Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 27th January 2026
6:00 PM
Tuesday, 27th January 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Tuesday, 27th January 2026
10:00 PM
Tuesday, 27th January 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Date:
27 Jan 2026
27 Jan 2026
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
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
Apologies
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
Public
Margaret Snaith-Tempia Honorary Alderman
Copy docmts only
Public
Bob Foster Honorary Alderman
Copy docmts only
Committee Member
Councillor Jonathan Brown
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Ms Sue Ballard
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
Any other items
Minutes
Following the passing of Councillor Maynard, the following Outside bodies needed appointments
BRWCA
Nominations received for Councillor Hammond and Councillor Carter – Councillor Carter was elected.
Portsmouth Water – no representative elected.
Project Integra – Councillor Westerby was elected.
Councillor Hammond advised that he wished to address the Council.
He advised that at a recent meeting of the Council he had stated the Councillor Ricketts had been responsible for the purchase of the knotweed machine, in his previous role as the Head of Streetscene.
A senior officer had advised him of this and he had accepted it in good faith and he had been wrong to do so as it was not correct that it had been purchased whilst Councillor Ricketts was in post. He therefore wished to apologise.
Councillor Ricketts advised that he was grateful for the apology and that there was evidence the purchase had not taken place whilst he was working for the Council and that the statement of defamation had been retracted.
BRWCA
Nominations received for Councillor Hammond and Councillor Carter – Councillor Carter was elected.
Portsmouth Water – no representative elected.
Project Integra – Councillor Westerby was elected.
Councillor Hammond advised that he wished to address the Council.
He advised that at a recent meeting of the Council he had stated the Councillor Ricketts had been responsible for the purchase of the knotweed machine, in his previous role as the Head of Streetscene.
A senior officer had advised him of this and he had accepted it in good faith and he had been wrong to do so as it was not correct that it had been purchased whilst Councillor Ricketts was in post. He therefore wished to apologise.
Councillor Ricketts advised that he was grateful for the apology and that there was evidence the purchase had not taken place whilst he was working for the Council and that the statement of defamation had been retracted.
1
To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting
Minutes
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Hutchison
2
Declarations of Interest
Minutes
There were none.
3
Mayors Communications
Minutes
This is the time each meeting where I usually say how great it has been meeting all the wonderful volunteers and of course that still stands, but what an injustice on my part. As well as the wonderful volunteers, I have had the absolute pleasure to meet, medical staff, artists, advisors, scientists, sports teams, dancers, new businesses, support groups, community associations, heritage groups, musicians emergency services, scouting and guide groups, schools, churches, people who are fighting illness and life difficulties.
This list goes on, then of course we are proud to have Navy and Joint Forces serving at home and away, based in our military town, I have been along to ceremonies and shows they lay on for the community, and no one can forget the veterans. The veterans who have served their time proudly for our country and are here in Gosport supporting each-other and also many the above listed groups. We here in Gosport, have the largest concentration of veterans in the country.
Daily, I as first citizen, representative to the King, have listened to the stories and been left in awe of what I see and learn from them. I am extremely proud to be in this apolitical role and extremely proud of Gosport and the people in it. These are the people we, as councillors are elected to represent. They welcome me but really I feel honoured to meet them and support them the best way I can.
Our community is important and this is our home. A place where we should strive to build to make it a better place like the efforts they all put in. This also can be said of the council officers and staff who come to work each day, working for the council using the budgets, equipment and instructions that have been afforded to them. We are all people our community and we are responsible to them.
Over the Christmas build up and festive period we were forced to witness a by election that was filled with malice and hatred, personal attacks and labelling voters, candidates and supporters, our community, racists, liars and other disrespectful names. We also saw constant negative comments on our town and its assets, facilities and workmanship. Now are we trying to support the town and improve it or are we trying to destroy it? How do you build up and support the efforts of the community if there is constant political point scoring and negativity constantly being thrown around. I was completely embarrassed to be a councillor and don’t want to be part of that now or in May. I am very grateful to be now recovering from surgery I had in December which meant I was able to step away completely from the activity and be no part of the election. In an apolitical position that is exactly how it should be.
I initially went independent in August as I could see a struggle of supporting the community as a whole on an apolitical basis, and after threats of, I would be responsible for stopping any productivity in the town due to a hung council, I was convinced to stay. Of course my votes were required.
I continued to serve the community in a dignified and respectful manor. I spend my time doing my duties as a councillor in the community and extremely busy doing my Mayoral duties supporting the many wonderful members of our community. I was congratulated within the group for my dedicated service as Mayor and told also was doing a great job chairing the meetings. On numerous occasions it was suggested by Peter and other members that I should continue and do another year as Mayor. Obviously a role I am extremely proud and honoured to do.
The electorate and public vote at the by election changed the numbers so I could then follow suit or be left with towing the party line and forced to use a casting vote to increase the party power, instead of having free choice to support the community, those wonderful people I have listed above! Those who we are here to serve. I sadly lost my wonderful dad in September, he was also a proud veteran, and I would certainly want him to look down on me with pride, I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and our wonderful community in their eyes knowing I did what is right. Something every councillor in this chamber should be able to do.
Now I sit here as Independent, this extraordinary council meeting is here this evening to give every councillor a voice and a vote. A vote to do what is right. A chance to put democracy back to the borough with elected members having a chance to vote, without all outcomes being foretold before they get to the Chamber. If we are to build a town with pride, decisions need to be made and supported fairly with a chance for debate otherwise the trust will be lost and the town will continue to be disrespected and not appreciated for the wonderful place it is.
Elected Councillors working for the community in mind. Everyone is fed up with the constant bickering and political point scoring. If decisions of one person are pushed upon the council and decisions are foretold and forced through, even good decisions and outcomes will never gain the trust and support of the collective group of elected members. Many good things have happened but the negativity is deafening and that brings the whole town into shame and distaste, ruining the hard work and efforts of the community we were elected by.
It’s a very difficult situation to sit here alone as I have always been completely respectful and human to every Councillor in the borough and now of course I am the subject of lies and finger pointing.
I would just again like to say to each and every Councillor, spend time to think why they have put themselves forward in the community in the first place and how we should act with integrity and be regarded by the community and in their heart. You have a chance this evening to give yourself worth and a power to vote in the future, or you can sit back and follow the simple route of hiding behind party colours and making sure every future vote is foretold.
This list goes on, then of course we are proud to have Navy and Joint Forces serving at home and away, based in our military town, I have been along to ceremonies and shows they lay on for the community, and no one can forget the veterans. The veterans who have served their time proudly for our country and are here in Gosport supporting each-other and also many the above listed groups. We here in Gosport, have the largest concentration of veterans in the country.
Daily, I as first citizen, representative to the King, have listened to the stories and been left in awe of what I see and learn from them. I am extremely proud to be in this apolitical role and extremely proud of Gosport and the people in it. These are the people we, as councillors are elected to represent. They welcome me but really I feel honoured to meet them and support them the best way I can.
Our community is important and this is our home. A place where we should strive to build to make it a better place like the efforts they all put in. This also can be said of the council officers and staff who come to work each day, working for the council using the budgets, equipment and instructions that have been afforded to them. We are all people our community and we are responsible to them.
Over the Christmas build up and festive period we were forced to witness a by election that was filled with malice and hatred, personal attacks and labelling voters, candidates and supporters, our community, racists, liars and other disrespectful names. We also saw constant negative comments on our town and its assets, facilities and workmanship. Now are we trying to support the town and improve it or are we trying to destroy it? How do you build up and support the efforts of the community if there is constant political point scoring and negativity constantly being thrown around. I was completely embarrassed to be a councillor and don’t want to be part of that now or in May. I am very grateful to be now recovering from surgery I had in December which meant I was able to step away completely from the activity and be no part of the election. In an apolitical position that is exactly how it should be.
I initially went independent in August as I could see a struggle of supporting the community as a whole on an apolitical basis, and after threats of, I would be responsible for stopping any productivity in the town due to a hung council, I was convinced to stay. Of course my votes were required.
I continued to serve the community in a dignified and respectful manor. I spend my time doing my duties as a councillor in the community and extremely busy doing my Mayoral duties supporting the many wonderful members of our community. I was congratulated within the group for my dedicated service as Mayor and told also was doing a great job chairing the meetings. On numerous occasions it was suggested by Peter and other members that I should continue and do another year as Mayor. Obviously a role I am extremely proud and honoured to do.
The electorate and public vote at the by election changed the numbers so I could then follow suit or be left with towing the party line and forced to use a casting vote to increase the party power, instead of having free choice to support the community, those wonderful people I have listed above! Those who we are here to serve. I sadly lost my wonderful dad in September, he was also a proud veteran, and I would certainly want him to look down on me with pride, I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and our wonderful community in their eyes knowing I did what is right. Something every councillor in this chamber should be able to do.
Now I sit here as Independent, this extraordinary council meeting is here this evening to give every councillor a voice and a vote. A vote to do what is right. A chance to put democracy back to the borough with elected members having a chance to vote, without all outcomes being foretold before they get to the Chamber. If we are to build a town with pride, decisions need to be made and supported fairly with a chance for debate otherwise the trust will be lost and the town will continue to be disrespected and not appreciated for the wonderful place it is.
Elected Councillors working for the community in mind. Everyone is fed up with the constant bickering and political point scoring. If decisions of one person are pushed upon the council and decisions are foretold and forced through, even good decisions and outcomes will never gain the trust and support of the collective group of elected members. Many good things have happened but the negativity is deafening and that brings the whole town into shame and distaste, ruining the hard work and efforts of the community we were elected by.
It’s a very difficult situation to sit here alone as I have always been completely respectful and human to every Councillor in the borough and now of course I am the subject of lies and finger pointing.
I would just again like to say to each and every Councillor, spend time to think why they have put themselves forward in the community in the first place and how we should act with integrity and be regarded by the community and in their heart. You have a chance this evening to give yourself worth and a power to vote in the future, or you can sit back and follow the simple route of hiding behind party colours and making sure every future vote is foretold.
4
To receive Deputations in accordance with Standing Order No. 3.4 and to answer any Public Questions pursuant to Standing Order No 3.5, such questions to be 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 FRIDAY 23 JANUARY 2026 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 FRIDAY 23 JANUARY 2026)
Minutes
There were no deputation.
A public question in the name of Antony Stanton to the Leader of the Council
Why has the Community and Environment Board been repeatedly cancelled or curtailed, with little evidence of meaningful policy debate, while key decisions are instead concentrated within the Policy and Organisation Board — particularly when its Chair receives an additional allowance.
Answer: The Board has not been repeatedly cancelled, 15 of the scheduled 19 meetings have taken place. Meetings are cancelled when there is no business which saved the Council money.
A question in the name of Dave Clark to Councillor Chegwyn
Mr Chegwyn said in his statement that the Falklands Fountain funding would be made available. Are all councillors in agreement with the project along with its expected start date?
Answer: The Liberal Democrats support the project, I cannot comment on behalf of the other parties and Mr Clark should ask them for their views on the matter.
A public question in the name of Antony Stanton to the Leader of the Council
Why has the Community and Environment Board been repeatedly cancelled or curtailed, with little evidence of meaningful policy debate, while key decisions are instead concentrated within the Policy and Organisation Board — particularly when its Chair receives an additional allowance.
Answer: The Board has not been repeatedly cancelled, 15 of the scheduled 19 meetings have taken place. Meetings are cancelled when there is no business which saved the Council money.
A question in the name of Dave Clark to Councillor Chegwyn
Mr Chegwyn said in his statement that the Falklands Fountain funding would be made available. Are all councillors in agreement with the project along with its expected start date?
Answer: The Liberal Democrats support the project, I cannot comment on behalf of the other parties and Mr Clark should ask them for their views on the matter.
5
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 MONDAY 26 JANUARY 2026 )
Minutes
There was one Members question in the name of Councillor Hylands to the Leader of the Council
What advice would the Leader give to other Councillors about them sending unsolicited emails of a racist and anti-Muslim nature to colleagues and members of the public, especially emails talking about the Islamic takeover of the UK, Muslim deception, the Islamist goal is not to assimilate but conquer and all Islamists should be arrested.
Answer:
I will always support elected Members being able to have an opinion and they have a duty to represented and I respect their views even if I disagree with them.
There is a line that should not be crossed and Members should be careful at the language used especially if the remarks and the message can cause distress to those receiving them and if the views cross the line of what is acceptable, and come from you Madam Mayor.
As a point of explanation the Mayor advised that she had sent nothing that was racist, but had pointed out that a group did not understand the voices of the people they would lose votes. All conversations were able to be seen by the Borough Solicitor and were welcomed to be checked by him as it was a concern raised for the residents of Gosport.
Supplementary question
The Leader has completed a referral to the Borough Solicitor regarding failing to meet the standards set in the code of conduct and any Member was able to do this, in addition this could be reported to the police, under counter terrorism or Operation Ford or Prevent.
Answer: Members are entitled to their views but if these were overstepped a standards complaint could be made and investigated, including against the Mayor with the appropriate authority.
Members should be careful of sharing their views especially if they could cause offense.
What advice would the Leader give to other Councillors about them sending unsolicited emails of a racist and anti-Muslim nature to colleagues and members of the public, especially emails talking about the Islamic takeover of the UK, Muslim deception, the Islamist goal is not to assimilate but conquer and all Islamists should be arrested.
Answer:
I will always support elected Members being able to have an opinion and they have a duty to represented and I respect their views even if I disagree with them.
There is a line that should not be crossed and Members should be careful at the language used especially if the remarks and the message can cause distress to those receiving them and if the views cross the line of what is acceptable, and come from you Madam Mayor.
As a point of explanation the Mayor advised that she had sent nothing that was racist, but had pointed out that a group did not understand the voices of the people they would lose votes. All conversations were able to be seen by the Borough Solicitor and were welcomed to be checked by him as it was a concern raised for the residents of Gosport.
Supplementary question
The Leader has completed a referral to the Borough Solicitor regarding failing to meet the standards set in the code of conduct and any Member was able to do this, in addition this could be reported to the police, under counter terrorism or Operation Ford or Prevent.
Answer: Members are entitled to their views but if these were overstepped a standards complaint could be made and investigated, including against the Mayor with the appropriate authority.
Members should be careful of sharing their views especially if they could cause offense.
6
Results of the Bridgemary Byelection
Attachments:
- Document 2026 LGBE - Report to Full Council v1 19 Jan 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Returning Officer, detailing the results of the recent Bridgemary byelection.
Councillor Carter was invited to address the Council.
He congratulated the Mayor on becoming an independent Councillor and recognised it was an honour to serve the residents of Bridgemary and thanked residents for their support. He praised the community of Bridgemary and promised to support them.
He acknowledged that in 8 months he had gone from being a resident in the gallery representing ‘some form of political party’ to a Councillor, with more people waiting to support and stand for elections in May. There were over 1000 Reform UK Members in Gosport, and held active branch meetings and that Reform UK were now Gosport’s largest political party.
The face of politics was changing both locally and nationally.
He reiterated the debate not hate motion, and expressed disappointment that it had not been extended to the public before Reform UK had been elected to the Council. There had been a number of phrases used towards the party, Reform PLC, some sort of political party, Deform UK, extreme far right and racist. Language used by the leader and the Liberal Democrat Councillors. It was dangerous language and not appropriate, even in election campaigning. The public represented by political parties were in attendance, they came from all walks of life and had been labelled racist. This was unacceptable, people were outraged by the use of the language. The residents were worried about how the Town was moving forward, and had attended the meeting to express their concerns. Residents were concerns about living standards, lack of services, and the changing landscape of the town.
He advised that accessing his wife’s facebook page, to remove photos from it and share on the Liberal Democrats facebook page for political point scoring was unacceptable. It was inappropriate to target family members.
He advised his disgust that the widow of the late Councillor Maynard had been invited to write to the residents of Bridgemary, highlighting her disgust at Reform standing for his seat, this was subsequently redacted as incorrect following a point of order raised under standing order 4.11.10 and 4.11.11
He concluded by thanking officers for their support in the first week of his position.
Other Members highlighted disappointment that the debate not hate motion was not being upheld and hoped this could be addressed moving forwards and that personal attacks be removed.
A Member highlighted the Mayor’s speech, concerning behavior of elected Members and advised that the Mayor was a strong independent woman representing the Council. In response a Member advised that the Mayor did not represent her as a strong and independent woman.
The Council noted the report.
Councillor Carter was invited to address the Council.
He congratulated the Mayor on becoming an independent Councillor and recognised it was an honour to serve the residents of Bridgemary and thanked residents for their support. He praised the community of Bridgemary and promised to support them.
He acknowledged that in 8 months he had gone from being a resident in the gallery representing ‘some form of political party’ to a Councillor, with more people waiting to support and stand for elections in May. There were over 1000 Reform UK Members in Gosport, and held active branch meetings and that Reform UK were now Gosport’s largest political party.
The face of politics was changing both locally and nationally.
He reiterated the debate not hate motion, and expressed disappointment that it had not been extended to the public before Reform UK had been elected to the Council. There had been a number of phrases used towards the party, Reform PLC, some sort of political party, Deform UK, extreme far right and racist. Language used by the leader and the Liberal Democrat Councillors. It was dangerous language and not appropriate, even in election campaigning. The public represented by political parties were in attendance, they came from all walks of life and had been labelled racist. This was unacceptable, people were outraged by the use of the language. The residents were worried about how the Town was moving forward, and had attended the meeting to express their concerns. Residents were concerns about living standards, lack of services, and the changing landscape of the town.
He advised that accessing his wife’s facebook page, to remove photos from it and share on the Liberal Democrats facebook page for political point scoring was unacceptable. It was inappropriate to target family members.
He advised his disgust that the widow of the late Councillor Maynard had been invited to write to the residents of Bridgemary, highlighting her disgust at Reform standing for his seat, this was subsequently redacted as incorrect following a point of order raised under standing order 4.11.10 and 4.11.11
He concluded by thanking officers for their support in the first week of his position.
Other Members highlighted disappointment that the debate not hate motion was not being upheld and hoped this could be addressed moving forwards and that personal attacks be removed.
A Member highlighted the Mayor’s speech, concerning behavior of elected Members and advised that the Mayor was a strong independent woman representing the Council. In response a Member advised that the Mayor did not represent her as a strong and independent woman.
The Council noted the report.
7
Notice of motion
NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 2.2.5. EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL, TUESDAY 27TH JANUARY 2026
Constitutional changes
We propose the following changes to the Constitution:
PART 3, SCHEDULE 9, ANNEX 1
POLICY & ORGANISATION BOARD
Under section "A. Policy and Strategy" a, b and c be removed and transferred to Community & Environment Board so that (a) becomes paragraph 5.1; (b) becomes paragraph 5.2; and (c) becomes paragraph 5.3.
For clarity, the section to be cut from the Policy & Organisation Board and transferred to the Community & Environment Board:
a. The formation of policies and initiatives for the maintenance and improvement of the environment including climate change and the health of the Community.
b. The formation of policies and initiatives in respect of Community Safety and Anti-social Behaviour.
c. The formation of policies and initiatives for the provision of recreational, cultural, sports, heritage facilities and allotments and cemeteries and crematoria.
Under Section E (e) vi the words "including Climate Change" be deleted.
Under Section "F. Miscellaneous Service Functions, "(b) Civic, ceremonial and commemorative (including Twinning)" be removed and transferred to C&E to become paragraph 6.1. Subsequent paragraphs under F (ie paragraphs c to h) would move up one so that paragraph c would become paragraph b, d would become c and so on.
PART 4, SCHEDULE 11
We propose the reinstatement of Standing Order "5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)". For clarity, 5.11 will read as follows:
“5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)
5.11.1 Immediately following a vote on a decision taken by a Service Board under delegated powers (and before the next agenda item is called) 2 members of the Service Board present and voting at the meeting may require that the decision be submitted to the Council as a recommendation.
5.11.2 Where a reference has been made pursuant to Standing Order 5.11.1 the decision of the Service Board shall not be implemented before consideration of that recommendation by the Council."
Introduce a new clause 4.15.2
“Officer reports presented directly to Full Council, and bypassing Service Boards, for any reason, will be presented to the Council sitting as a Committee.”
Proposed by Cllr Stephen Philpott
Seconded by Cllr Zoe Huggins
Constitutional changes
We propose the following changes to the Constitution:
PART 3, SCHEDULE 9, ANNEX 1
POLICY & ORGANISATION BOARD
Under section "A. Policy and Strategy" a, b and c be removed and transferred to Community & Environment Board so that (a) becomes paragraph 5.1; (b) becomes paragraph 5.2; and (c) becomes paragraph 5.3.
For clarity, the section to be cut from the Policy & Organisation Board and transferred to the Community & Environment Board:
a. The formation of policies and initiatives for the maintenance and improvement of the environment including climate change and the health of the Community.
b. The formation of policies and initiatives in respect of Community Safety and Anti-social Behaviour.
c. The formation of policies and initiatives for the provision of recreational, cultural, sports, heritage facilities and allotments and cemeteries and crematoria.
Under Section E (e) vi the words "including Climate Change" be deleted.
Under Section "F. Miscellaneous Service Functions, "(b) Civic, ceremonial and commemorative (including Twinning)" be removed and transferred to C&E to become paragraph 6.1. Subsequent paragraphs under F (ie paragraphs c to h) would move up one so that paragraph c would become paragraph b, d would become c and so on.
PART 4, SCHEDULE 11
We propose the reinstatement of Standing Order "5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)". For clarity, 5.11 will read as follows:
“5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)
5.11.1 Immediately following a vote on a decision taken by a Service Board under delegated powers (and before the next agenda item is called) 2 members of the Service Board present and voting at the meeting may require that the decision be submitted to the Council as a recommendation.
5.11.2 Where a reference has been made pursuant to Standing Order 5.11.1 the decision of the Service Board shall not be implemented before consideration of that recommendation by the Council."
Introduce a new clause 4.15.2
“Officer reports presented directly to Full Council, and bypassing Service Boards, for any reason, will be presented to the Council sitting as a Committee.”
Proposed by Cllr Stephen Philpott
Seconded by Cllr Zoe Huggins
Minutes
The following notice of motion was received.
Constitutional changes
We propose the following changes to the Constitution:
PART 3, SCHEDULE 9, ANNEX 1
POLICY & ORGANISATION BOARD
Under section "A. Policy and Strategy" a, b and c be removed and transferred to Community & Environment Board so that (a) becomes paragraph 5.1; (b) becomes paragraph 5.2; and (c) becomes paragraph 5.3.
For clarity, the section to be cut from the Policy & Organisation Board and transferred to the Community & Environment Board:
a. The formation of policies and initiatives for the maintenance and improvement of the environment including climate change and the health of the Community.
b. The formation of policies and initiatives in respect of Community Safety and Anti-social Behaviour.
c. The formation of policies and initiatives for the provision of recreational, cultural, sports, heritage facilities and allotments and cemeteries and crematoria.
Under Section E (e) vi the words "including Climate Change" be deleted.
Under Section "F. Miscellaneous Service Functions, "(b) Civic, ceremonial and commemorative (including Twinning)" be removed and transferred to C&E to become paragraph 6.1. Subsequent paragraphs under F (ie paragraphs c to h) would move up one so that paragraph c would become paragraph b, d would become c and so on.
PART 4, SCHEDULE 11
We propose the reinstatement of Standing Order "5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)". For clarity, 5.11 will read as follows:
“5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)
5.11.1 Immediately following a vote on a decision taken by a Service Board under delegated powers (and before the next agenda item is called) 2 members of the Service Board present and voting at the meeting may require that the decision be submitted to the Council as a recommendation.
5.11.2 Where a reference has been made pursuant to Standing Order 5.11.1 the decision of the Service Board shall not be implemented before consideration of that recommendation by the Council."
Introduce a new clause 4.15.2
“Officer reports presented directly to Full Council, and bypassing Service Boards, for any reason, will be presented to the Council sitting as a Committee.”
Proposed by Cllr Stephen Philpott
Seconded by Cllr Zoe Huggins
The Council was advised that the Council ran on a committee system and the terms of reference of the Boards had been amended in 2022, so that much of the business of the Council was now undertaken by the Policy and Organisation Board, this had lead to the work of other boards diminishing and had been recognised in the Corporate Peer Challenge as a concern. The Policy and Organiation Board was chaired by the Leader of the Council.
The Community and Environment Board had been cancelled 5 times in 3 years as had the Housing board. The Community and Environment board had considered 9 items, 1 item per board and had met for a total of 4 hours and 51 minutes, the Policy and Organiation Board in comparison had met 18 times, not cancelled at all, considered 86 items and met for a total of 24 hours and 41 minutes.
The second part of the motion concerned a previously included Standing Order, 5.11 which allowed for the use of minority orders. This had been used previously to allow for call in of reports and had been used most recently on a report that had been presented in short notice on 30 May 2022. Following the use of the Standing Order, at the subsequent Council meeting, it was removed to prevent it being used again.
This was the only form of call in available to opposition Councillors, and was removed.
Some Members had therefore felt that it was appropriate to reinstate the Standing Order and allow for the process to return. This was particularly pertinent as there had been an increase in late reports, which meant that adequate consideration time had not been forthcoming, and therefore adequate scrutiny time not presented.
The reintroduction of the standing order would allow for recommendations to be passed to Full Council and for the Council to act as a committee allowing for appropriate scrutiny and officers to be questioned on their reports.
A Member advised that they felt that despite the Council operating under alternative arrangements, the removal of the standing order and the channeling of reports through Policy and Organisation Board meant that the Council operated more similarly to that of a strong leader model cabinet. Examples of this included the resolution of a decision to provide community skips without a true reflection of their cost. With this only being confirmed later, at a significant increase. The use of a minority order would have allowed for greater consideration and timing to be given to the decision.
There was also a lack of business cases for key decisions, which removed the ability to scrutinise important requests.
A Member advised that they felt that it should be reinstated to allow for better transparency and clearer decision making by all elected members and not a select few and to give other boards the opportunity to hold responsibility for their services areas.
The improved transparency would allow for democratic safeguarding and was not proposed in the interests of party politics, but done to promote better democracy.
A Member advised that they wished to consider the proposals separately as they did not want to reinstate the minority order as it had previously been removed under the administration of the current opposition. The Council was advised that this was not the case and the only removal of the standing order had been under the current administration.
It was proposed that the motion be separated to be voted on separately, however the Board was advised that the motion was presented as one and this therefore could not be considered.
A Member advised the Council that the Conservative run County Council operated with a Cabinet model, with limited ability to call in and that all call in ever did at the County Council was delay decisions being made. The County Council was responsible for steam rollering decisions without any debate from opposition parties, unlike the business at Gosport Borough Council and that a splitting of the motion would be acceptable and that if that was not acceptable then Climate Change would be moved to the Community and Environment Board.
It was reiterated that amendments could only add or delete words and that the splitting of the motion was not an amendment nor could it be considered. A Member felt that this had been done previously but the Council was advised that this was a motion and as such should be considered as one proposal.
In accordance with Standing Orders, a named vote was taken as follows.
FOR the motion: Councillor Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, The Mayor. (13)
AGAINST the motion: Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
The MOTION was LOST
Motion 2.
A motion was proposed by Councillor Philpott, and seconded by Councillor Huggins had been submitted in line with standing order. Xx
In order for this to be considered the motion to suspend standing order 3.2.5 was also presented.
In line with Standing Orders a recorded vote was requested
Motion to suspend Standing Orders under standing order 3.2.5
FOR the motion: Councillors Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, (12)
AGAINST the motion: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
ABSTAINING from the motion: The Mayor (1)
The MOTION was LOST
Constitutional changes
We propose the following changes to the Constitution:
PART 3, SCHEDULE 9, ANNEX 1
POLICY & ORGANISATION BOARD
Under section "A. Policy and Strategy" a, b and c be removed and transferred to Community & Environment Board so that (a) becomes paragraph 5.1; (b) becomes paragraph 5.2; and (c) becomes paragraph 5.3.
For clarity, the section to be cut from the Policy & Organisation Board and transferred to the Community & Environment Board:
a. The formation of policies and initiatives for the maintenance and improvement of the environment including climate change and the health of the Community.
b. The formation of policies and initiatives in respect of Community Safety and Anti-social Behaviour.
c. The formation of policies and initiatives for the provision of recreational, cultural, sports, heritage facilities and allotments and cemeteries and crematoria.
Under Section E (e) vi the words "including Climate Change" be deleted.
Under Section "F. Miscellaneous Service Functions, "(b) Civic, ceremonial and commemorative (including Twinning)" be removed and transferred to C&E to become paragraph 6.1. Subsequent paragraphs under F (ie paragraphs c to h) would move up one so that paragraph c would become paragraph b, d would become c and so on.
PART 4, SCHEDULE 11
We propose the reinstatement of Standing Order "5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)". For clarity, 5.11 will read as follows:
“5.11 Reference to Council (Service Boards only)
5.11.1 Immediately following a vote on a decision taken by a Service Board under delegated powers (and before the next agenda item is called) 2 members of the Service Board present and voting at the meeting may require that the decision be submitted to the Council as a recommendation.
5.11.2 Where a reference has been made pursuant to Standing Order 5.11.1 the decision of the Service Board shall not be implemented before consideration of that recommendation by the Council."
Introduce a new clause 4.15.2
“Officer reports presented directly to Full Council, and bypassing Service Boards, for any reason, will be presented to the Council sitting as a Committee.”
Proposed by Cllr Stephen Philpott
Seconded by Cllr Zoe Huggins
The Council was advised that the Council ran on a committee system and the terms of reference of the Boards had been amended in 2022, so that much of the business of the Council was now undertaken by the Policy and Organisation Board, this had lead to the work of other boards diminishing and had been recognised in the Corporate Peer Challenge as a concern. The Policy and Organiation Board was chaired by the Leader of the Council.
The Community and Environment Board had been cancelled 5 times in 3 years as had the Housing board. The Community and Environment board had considered 9 items, 1 item per board and had met for a total of 4 hours and 51 minutes, the Policy and Organiation Board in comparison had met 18 times, not cancelled at all, considered 86 items and met for a total of 24 hours and 41 minutes.
The second part of the motion concerned a previously included Standing Order, 5.11 which allowed for the use of minority orders. This had been used previously to allow for call in of reports and had been used most recently on a report that had been presented in short notice on 30 May 2022. Following the use of the Standing Order, at the subsequent Council meeting, it was removed to prevent it being used again.
This was the only form of call in available to opposition Councillors, and was removed.
Some Members had therefore felt that it was appropriate to reinstate the Standing Order and allow for the process to return. This was particularly pertinent as there had been an increase in late reports, which meant that adequate consideration time had not been forthcoming, and therefore adequate scrutiny time not presented.
The reintroduction of the standing order would allow for recommendations to be passed to Full Council and for the Council to act as a committee allowing for appropriate scrutiny and officers to be questioned on their reports.
A Member advised that they felt that despite the Council operating under alternative arrangements, the removal of the standing order and the channeling of reports through Policy and Organisation Board meant that the Council operated more similarly to that of a strong leader model cabinet. Examples of this included the resolution of a decision to provide community skips without a true reflection of their cost. With this only being confirmed later, at a significant increase. The use of a minority order would have allowed for greater consideration and timing to be given to the decision.
There was also a lack of business cases for key decisions, which removed the ability to scrutinise important requests.
A Member advised that they felt that it should be reinstated to allow for better transparency and clearer decision making by all elected members and not a select few and to give other boards the opportunity to hold responsibility for their services areas.
The improved transparency would allow for democratic safeguarding and was not proposed in the interests of party politics, but done to promote better democracy.
A Member advised that they wished to consider the proposals separately as they did not want to reinstate the minority order as it had previously been removed under the administration of the current opposition. The Council was advised that this was not the case and the only removal of the standing order had been under the current administration.
It was proposed that the motion be separated to be voted on separately, however the Board was advised that the motion was presented as one and this therefore could not be considered.
A Member advised the Council that the Conservative run County Council operated with a Cabinet model, with limited ability to call in and that all call in ever did at the County Council was delay decisions being made. The County Council was responsible for steam rollering decisions without any debate from opposition parties, unlike the business at Gosport Borough Council and that a splitting of the motion would be acceptable and that if that was not acceptable then Climate Change would be moved to the Community and Environment Board.
It was reiterated that amendments could only add or delete words and that the splitting of the motion was not an amendment nor could it be considered. A Member felt that this had been done previously but the Council was advised that this was a motion and as such should be considered as one proposal.
In accordance with Standing Orders, a named vote was taken as follows.
FOR the motion: Councillor Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, The Mayor. (13)
AGAINST the motion: Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
The MOTION was LOST
Motion 2.
A motion was proposed by Councillor Philpott, and seconded by Councillor Huggins had been submitted in line with standing order. Xx
In order for this to be considered the motion to suspend standing order 3.2.5 was also presented.
In line with Standing Orders a recorded vote was requested
Motion to suspend Standing Orders under standing order 3.2.5
FOR the motion: Councillors Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, (12)
AGAINST the motion: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
ABSTAINING from the motion: The Mayor (1)
The MOTION was LOST
8
Proportionality
Attachments:
- Document GBC Proportionality Report January 2026 (002) 19 Jan 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Solicitor detailing the parameters of proportionality of the Council’s Boards following the Bridgemary byelection.
Clarification was sought under a Point of Order as to whether it had been decided that the Boards would sit with the Reform UK councillor and the independent Councillor getting a seat or not, as this would impact on the proposals presented.
The Council was advised that this would be determined by the proposals presented and agreed on, a Member felt that these should be presented first and agreed before proposals were presented to the Council.
Some Members felt that the Reform UK Councillor and the Independent Councillor should be given seats on the Boards, and there was dispute about the strength that the legislation gave to the Council to do so. The Council was advised that the awarding of seats to those elected Members that did not form part of a group was within the discretion of the Council.
A Member advised that previously a Labour Councillor, when holding a single seat on the Council, was awarded a seat. As a point of order this was challenged that it had never occurred.
A Councillor advised that the maths of the Boards naturally led to each Councillor receiving one seat on a Board.
A proposal was received and seconded from Councillor Chegwyn and Councillor Hylands as follows.
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organsaiton Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 2 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 4 Conservative 4
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
On the basis of a Council comprised of 13:11:2 for the seats of the Council
Councillor Philpott proposed the following, seconded by Councillor Huggins
Delete 5 Members on Standards and Audit and Grants Sub Board and replace with 6
And
Policy and Organisation Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Community and Environment Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Housing Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
A Member advised that the proposals were in place to support a stable approach to the next three months and elections in May which could change the Council make up again.
The Council still needed to set a budget for the year and navigate LGR. Labour had tried to cancel elections in some Boroughs, but they would still be taking place in Gosport.
The Boards presented a democratic way to move forward and provide stability.
The Conservative Party had an extra seat on Policy and Organisation Board and there was no majority for the administration on Community and Environment Board and Regulatory Board and the proposal presented by the Liberal Democrat Group was proportionate and fair. It was in Gosport’s interest to present a stable Council and put party politics aside.
A Member advised that it was not a reasonable proposal, it was a proposal that continued to see 95% of decisions made by the Policy and Organsiation Board, which was not democratic and the opposite of what Councillors had been promoting on social media.
The Liberal Democrat Group no longer had a majority on the Council and should not continue in a way that made out they did they had gone from 15 seats to 13.
Councillors had been indicating to the press that the Council would continue to operate business as usual, however, that was that business would continue to go through the Policy and Organsiation Board, reports would continue to be late, and decisions would continue to be made behind closed doors. There was no scruitiny, or democracy. The proposal should acknowledge everyone on the Council as equal, to allow all Councillors and wards to be represented.
A Member advised under standing order 4.11.11 that they wished to correct a previous statement made regarding the allocation of seats to non grouped members of the Council as Section 16 of the 1990 Regulations of the Local Government act stated that after the groups had been proportionally distributed, consideration should be given to the unallocated seats.
A Members advised that the Liberal Democrats still had the most seats on the Council, despite not having a majority of the Council and this should be reflected in the allocation of the Boards and that the proposal of the Conservative Group would not be supported.
A Subsequent amendment to the first proposal was received from the Liberal Democrat Group as follows, proposed by Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Chegwyn.
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organisation Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 3 Conservative 3
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 2 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
A vote was taken on the Conservative proposal and was LOST.
A Member reiterated that the proposal presented by the Liberal Democrat Group was amended when it was realized that the Chairman of the Regulatory Board would lose their allowance, and was being passed off as a more democratic division of seats.
In response, a Members advised that it was verbal garbage and that the amendment was not to play politics, the by-election had led to an increase in Liberal Democrat votes, and that it was insulting to suggest seat allocation was amended to ensure Members received a Chairman’s allowance. The Council was advised that unless standing orders were suspended the Chairman could not be removed as they were appointed at the AGM.
A Member advised that the majority group retaining the control of the Council would support stability, at least until May, and that the electorate may then choose to amend the Council. The Labour Party would not be propping up the Liberal Democrats but would be considering each decision individually.
Members expressed disappointment at the time of the debate and reiterated their disappointment that the ability to call in decisions had not been reinstated. In addition, concern was expressed that the democratic process was not being followed with the proposal.
A Member reiterated that it was important to have stability to move the Council forward and that any member could attend any meeting and address the Board on the matters on the agenda.
A Member felt that it was incorrect to suggest that the Liberal Democrats had a majority on the Council, they did not, they had the most seats and expressed concern that eye watering decisions would continue to be made at the detriment of the council.
A Member advised that the stability of the existing Liberal Democrat Council would see more money spent on the Criterion, without an outcome, money spent on skips, with no reduction in flytipping and a failure when inspected by the Housing Regulator. This was the stability they provided.
A recorded vote was taken on the proposal as amended as follows.
FOR the proposal.
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
AGAINST the proposal.
Councillor Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, (12)
ABSTAIN: The Mayor. (1)
RESOLVED That
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organisation Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 3 Conservative 3
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 2 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
Policy and Organisation Board - Councillor Chegwyn, Cully, Cox, Huggins, Hutchison, Hylands Meenaghan, Philpott.
Community and Environment Board, - Councillor Brown, Burgess, Finn, Kelly, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Westerby
Housing Board – Councillor Ballard, Hayes Herridge, Hutchison, Jessop, Johnston, Namdeo
Regulatory Board – Councillor K Bradley, M Bradley, Casey, Earle, Hammond, Scard
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Councillor Cox, Huggins, Hutchison, Hylands, Meenaghan, Philpott.
Grants Sub Board – Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hutchison, Meenaghan, Philpott.
Clarification was sought under a Point of Order as to whether it had been decided that the Boards would sit with the Reform UK councillor and the independent Councillor getting a seat or not, as this would impact on the proposals presented.
The Council was advised that this would be determined by the proposals presented and agreed on, a Member felt that these should be presented first and agreed before proposals were presented to the Council.
Some Members felt that the Reform UK Councillor and the Independent Councillor should be given seats on the Boards, and there was dispute about the strength that the legislation gave to the Council to do so. The Council was advised that the awarding of seats to those elected Members that did not form part of a group was within the discretion of the Council.
A Member advised that previously a Labour Councillor, when holding a single seat on the Council, was awarded a seat. As a point of order this was challenged that it had never occurred.
A Councillor advised that the maths of the Boards naturally led to each Councillor receiving one seat on a Board.
A proposal was received and seconded from Councillor Chegwyn and Councillor Hylands as follows.
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organsaiton Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 2 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 4 Conservative 4
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
On the basis of a Council comprised of 13:11:2 for the seats of the Council
Councillor Philpott proposed the following, seconded by Councillor Huggins
Delete 5 Members on Standards and Audit and Grants Sub Board and replace with 6
And
Policy and Organisation Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Community and Environment Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Housing Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
A Member advised that the proposals were in place to support a stable approach to the next three months and elections in May which could change the Council make up again.
The Council still needed to set a budget for the year and navigate LGR. Labour had tried to cancel elections in some Boroughs, but they would still be taking place in Gosport.
The Boards presented a democratic way to move forward and provide stability.
The Conservative Party had an extra seat on Policy and Organisation Board and there was no majority for the administration on Community and Environment Board and Regulatory Board and the proposal presented by the Liberal Democrat Group was proportionate and fair. It was in Gosport’s interest to present a stable Council and put party politics aside.
A Member advised that it was not a reasonable proposal, it was a proposal that continued to see 95% of decisions made by the Policy and Organsiation Board, which was not democratic and the opposite of what Councillors had been promoting on social media.
The Liberal Democrat Group no longer had a majority on the Council and should not continue in a way that made out they did they had gone from 15 seats to 13.
Councillors had been indicating to the press that the Council would continue to operate business as usual, however, that was that business would continue to go through the Policy and Organsiation Board, reports would continue to be late, and decisions would continue to be made behind closed doors. There was no scruitiny, or democracy. The proposal should acknowledge everyone on the Council as equal, to allow all Councillors and wards to be represented.
A Member advised under standing order 4.11.11 that they wished to correct a previous statement made regarding the allocation of seats to non grouped members of the Council as Section 16 of the 1990 Regulations of the Local Government act stated that after the groups had been proportionally distributed, consideration should be given to the unallocated seats.
A Members advised that the Liberal Democrats still had the most seats on the Council, despite not having a majority of the Council and this should be reflected in the allocation of the Boards and that the proposal of the Conservative Group would not be supported.
A Subsequent amendment to the first proposal was received from the Liberal Democrat Group as follows, proposed by Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Chegwyn.
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organisation Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 3 Conservative 3
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 2 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
A vote was taken on the Conservative proposal and was LOST.
A Member reiterated that the proposal presented by the Liberal Democrat Group was amended when it was realized that the Chairman of the Regulatory Board would lose their allowance, and was being passed off as a more democratic division of seats.
In response, a Members advised that it was verbal garbage and that the amendment was not to play politics, the by-election had led to an increase in Liberal Democrat votes, and that it was insulting to suggest seat allocation was amended to ensure Members received a Chairman’s allowance. The Council was advised that unless standing orders were suspended the Chairman could not be removed as they were appointed at the AGM.
A Member advised that the majority group retaining the control of the Council would support stability, at least until May, and that the electorate may then choose to amend the Council. The Labour Party would not be propping up the Liberal Democrats but would be considering each decision individually.
Members expressed disappointment at the time of the debate and reiterated their disappointment that the ability to call in decisions had not been reinstated. In addition, concern was expressed that the democratic process was not being followed with the proposal.
A Member reiterated that it was important to have stability to move the Council forward and that any member could attend any meeting and address the Board on the matters on the agenda.
A Member felt that it was incorrect to suggest that the Liberal Democrats had a majority on the Council, they did not, they had the most seats and expressed concern that eye watering decisions would continue to be made at the detriment of the council.
A Member advised that the stability of the existing Liberal Democrat Council would see more money spent on the Criterion, without an outcome, money spent on skips, with no reduction in flytipping and a failure when inspected by the Housing Regulator. This was the stability they provided.
A recorded vote was taken on the proposal as amended as follows.
FOR the proposal.
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby. (14)
AGAINST the proposal.
Councillor Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard, (12)
ABSTAIN: The Mayor. (1)
RESOLVED That
That the Standard and Audit Sub Board and the Grants Sub Board will each comprise of 6 Members.
And that the composition of Sub Boards will be as follows:
Policy and Organisation Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3 and Labour 1
Community and Environment Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3 Labour 1
Housing Board – Liberal Democrat 4 Conservative 3
Regulatory Board 3 Conservative 3
Grants Sub Board Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 2 Labour 1
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Liberal Democrat 3 Conservative 3
Policy and Organisation Board - Councillor Chegwyn, Cully, Cox, Huggins, Hutchison, Hylands Meenaghan, Philpott.
Community and Environment Board, - Councillor Brown, Burgess, Finn, Kelly, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Westerby
Housing Board – Councillor Ballard, Hayes Herridge, Hutchison, Jessop, Johnston, Namdeo
Regulatory Board – Councillor K Bradley, M Bradley, Casey, Earle, Hammond, Scard
Standards and Audit Sub Board – Councillor Cox, Huggins, Hutchison, Hylands, Meenaghan, Philpott.
Grants Sub Board – Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hutchison, Meenaghan, Philpott.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in