Meeting

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

(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 FRIDAY 18 SEPTEMBER 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 FRIDAY 18 SEPTEMBER 2026)

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 MONDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 )

Notice of Motion under Standing Order 3.2.2

Council notes:

That on the evening of Sunday 6 September 2026, approximately 140 people rescued from a ‘mega dinghy’ which had crossed from the Baie de Seine, Normandy, were brought ashore by RNLI lifeboats from Bembridge and Yarmouth at the RNLI Portsmouth Lifeboat Station, Ferry Road, Eastney.

That Eastney Point is a narrow shingle spit served by a single access road, immediately adjacent to residential properties, a marina and the Hayling Ferry landing, with no reception, welfare, medical or vehicle marshalling facilities whatsoever.

That Associated British Ports has publicly confirmed, through reporting on both ITV Meridian News and the Daily Echo that it declined a request to land those rescued at the Port of Southampton because the port had no suitable reception facilities available, stating that it would have assisted had there been a safety-of-life-at-sea situation (SOLAS) in which Southampton was the closest suitable port, or had a formal direction been issued, and that neither applied.

That it has been reported that the King's Harbour Master Portsmouth also refused the lifeboats permission to enter Portsmouth Harbour or its approaches, and that RNLI coxswains were warned of criminal prosecution should they fail to comply. However, it should be noted, thatthese reports originated from intercepted open marine VHF radio communications between port controllers and the RNLI lifeboats (Bembridge and Yarmouth), which were carrying rescued migrants. The story and audio details were initially published and reported across several major outlets, including The News (Portsmouth), The Mirror, The Guardian, Sky News, Upday News, and the BBC. The King's Harbour Master (KHM) Portsmouth never confirmed the refusal or the warnings. Instead, when approached by news outlets, KHM and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) declined to comment on operational matters.

That the decision to disembark at Eastney was therefore taken only after two better-equipped locations had been ruled out, and was taken by UK Border Force, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Home Office. Of further note, Haslar Marina has already been used by Border Force to land a vessel conducting people smuggling, when on 20 July 2025 the yacht Uforia was intercepted near the Isle of Wight. As a result of this operation Two Ukrainian were sentenced for people smuggling and 5 people entered the UK asylum process.

It should be further noted that Portsmouth City Council — owner and operator of Portsmouth International Port, a Category 1 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the local highway authority, and a responsible authority under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 — was not consulted at any stage. Councillor Steve Pitt stated this in an article produced by the Daily Telegraph: ‘after a “Completely unsuitable location” was chosen to land the migrants without consulting his authority.’

That the consequences included residents of Eastney Point being unable to reach their homes overnight, a dispersal order imposed across a residential area, a major diversion of Constabulary resources, and disruption to the Hayling Ferry and the surrounding highway network.

That Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary has stated that a number of police, Coastguard and Border Force vehicles were damaged, that a handful of officers were treated at the scene for injuries none of which were serious, and that no member of the emergency services or the public was seriously injured.

That the gathering at Eastney was not a pre-arranged demonstration. The landing site was not known in advance, having been settled only after two other ports declined to receive the lifeboats. Those present through the early evening were overwhelmingly people living in the immediately adjacent streets, including families, women and children, and were gathered from approximately 4pm. An element from outside the city arrived some four hours later. The subsequent conflation of these two groups, and of Eastney with the pre-arranged blockade of the Port of Dover the previous day, has been unjust to the residents of this city.

That the Prime Minister has since described the events of that weekend in terms of a politics of poison seeping into our streets, and the Minister of State for Policing and Crime has condemned those behind the disorder for promoting racism and thuggery.

That the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight described the demonstration as largely peaceful, and, when invited to endorse the Government's characterisation of those present, declined to do so; and that at the date of this motion no arrests have been made, either on the night itself or in the days following.

That Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy and hosts HMNB Portsmouth, and that the security and operational integrity of the Dockyard Port is a matter of national significance. This also impacts directly on Gosport with Haslar Marina and the Gosport Ferry pontoon in particular vulnerable to use as a landing stage for RNLI vessels transporting asylum seekers.

Council believes:

That the emergency services acted with professionalism in circumstances not of their making, and this Council places its thanks to them on record.

That this Council condemns any criminal violence or damage directed at police officers or emergency services personnel.

That the great majority of Portsmouth and Gosport’s residents who hold concerns about small boat arrivals are law-abiding people with entirely legitimate concerns, that they took no part in any disorder, and that they are neither racists nor thugs.

That characterisations offered at the highest levels of government have drawn no distinction between any individual who may have broken the law and the many thousands of Portsmouth and Gosport residents who share these concerns and have broken none, and that such language corrodes public trust at precisely the moment it is most needed.

That the anger seen in Portsmouth on 6 September did not arise from nowhere, but follows years of failure by successive governments to secure the United Kingdom's borders, and that a government which fails in that duty cannot then disown the public reaction to its failure.

That Gosport is not a suitable disembarkation point for small boat arrivals and must not be permitted to become one, and that residents of Portsmouth were failed by a chain of decisions taken remotely and without reference to Portsmouth or its council.

That the cost of failure in border security should not fall on Hampshire's residents, its emergency services or its council taxpayers.

That there was a failure in public messaging and an information vacuum was created. It became evident from numerous different social media posts on the afternoon of Sunday 6 September that residents in Gosport and Portsmouth were questioning whether or not the asylum seekers would be accommodated in hotels in the local area. Furthermore, residents in the immediate vicinity were not reassured at all and this played no small part in the ensuing protest. It would seem the Home Office has failed to heed the lessons learned from the Southport Riots and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, alongside former counter-terrorism chiefs such as Neil Basu, who made several key comments regarding the 2024 Southport attack and the subsequent UK riots: Jonathan Hall KC stated that the initial information provided by police and authorities in the immediate aftermath was "inadequate". He noted that withholding basic context created an "information vacuum" that allowed conspiracy theories to spread rapidly on social media. In the case of the Eastney landings, any rumours could have easily been quashed with a simple press release announcing that the 140 asylum seekers would, once initially screened, be moved out of the local area, in a secure convoy, and that they would not be accommodated locally.

Council resolves:

A. To invite the Chief Executive, together with the Leaders of all political groups on this Council, write jointly to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the Chief Constable, and the Chief Fire Officer of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service to:

Record this Council's thanks to Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service, the RNLI stations at Bembridge, Yarmouth and Portsmouth, and South-Central Ambulance Service, for their handling of an operation Portsmouth did not choose, at a location it did not select, at no notice.

Recognise that the operation was concluded without serious injury to any police officer, any member of the emergency services or any member of the public, and that the area was cleared by the early hours of Monday morning.

Invite the Constabulary to place on the public record its own account of the events of 6 September: the number of officers injured and the circumstances in which each injury was sustained; the force's assessment of the size and composition of the crowd at intervals through the evening; the time at which the dispersal order was authorised; and whether the force endorses accounts given publicly on its behalf by others.

Convey this Council's view that the burden placed on these services that night arose from decisions taken by the Home Office and support the Commissioner in seeking full reimbursement of policing costs through the special grant arrangements available to the Home Office.

B. That the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council are jointly invited to write to the Home Secretary to:

State that this Council does not consider Gosport an appropriate location for the disembarkation of small boat arrivals and does not wish to see such landings repeated in the city, bearing in mind the incident from July 2025.

Seek answers on the record as to why Eastney was selected, given the logistical difficulties that were foreseeable at a site on a narrow shingle spit served by a single access road, adjoining residential streets, and equipped with no reception, welfare or vehicle marshalling facilities.

To seek assurances that facilities such as Fort Blockhouse are never considered as a temporary arrival facility should another mega dinghy appear in the Solent and that Gosport is not suitable for the location of a temporary, let alone, the permanent siting of a migration processing centre.

Seek a binding commitment that this Council will be consulted in advance of any future disembarkation in Portsmouth, and that no residential location, and no location served by a single access road, will be used. Furthermore, that a full risk assessment will be conducted in order to identify a suitable disembarkation point should another such incident require management across the Hampshire coastline.

Seek written assurance that the security and operational integrity of HMNB Portsmouth and the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth will not be compromised by small boat activity in the Solent.

Seek written assurances from the Home Secretary that the Local Commander will be required to issue public messaging, in a timely manner, in order to reduce the risk of local panic and rumour.

Ask the Home Secretary to make clear that the Government's condemnation of criminal disorder is not directed at, and should not be understood to extend to, the many law-abiding residents of Portsmouth and Gosport who hold legitimate concerns about small boat arrivals.

C. That the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council jointly write to Dame Caroline Dineage MP to:

Invite them to state publicly that they do not regard Gosport residents who hold concerns about small boat arrivals as racists or thugs, and to distance themselves from language which fails to draw that distinction.

Ask her, as this town's representatives in the opposition party, to press the Home Office for each of the commitments set out above, and for effective action to prevent these crossings.

D. Copies

That copies of all correspondence be sent to the Port Director of Portsmouth International Port, the King's Harbour Master Portsmouth, and the Members of Parliament for Havant, Gosport, Fareham, Portsmouth, and Waterlooville, and the Isle of Wight.

This motion has no financial effect on the Council; the actions requested falls within existing officer resources.

Proposer: Councillor D Marshall

Seconded: Councillor P Carter

Motion: Increasing Fixed Penalties for Fly-Tipping and Littering This Councilnotes that:

1. Fly-tipping and littering damage the environment, reduce the accessibility of footpaths and public spaces, harm wildlife and impose unnecessary costs on local taxpayers.

2. Residents rightly expect Gosport Borough Council to take robust and effective actionagainst thosewho illegallydump wasteor litterour streets,parks, open spaces and coastline.

3. The Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (Amendment) (England) Regulations2026 have increasedthe maximum fixedpenalty availableto local authorities forfly-tipping to£5,000 andthe maximumfixed penaltyfor littering to £750.

4. TheRegulations cameinto forceon 1September 2026,giving localauthorities greater discretion to impose stronger and more meaningful penalties for environmental offences.

5. Gosport Borough Council's current fixed penalty for the unlawful depositing of wasteis£200,reducedto£120wherepaymentismadewithinthe10-dayearly-payment period.

6. TheCouncil shouldensure thatits enforcementapproach providesan effective deterrent,reflects theseriousness ofenvironmental offencesand istransparent and accountable to elected Members and the public.

This Council believes that those who damage our environment through fly-tipping andlittering shouldface meaningfulconsequences andthat GosportBorough Council shouldmake fulluse ofthe increasedpenalties nowavailable underthe Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026. The Council further believes that regular reporting to the Community and Environment Board is essential to ensure timely responses to emerging trends in fly-tipping offences.

ThisCouncilthereforeresolvesto:

1. Increasethe fixedpenalty forfly-tippingand theunlawful depositingof wasteto the maximum level of £5,000 permitted under the Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.

2. Increasethe fixedpenalty forlittering tothe maximumlevel of£750 permitted under the Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.

3. Reviewthecurrentearly-paymentdiscountsforfly-tippingandlitteringoffences and bring forward recommendations to ensure that any discounts do not undermine the effectiveness of the penalties as a deterrent.

4. Authorise the relevant officers to undertake any necessary review and amendment of the Council's Environmental Enforcement Policy, enforcement procedures and delegation arrangements required to implement these increased penalties.

5. Ensure that serious, repeat and organised fly-tipping offences continue to be considered for prosecution where this is the most appropriate enforcement action.

6. Requirefly-tipping figuresand enforcementactivity tobe reportedquarterly at meetingsof theCommunity andEnvironment Board,including, whereavailable:

a) thenumber ofreported fly-tippingincidents;

b) thelocations andtypes offly-tipping recorded;

c) thenumber ofinvestigations undertaken;

d) thenumber offixed penaltynotices issued;

e) thenumber andvalue offixed penaltynotices paid;

f) thenumber ofcases resultingin prosecutionor otherenforcement action; and

g) thecosts of clearingfly-tipped waste.

7. Request that these reports enable the Community and Environment Board to monitor trends in fly-tipping, assess the effectiveness of enforcement activity and make recommendations for further action where necessary.

8. Publicise the increased penalties and successful enforcement action, where legallyappropriate, tosend aclear messagethat fly-tippingand litteringwill not be tolerated in Gosport.

Proposedby:CouncillorThomasFinn

Secondedby: CouncillorJulie Westerby

Motion:DiscretionaryCouncilTaxReliefforPeopleLivingwithaTerminalIllness This Council notes:

1. That a terminal diagnosis is an exceptionally difficult and distressing time for individuals, their families and carers.

2. That people living with a terminal illness can face signi?cant additional costs, includingincreased energy, heating, transport,care and medical-related costs, at the same time as household income may reduce because the individual is no longer able to work.

3. That Marie Curie, the UK's leading end-of-life charity, has highlighted the increased risk of ?nancial hardship and poverty faced by people living with a terminalillness andis campaigningfor councils acrossEngland toprovide greater ?nancial support to people at the end of life.

4. ThatMarie Curieis callingon localauthorities inEngland tointroduce CouncilTax exemptions or reductions for people living with a terminal illness, so that people do not have the additional worry of Council Tax bills during the ?nal months of their lives.

5. That Marie Curie has highlighted the use of the SR1 medical report as a straightforward means of establishing eligibility. The SR1 is completed by an appropriate healthcare professional and con?rms that a person has a terminal illness and is likely to die within 12 months.

6. That using the SR1 as evidence of eligibility can avoid requiring residents and their families toundergo unnecessaryadditional medicalassessments atan already extremely difficult time.

7. That27 English local authoritieshave already introducedCouncil Tax exemptions or reductions for households affected by terminal illness, demonstrating that councils can use their discretionary powers to provide additional ?nancial support to people living with a terminal illness and their families.

8. That Council Tax legislation provides local authorities with discretionary powers which can be used to reduce or remit Council Tax liability in appropriate circumstances.

9. That Gosport Borough Council already operates Council Tax Support arrangements and has discretionary powers available to it in relation to Council Tax.

10. Thatproviding CouncilTax reliefto householdsaffected byterminal illnesswould be acompassionate andpractical measurewhich couldremove onesigni?cant ?nancial worryfrom residentsand theirfamilies atthe endof life.

11. That access to such support should be straightforward, timely and should not place unnecessary administrative or evidential burdens on people who are living with a terminal illness.

ThisCouncil believes:

1. Thatnobody livingwith a terminalillness shouldhave tospend their?nal months worrying about whether they can afford their Council Tax.

2. That Gosport Borough Council should play its part in reducing ?nancial hardship for residents living with a terminal illness and their families.

3. That Gosport should follow the example of other English councils and consider introducing dedicated Council Tax relief for households affected by terminal illness.

4. That support should be designed to ensure that a terminally ill person is not disadvantaged because they live with a spouse, partner, family member or other adult.

5. That the process for accessing the support should be as simple and compassionateas possible,with theSR1 medicalreport usedwherever legally andoperationally practicableto establisheligibility.

ThisCouncil resolves:

1. Tosupport theMarie Curiecampaign forCouncil Taxrelief forpeople livingwith a terminalillness.

2. To request that the Policy and Organisation Board considers proposals for the introductionof a Discretionary CouncilTax Relief Schemefor households affected by terminal illness, using the Council's powers under Section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or such other lawful powers as officers consider appropriate.

3. That the proposed scheme should provide for 100% discretionary Council Tax relief for a household where a person resident in the property is living with a terminal illness, subject to appropriate legal and ?nancial advice.

4. That, wherever legally and operationally practicable, eligibility should be established using an SR1 medical report, or equivalent appropriate medical evidence, without requiring applicants to undergo unnecessary additional assessments.

5. Thatthe schemeshould, subjectto legaland ?nancialadvice, applyfrom thedate on which the qualifying medical certi?cation is issued and remain in place for as

long as the resident continues to meet the eligibility criteria, including until the person'sdeath.

6. Thatthe Policyand OrganisationBoard shouldreceive areport fromofficers setting out detailed proposals for the scheme, including:

a) theproposed eligibilitycriteria;

b) theappropriatelegal mechanism;

c) theproposed levelof relief;

d) theestimated numberof potentiallyeligible households;

e) theestimated ?nancialimpact onGosport BoroughCouncil andother preceptingauthorities;

f) theproposed applicationand veri?cationprocess;

g) arrangementsfor promotingthe schemeto eligibleresidents andrelevant health, social care and voluntary-sector organisations;

h) arrangementsfor monitoringtake-up andcost; and

i) aproposedimplementation date.

7. That the Policy and Organisation Board should seek to implement the scheme at theearliest practicable opportunityfollowing considerationof thelegal, ?nancial and administrative implications.

8. That the Council should ensure that information about any scheme introduced is clearly communicated through Council Tax correspondence, the Council's website, customer services and appropriate local health, social care and voluntary-sector organisations.

Proposedby:CouncillorThomasFinn

Secondedby: CouncillorRichard Earle

That the Mayor deems urgent