Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 10th December 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 10th December 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 10th December 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 10th December 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
10 Dec 2025
10 Dec 2025
Location:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Kirsty Cox
Present, as expected
Public
Margaret Snaith-Tempia Honorary Alderman
Copy docmts only
Public
Bob Foster Honorary Alderman
Copy docmts only
Committee Member
Councillor Ms Sue Ballard
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Mervin Bradley
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 Jonathan Brown
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
Any Other Items
Minutes
The Council was advised that following the passing of Councillor Maynard, Councillor Finn would be the new Vice-Chairman of the Community and Environment Board.
1
To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting
Minutes
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from Councillor Philpott, and Honorary Alderman Dickson.
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
There were none.
3
Mayors Communications
Minutes
The Mayor advised that she had been busy meeting with many amazing people across the Borough.
4
To confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held on 15 October 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting on 15 October 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 15/10/2025 Council 02 Dec 2025
Minutes
A Member questioned that the minutes recorded the balcony at the Criterion as completely safe as it was not believed to be, it was felt that this was not the phrase used. It did require additional work and was not safe until this was undertaken. A Member advised that words were chosen with care and that consideration should be given to the audio recording of meetings.
A Member advised that they were not willing to accept the minute regarding Fort Road Car Park as further consideration needed to be given following some additional information regarding the financial advice. The decision needed to be reflected on to reach the correct agreement regarding the car park. Consideration now needed to be given as to whether to sell the car park rather than lease it. This would bring in money for revenue or capital funds and would need to be reported back to the Policy and Organisation Board and Council if there was to be a change.
RESOLVED: That the minutes be agreed, subject to the noting of the need to reflect on the decision to lease Fort Road Car Park.
A Member advised that they were not willing to accept the minute regarding Fort Road Car Park as further consideration needed to be given following some additional information regarding the financial advice. The decision needed to be reflected on to reach the correct agreement regarding the car park. Consideration now needed to be given as to whether to sell the car park rather than lease it. This would bring in money for revenue or capital funds and would need to be reported back to the Policy and Organisation Board and Council if there was to be a change.
RESOLVED: That the minutes be agreed, subject to the noting of the need to reflect on the decision to lease Fort Road Car Park.
5
To receive Deputations in accordance with Standing Order No. 3.4 and to answer<br/>any Public Questions pursuant to Standing Order No 3.5, such questions to be<br/>answered orally during a time not exceeding 15 minutes
(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 8 DECEMBER 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 8 DECEMBER 2025)
Minutes
There were 6 Public Questions.
Paul Carter to Councillor Chegwyn.
The role of Gosport’s Town Mayor holds long-standing historical significance and is a valued civic tradition, carried out by local councillors to a consistently high standard.
Could the Leader please confirm what plans are in place to safeguard this important civic role when local-area government reorganisation takes place?
Answer: If LGR takes place, as the Mayor elections have been cancelled, the role will still be there in some form. None of the way forward will be clear until it does, but I am sure that the Council’s involved will want to retain some form of civic head, Portsmouth have a Lord Mayor and will no doubt want to retain it. This could be in line with parish or town councils. What this looks like will be dependent on the law, and how the new authority proceeds, but there will be an aim to keep the Mayor of Gosport and a civic head for the Borough.
Colin Towell to Councillor Chegwyn
Given that the Council has previously pledged that no more public money will be spent on refurbishing the Criterion Centre, can the Council tell me from whom it has secured £50,000 required to remove the asbestos found in the Criterion Centre?’
Answer: From the existing budget of the last 3 years, using developers contributions and section 106 money, and CIL money. The existing budget was being use, and the arts Council would be visiting to hopefully explore and offer official funding.
Gemma Broster to Councillor Westerby
Can the Chair of the Community and Environment Board explain why the Council has ceased maintaining the open space at Kenilworth Close on the grounds that it is unregistered, given that the Council has maintained this land for over 40 years (can be evidenced from residents which may assist with application for adverse possession if required) and continues to maintain other unregistered open spaces within the borough?
Daniel Broster to Councillor Westerby
Will the Chair commit to ensuring that maintenance continues and to registering the land with Gosport Borough Council in recognition of the Council’s long?standing responsibility for it?
The answer would cover both questions.
Unregistered land would not be maintained by GBC. Maintaining it would invalidate the Council’s insurance and the Council did not own or have a legal right to maintain it. Previous maintenance had been undertaken mistakenly and now it has been established the Council did not have ownership, activity on the site has ceased.
Vic Woods to Councillor Chegwyn
Given £906,000 has already been spent on the Criterion Theatre project with absolutely zero evidence of progress, and his council is tendering for contracts amounting to over £200,000 to remove asbestos and repair the roof of the building and he pledged recently that 'no more public money would be spent on the project', does the Council Leader think it may be a good time to ask the taxpayers of Gosport Borough if they think progressing with refurbishment of this theatre is a financially wise move in such critical economic times, with many individuals and families in the Borough struggling and in need of core council services?
Answer: I refer Mr Woods to the previous answer he has been given when questioning the subject.
Mr Jacobs to Cllr Chegwyn
Why does the council list 16 personal email addresses of elected councillors on its website as part of the contact details for them to use for official business?
Councillors using private emails are as follows, Sue Ballard, Kirsten Bradley, Mervin Bradley, Peter Chegwyn, June Cully, Richard Earle, Thomas Finn, Stephen Hammond, David Herridge, Jamie Hutchison, Robert Hylands, Dawn Kelly, Lesley Meenaghan, Philip Raffaelli, Alan Scard and Julie Westerby. The other 11 have gosport.gov.uk email addresses listed.
I believe it breaches data protection rules and the council's own Data Protection Policy, points 13.1 and 13.2. By using personal email addresses, there is no paper trail as emails cannot be accessed by council staff for governance and transparency. In addition, using personal accounts increases the risk of data being accidentally or deliberately compromised, or retained for longer than necessary, as the council's IT department has no control over the private mail server or device.
Emails relating to council business, regardless of the account used, are considered government or public records and must be available for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests or litigation discovery. Councils have legal obligations to retain records for specific periods. Emails on personal servers are beyond the council's control and may be inadvertently deleted or lost, violating retention policies. This practice can create a perception that officials are attempting to conduct public business "behind closed doors," undermining public trust and transparency.
Answer: It is entirely up to the Councillor which email the use and which they choose to make accessible to the public. Most use the email address they use the most.
Paul Carter to Councillor Chegwyn.
The role of Gosport’s Town Mayor holds long-standing historical significance and is a valued civic tradition, carried out by local councillors to a consistently high standard.
Could the Leader please confirm what plans are in place to safeguard this important civic role when local-area government reorganisation takes place?
Answer: If LGR takes place, as the Mayor elections have been cancelled, the role will still be there in some form. None of the way forward will be clear until it does, but I am sure that the Council’s involved will want to retain some form of civic head, Portsmouth have a Lord Mayor and will no doubt want to retain it. This could be in line with parish or town councils. What this looks like will be dependent on the law, and how the new authority proceeds, but there will be an aim to keep the Mayor of Gosport and a civic head for the Borough.
Colin Towell to Councillor Chegwyn
Given that the Council has previously pledged that no more public money will be spent on refurbishing the Criterion Centre, can the Council tell me from whom it has secured £50,000 required to remove the asbestos found in the Criterion Centre?’
Answer: From the existing budget of the last 3 years, using developers contributions and section 106 money, and CIL money. The existing budget was being use, and the arts Council would be visiting to hopefully explore and offer official funding.
Gemma Broster to Councillor Westerby
Can the Chair of the Community and Environment Board explain why the Council has ceased maintaining the open space at Kenilworth Close on the grounds that it is unregistered, given that the Council has maintained this land for over 40 years (can be evidenced from residents which may assist with application for adverse possession if required) and continues to maintain other unregistered open spaces within the borough?
Daniel Broster to Councillor Westerby
Will the Chair commit to ensuring that maintenance continues and to registering the land with Gosport Borough Council in recognition of the Council’s long?standing responsibility for it?
The answer would cover both questions.
Unregistered land would not be maintained by GBC. Maintaining it would invalidate the Council’s insurance and the Council did not own or have a legal right to maintain it. Previous maintenance had been undertaken mistakenly and now it has been established the Council did not have ownership, activity on the site has ceased.
Vic Woods to Councillor Chegwyn
Given £906,000 has already been spent on the Criterion Theatre project with absolutely zero evidence of progress, and his council is tendering for contracts amounting to over £200,000 to remove asbestos and repair the roof of the building and he pledged recently that 'no more public money would be spent on the project', does the Council Leader think it may be a good time to ask the taxpayers of Gosport Borough if they think progressing with refurbishment of this theatre is a financially wise move in such critical economic times, with many individuals and families in the Borough struggling and in need of core council services?
Answer: I refer Mr Woods to the previous answer he has been given when questioning the subject.
Mr Jacobs to Cllr Chegwyn
Why does the council list 16 personal email addresses of elected councillors on its website as part of the contact details for them to use for official business?
Councillors using private emails are as follows, Sue Ballard, Kirsten Bradley, Mervin Bradley, Peter Chegwyn, June Cully, Richard Earle, Thomas Finn, Stephen Hammond, David Herridge, Jamie Hutchison, Robert Hylands, Dawn Kelly, Lesley Meenaghan, Philip Raffaelli, Alan Scard and Julie Westerby. The other 11 have gosport.gov.uk email addresses listed.
I believe it breaches data protection rules and the council's own Data Protection Policy, points 13.1 and 13.2. By using personal email addresses, there is no paper trail as emails cannot be accessed by council staff for governance and transparency. In addition, using personal accounts increases the risk of data being accidentally or deliberately compromised, or retained for longer than necessary, as the council's IT department has no control over the private mail server or device.
Emails relating to council business, regardless of the account used, are considered government or public records and must be available for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests or litigation discovery. Councils have legal obligations to retain records for specific periods. Emails on personal servers are beyond the council's control and may be inadvertently deleted or lost, violating retention policies. This practice can create a perception that officials are attempting to conduct public business "behind closed doors," undermining public trust and transparency.
Answer: It is entirely up to the Councillor which email the use and which they choose to make accessible to the public. Most use the email address they use the most.
6
Questions (if any) pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.3
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 9 DECEMBER 2025 )
Minutes
There were 2 Member’s Questions.
Question in the name of Councillor Cox to Councillor Ballard, answered by Councillor Hutchison
Is it correct that the Conservative-run Hampshire County Council has decided to stop funding social inclusion services from April 2026? If so, will this shameful decision by the Conservatives to stop funding support for homeless people mean the closure of the homeless hostels at 101 Fareham Road and Acton Lodge?
Answer: It is true that the Conservative run County Council have cut funding for the essential service and without the funds the service will not continue to operate from the 31 March 2026.
The hostels were a lifeline to residents and a pathway to move forward. The work undertaken by the hostel is valuable and removing it undermines years of work. It is good to see that Gosport Borough Council is stepping up where the County Council is failing, investing more in housing and staff, rather than undertaking deplorable cuts.
A question in the name of Councillor Hammond to Councillor Chegwyn
Can the Chair please give an update on plans to restore the fountain at the Falkland Gardens?
Answer: With pleasure, the administration has committed to restoring the fountain as it is symbolic to many residents in Gosport, including those with relatives who had died in the conflict.
The fountain had not worked for years, the wind had caused the water to blow away from the fountain, with the pump subsequently overheating. The cost to repair the fountain was £75000, and the fountain would be restored using levelling up finding as it became available, at no cost to the Council tax payer and preserve the importance of the Falklands connection.
Supplementary question:
Can you update the Council on the complaint against Councillor Lesley Meenaghan.
Answer: The Councillor breached the code of conduct, has been asked to apologise and undergo training. It was a shame that Councillor Maynard passed away before the outcome of the complaint was reached.
Question in the name of Councillor Cox to Councillor Ballard, answered by Councillor Hutchison
Is it correct that the Conservative-run Hampshire County Council has decided to stop funding social inclusion services from April 2026? If so, will this shameful decision by the Conservatives to stop funding support for homeless people mean the closure of the homeless hostels at 101 Fareham Road and Acton Lodge?
Answer: It is true that the Conservative run County Council have cut funding for the essential service and without the funds the service will not continue to operate from the 31 March 2026.
The hostels were a lifeline to residents and a pathway to move forward. The work undertaken by the hostel is valuable and removing it undermines years of work. It is good to see that Gosport Borough Council is stepping up where the County Council is failing, investing more in housing and staff, rather than undertaking deplorable cuts.
A question in the name of Councillor Hammond to Councillor Chegwyn
Can the Chair please give an update on plans to restore the fountain at the Falkland Gardens?
Answer: With pleasure, the administration has committed to restoring the fountain as it is symbolic to many residents in Gosport, including those with relatives who had died in the conflict.
The fountain had not worked for years, the wind had caused the water to blow away from the fountain, with the pump subsequently overheating. The cost to repair the fountain was £75000, and the fountain would be restored using levelling up finding as it became available, at no cost to the Council tax payer and preserve the importance of the Falklands connection.
Supplementary question:
Can you update the Council on the complaint against Councillor Lesley Meenaghan.
Answer: The Councillor breached the code of conduct, has been asked to apologise and undergo training. It was a shame that Councillor Maynard passed away before the outcome of the complaint was reached.
7
Part I 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 02 Dec 2025
- Document Part I 02 Dec 2025
- Document 2026 Fees and Charges Report P+O 02 Dec 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Proposed 2026 Fees & Charges 02 Dec 2025
- Document Appendix 3 - Nearest Neighbour Comparison 02 Dec 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Statutory Charges Checks 02 Dec 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the Part I recommendation of the Policy and Organisation Board.
The Council was advised that Fees and Charges were being presented to the Council, some were above the rate of inflation, however some had not increased at all. The increases were no more than anywhere else and were in line with inflation. Council Tax rises were limited to 2.9% whilst inflation had sat around 4%, and some fees and charges had been frozen, including children’s burials.
A Member advised that there had been a price hike this time last year, that there had been a petition against the parking charges, and that what was being advised to be a modest increase, was much more significant when considered over the period of parking charges being introduced. Inflation in line with the consumer price index since 2021 was roughly 20-25%, however, long stay parking had increased from £6 to £9.60 all day, 60% increase, permits had increased from £490 to £700 a 43% increase. In Lee on the Solent, car parks were only 55% full, but prices had been increased to be greater than those parking on the road under Hampshire County Council. Parking in Lee on the Solent had increased by 45%.
Land hire across the Borough costs had increased, and no longer included provision of water. There was also no differentiation for not for profit organisations.
Football pitch hire had increased by 68%, allotments by 31%, all greater than a modest increase. It was felt that people would not be able to want to use the People’s Park because of the car parking charges to use it.
A Member advised that in addition to the hourly rate increasing for parking, there was also an extension in the hours that were charged. This had impacted on dog walkers, runners, and people wanting to use restaurants like Pebbles. They advised that when parking charges were introduced, the Leader of the Council advised that if he were to gain power in the future, they would remove car parking. However, this had not happened.
The press release stated there was an increase in units in occupancy in the High Street, but there still continued to be empty units. The one hour free parking did not allow for dwell time, for increased spending. This rushed people out of the town and did not support the businesses, people would go elsewhere where there was free parking, such as Stoke Road and Brockhurst Gate.
Members felt the parking increases impacted on local businesses, which were critical for local employment.
The pricing structure was illogical and was to the detriment to businesses, the Council should be supporting local businesses, at a time when the high street was struggling and that lack of footfall was another pressure as businesses entered 2026.
A Member advised that had money not previously been spent on speed bumps in Marine Parade car park, this money could have been utilised elsewhere.
In addition it was advised that 33 businesses had open in the High Street and that Members should focus on the good news this presented, rather than putting down its success. In addition, £1.50 for two hours parking within the High Street area did present good value.
A Member reiterated that across the Board prices had increased, including allotments and advised that the 33 businesses was not limited to the High Street but included Stoke Road. Stoke Road’s success came from the fact there was on street parking and that there was significant free parking in the locality.
In addition Members requested sight of the income the car parks had delivered, in comparison to the predictions as it was felt that these figures were different. Car Parks were consistently half full and all of the charges continued to have an impact on the health and wellbeing of residents as it was denying them access to open spaces and activities.
A Member advised that it was clear there were less empty shops than under the previous administration and that cost increase to fees and charges would go up, but wages had also increased. The High Street and the Borough was seeing more investment than ever and Gosport was benefiting and improving.
Members advised that historically car parking in the High Street had been sensitive and it was acknowledged that it was easy to focus on a specific area of fees and charges. The Christmas tree in the Town Centre had been a talking point this year as it was attractive, and there had been an increase in free activities in the high street which all supported residents.
A Member highlighted that whoever the administration was, there was always criticism of parking charge increase. A Members advised that they felt the current set up provided good value for the High Street and it was highlighted that there was free parking in Jamaica Place and Stoke Road provided by Gosport Borough Council.
A Member advised that there was an increase to pitch fees within the Borough but that there was no visible improvement to the pitches for those that were paying extra and that users wanted to see a greater return.
A Member advised that they a knotweed machine had been purchased by the previous head of streetscene and that had never been used and was not fit for purpose.
A Member advised that in addition to the increase in parking charges, the extended hours of charging also impacted on many users of the seafront and the Alver Valley, impacting those exercising and dog walkers, a return to the previous hours of charging would open up those areas more.
A Member advised that the car park charges did support the High Street as it encouraged footfall to remain in the High Street rather than going to Portsmouth, and that the improvements to the Christmas tree fencing had been funded by the market operators. It was reminded that the parking charges were cheaper than Fareham and Portsmouth.
A Members advised that historically the administration had been against parking charges and in response the Council was advised that the previous government’s restrictions on Council Tax increases had not supported the retention of public services without cost increase to the public.
The Council were reminded that there was no free parking in Fareham and that Portsmouth charged 24/7. In addition the Council was advised that significant work had been undertaken to some of the pavilions, there had been the provision of pickle ball and sports clubs could apply for grant funding from the grants sub board.
The Council were reminded that Weatherspoon’s had refurbished their pub, Bon Marche had returned to the High Street, as had McDonalds. Money needed to be raised to protect the services in the Borough.
A named vote was requested and taken as follows.
FOR the recommendation
Councillors: Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby, The Mayor (16)
AGAINST the recommendation
Councillors Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namedo, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard. (10)
RESOLVED: the Council approves the fees and charges detailed in the report and appendix, for 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
The Council was advised that Fees and Charges were being presented to the Council, some were above the rate of inflation, however some had not increased at all. The increases were no more than anywhere else and were in line with inflation. Council Tax rises were limited to 2.9% whilst inflation had sat around 4%, and some fees and charges had been frozen, including children’s burials.
A Member advised that there had been a price hike this time last year, that there had been a petition against the parking charges, and that what was being advised to be a modest increase, was much more significant when considered over the period of parking charges being introduced. Inflation in line with the consumer price index since 2021 was roughly 20-25%, however, long stay parking had increased from £6 to £9.60 all day, 60% increase, permits had increased from £490 to £700 a 43% increase. In Lee on the Solent, car parks were only 55% full, but prices had been increased to be greater than those parking on the road under Hampshire County Council. Parking in Lee on the Solent had increased by 45%.
Land hire across the Borough costs had increased, and no longer included provision of water. There was also no differentiation for not for profit organisations.
Football pitch hire had increased by 68%, allotments by 31%, all greater than a modest increase. It was felt that people would not be able to want to use the People’s Park because of the car parking charges to use it.
A Member advised that in addition to the hourly rate increasing for parking, there was also an extension in the hours that were charged. This had impacted on dog walkers, runners, and people wanting to use restaurants like Pebbles. They advised that when parking charges were introduced, the Leader of the Council advised that if he were to gain power in the future, they would remove car parking. However, this had not happened.
The press release stated there was an increase in units in occupancy in the High Street, but there still continued to be empty units. The one hour free parking did not allow for dwell time, for increased spending. This rushed people out of the town and did not support the businesses, people would go elsewhere where there was free parking, such as Stoke Road and Brockhurst Gate.
Members felt the parking increases impacted on local businesses, which were critical for local employment.
The pricing structure was illogical and was to the detriment to businesses, the Council should be supporting local businesses, at a time when the high street was struggling and that lack of footfall was another pressure as businesses entered 2026.
A Member advised that had money not previously been spent on speed bumps in Marine Parade car park, this money could have been utilised elsewhere.
In addition it was advised that 33 businesses had open in the High Street and that Members should focus on the good news this presented, rather than putting down its success. In addition, £1.50 for two hours parking within the High Street area did present good value.
A Member reiterated that across the Board prices had increased, including allotments and advised that the 33 businesses was not limited to the High Street but included Stoke Road. Stoke Road’s success came from the fact there was on street parking and that there was significant free parking in the locality.
In addition Members requested sight of the income the car parks had delivered, in comparison to the predictions as it was felt that these figures were different. Car Parks were consistently half full and all of the charges continued to have an impact on the health and wellbeing of residents as it was denying them access to open spaces and activities.
A Member advised that it was clear there were less empty shops than under the previous administration and that cost increase to fees and charges would go up, but wages had also increased. The High Street and the Borough was seeing more investment than ever and Gosport was benefiting and improving.
Members advised that historically car parking in the High Street had been sensitive and it was acknowledged that it was easy to focus on a specific area of fees and charges. The Christmas tree in the Town Centre had been a talking point this year as it was attractive, and there had been an increase in free activities in the high street which all supported residents.
A Member highlighted that whoever the administration was, there was always criticism of parking charge increase. A Members advised that they felt the current set up provided good value for the High Street and it was highlighted that there was free parking in Jamaica Place and Stoke Road provided by Gosport Borough Council.
A Member advised that there was an increase to pitch fees within the Borough but that there was no visible improvement to the pitches for those that were paying extra and that users wanted to see a greater return.
A Member advised that they a knotweed machine had been purchased by the previous head of streetscene and that had never been used and was not fit for purpose.
A Member advised that in addition to the increase in parking charges, the extended hours of charging also impacted on many users of the seafront and the Alver Valley, impacting those exercising and dog walkers, a return to the previous hours of charging would open up those areas more.
A Member advised that the car park charges did support the High Street as it encouraged footfall to remain in the High Street rather than going to Portsmouth, and that the improvements to the Christmas tree fencing had been funded by the market operators. It was reminded that the parking charges were cheaper than Fareham and Portsmouth.
A Members advised that historically the administration had been against parking charges and in response the Council was advised that the previous government’s restrictions on Council Tax increases had not supported the retention of public services without cost increase to the public.
The Council were reminded that there was no free parking in Fareham and that Portsmouth charged 24/7. In addition the Council was advised that significant work had been undertaken to some of the pavilions, there had been the provision of pickle ball and sports clubs could apply for grant funding from the grants sub board.
The Council were reminded that Weatherspoon’s had refurbished their pub, Bon Marche had returned to the High Street, as had McDonalds. Money needed to be raised to protect the services in the Borough.
A named vote was requested and taken as follows.
FOR the recommendation
Councillors: Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby, The Mayor (16)
AGAINST the recommendation
Councillors Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namedo, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard. (10)
RESOLVED: the Council approves the fees and charges detailed in the report and appendix, for 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
8
Part II Minutes of the Boards of the Council
Housing Board - 19 November 2025
Policy and Organisation Board – 26 November 2025 (to follow)
Policy and Organisation Board – 26 November 2025 (to follow)
Attachments:
- Document Housing Part II 02 Dec 2025
- Document Part II Minutes 02 Dec 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: that the Part II minutes of the following Boards be accepted.
Housing Board 19 November 2025
It was acknowledged that work was ongoing to improve repairs services and that customer satisfaction survey results were high, with 85% of tenants satisfied. New homes were being built and a programme of works was in place for improvements.
It was acknowledged that there was significant stress on staff, and thanks was extended to them for their support and hard work.
Policy and Organisation Board – 26 November 2025
Simpler recycling – food waste and Supplementary Planning Document.
It was acknowledged that the rescheduled implementation date was October 2026, and it was questioned whether this has been cleared to be implemented by DEFRA, and raised the continued concern that there would not be enough resource to implement the scheme nationwide due to the lack of trucks and bins.
Members thanked the Head of Waste for the significant work undertaken to try and bring the scheme together, acknowledging it had been difficult.
Members also hoped that the necessary amendments to planning applications would be made to ensure that there was adequate storage foe the bins within any new development. Members were advised that this had been considered and agreed at the Board as part of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document and the relevant guidance had been updated. Applications that had been considered recently and prior to the changes had also been encouraged to ensure that suitable provision was available.
Legionella Policy
A Members questioned whether this would support the instillation of dog watering station, but it was advised that this would need to be checked with regards to insurance.
Annual Governance Statement
Work was being undertaken through the Policy and Organisation Board and as a result of the Corporate Peer Challenge to improve governance and there was a commitment to do so, however it would be a long process.
A Member advised that the EY report did not indicate that there had been an improvement in reporting and that the audit summary and opinion gave limited assurances and weaknesses in governance and that this had not yet been addressed.
The Council was advised that the Corporate Peer review had been positive and that the Council officers should be thanked for their work.
Members were reminded to complete their register of interests.
Officers were thanked for the reports on the remaining pages of the minutes.
Housing Board 19 November 2025
It was acknowledged that work was ongoing to improve repairs services and that customer satisfaction survey results were high, with 85% of tenants satisfied. New homes were being built and a programme of works was in place for improvements.
It was acknowledged that there was significant stress on staff, and thanks was extended to them for their support and hard work.
Policy and Organisation Board – 26 November 2025
Simpler recycling – food waste and Supplementary Planning Document.
It was acknowledged that the rescheduled implementation date was October 2026, and it was questioned whether this has been cleared to be implemented by DEFRA, and raised the continued concern that there would not be enough resource to implement the scheme nationwide due to the lack of trucks and bins.
Members thanked the Head of Waste for the significant work undertaken to try and bring the scheme together, acknowledging it had been difficult.
Members also hoped that the necessary amendments to planning applications would be made to ensure that there was adequate storage foe the bins within any new development. Members were advised that this had been considered and agreed at the Board as part of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document and the relevant guidance had been updated. Applications that had been considered recently and prior to the changes had also been encouraged to ensure that suitable provision was available.
Legionella Policy
A Members questioned whether this would support the instillation of dog watering station, but it was advised that this would need to be checked with regards to insurance.
Annual Governance Statement
Work was being undertaken through the Policy and Organisation Board and as a result of the Corporate Peer Challenge to improve governance and there was a commitment to do so, however it would be a long process.
A Member advised that the EY report did not indicate that there had been an improvement in reporting and that the audit summary and opinion gave limited assurances and weaknesses in governance and that this had not yet been addressed.
The Council was advised that the Corporate Peer review had been positive and that the Council officers should be thanked for their work.
Members were reminded to complete their register of interests.
Officers were thanked for the reports on the remaining pages of the minutes.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in