Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Community & Environment Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
7:40 PM
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
7:40 PM
End:
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
11:40 PM
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
11:40 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Date:
15 Jul 2026
15 Jul 2026
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
Minutes
Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillor Kirkham
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
There were none
3
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 Monday 13 July 2026. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes)
Minutes
There were none
4
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 13 July 2026)
Minutes
There were none
5
Community Skips
Report to follow.
Attachments:
- Document CE Board - Community Skips Report 6.7.2026 (003).docx-final 07 Jul 2026
- Document 6 Waste and Recycling Policy Document 10.12.20 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 1 Community Skip Events Stats - Dec 2024-2026 (002) 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 2 FLY TIP STATS 07 Jul 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report by the Deputy Chief Executive (DCE) updating Members on the future options for the Community Skips service.
The DCE introduced her report by reminding the Board that the service has operated since 2023 as a non-statutory waste disposal provision for residents and currently costs the Council approximately £160,000 per year, with costs due to increase over the remaining contract period. The report reviews service usage, financial implications, operational considerations and available alternatives, and asks Members to consider whether to continue the service, reduce its frequency, or terminate the contract.
An amendment was proposed and seconded that option 1 of the recommendation should read:
“The continuation of the Community Skips service in its current form under the existing contract with no changes to the approved budget and that White’s Place skips remain as walk up only”
The proposer advised that there were a number of sheltered schemes and elderly residents with no access to a car in the White’s Place area and needed to have a means of disposing of waste accessible by foot or motorised scooter.
A vote was taken on the amendment and was lost.
Members advised that many of the sites had been used by residents on foot, but the harder to access sites such as Alver Valley West had received very little footfall . Officers advised that the figures regarding walk-ups were collated by the onsite operatives from TJ Waste, and weren’t, and couldn’t be as robust as the recordings of usage at the HWRC.
Members discussed the issue of flytipping comparing the figures produced in the report and those provided by a Member of the Board. There was also comparative data from neighbouring authorities and DEFRA. A Member hoped that the out of the norm increase in 2025 could be looked into and hoped that instances would not increase if the service was withdrawn. Members agreed that there was no clear picture either way.
A Member reminded the Board that there were other aspects to the service to be considered, especially GBC staff capacity, and whether or not the officers could be used in targeted ways to help the vulnerable dispose of waste and investigate incidents of flytipping.
The Chairman advised Members that none of the tonnage collected in the service adds to the recycling targets of the Borough as the waste is taken to a bulk facility and therefore cannot be identified as GBC waste.
Officers explained that walk in customers to HWRC facilities present a health & safety nightmare and a very robust risk assessment would be required and changes to the access road. Members were advised that those risks also apply to walk ups to the community skips, but that is covered by T J Waste’s risk assessments, hence why so few sites were identified as suitable.
Members were aware of other local authorities offering times slots for walk in/motorised scooter visits and the Chairman agreed to write to HCC to see if a similar scheme could be introduced in Gosport.
In answer to a Member’s question officers advised that unlike the HWRC, there is no way of monitoring who is using the community skips, nor what is being dumped, so the service could be being used by traders from out of the area. It is down to the operatives to check for hazardous or contaminated waste. This may require more staff presence. The online booking system at the HWRC provides a record of use and the ability to identify repeat users. Rubble and other materials have to be declared on the booking form.
In answer to a Member’s question, officers advised that both contracts were procured through the GBC process. The contract includes an exit clause and can be concluded with a two month no penalty notice period.
Officers agreed that there had been a few occasions where traffic at the skip sites had been problematic in particular Privett Park on match days and at Whites Place where patients had been unable to access the surgery and pharmacy.
The Borough Treasurer reminded Members that transformation and savings needed to happen to cover the perilous financial position. The cancelling of this scheme would provide a 10% contribution to the savings required and as it is a discretionary scheme, the savings would then have to come from other as yet unidentified schemes.
The Chairman advised members that the skips scheme goes against the Project Integra strategy of reduce, reuse and recycle and other waste removal services need to be promoted.
Members wished to thank officers for providing three evidence based options for debate and to thank the GBC staff who have been present on skip days for the excellent service they have provided residents.
RESOLVED: That the Board approved Option 3 Termination of the Community Skips service contract at the earliest possible date with required contractual notice.
The DCE introduced her report by reminding the Board that the service has operated since 2023 as a non-statutory waste disposal provision for residents and currently costs the Council approximately £160,000 per year, with costs due to increase over the remaining contract period. The report reviews service usage, financial implications, operational considerations and available alternatives, and asks Members to consider whether to continue the service, reduce its frequency, or terminate the contract.
An amendment was proposed and seconded that option 1 of the recommendation should read:
“The continuation of the Community Skips service in its current form under the existing contract with no changes to the approved budget and that White’s Place skips remain as walk up only”
The proposer advised that there were a number of sheltered schemes and elderly residents with no access to a car in the White’s Place area and needed to have a means of disposing of waste accessible by foot or motorised scooter.
A vote was taken on the amendment and was lost.
Members advised that many of the sites had been used by residents on foot, but the harder to access sites such as Alver Valley West had received very little footfall . Officers advised that the figures regarding walk-ups were collated by the onsite operatives from TJ Waste, and weren’t, and couldn’t be as robust as the recordings of usage at the HWRC.
Members discussed the issue of flytipping comparing the figures produced in the report and those provided by a Member of the Board. There was also comparative data from neighbouring authorities and DEFRA. A Member hoped that the out of the norm increase in 2025 could be looked into and hoped that instances would not increase if the service was withdrawn. Members agreed that there was no clear picture either way.
A Member reminded the Board that there were other aspects to the service to be considered, especially GBC staff capacity, and whether or not the officers could be used in targeted ways to help the vulnerable dispose of waste and investigate incidents of flytipping.
The Chairman advised Members that none of the tonnage collected in the service adds to the recycling targets of the Borough as the waste is taken to a bulk facility and therefore cannot be identified as GBC waste.
Officers explained that walk in customers to HWRC facilities present a health & safety nightmare and a very robust risk assessment would be required and changes to the access road. Members were advised that those risks also apply to walk ups to the community skips, but that is covered by T J Waste’s risk assessments, hence why so few sites were identified as suitable.
Members were aware of other local authorities offering times slots for walk in/motorised scooter visits and the Chairman agreed to write to HCC to see if a similar scheme could be introduced in Gosport.
In answer to a Member’s question officers advised that unlike the HWRC, there is no way of monitoring who is using the community skips, nor what is being dumped, so the service could be being used by traders from out of the area. It is down to the operatives to check for hazardous or contaminated waste. This may require more staff presence. The online booking system at the HWRC provides a record of use and the ability to identify repeat users. Rubble and other materials have to be declared on the booking form.
In answer to a Member’s question, officers advised that both contracts were procured through the GBC process. The contract includes an exit clause and can be concluded with a two month no penalty notice period.
Officers agreed that there had been a few occasions where traffic at the skip sites had been problematic in particular Privett Park on match days and at Whites Place where patients had been unable to access the surgery and pharmacy.
The Borough Treasurer reminded Members that transformation and savings needed to happen to cover the perilous financial position. The cancelling of this scheme would provide a 10% contribution to the savings required and as it is a discretionary scheme, the savings would then have to come from other as yet unidentified schemes.
The Chairman advised members that the skips scheme goes against the Project Integra strategy of reduce, reuse and recycle and other waste removal services need to be promoted.
Members wished to thank officers for providing three evidence based options for debate and to thank the GBC staff who have been present on skip days for the excellent service they have provided residents.
RESOLVED: That the Board approved Option 3 Termination of the Community Skips service contract at the earliest possible date with required contractual notice.
6
Any other items
Which the Chairman deems urgent.
Minutes
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in