Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Economic Regeneration and Skills Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 24th September 2026
6:00 PM
Thursday, 24th September 2026
6:00 PM
End:
Thursday, 24th September 2026
10:00 PM
Thursday, 24th September 2026
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
24 Sep 2026
24 Sep 2026
Location:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport PO12 1EB
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport PO12 1EB
Meeting Attendees
Agenda
1
Apologies for non attendance
Minutes
There were none.
2
Declarations of Interest
All Members are required to disclose at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any item(s) being considered at this meeting.
Minutes
Councillor Finn advised that he was working with Level Up who would potentially engage with the Youth Hub, he therefore declared a personal interest and left the room taking no part in the discussion or voting there on.
Councillor Huggins advised that she was a Hampshire County Councillor.
Councillor Huggins advised that she was a Hampshire County Councillor.
3
Minutes of the Meetings held on 24 June 2026 and 16 July 2026
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June and 16 July 2026.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 24/06/2026 Economic Regeneration and Skills Board 16 Sep 2026
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 16/07/2026 Economic Regeneration and Skills Board 16 Sep 2026
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 24 June 2026 and 16 July 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations- Standing Order 3.4
(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Tuesday 22 September 2026. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
There were none.
5
Public Questions- Standing Order 3.5
(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Tuesday 22 September 2026).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Hampshire County Council, Gosport E Bikeshare Scheme
This report sets out details of Hampshire County Councils (HCCs) emerging Bikeshare scheme in partnership with the operator Voi Technology UK Limited (Voi) and a need to provide additional docking locations to make for a viable scheme in Gosport.
Attachments:
- Document Hampshire Bikeshare Report - FINAL for ER&S 24.09.2026 16 Sep 2026
- Document APPENDIX A - Bike Share Scheme Gosport 11th Sept 2025 16 Sep 2026
- Document APPENDIX B - Hampshire-Bikeshare-Totton-and-Gosport-DecisionReport 16 Sep 2026
- Document APPENDIX C (V2) - HCC & GBC Bikeshare - Potential Locations Map 16 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Traffic and Transport Manager detailing Hampshire County Council’s emerging bikeshare scheme in partnership with operator Voi Technology, and a need to provide additional docking locations to make the scheme viable in Gosport.
The Board was advised that the report was asking the Board to consider the agreement of the use of land detailed at points 9-17 and that points 1-8 were Hampshire County Council sites, not under consideration by the Board.
The Board was advised that the proposed bike share scheme was a scheme by Hampshire County Council that been out to public consultation in July – September 2025 for the sites on highway land. These had been considered and some sites had been removed as a result of objections at the consultation stage. For the scheme to be viable, there needed to be approximately 20 active sites, Gosport Borough Council was therefore proposing sites 9-17 to support the viability of the project.
The Board were advised that subsequently the highway sites detailed at Dolphin Crescent and Palmyra Road were now out of scope and not progressing.
It was reiterated that following the consultation, the removal of some of the Hampshire County Council sites had meant that the scheme risked being unviable. Gosport Borough Council had therefore drawn up some sites on their land that could increase the amount of locations, pushing the scheme towards being more viable. There were also ongoing discussions with 3 private companies regarding potential use on their sites.
The proposal being considered was for 9 sites on GBC land, and the Board was being asked to consider the agreement of the use of these and entering a license to do so.
It was advised that if the scheme was successful, consideration would be given to expanding it into other areas of the Borough, but that the license for the Gosport Borough Council sites would need to be approved to support the scheme’s viability.
In answer to a Member’s question in relation to Para 2.2 of the report, the Board was advised that it was the officers understanding of the data that the figure of 668000 rides undertaken in Portsmouth and Southampton were related to ebikes, not escooters.
A Member questioned whether the bikes to be used were EPAC bikes, or true electric bikes which required users to have insurance and wear correct safety equipment. The Board was advised it would be the same bikes as those used in Southampton and Portsmouth.
A Member questioned whether there would be the ability to take the bikes on to the Gosport Ferry and if they would be interchangeable with those in Portsmouth. The Board was advised that there was no plans for them to be interchangeable at this stage and that anyone wishing to use a Voi bike for onward journeys in Portsmouth would need to leave the Gosport scheme bike in Gosport and then hire a Portsmouth based bike. This is to ensure that bikes stay in their correct geographical locations.
The Board was advised that the bikes were geofenced by control and that they should not able to be removed from the Borough, in addition to this VOI were responsible for the collection and return of any bikes that were not docked.
A Member advised that they accepted that the scheme was that of Hampshire County Council’s and that the principle of it had been agreed in 2025, but reiterated concern over the bikes being used and expressed interest in any safety reporting on the use of bikes in Southampton and Portsmouth and any lessons learnt.
Members were advised that users would be charged if their bikes were not returned and that there was no significant reports of issues in Southampton and Portsmouth.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that there would be no planning permission required for the sites and that small docking points, simply painted lines, would be provided for the bikes to be parked within and that no physical structures are proposed.
A Members advised that they had concerns about the safety of the bikes, and wanted reassurance around the age of the users, the requirement to wear safety equipment such as helmets, and details of insurance required.
The Board was advised that to sign up to the system required checks and financial approval in advance, and that it was not for the Board to determine the safety of the scheme or bikes, and that it was in place to consider the Council offering sites to Hampshire County Council for siting.
It was reiterated that the additional sites would be needed to ensure the scheme is viable.
A Member felt that the Council should still be considering whether or not the proposal for ebikes was safe. It was advised that the due diligence for this was undertaken by Hampshire County Council as the lead authority on the scheme
A Member expressed concern that the location of the sites in proximity of care homes and pedestrianized areas would add to the risk from the bikes, the Board was advised that none of the proposed sites were in the proximity of care homes and that footfall was required to ensure viability.
It was reiterated that the Highway Authority were responsible for safety of the project and it was not for Gosport Borough to make determinations on. The Council was being asked to consider entering into a licence with voi for the proposed sites to support the viability of the scheme.
The Board recognised that the scheme had been under development for some time and that significant work had gone in to bringing it forward and that a number of sites had been removed from the proposal following objections.
Some Members reiterated their concern that the HCC consultation had not been substantial enough, a Member advised they had undertaken their own survey and a number of residents had stated they had not been consulted. Other Members advised that they were aware that significant consultation had been undertaken and this was reflected in the amount of sites that had been withdrawn.
It was reiterated that Voi would be required to maintain the bikes and docking stations, returning any that were not docked and that the licence could be reconsidered if this did not happen.
It was reiterated that the sites needed to be in populated locations to support hire of the bikes, and that if the scheme was successful it would allow for consideration to be given to expanding the scheme further into the Borough, both to the north and Lee on the Solent.
A Member advised that all residents that were in the locality of the proposed HCC Highway sites had received consultation letters.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) The proposal to enter into a licence agreement with Voi granting them rights at specific locations within the Borough on Borough Council land for use as Bikeshare hubs;
ii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor and the Traffic & Transport Manager, in conjunction with the Head of Commercial Property, to negotiate and to complete the licence(s) for those sites identified in this report.
iii) Further sites being added to the contract in due course subject to consultation with the Board Chair
The Board was advised that the report was asking the Board to consider the agreement of the use of land detailed at points 9-17 and that points 1-8 were Hampshire County Council sites, not under consideration by the Board.
The Board was advised that the proposed bike share scheme was a scheme by Hampshire County Council that been out to public consultation in July – September 2025 for the sites on highway land. These had been considered and some sites had been removed as a result of objections at the consultation stage. For the scheme to be viable, there needed to be approximately 20 active sites, Gosport Borough Council was therefore proposing sites 9-17 to support the viability of the project.
The Board were advised that subsequently the highway sites detailed at Dolphin Crescent and Palmyra Road were now out of scope and not progressing.
It was reiterated that following the consultation, the removal of some of the Hampshire County Council sites had meant that the scheme risked being unviable. Gosport Borough Council had therefore drawn up some sites on their land that could increase the amount of locations, pushing the scheme towards being more viable. There were also ongoing discussions with 3 private companies regarding potential use on their sites.
The proposal being considered was for 9 sites on GBC land, and the Board was being asked to consider the agreement of the use of these and entering a license to do so.
It was advised that if the scheme was successful, consideration would be given to expanding it into other areas of the Borough, but that the license for the Gosport Borough Council sites would need to be approved to support the scheme’s viability.
In answer to a Member’s question in relation to Para 2.2 of the report, the Board was advised that it was the officers understanding of the data that the figure of 668000 rides undertaken in Portsmouth and Southampton were related to ebikes, not escooters.
A Member questioned whether the bikes to be used were EPAC bikes, or true electric bikes which required users to have insurance and wear correct safety equipment. The Board was advised it would be the same bikes as those used in Southampton and Portsmouth.
A Member questioned whether there would be the ability to take the bikes on to the Gosport Ferry and if they would be interchangeable with those in Portsmouth. The Board was advised that there was no plans for them to be interchangeable at this stage and that anyone wishing to use a Voi bike for onward journeys in Portsmouth would need to leave the Gosport scheme bike in Gosport and then hire a Portsmouth based bike. This is to ensure that bikes stay in their correct geographical locations.
The Board was advised that the bikes were geofenced by control and that they should not able to be removed from the Borough, in addition to this VOI were responsible for the collection and return of any bikes that were not docked.
A Member advised that they accepted that the scheme was that of Hampshire County Council’s and that the principle of it had been agreed in 2025, but reiterated concern over the bikes being used and expressed interest in any safety reporting on the use of bikes in Southampton and Portsmouth and any lessons learnt.
Members were advised that users would be charged if their bikes were not returned and that there was no significant reports of issues in Southampton and Portsmouth.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that there would be no planning permission required for the sites and that small docking points, simply painted lines, would be provided for the bikes to be parked within and that no physical structures are proposed.
A Members advised that they had concerns about the safety of the bikes, and wanted reassurance around the age of the users, the requirement to wear safety equipment such as helmets, and details of insurance required.
The Board was advised that to sign up to the system required checks and financial approval in advance, and that it was not for the Board to determine the safety of the scheme or bikes, and that it was in place to consider the Council offering sites to Hampshire County Council for siting.
It was reiterated that the additional sites would be needed to ensure the scheme is viable.
A Member felt that the Council should still be considering whether or not the proposal for ebikes was safe. It was advised that the due diligence for this was undertaken by Hampshire County Council as the lead authority on the scheme
A Member expressed concern that the location of the sites in proximity of care homes and pedestrianized areas would add to the risk from the bikes, the Board was advised that none of the proposed sites were in the proximity of care homes and that footfall was required to ensure viability.
It was reiterated that the Highway Authority were responsible for safety of the project and it was not for Gosport Borough to make determinations on. The Council was being asked to consider entering into a licence with voi for the proposed sites to support the viability of the scheme.
The Board recognised that the scheme had been under development for some time and that significant work had gone in to bringing it forward and that a number of sites had been removed from the proposal following objections.
Some Members reiterated their concern that the HCC consultation had not been substantial enough, a Member advised they had undertaken their own survey and a number of residents had stated they had not been consulted. Other Members advised that they were aware that significant consultation had been undertaken and this was reflected in the amount of sites that had been withdrawn.
It was reiterated that Voi would be required to maintain the bikes and docking stations, returning any that were not docked and that the licence could be reconsidered if this did not happen.
It was reiterated that the sites needed to be in populated locations to support hire of the bikes, and that if the scheme was successful it would allow for consideration to be given to expanding the scheme further into the Borough, both to the north and Lee on the Solent.
A Member advised that all residents that were in the locality of the proposed HCC Highway sites had received consultation letters.
RESOLVED:
That the Board approve:
i) The proposal to enter into a licence agreement with Voi granting them rights at specific locations within the Borough on Borough Council land for use as Bikeshare hubs;
ii) The grant of delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor and the Traffic & Transport Manager, in conjunction with the Head of Commercial Property, to negotiate and to complete the licence(s) for those sites identified in this report.
iii) Further sites being added to the contract in due course subject to consultation with the Board Chair
7
Submission of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 and Suggested Modifications
The Council is required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to prepare a development plan for its area. This report seeks approval to submit the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Planning Inspectorate for examination, together with the associated evidence base and a Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications for the Planning Inspector to consider.
Attachments:
- Document 6.Submission Local Plan and Proposed Modifications 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 3a -Habitats Regulations Assessment 2026 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 3b -Addendum to the HRA July 2026 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 4- MM - Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications 2026 (1) 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 5 -P&O 18.02.26 - Item 6 Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 6 - ERS -Working copy Summary of Representations 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 7 -P&O 01.07.26 - Item 14 GBLP 2042 Addendum 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 8 Summary of Addendum Representations v1.1 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 9-AM - Schedule of Additional Minor Modifications 2026 (2) 16 Sep 2026
- Document 6.Appendix 10 GBC IIA - GBLP 2042 16 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of Head of Planning Policy detailing the development plan for its area under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The report seeks approval to submit the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Planning Inspectorate for examination, together with the associated evidence base and a Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications for the Planning Inspector to consider.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that using the national standard method calculation for housing need, Gosport would be required to have a supply of 7040 dwellings, but that the current land supply is 2731, and subsequently 2500 has been identified in the Local Plan. In answer to a subsequent question the Board was advised that the Council had undertaken its duty to cooperate with other local authorities on a bi-lateral basis and as part of the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH) to request whether any local authorities could take Gosport’s unmet need. This included work as part of PfSH’s Spatial Position Statement approved by PfSH Joint Committee in December 2023.
More recently, the Minister has recommended to Inspectors that as the Duty to Cooperate is being disbanded in the new planning system, introduced in March 2026, inspectors can be more flexible when dealing with plans going through the legacy system, although there is still a need to demonstrate cross-boundary cooperation. The Duty to Cooperate work is detailed in the evidence base and would be considered by the Planning Inspector.
The Home Builders Federation, in their response to the Regulation 19 consultation, recognised Gosport’s capacity-led approach, understanding that there was a lack of sites available, although they consider that the policy should be stronger in seeking other authorities to meet this unmet need.
Considerable work had been undertaken in identifying sites, but there was a real lack of options available.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that it was anticipated that the Planning Inspector would require a whole session to consider the provision of affordable housing. It was acknowledged that this was a significant issue but also acknowledged that provision depended on whether a development would be viable. It was felt that 20% was a reasonable point to negotiate from, acknowledging that the recommendation set out in the evidence base was lower.
A Member welcomed the proposal that two new trees be planted for each home.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there would not be a reallocation of tourism designated land elsewhere in the Borough following the approval of a planning application for residential redevelopment on the Browndown Camp site. It was also acknowledged that securing 40% affordable housing on this site was significant for the Borough.
A Member advised it had taken a significant length of time to bring forward Regulation 19. Previously there had been assurances that it would be presented in 2022. It was acknowledged that there had been a significant shift in legislation and that there had been rapid changes to consider in the duration of the consideration and preparation. The plan being submitted was to take Gosport to 2042. A Member commented that this Plan was quite different from earlier versions presented in 2021.
It was acknowledged by the Member that significant work had taken place between 2022 and 2026 and the work of the Planning Policy team was recognised, but concern was expressed that the delay in presentation had been too long and that this may have been deliberate.
A Member advised that the Local Plan had previously been considered in March and amendments were accepted. It was acknowledged that the timing of the presentation of the report prior to the election had presented difficulty with engagement. It was also recognised that the sign off of the plan to move forward was delayed to take into account any new administration.
It was acknowledged that the designation of the Criterion had been modified which some Members believed to be correct and sensible,
A Member advised that they supported this and the majority of the plan, but were concerned that the proposed RA1 to replace SS3 still included proposals for a viewing platform. Concern had been raised previously about development at the waterfront taking place behind closed doors and it was felt that the inclusion of RA1 was unacceptable. It was clarified that this related to the former bus station site.
Members were advised that the elements in point 10 of RA1 were development considerations or principles and could be applied to a number of different schemes.
The Board was advised by the Chief Executive that the Officers had driven the timescale for the Local Plan, led by national policy and the significant changes that had taken place and that there had been no deliberate delay in bringing it forward.
Officers had worked within the parameters and presented a local plan with content and timescale that gave the best chance for approval. There had been constantly moving goal posts and a number of changes in legislation to contend with. The presentation by the officers and the timing associated with it had been robust so as not to leave the Council at risk.
The Member clarified that they considered the delay to be politically driven and there could be considered to be paranoia by Council officers.
It was reiterated that significant changes in legislation and the goal posts for submission had moved. It was reiterated to the Board that the Officers had undertaken adjustment to the timetable in line with national amendments and this had not been led by the administration.
The Board discussed the proposal for a viewing platform may be considered as part of a commercial unit.
Concern was expressed that cost for the waterfront development had increased significantly over the period of the local plan.
The Member advised the Board that they would prefer the proposal to be closer aligned to SS3, rather than RA1. Concern was expressed that changes would lead to a delay in the adoption of the local plan.
The Board was advised that it had been delayed several times as a result of outside factors such as housing targets and the need to demonstrate deliverability of key allocations, and that any further delay could lead the Council to being without a plan and that the Government required local authorities to progress with their Local Plan.
There were other authorities in the area that had adopted their current Local Plan at a similar time as GBC but had also not yet progressed to submission stage..
It was acknowledged that some Members would prefer a suggested main modifications..
The Board was advised that the report was being considered by Full Council, and that the deadline for sign off was 31 December 2026, it was unlikely an extension would be granted.
It was requested and agreed that briefings should be given to all groups on the local plan.
The Economic Regeneration and Skills Board recommend to Full Council that:
- The Council approves the Submission Version of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 (Appendix 1) to be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate for examination;
- The Council approves the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 2) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix 3) for submission;
- The Council notes that the Local Plan evidence base and all representations received during the consultation on the Publication Version of the Local Plan (March 2026) and subsequent consultation on the Addendum (July 2026) will be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate;
- The Council approves the Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications (Appendix 4) to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration by the Planning Inspector
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that using the national standard method calculation for housing need, Gosport would be required to have a supply of 7040 dwellings, but that the current land supply is 2731, and subsequently 2500 has been identified in the Local Plan. In answer to a subsequent question the Board was advised that the Council had undertaken its duty to cooperate with other local authorities on a bi-lateral basis and as part of the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH) to request whether any local authorities could take Gosport’s unmet need. This included work as part of PfSH’s Spatial Position Statement approved by PfSH Joint Committee in December 2023.
More recently, the Minister has recommended to Inspectors that as the Duty to Cooperate is being disbanded in the new planning system, introduced in March 2026, inspectors can be more flexible when dealing with plans going through the legacy system, although there is still a need to demonstrate cross-boundary cooperation. The Duty to Cooperate work is detailed in the evidence base and would be considered by the Planning Inspector.
The Home Builders Federation, in their response to the Regulation 19 consultation, recognised Gosport’s capacity-led approach, understanding that there was a lack of sites available, although they consider that the policy should be stronger in seeking other authorities to meet this unmet need.
Considerable work had been undertaken in identifying sites, but there was a real lack of options available.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that it was anticipated that the Planning Inspector would require a whole session to consider the provision of affordable housing. It was acknowledged that this was a significant issue but also acknowledged that provision depended on whether a development would be viable. It was felt that 20% was a reasonable point to negotiate from, acknowledging that the recommendation set out in the evidence base was lower.
A Member welcomed the proposal that two new trees be planted for each home.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there would not be a reallocation of tourism designated land elsewhere in the Borough following the approval of a planning application for residential redevelopment on the Browndown Camp site. It was also acknowledged that securing 40% affordable housing on this site was significant for the Borough.
A Member advised it had taken a significant length of time to bring forward Regulation 19. Previously there had been assurances that it would be presented in 2022. It was acknowledged that there had been a significant shift in legislation and that there had been rapid changes to consider in the duration of the consideration and preparation. The plan being submitted was to take Gosport to 2042. A Member commented that this Plan was quite different from earlier versions presented in 2021.
It was acknowledged by the Member that significant work had taken place between 2022 and 2026 and the work of the Planning Policy team was recognised, but concern was expressed that the delay in presentation had been too long and that this may have been deliberate.
A Member advised that the Local Plan had previously been considered in March and amendments were accepted. It was acknowledged that the timing of the presentation of the report prior to the election had presented difficulty with engagement. It was also recognised that the sign off of the plan to move forward was delayed to take into account any new administration.
It was acknowledged that the designation of the Criterion had been modified which some Members believed to be correct and sensible,
A Member advised that they supported this and the majority of the plan, but were concerned that the proposed RA1 to replace SS3 still included proposals for a viewing platform. Concern had been raised previously about development at the waterfront taking place behind closed doors and it was felt that the inclusion of RA1 was unacceptable. It was clarified that this related to the former bus station site.
Members were advised that the elements in point 10 of RA1 were development considerations or principles and could be applied to a number of different schemes.
The Board was advised by the Chief Executive that the Officers had driven the timescale for the Local Plan, led by national policy and the significant changes that had taken place and that there had been no deliberate delay in bringing it forward.
Officers had worked within the parameters and presented a local plan with content and timescale that gave the best chance for approval. There had been constantly moving goal posts and a number of changes in legislation to contend with. The presentation by the officers and the timing associated with it had been robust so as not to leave the Council at risk.
The Member clarified that they considered the delay to be politically driven and there could be considered to be paranoia by Council officers.
It was reiterated that significant changes in legislation and the goal posts for submission had moved. It was reiterated to the Board that the Officers had undertaken adjustment to the timetable in line with national amendments and this had not been led by the administration.
The Board discussed the proposal for a viewing platform may be considered as part of a commercial unit.
Concern was expressed that cost for the waterfront development had increased significantly over the period of the local plan.
The Member advised the Board that they would prefer the proposal to be closer aligned to SS3, rather than RA1. Concern was expressed that changes would lead to a delay in the adoption of the local plan.
The Board was advised that it had been delayed several times as a result of outside factors such as housing targets and the need to demonstrate deliverability of key allocations, and that any further delay could lead the Council to being without a plan and that the Government required local authorities to progress with their Local Plan.
There were other authorities in the area that had adopted their current Local Plan at a similar time as GBC but had also not yet progressed to submission stage..
It was acknowledged that some Members would prefer a suggested main modifications..
The Board was advised that the report was being considered by Full Council, and that the deadline for sign off was 31 December 2026, it was unlikely an extension would be granted.
It was requested and agreed that briefings should be given to all groups on the local plan.
The Economic Regeneration and Skills Board recommend to Full Council that:
- The Council approves the Submission Version of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2042 (Appendix 1) to be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate for examination;
- The Council approves the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 2) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix 3) for submission;
- The Council notes that the Local Plan evidence base and all representations received during the consultation on the Publication Version of the Local Plan (March 2026) and subsequent consultation on the Addendum (July 2026) will be submitted to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate;
- The Council approves the Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications (Appendix 4) to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration by the Planning Inspector
8
Bespoke Markets Operations from 2027 Onwards
This report is for Economic Regeneration & Skills Board to agree how to manage the arrangement and operation of the bespoke markets on Gosport’s High Street from 2027.
Attachments:
- Document ERS Board 24 Sept 2026 - Bespoke Markets Operations Final 16 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration seeking agreement as how to manage the arrangement and operation of the bespoke markets on Gosport’s High Street from 2027.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the markets had been in place, but that the operator of the bespoke markets had withdrawn from the process before the July market. Consideration had been given to appoint another external provider but it was felt that the arrangement could be moved in house, expanded to include other areas such as the new waterfront park plus Lee on the Solent and also look at additional events such as the Christmas light switch on.
It was confirmed that no suitable external operator had come forward with a proposal to operate the bespoke markets.
It was felt that a better package could be produced utilising a new specialist fixed-term internal member of staff and reiterated that this could be cross Borough.
An amendment was presented to the Board, but it was advised that as it was not an amendment to or an addition to the recommendation, it could not be accepted. This would need to be considered through the setting of the Council’s fees and charges.
RESOLVED: That the Economic Regeneration & Skills Board approves:
i) The appointment of a new in-house specialist bespoke markets manager role on a full-time fixed-term basis initially for 12 months, employed by Gosport Borough Council from 2027.
ii) Delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development & Skills to work within HR and Finance protocols to make the appointment.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the markets had been in place, but that the operator of the bespoke markets had withdrawn from the process before the July market. Consideration had been given to appoint another external provider but it was felt that the arrangement could be moved in house, expanded to include other areas such as the new waterfront park plus Lee on the Solent and also look at additional events such as the Christmas light switch on.
It was confirmed that no suitable external operator had come forward with a proposal to operate the bespoke markets.
It was felt that a better package could be produced utilising a new specialist fixed-term internal member of staff and reiterated that this could be cross Borough.
An amendment was presented to the Board, but it was advised that as it was not an amendment to or an addition to the recommendation, it could not be accepted. This would need to be considered through the setting of the Council’s fees and charges.
RESOLVED: That the Economic Regeneration & Skills Board approves:
i) The appointment of a new in-house specialist bespoke markets manager role on a full-time fixed-term basis initially for 12 months, employed by Gosport Borough Council from 2027.
ii) Delegated authority to the Head of Economic Development & Skills to work within HR and Finance protocols to make the appointment.
9
Gosport Youth Hub (employment support service for 18 to 24 year olds on Universal Credit)
This report seeks approval to progress an external funding application to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for a Gosport Youth Hub (Hub) to support unemployed young people aged 18 to 24 into employment and training. It also seeks approval to work in partnership with Havant Borough Council that manages the established Havant Hub in submitting the application and the ongoing delivery of the Gosport Hub.
Attachments:
- Document Gosport Youth Hub ERS Boad Report 24 09 26 Final 16 Sep 2026
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration seeking approval to progress an external funding application to the DWP for a Gosport Youth Hub to support unemployed people aged 18-24 into employment and training.
The Board was advised that the report was being presented to seek initial approval for the progression of the project and that the aim was that it would be delivered with zero cost. Approval of the recommendation would allow for the work to take place to submit a bid to the DWP.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the funding provision was only for 12 months, but that the other local schemes had reapplied for extensions every 12 months and were now entering their 5th year.
Members welcomed the proposal and recognised the success in Havant.
In answer to a Member’s question it was advised that the report had come to Board for the initial agreement to progress, and that funding and costs would be developed.
Once this had been done, a further report would be presented to the Board detailing costing, for approval.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that it was hoped that the Hub would present opportunities for young people that were NEETs to enter either, further education, training, or employment which could include apprenticeships.
The young people would be supported by work coaches and it was seen as a project that would be hugly beneficial to the Borough. It was also hoped that it could be linked to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Combined Authority’s priorities of employment and skills for those that were NEETs.
RESOLVED:
That the Economic Regeneration & Skills Board:
i) Authorises GBC officers to progress a fully costed application (including any potential costs for GBC) to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for a Gosport Youth Hub for future Board consideration and approval, prior to its submission.
ii) Approves the exploration of a potential partnership with Havant Borough Council (HBC) to establish and manage the Gosport Hub.
The Board was advised that the report was being presented to seek initial approval for the progression of the project and that the aim was that it would be delivered with zero cost. Approval of the recommendation would allow for the work to take place to submit a bid to the DWP.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the funding provision was only for 12 months, but that the other local schemes had reapplied for extensions every 12 months and were now entering their 5th year.
Members welcomed the proposal and recognised the success in Havant.
In answer to a Member’s question it was advised that the report had come to Board for the initial agreement to progress, and that funding and costs would be developed.
Once this had been done, a further report would be presented to the Board detailing costing, for approval.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that it was hoped that the Hub would present opportunities for young people that were NEETs to enter either, further education, training, or employment which could include apprenticeships.
The young people would be supported by work coaches and it was seen as a project that would be hugly beneficial to the Borough. It was also hoped that it could be linked to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Combined Authority’s priorities of employment and skills for those that were NEETs.
RESOLVED:
That the Economic Regeneration & Skills Board:
i) Authorises GBC officers to progress a fully costed application (including any potential costs for GBC) to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for a Gosport Youth Hub for future Board consideration and approval, prior to its submission.
ii) Approves the exploration of a potential partnership with Havant Borough Council (HBC) to establish and manage the Gosport Hub.
10
Any Other Items
That the Chairman deems urgent.
Minutes
There were none.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in