Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Policy and Organisation Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 18th February 2026
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 18th February 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 18th February 2026
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 18th February 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
18 Feb 2026
18 Feb 2026
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Kirsty Cox
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Committee Member
Councillor Jamie Hutchison
Present, as expected
Vice-Chair
Councillor Robert Hylands
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Mrs June Cully
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
To receive apologies for non attendance
Minutes
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Philpott.
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 Chegwyn, Huggins and Meenaghan declared that they were also Hampshire County Councillors, in relation to the Local Plan.
3
Minutes of the meetings of the board held on 26 November 2025, 16 January 2026 and 27 January 2026
To sign the minutes of the meetings of the Policy and Organisation Board held on 26 November 2025, 16 January 2026 and 27 January 2026 as a true and correct record.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 26/11/2025 Policy and Organisation Board 10 Feb 2026
- Document Minutes , 16/01/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 10 Feb 2026
- Document Minutes , 27/01/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 10 Feb 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Policy and Organisation Board held on the 26 November 2025, 16 January 2026 and 27 January 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 16 February 2026. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
There were none.
5
Public Questions - Standing order 3.5
(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 16 February 2026).
Minutes
A public question was received from Sam Braik as follows
Hampshire Constabulary's Consultee Comment for the Peoples Park development stated the following:
'the design and access statement makes no mention of crime and anti-social behaviour or any mitigations to reduce the opportunity for crime and anti-social behaviour within the proposed site'
'the police.uk website reports that 182 crimes were reported in the area surrounding Gosport Bus Station between February 2024 and January 2025. The majority of the offences were categorised as anti-social behaviour (29%) and violence/sexual offences (25%)'
'It is recommended that a CCTV system, meeting BS 62676, is installed to cover the Public Open Space'
Therefore can the Council confirm that live monitored CCTV is going to be installed across the Peoples Park Development as well as reinstated across the rest of Gosport's CCTV network.
Answer:
In the paragraph quoting crime figures, the figures are out of date and the bus station has been removed since then, which will give different figures.
I am sure there will be a new CCTV system the standards of which will be determined in due course, and the policy of the Liberal Democrats was to have 24/7 CCTV, which would cost £200000, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had been approached but had not offer any financial support to it.
In addition the food units would be required to have full CCTV by law, with the footage kept for 28 days which would provide useful should access be needed.
Hampshire Constabulary's Consultee Comment for the Peoples Park development stated the following:
'the design and access statement makes no mention of crime and anti-social behaviour or any mitigations to reduce the opportunity for crime and anti-social behaviour within the proposed site'
'the police.uk website reports that 182 crimes were reported in the area surrounding Gosport Bus Station between February 2024 and January 2025. The majority of the offences were categorised as anti-social behaviour (29%) and violence/sexual offences (25%)'
'It is recommended that a CCTV system, meeting BS 62676, is installed to cover the Public Open Space'
Therefore can the Council confirm that live monitored CCTV is going to be installed across the Peoples Park Development as well as reinstated across the rest of Gosport's CCTV network.
Answer:
In the paragraph quoting crime figures, the figures are out of date and the bus station has been removed since then, which will give different figures.
I am sure there will be a new CCTV system the standards of which will be determined in due course, and the policy of the Liberal Democrats was to have 24/7 CCTV, which would cost £200000, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had been approached but had not offer any financial support to it.
In addition the food units would be required to have full CCTV by law, with the footage kept for 28 days which would provide useful should access be needed.
6
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042
The Council is required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to prepare a development plan for its area. This report seeks approval to publish the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 for public consultation following agreement at Full Council, and subsequently submission to the Secretary of State via the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.
Attachments:
- Document Reg 19 Local Plan FEB 2026- Board Version -FINAL 10 Feb 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning Policy seeking approval to publish the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 for public consultation following agreement at Full Council, and subsequently submission to the Secretary of State via the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.
The Board was being asked to consider the plan and to recommend it to Full Council, for approval, consultation would then be undertake, before being presented to the Planning Inspector, via the Secretary of State, including any modifications as a result of the process.
Any significant changes would be presented to Council.
There were three key elements to the report, the content and the key changes, the key risks and the consultation and the process.
There were three main risks, that the plan was not sound if it could not meet housing needs, this was proving difficult, and it was difficult to demonstrate viability of sites like Fort Blockhouse.
Whether a pragmatic approach to affordable housing would be considered on sites where it was not viable and whether this would be acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate.
Members were advised of two updates, the first being that at 8.16 the provision of hot food and takeaway not to be within 400m of Secondary Schools should be all schools as there was no differentiation between primary and secondary schools.
The Board was also advised that at 10.2 it was stated that a consultation would take place, pre consultation had taken place utilising contacts on the existing data base to advise that a full consultation was imminent pending board approval. The pre consolation was to test the data held.
Members thanked the team for their hard work on the report.
A Member questioned the pragmatic approach to the housing need, accepting the building on brown field and lower green field sites, but what was the realistic pathway for the 550 families on the waiting list for Council Housing by having an unmet need.
The Board was advised that the housing target for the Council’s waiting list was not included in the Housing need identified. The Council had met its provision with bringing forward developments at Addenbrooke, and the new Council houses, but would need to look at development on their own land and working with Housing Association
Sites such as Daedalus had not been achievable without support from Homes England, grants or continued ownership of the sea wall would also need to happen for the Blockhouse site to be viable.
Gosport did not have the land required for its Housing need, it would not meet its unmet need and work would be needed at a more strategic level to develop a strategy with wider scope for development in other areas. This had been an ongoing discussion within PUSH and had secured a 100 unit offset delivered in Fareham.
Other authorities had been approached, but many of those neighbouring, such as Havant and Portsmouth faced the same pressure as Gosport with land supply.
Fareham were bringing the wellbourne development online, and there was a duty to cooperate but it would still be hard to meet targets.
A Member advised that the administration were committed to not building on open spaces, and that whilst houses were needed, so were open spaces. The waiting list for Council properties had reduced from over 3000 to 550, new Council housing was being built for the first time since 2016, these were ready to be occupied but there was an ongoing issue in that the County Council had not signed off the Highway development for the sites. There were 16 houses waiting to be used. It was suggested that the Chief Executive and the Leader lobby for this to be pushed forward and was advised that this had already taken place.
A Member questioned what it would mean if the Local Plan was unsound and was advised that it would mean it would need to be looked at a fresh. There was a checklist to utilise before plans were submitted and it would be informally assessed in advance for a heads up on anything that would present an issue. This would all be considered before submission. If the plan wasn’t acceptable, it would be withdrawn as had happened in Havant.
A Member asked about the timetable for the plan, and how confident the Council was at meeting the timeframe. It was recognised that there would be local elections and the restrictions that presented.
The plan information could be submitted in its pure form, it did not need to be broken down, and how the information was dealt with would depend on the comments.
The delaine had been set for December but the plan had been worked on and set to an earlier deadline to avoid a December rush.
Concerns were expressed about the Blockhouse site, and it was reiterated that support would be needed for it to be a viable site as it was complex.
It was reiterated that there simply was not the land in Gosport to provide the target of homes, and that all options to deliver this should be explored, including those outside of the Borough.
Members welcomed he report, acknowledging the shortage of housing and specific types of housing, such as that for veterans. It was acknowledged that green spaces should be protected and that there were also difficulties at sites such as Mariners Way, which had been allocated but were not suitable.
The amended rules for properties in the High Street would see an increase footfall and use, and was providing affordable properties, but reiterated that in such denser living conditions, outside green space was important.
A Member advised that in 2021 it had been identified that there was 50 Houses of Multiple Occupation in the Borough. Information was requested on the current number and the Board was advised that this would need to be identified through the Licenses held by environmental health, as depending on their size, not all conversions to HMOs required planning permission. This would be advised to Members. Members recognised the importance of a good quality framework for HMOs. Members felt it was important to consider the climate impact of HMOs on streets and to track the value and impact of them. There were obvious impacts like parking, but the impact on amenity should also be considered.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that Building Control would consider the elements required for those that required planning applications. Environmental Health dealt with HMO Licensing. Members expressed concern about the scale of some HMOs and it was acknowledged that those under 7 bedrooms did not need planning permission.
The requires approach to affordable housing was 20%, on some sites, such as Browndown and Gilkicker, this wasn’t possible and a pragmatic approach to contributions needed to be made to ensure the sites were viable.
Members recognised the importance of the document in the borough moving forward, the protection of neighbourhood shopping areas, the importance of tourism and regeneration. The importance of skills development was also acknowledged, as well as public transport. It was recognised that public transport was needed for new developments to ensure they were sustainable.
Members discussed the development at Brockhurst gate, and it was felt that a pragmatic approach needed to be taken to the remaining land, as it was possible that affordable housing could be appropriate.
It was acknowledged that there was an amendment as identified to the schools clarification addition it was proposed and agreed that the delegation of ‘main’ amendments be removed and that these should be returned to the Board.
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 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
- 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.
The Board was being asked to consider the plan and to recommend it to Full Council, for approval, consultation would then be undertake, before being presented to the Planning Inspector, via the Secretary of State, including any modifications as a result of the process.
Any significant changes would be presented to Council.
There were three key elements to the report, the content and the key changes, the key risks and the consultation and the process.
There were three main risks, that the plan was not sound if it could not meet housing needs, this was proving difficult, and it was difficult to demonstrate viability of sites like Fort Blockhouse.
Whether a pragmatic approach to affordable housing would be considered on sites where it was not viable and whether this would be acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate.
Members were advised of two updates, the first being that at 8.16 the provision of hot food and takeaway not to be within 400m of Secondary Schools should be all schools as there was no differentiation between primary and secondary schools.
The Board was also advised that at 10.2 it was stated that a consultation would take place, pre consultation had taken place utilising contacts on the existing data base to advise that a full consultation was imminent pending board approval. The pre consolation was to test the data held.
Members thanked the team for their hard work on the report.
A Member questioned the pragmatic approach to the housing need, accepting the building on brown field and lower green field sites, but what was the realistic pathway for the 550 families on the waiting list for Council Housing by having an unmet need.
The Board was advised that the housing target for the Council’s waiting list was not included in the Housing need identified. The Council had met its provision with bringing forward developments at Addenbrooke, and the new Council houses, but would need to look at development on their own land and working with Housing Association
Sites such as Daedalus had not been achievable without support from Homes England, grants or continued ownership of the sea wall would also need to happen for the Blockhouse site to be viable.
Gosport did not have the land required for its Housing need, it would not meet its unmet need and work would be needed at a more strategic level to develop a strategy with wider scope for development in other areas. This had been an ongoing discussion within PUSH and had secured a 100 unit offset delivered in Fareham.
Other authorities had been approached, but many of those neighbouring, such as Havant and Portsmouth faced the same pressure as Gosport with land supply.
Fareham were bringing the wellbourne development online, and there was a duty to cooperate but it would still be hard to meet targets.
A Member advised that the administration were committed to not building on open spaces, and that whilst houses were needed, so were open spaces. The waiting list for Council properties had reduced from over 3000 to 550, new Council housing was being built for the first time since 2016, these were ready to be occupied but there was an ongoing issue in that the County Council had not signed off the Highway development for the sites. There were 16 houses waiting to be used. It was suggested that the Chief Executive and the Leader lobby for this to be pushed forward and was advised that this had already taken place.
A Member questioned what it would mean if the Local Plan was unsound and was advised that it would mean it would need to be looked at a fresh. There was a checklist to utilise before plans were submitted and it would be informally assessed in advance for a heads up on anything that would present an issue. This would all be considered before submission. If the plan wasn’t acceptable, it would be withdrawn as had happened in Havant.
A Member asked about the timetable for the plan, and how confident the Council was at meeting the timeframe. It was recognised that there would be local elections and the restrictions that presented.
The plan information could be submitted in its pure form, it did not need to be broken down, and how the information was dealt with would depend on the comments.
The delaine had been set for December but the plan had been worked on and set to an earlier deadline to avoid a December rush.
Concerns were expressed about the Blockhouse site, and it was reiterated that support would be needed for it to be a viable site as it was complex.
It was reiterated that there simply was not the land in Gosport to provide the target of homes, and that all options to deliver this should be explored, including those outside of the Borough.
Members welcomed he report, acknowledging the shortage of housing and specific types of housing, such as that for veterans. It was acknowledged that green spaces should be protected and that there were also difficulties at sites such as Mariners Way, which had been allocated but were not suitable.
The amended rules for properties in the High Street would see an increase footfall and use, and was providing affordable properties, but reiterated that in such denser living conditions, outside green space was important.
A Member advised that in 2021 it had been identified that there was 50 Houses of Multiple Occupation in the Borough. Information was requested on the current number and the Board was advised that this would need to be identified through the Licenses held by environmental health, as depending on their size, not all conversions to HMOs required planning permission. This would be advised to Members. Members recognised the importance of a good quality framework for HMOs. Members felt it was important to consider the climate impact of HMOs on streets and to track the value and impact of them. There were obvious impacts like parking, but the impact on amenity should also be considered.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that Building Control would consider the elements required for those that required planning applications. Environmental Health dealt with HMO Licensing. Members expressed concern about the scale of some HMOs and it was acknowledged that those under 7 bedrooms did not need planning permission.
The requires approach to affordable housing was 20%, on some sites, such as Browndown and Gilkicker, this wasn’t possible and a pragmatic approach to contributions needed to be made to ensure the sites were viable.
Members recognised the importance of the document in the borough moving forward, the protection of neighbourhood shopping areas, the importance of tourism and regeneration. The importance of skills development was also acknowledged, as well as public transport. It was recognised that public transport was needed for new developments to ensure they were sustainable.
Members discussed the development at Brockhurst gate, and it was felt that a pragmatic approach needed to be taken to the remaining land, as it was possible that affordable housing could be appropriate.
It was acknowledged that there was an amendment as identified to the schools clarification addition it was proposed and agreed that the delegation of ‘main’ amendments be removed and that these should be returned to the Board.
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 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
- 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.
7
Update of the Council's Contract Procedure Rules within the Council's Constitution to reflect the requirements of the Procurement Act 2023
This report sets out 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.
Attachments:
- Document 02 Board Report - Revised CPRs due to New Procurement Act 2023 V2.final clean version 7.1.26 10 Feb 2026
- Document 02 Appendix 1 - Part 4 Schedule 13 Contract Procedure Rules 08.12.2025 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - GBC Social Value Statement 08.12.2025 10 Feb 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive setting out 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.
The Board was advised that there had been an update to the legislation as a result of the Procurement Act 2023 and that the updated Contract Procedure Rules reflected this.
The proposals gave more flexibility to officers for low level direct awards, had included the creation of a corporate amazon account and allowed for the use of electronic signatures.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that updated flow charts and process notes would follow in due course. These and the templates would form part of a separate project.
The Board was advised that all amazon purchases were signed off by the purchasing team.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that any former member of staff was not excluded from bidding for work, but that normal business ethics would apply and close monitoring would be required.
Members welcomed the inclusion of a social values statement.
RESOLVED: That
That the Board:
· Recommend to full Council 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.
In addition that the Board note:
· the Council’s Social Value Statement formalising procedures already undertaken on the inclusion of social value in all relevant procurements attached at Appendix 2
· the introduction a full working procedure manual to streamline and enhance internalprocesses, these elements of operational procedure having been removed from the Contract Procedure Rules.
The Board was advised that there had been an update to the legislation as a result of the Procurement Act 2023 and that the updated Contract Procedure Rules reflected this.
The proposals gave more flexibility to officers for low level direct awards, had included the creation of a corporate amazon account and allowed for the use of electronic signatures.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that updated flow charts and process notes would follow in due course. These and the templates would form part of a separate project.
The Board was advised that all amazon purchases were signed off by the purchasing team.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that any former member of staff was not excluded from bidding for work, but that normal business ethics would apply and close monitoring would be required.
Members welcomed the inclusion of a social values statement.
RESOLVED: That
That the Board:
· Recommend to full Council 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.
In addition that the Board note:
· the Council’s Social Value Statement formalising procedures already undertaken on the inclusion of social value in all relevant procurements attached at Appendix 2
· the introduction a full working procedure manual to streamline and enhance internalprocesses, these elements of operational procedure having been removed from the Contract Procedure Rules.
8
Clarification of Peel Common polling district boundary (Brookers Lane)
To seek the Board’s approval to correct a minor anomaly in the polling district boundary between PC1 and PC2 in the Peel Common area, arising from the 2023 Polling District and Polling Place Review.
Attachments:
- Document 03 Report to P&O Board 10 Feb 2026
- Document 03 Appendix 4 10 Feb 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Electoral Services Manager to seek the Board’s approval to correct a minor anomaly in the polling district boundary between PC1 and PC2 in the Peel Common area, arising from the 2023 Polling District and Polling Place Review.
Members welcomed the amendment and the clarification.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the amendment to the polling district boundary between PC1 and PC2, incorporating properties 65 - 73 (odds only) Brookers Lane into PC2.
Members welcomed the amendment and the clarification.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the amendment to the polling district boundary between PC1 and PC2, incorporating properties 65 - 73 (odds only) Brookers Lane into PC2.
9
Pride in Place Programme - Rowner
This report seeks approval of a proposed governance model and arrangements for the delivery of the Pride in Place Programme, including the process for appointment of the Independent Chair to the Neighbourhood Board.
Attachments:
- Document Pride in Place Programme P&O Board Feb 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 1 Pride_in_Place_Strategy 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 2 PiPP Prospectus 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 3 Middle Super Output Area of Rowner 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 4 Draft NB Chair Role description 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 5 PiPP Indicative Interventions List 10 Feb 2026
- Document Appendix 6 GBC IIA Pride in Place Programme 10 Feb 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration seeking approval of a proposed governance model and arrangements for the delivery of the Pride in Place Programme, including the process for appointment of the Independent Chair to the Neighbourhood Board.
The report was being presented to the Board acknowledging that the information from the government on the project was still outstanding. A lot of background work had been taking place in the background and the document presented was a step forward.
Both ward councillors for Grange and Alver were present and welcome to speak on the proposal.
The Board was advised that the role of the Chairman was very important in that they would need to work with others, get the neighbourhood board up and running and deliver a community vision with the funds. An independent chair was crucial, and it was important they had the vital skills to be able to deliver the project. The Board was advised that payment could be made the Chairman in exceptional circumstances to appoint the correct person for the role.
Councillor Brown was invited to address the Board, and spoke as follows.
Thank you Chair, Members of the Board, and members of the public.
I wanted to say a few words about the Local Plan, particularly because the Rowner ‘Regeneration’ part of that plan seeks to use Pride in Place funding to facilitate the deliberate disinvestment of Rowner over the next 15 years.
I am, honestly, a man of few words. But I will keep repeating them until they are heard.
I want to make three points tonight:
Why are we only now where we should have been back in September/October? Why we now have no option but to push ahead anyway, and What improvements to this recommendation are needed in order to have a chance of this working?
Pride in Place is a generational opportunity for “doubly-disadvantaged” communities such as Rowner. Others have been political, so I will say I am incredibly proud that our Labour government has not only acknowledged, but delivered a plan to fix, these long standing issues by not only putting money, £20million, or £19.6 if you really want to be split hairs, on the table, but also backed it up with a real process of community empowerment to guide and sustain improvements over the long term.
Why is Rowner “doubly-disadvantaged” and therefore, out of all of Gosport, most qualified for this additional funding?
On the Council’s website we can see the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and it shows that Rowner and other areas in Town and Forton are ‘deprived’, meaning they are missing out on good things. Good things relating to Living Conditions, opportunities for gaining Education and Skills, and Health. If you miss out on one good thing it’s disappointing, but if the rest of your life is ok you can get by. Where it becomes a real issue is when multiple deprivations pile on top of each other within an area and over a long period. It becomes very hard to break out of that cycle. Again, there are too many of these areas in Gosport, and Rowner is one of them.
That’s one level of disadvantage Rowner faces.
The second measure used by Pride in Place is the Community Needs Index (CNI), which represents the softer social elements which, where they exist, can sustain a community even in the face of other hardships, and provide a route back to healthy lives. They are measures of social capital, the availability of social spaces like libraries and pubs, levels of trust and the ability to attract external funding.
On these measures Rowner also scores very badly - leading to that second, compounding, layer of disadvantage. The standout figure for me is the level of grant funding from the ‘big funders’. The national average is £352.02 per head, Gosport gets about £85.99 per head, and Rowner has received only £10.17 per head.
On both of these measures, this Council should have led on slowing and preventing, then addressing and reversing, these disadvantages. I won’t list all of the historical failures here and now though, nor did the political priorities that I feel lead to those failures.
But Rowner clearly deserves and needs this money, over and above the also very deserving and disadvantaged areas of Gosport. I will make no apologies on that count.
When Rowner was announced as getting this Pride and Place Programme funding, back in September, it was clear, at least to me and anyone else paying attention, it was no ordinary grant funding that the Council may have been used to. All the power is very deliberately derived, not from GBC, but the residents of Rowner through their newly set up Neighbourhood Board. The Council was only to provide a supporting role during the initial set up before handing over to a community vehicle within three years. In addition, this funding was given to Rowner without any application or bidding process. We didn’t need the Council build up a case for why we needed it, this was a proactive action on the part of the government based on an analysis of available data.
I immediately wrote to the Council and all the other Councillors, both local Ward Councillors and County Councillors, celebrating this opportunity for our residents and asking to work together to make the best difference for our community. Despite making no head way, I was persistent to the point of being a pest, but again, I will make no apologies for that either.
Three obstacles were put in my way:
First, that ‘Rowner’ was an unspecified region and GBC would have to decide where the money went. Second, that we would need to wait for the data pack before progress could be made. And third, nothing could be done until funding was received and P&O decided how the money was spent.
I have recently been able to relay my protestations to officers, but we are now in a position five months later where:
“Rowner” is and always was the Rowner MSOA that government said right from the beginning and for which I provided a map in the first instance. No changes to this can be made apart from through the yet-to-be-set-up Rowner Neighbourhood Board by July. By November this Neighbourhood Board, not GBC, needs to submit a plan for how to spend the money after deep engagements with Rowner residents. I am unclear what the council expects to find out in the data pack. We know it will have the IMD and CNI data which we already have access to, and there will be a survey of community views which we are more than capable of doing better ourselves. And here we are now progressing without it anyway. What has changed in the last 5 months apart from valuable time passing us by? I also rejected, and continue to reject, the assertion that GBC needed to wait for the £150,000 capacity building payment that’s now been made. Again, this is clearly not GBC money. It is for setting up the Neighbourhood Board and some "quick wins" in the community. My view is that the Economic Development department ought to always be working for the whole of Gosport, including Rowner, to further our … economic development. The fact GBC did not need to invest in a speculative process of bidding for this money is all the more reason why, much, much earlier, a little bit of time could have been devoted by GBC to lay the little bit of groundwork that was needed. Any and all of those costs could have been reclaimed from the capacity funding now sitting in GBC’s bank account.
What we are left with is the understandable impression that this Council simply does not prioritise Rowner. That the £20 million odd we’re getting is somehow less important than the Council’s other projects - however worthwhile they are on their own merits. That somehow this a part of an ongoing pattern of, more than neglect, but of active discrimination against Rowner. I will not blame this prioritisation on the officers.
No local stakeholders have yet been consulted. Not the schools, not the Family Centre, not the Community Trust, not local businesses, not community groups and certainly not residents. Not any of the people who are actually going to get to decide how this money is spent. All of this, we are being told, will now have to be done after the Chair is in position and the Neighbourhood Board has been put together, with a break likely before local elections in May.
This should not have been politicised. The MP for Gosport is concerned, and has expressed those concerns in parliament, as is her job, and the Ministry for Housing Communities, and Local Government is also concerned about the progress in Gosport.
This is getting embarrassing.
But, regardless of the mis-steps so far, we have to start to make some progress. I am deeply concerned about the timelines moving forwards, as has been acknowledged by officers.
I also have concerns about the scope of the Chair’s job description. The role is meant to be 3 days a month of voluntary commitment. The Job Specification as it stands is a full-time role with deep and varied skills and experience. What we really need, as per the provided guidance, is a convenor, a facilitator and delegator - who, crucially, is well respected by the local people of Rowner. I know of many qualified people who have been put off by the demands of this document. I’d suggest again that this job specification is reconsidered and made more realistic. Otherwise, the chair is being set up to fail from the start.
These issues notwithstanding, if we are generous and say the recruitment of a Chair is going to take two months until they are in post, that takes us to end of April.
For the Chair to then fill out the Neighbourhood Board, again is going to take at least two months, taking us to the end of June.
In July the Board are supposed to have submitted an informed report to MHCLG, but we do not now have time for those community engagements. That is a travesty and explicitly goes against all of the guidance for this programme. The only result I can imagine is GBC forcing through their wishes and the Board being used as a rubber-stamping exercise. This would not be good enough.
The delegated responsibilities in this recommendation are a solution, and possibly the only option we now have left.
I would however ask for the following to be considered. With delegated powers need to come accountability mechanisms:
I would ask that the officer in charge quickly develops a list of milestones, with target dates, to ensure delivery according to guidance timelines I would also suggest that regular updates on progress (monthly in the first critical stages) are made to P&O, to ensure that any slippage against these milestones is rectified swiftly Given GBC’s involvement should be light and time limited to three years, and with LGR on the horizon, that alternative methods of building capacity be explored that do not involve lengthy recruitment onto GBC payrolls.
Thank you for listening and for this opportunity to represent the people of my ward
Councillor Jessop was invited to address the Board, he spoke as follows.
Thank you, members, for allowing me to speak on behalf of my residents in the Grange and Alver valley ward
The largest portion of land in the Pride in Place programme designated area, is the Grange and Alver valley ward.
This ward was historically former naval married quarters, which the MOD decided it no longer required. It was sold off in packets of land, without any real thought of how it would be later managed and integrated.
As a result, there are now many, relatively small privately owned managed areas which struggle to provide the services and maintenance for their residents. Some manage well, but all have issues that could benefit from PIPP.
Other areas have legacy issues caused by the disjointed sell off of land parcels and infrastructure, such as lighting and buildings that need more repairs as they get older.
Most of the ward is privately owned or social housing owned by Vivid or Homegroup. There are NO Council homes in the ward.
Due to the land and being privately owned and managed, it means these areas get very little for their council tax that they pay, mainly bins being emptied and a couple of grass areas being cut.
The majority of the land areas are maintained by the management companies through additional service charges .
Samson close is a good example of some of the issues created by the disjointed sell off of land by the MOD. Collection of the large bins is very difficult and potentially unsafe. The present method of filling these bins is via bin chutes, do not allow segregation of waste and recycling , This clearly needs some work to bring it in line with current legislation
Pipp offers the opportunity to help these resident run management companies, to improve facilities, provide mechanisms to allow proper recycling, improve lighting and safety and bring opportunities to benefit from economies of scale, for areas such as grounds and buildings maintenance.
This could also offer opportunities for employment in these areas.
Time is slipping by and key targets are under threat, it is really important to get the independent person in place, and the neighbourhood board established. Any further delay is only setting them and the PIPP to fail.
It is important that community engagement starts now and issues are identified and formulated into development plans.
Pipp offers real opportunities to help these areas. It is really important to get this program on track today.
Thank once again for allowing me to address the board
Members recognised that it was a complicated process to appoint the correct person to the role and that it would require skill. The responsibility of the Board in utilising the money would impact generations to come.
It was important that the role was carefully constructed and advertised to ensure the appropriate person was appointed.
A Member advised that they felt that 3 days a month would be sufficient time to carry out the role once the ground work had been undertaken. If appropriate frameworks were established to work within and the personal specification for the role was suitable.
In answer to a subsequent question, the Board was advised that the Local Authority as the accountable body would be in effect a first line of defence for the spend, they would provide assurance that the work undertaken was legal, and would cover things like the governance, procurement and financial spend, the provision of the Council’s external audit would also support the accountable body status. The Board would support the operational side of delivering the project and identify priorities.
The Board would be expected to follow the established Nolan principles and the MHCLG guidance would lead on the framework for the board.
It was reiterated that it may be required that the Chairmanship hold an interim paid role to support the set up. The guidance was clear with the involvement of the MP, and local ward Councillor and it was suggested that should there be an amendment to the ward councillors in May that the existing ward Councillor be permitted to remain on the Board.
This would be possible through co-opted membership, but it would be for the Board to decide.
It was also felt that greater consideration the wider area covered by the maps, as this included not only the Grange and Alver Valley Ward, but parts of Rowner and Holbrook.
Members recognised that this was a once in a generation opportunity was too important to get wrong, and had the opportunity to change lives for generations to come.
Spaces and opportunities could be improved for people for the long term and the significance of it should not be played politics with.
It was proposed and seconded that the recommendation be amended at point 2 to read
Provides delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration, in consultation and agreement with the Leader, Ward Councillors, MP and Chief Executive to
Appoint an independent Chair to establish a Rowner Neighbourhood Board following the necessary selection process
Support the Neighbourhood Board chair to recruit board members and develop the Rowner Neighbourhood Board Terms of Reference in response to the programme guide.
This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That the P&O Board:
i) Acknowledge the Council’s role as the Accountable Body for the Pride in Place Programme Fund for the Rowner area as identified by Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
ii) Provides delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development & Regeneration in consultation and agreement with the Leader, Ward Councillors, MP, and Chief Executive to:
a. Appoint an Independent Chair to establish a Rowner Neighbourhood Board following the necessary selection process.
b. Support the Neighbourhood Board Chair to recruit Board Members and develop the Rowner Neighbourhood Board Terms of Reference in response to the programme guidance.
iii) Delegate authority to the Head of Economic Development & Regeneration and the S151 Officer to authorise appropriate spend of funding for the purposes of establishing the Neighbourhood Board, working with the Neighbourhood Board Chair to initiate community engagement, and appointing programme management resource; plus supporting the Neighbourhood Board in developing the Regeneration Plan, and other activities in accordance with government guidance and the agreed Investment Plan.
The report was being presented to the Board acknowledging that the information from the government on the project was still outstanding. A lot of background work had been taking place in the background and the document presented was a step forward.
Both ward councillors for Grange and Alver were present and welcome to speak on the proposal.
The Board was advised that the role of the Chairman was very important in that they would need to work with others, get the neighbourhood board up and running and deliver a community vision with the funds. An independent chair was crucial, and it was important they had the vital skills to be able to deliver the project. The Board was advised that payment could be made the Chairman in exceptional circumstances to appoint the correct person for the role.
Councillor Brown was invited to address the Board, and spoke as follows.
Thank you Chair, Members of the Board, and members of the public.
I wanted to say a few words about the Local Plan, particularly because the Rowner ‘Regeneration’ part of that plan seeks to use Pride in Place funding to facilitate the deliberate disinvestment of Rowner over the next 15 years.
I am, honestly, a man of few words. But I will keep repeating them until they are heard.
I want to make three points tonight:
Why are we only now where we should have been back in September/October? Why we now have no option but to push ahead anyway, and What improvements to this recommendation are needed in order to have a chance of this working?
Pride in Place is a generational opportunity for “doubly-disadvantaged” communities such as Rowner. Others have been political, so I will say I am incredibly proud that our Labour government has not only acknowledged, but delivered a plan to fix, these long standing issues by not only putting money, £20million, or £19.6 if you really want to be split hairs, on the table, but also backed it up with a real process of community empowerment to guide and sustain improvements over the long term.
Why is Rowner “doubly-disadvantaged” and therefore, out of all of Gosport, most qualified for this additional funding?
On the Council’s website we can see the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and it shows that Rowner and other areas in Town and Forton are ‘deprived’, meaning they are missing out on good things. Good things relating to Living Conditions, opportunities for gaining Education and Skills, and Health. If you miss out on one good thing it’s disappointing, but if the rest of your life is ok you can get by. Where it becomes a real issue is when multiple deprivations pile on top of each other within an area and over a long period. It becomes very hard to break out of that cycle. Again, there are too many of these areas in Gosport, and Rowner is one of them.
That’s one level of disadvantage Rowner faces.
The second measure used by Pride in Place is the Community Needs Index (CNI), which represents the softer social elements which, where they exist, can sustain a community even in the face of other hardships, and provide a route back to healthy lives. They are measures of social capital, the availability of social spaces like libraries and pubs, levels of trust and the ability to attract external funding.
On these measures Rowner also scores very badly - leading to that second, compounding, layer of disadvantage. The standout figure for me is the level of grant funding from the ‘big funders’. The national average is £352.02 per head, Gosport gets about £85.99 per head, and Rowner has received only £10.17 per head.
On both of these measures, this Council should have led on slowing and preventing, then addressing and reversing, these disadvantages. I won’t list all of the historical failures here and now though, nor did the political priorities that I feel lead to those failures.
But Rowner clearly deserves and needs this money, over and above the also very deserving and disadvantaged areas of Gosport. I will make no apologies on that count.
When Rowner was announced as getting this Pride and Place Programme funding, back in September, it was clear, at least to me and anyone else paying attention, it was no ordinary grant funding that the Council may have been used to. All the power is very deliberately derived, not from GBC, but the residents of Rowner through their newly set up Neighbourhood Board. The Council was only to provide a supporting role during the initial set up before handing over to a community vehicle within three years. In addition, this funding was given to Rowner without any application or bidding process. We didn’t need the Council build up a case for why we needed it, this was a proactive action on the part of the government based on an analysis of available data.
I immediately wrote to the Council and all the other Councillors, both local Ward Councillors and County Councillors, celebrating this opportunity for our residents and asking to work together to make the best difference for our community. Despite making no head way, I was persistent to the point of being a pest, but again, I will make no apologies for that either.
Three obstacles were put in my way:
First, that ‘Rowner’ was an unspecified region and GBC would have to decide where the money went. Second, that we would need to wait for the data pack before progress could be made. And third, nothing could be done until funding was received and P&O decided how the money was spent.
I have recently been able to relay my protestations to officers, but we are now in a position five months later where:
“Rowner” is and always was the Rowner MSOA that government said right from the beginning and for which I provided a map in the first instance. No changes to this can be made apart from through the yet-to-be-set-up Rowner Neighbourhood Board by July. By November this Neighbourhood Board, not GBC, needs to submit a plan for how to spend the money after deep engagements with Rowner residents. I am unclear what the council expects to find out in the data pack. We know it will have the IMD and CNI data which we already have access to, and there will be a survey of community views which we are more than capable of doing better ourselves. And here we are now progressing without it anyway. What has changed in the last 5 months apart from valuable time passing us by? I also rejected, and continue to reject, the assertion that GBC needed to wait for the £150,000 capacity building payment that’s now been made. Again, this is clearly not GBC money. It is for setting up the Neighbourhood Board and some "quick wins" in the community. My view is that the Economic Development department ought to always be working for the whole of Gosport, including Rowner, to further our … economic development. The fact GBC did not need to invest in a speculative process of bidding for this money is all the more reason why, much, much earlier, a little bit of time could have been devoted by GBC to lay the little bit of groundwork that was needed. Any and all of those costs could have been reclaimed from the capacity funding now sitting in GBC’s bank account.
What we are left with is the understandable impression that this Council simply does not prioritise Rowner. That the £20 million odd we’re getting is somehow less important than the Council’s other projects - however worthwhile they are on their own merits. That somehow this a part of an ongoing pattern of, more than neglect, but of active discrimination against Rowner. I will not blame this prioritisation on the officers.
No local stakeholders have yet been consulted. Not the schools, not the Family Centre, not the Community Trust, not local businesses, not community groups and certainly not residents. Not any of the people who are actually going to get to decide how this money is spent. All of this, we are being told, will now have to be done after the Chair is in position and the Neighbourhood Board has been put together, with a break likely before local elections in May.
This should not have been politicised. The MP for Gosport is concerned, and has expressed those concerns in parliament, as is her job, and the Ministry for Housing Communities, and Local Government is also concerned about the progress in Gosport.
This is getting embarrassing.
But, regardless of the mis-steps so far, we have to start to make some progress. I am deeply concerned about the timelines moving forwards, as has been acknowledged by officers.
I also have concerns about the scope of the Chair’s job description. The role is meant to be 3 days a month of voluntary commitment. The Job Specification as it stands is a full-time role with deep and varied skills and experience. What we really need, as per the provided guidance, is a convenor, a facilitator and delegator - who, crucially, is well respected by the local people of Rowner. I know of many qualified people who have been put off by the demands of this document. I’d suggest again that this job specification is reconsidered and made more realistic. Otherwise, the chair is being set up to fail from the start.
These issues notwithstanding, if we are generous and say the recruitment of a Chair is going to take two months until they are in post, that takes us to end of April.
For the Chair to then fill out the Neighbourhood Board, again is going to take at least two months, taking us to the end of June.
In July the Board are supposed to have submitted an informed report to MHCLG, but we do not now have time for those community engagements. That is a travesty and explicitly goes against all of the guidance for this programme. The only result I can imagine is GBC forcing through their wishes and the Board being used as a rubber-stamping exercise. This would not be good enough.
The delegated responsibilities in this recommendation are a solution, and possibly the only option we now have left.
I would however ask for the following to be considered. With delegated powers need to come accountability mechanisms:
I would ask that the officer in charge quickly develops a list of milestones, with target dates, to ensure delivery according to guidance timelines I would also suggest that regular updates on progress (monthly in the first critical stages) are made to P&O, to ensure that any slippage against these milestones is rectified swiftly Given GBC’s involvement should be light and time limited to three years, and with LGR on the horizon, that alternative methods of building capacity be explored that do not involve lengthy recruitment onto GBC payrolls.
Thank you for listening and for this opportunity to represent the people of my ward
Councillor Jessop was invited to address the Board, he spoke as follows.
Thank you, members, for allowing me to speak on behalf of my residents in the Grange and Alver valley ward
The largest portion of land in the Pride in Place programme designated area, is the Grange and Alver valley ward.
This ward was historically former naval married quarters, which the MOD decided it no longer required. It was sold off in packets of land, without any real thought of how it would be later managed and integrated.
As a result, there are now many, relatively small privately owned managed areas which struggle to provide the services and maintenance for their residents. Some manage well, but all have issues that could benefit from PIPP.
Other areas have legacy issues caused by the disjointed sell off of land parcels and infrastructure, such as lighting and buildings that need more repairs as they get older.
Most of the ward is privately owned or social housing owned by Vivid or Homegroup. There are NO Council homes in the ward.
Due to the land and being privately owned and managed, it means these areas get very little for their council tax that they pay, mainly bins being emptied and a couple of grass areas being cut.
The majority of the land areas are maintained by the management companies through additional service charges .
Samson close is a good example of some of the issues created by the disjointed sell off of land by the MOD. Collection of the large bins is very difficult and potentially unsafe. The present method of filling these bins is via bin chutes, do not allow segregation of waste and recycling , This clearly needs some work to bring it in line with current legislation
Pipp offers the opportunity to help these resident run management companies, to improve facilities, provide mechanisms to allow proper recycling, improve lighting and safety and bring opportunities to benefit from economies of scale, for areas such as grounds and buildings maintenance.
This could also offer opportunities for employment in these areas.
Time is slipping by and key targets are under threat, it is really important to get the independent person in place, and the neighbourhood board established. Any further delay is only setting them and the PIPP to fail.
It is important that community engagement starts now and issues are identified and formulated into development plans.
Pipp offers real opportunities to help these areas. It is really important to get this program on track today.
Thank once again for allowing me to address the board
Members recognised that it was a complicated process to appoint the correct person to the role and that it would require skill. The responsibility of the Board in utilising the money would impact generations to come.
It was important that the role was carefully constructed and advertised to ensure the appropriate person was appointed.
A Member advised that they felt that 3 days a month would be sufficient time to carry out the role once the ground work had been undertaken. If appropriate frameworks were established to work within and the personal specification for the role was suitable.
In answer to a subsequent question, the Board was advised that the Local Authority as the accountable body would be in effect a first line of defence for the spend, they would provide assurance that the work undertaken was legal, and would cover things like the governance, procurement and financial spend, the provision of the Council’s external audit would also support the accountable body status. The Board would support the operational side of delivering the project and identify priorities.
The Board would be expected to follow the established Nolan principles and the MHCLG guidance would lead on the framework for the board.
It was reiterated that it may be required that the Chairmanship hold an interim paid role to support the set up. The guidance was clear with the involvement of the MP, and local ward Councillor and it was suggested that should there be an amendment to the ward councillors in May that the existing ward Councillor be permitted to remain on the Board.
This would be possible through co-opted membership, but it would be for the Board to decide.
It was also felt that greater consideration the wider area covered by the maps, as this included not only the Grange and Alver Valley Ward, but parts of Rowner and Holbrook.
Members recognised that this was a once in a generation opportunity was too important to get wrong, and had the opportunity to change lives for generations to come.
Spaces and opportunities could be improved for people for the long term and the significance of it should not be played politics with.
It was proposed and seconded that the recommendation be amended at point 2 to read
Provides delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration, in consultation and agreement with the Leader, Ward Councillors, MP and Chief Executive to
Appoint an independent Chair to establish a Rowner Neighbourhood Board following the necessary selection process
Support the Neighbourhood Board chair to recruit board members and develop the Rowner Neighbourhood Board Terms of Reference in response to the programme guide.
This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That the P&O Board:
i) Acknowledge the Council’s role as the Accountable Body for the Pride in Place Programme Fund for the Rowner area as identified by Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
ii) Provides delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development & Regeneration in consultation and agreement with the Leader, Ward Councillors, MP, and Chief Executive to:
a. Appoint an Independent Chair to establish a Rowner Neighbourhood Board following the necessary selection process.
b. Support the Neighbourhood Board Chair to recruit Board Members and develop the Rowner Neighbourhood Board Terms of Reference in response to the programme guidance.
iii) Delegate authority to the Head of Economic Development & Regeneration and the S151 Officer to authorise appropriate spend of funding for the purposes of establishing the Neighbourhood Board, working with the Neighbourhood Board Chair to initiate community engagement, and appointing programme management resource; plus supporting the Neighbourhood Board in developing the Regeneration Plan, and other activities in accordance with government guidance and the agreed Investment Plan.
10
Any other items
Minutes
It was advised that the passing of members of the public was not normally acknowledged, however the Council had recently been made aware of the passing of Richard Thompson. He had been a large contributor to Citizens advice and had led on consumer rights in the Portsmouth News. He was well known in the Town and had supported a large number of residents.
In addition, the Board was advised that the budget contribution to Citizen’s advice would remain the same, increased by the rate of inflation. This had been confirmed to them and was welcome in a period which had seen uncertainty for other branches.
In addition, the Board was advised that the budget contribution to Citizen’s advice would remain the same, increased by the rate of inflation. This had been confirmed to them and was welcome in a period which had seen uncertainty for other branches.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in