on the revaluation methodology of PPE, and the difference between Existing Use Valuations and Depreciated Replacement Costs (DRC).
It was noted that a misstatement had occurred as a result of the use of EUV, it had been requested that this be changed to the use of DRC, however, unintentionally, a change in supplier had led to EUV being used again. Tighter process checks would be implemented moving forward to prevent any future misevaluation.
RESOLVED:
That the
i) Board note the outturn position summarised in the report and the Narrative Report contained in the Statement of Accounts (Appendix A)
ii) The Board approve the Letter of Representation at Appendix B (not included in report issued and will follow separately).
The Board delegate to the Borough Treasurer in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board the decision to agree any final changes to the financial statement arising from the completion of the audit
13
Treasury Management Update
This Annual Treasury Report forms part of the Council’s formal reporting requirements and outlines;
· Treasury Management activity for the financial year 2024/25
· An in-year review of 2025/26
· The Prudential Indicators for 2024/25
· An update for the 2025/26 year so far, in accordance with the Prudential Code.
· Treasury Management activity for the financial year 2024/25
· An in-year review of 2025/26
· The Prudential Indicators for 2024/25
· An update for the 2025/26 year so far, in accordance with the Prudential Code.
Attachments:
- Document 13 Treasury Management update 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Finance detailing the Annual Treasury Report
Members welcomed the report and sought clarification around debt not exceeding CSR and it was advised that the gross debt of the Council did not exceed CSR.
There had been some approvals as part of the budget process, and that any potential borrowing was considered within long term predictions to assess which borrow method was most appropriate. It was important to anticipate potential downfalls to long-term borrowing where possible.
Members recognised it was hard to predict the future and that things could only be planned for so far as what was known or could be reasonably predicted and accepting the risk that came with it, taking an educated guess as best as possible. If interest rates were predicted to change decisions would need to be made on this basis. Cash flow and under borrowing of a working capital could be explored if this was predicted to happen.
The Board noted the report
Members welcomed the report and sought clarification around debt not exceeding CSR and it was advised that the gross debt of the Council did not exceed CSR.
There had been some approvals as part of the budget process, and that any potential borrowing was considered within long term predictions to assess which borrow method was most appropriate. It was important to anticipate potential downfalls to long-term borrowing where possible.
Members recognised it was hard to predict the future and that things could only be planned for so far as what was known or could be reasonably predicted and accepting the risk that came with it, taking an educated guess as best as possible. If interest rates were predicted to change decisions would need to be made on this basis. Cash flow and under borrowing of a working capital could be explored if this was predicted to happen.
The Board noted the report
14
Q2 Finance report
Report to follow.
Attachments:
- Document Finance Q2 update v9 18 Nov 2025
- Document Finance 2425 Carryforwards 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Finance seeks to update the Board on the current Revenue Budget position and the Capital Programme of the Council as at the end of the second quarter for 2025/26.
This is a new report that was recommended as part of the Corporate Peer Challenge and External Auditor report and detailed the current revenue budget position and the Capital Programme of the Council as at the end of the second quarter for 2025/26.
Members sought clarification as to when there would a clearer understanding of the risk as a result of the Social Housing Regulator response and were advised that the response was due imminently and any implications would be considered on receipt.
The Board was also advised that the HRA income was reduced as a result of a reduction in Right to Buy.
Members were advised that the transfer to cloud based storage had created an additional cost and that the vacant headcounts were posts that were awaiting to be filled.
Members welcomed the report and noted its contents, and thanked the officers for their contributions.
RESOLVED: That the Board noted the report.
This is a new report that was recommended as part of the Corporate Peer Challenge and External Auditor report and detailed the current revenue budget position and the Capital Programme of the Council as at the end of the second quarter for 2025/26.
Members sought clarification as to when there would a clearer understanding of the risk as a result of the Social Housing Regulator response and were advised that the response was due imminently and any implications would be considered on receipt.
The Board was also advised that the HRA income was reduced as a result of a reduction in Right to Buy.
Members were advised that the transfer to cloud based storage had created an additional cost and that the vacant headcounts were posts that were awaiting to be filled.
Members welcomed the report and noted its contents, and thanked the officers for their contributions.
RESOLVED: That the Board noted the report.
15
Fees and charges 2026
Report to follow.
Attachments:
- Document 2026 Fees and Charges Report P+O 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Proposed 2026 Fees & Charges 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 2 - 2025 fees and charges REVISED LAYOUT proof draft added 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 3 - Nearest Neighbour Comparison 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Statutory Charges Checks 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Finance detailing the revised fees and charges for the year 2026 as outlined.
Members acknowledged that there would need to be an increase in the fees and charges to ensure the Council’s financial position was stable, Councils were not able to increase Council Tax to cover this.
There were not increases to all of the fees and charges, some had been frozen and most remained within the rate of inflation.
It was reiterated to the Board that the public were seeing improved facilities, and the car parks had to be a source of income to cover the gap in the financial position.
Members requested that in future, clearer clarification be given to the expected income and the actual income from previous years, to allow Members to consider how accurate projections had been, particularly as an increase in charges did not necessarily equate to an increase in income.
Some Members highlighted significant increases in some charges to sports facilities and car parking under the current administration, some greater that 80%, however this was challenged as there had been an introduction of free short stay car parking under the current administration and that 33 new businesses had opened in the Town Centre in the last year and the market was improving with the addition of the specialist markets.
Residents were able to access pickle ball for free and improvements were being made to sports pavilions, in addition funding had been secured for the installation of removable goalposts, which would help to protect sports pitches.
In addition to this significant grants were being made to organisations to support communities within the Borough.
It was reiterated that it was felt that the report and the charges could be laid out better, to allow for clearer comparison and understanding and to compare previous year’s budgets. Members were advised that budgets were on target with the exception of the planning application revenue, where budgeted revenue in the current year had been received at the end of the prior year.
A Member questioned the charges for pest removal on properties, as current charges allowed for a reduction in price if a member of the household was in receipt of means tested benefits. It was felt that this could have a disadvantage as in the event of a property being owned by a landlord with tenants in receipt of benefits could be financially able to afford the rates, but will be eligible for a reduction because the tenant is in receipt of appropriate benefits.
Members also questioned the provision of charges for beach huts and were advised that reconsideration would being given to the provisions of, and the charges around beach huts to ensure the maintenance costs were being covered and to ensure the usage and allocation of them was fair.
It was reiterated that it was a critical part of the income stream and that had to be considered in light of the reduction in the income streams from other national sources.
RESOLVED: It is recommended that the Board approves the fees and charges detailed in the report and appendix, for submission to Council and subsequent implementation from 1 January 2026.
The Board is advised to note the updated Fees and Charges presentation, which will be published on the website
Members acknowledged that there would need to be an increase in the fees and charges to ensure the Council’s financial position was stable, Councils were not able to increase Council Tax to cover this.
There were not increases to all of the fees and charges, some had been frozen and most remained within the rate of inflation.
It was reiterated to the Board that the public were seeing improved facilities, and the car parks had to be a source of income to cover the gap in the financial position.
Members requested that in future, clearer clarification be given to the expected income and the actual income from previous years, to allow Members to consider how accurate projections had been, particularly as an increase in charges did not necessarily equate to an increase in income.
Some Members highlighted significant increases in some charges to sports facilities and car parking under the current administration, some greater that 80%, however this was challenged as there had been an introduction of free short stay car parking under the current administration and that 33 new businesses had opened in the Town Centre in the last year and the market was improving with the addition of the specialist markets.
Residents were able to access pickle ball for free and improvements were being made to sports pavilions, in addition funding had been secured for the installation of removable goalposts, which would help to protect sports pitches.
In addition to this significant grants were being made to organisations to support communities within the Borough.
It was reiterated that it was felt that the report and the charges could be laid out better, to allow for clearer comparison and understanding and to compare previous year’s budgets. Members were advised that budgets were on target with the exception of the planning application revenue, where budgeted revenue in the current year had been received at the end of the prior year.
A Member questioned the charges for pest removal on properties, as current charges allowed for a reduction in price if a member of the household was in receipt of means tested benefits. It was felt that this could have a disadvantage as in the event of a property being owned by a landlord with tenants in receipt of benefits could be financially able to afford the rates, but will be eligible for a reduction because the tenant is in receipt of appropriate benefits.
Members also questioned the provision of charges for beach huts and were advised that reconsideration would being given to the provisions of, and the charges around beach huts to ensure the maintenance costs were being covered and to ensure the usage and allocation of them was fair.
It was reiterated that it was a critical part of the income stream and that had to be considered in light of the reduction in the income streams from other national sources.
RESOLVED: It is recommended that the Board approves the fees and charges detailed in the report and appendix, for submission to Council and subsequent implementation from 1 January 2026.
The Board is advised to note the updated Fees and Charges presentation, which will be published on the website
16
Any other items
Minutes
The Board was advised that there was an additional item as a result of the County Council undertaking a consultation on the Fareham and Gosport Transport Plan and a response being required.
There was an urgent need to present the item as a response needed to be submitted before the consultation closure.
There was an urgent need to present the item as a response needed to be submitted before the consultation closure.
17
Fareham and Gosport Transport Strategy consultation
Attachments:
- Document P&O Report - Draft Fareham and Gosport Transport Strategy Consultation (for P&O Papers) 18 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - HCC Draft Fareham and Gosport Transport Strategy - Consultation (for P&O Papers) 18 Nov 2025
- Document V2 Appendix 2 - GBC Draft Consultation Response - text only. (for P&O Papers) 18 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Traffic and Transport Manager setting out the details of Hampshire County Council’s (HCC’s) Draft Fareham and Gosport Transport Strategy, which is the subject of public consultation between the 10th November and 21st December 2025, and the Borough Council’s response.
The Board was advised that the consultation ran from 10 November 2025 to 21December 2025 and that the County Council would use feedback to enable a final version of the strategy to be produced.
It was acknowledged that the proposals could be amended in light of any Mayoral authority.
Members recognised that the Borough had cycling opportunities but they were often underutilised as they were interrupted, rather than being entirely dedicated to cycling.
It was noted that Gosport’s wider transport links were poor and there were often back ups on routes such as Stoke Road where buses could not pass each other. It was also acknowledged that in order for people to stop using their cars there had to be a practical and reliable alternative. Cycling along these roads was also problematic.
The number of out commuters from Gosport was still concerning, but it was noted that the number of people in the Borough that work was due to drop with an aging population
A Member suggested that the response should include a recommendation that the BRT be considered for the instillation of footpaths to enable pedestrians to walk to Fareham from Bridgemary as the BRT was a more pleasant route. Some Members expressed concern that this would reduce the effectiveness of the speed of the BRT.
A vote was taken on the inclusion of such proposal and it was agreed this should be included in the response.
The Members also sought an update on the proposal for VOI cycle hire and were advised that locations that had expressed objection were no longer being considered and that as a result there were very few viable sites, which could potentially mean that the proposal would not go ahead. It was accepted that the use of the scooters was very emotive.
Members recognised that the importance of free flowing buses on Stoke Road and Gordon Road was important and felt that those in charge of writing the plan were often not aware of local issues.
RESOLVED: The granting of delegated authority to the Traffic and Transport Manager to respond to this consultation as per Appendix 2 to this report (GBC Draft Consultation Response text) subject to the inclusion of a statement regarding pedestrian access way on the BRT.
The Board was advised that the consultation ran from 10 November 2025 to 21December 2025 and that the County Council would use feedback to enable a final version of the strategy to be produced.
It was acknowledged that the proposals could be amended in light of any Mayoral authority.
Members recognised that the Borough had cycling opportunities but they were often underutilised as they were interrupted, rather than being entirely dedicated to cycling.
It was noted that Gosport’s wider transport links were poor and there were often back ups on routes such as Stoke Road where buses could not pass each other. It was also acknowledged that in order for people to stop using their cars there had to be a practical and reliable alternative. Cycling along these roads was also problematic.
The number of out commuters from Gosport was still concerning, but it was noted that the number of people in the Borough that work was due to drop with an aging population
A Member suggested that the response should include a recommendation that the BRT be considered for the instillation of footpaths to enable pedestrians to walk to Fareham from Bridgemary as the BRT was a more pleasant route. Some Members expressed concern that this would reduce the effectiveness of the speed of the BRT.
A vote was taken on the inclusion of such proposal and it was agreed this should be included in the response.
The Members also sought an update on the proposal for VOI cycle hire and were advised that locations that had expressed objection were no longer being considered and that as a result there were very few viable sites, which could potentially mean that the proposal would not go ahead. It was accepted that the use of the scooters was very emotive.
Members recognised that the importance of free flowing buses on Stoke Road and Gordon Road was important and felt that those in charge of writing the plan were often not aware of local issues.
RESOLVED: The granting of delegated authority to the Traffic and Transport Manager to respond to this consultation as per Appendix 2 to this report (GBC Draft Consultation Response text) subject to the inclusion of a statement regarding pedestrian access way on the BRT.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in