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, 11th March 2026
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 11th March 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 11th March 2026
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 11th March 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
11 Mar 2026
11 Mar 2026
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Kirsty Cox
Present, as expected
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 at the meeting.
Minutes
There were none.
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, Burgess, Meenaghan, Chegwyn, and Philpott declared that they were Hampshire County Councillors
Councillor Hutchison advised that he had accessed some of the Digital Funding through his work with the Elson Hub.
Councillor Hutchison advised that he had accessed some of the Digital Funding through his work with the Elson Hub.
3
Minutes of the meeting of the board held on 18 February 2026
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2026 .
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 18/02/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minute of the meeting held on 18 February 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 Monday 9 March 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 Monday 9 March 2026).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan Projects Update
To report on the progress of current projects in the Council’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan’s ‘Living List’ (Living List) and to advise members on potential new projects which have been identified through the draft Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 Transport Assessment and the draft Fareham and Gosport Transport Strategy September 2025.
Attachments:
- Document LCWIP Projects Update Report - at 11.02.2026 03 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix A - LCWIP Projects Update 'Living List' 2026 - at 19.12.2025 03 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix B - IIA - LCWIP Projects Update 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
The Board was advised that the list of schemes complimented Hampshire County Councils and that the strategy supported the local plan.
The schemes were aspirational, and were reliant on funding becoming available.
A Member advised that they were grateful for the report, and welcomed the proposals. Any expansion to the network would be supports as Gosport was well suited for cycle travel. It was hoped that some existing routes could also be improved to bring them up to standard. In addition it was recognised that cycle ways on the highway were also difficult as they involved gutters, blocked gulley and damage often led to people cycling on the pavements.
It was acknowledged that the active travel map was out of date but the significant cost of printing replacements was requested to be considered. It was felt there may be a shift away from paper maps since they were last produced, but acknowledged that some people still valued them.
A Members questioned the inclusion of the causes of obesity in the Borough. And was advised it was important to be able to target support in the right areas. Gosport in particular had a high level of obesity amongst veterans. The correlations were provided by public health England and supported bids for increased provision.
Clarification was sought on the extension to Mumby Road, whether it would be within Royal Clarence Yard or elsewhere. It was recognsied that a walk route along the BRT had also been identified.
It was acknowledged that a lot of these would be costly and funding was not in place, but it was requested that safe options be explored. It was also recognised that there was a new definition in standards to LTN120 that needed o be considered.
Members welcomed the provision of additional benches to support rest stops for those walking, the provision of one at Lapthorn Close and Wych Lane was questioned.
It was recognised that the work to Brewers Lane was desirable as the condition of the bridge was worsening.
It was noted that the ferry company had been sold. It was hoped that there could be schemes to support the use of public transport on the ferry, such as bikes travelling for free.
It was also hoped that hard permanent maps could be included on the bus station, in doctor’s surgeries, libraries and other public buildings to support people’s choices.
It was important that places of interest were highlighted to allow people to enjoy and sharing them would show them off. It was important that routes such as St George’s Walk were open to the public and available.
Concern was expressed about a curb that was raised and potentially dangerous as a result of the bus station demolition.
It was also important to link walking routes through the waterfront, people’s park, and linking in with potential future routes to blockhouse.
It was also acknowledged that there were concerns about the impact on cycle traffic in Mumby Road and South Street with parked cars. It was essential this was looked at for safety.
Members discussed issues of safety with cycle ways including Daisy Lane and those that had recently been resurfaced without inclusion of separation lines.
It was recognised that the area at Seafield would also be a lovely walk if the defense work was undertaken. It was also commented that public slipways should be labelled as such. It was hoped that some pathway and bandstand improvement work could be undertake to make pathways and routes more attractive. Work also needed to be undertaken around the Trinity Green area.
TCF funding had supported the construction of the transport interchange but there were a number of other schemes planned and ready but no funding was in place.
It was reiterated that the Borough’s cycle ways were an asset and should be maintained and improved and that additional benches should be available. Additional routes in the Alver Valley, the extension of the cycle way on Station Road, should also be looked at.
RESOLVED: The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan Projects Update January 2026 (Living List) as per Appendix A to this report and supports the delivery of these new projects as an when opportunities arise.
The schemes were aspirational, and were reliant on funding becoming available.
A Member advised that they were grateful for the report, and welcomed the proposals. Any expansion to the network would be supports as Gosport was well suited for cycle travel. It was hoped that some existing routes could also be improved to bring them up to standard. In addition it was recognised that cycle ways on the highway were also difficult as they involved gutters, blocked gulley and damage often led to people cycling on the pavements.
It was acknowledged that the active travel map was out of date but the significant cost of printing replacements was requested to be considered. It was felt there may be a shift away from paper maps since they were last produced, but acknowledged that some people still valued them.
A Members questioned the inclusion of the causes of obesity in the Borough. And was advised it was important to be able to target support in the right areas. Gosport in particular had a high level of obesity amongst veterans. The correlations were provided by public health England and supported bids for increased provision.
Clarification was sought on the extension to Mumby Road, whether it would be within Royal Clarence Yard or elsewhere. It was recognsied that a walk route along the BRT had also been identified.
It was acknowledged that a lot of these would be costly and funding was not in place, but it was requested that safe options be explored. It was also recognised that there was a new definition in standards to LTN120 that needed o be considered.
Members welcomed the provision of additional benches to support rest stops for those walking, the provision of one at Lapthorn Close and Wych Lane was questioned.
It was recognised that the work to Brewers Lane was desirable as the condition of the bridge was worsening.
It was noted that the ferry company had been sold. It was hoped that there could be schemes to support the use of public transport on the ferry, such as bikes travelling for free.
It was also hoped that hard permanent maps could be included on the bus station, in doctor’s surgeries, libraries and other public buildings to support people’s choices.
It was important that places of interest were highlighted to allow people to enjoy and sharing them would show them off. It was important that routes such as St George’s Walk were open to the public and available.
Concern was expressed about a curb that was raised and potentially dangerous as a result of the bus station demolition.
It was also important to link walking routes through the waterfront, people’s park, and linking in with potential future routes to blockhouse.
It was also acknowledged that there were concerns about the impact on cycle traffic in Mumby Road and South Street with parked cars. It was essential this was looked at for safety.
Members discussed issues of safety with cycle ways including Daisy Lane and those that had recently been resurfaced without inclusion of separation lines.
It was recognised that the area at Seafield would also be a lovely walk if the defense work was undertaken. It was also commented that public slipways should be labelled as such. It was hoped that some pathway and bandstand improvement work could be undertake to make pathways and routes more attractive. Work also needed to be undertaken around the Trinity Green area.
TCF funding had supported the construction of the transport interchange but there were a number of other schemes planned and ready but no funding was in place.
It was reiterated that the Borough’s cycle ways were an asset and should be maintained and improved and that additional benches should be available. Additional routes in the Alver Valley, the extension of the cycle way on Station Road, should also be looked at.
RESOLVED: The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan Projects Update January 2026 (Living List) as per Appendix A to this report and supports the delivery of these new projects as an when opportunities arise.
7
Gosport Go Programme
To set out the proposed Active Travel Grant programme plans.
Attachments:
- Document P&O board Report Gosport Go - Final 03 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix A - Gosport Active Travel Grant Application Form v2 03 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix B - 2016 Cycle Map and Guide 03 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix C - IIA - Gosport Go 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Traffic and Transport Manager detailing the proposed Active Travel Grant programme plans.
There was an update on the rentable e bikes, in that responses had been received and challenged sites would be removed. Analysis needed to be undertaken to ensure that the proposals were still viable. Site that fell under GBC ownership would be looked at. It was acknowledged that there was objection to them.
It was also acknowledged that there were significant areas of the Borough such as Priddys Hard where there was no access to public transport.
The Active Travel fund was for £37000 over 2 years and would look at a programme of Borough wide initiatives and that year 2 funding was dependent on the success of year 1, there was no reason why it would not be.
Things like walking maps, and walking groups could all be explored. The Board was advised that legislation had changed with regard to the marking of separate cycle and footpaths dependent on their width which had impacted on some existing routes that had been resurfaced.
Members reiterated their concern about the cost of map printing and advised that they would like a review of cost and need to be undertaken and that there did not need to be excessive copies. It was noted that the deadline for reporting was December 2026, and concern was expressed that this would not be met. The Board was advised that procurement would begin immediately.
It was recognised that QR codes could also be used and that things such as bike doctors and public toilets could be highlighted on the maps and that there should be wide engagement.
Gosport’s job density meant that there were a number of out commuters and that the ferry could be prohibitively expensive. It was also important that there were changing facilities and showers if required.
Cycle groups could be promoted and bike coding should be encouraged. The social connection from such transport should be valued.
It was acknowledged that there were ongoing issues with regard to the illegal use of e bikes and scooters.
i) RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Gosport Go Programme plans set out in Section 2, in accordance with the Hampshire County Council Active Travel Fund Scheme criteria.
ii) Provides delegated authority to the Traffic & Transport Manager to deliver the scheme.
There was an update on the rentable e bikes, in that responses had been received and challenged sites would be removed. Analysis needed to be undertaken to ensure that the proposals were still viable. Site that fell under GBC ownership would be looked at. It was acknowledged that there was objection to them.
It was also acknowledged that there were significant areas of the Borough such as Priddys Hard where there was no access to public transport.
The Active Travel fund was for £37000 over 2 years and would look at a programme of Borough wide initiatives and that year 2 funding was dependent on the success of year 1, there was no reason why it would not be.
Things like walking maps, and walking groups could all be explored. The Board was advised that legislation had changed with regard to the marking of separate cycle and footpaths dependent on their width which had impacted on some existing routes that had been resurfaced.
Members reiterated their concern about the cost of map printing and advised that they would like a review of cost and need to be undertaken and that there did not need to be excessive copies. It was noted that the deadline for reporting was December 2026, and concern was expressed that this would not be met. The Board was advised that procurement would begin immediately.
It was recognised that QR codes could also be used and that things such as bike doctors and public toilets could be highlighted on the maps and that there should be wide engagement.
Gosport’s job density meant that there were a number of out commuters and that the ferry could be prohibitively expensive. It was also important that there were changing facilities and showers if required.
Cycle groups could be promoted and bike coding should be encouraged. The social connection from such transport should be valued.
It was acknowledged that there were ongoing issues with regard to the illegal use of e bikes and scooters.
i) RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Gosport Go Programme plans set out in Section 2, in accordance with the Hampshire County Council Active Travel Fund Scheme criteria.
ii) Provides delegated authority to the Traffic & Transport Manager to deliver the scheme.
8
Bird Aware Partnership Revised Strategy
To approve a revised strategy for the Bird Aware Partnership to correct an administrative error, and approve delegated authority to the governance body of Bird Aware Solent to oversee minor changes to the strategy going forward.
Attachments:
- Document Revised Bird Aware Strategy report - March 2026 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Planning Policy Manager requesting approval for the revised strategy for the Bird Aware Partnership to correct an administrative error, and approve delegated authority to the governance body of Bird Aware Solent to oversee minor changes to the strategy going forward.
The Board was advised that the change was minor to allow for delegated powers to make changes in the event of changes in emerging guidance, case law and local circumstances. This would prevent a report needing to be returned to board each time they occurred as well as any technical changes. In addition it also sought agreement for the revised charging schedules for HMOS.
RESOLVED:
- Permits Appendix B (Further information relating to developer contribution levels) of the revised Bird Aware Strategy (2024)[1] to be updated over time, as required by emerging guidance, case law and local circumstances, through delegated powers.
- To support the efficient and timely implementation of the Bird Aware Strategy, it is recommended that the Board agrees that authority be delegated to the Governance board for Bird Aware Solent to approve minor amendments to the Bird Aware Strategy. This delegation would apply to amendments that cover all or any of the following:
o Are operational or technical in nature;
o Do not materially alter the strategic direction or objectives of the Bird Aware Strategy;
o Have been subject to appropriate consultation with relevant PfSH officers and Bird Aware partners;
o Are consistent with existing policy frameworks and funding arrangements.
Agrees the revised charging schedule for HMOs as set out in paragraph 2.8 below and outlined in Appendix 1 of this Report.
The Board was advised that the change was minor to allow for delegated powers to make changes in the event of changes in emerging guidance, case law and local circumstances. This would prevent a report needing to be returned to board each time they occurred as well as any technical changes. In addition it also sought agreement for the revised charging schedules for HMOS.
RESOLVED:
- Permits Appendix B (Further information relating to developer contribution levels) of the revised Bird Aware Strategy (2024)[1] to be updated over time, as required by emerging guidance, case law and local circumstances, through delegated powers.
- To support the efficient and timely implementation of the Bird Aware Strategy, it is recommended that the Board agrees that authority be delegated to the Governance board for Bird Aware Solent to approve minor amendments to the Bird Aware Strategy. This delegation would apply to amendments that cover all or any of the following:
o Are operational or technical in nature;
o Do not materially alter the strategic direction or objectives of the Bird Aware Strategy;
o Have been subject to appropriate consultation with relevant PfSH officers and Bird Aware partners;
o Are consistent with existing policy frameworks and funding arrangements.
Agrees the revised charging schedule for HMOs as set out in paragraph 2.8 below and outlined in Appendix 1 of this Report.
9
Refurbishment of Falkland Gardens Fountain
This report seeks approval for the allocation of circa £85,000 of Local Regeneration Fund (LRF) to undertake refurbishment works to the existing water fountain at Falkland Gardens.
The proposed works will update the fountain’s design, water treatment system and maintenance regime to ensure the feature remains operational, safe, compliant with modern health and safety standards, and complementary to the wider People’s Park and waterfront public realm improvements.
The proposed works will update the fountain’s design, water treatment system and maintenance regime to ensure the feature remains operational, safe, compliant with modern health and safety standards, and complementary to the wider People’s Park and waterfront public realm improvements.
Attachments:
- Document Refurbishment of Falkland Gardens Fountain P&O board report v02 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration seeking approval for the allocation of circa £85,000 of Local Regeneration Fund (LRF) to undertake refurbishment works to the existing water fountain at Falkland Gardens.
The proposed works will update the fountain’s design, water treatment system and maintenance regime to ensure the feature remains operational, safe, compliant with modern health and safety standards, and complementary to the wider People’s Park and waterfront public realm improvements.
The Board was advised that there was an addendum to the report with further technical advice from the specialist.
The Board felt it was not acceptable to leave the fountain as it was and that it was good that soloutions were being explored. The addendum had detailed some Health and Satefy considerations as well as maintenacen costs of approcimately £11k per annum , and advised that a single bowl was the way forward. It would be more straightforward to maintain and safer. The fountain was recommended to be turned off overnight, which was standard practice and the service accounted for 26 maintenance visits per annum varying in frequency depending on the season, with more frequent visits in the summer.
A Member suggested that the murals from the bus station be encoporated in to the design.
It was acknowledged that there were vandalism concerns.
The Board was advised that there were special tiles that needed to be utilised for the fountain and that it played an important part in Gosport’s heritage.
It was felt that it would not be appropriate for the fountain to be turned into a planter. It was also acknowledgeg that there had been a request for an additional memorial to all of those that had lost their lives in service, such as emergency services workers but a more suitable alternative site would need to be found for this and it would need to be privately funded.
It was confirmed that the waterfront was covered 24/7 by CCTV.
It was requrested that consideration be given to looking at lighting and music options, it was accepted this could be done but this would increase costs.
It was also requested that consideration be given to addressing the ongoing issue with rats, as a fresh water supply supported their presence and growth.
RESOLVED:
That the Board
1. Approves the allocation of circa £85,000 of LRF funding to undertake refurbishment of the Falkland Gardens fountain;
2. Notes that this is a discrete package of works that complements the People’s Park Phase One programme and can be delivered in advance of the wider LRF public realm works.
The proposed works will update the fountain’s design, water treatment system and maintenance regime to ensure the feature remains operational, safe, compliant with modern health and safety standards, and complementary to the wider People’s Park and waterfront public realm improvements.
The Board was advised that there was an addendum to the report with further technical advice from the specialist.
The Board felt it was not acceptable to leave the fountain as it was and that it was good that soloutions were being explored. The addendum had detailed some Health and Satefy considerations as well as maintenacen costs of approcimately £11k per annum , and advised that a single bowl was the way forward. It would be more straightforward to maintain and safer. The fountain was recommended to be turned off overnight, which was standard practice and the service accounted for 26 maintenance visits per annum varying in frequency depending on the season, with more frequent visits in the summer.
A Member suggested that the murals from the bus station be encoporated in to the design.
It was acknowledged that there were vandalism concerns.
The Board was advised that there were special tiles that needed to be utilised for the fountain and that it played an important part in Gosport’s heritage.
It was felt that it would not be appropriate for the fountain to be turned into a planter. It was also acknowledgeg that there had been a request for an additional memorial to all of those that had lost their lives in service, such as emergency services workers but a more suitable alternative site would need to be found for this and it would need to be privately funded.
It was confirmed that the waterfront was covered 24/7 by CCTV.
It was requrested that consideration be given to looking at lighting and music options, it was accepted this could be done but this would increase costs.
It was also requested that consideration be given to addressing the ongoing issue with rats, as a fresh water supply supported their presence and growth.
RESOLVED:
That the Board
1. Approves the allocation of circa £85,000 of LRF funding to undertake refurbishment of the Falkland Gardens fountain;
2. Notes that this is a discrete package of works that complements the People’s Park Phase One programme and can be delivered in advance of the wider LRF public realm works.
10
Any other items
Attachments:
- Document Finance Board paper - Additional Budget Savings Final 03 Mar 2026
- Document PO Board Report - 51-52 High Street, Gosport - Hiring Fees 03 Mar 2026
Minutes
The Board was advised that there were two additional items for consideration.
Additional Budget Savings 2026/2027
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Finance detailing proposed financial savings for the year 2026/2027.
The Board was advised that the report had been presented at the request of the Leader and presented proposals for some of the savings.
The Board was advised that consideration needed to be given to all opportunities to save money and that this could include staff.
The Leader of the Labour Group advised that she appreciated the offer of the contributions towards savings and that some items that were nice to have, although popular needed to be considered. The Board was advised that the budget for Gosport in Bloom had already been reduced and that this proposal removed it completely.
Members expressed concern that Gosport in Bloom was well loved and supported and encouraged people to be outdoors. It was hoped that consideration could be given to ensuring that ‘friends of’ groups were recognised for their work in improving the Borough and whether wider work could be undertaken with the groups to allow them to support the retention of the awards.
The Board would like consideration to be given to securing sponsorship to allow In Bloom to continue and to explore how other authorities ran such competitions.
It was acknowledged that sponsorship was harder to secure and acknowledged that if the awards went they would be removed permanently. It was acknowledged that they were not cheap to host, but that they were important to those that took part.
A Member reiterated the Conservative Group’s proposal from the Full Council meeting that a savings and transformation panel needed to be set up to explore all available options.
The claim that cuts were not being made was disputed, as the removal of In Bloom would be a cut, just not to statutory services. It was noted that the attendance of celebrities at the event had been removed, and that a more streamlined event needed to be held in order to retain it, and was suggested that the £5k remain in the budget to hold some form of In Bloom event.
This was proposed and seconded.
A Member advised that this had been asked for a week ago, and that there should be a more measured and sensible analytical approach to looking at the savings required and that a full assessment of options be considered at a sub committee that was then brought forward for consideration.
It was reiterated that options should be considered for sponsorship to support the retention of the In Bloom awards. The retention was desired, but a methodical and sensible approach to retaining it needed to be considered.
It was advised that the Borough was still popular for investment as seen in the £20m Pride in Place and the LRF money.
Some Members felt that sponsorship would be difficult to achieve as businesses would expect to receive some benefit from any sponsorship.
It was acknowledged that AS Motors had sponsored the event for a number of years as well as sponsoring roundabouts.
It was acknowledged that investigations would need to be made on what could be delivered on how to deliver better for less. It was suggested that investigation be made into online options.
The events budget would continue to be looked at, and the importance of events in the High Street and waterfront was noted.
RESOLVED: That the Board
i) Approves the initial savings as a contribution towards the £100,000 commitment to identify and agree additional savings for 2026/27 as identified in the schedule at paragraph 2.5, but reinstates the £5000 for Gosport in Bloom
ii) Notes that this paper is the first in a series, with subsequent papers to follow that will identify the remaining balance of the £100,000 savings commitment. These further savings will be informed by the Council’s Transformation Plan, to be approved by Full Council
YourSpace, 51/52 High Street, Gosport – Hiring Fees
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property highlighting the need for hire charges to be introduced at the YourSpace hub at Gosport High Street.
Providing the YourSpace hub currently cost the Council £98000 pa and whilst its availability was great for groups, the ending of the digital funding meant cost recovery needed to be examined.
It was recognised the space was well used and some groups may not be able to meet rental charges, but it was also acknowledged that some users were running classes and making a profit without paying for rental use.
CASE had been awarded the contract to operationally manage the building through the procurement process and it was reiterated that it was well used and busy.
It was noted that there were a number of other venues within the locality that could not offer free hire and therefore could not compete.
It was acknowledged that CASE were doing a good job of managing the Hub and that they were actively looking at ways to utilise and charge for some of the space, but there were also measures that could be looked at such at the implementation of card machines would be beneficial.
It was acknowledged that many people were lonely and vulnerable that used the building, and it was hoped that any charges would not be to the detriment of them and that it was important that they got the balance right and not risk isolating those that needed the facility most.
The Job Centre had utilised the building for work coaching sessions, and that it was a useful venue for that.
It was acknowledged that introducing charges would level the playing fields for other hirers in the area, but also that the space was valuable for many uses.
The figure of £12 an hour was considered to be acceptable, but it was acknowledged that further research would need to be undertaken. The utilisation of the space for CASE meant that the building was not subject to a VAT bill of £15000.
The Labour group leader advised that she was a passionate supporter of the space, and that it was being managed very effectively, and that the manager cared deeply about the space and what it provided. Work had been undertaken on the kiln room to make it a rentable space, accepting that access was only via stairs. The toilets had been updated and the ambassadors had promoted use of the room, at £15 per hour.
It was hoped that working together could produce the best outcome for all, the importance of the space for those that were vulnerable was reiterated and that each case should be considered on its merits. The programmes that the venue had provided were invaluable to residents and users.
Members were in agreement that this should be explored taking into account the importance of the hub to users.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) An in principle agreement to introduce hiring fees for use of the premises, subject to further research and scoping.
ii) The preparation of a template hiring agreement by the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration.
iii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration to enter in to short term hiring agreements based on the agreed template.
Additional Budget Savings 2026/2027
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Finance detailing proposed financial savings for the year 2026/2027.
The Board was advised that the report had been presented at the request of the Leader and presented proposals for some of the savings.
The Board was advised that consideration needed to be given to all opportunities to save money and that this could include staff.
The Leader of the Labour Group advised that she appreciated the offer of the contributions towards savings and that some items that were nice to have, although popular needed to be considered. The Board was advised that the budget for Gosport in Bloom had already been reduced and that this proposal removed it completely.
Members expressed concern that Gosport in Bloom was well loved and supported and encouraged people to be outdoors. It was hoped that consideration could be given to ensuring that ‘friends of’ groups were recognised for their work in improving the Borough and whether wider work could be undertaken with the groups to allow them to support the retention of the awards.
The Board would like consideration to be given to securing sponsorship to allow In Bloom to continue and to explore how other authorities ran such competitions.
It was acknowledged that sponsorship was harder to secure and acknowledged that if the awards went they would be removed permanently. It was acknowledged that they were not cheap to host, but that they were important to those that took part.
A Member reiterated the Conservative Group’s proposal from the Full Council meeting that a savings and transformation panel needed to be set up to explore all available options.
The claim that cuts were not being made was disputed, as the removal of In Bloom would be a cut, just not to statutory services. It was noted that the attendance of celebrities at the event had been removed, and that a more streamlined event needed to be held in order to retain it, and was suggested that the £5k remain in the budget to hold some form of In Bloom event.
This was proposed and seconded.
A Member advised that this had been asked for a week ago, and that there should be a more measured and sensible analytical approach to looking at the savings required and that a full assessment of options be considered at a sub committee that was then brought forward for consideration.
It was reiterated that options should be considered for sponsorship to support the retention of the In Bloom awards. The retention was desired, but a methodical and sensible approach to retaining it needed to be considered.
It was advised that the Borough was still popular for investment as seen in the £20m Pride in Place and the LRF money.
Some Members felt that sponsorship would be difficult to achieve as businesses would expect to receive some benefit from any sponsorship.
It was acknowledged that AS Motors had sponsored the event for a number of years as well as sponsoring roundabouts.
It was acknowledged that investigations would need to be made on what could be delivered on how to deliver better for less. It was suggested that investigation be made into online options.
The events budget would continue to be looked at, and the importance of events in the High Street and waterfront was noted.
RESOLVED: That the Board
i) Approves the initial savings as a contribution towards the £100,000 commitment to identify and agree additional savings for 2026/27 as identified in the schedule at paragraph 2.5, but reinstates the £5000 for Gosport in Bloom
ii) Notes that this paper is the first in a series, with subsequent papers to follow that will identify the remaining balance of the £100,000 savings commitment. These further savings will be informed by the Council’s Transformation Plan, to be approved by Full Council
YourSpace, 51/52 High Street, Gosport – Hiring Fees
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property highlighting the need for hire charges to be introduced at the YourSpace hub at Gosport High Street.
Providing the YourSpace hub currently cost the Council £98000 pa and whilst its availability was great for groups, the ending of the digital funding meant cost recovery needed to be examined.
It was recognised the space was well used and some groups may not be able to meet rental charges, but it was also acknowledged that some users were running classes and making a profit without paying for rental use.
CASE had been awarded the contract to operationally manage the building through the procurement process and it was reiterated that it was well used and busy.
It was noted that there were a number of other venues within the locality that could not offer free hire and therefore could not compete.
It was acknowledged that CASE were doing a good job of managing the Hub and that they were actively looking at ways to utilise and charge for some of the space, but there were also measures that could be looked at such at the implementation of card machines would be beneficial.
It was acknowledged that many people were lonely and vulnerable that used the building, and it was hoped that any charges would not be to the detriment of them and that it was important that they got the balance right and not risk isolating those that needed the facility most.
The Job Centre had utilised the building for work coaching sessions, and that it was a useful venue for that.
It was acknowledged that introducing charges would level the playing fields for other hirers in the area, but also that the space was valuable for many uses.
The figure of £12 an hour was considered to be acceptable, but it was acknowledged that further research would need to be undertaken. The utilisation of the space for CASE meant that the building was not subject to a VAT bill of £15000.
The Labour group leader advised that she was a passionate supporter of the space, and that it was being managed very effectively, and that the manager cared deeply about the space and what it provided. Work had been undertaken on the kiln room to make it a rentable space, accepting that access was only via stairs. The toilets had been updated and the ambassadors had promoted use of the room, at £15 per hour.
It was hoped that working together could produce the best outcome for all, the importance of the space for those that were vulnerable was reiterated and that each case should be considered on its merits. The programmes that the venue had provided were invaluable to residents and users.
Members were in agreement that this should be explored taking into account the importance of the hub to users.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) An in principle agreement to introduce hiring fees for use of the premises, subject to further research and scoping.
ii) The preparation of a template hiring agreement by the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration.
iii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration to enter in to short term hiring agreements based on the agreed template.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in