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, 1st July 2026
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 1st July 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 1st July 2026
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 1st July 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
01 Jul 2026
01 Jul 2026
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
Minutes
There was none.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were none.
3
Minutes of the meeting of the board held on 23 March 2026
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2026.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 23/03/2026 Policy and Organisation Board 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 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 29 June 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 29 June 2026.
Minutes
There were four public questions.
Tim Heale
Gosport Borough Council spent taxpayers' money refurbishing the exterior of the former Royal Arms public house on Stoke Road, explaining that the work was necessary to preserve the building and support its future use.
Despite this investment, the property has remained empty for several years and appears to have made no progress towards being brought back into use.
Could the Council explain why the building has remained vacant following the refurbishment, outline its current plans for the property, provide a timetable for those plans, and confirm what measures are being taken to ensure that the public investment already made does not simply delay further deterioration?
Thank you for your question
The external canopy of this Grade II listed building was restored as part of the High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ) programme, funded by Historic England. The programme combined investment in historic buildings and shopfronts with community engagement and cultural activities, with the overarching aim of boosting pride in place, strengthening community connections, and supporting economic growth in areas most in need. A total of 67 locations across the UK were selected to participate.
The building is situated within a Conservation Area, and prior to restoration, the canopy was in poor condition. The former public house, known locally as the ‘Submariners Pub’, is held in high regard by the community. Although it ceased trading as a pub around two decades ago, it remains an important local landmark.
The property was and still is privately owned by a registered charity. The building has been converted into assisted living accommodation for individuals with support needs - and is not empty.
As part of the HSHAZ programme, only the external canopy and façade were restored and preserved and therefore funded by the programme, which is vital in preserving the historical character of Stoke Road.
Jonathan Brown
"Now that Rowner is to be removed from the Local Plan and the council states its future will be pursued through Pride in Place, what specific commitment will the council give that Rowner will receive investment in its housing, environment and community facilities from the council's own core budgets and statutory planning duties - on equal terms with every other neighbourhood in the borough - rather than being expected to rely, once again, on time-limited external regeneration funding?"
Thank you for the question.
Firstly, removing Policy RA8 from the Local Plan does not mean the Council is stepping away from Rowner. The report concludes that the Local Plan is not the right mechanism for addressing the range of issues raised during consultation and that the separate Pride in Place programme provides a more appropriate route for residents to help shape future priorities and improvements.
It's also important to remember that the Local Plan is a planning policy document. It is not a budget or capital investment programme, and it does not determine how future Council spending is allocated.
Pride in Place should be seen as an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities.The Council will continue to have statutory responsibilities across the borough, including in relation to housing, the public realm, planning, highways, community facilities and environmental services.
However, we also have to be honest about the financial position. Like many councils, we face significant budget pressures and a projected structural deficit. That means every investment decision has to be carefully considered and based on evidence, need and the greatest benefit for our communities.
There are areas of deprivation and need across the whole of Gosport, not just in one neighbourhood. Our responsibility as an administration is to take a whole-borough approach, ensuring that investment is prioritised fairly and delivers the greatest community benefit. That means moving away from focusing on individual flagship projects or single areas and instead looking at how investment supports the borough as a whole.
At the same time, we need to maximise every opportunity to bring additional investment into Gosport. That includes working collaboratively with local communities, central government, the Combined County Authority, Homes England, developers, businesses and other partners to attract external funding wherever possible.
Economic prosperity isn't achieved through one project or one neighbourhood. It's created by ensuring the whole borough is well placed to attract investment, improve opportunities and strengthen our communities.
That's the approach I believe Gosport should take going forward.
Emeritus Professor Tony McGrew
The report to the P&O Board on the interim warding arrangements associated with LGR notes at 2.9 (p105) that :
“Officers have worked with future unitary group partners to develop and refine interim warding proposals ….” for elections in May 2027 to the new South East Hampshire Authority which will supercede Gosport Borough Council in April 2028 .However the report does not specify the details of these interim warding proposals.
Nevertheless ,the report does make clear that the elections for this new authority will replace Gosport’s existing Council wards with new (interim) ward arrangements whilst also involving a significant reduction in the number of Gosport residents' existing Councillors . What public communication plan does the Council have in place to ensure Gosport’s electorate are informed fully and in a timely manner of these radical changes so that voters can participate effectively in the May 2027 local elections ?
Thank you for your question.
As Leader, I believe it is important to be open with residents about where we are in this process. I have recently confirmed publicly that I support Hampshire County Council's Judicial Review. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, a Judicial Review is a legal process through which the courts consider whether the Government followed the correct legal process when making its decision. It does not reconsider whether the proposal itself is right or wrong, but whether the decision was reached lawfully.
Whilst that legal process continues, I believe it is both sensible and responsible that Gosport continues to engage fully in the implementation of Local Government Reorganisation. Whatever the outcome of the court proceedings, our responsibility is to protect the interests of Gosport residents and ensure we are fully prepared for the future. Those two positions are entirely compatible.
It is also important to clarify where we are in the implementation process.
The Government has confirmed its decision to proceed with five unitary councils across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. In its letter of 26 March 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed that the proposed council size for the new South East Hampshire Unitary Authority of99 councillors had been accepted as part of the original submission. MHCLG has asked the constituent councils to submit their proposed interim warding arrangements for inclusion within the Structural Change Order to enable elections to take place in May 2027. Those interim arrangements will then be followed by a full, independent electoral review undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England before the scheduled elections in 2032.
Whilst discussions continue between the constituent councils, including whether there is a case to collectively propose a variation to the overall council size, it is important to recognise that the Government's current accepted position remains 99 councillors. Should an alternative proposal ultimately be submitted for consideration, the role of Gosport's representative will be to ensure that Gosport continues to receive fair and proportionate representation based on its electorate and that our communities are properly reflected within any revised arrangements.
The report before Members, therefore, does not determine the number of councillors today. Rather, it delegates the finalisation of Gosport's response because discussions continue with our future unitary partners before proposals are submitted to Government and before the subsequent independent boundary review.
Throughout this process, I have been clear that Gosport must receive fair and proportionate representation within the new authority. Based on the current electorate, I have consistently made the case that Gosport should have representation broadly reflecting its share of the population. Whether the final council size remains at 99 members, as currently accepted by the Government, or an alternative proposal is considered, my position remains unchanged: Gosport must receive its fair share of representation, and any interim warding arrangements must respect established communities, natural neighbourhoods and community identity rather than create unnecessary or artificial divisions.
The role of Gosport's representative on the Joint Committee is precisely to ensure that Gosport has a strong voice throughout the implementation process and that our residents' interests are robustly represented as these arrangements are developed and the formal transition arrangements are put in place.
Turning to the communication of these changes, I fully agree that residents should be kept informed throughout this process. I will not remain silent on Local Government Reorganisation. Tonight represents the first reports to this Board on LGR and, following their consideration, we will develop and publish a comprehensive communications and engagement plan. This will include a programme of public briefings, Member briefings, information through the Council's website and social media channels, and further reports to the Policy & Organisation Board so that both Members and residents are kept informed as the transition progresses.
This administration committed in its first 100 days to leading with openness, transparency and accountability. We will continue to honour that commitment throughout Local Government Reorganisation. This is one of the most significant changes to local government in a generation, and our residents deserve clear information, regular updates, and every opportunity to understand how these changes affect them, how their representation is changing, and how they can participate fully in the democratic process, whatever the eventual outcome of the current Local Government Reorganisation process and the ongoing legal proceedings.
Leigh Rampton
"Most residents will welcome that the designation of Rowner as regeneration area is to be removed from the proposed Local Plan. Will the council now make a specific commitment to work with Rowner-based organisations such as local resident-owned property companies and Rowner Community Trust to facilitate the bringing forward community-led proposals for local improvements building on the existing community engagement and co-design work"
Thank you, Leigh.
As I said earlier, removing Policy RA8 from the Local Plan should not be seen as the Council stepping away from Rowner. The report makes clear that the intention is for future priorities and improvements to be progressed through the separate Pride in Place programme, rather than through a planning policy. That is a different process with a different purpose.
I absolutely believe that successful regeneration and neighbourhood improvement can only happen with communities, not to communities. Local knowledge, community organisations, residents and local stakeholders all have an important role to play in shaping future priorities.
As I said in my previous answer, Pride in Place should be seen as an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities. At the same time, our ambition must be to work with communities across the whole borough to attract external investment, whether that's through Government programmes, the Combined County Authority, charitable funding or private sector partnerships.
Tim Heale
Gosport Borough Council spent taxpayers' money refurbishing the exterior of the former Royal Arms public house on Stoke Road, explaining that the work was necessary to preserve the building and support its future use.
Despite this investment, the property has remained empty for several years and appears to have made no progress towards being brought back into use.
Could the Council explain why the building has remained vacant following the refurbishment, outline its current plans for the property, provide a timetable for those plans, and confirm what measures are being taken to ensure that the public investment already made does not simply delay further deterioration?
Thank you for your question
The external canopy of this Grade II listed building was restored as part of the High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ) programme, funded by Historic England. The programme combined investment in historic buildings and shopfronts with community engagement and cultural activities, with the overarching aim of boosting pride in place, strengthening community connections, and supporting economic growth in areas most in need. A total of 67 locations across the UK were selected to participate.
The building is situated within a Conservation Area, and prior to restoration, the canopy was in poor condition. The former public house, known locally as the ‘Submariners Pub’, is held in high regard by the community. Although it ceased trading as a pub around two decades ago, it remains an important local landmark.
The property was and still is privately owned by a registered charity. The building has been converted into assisted living accommodation for individuals with support needs - and is not empty.
As part of the HSHAZ programme, only the external canopy and façade were restored and preserved and therefore funded by the programme, which is vital in preserving the historical character of Stoke Road.
Jonathan Brown
"Now that Rowner is to be removed from the Local Plan and the council states its future will be pursued through Pride in Place, what specific commitment will the council give that Rowner will receive investment in its housing, environment and community facilities from the council's own core budgets and statutory planning duties - on equal terms with every other neighbourhood in the borough - rather than being expected to rely, once again, on time-limited external regeneration funding?"
Thank you for the question.
Firstly, removing Policy RA8 from the Local Plan does not mean the Council is stepping away from Rowner. The report concludes that the Local Plan is not the right mechanism for addressing the range of issues raised during consultation and that the separate Pride in Place programme provides a more appropriate route for residents to help shape future priorities and improvements.
It's also important to remember that the Local Plan is a planning policy document. It is not a budget or capital investment programme, and it does not determine how future Council spending is allocated.
Pride in Place should be seen as an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities.The Council will continue to have statutory responsibilities across the borough, including in relation to housing, the public realm, planning, highways, community facilities and environmental services.
However, we also have to be honest about the financial position. Like many councils, we face significant budget pressures and a projected structural deficit. That means every investment decision has to be carefully considered and based on evidence, need and the greatest benefit for our communities.
There are areas of deprivation and need across the whole of Gosport, not just in one neighbourhood. Our responsibility as an administration is to take a whole-borough approach, ensuring that investment is prioritised fairly and delivers the greatest community benefit. That means moving away from focusing on individual flagship projects or single areas and instead looking at how investment supports the borough as a whole.
At the same time, we need to maximise every opportunity to bring additional investment into Gosport. That includes working collaboratively with local communities, central government, the Combined County Authority, Homes England, developers, businesses and other partners to attract external funding wherever possible.
Economic prosperity isn't achieved through one project or one neighbourhood. It's created by ensuring the whole borough is well placed to attract investment, improve opportunities and strengthen our communities.
That's the approach I believe Gosport should take going forward.
Emeritus Professor Tony McGrew
The report to the P&O Board on the interim warding arrangements associated with LGR notes at 2.9 (p105) that :
“Officers have worked with future unitary group partners to develop and refine interim warding proposals ….” for elections in May 2027 to the new South East Hampshire Authority which will supercede Gosport Borough Council in April 2028 .However the report does not specify the details of these interim warding proposals.
Nevertheless ,the report does make clear that the elections for this new authority will replace Gosport’s existing Council wards with new (interim) ward arrangements whilst also involving a significant reduction in the number of Gosport residents' existing Councillors . What public communication plan does the Council have in place to ensure Gosport’s electorate are informed fully and in a timely manner of these radical changes so that voters can participate effectively in the May 2027 local elections ?
Thank you for your question.
As Leader, I believe it is important to be open with residents about where we are in this process. I have recently confirmed publicly that I support Hampshire County Council's Judicial Review. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, a Judicial Review is a legal process through which the courts consider whether the Government followed the correct legal process when making its decision. It does not reconsider whether the proposal itself is right or wrong, but whether the decision was reached lawfully.
Whilst that legal process continues, I believe it is both sensible and responsible that Gosport continues to engage fully in the implementation of Local Government Reorganisation. Whatever the outcome of the court proceedings, our responsibility is to protect the interests of Gosport residents and ensure we are fully prepared for the future. Those two positions are entirely compatible.
It is also important to clarify where we are in the implementation process.
The Government has confirmed its decision to proceed with five unitary councils across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. In its letter of 26 March 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed that the proposed council size for the new South East Hampshire Unitary Authority of99 councillors had been accepted as part of the original submission. MHCLG has asked the constituent councils to submit their proposed interim warding arrangements for inclusion within the Structural Change Order to enable elections to take place in May 2027. Those interim arrangements will then be followed by a full, independent electoral review undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England before the scheduled elections in 2032.
Whilst discussions continue between the constituent councils, including whether there is a case to collectively propose a variation to the overall council size, it is important to recognise that the Government's current accepted position remains 99 councillors. Should an alternative proposal ultimately be submitted for consideration, the role of Gosport's representative will be to ensure that Gosport continues to receive fair and proportionate representation based on its electorate and that our communities are properly reflected within any revised arrangements.
The report before Members, therefore, does not determine the number of councillors today. Rather, it delegates the finalisation of Gosport's response because discussions continue with our future unitary partners before proposals are submitted to Government and before the subsequent independent boundary review.
Throughout this process, I have been clear that Gosport must receive fair and proportionate representation within the new authority. Based on the current electorate, I have consistently made the case that Gosport should have representation broadly reflecting its share of the population. Whether the final council size remains at 99 members, as currently accepted by the Government, or an alternative proposal is considered, my position remains unchanged: Gosport must receive its fair share of representation, and any interim warding arrangements must respect established communities, natural neighbourhoods and community identity rather than create unnecessary or artificial divisions.
The role of Gosport's representative on the Joint Committee is precisely to ensure that Gosport has a strong voice throughout the implementation process and that our residents' interests are robustly represented as these arrangements are developed and the formal transition arrangements are put in place.
Turning to the communication of these changes, I fully agree that residents should be kept informed throughout this process. I will not remain silent on Local Government Reorganisation. Tonight represents the first reports to this Board on LGR and, following their consideration, we will develop and publish a comprehensive communications and engagement plan. This will include a programme of public briefings, Member briefings, information through the Council's website and social media channels, and further reports to the Policy & Organisation Board so that both Members and residents are kept informed as the transition progresses.
This administration committed in its first 100 days to leading with openness, transparency and accountability. We will continue to honour that commitment throughout Local Government Reorganisation. This is one of the most significant changes to local government in a generation, and our residents deserve clear information, regular updates, and every opportunity to understand how these changes affect them, how their representation is changing, and how they can participate fully in the democratic process, whatever the eventual outcome of the current Local Government Reorganisation process and the ongoing legal proceedings.
Leigh Rampton
"Most residents will welcome that the designation of Rowner as regeneration area is to be removed from the proposed Local Plan. Will the council now make a specific commitment to work with Rowner-based organisations such as local resident-owned property companies and Rowner Community Trust to facilitate the bringing forward community-led proposals for local improvements building on the existing community engagement and co-design work"
Thank you, Leigh.
As I said earlier, removing Policy RA8 from the Local Plan should not be seen as the Council stepping away from Rowner. The report makes clear that the intention is for future priorities and improvements to be progressed through the separate Pride in Place programme, rather than through a planning policy. That is a different process with a different purpose.
I absolutely believe that successful regeneration and neighbourhood improvement can only happen with communities, not to communities. Local knowledge, community organisations, residents and local stakeholders all have an important role to play in shaping future priorities.
As I said in my previous answer, Pride in Place should be seen as an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities. At the same time, our ambition must be to work with communities across the whole borough to attract external investment, whether that's through Government programmes, the Combined County Authority, charitable funding or private sector partnerships.
6
Election of vice chair
Minutes
RESOLVED: That Councillor Meenaghan be Vice Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board.
7
Private Rented Sector Housing Enforcement Policy
To seek Board approval for the Draft Private Rented Sector Housing Enforcement Policy (“the Policy”) prior to public consultation.
Attachments:
- Document 01 GBC report PandO Board Private Rented Sector Housing Enforcement 23 Jun 2026
- Document 01A draft GBC private rented sector housing enforcement policy 23 Jun 2026
- Document 01B GBC IIA document PRS Housing Enforcement and RRA civil penalty policies signed by Head of EH 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
This item was defered to a future meeting of the Board.
8
Policy on Civil Penalties Under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 and Other Housing Legislation
To seek Board approval for the Draft Policy on Civil Penalties Under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and Other Housing Legislation (“the Policy”) prior to public consultation; and in due course award a contract to Justice for Tenants for the provision of support services.
Attachments:
- Document 02 GBC report PandO Board Renters Rights Act Civil Penalties 23 Jun 2026
- Document 02A draft GBC policy on civil penalties under the RRA 23 Jun 2026
- Document 02B JFT PRS Enforcement Support 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
This item was deferred to a future meeting of the Board.
9
Interim Appointment of Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer (S.151))
To advise the Board of the result of the recruitment and assessment undertaken to appoint an Interim Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) and seek the Board’s confirmation of the appointment.
Attachments:
- Document Interim Appointment of Section 151 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Chief Executive advising the Board of the result of the recruitment and assessment undertaken to appoint an Interim Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) and seek the Board’s confirmation of the appointment.
The Board were provided with the CV of the candidate. This was confidential and the candidate was not named.
It was noted that the appointment was interim for a period of 6 months, but that there would be the opportunity to extend the contract.
Members were pleased to see the candidate was available and it was confirmed that they were often in job roles that were short term contracts as a result of the nature of the work they undertook.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the appointment of the candidate found to most appropriately meet the requirements set out in the job description, details of which are included at Appendix A, for a temporary period of 6 months (with an option to extend).
The Board were provided with the CV of the candidate. This was confidential and the candidate was not named.
It was noted that the appointment was interim for a period of 6 months, but that there would be the opportunity to extend the contract.
Members were pleased to see the candidate was available and it was confirmed that they were often in job roles that were short term contracts as a result of the nature of the work they undertook.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the appointment of the candidate found to most appropriately meet the requirements set out in the job description, details of which are included at Appendix A, for a temporary period of 6 months (with an option to extend).
10
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) - Appointment to Joint Committees to support South East Unitary Authority preparations
This reports provides details of the creation of a Joint Committee which is required to support preparations to implement Local Government Reorganisation for the currently referenced South East Hampshire Unitary Authority. The membership structure and scope of responsibilities expected by the Government are set out in the report.
Attachments:
- Document Appointment to Joint Committee to support South East Unitary Authority preparations 23 Jun 2026
- Document Letter 26.03.26 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive providing details of the creation of a Joint Committee which is required to support preparations to implement Local Government Reorganisation for the currently referenced South East Hampshire Unitary Authority.
The Board was advised that as per the public question, the administration was keen to ensure transparency with the process and continued communication. Other Members recognised the importance of transparency and welcomed the Chairman’s commitment to ensuring Gosport was represented.
It was confirmed there would be upcoming briefings for elected Members as progression was made.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
(a) appoints the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board to attend the Joint Committee for South East Hampshire and any preceding Voluntary Joint Committee, with authority delegated to the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board to add any additional representatives/deputies as required; and
(b) delegates authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer and the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board, to negotiate and agree any terms of reference for any Voluntary and/or Joint Committees and any other informal, voluntary, interim governance arrangements; and
(c) delegates authority to the Chief Executive and the Chair of the Policy & Organisation Board, or deputy as and when required, to represent Gosport Borough Council in all ongoing discussions relating to Local Government Reorganisation.
The Board was advised that as per the public question, the administration was keen to ensure transparency with the process and continued communication. Other Members recognised the importance of transparency and welcomed the Chairman’s commitment to ensuring Gosport was represented.
It was confirmed there would be upcoming briefings for elected Members as progression was made.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
(a) appoints the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board to attend the Joint Committee for South East Hampshire and any preceding Voluntary Joint Committee, with authority delegated to the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board to add any additional representatives/deputies as required; and
(b) delegates authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer and the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board, to negotiate and agree any terms of reference for any Voluntary and/or Joint Committees and any other informal, voluntary, interim governance arrangements; and
(c) delegates authority to the Chief Executive and the Chair of the Policy & Organisation Board, or deputy as and when required, to represent Gosport Borough Council in all ongoing discussions relating to Local Government Reorganisation.
11
New Warding Arrangements
This report updates the Council on the next steps in Local Government Reorganisation, in particular, the interim warding arrangements to enable the elections to a Shadow Authority in May 2027.
Attachments:
- Document Appointment to Joint Committee to support South East Unitary Authority preparations 23 Jun 2026
- Document Letter 25.03.26 23 Jun 2026
- Document Letter 26.03.26 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer and Deputy Chief Executive updating the Council on the next steps in Local Government Reorganisation, in particular, the interim warding arrangements to enable the elections to a Shadow Authority in May 2027.
The Board was advised that it had been advised that no more than 99 Councillors would be permitted to the Shadow Authority. This had been compatible with existing arrangements at 3 Members per ward, however, the inclusion of the additional areas had meant that 99 Members would leave some areas unrepresented, and therefore an additional proposal of 116 Members had also been presented.
In answer to a Members question, the Board was advised that it was felt that £900,000 was nowhere near enough to cover the associated cost of the elections to the and running of the Shadow Authority, but it was confirmed that the amount had been committed by MHCLG.
An amendment was proposed and seconded that recommendation (b)
be amended to
notes that Gosport Borough Council will respond to the letter from the Deputy Director for Local Government Reorganisation at MHCLG dated 26th March 2026 (Appendix B) and delegates the finalisation of the response, including the interim warding arrangements, to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board subject to final approval at Full Council.
The proposer reiterated that 99 Councillors was not enough to ensure fair representation when the additional areas were included and concern was expressed that the Boundary Commission review would not take place until 2032. Allowing Full Council to make the decision would ensure that any proposed boundaries would be fairer.
It was confirmed that the process had progressed from utilising the existing County Council division boundaries to focusing on ward boundaries and communities, most likely in linking two wards together, such as Lee East and Lee West, and Alverstoke and Anglesey.
It was felt that the ability to scrutinise the proposals as a whole Council was important, rather than a single councillor.
Concern was expressed that this would not be until later in the year and that there was an immediate requirement as response needed to be finalised, to allow preparation to be made for the elections to the Shadow Authority.
Members reiterated concern that Gosport would be underrepresented and it was highlighted that this was one of many problems associated with LGR.
The Leader of the Council advised that in attending meetings she was ensuring that Gosport Borough Council was being represented and not remaining silent on what mattered to Gosport.
It was advised that the MHCLG were not looking to accept any other number than the proposal of 99 Councillors, but that one with more Councillors more fairly represented the areas involved.
It was reiterated that the timeframe deadline was imminent.
It was reiterated that proposals were being considered by the clustering of ward areas, not the County Council divisions.
It was reiterated that the proposed amendment was to ensure that no one person had the final say on the proposals submitted and that the decision should be made by Full Council.
It was acknowledged that a submission had been made and accepted by the MHCLG detailing the number of Councillors at 99 and the proposed name for the new authority.
Members reiterated the warding of 99 Councillors in the geographical area would prove challenging, but recognised that this was the mandate in the Government’s white paper.
Concern was expressed that some of the wards would lose their identities as a result of accommodating less seats.
It was reiterated that it was felt no matter the outcome on numbers, the boundaries for the shadow authority seats should be determined by Full Council.
A vote was taken on the amendment and LOST.
RESOLVED: That the Board:-
(a) notes the Secretary of State’s decision to proceed with five unitary councils for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as set out in the letter dated 25th March 2026 at Appendix A to this report; and
(b) notes that Gosport Borough Council will respond to the letter from the Deputy Director for Local Government Reorganisation at MHCLG dated 26th March 2026 (Appendix B) and delegates the finalisation of the response, including the interim warding arrangements, to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board.
The Board was advised that it had been advised that no more than 99 Councillors would be permitted to the Shadow Authority. This had been compatible with existing arrangements at 3 Members per ward, however, the inclusion of the additional areas had meant that 99 Members would leave some areas unrepresented, and therefore an additional proposal of 116 Members had also been presented.
In answer to a Members question, the Board was advised that it was felt that £900,000 was nowhere near enough to cover the associated cost of the elections to the and running of the Shadow Authority, but it was confirmed that the amount had been committed by MHCLG.
An amendment was proposed and seconded that recommendation (b)
be amended to
notes that Gosport Borough Council will respond to the letter from the Deputy Director for Local Government Reorganisation at MHCLG dated 26th March 2026 (Appendix B) and delegates the finalisation of the response, including the interim warding arrangements, to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board subject to final approval at Full Council.
The proposer reiterated that 99 Councillors was not enough to ensure fair representation when the additional areas were included and concern was expressed that the Boundary Commission review would not take place until 2032. Allowing Full Council to make the decision would ensure that any proposed boundaries would be fairer.
It was confirmed that the process had progressed from utilising the existing County Council division boundaries to focusing on ward boundaries and communities, most likely in linking two wards together, such as Lee East and Lee West, and Alverstoke and Anglesey.
It was felt that the ability to scrutinise the proposals as a whole Council was important, rather than a single councillor.
Concern was expressed that this would not be until later in the year and that there was an immediate requirement as response needed to be finalised, to allow preparation to be made for the elections to the Shadow Authority.
Members reiterated concern that Gosport would be underrepresented and it was highlighted that this was one of many problems associated with LGR.
The Leader of the Council advised that in attending meetings she was ensuring that Gosport Borough Council was being represented and not remaining silent on what mattered to Gosport.
It was advised that the MHCLG were not looking to accept any other number than the proposal of 99 Councillors, but that one with more Councillors more fairly represented the areas involved.
It was reiterated that the timeframe deadline was imminent.
It was reiterated that proposals were being considered by the clustering of ward areas, not the County Council divisions.
It was reiterated that the proposed amendment was to ensure that no one person had the final say on the proposals submitted and that the decision should be made by Full Council.
It was acknowledged that a submission had been made and accepted by the MHCLG detailing the number of Councillors at 99 and the proposed name for the new authority.
Members reiterated the warding of 99 Councillors in the geographical area would prove challenging, but recognised that this was the mandate in the Government’s white paper.
Concern was expressed that some of the wards would lose their identities as a result of accommodating less seats.
It was reiterated that it was felt no matter the outcome on numbers, the boundaries for the shadow authority seats should be determined by Full Council.
A vote was taken on the amendment and LOST.
RESOLVED: That the Board:-
(a) notes the Secretary of State’s decision to proceed with five unitary councils for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as set out in the letter dated 25th March 2026 at Appendix A to this report; and
(b) notes that Gosport Borough Council will respond to the letter from the Deputy Director for Local Government Reorganisation at MHCLG dated 26th March 2026 (Appendix B) and delegates the finalisation of the response, including the interim warding arrangements, to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board.
12
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) - Civic & Ceremonial Matters - Establishment of a Charter Trustee Body for preserving Civic Traditions
This report sets out the legal mechanism, practical implications, costs and recommended route to preserve civic and ceremonial functions following the abolition of Gosport Borough Council under LGR and asks for agreement in principle to the creation of a Charter Trustee Body to ensure that the civic assets and ceremonial traditions associated with the Borough continue in future years as part of the new Unitary Authority.
Attachments:
- Document Establishment of a Charter Trustee Body 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer setting out the legal mechanism, practical implications, costs and recommended route to preserve civic and ceremonial functions following the abolition of Gosport Borough Council under LGR and asks for agreement in principle to the creation of a Charter Trustee Body to ensure that the civic assets and ceremonial traditions associated with the Borough continue in future years as part of the new Unitary Authority.
The Board was advised that there was an expense but that it was not significant.
The proposal would bring the Borough inline with other Borough’s included in the proposed new unitary authority and would operate in a way that was similar to the Lord Lieutenancy Office.
The Mayor would be chosen from those Members elected to represent Gosport on the new authority, and would continue to carry out the Borough’s civic functions beyond April 2028.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there was a full asset list.
It was advised that there was no clear direction currently, but that the report was essential to ensure that the Council’s assets were protected.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that not all properties within the Borough paid Council Tax, and it was reiterated that this was the mechanism to protect the Borough’s assets.
A Member question whether keeping the assets was value for money and it was confirmed that the value of the asset significantly exceeded the cost and if the assets were sold they would be gone forever. This would allow for the continuation of the heritage of the Borough and protect the Mayoralty of the Borough.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
i) notes the legal mechanism and procedure for preserving civic and ceremonial matters by way of a Charter Trust;
ii) agrees the Charter Trustee route to preserve the civic and ceremonial traditions for the Borough of Gosport;
iii) delegates authority to the Borough Solicitor to undertake preparatory work that will give effect to the establishment of a Charter Trust; and
iv) resolves that a request for the establishment of a Charter Trust covering Gosport Borough Council be submitted as part of the Structural Change Order for Local Government Reorganisation in Hampshire.
The Board was advised that there was an expense but that it was not significant.
The proposal would bring the Borough inline with other Borough’s included in the proposed new unitary authority and would operate in a way that was similar to the Lord Lieutenancy Office.
The Mayor would be chosen from those Members elected to represent Gosport on the new authority, and would continue to carry out the Borough’s civic functions beyond April 2028.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there was a full asset list.
It was advised that there was no clear direction currently, but that the report was essential to ensure that the Council’s assets were protected.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that not all properties within the Borough paid Council Tax, and it was reiterated that this was the mechanism to protect the Borough’s assets.
A Member question whether keeping the assets was value for money and it was confirmed that the value of the asset significantly exceeded the cost and if the assets were sold they would be gone forever. This would allow for the continuation of the heritage of the Borough and protect the Mayoralty of the Borough.
RESOLVED:
That the Board:-
i) notes the legal mechanism and procedure for preserving civic and ceremonial matters by way of a Charter Trust;
ii) agrees the Charter Trustee route to preserve the civic and ceremonial traditions for the Borough of Gosport;
iii) delegates authority to the Borough Solicitor to undertake preparatory work that will give effect to the establishment of a Charter Trust; and
iv) resolves that a request for the establishment of a Charter Trust covering Gosport Borough Council be submitted as part of the Structural Change Order for Local Government Reorganisation in Hampshire.
13
Local Development Scheme for the emerging Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042
The Council is required by legislation to prepare a Local Plan for its area. The timetable for the preparation of a Local Plan must be published in a Local Development Scheme (LDS). This report seeks approval to publish the latest version of the LDS.
Attachments:
- Document LDS 2026 P&0 Board Report- Final 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix A - Local Development Scheme 2026 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning Policy detailing the timetable for the preparation of a Local Plan must be published in a Local Development Scheme (LDS). This report seeks approval to publish the latest version of the LDS.
The Board was advised that it was necessary to amend the timetable as a result of the proposed addendum but acknowledged that additional work had been required regarding the Blockhouse development and some other sites.
It was acknowledged that the local plan set the remit for years ahead and that the Planning Policy Officers were skilled in their work, and thanked for their effort.
A Members particularly welcomed the inclusion of a restriction on takeaways. It was felt that there was already a significant number within the Borough and the prohibition of them within 400 meters of a school was welcome.
RESOLVED: That the Board:
Approves the Local Development Scheme (July 2026) (as set out in Appendix A).
The Board was advised that it was necessary to amend the timetable as a result of the proposed addendum but acknowledged that additional work had been required regarding the Blockhouse development and some other sites.
It was acknowledged that the local plan set the remit for years ahead and that the Planning Policy Officers were skilled in their work, and thanked for their effort.
A Members particularly welcomed the inclusion of a restriction on takeaways. It was felt that there was already a significant number within the Borough and the prohibition of them within 400 meters of a school was welcome.
RESOLVED: That the Board:
Approves the Local Development Scheme (July 2026) (as set out in Appendix A).
14
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042: Addendum to Publication Version (Regulation 19)
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 agree an Addendum to the previously approved Publication Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 (Full Council 4th March 2026). This Addendum will then be subject to the statutory six week consultation if approved by Full Council.
Attachments:
- Document Addendum to the Publication Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042-July 2026- FINAL BOARD VERSION 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 1-Addendum to GBLP 2042 July 2026 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 2-Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal June 2026 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 3-Addendum to the HRA June 2026 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 4- Reg 19 Local Plan FEB 2026- Board Report 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 5-Working copy Summary of Representations to Reg 19 Board Version 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 6-Summary of comments Rowner 23 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 7 - GBC IIA - GBLP 2042 Addendum 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning Policy seeking approval to agree an Addendum to the previously approved Publication Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 (Full Council 4th March 2026). This Addendum will then be subject to the statutory six week consultation if approved by Full Council.
The Board was advised that the previous publication had led to 189 representations. 45 of these were not from residents of Rowner, but 154 were from residents of Rowner.
The Board was advised that the Council wanted to allay fears that had been publicised, as there had been concern about redevelopment in Rowner.
It was different to the Pride in Place money, which was intended to support communities in identifying aspirations over a term of up to 10 years, utilising the knowledge of local residents and setting priorities.
The Board was advised that the change of allocation of the Criterion site would allow for more flexibility in its usage.
Councillor Jessop was invited to the Board as Ward Councillor for Grange and Alver Valley.
He thanked the Chairman for allowing him to address the Board. He advised that he was here to discuss the removal of Policy RA8 which had previously been included in the Local Plan. The Local Plan
A Member advised that they agreed with Councillor Jessop, and that also welcomed the reallocation of the Criterion as white land.
It was confirmed that white land was a site where any proposal could be considered, subject to design.
Members agreed with Councillor Jessop in that it was a shame that a political agenda had been levied to the Local Plan, which had created scaremongering when there was no plans to demolish housing. The Local Plan created a framework to work within rather than a course of action and was not developed to create a disadvantage.
It was reiterated that the Pride in Place programme was the opportunity to create new priorities set over a 10 year period. There could be opportunities to work with organisations or land management companies to support additional housing or housing improvements.
Members felt it was important that PIP was not seen as the bandage for Rowner and that the Council still met their obligations on a highly deprived area.
Members felt that all of the scaremongering could have been avoided if a clear message had been presented from the start. It was a shame that RA8 needed to be removed but this was as a result of the scaremongering which had caused genuine fear to residents, including children that they would lose their homes.
Members acknowledged that whilst messaging could have been clearer, but the council officers had worked hard in challenging situations at public meetings, that were required as a result of the spread of misinformation. It was recognised that Council officers had tried to allay fears at the meetings.
A Member advised that it was disappointing that former Councillor Brown had chosen to play politics with resident’s homes. The only guaranteed way to reach all residents was to post leaflets through their doors, and this is what had been done, causing distress and uncertainty. The Ward Councillor had tried their hardest to rectify the situation and offer reassurance but it was difficult to do so.
The area of Grange and Alver Valley had long been deprived and work had been undertaken to remove the concrete jungle, there had been significant investment to do this. Members commented it was also pleasing to see the return of the Rowner Carnival, a sign of the proud community that lived there. There was also the community centre, and an improved shopping district to benefit the area.
It was important that the PIP money was utilised in a positive way for the area, recognising it was up to £19.6 million. It was important this was used to improve the area.
It was reiterated that there was concern that the scaremongering and miscommunication had caused the value of people’s houses to drop, and for some residents to lose sales on their houses as a result.
The Pride in Place would not stop additional investment into the area, successful Pride in Place schemes had often utilised it to attract investment into the area to ensure long term sustainability.
RESOLVED:
The Policy and Organisation Board recommend to Full Council that:
- The Council approves the Addendum to the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042: Publication Version (GBLP2042) (as included in Appendix 1). The Addendum proposes to:
· Delete Policy RA8 relating to Rowner together with associated text and map references in order to allay community concerns;
· Delete the leisure allocation at the Criterion (Policy A4, Point 1) and remove the site from the neighbourhood centre to provide greater flexibility over possible uses.
- That the Addendum is made available for a statutory six week consultation period.
- The Council approves the revised Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 2) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix 3) for public consultation;
The Board was advised that the previous publication had led to 189 representations. 45 of these were not from residents of Rowner, but 154 were from residents of Rowner.
The Board was advised that the Council wanted to allay fears that had been publicised, as there had been concern about redevelopment in Rowner.
It was different to the Pride in Place money, which was intended to support communities in identifying aspirations over a term of up to 10 years, utilising the knowledge of local residents and setting priorities.
The Board was advised that the change of allocation of the Criterion site would allow for more flexibility in its usage.
Councillor Jessop was invited to the Board as Ward Councillor for Grange and Alver Valley.
He thanked the Chairman for allowing him to address the Board. He advised that he was here to discuss the removal of Policy RA8 which had previously been included in the Local Plan. The Local Plan
A Member advised that they agreed with Councillor Jessop, and that also welcomed the reallocation of the Criterion as white land.
It was confirmed that white land was a site where any proposal could be considered, subject to design.
Members agreed with Councillor Jessop in that it was a shame that a political agenda had been levied to the Local Plan, which had created scaremongering when there was no plans to demolish housing. The Local Plan created a framework to work within rather than a course of action and was not developed to create a disadvantage.
It was reiterated that the Pride in Place programme was the opportunity to create new priorities set over a 10 year period. There could be opportunities to work with organisations or land management companies to support additional housing or housing improvements.
Members felt it was important that PIP was not seen as the bandage for Rowner and that the Council still met their obligations on a highly deprived area.
Members felt that all of the scaremongering could have been avoided if a clear message had been presented from the start. It was a shame that RA8 needed to be removed but this was as a result of the scaremongering which had caused genuine fear to residents, including children that they would lose their homes.
Members acknowledged that whilst messaging could have been clearer, but the council officers had worked hard in challenging situations at public meetings, that were required as a result of the spread of misinformation. It was recognised that Council officers had tried to allay fears at the meetings.
A Member advised that it was disappointing that former Councillor Brown had chosen to play politics with resident’s homes. The only guaranteed way to reach all residents was to post leaflets through their doors, and this is what had been done, causing distress and uncertainty. The Ward Councillor had tried their hardest to rectify the situation and offer reassurance but it was difficult to do so.
The area of Grange and Alver Valley had long been deprived and work had been undertaken to remove the concrete jungle, there had been significant investment to do this. Members commented it was also pleasing to see the return of the Rowner Carnival, a sign of the proud community that lived there. There was also the community centre, and an improved shopping district to benefit the area.
It was important that the PIP money was utilised in a positive way for the area, recognising it was up to £19.6 million. It was important this was used to improve the area.
It was reiterated that there was concern that the scaremongering and miscommunication had caused the value of people’s houses to drop, and for some residents to lose sales on their houses as a result.
The Pride in Place would not stop additional investment into the area, successful Pride in Place schemes had often utilised it to attract investment into the area to ensure long term sustainability.
RESOLVED:
The Policy and Organisation Board recommend to Full Council that:
- The Council approves the Addendum to the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042: Publication Version (GBLP2042) (as included in Appendix 1). The Addendum proposes to:
· Delete Policy RA8 relating to Rowner together with associated text and map references in order to allay community concerns;
· Delete the leisure allocation at the Criterion (Policy A4, Point 1) and remove the site from the neighbourhood centre to provide greater flexibility over possible uses.
- That the Addendum is made available for a statutory six week consultation period.
- The Council approves the revised Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 2) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix 3) for public consultation;
15
Criterion Theatre - Disposal Strategy
This report seeks approval to proceed with the disposal of the Criterion Theatre, 143 Forton Road, Gosport. Following the purchase of the property in August 2022 with the intention to refurbish and re-open as a community asset, it has become clear that the costs to do so are prohibitive and also that occupier demand would be limited. As such, the asset is now surplus to requirements.
Attachments:
- Document 04 PO Board Report - Criterion Theatre Disposal Strategy FINAL 23 Jun 2026
- Document 04B Appendix 2 - Method of Sale Options 23 Jun 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property seeking approval to proceed with the disposal of the Criterion Theatre.
The Board was advised that there was a confidential appendix included within the papers and that the Board needed to consider if it was in the public interest to maintain the confidentiality of them.
The reason for the confidentiality of the papers was that it contained financial figures that could jeopardise the Council’s business interest. Comparable to if a house was being auctioned, you would not disclose to potential purchasers in advance the lowest price you were willing to accept.
A Members suggested that there were double standards from some political parties, who had consistently accused the previous administration of withholding information at secret meetings, but were now in support of information remaining confidential.
A Member felt that the decision to purchase the Criterion had been the worst decision the Council had made in the 28 years they had been on the Council and that the Council now had a duty to try and recoup as much as they could. Keeping the papers confidential would support this.
It was felt by some Members that maintaining the confidentiality of the valuation report would maintain the integrity of the sale process.
RESOLVED: That the valuation report remain exempt.
A Member reiterated that they felt that a party had created double standards in supporting the exemption.
A Member advised that it was not a secret meeting, and that the exemption only applied to the appendix, to support the council’s business interest, unlike previous meetings on the Crierion. It was advised that all previous documentation had now been released.
It was questioned why a valuation report that was four months old was being considered and suggested this was out of date, with the market changing rapidly and was advised that it was acceptable for the current state of the market.
The Board was advised that the Council could, under Section 123 of the Local Government Act dispose of the land as they saw fit, giving best consideration possible and it was reiterated that maintaining the confidentiality of the appendix supported this.
The Board was advised by the Head of Commercial Property that the report set out the way forward to dispose of the Criterion building as the aspirations of the Council for it were no longer achievable. It was important to progress the sale in a timely manner as next year there would be a requirement for there to be an EPC rating of C, which the building currently did not have. This and the ongoing financial costs supported the urgency of the disposal.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the Criterion had been bought with a vision to save the last remaining cinema building in Gosport. There were complaints every week that there was no cinema in the Borough and the Borough needed entertainment to make it attractive to investors.
The purpose had been to create a multipurpose arts centre to offer residents of the Borough options rather than having to go to Fareham or Portsmouth. Fareham had recently delivered a £21m arts venue in FarehamLive, Gosport residents deserved the opportunity for entertainment too.
At the time of the purchase the Section 151 officer had advised that the worse case scenario was that the building would increase in value, but it was accepted that since that advice, the market had changed.
They advised the Board that the Arts Council had changed the criteria for their grants meaning that the project had no longer been eligible for a grant as it was not an existing arts venue. There had been a window of opportunity that had been lost.
There had been an application to Hampshire County Council for £2.1 million that had not been successful and all of this had led to the project becoming unsustainable.
Had the building been located in a city, it would have likely generated private investment and had a successful future.
The Member was well aware that the opposition at the time had been against the proposal, but at the time of purchase the advice had been that to sell the property would generate additional income if the proposed use did not come forward.
Concern was expressed that the market conditions had changed and if the building was sold on now, it would be of no interest as a HMO as there was no parking, and was located on the busiest traffic island in the Borough. It was not viable in its current state and would need to be knocked down to be rebuilt.
It was advised that there had been an offer to utilize the building as a Pentecostal church.
It was reiterated that the building was from 1912 and was the oldest cinema in the Borough, it did need money spent on it, and the window of opportunity to do so had been missed.
It was advised that the turning point of unviability was the point at which the Hampshire County Council grant was not successful as a result of a poor application from a Council officer.
A decision was made that only one of the projects, the People’s Park and the Criterion could progress, and the People’s Park was more viable.
A Member expressed concern that Council Tax Payer’s money had been wasted on the project, although the project had been utilizing capital income, this was money that could be spent elsewhere improving facilities such as play parks.
It was advised that there had not been use of revenue money previously, but that the ongoing cost were now from the revenue account. It was advised that these were £100k pa but confirmed that this was nearer to £20k.
A Member reiterated that the building had been purchased at a good price and that the very challenging market and other challenges had made the project unviable.
The challenges meant that the best return would now be to dispose of the building in support of addressing the deficit of the Council.
In answer to a Member’s question, Councillor Chegwyn advised that he believed that the project had become unviable at the point the Hampshire County Council grant had not been successful last year.
Concern was expressed that there had never been an exit strategy and that there was many things in the Borough that had been detrimentally impacted as a result of the spending on the Criterion. The previous administration had wasted millions at the tax payers detriment.
Members accepted that they may have been a vision for the project at the time, but the only viable option was to now sell the building, the Council owed it to the residents not to make it unsellable.
A Member advised that they believed that the previous administration in wasted Council Tax payer’s money, whether it be revenue or capital, and that it was incompetent and arrogant to do so.
Some Members advised that with all the evidence presented it was time to move on from the project.
The Board was advised that the remedial work to the building had potential to make it more attractive to purchasers as it had been undertaken already.
A Member advised that they felt that one of the most significant issues was that there had never been a fully costed business case for the project and that there were other venues in the Borough that could host arts and could be supported, such as Thorngate Halls and Quay West.
The Board was advised that tough choices had been made such as not upgrading the splash park pump room, but it had materialised that this had not been the correct solution to fixing the issues anyway.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) The decision to sell the freehold interest in the Criterion Theatre for the best consideration following a full marketing process;
ii) The appointment of an agent to co-ordinate the marketing of the building, identify a purchaser, negotiate a price on an unconditional basis and conclude the sale.
iii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Commercial Property to conclude negotiations and complete the contract.
The Board was advised that there was a confidential appendix included within the papers and that the Board needed to consider if it was in the public interest to maintain the confidentiality of them.
The reason for the confidentiality of the papers was that it contained financial figures that could jeopardise the Council’s business interest. Comparable to if a house was being auctioned, you would not disclose to potential purchasers in advance the lowest price you were willing to accept.
A Members suggested that there were double standards from some political parties, who had consistently accused the previous administration of withholding information at secret meetings, but were now in support of information remaining confidential.
A Member felt that the decision to purchase the Criterion had been the worst decision the Council had made in the 28 years they had been on the Council and that the Council now had a duty to try and recoup as much as they could. Keeping the papers confidential would support this.
It was felt by some Members that maintaining the confidentiality of the valuation report would maintain the integrity of the sale process.
RESOLVED: That the valuation report remain exempt.
A Member reiterated that they felt that a party had created double standards in supporting the exemption.
A Member advised that it was not a secret meeting, and that the exemption only applied to the appendix, to support the council’s business interest, unlike previous meetings on the Crierion. It was advised that all previous documentation had now been released.
It was questioned why a valuation report that was four months old was being considered and suggested this was out of date, with the market changing rapidly and was advised that it was acceptable for the current state of the market.
The Board was advised that the Council could, under Section 123 of the Local Government Act dispose of the land as they saw fit, giving best consideration possible and it was reiterated that maintaining the confidentiality of the appendix supported this.
The Board was advised by the Head of Commercial Property that the report set out the way forward to dispose of the Criterion building as the aspirations of the Council for it were no longer achievable. It was important to progress the sale in a timely manner as next year there would be a requirement for there to be an EPC rating of C, which the building currently did not have. This and the ongoing financial costs supported the urgency of the disposal.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the Criterion had been bought with a vision to save the last remaining cinema building in Gosport. There were complaints every week that there was no cinema in the Borough and the Borough needed entertainment to make it attractive to investors.
The purpose had been to create a multipurpose arts centre to offer residents of the Borough options rather than having to go to Fareham or Portsmouth. Fareham had recently delivered a £21m arts venue in FarehamLive, Gosport residents deserved the opportunity for entertainment too.
At the time of the purchase the Section 151 officer had advised that the worse case scenario was that the building would increase in value, but it was accepted that since that advice, the market had changed.
They advised the Board that the Arts Council had changed the criteria for their grants meaning that the project had no longer been eligible for a grant as it was not an existing arts venue. There had been a window of opportunity that had been lost.
There had been an application to Hampshire County Council for £2.1 million that had not been successful and all of this had led to the project becoming unsustainable.
Had the building been located in a city, it would have likely generated private investment and had a successful future.
The Member was well aware that the opposition at the time had been against the proposal, but at the time of purchase the advice had been that to sell the property would generate additional income if the proposed use did not come forward.
Concern was expressed that the market conditions had changed and if the building was sold on now, it would be of no interest as a HMO as there was no parking, and was located on the busiest traffic island in the Borough. It was not viable in its current state and would need to be knocked down to be rebuilt.
It was advised that there had been an offer to utilize the building as a Pentecostal church.
It was reiterated that the building was from 1912 and was the oldest cinema in the Borough, it did need money spent on it, and the window of opportunity to do so had been missed.
It was advised that the turning point of unviability was the point at which the Hampshire County Council grant was not successful as a result of a poor application from a Council officer.
A decision was made that only one of the projects, the People’s Park and the Criterion could progress, and the People’s Park was more viable.
A Member expressed concern that Council Tax Payer’s money had been wasted on the project, although the project had been utilizing capital income, this was money that could be spent elsewhere improving facilities such as play parks.
It was advised that there had not been use of revenue money previously, but that the ongoing cost were now from the revenue account. It was advised that these were £100k pa but confirmed that this was nearer to £20k.
A Member reiterated that the building had been purchased at a good price and that the very challenging market and other challenges had made the project unviable.
The challenges meant that the best return would now be to dispose of the building in support of addressing the deficit of the Council.
In answer to a Member’s question, Councillor Chegwyn advised that he believed that the project had become unviable at the point the Hampshire County Council grant had not been successful last year.
Concern was expressed that there had never been an exit strategy and that there was many things in the Borough that had been detrimentally impacted as a result of the spending on the Criterion. The previous administration had wasted millions at the tax payers detriment.
Members accepted that they may have been a vision for the project at the time, but the only viable option was to now sell the building, the Council owed it to the residents not to make it unsellable.
A Member advised that they believed that the previous administration in wasted Council Tax payer’s money, whether it be revenue or capital, and that it was incompetent and arrogant to do so.
Some Members advised that with all the evidence presented it was time to move on from the project.
The Board was advised that the remedial work to the building had potential to make it more attractive to purchasers as it had been undertaken already.
A Member advised that they felt that one of the most significant issues was that there had never been a fully costed business case for the project and that there were other venues in the Borough that could host arts and could be supported, such as Thorngate Halls and Quay West.
The Board was advised that tough choices had been made such as not upgrading the splash park pump room, but it had materialised that this had not been the correct solution to fixing the issues anyway.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) The decision to sell the freehold interest in the Criterion Theatre for the best consideration following a full marketing process;
ii) The appointment of an agent to co-ordinate the marketing of the building, identify a purchaser, negotiate a price on an unconditional basis and conclude the sale.
iii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer in conjunction with the Head of Commercial Property to conclude negotiations and complete the contract.
16
Any other items
That the Chairman deems urgent.
Minutes
The Board was advised that there would be an extraordinary meeting of the Policy and Organisation Board following the Full Council meeting on the 15 July 2026.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in