Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 15th July 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
15 Jul 2026
15 Jul 2026
Location:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Kirsty Cox
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting.
Minutes
Appologies for non attendance were received from Councillor Figgins and 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
Mayor's Communications
Minutes
The Mayor reflected on the fact that England were playing in the World Cup Semi Final and that it was Hampshire day.
4
To confirm the minutes of the Council meetings held on 20 May 2026
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 20/05/2026 Council 07 Jul 2026
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 20/05/2026 Council Adjourned 07 Jul 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 20th May 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.
5
To receive Deputations in accordance with Standing Order No. 3.4 and to answer<br/>any Public Questions pursuant to Standing Order No 3.5, such questions to be<br/>answered orally during a time not exceeding 15 minutes
(NOTE: Standing Order No. 3.4 requires that notice of a Deputation should be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON MONDAY 13 JULY 2026 and likewise Standing Order No. 3.5 requires that notice of a Public Question should be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON MONDAY 13 JULY 2026)
Minutes
There was a deputation from Jonathan Brown.
I speak in qualified support of the recommendation before you. Item 7: Gosport Borough Local Plan in particular the Deletion of Policy RA8.
Qualified, because I had hoped for something better for Rowner than the removal of a bad policy - and we provided many suggestions about how it could be made better. What Rowner deserved was a plan made with it. What Rowner got was a plan done to it. Deleting RA8 takes away a threat. What actually gets put in its place is the question I will end on.
But, the removal of a policy that singled out one community for worse treatment than any other part of this borough is a victory regardless. And it is a victory that belongs to the residents of Rowner, some sat up in that gallery.
Rowner will no longer put up with insulting and degrading treatment by this council, its members, or any other institution. It is time for Rowner to be treated fairly and with the respect it is due.
By this council's own count, 154 of the 189 representations to this consultation came from residents of Rowner. That is not misinformation. That is more than eight in ten responses to a borough-wide plan coming from a single estate - a community reading a 486-page document, understanding it, and answering it in writing, by the deadline, jumping through the obtuse process set up for them. May I go as far as to suggest that is what “the people versus the establishment” really looks like.
The council was invited to defend its policy with evidence. It chose not to. At the Policy and Organisation Board on the 1st July it recommended deletion instead, that sub-board agreed, and you are asked to confirm that decision tonight. I want to spell out what that means. This Local Plan will still go to examination before a national Planning Inspector. Rowner residents were prepared to give their evidence there. They will not now be heard on RA8, because this council chose to withdraw the policy rather than defend it. I want the record to show that Rowner residents were ready, and the council was not.
So to what did Rowner residents object so vehemently? It was not a spurious rumour. It was the plan's own words.
First - was what this policy said about the place we live. RA8 promised "replacement new homes." But replacing what? The plan drew a vast boundary, treated the land within it as previously developed and therefore ripe for redevelopment, yet never counted how many homes were inside it, how many residents affected, how many families. It labelled their homes as poor in "quality and condition," called this "degraded stock" to be "replaced," and blamed "problems associated with parts of the Rowner estate" on "poor design and layout." Not one of those statements is evidenced anywhere in the plan. No targeted survey, no condition assessment, no figures, no record of a visit to Rowner. Just insults, slurs and assumptions that are unwarranted and unwelcome.
154Rowner residents said as much, and the council wrote it down. Its own summary of the consultation - Appendix 6 - records the objection that the policy was "inadequately evidenced, relying on outdated assumptions of Rowner before the previous regeneration scheme." It now records residents describing Rowner as a good place to live with "well-maintained environments," and residents' own account of the insulation, cladding and renewable energy measures they had funded themselves. The area under RA8 now has better EPC ratings than much of Gosport. We have a healthy tenure mix. The council logged every one of these points. It has never answered one of them on the evidence. It chose to delete the policy instead. The council described a community that had spent two decades investing in itself as degraded stock, without so much as looking to check.
Second - was compulsory purchase, and disinvestment. Paragraph 2.70, page 48, of the Local Plan said: "Gosport Borough Council will use compulsory purchase powers where appropriate to assemble urban land parcels to deliver new housing … particularly on complicated sites which have land in multiple ownership." RA8 designated Rowner as exactly such a site. Residents put those two statements side by side and drew the obvious conclusion. That was not scaremongering. That was reading. And the council's own consultation record now lists "concern about using CPO powers" among the key comments received — so no one can now call it invented. When, late in the consultation, the council said there were no firm plans to use CPO powers, it was still plainly a plan to make a plan, and by then trust was running thin.
Worse, at paragraph 2.67 the plan committed the council to improve existing residential neighbourhoods - but only those outside of the five Regeneration Areas. Land at Rowner was the only occupied residential estate marked for replacement housing, and the only estate placed beyond the reach of that improvement commitment. Rowner alone faced the one thing no other estate faced, while being denied the neighbourhood-improvement every other estate was promised. Doomed to decline, with CPO the ultimate exit. All elements of the plan making the site more viable for developers and providing nothing for residents.
Third - was the spectre of Phase 1. RA8 repeatedly invoked Phase 1 of the Rowner Renewal as a model to replicate. In Rowner, Phase 1 is not viewed as an unmitigated success. Families were separated. Low compulsory-purchase values left people unable to buy elsewhere and trapped them back into renting. Promises, by the council and developers, were made and never kept. A community that lived through that read "compulsory purchase" in a council document once again and understood exactly what it meant. At no point had the council conducted a review of lessons learned in Phase 1, and this time there was no consortium prepared, no timeline ready, and no funding identified. So an uncertain but very real threat, this planning blight, was set to hover over the whole community for, as the Local Plan puts it, likely well beyond 2042.
How did this council respond? Residents asked reasonable questions about these replacement homes and were told by most that they were mistaken. “Your houses are safe, ladies and gentlemen” said one particularly misinformed councillor. A council spokesperson told the press there was "no truth whatsoever" in their concerns. Our own Member of Parliament said anyone suggesting the plan threatened homes was spreading "untruths" - while, in the same statement, calling some of those homes "lower quality." The fear was dismissed and the insult confirmed, in a single breath. When the hastily arranged Rowner meeting came late in the consultation period, officers dodged the guarantees residents were actually seeking. How can our homes be safe if there is a plan to replace them?
I know what case is being made in answer to all this. It is that the fear was manufactured - and manufactured by me, for political gain, at my own neighbours' expense. I will not spend my time here defending my character, because I do not need to. The council's own account defeats itself without any help from me.
On the 1st July, the P&O Board recommended deleting the policy - in the council's own words, to "allay" resident concerns. Hold that against what the council also says: that those concerns were baseless scaremongering.
You do not withdraw a sound, justified, effective and legal policy in answer to a rumour you say is invented. So the council has left itself a choice. Either the policy was defensible - in which case there was no need to delete it and you could have taken it to the Inspector and let any scaremongering collapse under independent examination. Or it could not be defended - in which case the residents who opposed it were right on the merits.
There is no version of this council's own account in which the policy was sound and the concern was invented.
Councillor Jessop told the Board that "the engagement was good, and it's good to have people make decisions about where they live." He added he would have preferred RA8 modified rather than deleted. I still disagree with him about the scaremongering, but I do agree with both his substantive points. The engagement was good. People should make decisions about where they live.
On how I have been named in this chamber, I will say only this. An allegation was made at the Sub Board that residents lost house sales because of my actions, and not bizarrely because of the bad policy it was voting to delete - this is a serious claim about my neighbours' finances, made against a named individual, offered without a shred of evidence then or since, and yet the minutes fail to attribute it to a named Member. For the minutes that is all I will say, because this has always been about disrespect toward Rowner, and not about me.
What, then, do I ask of this council today?
Simply that you understand this: Rowner does not have a housing problem.
Despite decades of indifference and neglect, Rowner has good homes that people own, maintain and improve themselves, we have beautiful green space, and a community that has learned to look after itself. The council's own consultation report now says so.
What Rowner has is a council problem. Rowner does not need to be replaced - it needs to stop being treated differently. It needs the ordinary things every other estate expects and gets: repaired roads and pavements, clean and lighted streets, maintained play spaces, parking that works, funded community facilities.
Deleting RA8 delivers none of these. So I ask three things.
One. That tonight's vote is understood for what it is - not a communications failure corrected, but a harmful policy withdrawn because it could not be defended.
Two. That the commitment given in this chamber on the 4th March 2026, to support a resident-led neighbourhood planning vehicle for Rowner, is honoured. To date it has not been. Rowner is entitled to write its own future, and that mechanism exists.
Three. That this council holds to its own word. On the 1st July, in answer to my question, the Leader told this chamber that Pride in Place is "an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities." I welcome that, and ask only that it be honoured. Because in answering a following question, the Leader also said that Rowner's future priorities will now be progressed through Pride in Place "rather than through a planning policy." Both cannot hold. A time-limited programme cannot be the route that replaces a planning policy and, at the same time, not a replacement for anything. If Pride in Place is the successor, then something time-limited, with no statutory weight has been asked to do a job the law gives to this council. I asked that night for a simple commitment that Rowner would receive investment from core budgets and statutory duties on equal terms with every other neighbourhood. Rowner did not get that commitment. So I ask again: keep Pride in Place additional, and do not let it become the answer to a question it was never meant to address. It is Rowner's money, given because of historic indifference, to be spent on priorities by Rowner's own Neighbourhood Board. It is not a substitute for what this council already owes this community.
I am only one resident member of that board, and I do not presume to speak for it. I speak only for myself, as a proud member of Rowner’s community.
In closing: Rowner has been told, implicitly over a long period, that it does not understand its own interests. Tonight it turns out that it did. Not only that though, Rowner now knows it can stand up for itself and never again has to accept being treated as second class.
I support the recommendation before you. Thank you.
Public Questions
There was one public question from Mr Martin Pepper to the Leader of the Council.
The Chairman of Housing Board answered the question.
The Council has a statutory responsibility to provide a homelessness service to ensure it meets its duties, powers and obligations to people who are at risk of homelessness or who are homeless in accordance with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018.
In the budget the Ending Rough Sleeping for Good strategy (2022), the Domestic Abuse Act (2023) and the Renters Reform Act (2025) appear along side the phrase "additional burdens". Does the Leader consider the measures themselves to be additional burdens on the council, or was the phrase intended to refer solely to the additional statutory duties and associated costs arising from the strategy's implementation?"
The reference to "additional burdens" within the budget relates to the additional statutory duties, service demands and associated financial implications arising from changes in legislation and Government policy. It does not refer to the policy objectives themselves.
These include enhanced prevention duties, increased support for victims of domestic abuse, greater intervention to prevent homelessness, and additional requirements in relation to accommodation and tenancy sustainment.
The term "additional burdens" is therefore used in the context of the additional operational requirements, staffing resources, commissioning arrangements and financial costs necessary for the Council to discharge these statutory responsibilities effectively.
The Housing Service continues to review and adapt its service delivery to ensure it meets these legislative requirements whilst delivering the best possible outcomes for residents who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
I speak in qualified support of the recommendation before you. Item 7: Gosport Borough Local Plan in particular the Deletion of Policy RA8.
Qualified, because I had hoped for something better for Rowner than the removal of a bad policy - and we provided many suggestions about how it could be made better. What Rowner deserved was a plan made with it. What Rowner got was a plan done to it. Deleting RA8 takes away a threat. What actually gets put in its place is the question I will end on.
But, the removal of a policy that singled out one community for worse treatment than any other part of this borough is a victory regardless. And it is a victory that belongs to the residents of Rowner, some sat up in that gallery.
Rowner will no longer put up with insulting and degrading treatment by this council, its members, or any other institution. It is time for Rowner to be treated fairly and with the respect it is due.
By this council's own count, 154 of the 189 representations to this consultation came from residents of Rowner. That is not misinformation. That is more than eight in ten responses to a borough-wide plan coming from a single estate - a community reading a 486-page document, understanding it, and answering it in writing, by the deadline, jumping through the obtuse process set up for them. May I go as far as to suggest that is what “the people versus the establishment” really looks like.
The council was invited to defend its policy with evidence. It chose not to. At the Policy and Organisation Board on the 1st July it recommended deletion instead, that sub-board agreed, and you are asked to confirm that decision tonight. I want to spell out what that means. This Local Plan will still go to examination before a national Planning Inspector. Rowner residents were prepared to give their evidence there. They will not now be heard on RA8, because this council chose to withdraw the policy rather than defend it. I want the record to show that Rowner residents were ready, and the council was not.
So to what did Rowner residents object so vehemently? It was not a spurious rumour. It was the plan's own words.
First - was what this policy said about the place we live. RA8 promised "replacement new homes." But replacing what? The plan drew a vast boundary, treated the land within it as previously developed and therefore ripe for redevelopment, yet never counted how many homes were inside it, how many residents affected, how many families. It labelled their homes as poor in "quality and condition," called this "degraded stock" to be "replaced," and blamed "problems associated with parts of the Rowner estate" on "poor design and layout." Not one of those statements is evidenced anywhere in the plan. No targeted survey, no condition assessment, no figures, no record of a visit to Rowner. Just insults, slurs and assumptions that are unwarranted and unwelcome.
154Rowner residents said as much, and the council wrote it down. Its own summary of the consultation - Appendix 6 - records the objection that the policy was "inadequately evidenced, relying on outdated assumptions of Rowner before the previous regeneration scheme." It now records residents describing Rowner as a good place to live with "well-maintained environments," and residents' own account of the insulation, cladding and renewable energy measures they had funded themselves. The area under RA8 now has better EPC ratings than much of Gosport. We have a healthy tenure mix. The council logged every one of these points. It has never answered one of them on the evidence. It chose to delete the policy instead. The council described a community that had spent two decades investing in itself as degraded stock, without so much as looking to check.
Second - was compulsory purchase, and disinvestment. Paragraph 2.70, page 48, of the Local Plan said: "Gosport Borough Council will use compulsory purchase powers where appropriate to assemble urban land parcels to deliver new housing … particularly on complicated sites which have land in multiple ownership." RA8 designated Rowner as exactly such a site. Residents put those two statements side by side and drew the obvious conclusion. That was not scaremongering. That was reading. And the council's own consultation record now lists "concern about using CPO powers" among the key comments received — so no one can now call it invented. When, late in the consultation, the council said there were no firm plans to use CPO powers, it was still plainly a plan to make a plan, and by then trust was running thin.
Worse, at paragraph 2.67 the plan committed the council to improve existing residential neighbourhoods - but only those outside of the five Regeneration Areas. Land at Rowner was the only occupied residential estate marked for replacement housing, and the only estate placed beyond the reach of that improvement commitment. Rowner alone faced the one thing no other estate faced, while being denied the neighbourhood-improvement every other estate was promised. Doomed to decline, with CPO the ultimate exit. All elements of the plan making the site more viable for developers and providing nothing for residents.
Third - was the spectre of Phase 1. RA8 repeatedly invoked Phase 1 of the Rowner Renewal as a model to replicate. In Rowner, Phase 1 is not viewed as an unmitigated success. Families were separated. Low compulsory-purchase values left people unable to buy elsewhere and trapped them back into renting. Promises, by the council and developers, were made and never kept. A community that lived through that read "compulsory purchase" in a council document once again and understood exactly what it meant. At no point had the council conducted a review of lessons learned in Phase 1, and this time there was no consortium prepared, no timeline ready, and no funding identified. So an uncertain but very real threat, this planning blight, was set to hover over the whole community for, as the Local Plan puts it, likely well beyond 2042.
How did this council respond? Residents asked reasonable questions about these replacement homes and were told by most that they were mistaken. “Your houses are safe, ladies and gentlemen” said one particularly misinformed councillor. A council spokesperson told the press there was "no truth whatsoever" in their concerns. Our own Member of Parliament said anyone suggesting the plan threatened homes was spreading "untruths" - while, in the same statement, calling some of those homes "lower quality." The fear was dismissed and the insult confirmed, in a single breath. When the hastily arranged Rowner meeting came late in the consultation period, officers dodged the guarantees residents were actually seeking. How can our homes be safe if there is a plan to replace them?
I know what case is being made in answer to all this. It is that the fear was manufactured - and manufactured by me, for political gain, at my own neighbours' expense. I will not spend my time here defending my character, because I do not need to. The council's own account defeats itself without any help from me.
On the 1st July, the P&O Board recommended deleting the policy - in the council's own words, to "allay" resident concerns. Hold that against what the council also says: that those concerns were baseless scaremongering.
You do not withdraw a sound, justified, effective and legal policy in answer to a rumour you say is invented. So the council has left itself a choice. Either the policy was defensible - in which case there was no need to delete it and you could have taken it to the Inspector and let any scaremongering collapse under independent examination. Or it could not be defended - in which case the residents who opposed it were right on the merits.
There is no version of this council's own account in which the policy was sound and the concern was invented.
Councillor Jessop told the Board that "the engagement was good, and it's good to have people make decisions about where they live." He added he would have preferred RA8 modified rather than deleted. I still disagree with him about the scaremongering, but I do agree with both his substantive points. The engagement was good. People should make decisions about where they live.
On how I have been named in this chamber, I will say only this. An allegation was made at the Sub Board that residents lost house sales because of my actions, and not bizarrely because of the bad policy it was voting to delete - this is a serious claim about my neighbours' finances, made against a named individual, offered without a shred of evidence then or since, and yet the minutes fail to attribute it to a named Member. For the minutes that is all I will say, because this has always been about disrespect toward Rowner, and not about me.
What, then, do I ask of this council today?
Simply that you understand this: Rowner does not have a housing problem.
Despite decades of indifference and neglect, Rowner has good homes that people own, maintain and improve themselves, we have beautiful green space, and a community that has learned to look after itself. The council's own consultation report now says so.
What Rowner has is a council problem. Rowner does not need to be replaced - it needs to stop being treated differently. It needs the ordinary things every other estate expects and gets: repaired roads and pavements, clean and lighted streets, maintained play spaces, parking that works, funded community facilities.
Deleting RA8 delivers none of these. So I ask three things.
One. That tonight's vote is understood for what it is - not a communications failure corrected, but a harmful policy withdrawn because it could not be defended.
Two. That the commitment given in this chamber on the 4th March 2026, to support a resident-led neighbourhood planning vehicle for Rowner, is honoured. To date it has not been. Rowner is entitled to write its own future, and that mechanism exists.
Three. That this council holds to its own word. On the 1st July, in answer to my question, the Leader told this chamber that Pride in Place is "an additional investment for Rowner, not a replacement for the Council's ongoing responsibilities." I welcome that, and ask only that it be honoured. Because in answering a following question, the Leader also said that Rowner's future priorities will now be progressed through Pride in Place "rather than through a planning policy." Both cannot hold. A time-limited programme cannot be the route that replaces a planning policy and, at the same time, not a replacement for anything. If Pride in Place is the successor, then something time-limited, with no statutory weight has been asked to do a job the law gives to this council. I asked that night for a simple commitment that Rowner would receive investment from core budgets and statutory duties on equal terms with every other neighbourhood. Rowner did not get that commitment. So I ask again: keep Pride in Place additional, and do not let it become the answer to a question it was never meant to address. It is Rowner's money, given because of historic indifference, to be spent on priorities by Rowner's own Neighbourhood Board. It is not a substitute for what this council already owes this community.
I am only one resident member of that board, and I do not presume to speak for it. I speak only for myself, as a proud member of Rowner’s community.
In closing: Rowner has been told, implicitly over a long period, that it does not understand its own interests. Tonight it turns out that it did. Not only that though, Rowner now knows it can stand up for itself and never again has to accept being treated as second class.
I support the recommendation before you. Thank you.
Public Questions
There was one public question from Mr Martin Pepper to the Leader of the Council.
The Chairman of Housing Board answered the question.
The Council has a statutory responsibility to provide a homelessness service to ensure it meets its duties, powers and obligations to people who are at risk of homelessness or who are homeless in accordance with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018.
In the budget the Ending Rough Sleeping for Good strategy (2022), the Domestic Abuse Act (2023) and the Renters Reform Act (2025) appear along side the phrase "additional burdens". Does the Leader consider the measures themselves to be additional burdens on the council, or was the phrase intended to refer solely to the additional statutory duties and associated costs arising from the strategy's implementation?"
The reference to "additional burdens" within the budget relates to the additional statutory duties, service demands and associated financial implications arising from changes in legislation and Government policy. It does not refer to the policy objectives themselves.
These include enhanced prevention duties, increased support for victims of domestic abuse, greater intervention to prevent homelessness, and additional requirements in relation to accommodation and tenancy sustainment.
The term "additional burdens" is therefore used in the context of the additional operational requirements, staffing resources, commissioning arrangements and financial costs necessary for the Council to discharge these statutory responsibilities effectively.
The Housing Service continues to review and adapt its service delivery to ensure it meets these legislative requirements whilst delivering the best possible outcomes for residents who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
6
Questions (if any) pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.3
NOTE: Members are reminded that Standing Order No. 3.3 requires that Notice of Question pursuant to that Standing Order must be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON TUESDAY 14 JULY 2026 )
Minutes
There were four Members questions.
Councillor Jacobs to the Leader of the Council
The Policy and Organisation Board met on January 2nd 2025, discussing in secret, away from the public and press the ‘Grant of direct award for landscaping contract as the initial phase of the redevelopment of former Gosport Bus Station/The People's Park’
The details of the awarded tender for this work is not anywhere online for viewing, and obviously the agenda report pack is redacted.
What was the cost of the newly laid turf aspect of the People’s Park, including ground preparation for the turf, water tankers ordered, staffing and tap installation, along with any associated costs not mentioned?
Thank you for your question, Cllr Jacobs.
This administration has been clear from day one that we will take ownership of the challenges we inherited, we will be honest with residents, and we will be transparent in the way we make decisions. We will not shy away from difficult issues, nor will we seek to hide them.
In relation to this project, the Policy and Organisation Board on 2 January 2025 considered the first phase of the Waterfront Regeneration Project, specifically the park element. Part of that report was considered in an exempt session because it was deemed to contain commercially sensitive information relating to live tendered works; however, it was not released after the award of the tender under the previous administration.
Unlike in the past, this administration is committed to making information available wherever we lawfully can.
Historic reports and supporting papers that can now be released are being reviewed and uploaded to the Council's website as part of that process. In the meantime, as a member of the Council, you are also welcome to request access to those papers through the appropriate democratic process, and where they are no longer exempt, you can share these.
Turning to your specific 2nd question, the estimated cost of the newly laid turf works, including subsoil, topsoil, and the turf itself, is £112,360, which would have been in the original estimated costings.
Unfortunately, unforeseen issues, including the discovery of contaminated materials and variable weather conditions, delayed completion of the works, and then a prolonged spell of exceptionally hot weather. As a result, additional watering became necessary. The estimated cost of watering the newly laid grass, including water tankers, equipment hire, and additional site resources, is £21,825 by the end of this week.
We will continue to be open with residents about those costs and ensure they are reported transparently. In fact, an update will be presented to the Economic Regeneration and Skills Board tomorrow evening, marking the start of the project's open public scrutiny under the Council's new governance arrangements.
Councillor Stanton to the Leader of the Council
Gosport Police Station was first announced as reopening in 2022. Since then, residents have repeatedly been told that the station was undergoing building works and would be reopening soon. Public updates have been issued throughout 2023, 2024, 2025 and now 2026, including videos and statements on social media from Donna Jones, (Police and Crime Commissioner) Lesley Meenaghan (Ward Councillor) Caroline Dinenage (MP) and James Cleverly (Ex Home Secretary).
However, despite these repeated assurances, the station remains closed. In a recent update, the Police and Crime Commissioner stated that Gosport Police Station will now not open until 2027, with building works expected to continue throughout 2026. This further delays the opening of Gosport police station - which was originally closed on the conservatives watch.
Given the repeated announcements over the past four years, can the Conservative-run Council confirm - What is it's current understanding of when Gosport Police Station will reopen to the public?
Many residents will feel understandably frustrated that a reopening first announced in 2022 has now slipped to at least 2027.
I will provide some clear facts in my reply
In 2016, the independent PCC Simon Hayes published an estate strategy (2013–2016) that involved rationalising the police estate and closures. This would not have been part of any Gosport Council or conservative decision-making.
In November 2016, neighbourhood policing moved out, and in reviewing the situation and negotiations with the council, the then Conservative PCC Michael Lane moved the front desk into the Council.
In 2021, newly elected Conservative PCC Donna Jones halted the planned sale, signalling a change in direction.
In 2022, PCC Donna Jones announced the reopening of the station with a possible opening in 2024.
The 2-year delay has been a consequence of
· Deterioration of the building since 2016
· 2 bat surveys pushed it back by 6 months
· There were separate planning applications needed just for the demolition of the western wing and the main building due to parking.
· Project costs and inflation
Do I understand residents' frustration? Absolutely. People want to see progress, and so do I.
However, delivering a complex refurbishment of an ageing public building that had previously been earmarked for disposal, particularly in the context of a highly challenging construction sector, inevitably brings significant challenges.
Major work started in November last year, and work continues, maybe unnoticed as it is inside. Recent projections state that it will open in 2027, and we will work with the PCC to ensure this project is delivered to achieve the joint aim of making people feel safer.
Once complete, it will house key policing teams including Neighbourhood Policing, CID and District Policing. Some of our bravest public servants, with the work environment they deserve.
Supplementary question.
Given the repeated pattern of misleading information and broken promises will the Leader commit to working with the OPCC to establish a timetable and update the Council.
Answer: The Council would only be involved in the planning process, and had no jurisdiction on the planning process, but there would be continuing conversations with the OPCC and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary to ensure it reopens.
Councillor Sparrow to the Leader of the Council
There has been a great deal of commentary on social media and in the community regarding the political arrangements at Gosport Borough Council. In particular, posts made by former Council Leader Councillor Peter Chegwyn appear to suggest that Gosport Borough Council is being run by a formal Conservative/Reform UK administration.
This does not reflect our understanding of the current governance arrangements.
For the benefit of residents and to ensure there is no misunderstanding, will the Leader of the Council confirm the current political position of Gosport Borough Council? Specifically, can he confirm whether there is a formal coalition or joint administration between the Conservative and Reform UK Groups?
I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position, as it is important that residents receive accurate information rather than relying on speculation or commentary on social media.
To be clear, there is no formal coalition agreement and no joint administration between the Conservative Group and the Reform UK Group.
The Conservative Group forms the administration of Gosport Borough Council, and as elected chairman of policy and organisation, I have responsibility for policy, strategy, finance, and corporate matters.
I am aware that a variety of comments have been made on social media by members of different political parties.
I would simply say this:
I am not interested in personal attacks or online squabbles, and cartoon AI-generated games, nor would it appear that most of our residents.
There is a job to be done!
Governing and leading means accepting responsibility for every decision the administration makes and doing the best with the hand they have been dealt.
Successes and challenges alike belong to the administration, us the Conservatives.
Other political online claims of ownership and achievement of decisions when they are popular, whilst distancing themselves when difficult decisions have to be made, are misleading.
My focus remains exactly as it was on day one: providing stable, honest leadership, working respectfully across the chamber where possible, making decisions transparently, and always putting the interests of the residents of Gosport first.
Councillor Marshall to the Leader of the Council
Gosport Bespoke Markets have reportedly been operating without a valid contract for May and June 2026 following the expiry of the previous agreement earlier this year. This has understandably raised concerns amongst traders, residents, and local businesses about the future of the market in both the immediate and longer term.
Can the Leader of the Council confirm, firstly, what action is being taken to ensure that the planned summer markets will return to Gosport High Street? And secondly; what actions are being taken to regularise the contractual arrangements which will protect the long-term future of Gosport Market?
Firstly, I want to reassure residents, traders and businesses that this administration fully recognises the importance of Gosport Market. Our markets are an important part of the economy; they support local businesses, increase footfall, and contribute to the area's vitality.
For clarity, the following relates to the bespoke markets - When we became the administration, it became apparent that the arrangements surrounding the bespoke market contract required urgent attention. That was not the position we wanted to inherit, but it was one we had to resolve quickly and responsibly.
The previous contract for the bespoke markets came to an end on 25th April this year, and no new contractual negotiations were concluded before the end of this contract period; then we entered the pre-election period, and this was still not resolved. Short-term waivers were then issued for the bespoke markets to continue to operate in May and June, until Nest and Anchor recently withdrew.
I can confirm that I have never been presented with, nor refused to sign, any new contract relating to these arrangements. Suggestions online are simply incorrect.
In relation to future bespoke markets, I am pleased to state that yesterday a press release was issued and procurement started for this year’s bespoke market operations, which is a responsible and fair approach due to lapses in contract.
Looking beyond the immediate procurement and to regularise the contractual arrangements, we see our markets as an integral part of Gosport's wider economic future. As we develop our Economic Masterplan, our markets will play an important role in supporting town centre regeneration,
A Report will be prepared for the September Economic Regeneration & Skills Board to consider longer-term future options and continue our commitment to being transparent and strengthening contractual governance.
Councillor Jacobs to the Leader of the Council
The Policy and Organisation Board met on January 2nd 2025, discussing in secret, away from the public and press the ‘Grant of direct award for landscaping contract as the initial phase of the redevelopment of former Gosport Bus Station/The People's Park’
The details of the awarded tender for this work is not anywhere online for viewing, and obviously the agenda report pack is redacted.
What was the cost of the newly laid turf aspect of the People’s Park, including ground preparation for the turf, water tankers ordered, staffing and tap installation, along with any associated costs not mentioned?
Thank you for your question, Cllr Jacobs.
This administration has been clear from day one that we will take ownership of the challenges we inherited, we will be honest with residents, and we will be transparent in the way we make decisions. We will not shy away from difficult issues, nor will we seek to hide them.
In relation to this project, the Policy and Organisation Board on 2 January 2025 considered the first phase of the Waterfront Regeneration Project, specifically the park element. Part of that report was considered in an exempt session because it was deemed to contain commercially sensitive information relating to live tendered works; however, it was not released after the award of the tender under the previous administration.
Unlike in the past, this administration is committed to making information available wherever we lawfully can.
Historic reports and supporting papers that can now be released are being reviewed and uploaded to the Council's website as part of that process. In the meantime, as a member of the Council, you are also welcome to request access to those papers through the appropriate democratic process, and where they are no longer exempt, you can share these.
Turning to your specific 2nd question, the estimated cost of the newly laid turf works, including subsoil, topsoil, and the turf itself, is £112,360, which would have been in the original estimated costings.
Unfortunately, unforeseen issues, including the discovery of contaminated materials and variable weather conditions, delayed completion of the works, and then a prolonged spell of exceptionally hot weather. As a result, additional watering became necessary. The estimated cost of watering the newly laid grass, including water tankers, equipment hire, and additional site resources, is £21,825 by the end of this week.
We will continue to be open with residents about those costs and ensure they are reported transparently. In fact, an update will be presented to the Economic Regeneration and Skills Board tomorrow evening, marking the start of the project's open public scrutiny under the Council's new governance arrangements.
Councillor Stanton to the Leader of the Council
Gosport Police Station was first announced as reopening in 2022. Since then, residents have repeatedly been told that the station was undergoing building works and would be reopening soon. Public updates have been issued throughout 2023, 2024, 2025 and now 2026, including videos and statements on social media from Donna Jones, (Police and Crime Commissioner) Lesley Meenaghan (Ward Councillor) Caroline Dinenage (MP) and James Cleverly (Ex Home Secretary).
However, despite these repeated assurances, the station remains closed. In a recent update, the Police and Crime Commissioner stated that Gosport Police Station will now not open until 2027, with building works expected to continue throughout 2026. This further delays the opening of Gosport police station - which was originally closed on the conservatives watch.
Given the repeated announcements over the past four years, can the Conservative-run Council confirm - What is it's current understanding of when Gosport Police Station will reopen to the public?
Many residents will feel understandably frustrated that a reopening first announced in 2022 has now slipped to at least 2027.
I will provide some clear facts in my reply
In 2016, the independent PCC Simon Hayes published an estate strategy (2013–2016) that involved rationalising the police estate and closures. This would not have been part of any Gosport Council or conservative decision-making.
In November 2016, neighbourhood policing moved out, and in reviewing the situation and negotiations with the council, the then Conservative PCC Michael Lane moved the front desk into the Council.
In 2021, newly elected Conservative PCC Donna Jones halted the planned sale, signalling a change in direction.
In 2022, PCC Donna Jones announced the reopening of the station with a possible opening in 2024.
The 2-year delay has been a consequence of
· Deterioration of the building since 2016
· 2 bat surveys pushed it back by 6 months
· There were separate planning applications needed just for the demolition of the western wing and the main building due to parking.
· Project costs and inflation
Do I understand residents' frustration? Absolutely. People want to see progress, and so do I.
However, delivering a complex refurbishment of an ageing public building that had previously been earmarked for disposal, particularly in the context of a highly challenging construction sector, inevitably brings significant challenges.
Major work started in November last year, and work continues, maybe unnoticed as it is inside. Recent projections state that it will open in 2027, and we will work with the PCC to ensure this project is delivered to achieve the joint aim of making people feel safer.
Once complete, it will house key policing teams including Neighbourhood Policing, CID and District Policing. Some of our bravest public servants, with the work environment they deserve.
Supplementary question.
Given the repeated pattern of misleading information and broken promises will the Leader commit to working with the OPCC to establish a timetable and update the Council.
Answer: The Council would only be involved in the planning process, and had no jurisdiction on the planning process, but there would be continuing conversations with the OPCC and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary to ensure it reopens.
Councillor Sparrow to the Leader of the Council
There has been a great deal of commentary on social media and in the community regarding the political arrangements at Gosport Borough Council. In particular, posts made by former Council Leader Councillor Peter Chegwyn appear to suggest that Gosport Borough Council is being run by a formal Conservative/Reform UK administration.
This does not reflect our understanding of the current governance arrangements.
For the benefit of residents and to ensure there is no misunderstanding, will the Leader of the Council confirm the current political position of Gosport Borough Council? Specifically, can he confirm whether there is a formal coalition or joint administration between the Conservative and Reform UK Groups?
I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position, as it is important that residents receive accurate information rather than relying on speculation or commentary on social media.
To be clear, there is no formal coalition agreement and no joint administration between the Conservative Group and the Reform UK Group.
The Conservative Group forms the administration of Gosport Borough Council, and as elected chairman of policy and organisation, I have responsibility for policy, strategy, finance, and corporate matters.
I am aware that a variety of comments have been made on social media by members of different political parties.
I would simply say this:
I am not interested in personal attacks or online squabbles, and cartoon AI-generated games, nor would it appear that most of our residents.
There is a job to be done!
Governing and leading means accepting responsibility for every decision the administration makes and doing the best with the hand they have been dealt.
Successes and challenges alike belong to the administration, us the Conservatives.
Other political online claims of ownership and achievement of decisions when they are popular, whilst distancing themselves when difficult decisions have to be made, are misleading.
My focus remains exactly as it was on day one: providing stable, honest leadership, working respectfully across the chamber where possible, making decisions transparently, and always putting the interests of the residents of Gosport first.
Councillor Marshall to the Leader of the Council
Gosport Bespoke Markets have reportedly been operating without a valid contract for May and June 2026 following the expiry of the previous agreement earlier this year. This has understandably raised concerns amongst traders, residents, and local businesses about the future of the market in both the immediate and longer term.
Can the Leader of the Council confirm, firstly, what action is being taken to ensure that the planned summer markets will return to Gosport High Street? And secondly; what actions are being taken to regularise the contractual arrangements which will protect the long-term future of Gosport Market?
Firstly, I want to reassure residents, traders and businesses that this administration fully recognises the importance of Gosport Market. Our markets are an important part of the economy; they support local businesses, increase footfall, and contribute to the area's vitality.
For clarity, the following relates to the bespoke markets - When we became the administration, it became apparent that the arrangements surrounding the bespoke market contract required urgent attention. That was not the position we wanted to inherit, but it was one we had to resolve quickly and responsibly.
The previous contract for the bespoke markets came to an end on 25th April this year, and no new contractual negotiations were concluded before the end of this contract period; then we entered the pre-election period, and this was still not resolved. Short-term waivers were then issued for the bespoke markets to continue to operate in May and June, until Nest and Anchor recently withdrew.
I can confirm that I have never been presented with, nor refused to sign, any new contract relating to these arrangements. Suggestions online are simply incorrect.
In relation to future bespoke markets, I am pleased to state that yesterday a press release was issued and procurement started for this year’s bespoke market operations, which is a responsible and fair approach due to lapses in contract.
Looking beyond the immediate procurement and to regularise the contractual arrangements, we see our markets as an integral part of Gosport's wider economic future. As we develop our Economic Masterplan, our markets will play an important role in supporting town centre regeneration,
A Report will be prepared for the September Economic Regeneration & Skills Board to consider longer-term future options and continue our commitment to being transparent and strengthening contractual governance.
7
PART I RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARDS OF THE COUNCIL
To consider the Part I recommendations of the Boards of the Council.
Policy and Organisation Board – 24 June 2026
Policy and Organisation Board – 24 June 2026
Attachments:
- Document P and O Part 1 07 Jul 2026
- Document Addendum to the Publication Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042-July 2026- FINAL BOARD VERSION 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 1-Addendum to GBLP 2042 July 2026 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 2-Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal June 2026 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 3-Addendum to the HRA June 2026 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 4- Reg 19 Local Plan FEB 2026- Board Report 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 5-Working copy Summary of Representations to Reg 19 Board Version 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 6-Summary of comments Rowner 07 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 7 - GBC IIA - GBLP 2042 Addendum 07 Jul 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report Head of Planning Policy, presented to the Policy and Organisation Board and recommended to Full Council for approval.
The Council was advised that there had been robust and full debate at the Board and that the Policy was for the Town and looked at regeneration opportunities and impacts.
RESOLVED:
- 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 Council was advised that there had been robust and full debate at the Board and that the Policy was for the Town and looked at regeneration opportunities and impacts.
RESOLVED:
- 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
8
Notice of Motion
NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 2.25
FULL COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 15 JULY 2026
HASLAR IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE
Proposer Councillor Scard
Seconder Councillor Beech
This Council expresses its serious concern and disappointment that the Home Office is pursuing the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre through the Crown Development process, despite calls from Dame Caroline Dinenage MP for the proposals to be considered and determined through the normal local planning process as any resident or business would be required to do.
This Council is also concerned by the continued lack of transparency surrounding the proposals. Although documents have now been published following months of delay, a number have been heavily redacted and significant uncertainty remains regarding the full details of the development and the number of individuals who may ultimately be accommodated at the site.
This Council notes that the proposals produced under the previous Conservative Government did not include three-storey buildings. These plans have since been changed under the Labour Government, with the current proposals now including buildings of this scale. They are therefore materially different from those previously presented to residents.
This Council strongly opposes any proposals that include three-storey buildings and considers it unacceptable for such a significant change to be made without proper and transparent engagement with the local community.
This Council therefore requests that the Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary to express the Council’s discontent with the use of the Crown Development process, its concerns regarding the continued secrecy, lack of transparency and redaction of important information, and its opposition to the inclusion of three-storey buildings at the site.
Proposer Councillor Scard
Seconder Councillor Beech
FULL COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 15 JULY 2026
HASLAR IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE
Proposer Councillor Scard
Seconder Councillor Beech
This Council expresses its serious concern and disappointment that the Home Office is pursuing the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre through the Crown Development process, despite calls from Dame Caroline Dinenage MP for the proposals to be considered and determined through the normal local planning process as any resident or business would be required to do.
This Council is also concerned by the continued lack of transparency surrounding the proposals. Although documents have now been published following months of delay, a number have been heavily redacted and significant uncertainty remains regarding the full details of the development and the number of individuals who may ultimately be accommodated at the site.
This Council notes that the proposals produced under the previous Conservative Government did not include three-storey buildings. These plans have since been changed under the Labour Government, with the current proposals now including buildings of this scale. They are therefore materially different from those previously presented to residents.
This Council strongly opposes any proposals that include three-storey buildings and considers it unacceptable for such a significant change to be made without proper and transparent engagement with the local community.
This Council therefore requests that the Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary to express the Council’s discontent with the use of the Crown Development process, its concerns regarding the continued secrecy, lack of transparency and redaction of important information, and its opposition to the inclusion of three-storey buildings at the site.
Proposer Councillor Scard
Seconder Councillor Beech
Minutes
Consideration was given to a notice of motion submitted.
It was agreed that standing order 4.6.1 would be suspended to allow the motion to be considered at Full Council.
An amendment was proposed as follows.
The Council expresses its serious concern and disappointment that the Home Office is pursuing the proposal expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre through the Crown Development process. Council notes the publicly available representations made by the MP for Gosport to the Home Secretary requesting that the proposals be considered and determined through normal local planning process. Council recognises that this reflects a wider principle of local democratic accountability and the importance of ensuring that communities have confidence in the planning process, irrespective of the applicants.
This Council is also concerned by the continued lack of transparency surrounding the proposals. Although documents have now been published following months of delay, a number have been heavily redacted, limiting public scrutiny and undermining transparency in the planning process at a time when openness and community confidence are essential. Significant uncertainty remains regarding the full details of the development and the number of individuals who may ultimately be accommodated at the site.
The Council notes that the original proposal did not include development under the Crown Development process (Crown development route, 1st May 2025) nor did it include the size and scale now detailed in the plans. They are therefore materially different from those originally presented to residents in 2024.
This council express concerns over the material changes in scale and size and considers it unacceptable for such significant changes to be brought forward without proper open and transparent engagement with the local community.
This Council therefore requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Home Secretary to express the Council’s discontent with the use of the Crown Development process, its concerns regarding the continued secrecy, lack of transparency and reflection of information, and the establishment of a community liaison panel (CPL) this Council believes that as one of the major applications to proceed under the new Crown Development planning process, the Haslar proposal should set the benchmark for openness transparency and public accountability.
Proposer – Councillor Scard
Seconder – Councillor Carter
It was acknowledged that the proposed amendment had been collaborative between the proposer and the seconder, requesting transparency and making it clear that the plans had changed since the public engagement and that this had been unacceptable. The demand for a Community liaison panel showed the importance of the public voice on the proposal.
The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer detailed advice to the Members regarding pre determination.
Members expressed concern that there was no recourse to the public or GBC to have engagement as had been shown with applying directly to the planning inspectorate.
This seemed at odds with the Government’s current desire to push for devolution, rather than have decisions made at national level.
Concern was expressed that there would be an extension of the proposal into the car park that had recently been secured under lease. It was advised that this funding had allowed for investment in the town.
The motion was supported and concern was reiterated about the ability for decisions to be taken this way. What had been advertised at consultation events was not was had been proposed.
It was reiterated that with the change in legislation of the Regulatory Board later in the year planning powers were being removed.
Concern was expressed that significant public money was being spent on a development outside of the normal planning process and felt the location was wrong for the proposal.
Concern was reiterated that there was no Community Liaison Panel and that whilst the issues of vehicles in the locality had been improved, residents continued not to be listened to and it was essential that there was a Community Liaison Panel moving forward and that the local residents voices were heard.
The Council was advised that the amendment was necessary as a result of the publication of the planning documents, following the agenda publication.
A vote was taken on the amendment and this was agreed.
A vote was taken on the substantive motion and it was requested that there be a named vote.
FOR the proposal Councillors Beech, Bond, Burgess, Carter, Casey, Chegwyn, Cox, Earle, Finn, Hayes, Huggins, Jacobs, Jessop, Johnston, Marshall, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Newman, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard, Sparrow, Stanton, Towell, Westerby and the Mayor.
AGAINT the proposal: None
ABSTENTION: None.
It was agreed that standing order 4.6.1 would be suspended to allow the motion to be considered at Full Council.
An amendment was proposed as follows.
The Council expresses its serious concern and disappointment that the Home Office is pursuing the proposal expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre through the Crown Development process. Council notes the publicly available representations made by the MP for Gosport to the Home Secretary requesting that the proposals be considered and determined through normal local planning process. Council recognises that this reflects a wider principle of local democratic accountability and the importance of ensuring that communities have confidence in the planning process, irrespective of the applicants.
This Council is also concerned by the continued lack of transparency surrounding the proposals. Although documents have now been published following months of delay, a number have been heavily redacted, limiting public scrutiny and undermining transparency in the planning process at a time when openness and community confidence are essential. Significant uncertainty remains regarding the full details of the development and the number of individuals who may ultimately be accommodated at the site.
The Council notes that the original proposal did not include development under the Crown Development process (Crown development route, 1st May 2025) nor did it include the size and scale now detailed in the plans. They are therefore materially different from those originally presented to residents in 2024.
This council express concerns over the material changes in scale and size and considers it unacceptable for such significant changes to be brought forward without proper open and transparent engagement with the local community.
This Council therefore requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Home Secretary to express the Council’s discontent with the use of the Crown Development process, its concerns regarding the continued secrecy, lack of transparency and reflection of information, and the establishment of a community liaison panel (CPL) this Council believes that as one of the major applications to proceed under the new Crown Development planning process, the Haslar proposal should set the benchmark for openness transparency and public accountability.
Proposer – Councillor Scard
Seconder – Councillor Carter
It was acknowledged that the proposed amendment had been collaborative between the proposer and the seconder, requesting transparency and making it clear that the plans had changed since the public engagement and that this had been unacceptable. The demand for a Community liaison panel showed the importance of the public voice on the proposal.
The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer detailed advice to the Members regarding pre determination.
Members expressed concern that there was no recourse to the public or GBC to have engagement as had been shown with applying directly to the planning inspectorate.
This seemed at odds with the Government’s current desire to push for devolution, rather than have decisions made at national level.
Concern was expressed that there would be an extension of the proposal into the car park that had recently been secured under lease. It was advised that this funding had allowed for investment in the town.
The motion was supported and concern was reiterated about the ability for decisions to be taken this way. What had been advertised at consultation events was not was had been proposed.
It was reiterated that with the change in legislation of the Regulatory Board later in the year planning powers were being removed.
Concern was expressed that significant public money was being spent on a development outside of the normal planning process and felt the location was wrong for the proposal.
Concern was reiterated that there was no Community Liaison Panel and that whilst the issues of vehicles in the locality had been improved, residents continued not to be listened to and it was essential that there was a Community Liaison Panel moving forward and that the local residents voices were heard.
The Council was advised that the amendment was necessary as a result of the publication of the planning documents, following the agenda publication.
A vote was taken on the amendment and this was agreed.
A vote was taken on the substantive motion and it was requested that there be a named vote.
FOR the proposal Councillors Beech, Bond, Burgess, Carter, Casey, Chegwyn, Cox, Earle, Finn, Hayes, Huggins, Jacobs, Jessop, Johnston, Marshall, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Newman, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard, Sparrow, Stanton, Towell, Westerby and the Mayor.
AGAINT the proposal: None
ABSTENTION: None.
9
Part II Minutes of the Board of the Council
Housing Board – 10 June 2026
Community and Environment Board – 17 June 2026
Economic Regeneration and Skills – 24 June 2026
Policy and Organisation Board – 1 July 2026
Community and Environment Board – 17 June 2026
Economic Regeneration and Skills – 24 June 2026
Policy and Organisation Board – 1 July 2026
Attachments:
- Document Part II Housing 2026.06.10 07 Jul 2026
- Document Part II C&E 2026.06.17 07 Jul 2026
- Document Part II ERS 24.06.26 07 Jul 2026
- Document Part II P and O 07 Jul 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the Part II Minutes of the following Boards be accepted.
Housing Board – 10 June 2026
Community and Environment Board – 17 June 2026
Economic Regeneration and Skills Board – 24 June 2026
It was advised that this meeting of the Board had taken place to establish it, and the Terms of Reference and once these were agreed the Board would get to work and make progress and acknowledged there was lots to achieve.
Policy and Organisation Board – 1st July 2026.
Members acknowledged the work that the outgoing Borough Treasurer had undertaken and thanked him for it.
Other Members reflected on his positive contribution to the Council and advised that they hoped to bring a midterm budget to the Council meeting in October.
A Member advised that it was disappointing that the decision making process had not included returning the warding arrangement to Full Council rather than being delegated to the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council as this was undemocratic.
The Council was advised that this had been determined and would be pairings of existing wards. Members expressed their disappointment that this had not been available for consultation, stating some of the pairings were not aligned.
A Member felt that as there were 14 Councillors allocated for the Borough, why not retain one Councillor per ward, as there were 14 wards in the Borough. It was felt that it was always appropriate to maintain two Councillors in an area to share the workload.
It was confirmed that that the 14 allocated Councillors aligned with the requirement of 99 for the new authority and that this had formed the submission that had been accepted. It was acknowledged that this most closely aligned with proportionality at 14.9%.
The intention was to bring regular updates to the Board.
The Council was advised that in taking a report to Policy and Organisation Board the administration was being more open on Local Government Reorganisation than the previous administration who had not attended meetings, engaged with, or reported back on Local Government Reorganisation.
The Council were reminded that these were interim arrangements and that there would be an entire boundary review before the elections in 2032.
Housing Board – 10 June 2026
Community and Environment Board – 17 June 2026
Economic Regeneration and Skills Board – 24 June 2026
It was advised that this meeting of the Board had taken place to establish it, and the Terms of Reference and once these were agreed the Board would get to work and make progress and acknowledged there was lots to achieve.
Policy and Organisation Board – 1st July 2026.
Members acknowledged the work that the outgoing Borough Treasurer had undertaken and thanked him for it.
Other Members reflected on his positive contribution to the Council and advised that they hoped to bring a midterm budget to the Council meeting in October.
A Member advised that it was disappointing that the decision making process had not included returning the warding arrangement to Full Council rather than being delegated to the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council as this was undemocratic.
The Council was advised that this had been determined and would be pairings of existing wards. Members expressed their disappointment that this had not been available for consultation, stating some of the pairings were not aligned.
A Member felt that as there were 14 Councillors allocated for the Borough, why not retain one Councillor per ward, as there were 14 wards in the Borough. It was felt that it was always appropriate to maintain two Councillors in an area to share the workload.
It was confirmed that that the 14 allocated Councillors aligned with the requirement of 99 for the new authority and that this had formed the submission that had been accepted. It was acknowledged that this most closely aligned with proportionality at 14.9%.
The intention was to bring regular updates to the Board.
The Council was advised that in taking a report to Policy and Organisation Board the administration was being more open on Local Government Reorganisation than the previous administration who had not attended meetings, engaged with, or reported back on Local Government Reorganisation.
The Council were reminded that these were interim arrangements and that there would be an entire boundary review before the elections in 2032.
10
Governance - Reviews of Terms of reference and changes to the constitution.
This report sets out the amended terms of reference of the Council’s Board, following the introduction of an Economic Regeneration and Skills Board.
Attachments:
- Document Governance – Reviews of Terms of reference and changes to the constitution. 07 Jul 2026
- Document Part 3 Schedule 9 07 Jul 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer setting out the amended terms of reference of the Council’s Boards, following the introduction of an Economic Regeneration and Skills Board.
It was advised that there was a typographical amendment that removed the requirement for Members that sit on Licensing Sub Boards to be members of the Regulatory Board.
RESOLVED: That the Council
1. Approves the amendments to the Responsibilities for Functions and Delegations to the Boards as set out in Appendix 1 of this report
2. Approves the amendments to the Responsibilities for Functions and the Delegations to the Boards as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.
3. Delegates the functions of each of the Boards and Sub Boards listed in appendix 1 with immediate effect.
4. Delegates authority to the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer to make any further necessary consequential amendments to the constitution to reflect these changes and issue an updated constitution to all Members.
It was advised that there was a typographical amendment that removed the requirement for Members that sit on Licensing Sub Boards to be members of the Regulatory Board.
RESOLVED: That the Council
1. Approves the amendments to the Responsibilities for Functions and Delegations to the Boards as set out in Appendix 1 of this report
2. Approves the amendments to the Responsibilities for Functions and the Delegations to the Boards as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.
3. Delegates the functions of each of the Boards and Sub Boards listed in appendix 1 with immediate effect.
4. Delegates authority to the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer to make any further necessary consequential amendments to the constitution to reflect these changes and issue an updated constitution to all Members.
11
Outside bodies
The Council needs to appoint elected Members to the Southern Water forum.
We also still need to appoint to the following
South East Employers Standing Deputy
Hampshire Police & Crime Standing Deputy
Gosport Food partnership Second Rep
GBC Health & Wellbeing Strategic Standing Deputy
Portchester Crematorium Deputies x2
Project Integra Standing Deputy
We also still need to appoint to the following
South East Employers Standing Deputy
Hampshire Police & Crime Standing Deputy
Gosport Food partnership Second Rep
GBC Health & Wellbeing Strategic Standing Deputy
Portchester Crematorium Deputies x2
Project Integra Standing Deputy
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the following appointments be made to outside bodies.
Southern Water Forum – Councillor Sparrow
Standing Deputy South East Employers – Councillor Beech
Standing Deputy Hampshire Police and Crime Panel – Councillor Carter
Standing Deputy Gosport Borough Council Health and Wellbeing Strategic Board – Councillor Meenaghan
Standing Deputy for PFSH – Councillor Westerby.
Southern Water Forum – Councillor Sparrow
Standing Deputy South East Employers – Councillor Beech
Standing Deputy Hampshire Police and Crime Panel – Councillor Carter
Standing Deputy Gosport Borough Council Health and Wellbeing Strategic Board – Councillor Meenaghan
Standing Deputy for PFSH – Councillor Westerby.
12
Any other items
That the Mayor deems urgent
Minutes
There were none.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in