1 To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting

Minutes Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillors Hammond and Raffaelli

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 Councillors Huggins, Chegwyn, Burgess, Meenaghan and Philpott declared that they were Hampshire County Councillors

Councillor Hylands and Carter declared they had a licensed premises.

3 Mayors Communications

Minutes The Mayor advised that she continued to visit a large number of charities and local events and it was a pleasure to see the good things happening in the Borough.

4 To confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2025 and 27 January 2026

To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting on 10 December 2025 and 27 January 2026

Attachments:

Document Minutes Public Pack, 24 Feb 2026
Document Minutes Public Pack, 27/01/2026 Council 24 Feb 2026

Minutes It was noted that the Liberal Democrat membership of Regulatory Board needed to be added.

Councillor Burgess advised that at the last meeting it had been stated that the Conservative Group had removed the Standing Order allowing minority orders. Research in to this had shown no record of this happening since 1998, and requested and apology be given.

It was stated that it was still believed that this took place, and that the dates could have been earlier, but had definitely happened.

Members felt that minutes should be able to record each individual Councillor by name, rather than listing them as a Member.

It was noted that that the minutes had not included a comment made by the leader of a sexist nature about the Mayor. It was believed that the Leader had apologised but felt that it should be recorded.

The Leader advised that he had apologised for what was meant to be a joke, the apology had been accepted but he was happy to repeat it.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on the 10 December 2025 and 27 January 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.

5 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 MONDAY 2 MARCH 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 MONDAY 2 MARCH 2026)

Minutes There were no deputations and there was one public question.

A question in the name of Alan Higgins to the Leader of the Council

'The Gosport Borough Draft Local Plan 2042 is up for consideration at this meeting but contains no policy in respect of hostels. In view of the growing need for hostel accommodation, particularly in respect of the increasing rate of homelessness in the Borough and nationally, this seems a significant omission. I ask this as a planning application for a hostel in respect of 57-59 Bury Road has raised significant concerns among local residents in respect of a range of issues which one would expect would be controlled by the Council either through Planning or other controls. I ask that a Hostel Policy be included within the Gosport Borough Draft Local Plan?

Answer

Mr Higgins has raised an important point. I can advise that Policy H3 of the draft Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042, which is being presented tonight, would be the main policy relating to proposals for hostels.

The policy is titled ‘Older Persons’ and Specialist Accommodation.’ Hostels would be considered specialist accommodation.

Part 3 of the policy sets out criteria that would be used for determining any application for specialist accommodation. Paragraph 6.67 outlines other groups of people covered by the policy including vulnerable adults.

This policy would be used in conjunction with design policies, where applicable, such as Policy DE2.

If approved for consultation this evening, Mr Higgins is invited to make a representation to the Local Plan consultation outlining how the policy can be amended

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 3 MARCH 2026 )

Minutes There was one Members question in the name of Councillor Carter to Councillor Chegwyn.

Can the Leader of the Council please confirm what formal action should be taken when a councillor makes threats of physical violence towards a fellow councillor via Facebook messenger during a council meeting, and whether this constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct requiring referral to the Monitoring Officer and/or the police?

Answer: Yes because he has already asked me twice by email. It had been referred to the monitoring officer and the police who had determined there was no offence and it was for the monitoring officer to consider and take action if appropriate.

Supplementary question.

Councillors represent their residents and texts and behaviour like that were not acceptable. An apology or a quiet word should be offered to present it happening again, or if the Councillor was insistent on hitting people, it should be in the form of a charity boxing match for the Mayor’s charity.

Answer: Councillors should all be civil to each other, no one should be punched and having been punched in the Chamber, that comes with consequences of the perpetrator losing their seat and their jobs. Within the Chamber Members have the right to agree and disagree but shouldn’t result in violence.

Members have the right to represent their residents without fear and with the current level of things said on Facebook that are threatening, particularly to female members, it was not acceptable.

Operation Ford was available to Members and their advice should be provided to all candidates and Councillors to keep them safe.

7 Part I Recommendations of the Boards of the Council

To consider the Part I recommendations of the Boards of the Council

Housing Board – 20 January 2026

Regulatory Board - 28 January 2026

Policy and Organisation Board – 18 February 2026

Attachments:

Document Housing Part 1 24 Feb 2026
Document Minutes 24 Feb 2026
Document Business Plan update 26-27 (008) 24 Feb 2026
Document Regulatory Board Part 1 24 Feb 2026
Document Reg Board Minutes 24 Feb 2026
Document 6. GBC Policy Report - 28-01-2026 24 Feb 2026
Document GBC Statement of Licensing Policy 2026 - 2031 24 Feb 2026
Document P and O Part 1 24 Feb 2026
Document Reg 19 Local Plan FEB 2026- Board Version -FINAL 24 Feb 2026
Document P and O Part 1 24 Feb 2026
Document 02 Board Report - Revised CPRs due to New Procurement Act 2023 V2.final clean version 7.1.26 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix 1 - Part 4 Schedule 13 Contract Procedure Rules 08.12.2025 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix 2 - GBC Social Value Statement 08.12.2025 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to the Part I recommendations of the Boards of the Council.

Housing Board – Business plan financial model update and Council dwelling rents 2026/27.

The HRA account was ring-fenced from rent and services charges and was reinvested into homes to improve them, not to go into the general fund. The money was from tenants used for tenants housing.

The Chairman advised that recommendation 5 should be removed from the recommendations as the introduction of the rent conversion was delayed until at least April 2027. The removal of it was seconded by the vice chairman.

It was recognised that significant funds would need to be allocated to the support improvements to stock.

The Council was advised that the framework allowed for the increase at CPI plus 1%.

The service charge would increase by 34p per week, covering estate management, grounds maintenance, play areas, communal areas, damp and mould addressing. Asbestos management, replacement windows and doors were all being made provision for.

It was important that affordable housing options were still available.

RESOLVED

i) That Council Dwelling rents increase by CPI + 1% (4.8%) as set out in the Social Housing rent guidance.

ii) The revised HRA Business Plan Financial Model extract (Appendix A) and associated 2025/26 revised budget and 2026/27 Budget (Appendix B) is agreed.

iii) Service charges increase on average by £0.34 per week.

iv) The rent for all garages increases in line with inflation as agreed in the garage renewal strategy.

Regulatory Board – Licensing Policy.

Councillor Hylands and Carter declared they owned a licensed premises.

The Policy was required to be approved every 5 years and had been out for consultation so was now in a position to be presented for approval.

Members were advised that there were some small typographical changes and changes for clarity and removals of references of Covid.

The Council thanked the officers for their work on the Policy.

RESOLVED: That the Policy be approved.

Policy and Organisation Board – Local Plan.

A Member expressed great disappointment that it had taken so long to get to Regulation 19. The work that had been undertaken by the Head of Planning Policy was excellent, and this had been shown previously when the Member was Chair of the Economic Development Board and the officers were always very good at teasing out details and ensuring work was accurate.

In 2021 the Regulation 18 had been presented for 1st consultation, and things had begun to progress with Regulation 9 due in the summer of 2022, however, in it had taken to the present date in 2026 to get to this point. It was now important that the plan was safe and acknowledged the consultation period.

There had been many changes since 2021 including a change of government, there had been increase in Housing requirements and SPDs would be phased out. Gosport had been given increasing housing allocation numbers to achieve, some had been achieved out of district, but the targets were unrealistic.

The Local Plan was important to the Borough to allow for comment and consultation, and it was disappointing that the current Local Plan was from 2015 and as a result out of date and as a result open the Council up to speculative applications when the residents were relying on the Council to make and defend correct decisions.

It was acknowledged that the document was significant in size and that the required housing demand had increased from 5400 up to 7500 and this was not achievable in a Borough with no land spare. The target was unrealistic.

There were a number of provisional sites that were no longer progressing, including Haslar Barracks and the Police Station, there was ongoing concern about the ability to develop Blockhouse, however work was ongoing to find a different, but acceptable solution.

It was requested that an amendment be proposed to alter the following recommendation

- The Council agrees that the Head of Planning Policy in consultation with the Leader and Chief Executive is authorised to make Minor Modifications to the GBLP2042:

i) for consideration by the Planning Inspector as part of the Council’s submission in order to make the Local Plan sound;

ii) as directed by the Planning Inspector during Examination in order to make the Local Plan sound

To acknowledge the fact that there were upcoming elections and that it read

- The Council agrees that the Head of Planning Policy in consultation with the Leader and Chief Executive is authorised to make Minor Modifications after 7th May 2026 to the GBLP2042:

iii) for consideration by the Planning Inspector as part of the Council’s submission in order to make the Local Plan sound;

iv) as directed by the Planning Inspector during Examination in order to make the Local Plan sound

It was acknowledged that the consultation took place in part in the election sensitive period and also that half the Council would be up for election.

This was seconded and agreed

The Council expressed a need for an additional affordable housing for residents and that there should be a greater push for more affordable housing on developments and the percentage provided should increase.

The Council were advised that more housing was being provided and that the newly built Council houses were currently being delayed by a hold up at Hampshire County Council approving the highway elements and would hope the County Councillors in which they were located would chase.

The strong work of the Planning Policy team was also acknowledged and it was reiterated that no building should take place on Greenfield sites. It was acknowledged that there were very few brownfields sites remaining in the Borough. The challenge in the Borough to deliver houses was significant.

New housing was being built but there were also concerning applications for seaward side housing opposite Monckton Road and at Browndown. The Council would continue to protect Greenfield spaces, and support open public land, which was also needed.

It was accepted that the deadline of December 2026 was approaching but it was also requested that consultation responses be considered.

It was highlighted that Rowner was not a Brownfield site but was people’s homes and lives.

There was no timeline for proposed developments and it was critical that residents were consulted and involved in any future decisions on the area.

There was concern that listing for proposed development without adequate funding in place would lead to under investment, stagnation and a suppression of house prices.

It was acknowledged that there had been previous regeneration on the site, but there had been no post regeneration occupancy surveys, and concern was expressed that a repeat of the previous regeneration would create similar issues.

It was also important that Pride of Place money was not utilised for any regeneration but used for its own purposes and not housing regeneration, or structural repairs. It was community money for community use, not for the Council’s plan.

This was not an opposition to development at Rowner, but it needed to be the right development. The importance of neighborhood forums was acknowledged to ensure that the voices of the residents were heard and consulted on to support making the Borough better in resident’s eyes.

Members again thanked the planning policy team for their work, acknowledging that negotiations had been undertaken to increase the percentage of affordable housing within developments.

A ward Councillor for Grange and Alver valley advised that they agreed that the regulation R8 had prevented development and that there was a long way to go to further support the residents of the ward.

A Member advised that they were concerned that the public green space could be at risk and reflected on the importance of it to residents and commended the increased negotiation on affordable housing, commenting that more was still needed. It was again highlighted that the housing delivery target was unachievable.

A Member commended the document for being visionary and helped to shape the Town now and in the future, it looked at business and employment including the High Street and the neighbouring and further spread shopping areas.

The Leader commended the passion of the Ward Councillors for Grange and Alver Valley and recognised that it was government housing targets that were unachievable within the Borough and whilst it was acknowledged that more housing was needed, it was impossible to achieve in the Borough.

RESOLVED:

The Policy and Organisation Board recommend to Full Council that:

- The Council approves the publication of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042: Publication Version (GBLP2042) for public consultation;

- The Head of Planning Policy is authorised to prepare a summary of representations received and then submit the GBLP2042: Publication Version together with the summary of representations and supporting evidence to the Secretary of State for Examination;

- The Council approves the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment for public consultation and then submission to the Secretary of State for Examination;

- The Council agrees that the Head of Planning Policy in consultation with the Leader and Chief Executive after 7th May 2026 is authorised to make Minor Modifications to the GBLP2042:

v) for consideration by the Planning Inspector as part of the Council’s submission in order to make the Local Plan sound;

vi) as directed by the Planning Inspector during Examination in order to make the Local Plan sound;

The Council notes that the final GBLP2042 will be brought back in its entirety to Full Council for formal adoption following the independent examination undertaken by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

Councillor Ballard requested that her abstention be recorded.

Contract Procudere rules

Consideration was given to a report of the Deputy Chief Executive detailing how the new Procurement Act 2023 will impact the Council’s procurement activities and what changes are needed to ensure compliance with the Legislation including the updating of the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, to replace the existing Rules, which form part of the Council’s Constitution.

Members welcomed the report and the reiteration of the CPRS as often there were suggestions of brown envelopes and unfair accusations towards Councillors and Officers.

The CPRS clearly set out the Council’s procedure and processes for the procurement of goods and services and allowed visibility of contracts and purchases.

RESOLVED: That that the changes to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules forming part of the Council’s Constitution at Part 4 Schedule 13, are updated and approved to reflect necessary requirements of new legislation, namely the Procurement Act 2023 and subsequent Regulations- the draft-amended rules are attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

8 PART II Minutes of the Boards of the Council

Housing Board – 20 January 2026

Policy and Organisation Board – 16 January 2026

Policy and Organisation Board – 27 January 2026

Policy and Organisation Board – 18 February 2026 – to follow

Attachments:

Document Housing Part II 24 Feb 2026
Document Part II Minutes 2026.01.16 24 Feb 2026
Document Part II Minutes 2026.01.27 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Part II Minutes of the Boards of the Council

Housing Board – 20 January 2026

The Chairman advised that she wished to update the Council following the C4 judgement from the regulator and an update on the progress being made on the serious failings identified which had been ongoing since 2012.

Significant investment was being made to make improvements and undertake the work required and it was clear that the work had not been planned and delivered for a long time and that residents were not interested in the blame or the political point scoring, they simply wanted things to be put right, as although it was a Council house, they were also someone’s home that saw milestones and joy and hardship.

It was important that people felt safe and secure and that there was dignity for them in their homes. All tenants had been written to following the judgement apologising and setting out an action plan of how to address it. There had been twelve responses out of 3000 letters and a quarter of the responses had been positive. It was important to acknowledge that success was not measured by silence and that tenants could contact at anytime, the report and the action list were available for all to view.

Key progress had been made in addressing Health and Safety issues, 89% of electrical checks were undertaken with the remainder booked in by May 2026. Communal areas were 99% addressed and gas checks were 98% complete with the remaining checks being worked on with ongoing access issues. Updates were being made to the procurement process and this included the provision of Energy Performance Certificates.

Work was ongoing for a long term maintenance plan and fire risk assessments had been undertaken.

It was noted that the maintenance recording system was not fit for purpose and that this was being improved with new software which allowed for better recording and alignment with Kier as the contractor and allowed for the inclusion of risk assessment.

None of the properties had been rated as category one within the HHSRA guidance on damp and mold.

There were moves in place to establish a resident’s scrutiny panel and residents would be supported in how to participate, this would support accountability and support a comprehensive plan on how to move forward.

Correspondence with the Regulator of Social Housing was ongoing, and it would become a standing item on the Housing Board and the team was working through challenges to ensure that residents remained safe in their houses and that the progress was transparent.

Fundamentally what Members and tenants wanted to see was for accountability, transparency and improvements.

A Member advised that they welcomed that there were improvements and action being taken following the Regulators judgement and it was important to acknowledge that the team in housing were trying their best every day.

It was acknowledged that improvements were happening and also felt important that key performance indicators be identified and reported on regularly. This would allow for quicker resolutions to be achieved and problem areas identified.

It was reassuring that residents had been written to with actions explained and ongoing communication was important to show that the Council cared about residents.

A Councillor advised that the Regulator had judged the Council to be within the worst in the country, only 5 other Councils had receive this grading providing unsafe homes, damp and mold, poor insulation, leaks when it rains. The administration had 3 and a half years to act since the regulations came in, to assess the condition of properties and plan improvements and nothing had been done.

Half the Housing Board meetings had been cancelled, when action to support residents could have been discussed and the Council had neglected its residence, shown poor leadership and had failed residents on a comprehensive scale. Gosport residents deserved action and deserved better.

A Member advised that they had recently transferred to the Housing Board and had undertaken research as a result of the recent grading, which indicated serious and fundamental failures. There were still outstanding electrical inspections putting people in danger. There needed to be less political arguing and more fixing of issues. There were a number of fire safety issues unaddressed and there should have been more preparedness for the regulator once the regulations had come in.

The failures were not a legacy of the previous administrations, they were from an administration that cancelled meetings, held meetings of 14 minutes and did not deal with the issues presented.

A Member advised that the facts were that the Liberal Democrat Council had taken control in May 2022, the social housing regulations act came in on 8th June 2022 and became law on 20th July 2023 so it was clear the Housing Board was aware of what was required to meet the legislation and on 17th December 2025 the Council was given a c4 rating by the regulator as a result of serious failings.

It was 2 and a half years since the legislation had passed and the Council had been asleep at the wheel and had failed.

A Member advised that it was important that Members were shown the plan for progression and improvement and viewed the action plan in place. Live compliance on progress should be available and milestone markers should be in place to measure this. If Council rents were to be increased, residents should see the improvement and the Council be accountable for actions moving forward to improve compliance and give the residents the safety they deserve.

A Member reiterated the need to support officers in moving forward and the Council had invested in additional staff to support this.

It was acknowledged that the Housing Revenue Account was ring fenced, and improvements were statutory along with other things such as homelessness. This was therefore not the result as a cut of Government grants to the main Council budget.

A report had been presented to the meeting of the Council on the 20th January 2026 advising of the Regulatory report, an inspection that had taken place as a result of legislation introduced in July 2023 that gave new powers as part of the Regulator of Social Housing. Councils were required to issue improvement plans that were mandatory for compliance.

The Chair of Housing should have had a better grip on what was happening and should have kept up with the regulations and taken action. The Housing Board should have been meeting to address this and the Council should have been better prepared for the inspection.

The Chair should have worked harder to support and protect tenants and ensure that critical testing and compliance was up to date.

The Leader of the Council advised that it was clear there was an election coming up as there had never been previous concern on the matter raised. In addition proposals for such legislation had first been mooted in 2012 and the administration at the time had not considered this.

The result was not because of 3.5 years of failures, but was a result of the 10 years previously and their fallings. 1 member of staff was in place to ensure that 3000 houses were compliant, it was not enough. The upset being presented to the Council was crocodile tears and the Council should be focusing on people, not politics.

The criticism was unfair on staff trying their best and the Council should have been making preparations from 2012.

The Regulator had acknowledged that progress had been made, and the Board was advised staff and the Chairman should be commend for how this was being implemented. There was an extra £2m being invested to ensure that progress was being made and this was to address the failings of the previous administration. There was a strong commitment to improving Council Housing for tenants.

The Chair advised that the ERCO electrical updates were being amended and updated all the time and it was disappointing that Members were choosing to play politics with people’s homes.

People wanted things to be put right and that was what the Council was working hard to do. The Council was working hard to fix the mess created by the Conservative Party with less staff and underinvestment.

Policy and Organisation Board – 16th January 2026

The appointment panel was progressing to work towards and appointment

Policy and Organisation Board – 27th January 2026

Policy and Organisation Board – 18 February 2026

A Member advised that the Climate Change functions had been moved.

A Member advised that they were happy that the Labour Government had showed they were investing in Rowner and acknowledge the importance of the panel being independent and the money being used on the resident’s aspirations.

Progress was being made to advertise for a chair, it was acknowledged this could be undertaken in April which may not be ideal with the election timing.

9 Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2026/27

The primary purpose of this report is to set the Council's overall Budget for the forthcoming year 2026/27 (both Revenue & Capital) and the associated level of Council Tax necessary to help fund the Budget. It considers the overall financial position for 2026/27 and the forecasts for future years considering the outlook for both spending and funding, and the likely consequences for Council services moving forward.

Report to Follow

Attachments:

Document Final Revenue budget report 2026-27 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix A General Fund Budget 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix B General Fund Forecast 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix C Summary of Service Budgets 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix D Capital Additions 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix E Capital Programme 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix F Prudential Indicators 24 Feb 2026
Document Appendix G GBC Pay Policy Statement 2026-27 - Feb2026 24 Feb 2026
Document Final Budget Book 26-27 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Treasurer detailing the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget (Capital and Revenue)

The Leader of the Council introduced the budget, he advised that it took him great pleasure to present the budget at what was the most important report of the year. 51% of the Council’s expenditure was covered by Council tax and it was for the budgets setting to create a balanced budget to protect services,

The budget was good for Gosport, the Gosport Borough Council proportion of Council Tax was increasing by less than the rate of inflation at a time that had seen increases to a number of household costs. The proposed rate was less than Hampshire County Council, who were raising their Council Tax by 4.99%, with Gosport’s increase being 2.99%.

The Police and Crime Commissioner element was increasing by 5.45% with no visible improvements and the fire precept was increasing by 5.90% and services were continuing to be cut. Gosport Borough Council were not cutting services and were investing £2m extra, including housing improvements, play areas and Yourspace.

The headlines were that Gosport Council Tax was increasing by 12p a week for a band B property and 15p a week for a band D, this was the lowest in Hampshire and one of the lowest in the country. Comparing this to Hampshire County Council who were increasing by £80.28 a year for a band B which was £1.54 per week.

15p for Gosport Borough Council, 10 times that for Hampshire County Council.

This was a below inflation increase for residents with no cuts to public services, Hampshire County Council which was conservative run would need to find £160m in cuts, Gosport could not afford to be conservative run, the County Council cannot afford to repair potholes, there were currently 73000 in Hampshire and Council tax was being put up with no repairs happening. It was reiterated that the Liberal Democrat Council were delivering a below inflation rise in Council Tax and not cutting services.

The administration had inherited a previous deficit of £1.7m from the Conservatives and the Conservative government had left many Councils in deficit and Conservative run County Council were also having to find cuts of £160m

There were many councils including Hampshire that were unworkable in future years. Inflation had dropped from 10%, created by the Conservative government to 3.6% and the Gosport Borough Council precept was only 2.99% increase. This was a fixed amount, and proposal above it would require a referendum, but it also showed that what was permitted was not inline with inflation.

The Liberal Democrats were not cutting front line services, and had face a significant challenge finding £1m in savings to balance the books. They had done this in a robust way and had not undertaken additional borrowing or made additional cuts.

Consideration had been given to bureaucracy on unrealistic projects, expensive projects and correct due diligence had taken place to ensure proper processes had been undertaken.

There were no ‘brown envelopes’ and Councillors that suggested proper processes had not been undertaken were putting a slur onto officers. The Council had only increased its share of the Council tax by 2.99% which was at odds to the County Council who were having to make significant cuts.

The Liberal Democrats were protecting services, and there was concern that the issues at Hampshire County Council would be passed to Gosport as a result of LGR.

The County Council had cut bus subsides, libraries, streetlights were not on through the night and Gosport were only increasing their share by 15p a week. The total would be less than the cost of a gallon of petrol and but the increase in fuel prices would impact the Council, for things such as grounds maintenance.

National policy was impacting on Local Government. Gosport as a well run, smaller Council was having to be subject to Local Government reorganisation, creating worst budget positions, and services and Councillors that would not know Gosport. The Council had an additional pressure of £1m in savings targets for future years and thanked the finance team for what they had done to achieve saving targets for this budget.

The budget had to utilise reserves to ensure that services remained, and the Council had to consider increases to the budget such as pay awards, national insurance contributions. These would all increase and place additional pressure on the budgets.

It was advised that it was important to highlight that the budgetary issues at the County Council were in a large part because of costs associated with Children’s services, adult services and the cost of SEND transport for children.

There simply was not the funds at the County Council to cope with the demand that these services were presenting. It was acknowledged that exploration was being undertaken with regard to a provision of a SEND school in Gosport but that there was not enough capacity in SEND schools for the demand for places.

The Council had secured additional hostel space and was utilising sites such as the old maternity hospital, and it was reiterated that the delay on the Council houses was as a result of the County Council delaying adopting the road, this meant the Council were missing out on rental income from them and the houses stood empty.

Despite the budget being difficult, a commitment was still able to be made Citizen’s Advice, showing an appreciation and value for the work they undertook, this contribution had increased along with the rate of inflation, at a time when other local authorities were cutting grants to them. The support they provided the community was invaluable and the Council was grateful for the work undertaken in supporting the residents.

Community grants would remain supporting local events and heritage grants remained to support restoration of buildings. The Marine festival continued to be supported as were many other events that were good for the Borough. This was all being done on just a 15p a week Council tax increase. £1.8 million had been spent on sports facilities including improvements to Privett Prak, a new skate park in Lee on the Solent paddle ball courts, improvements to the splash parks.

Money would be spent on improving the High Street, and protecting heritage assets including the Criterion and there would be no cost to the Council Tax payer, not a penny, external grants would be sought to fund it. The People’s Park was facing an increase in costs, but the proposals were better than previous proposals of high rise flats, and the proposal would give new life to the area.

The High Street continued to improve with 35 new businesses, it was not easy for them all to remain open with business rates that could not be controlled many High Streets up and down the country were struggling. The Council were breathing life into the high street with 8 specialist markets, these could not be reduced in number as it would not make them viable but they were attracting residents to the Borough. The weekly market continued to struggle but this was as a result of changing shopping habits for all.

The digital funding had ended but it was important to keep Yourspace open, but it was acknowledged that those utilising the space were not currently charged to do so. This would be looked at a future meeting of the Policy and Organisation Board. CASE currently operationally ran the venue, saving the Council £15K in VAT.

The People’s Park costs had doubled, but the funding would come from LUF, and would provide bars and restaurants for the residents of the Borough as well as entertainment as the administration were committed to their election promises. The costs were in significant part as a result of the additional underground work required for a drainage tank and the additional stair cases required for the buildings to be compliant. There had also been some increase in costs as a result of bad advice.

Across the Borough costs had increased, the cocklepond works had doubled in cost and there had been other significant increases in programmes of work.

Businesses continued to come to Gosport, Erasmus Wolfe had been a success and Wetherspoons had spent significant amount on a refurbishment. National firms were returning to the High Street including Bon Marche and McDonalds.

Stoke Road was becoming a hub for independent artists, there were a number of studios there who were creating art across the Borough.

All of this was being achieved with a 40% cut in Government funding and it would be good if the new government could work to increase this and recognise the important work that local government did.

The budget continued to retain a reserve and the reserve had help to balance the books, it was acknowledged that reserve funding could only be used once.

There were increased waste arrangements to consider and the council had been prudent in setting appropriate fees and charges to allow for an income stream.

Despite the successful budget, the forecast for the next 3 years would require the identification of additional savings that didn’t impact on services.

The skip scheme continues to be a success and 350 tons of rubbish, Walpole Road Car Park had most recently had 10 tonnes and it was a success in removing rubbish from wards and was proving very important for those who could not drive to the tips.

High Street events continued to be supported as well as events such as the Rowner Carnival which had been awarded a grant. The Pride in Place funding would help the Grange and Alver Valley ward with up to £20m in funding to be spend in consultation with residents.

The Council were fortunate to be moving forward with a balanced budget and CCTV continued to be funded with the Police having access to it whenever it was required.

Significant funding was being invested in the repair and improvement to play areas. £2m was being invested into improving public spaces and there would clean streets as grass cutting and or maintenance.

Thanks were given to the Borough Treasurer and his team for the work on the budget as it had been significant work for the team. The Council were lucky to have such dedicated and capable officers.

It was acknowledged that the budget was the last for the Borough Treasurer and thanked him for his work and wished him well for his upcoming work on Local Government Reorganisation.

The Officer’s had supported the budget process in an honest way with bold vision and deserved respect for what they had delivered, reiterating that the increase for Gosport was 10 times less than Hampshire County Council.

The Leader of the Conservative Group addressed the Council in agreement with the thanks to the finance team as they had been excellent in their support to all parties.

He advised the Council that there were two sides to every argument and that he would offer the truth. He advised that the Liberal Democrats financial planning had been poor and that the Criterion in particular had cost the Council significant sums of money being bought over priced and then continuing to cost the Council money. The building now stood empty with no hope of it moving forward

In one year the cost of the People’s park had doubled and reserves were being used and not replaced. The Labour Group were propping up the allegiance which meant that no alternative budget would be approved. The Council houses promised would not be delivered and the housing regulator had given the lowest rating of C4 to the Housing Service.

Spending was increasing on projects that were not being delivered and appropriate transformation was needed to ensure that the Council’s finances were protected moving forwards. There was significant savings to be made and not content with the budget deficit and use of reserves, the administration was also failing to produce an acceptable capital programme. The Council had been told the business case for the criterion would cost £20000 and be done within 3 – 6 months, three and a half years later, there was no business case, £200k had been spent on a business case, £390k on maintenance, and there was no progress at all. Significant money had been wasted on the Criterion, nearly a £1000000 and there was no open venue, no live music, an empty building which was no benefit to residents.

The People’s Park had also increased to nearly £6m and that did not include toilets. The level of failures was shocking.

The Council was advised that there would be the proposal of a Conservative Group amendment.

The Leader of the Labour group advised that she welcomed the inclusion of measures to improve IT support for staff and projects, cyber security awareness was on the increase and it was important the Council were safeguarded. The opportunity for Local Government reorganisation was a chance to pool resources together towards a new journey and with existing shared services with Portsmouth, Gosport were in a strong position and the Council should welcome the opportunity it provided.

It was essential that funding went into our play areas to keep them and young people safe.

The Housing budget was ringfenced and it was hoped that progress would soon be made to allow the new Council properties to be occupied.

The People’s Park would encourage people to come to Gosport and it was disappointing that the costs had increased but people would need toilets and the new ticket office would support the gateway. It was important to get the project moving forward.

It was important to welcome new businesses to the Town and that although work to make improvements was happening it was taking tome for ideas to come to fruition. This project would showcase Gosport. Other projects like Blockhouse had been delayed and this was a critical site for providing Housing for the Borough.

There was significant other work that needed to be undertaken including repairs to play parks, this was all included in the Capital programme. Ongoing work needed to be undertaken with the Environment agency and the cockle pond work had slipped. Public areas needed to be improved to help Gosport

RESOLVED: That the Council agree under standing order 4.11.18 the Council agreed to continue business after 9.30pm

The Reform UK party leader addressed the council and advised that he felt the budget did not represent the residents of Bridgemary or Gosport. He saw a spending of reserves and significant savings that needed to be made over the next 3 years.

He advised that in times of such significant saving requirements, the spending of £1m on the Criterion which had now been mothballed, without external funding or investment was unacceptable

The project had been a poor spend of public money and additionally there was nothing for Bridgemary residents, no investment in facilities, improvement in equipment or show any desire to improve things for Bridgemary residents.

The Leader of the Conservative group advised that none of the structure of the budget looked at things carefully and that by Christmas 2027 there would be no reserves left with £3.3m in savings to be found.

There should be focus on transformations and savings to allow the Council to continue without going bankrupt and this needed to be scrutinized in the correct way. The savings this year amounted to £485k, which did not meet target and there was concern that the budgeting was being undertaken irresponsibly, there was no additional tinkering that there needed to be a sensible strategy for improvements to be made and savings achieved.

The Conservative group amendment allowed for the implementation of a transformation and savings panel to properly consider what was needed to make the savings required.

The Labour group agreed that savings needed to be looked at and examined thoroughly but reiterated that the People’s Park still needed to progress, leaving it half finished

The Conservative amendment was seconded, advising of the need for business plans for major projects to install confidence in their direction and ensure that they were viable. Concern was expressed that the funding for Stage 2 of the People’s Park development was not secure. The Conservative proposals were not cancellation but would look to ensure that the projects were sound before progressing.

The proposal was also not looking to cut services but remove non statutory services like skips, specialist markets and would look at efficiency measures.

In addition car park charges would be frozen to allow for a full review to be undertaken, all of the work being undertaken in a collaborative way to ensure the best for the borough and explore priority areas and conjoined working across the Borough, rather than isolated projects.

There would be a holistic business plan to support the Council to move forward, this included the viability of phase 2 of the people’s park, to ensure that Gosport got the entrance to the Borough it deserved.

A Member advised the Council that as usual the Conservative Group said a lot without actually saying very much at all, they had no positive plan for the Town and were content with allowing the town to stagnate

Other Members felt that that there should be a clear strategy to identify how savings would be made and that a disciplined and well thought out budget should be presented to full Council, concluding a clear plan and funding for phase two of the People’s Park.

Some Members felt that it was unreasonable to delay phase 2 and that the budget showed that the money was present as part of the LRF funding and that they saw the benefit of the investment to the Town and the Town Centre and that phase 2 should go forward and allow residents in Gosport to benefit from what Gosport has to offer, rather than travel to Gunwharf.

A Labour Group Member advised that they were supportive of some of the Conservative proposals. But also felt that projects needed to move forward, as delays were increasingly costing more to the Council in building costs.

A Member questioned whether there was money to pay for phase 2 of the People’s Park and was advised that there were interested parties ready to invest for the progression of phase 2

It was clarified that phase one was the grassed area, phase 2 was the commercial units, and phase 3 would be the ticket office and the replacement toilets. There was an agreement to separate phase 2 and 3 incase the work could not be done at the same time. It was important they were progressed to prevent further delay and increased costs and that the recent delays and cost increase had been as a result of the need for a tank for run off water, and as a result of there needing to be an additional staircase on the commercial building to meet fire regulations.

A delay to phase two would see a loss in revenue and potentially a loss of interest in occupiers. Phase three would then be undertaken at some time in the future.

The Labour group advised that they would also be tabling an amendment.

The Conservative group amendment was as follows

Medium Term FinancialStrategy &Budget (Revenue &Capital) 2026/27

That therecommendations to AgendaItem 9 -Medium Term FinancialStrategy &Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2026/27 be amended as follows: -

Recommendation2.2 beamended to:

A General Fund Budget for 2026/27 of £15,203,930 as set out in Appendix A (Amended) and broken down in Appendix C be amended to include the changes described below:

i) Reductionsto RevenueEstimates

SavingsProposal

Impacton Levelof Service& Service Outcomes

2026/27

2027/28

& Future Years

£

£

Community& EnvironmentBoard

Waste Budget Review - Community Skips Scheme

Undertake a review to deliver a re-designed and more efficient community clean up scheme within a budget envelope of £120,000

40,000

40,000

Total

40,000

40,000

ii) Additions to RevenueEstimates

Increasesto BoardEstimates

2026/27

2027/28

& Future Years

£

£

Community& EnvironmentBoard

Car Parking Charges Review (projected reduced income) - Freeze current charges pending a full review of the Council's Car Parking Strategy, aligned with the Car Park Asset Review and Local Plan land utilization strategy

40,000

40,000

Total

40,000

40,000

Recommendation2.15 be amended to:

The Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2028/29, as set out in Appendix E, is approved subject to the following in relation to the Waterfront (Bus Station) Regeneration & People's Park Phase 1 and Phase 2 scheme:

i) Phase 1 shall proceed as currently approved

ii) Progression to Phase 2 (Commercial Phase) shall proceed subject to approval by Full Council of a refreshed and comprehensive business case which:

a) Assesses the scheme as part of a holistic High Street and Waterfront regeneration strategy;

b) Demonstrates inward investment benefits;

c) That the capital cost of the scheme can demonstrate that Value for Money is achieved through its procurement route

d) Assesses and ensures adequate funding for lifecycle asset replacement costs and ongoing revenue maintenance implications;

e) Evaluates the quantum and reliability (covenant strength) of the commercial lease income assumptions;

f) Demonstrates long-term commercial sustainability;

g) Confirms that any borrowing meets the regulatory requirements of the Prudential Code for Local Authority borrowing (relating to affordability, sustainability and prudence) and the terms and conditions of the Public Works Loans Board

Recommendation 2.21 be added for approval:

In considering the Savings Strategy for 2026/27 onwards, set out in this report, requiring that £1.5m of Budget Savings are made in 2027/28 as a minimum and that indicative savings of a further £1.5m will be required in 2028/29 and a further £0.3m in 2029/30, the Council:

i) Establish a Savings & Transformation Panel comprising Members and Senior Officers dedicated to developing a comprehensive and cohesive Transformation Plan and overseeing its implementation

ii) The Panel be constituted in accordance with Proportionality rules and convene its first meeting soon after the Council's Annual General Meeting

iii) The Savings & Transformation Plan to be considered by Full Council at the earliest opportunity, but not later than July 2026.

The Labour group amendment was as follows.

Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2026/27

That therecommendations to AgendaItem 9 -Medium Term FinancialStrategy &Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2026/27 be amended as follows: -

Recommendation 2.2)be amendedto:

A General Fund Budget for 2026/27 of £15,103, 930 as set out in Appendix A (Amended) and broken down in Appendix C be amended to include the changes described below:

iii) Reductionsto RevenueEstimates

SavingsProposal

Impacton Levelof Service& Service Outcomes

2026/27

2027/28

& Future Years

£

£

Community& EnvironmentBoard

Community Skips Scheme

Reduce to a monthly service

80,000

80,000

Policy& OrganisationBoard

Markets

Reduce bespoke markets from six per year to three per year and retaining the Christmas event

20,000

20,000

Total

100,000

100,000

Recommendation 2.13 beamended to:-

That the Council approves the Savings Strategy for 2026/27 onwards set out in this report, requiring that £1.45m of Budget Savings are made in 2027/28 as a minimum and that indicative savings of a further £1.45m will be required in 2028/29 and a further £0.3m in 2029/30, these indicative savings being subject to an annual review

Concern was raised that despite the effort of the administration, should LGR go forward, the new Council would be bankrupt from day one, reflective of spending at the County Council.

Gosport was investing in sports pitches, with no guarantee this would continue. There would be a real impact on Gosport from LGR. Gosport was not perfect but Councillors were passionate about their residents and their town and Gosport Borough Council allowed local people to make decision about their local area.

Freezing car park charges would not be an option as there needs to be an income from some form to prevent Council Tax from increasing further. £2 million extra was being invested in to services and that consideration would need to be given to projects moving forward.

The bus station had been waiting to be improved since 1998, with action finally being taken, every year action had been promised, but there had never been progress, but progress was now being made. The Police Station had sat empty for a long time, previously designated as housing, but now waiting to be developed.

The project at the People’s park was moving forward, and would not be an ugly block of flats. Unfortunately delays happen and costs increase, but it was critical to progress to prevent the spend of even more money. The project was crucial to the economic development of the Town and reiterated that there were firms interested in the retail units.

It was important that residents could go to Gosport and could enjoy a drink and views of the Harbour without needing to travel to Portsmouth. It was important that the toilets were available as there were a lack of toilet facilities in the borough. The Levelling up funding was critical to the improvement to the gateway of the Borough.

Members reiterated their support for IT improvements, there had been considerable discussions with the finance team regarding the requirements and the funding of them.

It was felt that it was important to continue to recognise the heritage across the Borough, remembering the historic past. It was also acknowledged that there were other ongoing structural issues such as the sea wall at Stoke Bay and pathway at the cockle pond with costs there increasing

The debate continues with regards to the budget presented and the two amendments.

Members advised that they were pleased that there was money in the budget for improvements to play parks although it was noted that a significant amount of the equipment at the play park along Stokes Bay was damaged and not earmarked to be replaced. Similarly, there was £35k in the budget for splash park improvements. It was not felt that this was substantial enough to make improvements as across the two parks it wasn’t a great deal.

A Member advised that the criticism of the previously proposed flats was unfair as there were a lot worse things that could be located on the site. The proposal would have brought income into the Council. Concern was also expressed that unless significant savings were presented, there would be no funds left.

It was reiterated that 2.00% of Hampshire County council’s increase was directed straight to adults services, meaning the remaining increase was 2.99% the same as Gosport’s proposal. Continuing to compare the two proposals was similar to comparing apples with pears as the Council provided very different things. Gosport Borough Council’s budget was £15m, Hampshire County council’s was £2.5b. They were not comparable. Adult services and SEN made up 85% of the County council’s budget. The cost pressure from increased need for elderly care of 45 additional people was £28 million a year.

£88m was spent on SEN transport, and things like pot holes could not be addressed as a result. Hampshire County Council needed to reshape their budget to address the challenges they faced.

The Council advised that work was ongoing with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner was working on the reintroduction of the Police Station.

It was noted that the OPCC had not offered to support the costs for the monitoring of CCTV cameras and that Gosport deserved better and that the Council needed to be realistic in how it spent funds.

A Member advised that they felt it was important to invest in public space and the High street and that criticism of the Council was unfair. It was again acknowledged that the Council needed to save significant additional money to meet its saving targets and it was acknowledged that some of this was as a result of vacancies not being filled.

The financial support given was praised and it was acknowledged that there had been tough decisions made which had led to reserves being utilised. The proposals in places such as the Criterion and People’s Park would give the people of Gosport a legacy for the introduction of LGR and restore rundown buildings.

It was reiterated that it had been stated that there would be no further spend of public money on the Criterion but questions were asked as to spending £50000 on asbestos removal and £100k on the roof. The Member reiterated that there was nothing in the budget to benefit the residents of Bridgemary.

A Member welcomed the retention of Yourspace, it brought in people to the site, but it was accepted that the implementation of charges would need to be looked at. The digital skills programme had worked well but it was accepted the funding had ended.

It was good to see frontline services being protected. Members acknowledged that the market was attractive to the residents and that there need to be a minimum amount to make it viable.

A vote was taken on the Conservative Group amendment, and a named vote was taken as follows.

FOR the AMENDMENT: Councillors Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard, The Mayor. (12)

AGAINST the AMENDMENT: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegywn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby (14)

The motion was LOST

A vote was taken on the Labour Group amendment and a named vote was taken as follows

FOR the AMENDMENT Councillor Brown, Councillor Cully. (2)

AGAINST the AMENDMENT Councillors Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard, The Mayor. (11)

ABSTAIN Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, Carter, Chegywn, Cox, Earle, Finn, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby (13)

A Vote was taken on the proposal and a named vote was taken

For the proposal: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, Brown, Chegywn, Cox, Cully, Earle, Finn, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Westerby (14)

Against the proposal: Councillors Burgess, Carter, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard, The Mayor. (12)

RESOLVED:

2.1 A Revised General Fund Budget for 2025/26 of £12,940,660 as set out in Appendix A;

2.2 A General Fund Budget for 2026/27 of £15,203,930 as set out in Appendix A and broken down in Appendix C;

2.3 Any variation arising from the final Local Government Finance Settlement be accommodated by a transfer to / from the Revenue Financing Reserve;

2.4 That the level of Council Tax be increased by 2.99% for 2026/27;

2.5 It be noted that the Borough Treasurer has determined that the Council Tax Base for the financial year 2026/27 will be 27,129.1 [item T in the formula in Section 31 B(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)];

2.6 That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the financial year 2026/27 in accordance with Section 31 and Sections 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

(a)

£45,960,511

Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act.

(b)

£38,611,780

Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

(c)

£7,348,731

Being the amount by which the aggregate at 2.6 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2.6(b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B(1) of the Act.

(d)

£270.88

Being the amount at 2.6 (c) above (Item R), all divided by Item 2.5 above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.

(e) Valuation Bands (Gosport Borough Council)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

180.59

210.68

240.78

270.88

331.08

391.27

451.47

541.76

Being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 2.6 (d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in Valuation Band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings in different valuation bands.

2.7 That it be noted that for the financial year 2026/27 Hampshire County Council are considering the following amounts for the precept to be issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of categories of the dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands (Hampshire County Council)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

1,126.74

1,314.53

1,502.32

1,690.11

2,065.69

2,441.27

2,816.85

3,380.22

2.8 That it be noted that for the financial year 2026/27, the Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner has determined the following amounts for the precept to be issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands (Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

193.64

225.91

258.19

290.46

355.01

419.55

484.10

580.92

2.9 That it be noted that for the financial year 2026/27, that Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority have determined the following amounts for the precept issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

61.89

72.21

82.52

92.84

113.47

134.10

154.73

185.68

2.10 That having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2.6(e), 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 above, the Council, in accordance with Sections 31A, 31B and 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the financial year 2026/27 for each of the categories of dwellings shown on the next page:

Valuation Bands (Total Council Tax)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

1,562.86

1,823.33

2,083.81

2,344.29

2,865.25

3,386.19

3,907.15

4,688.58

2.11

The Borough Treasurer be given delegated authority to implement any variation to the overall level of Council Tax arising from the final notification of the Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner and Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority precepts.

2.12

The Council determines in accordance with Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2026/27, which represents a 2.99% increase, is not excessive in accordance with the principles approved by the Secretary of State under Section 52ZC of the Act.

2.13

That the Council approves the Savings Strategy for 2026/27 onwards set out in this report, requiring that £1.5m of Budget Savings are made in 2027/28 as a minimum and that indicative savings of a further £1.5m will be required in 2028/29 and a further £0.3m in 2029/30, these indicative savings being subject to an annual review.

2.14

Members have had regard for the Statement of the Section 151 Officer in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 as set out in the report.

2.15

The Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2028/29 as set out in Appendix E is approved.

2.16

That the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix F are approved.

2.17

That the Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 as set out in Appendix G is approved.

10 Capital Strategy

Report To Follow

Attachments:

Document 01 Capital Strategy Full Council 2026-27 Final (1) 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Treasurer seeking approval by Full Council of the Capital Strategy is a requirement of the Prudential code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (Prudential Code), and the Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice and Cross-Sectoral Guidance Notes (Treasury Management Code) which were updated in December 2021.

RESOLVED: That the Council approves the Capital Strategy for 2026/27

11 Treasury Management Strategy

Report To Follow

Attachments:

Document 02 Treasury management 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer detailing Council plans to repay the cost of capital projects using its revenue budget (known as the Minimum Revenue Provision, or MRP). It also summarises the treasury activities we expect to carry out during the period. Together, these fulfil an important statutory requirement.

Resolved:

That the Council approved Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, as identified in 2.1

The Treasury Management Strategy, as identified in 3.0

12 Investment Strategy

Report To Follow

Attachments:

Document 03 Investment Strategy 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer detailing of an Investment Strategy by Full Council is required under the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities and the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice and Cross?Sectoral Guidance Notes, both of which were updated in December 2021.

RESOLVED: That the Investment Strategy as detailed in this report be approved

13 Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2026/27

This report sets out the proposed Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for working-age residents for 2026/27, for which no changes are intended.

It also provides Members with an overview of the 2025/26 scheme, which includes claimant caseload trend and expenditure levels. In line with statutory requirements, the Council is required to review and approve its LCTS scheme before 11 March each year.

Attachments:

Document Local Council Tax Support scheme 2026 _27 24 Feb 2026
Document Gosport S13A 202627 Scheme 24 Feb 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Corporate Services detailing Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for working-age residents for 2026/27, for which no changes are intended. It also provides Members with an overview of the 2025/26 scheme, which includes claimant caseload trend and expenditure levels. In line with statutory requirements, the Council is required to review and approve its LCTS scheme before 11 March each year.

RESOLVED: That Council approves the continuation of the current working-age LCTS scheme for 2026/27 and note the continuation of the statutory, Government prescribed pension-age scheme. No amendments are proposed for 2026/27.

14 Election of Mayor Elect and Deputy Mayor Elect

In accordance with Standing Order No. 2.4 the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer has written to Group Leaders and Members of the Council inviting them to submit Member nominations for the selection of Mayor-Elect and Deputy Mayor Elect for the next Municipal Year. There has been one nomination for Mayor elect, Councillor K Bradley and one nomination for Deputy Mayor Elect, Councillor Casey.

Minutes There were two nominations for Mayor Elect Councillor Westerby and Councillor Casey.

Councillor Westerby was proposed by Councillor Chegwyn and seconded by Councillor Earle.

Councillor Chegwyn advised that Councillor Westerby would be fantastic Mayor of the Borough and was a great ambassador for the Town.

A number of Members recognised that the current Mayor had done a fantastic job in her term, but felt that it was important and fair that Councillors only took on the role for a year.

Councillor Ricketts spoke in support his proposal for Councillor Bradley, advising that she had over the past year serviced the Borough with dedication, commitment, she had been visible and worked tirelessly to advocate across the Borough. She had celebrated the Borough and shown compassion when needed and had been an effective Chair of the Council.

Other Members reiterated that the Mayor had been effective in her role and served the Borough well.

Councillor Burgess seconded the nomination of Councillor Bradley commending the work she undertook with local groups, advising she had been an excellent Mayor.

Councillor Earle formally seconded the proposal of Councillor Westerby commenting she was an absolute professional in all she did, and that he supported the notion that a Mayor should not be in post for more than one year.

A vote was taken on the appointment of Mayor Elect and Councillor Westerby was duly nominated.

Councillor Casey was elected as Deputy Mayor.

15 Appointment to an outside body

To nominate a Councillor to Portsmouth Water

Minutes Councillor Finn was elected to Portsmouth Water.

16 Any other items

Minutes There were none.

Meeting

Scheduled Time

Councillor Kirsty Cox

Councillor Stevyn Ricketts

Councillor Murray Johnston

Margaret Snaith-Tempia Honorary Alderman

Councillor Lesley Meenaghan

Councillor Kirsten Bradley

Councillor Stephen Philpott

Councillor Kevin Casey

Councillor Tony Jessop

Councillor Supriya Namdeo

Councillor Graham Burgess

Councillor Dan Hayes

Councillor Richard Earle

Councillor Thomas Finn

Councillor Alan Scard

Bob Foster Honorary Alderman

Councillor Julie Westerby

Councillor Peter Chegwyn

Councillor Mrs Zoe Huggins BEM

Councillor Paul Carter

Councillor Jonathan Brown

Councillor Ms Sue Ballard

Councillor Mervin Bradley

Councillor Mrs June Cully

Councillor Stephen Hammond

Councillor David Herridge

Councillor Jamie Hutchison

Councillor Robert Hylands

Councillor Miss Dawn Kelly

Councillor Philip Raffaelli CB FRCP

Join the Discussion