Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
28
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2025):
47
Meetings (2024):
47
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 11th December 2024
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 11th December 2024
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 11th December 2024
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 11th December 2024
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
11 Dec 2024
11 Dec 2024
Location:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Council Chamber, Town Hall, Gosport, PO12 1EB
Meeting Attendees
Public
Margaret Snaith-Tempia Honorary Alderman
Expected
Public
Bob Foster Honorary Alderman
Expected
Public
Keith Laurence Gill Honorary Alderman
Expected
Agenda
1
To receive apologies for Members for their inability to attend the meeting
Minutes
Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillor K Bradley and Councillor M Bradley.
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 Hylands declared a pecuniary interest in the Gambling Statement of Principles
3
Mayors Communications
Minutes
The Mayor welcomed Councillor Meenaghan following her recent election and she thanked the Members of Harbourside and Town for her election.
The Members were reminded about behavioral standards at Council meetings.
The Members were reminded about behavioral standards at Council meetings.
4
To confirm the minutes of the Council meetings held on 16 October 2024
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 16/10/2024 Council 03 Dec 2024
Minutes
A Member advised that they had not received a response to an outstanding query but sought clarification that the minutes of the previous meeting should be corrected as the documents discussed on the Criterion at the Policy and Organisation Board meeting were no longer considered exempt. Therefore the minutes should be amended to rectify the amendment considered.
Members also advised that they believed the Leader’s answer to a previous Member’s question with regards to the Council being advised there were no estimates on the three different potential models, optimistic, pessimistic and realistic were incorrect as they were listed in the report. With one of the estimates predicting a cost to the taxpayer of £1.5m. It was requested that this also be corrected.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024 be signed as a true and correct record.
Members also advised that they believed the Leader’s answer to a previous Member’s question with regards to the Council being advised there were no estimates on the three different potential models, optimistic, pessimistic and realistic were incorrect as they were listed in the report. With one of the estimates predicting a cost to the taxpayer of £1.5m. It was requested that this also be corrected.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024 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<br/>
(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 9 DECEMBER 2024 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 9 DECEMBER 2024)
Minutes
There were no deputations, there were 2 public questions
Question 1
Apart from following the out of date Hampshire County Multi Agency Flood Response Plan Version 1 dated July 2008, and the PUSH Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – 2016 Update, does the Gosport Council have an uptodate action plan please for dealing with sea flooding of Gosport, specifically Alverstoke village, resulting from the sea overtopping of the retaining seawall at the end of Alver Creek as occurred in April 2024 from a storm surge with a spring tide?
Answer
We are still awaiting the report on the cause of the flooding at Alverstoke last April which it is suggested was linked to drainage and was not necessarily as a direct result of any overtopping. We are also still awaiting confirmation from the Environment Agency of the additional Government funding required to enable the proposed Alverstoke Flood Relief Scheme to go-ahead. Both the past and present Governments have failed to respond positively to this Council's requests for that funding. Until they do so there is little to add to reports already presented to this Council's Community & Environment Board.
Question 2
The last Council meeting minutes stated "Members felt that flood protection was important and should be addressed and that the
Environment Agency needed to make a decision on funding at Stoke Lake, but schemes had been delivered on Stokes Bay and Forton Lake."
At a community meeting on 29 Nov there was a strong sense that still questions need to be answered regarding funding for Stoke Lake defences.
In light of the Alverstoke flood we as a community feel that no agency is taking true responsibility. Gosport Borough Council tell us the environmental agency are responsible and the environmental agency tell us that treasury must answer the funding question. This leaves us no further on than April this year. We also understand a section 19 report is still not complete. In the meantime, we must shore ourselves up against further storms, uncertain of whether a Stoke lake surge will once again flood our village, homes and businesses.
Can you confirm in detailwhat is being done about this and who is responsible from the council to represent this issue to our community?
Answer: I refer the questioner to the answer just given to a similar question on the same subject
Question 1
Apart from following the out of date Hampshire County Multi Agency Flood Response Plan Version 1 dated July 2008, and the PUSH Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – 2016 Update, does the Gosport Council have an uptodate action plan please for dealing with sea flooding of Gosport, specifically Alverstoke village, resulting from the sea overtopping of the retaining seawall at the end of Alver Creek as occurred in April 2024 from a storm surge with a spring tide?
Answer
We are still awaiting the report on the cause of the flooding at Alverstoke last April which it is suggested was linked to drainage and was not necessarily as a direct result of any overtopping. We are also still awaiting confirmation from the Environment Agency of the additional Government funding required to enable the proposed Alverstoke Flood Relief Scheme to go-ahead. Both the past and present Governments have failed to respond positively to this Council's requests for that funding. Until they do so there is little to add to reports already presented to this Council's Community & Environment Board.
Question 2
The last Council meeting minutes stated "Members felt that flood protection was important and should be addressed and that the
Environment Agency needed to make a decision on funding at Stoke Lake, but schemes had been delivered on Stokes Bay and Forton Lake."
At a community meeting on 29 Nov there was a strong sense that still questions need to be answered regarding funding for Stoke Lake defences.
In light of the Alverstoke flood we as a community feel that no agency is taking true responsibility. Gosport Borough Council tell us the environmental agency are responsible and the environmental agency tell us that treasury must answer the funding question. This leaves us no further on than April this year. We also understand a section 19 report is still not complete. In the meantime, we must shore ourselves up against further storms, uncertain of whether a Stoke lake surge will once again flood our village, homes and businesses.
Can you confirm in detailwhat is being done about this and who is responsible from the council to represent this issue to our community?
Answer: I refer the questioner to the answer just given to a similar question on the same subject
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 10 DECEMBER 2024 )
Minutes
Question in the name of Councillor Huggins to the Chairman of Community and Environment Board.
Could the Chairman of Community and Environmental state the Boroughs strategy and targets for tree planting since May 2022?
Answer: The strategy and target is to plant 1000 trees.
Supplementary question
Can the Chairman of the Board advice where this is detailed and why there have been no updates to meetings of the Council. An opportunity to create a mini forest in Stanley Park had been missed and was the Chairman aware of the Hampshire Forest partnership which had £1m available to support and would have provided elm disease resistant trees in an area that would also have helped with flooding.
Answer
It was reiterated that the strategy and target was 1000 trees
Question in the name of Councillor Meenaghan to the Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board
I welcome the presence of Blayde Security in Harbourside & Town Ward and thank Hampshire’s Police & Crime Commissioner for funding this initiative, alongside CCTV in Alver Valley, to tackle ASB and reassure our community.
With 618 crimes reported in October 2024 alone, will the chairman of Policy & Organisation reinstate LIVE public space CCTV monitoring to help prevent crime and protect our residents?
Answer
The Councillor does not make it clear if the 618 crimes were in Gosport, but that one crime was one crime to many, but that was as a result of failing to deliver in 14 years of government additional police officers promised. With regard to the CCTV when the Councillor was previously on the Council the Council voted to scrap 24/7 monitoring of CCTV along with Fareham Borough Council and an attempted to bring back was voted against. The Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner had been asked to support the funding of CCTV but had not done so
Supplementary question.
It is important that we look forward, not to the past, the responsibility of CCTV funding was not that of the PCC. Can we have a straight yes or no as to whether the CCTV will be reinstated?
Answer
The PCC funded CCTV in the Alver Valley so could fund it and whilst they were doing a good job it was wished that the presence of Blayde security was not required as this would save money. The Conservative HQ had advised that Conservative Councillors were perceived to be not trustworthy and this had been seen in the leaflets distributed in the run up to the by-election.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Can the leader give us an update on how the Government’s proposal on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation might affect Gosport?
Answer
We understand the Government proposals will be published next week and is currently unknown as to what it contains but it seems they are pressing ahead with their plans. This could be either a larger scale unitary or a directly elected Mayor. There has been much speculation over the years and previous examples of Unitary such as Southampton, Portsmouth and more recently BCP have shown the difficulties it presents. The Council is opposed to devolution as the governance of an area should fall to the lowest common denominator, people in places cannot and should not make decisions regarding what is best for Gosport. Devolution would not work all the time funding issues with adult social care and children’s services were not addressed. Gosport Council should make decisions for Gosport. Bigger is not always better and it is not in Gosport’s interest to consider a Unitary. It was hoped that Hampshire would not be in the first tranche for consideration.
There was no supplementary
Question in the name of Councillor Huggins to the Chairman of Community and Environment Board
Given my previous full Council question to the chairman regarding concerns about limited number of agenda items for the committee, cancelled meetings and lack of decision making powers through the Constitution. Specifically, what steps have you taken to prioritise and provide timely updates on critical issues and strategies such as flood defences and the Climate Change strategy, which directly impact our community’s safety and resilience?
Answer
Only 2 of the last 13 Community and Environment Boards have been cancelled. Discussions had taken place around waste, and flood schemes at Stokes Bay were complete, with Forton nearing completion and the Coastal Partners were engaged in flood prevention work. Councillor Maynard had placed forward a motion exploring living roofs and further solar panels and previous developments such as the Alver Valley Café and the splash park at Lee on the Solent.
Supplementary
It was the Climate Change Board that had considered these thing previously and it is concerning that the Chairman of the Community and Environment did not attend a recent Community Resilience Flood event, there is also concern at the lack of progress with regard to the Weir none of which is being reported to the Community and Environment Board.
Answer
Two Councillors, Councillor Maynard and Councillor Hammond attended the Community Resilience Forum. It was noted that local Councillors left early. Please can you send your supplementary question in writing to allow for a full answer?
Under Standing Order 4.11.2 Councillor Huggins clarified that she had left the event 10 minutes early as a result of a significant fire in the Borough.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Can the Leader report back to us, the outcome of the recent Peer Review conducted by the LGA
Answer
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the recent review which is recommended by the LGA to take place every 5 years. This had not previously been undertaken. The Chief Executive had been highly praised throughout the review, and staff at all levels were invited to contribute and had found it worthwhile.
The report would be published early in the New Year and would be available online. It had been positive but with concerns about IT which were known. It was reassuring to see compliment from outside partners and it was recognised that the Chief Executive had the support of staff.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Could the Leader inform us whether the new bus station is covered by CCTV?
Answer
Yes the new bus station is covered by CCTV. As Members are aware there was a fire at the new bus station recently and the CCTV helped to identify the culprits who had now been arrested and charged. CCTV is always present and available for 28 days. It clearly covers the station and this is at odds to what was being shared on Facebook by the MP who had stated it wasn’t and that consideration of an apology and correction should be given. It was important that the public were told the truth about such matters.
The was no supplementary question
Could the Chairman of Community and Environmental state the Boroughs strategy and targets for tree planting since May 2022?
Answer: The strategy and target is to plant 1000 trees.
Supplementary question
Can the Chairman of the Board advice where this is detailed and why there have been no updates to meetings of the Council. An opportunity to create a mini forest in Stanley Park had been missed and was the Chairman aware of the Hampshire Forest partnership which had £1m available to support and would have provided elm disease resistant trees in an area that would also have helped with flooding.
Answer
It was reiterated that the strategy and target was 1000 trees
Question in the name of Councillor Meenaghan to the Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board
I welcome the presence of Blayde Security in Harbourside & Town Ward and thank Hampshire’s Police & Crime Commissioner for funding this initiative, alongside CCTV in Alver Valley, to tackle ASB and reassure our community.
With 618 crimes reported in October 2024 alone, will the chairman of Policy & Organisation reinstate LIVE public space CCTV monitoring to help prevent crime and protect our residents?
Answer
The Councillor does not make it clear if the 618 crimes were in Gosport, but that one crime was one crime to many, but that was as a result of failing to deliver in 14 years of government additional police officers promised. With regard to the CCTV when the Councillor was previously on the Council the Council voted to scrap 24/7 monitoring of CCTV along with Fareham Borough Council and an attempted to bring back was voted against. The Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner had been asked to support the funding of CCTV but had not done so
Supplementary question.
It is important that we look forward, not to the past, the responsibility of CCTV funding was not that of the PCC. Can we have a straight yes or no as to whether the CCTV will be reinstated?
Answer
The PCC funded CCTV in the Alver Valley so could fund it and whilst they were doing a good job it was wished that the presence of Blayde security was not required as this would save money. The Conservative HQ had advised that Conservative Councillors were perceived to be not trustworthy and this had been seen in the leaflets distributed in the run up to the by-election.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Can the leader give us an update on how the Government’s proposal on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation might affect Gosport?
Answer
We understand the Government proposals will be published next week and is currently unknown as to what it contains but it seems they are pressing ahead with their plans. This could be either a larger scale unitary or a directly elected Mayor. There has been much speculation over the years and previous examples of Unitary such as Southampton, Portsmouth and more recently BCP have shown the difficulties it presents. The Council is opposed to devolution as the governance of an area should fall to the lowest common denominator, people in places cannot and should not make decisions regarding what is best for Gosport. Devolution would not work all the time funding issues with adult social care and children’s services were not addressed. Gosport Council should make decisions for Gosport. Bigger is not always better and it is not in Gosport’s interest to consider a Unitary. It was hoped that Hampshire would not be in the first tranche for consideration.
There was no supplementary
Question in the name of Councillor Huggins to the Chairman of Community and Environment Board
Given my previous full Council question to the chairman regarding concerns about limited number of agenda items for the committee, cancelled meetings and lack of decision making powers through the Constitution. Specifically, what steps have you taken to prioritise and provide timely updates on critical issues and strategies such as flood defences and the Climate Change strategy, which directly impact our community’s safety and resilience?
Answer
Only 2 of the last 13 Community and Environment Boards have been cancelled. Discussions had taken place around waste, and flood schemes at Stokes Bay were complete, with Forton nearing completion and the Coastal Partners were engaged in flood prevention work. Councillor Maynard had placed forward a motion exploring living roofs and further solar panels and previous developments such as the Alver Valley Café and the splash park at Lee on the Solent.
Supplementary
It was the Climate Change Board that had considered these thing previously and it is concerning that the Chairman of the Community and Environment did not attend a recent Community Resilience Flood event, there is also concern at the lack of progress with regard to the Weir none of which is being reported to the Community and Environment Board.
Answer
Two Councillors, Councillor Maynard and Councillor Hammond attended the Community Resilience Forum. It was noted that local Councillors left early. Please can you send your supplementary question in writing to allow for a full answer?
Under Standing Order 4.11.2 Councillor Huggins clarified that she had left the event 10 minutes early as a result of a significant fire in the Borough.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Can the Leader report back to us, the outcome of the recent Peer Review conducted by the LGA
Answer
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the recent review which is recommended by the LGA to take place every 5 years. This had not previously been undertaken. The Chief Executive had been highly praised throughout the review, and staff at all levels were invited to contribute and had found it worthwhile.
The report would be published early in the New Year and would be available online. It had been positive but with concerns about IT which were known. It was reassuring to see compliment from outside partners and it was recognised that the Chief Executive had the support of staff.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board
Could the Leader inform us whether the new bus station is covered by CCTV?
Answer
Yes the new bus station is covered by CCTV. As Members are aware there was a fire at the new bus station recently and the CCTV helped to identify the culprits who had now been arrested and charged. CCTV is always present and available for 28 days. It clearly covers the station and this is at odds to what was being shared on Facebook by the MP who had stated it wasn’t and that consideration of an apology and correction should be given. It was important that the public were told the truth about such matters.
The was no supplementary question
7
PART I MINUTES OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
To consider the following PART I minutes of the Policy and Organisation Board
Proposals for the review of polling districts and polling places
Gambling – Review of Statement of Principles
Fees and Charges 2025
Proposals for the review of polling districts and polling places
Gambling – Review of Statement of Principles
Fees and Charges 2025
Attachments:
- Document Part I Policy and Organisation Elections 03 Dec 2024
- Document P and O PART I MINUTES ELECTIONS 03 Dec 2024
- Document Proposals for the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places 03 Dec 2024
- Document Proposals for the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places Appendix 4 03 Dec 2024
- Document Part I Policy and Organisation Gambling 03 Dec 2024
- Document P and O PART I MINUTES GAMBLING 03 Dec 2024
- Document Gambling - Review of the statment of Principles 03 Dec 2024
- Document Draft GBC Gambling Statement of Principles 2025-2028 Appendix 03 Dec 2024
- Document Part I Policy and Organisation Fees and Charges 03 Dec 2024
- Document P and O PART I MINUTES FEES AND CHARGES - Copy 03 Dec 2024
- Document Fees and Charges Report - Council PART I 03 Dec 2024
- Document V4 GBC Fees & Charges 2025 03 Dec 2024
Minutes
Consideration was given to the Part I recommendations of the Policy and Organisation Board.
PROPOSALS FOR THE REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING PLACES
Members thanked the Head of Electoral Services and the Electoral Registration Officer for his work on the report and for all the work undertaken as he would soon be leaving the Council. This was echoed across the Council Chamber.
Members welcomed the slight amendment to the original report as it tidied up that polling district.
RESOLVED: To approve the changes as set out in this report
GAMBLING – REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Councillor Hylands left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
i) RESOLVED: That the final draft Statement of Principles be approved
FEES AND CHARGES
A Member advised that they had noted that the agreed amendment had been made to the report to reflect that the fees and charges had increased approximately 5% and had been rounded. It did not state in the report, but it was rounded up. However of the 195 charges that had been increased 17 had been rounded up by 5% one charge by 4.9% with the remaining 177 increased by more than 6% with the average increase sitting at 6.77% not 5% as stated. This was approximately three times the cost of inflation.
They advised that over 3 years car parking charges had increased 68.3%, car park permits 53.85%, Sports pitches 55.96% and even concessions had been hit in the Wildgrounds, and for beach huts.
The cost to hold events on GBC land had also increased by 160% but in addition, there was no longer to be electric and water provided.
An amendment to the recommendation was proposed and seconded as follows.
It is recommended that all fees and charges for 2025 be frozen at 2024 rates pending a review to ascertain whether previous recent increases have yielded the protected income.
The Member advised the Board that in previous year’s reports indications had been given as to the income that would be received as a result of projections with any increase in fees and charges and that this included any predicted downward turn as a result of increased charges. An example would be the any reduction in car park use and income as a result of an increase in charges. The proposed amendment was therefore a pause to any increase to allow a full review and analysis before commitment.
Other Members felt that the proposals were acceptable and that it was to be accepted that costs overall had increased and unfortunately needed to be passed on. They felt the proposed increases were relative. There had not been any complaints to date and the events in the high street were proving to be popular. The fees and charges were for those that utilised the facilities and this should not be subsides by other council tax payers.
A Member expressed concern that the increases to the sports and leisure facilities were increasingly damaging to a Town where the most significant issues were obesity, lack of physical exercise and cardio vascular disease. The Town had the most overweight children in the country and the increased charges to use sports facilities was going nowhere to address this. The costs of hiring sports pitches had increased most significantly with access to the wildgrounds increasing over 50% for disabled residents and 140% for adults. This was all to the detriment of the health of residents.
A Member reiterated that the specialist events in the high street were popular, with the recent Christmas Market being the most successful yet and that new shops were showing confidence in the high street with many shops taking occupancy. Charges were proposed to be increased but investment was being made into facilities such as the pavilion at Brookers Field.
Members reiterated that they felt there should be a comprehensive review prior to any increase and that closer attention should be paid to such increases and the implications of them.
The Council was advised that to do as proposed would cost the Council £87,000 and that to protect services it was essential that charges increased. Many Council’s, including Hampshire County Council were seeing huge funding issues and potential bankruptcy and with the restriction on Council Tax increases in addition to additional wage and bill and increases needed to be made to try and protect the Council. The Council was also reminded that the one hour free parking had also been introduced under the current administration.
In addition there was increased demand for sports pitches, and investment into services like Citizens Advice as well as funding grants to organisations. The report had been carefully compiled and was sound in its content.
It was also advised under standing order 4.1.2 that it had been an aspiration to undertake an external review of fees and charges but this wasn’t possible as it would not be cost effective to do so, it would cost more than could potentially be saved however the charges in neighbouring authorities would continue to be monitored.
A vote was taken on the proposed amendment with a recorded vote requested under Standing Order 4.1
FOR the amendment: Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard,
AGAINST the amendment: Councillors Ballard, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor
A vote was taken on the substantive motion as a named vote under Standing Order 4.
For: Councillors Ballard, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor
AGAINST: Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard,
RESOLVED: The Council approves the fees and charges referred to in the report and appendix for implementation from 1 January 2025.
PROPOSALS FOR THE REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING PLACES
Members thanked the Head of Electoral Services and the Electoral Registration Officer for his work on the report and for all the work undertaken as he would soon be leaving the Council. This was echoed across the Council Chamber.
Members welcomed the slight amendment to the original report as it tidied up that polling district.
RESOLVED: To approve the changes as set out in this report
GAMBLING – REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Councillor Hylands left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
i) RESOLVED: That the final draft Statement of Principles be approved
FEES AND CHARGES
A Member advised that they had noted that the agreed amendment had been made to the report to reflect that the fees and charges had increased approximately 5% and had been rounded. It did not state in the report, but it was rounded up. However of the 195 charges that had been increased 17 had been rounded up by 5% one charge by 4.9% with the remaining 177 increased by more than 6% with the average increase sitting at 6.77% not 5% as stated. This was approximately three times the cost of inflation.
They advised that over 3 years car parking charges had increased 68.3%, car park permits 53.85%, Sports pitches 55.96% and even concessions had been hit in the Wildgrounds, and for beach huts.
The cost to hold events on GBC land had also increased by 160% but in addition, there was no longer to be electric and water provided.
An amendment to the recommendation was proposed and seconded as follows.
It is recommended that all fees and charges for 2025 be frozen at 2024 rates pending a review to ascertain whether previous recent increases have yielded the protected income.
The Member advised the Board that in previous year’s reports indications had been given as to the income that would be received as a result of projections with any increase in fees and charges and that this included any predicted downward turn as a result of increased charges. An example would be the any reduction in car park use and income as a result of an increase in charges. The proposed amendment was therefore a pause to any increase to allow a full review and analysis before commitment.
Other Members felt that the proposals were acceptable and that it was to be accepted that costs overall had increased and unfortunately needed to be passed on. They felt the proposed increases were relative. There had not been any complaints to date and the events in the high street were proving to be popular. The fees and charges were for those that utilised the facilities and this should not be subsides by other council tax payers.
A Member expressed concern that the increases to the sports and leisure facilities were increasingly damaging to a Town where the most significant issues were obesity, lack of physical exercise and cardio vascular disease. The Town had the most overweight children in the country and the increased charges to use sports facilities was going nowhere to address this. The costs of hiring sports pitches had increased most significantly with access to the wildgrounds increasing over 50% for disabled residents and 140% for adults. This was all to the detriment of the health of residents.
A Member reiterated that the specialist events in the high street were popular, with the recent Christmas Market being the most successful yet and that new shops were showing confidence in the high street with many shops taking occupancy. Charges were proposed to be increased but investment was being made into facilities such as the pavilion at Brookers Field.
Members reiterated that they felt there should be a comprehensive review prior to any increase and that closer attention should be paid to such increases and the implications of them.
The Council was advised that to do as proposed would cost the Council £87,000 and that to protect services it was essential that charges increased. Many Council’s, including Hampshire County Council were seeing huge funding issues and potential bankruptcy and with the restriction on Council Tax increases in addition to additional wage and bill and increases needed to be made to try and protect the Council. The Council was also reminded that the one hour free parking had also been introduced under the current administration.
In addition there was increased demand for sports pitches, and investment into services like Citizens Advice as well as funding grants to organisations. The report had been carefully compiled and was sound in its content.
It was also advised under standing order 4.1.2 that it had been an aspiration to undertake an external review of fees and charges but this wasn’t possible as it would not be cost effective to do so, it would cost more than could potentially be saved however the charges in neighbouring authorities would continue to be monitored.
A vote was taken on the proposed amendment with a recorded vote requested under Standing Order 4.1
FOR the amendment: Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard,
AGAINST the amendment: Councillors Ballard, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor
A vote was taken on the substantive motion as a named vote under Standing Order 4.
For: Councillors Ballard, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor
AGAINST: Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Ricketts, Scard,
RESOLVED: The Council approves the fees and charges referred to in the report and appendix for implementation from 1 January 2025.
8
Notice of Motion
Motion to the Council proposed by Cllr Maynard
Seconded by Cllr Earle
This Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
Motion to the Council proposed by Cllr June Cully
Seconded by Cllr Jonathan Brown
This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025
To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
Seconded by Cllr Earle
This Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
Motion to the Council proposed by Cllr June Cully
Seconded by Cllr Jonathan Brown
This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025
To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
Minutes
A notice of motion was received in the name of Councillor Maynard and seconded by Councillor Earle as follows
This Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
A Member advised that under standing order 4.6.1 of the constitution the matter should be referred straight to the Board in question and that this approach added to the lack of Scrutiny of decisions. It was noted that previous board reports had been late to be presented to Members and that this reduced the time for consideration.
The Council was advised the removal of the Scrutiny Committee was saving the Council money and it was not required when operating under the Committee System as Gosport Borough Council does.
The presentation of a motion to Council allowed all Members to speak on it and allowed for consideration to be given and proposals to be progressed if agreed. The presentations of motions to Board was welcomed if it was appropriate but the motions presented were suitable for Full Council.
It was requested that Standing Orders be suspended to allow discussion to take place on the motion. This was agreed.
The motion was introduced as an aspiration, to reduce CO2 to explore Solar Panel options and explore other associated green energy options. The Solent Cluster had been established and included a number of influential partners including local authorities, the University of Southampton and Fawley.
There was a focus on exploring hydrogen and other green technologies and getting more residents engaged. In addition, the charity Protect Natural England were also involved and were undertaking research into solar panels and living rooftops.
Members advised that in principle they supported the motion and that a set of actions had previously been provided and that the way forward was complex. Whilst charities and partnerships existed they were run by volunteers and whilst it was great news to see them working together action was needed rather than aspirational intent. Work needed to be undertaken to influence, impact, action and engagement were all important. It was felt that it should be presented to the Policy and Organisation Board as the Climate Change Strategy, which was previously worked on and that feasibility and action should be taken, as it had not been in the past 2 years.
Members felt that climate change action should be core business, considered at all points of the Council’s work and decision making.
Members agreed that this was an area that should be progressed, and that an action plan continue to be implemented and objectives set.
RESOLVED: That this Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
A notice of motion was received by Councillor Cully, seconded by Councillor Brown as follows
This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025 To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
A Member was advised that they had been contacted by residents providing statistics and had reflected on the importance of the LGBTQ+ community and how the Council could do better in respecting chosen pronouns and awareness and reflecting on the contribution that members of the community had paid to society.
The support was welcomed and it was hoped that more could be done to promote inclusion, it was also hoped that this could be widened so that any form of discrimination was eradicated.
Members were advised that some members of the community did not align with the pride movement but merely wanted acceptance as a person with respect for all.
RESOLVED That This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025 To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
This Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
A Member advised that under standing order 4.6.1 of the constitution the matter should be referred straight to the Board in question and that this approach added to the lack of Scrutiny of decisions. It was noted that previous board reports had been late to be presented to Members and that this reduced the time for consideration.
The Council was advised the removal of the Scrutiny Committee was saving the Council money and it was not required when operating under the Committee System as Gosport Borough Council does.
The presentation of a motion to Council allowed all Members to speak on it and allowed for consideration to be given and proposals to be progressed if agreed. The presentations of motions to Board was welcomed if it was appropriate but the motions presented were suitable for Full Council.
It was requested that Standing Orders be suspended to allow discussion to take place on the motion. This was agreed.
The motion was introduced as an aspiration, to reduce CO2 to explore Solar Panel options and explore other associated green energy options. The Solent Cluster had been established and included a number of influential partners including local authorities, the University of Southampton and Fawley.
There was a focus on exploring hydrogen and other green technologies and getting more residents engaged. In addition, the charity Protect Natural England were also involved and were undertaking research into solar panels and living rooftops.
Members advised that in principle they supported the motion and that a set of actions had previously been provided and that the way forward was complex. Whilst charities and partnerships existed they were run by volunteers and whilst it was great news to see them working together action was needed rather than aspirational intent. Work needed to be undertaken to influence, impact, action and engagement were all important. It was felt that it should be presented to the Policy and Organisation Board as the Climate Change Strategy, which was previously worked on and that feasibility and action should be taken, as it had not been in the past 2 years.
Members felt that climate change action should be core business, considered at all points of the Council’s work and decision making.
Members agreed that this was an area that should be progressed, and that an action plan continue to be implemented and objectives set.
RESOLVED: That this Council supports the principle of CO2 reduction by exploring the feasibility and possibilities for installing Solar PV (SPV) for:
Community Energy schemes Bespoke installations for off-setting electricity costs at selected sites such as:
2.1 Splash Parks
2.2 Other operational facilities that consume electricity drawn from the National Grid
2.3 Canopy Solar PV for car park areas
2.4 Roof-top installations
A notice of motion was received by Councillor Cully, seconded by Councillor Brown as follows
This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025 To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
A Member was advised that they had been contacted by residents providing statistics and had reflected on the importance of the LGBTQ+ community and how the Council could do better in respecting chosen pronouns and awareness and reflecting on the contribution that members of the community had paid to society.
The support was welcomed and it was hoped that more could be done to promote inclusion, it was also hoped that this could be widened so that any form of discrimination was eradicated.
Members were advised that some members of the community did not align with the pride movement but merely wanted acceptance as a person with respect for all.
RESOLVED That This Council notes that:
Gosport Borough is the proud home of a large, diverse and thriving LGBTQ+ community. Results of the 2021 Census show that 1.2% of people in Hampshire identified as Gay or Lesbian, in Gosport the figure was 1.6%. Overall in Gosport 3.15% of residents (aged 16 and over) identify as LGBQ+, approximately 1 in 32 (comparable with national data of 3.16%). Furthermore, 0.38% of residents stated that their gender identity is different to that assigned at birth. According to Home Office statistics sexual orientation hate crime in Hampshire rose by 65% in 2022 from the year before. In fact, all hate crime rose by 64% making Hampshire the highest rise in the South East. The Stonewall and YouGov 2018 ‘LGBT in Britain - health report’ stated that 1 in 8 LGBT people (18-24) had tried to take their own life in the previous year and almost half of transgender people surveyed said the same.
Council therefore notes:
That harm has been done to LGBTQ+ people in the past and that discrimination exists.
That more could be done to support and enable equity in Gosport That all LGBTQ+ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect
Gosport Council resolves:
To show support for LGBTQ+ people by flying the Pride flag during Pride month from 2025 To explore how to ensure anyone dealing with the Council may be offered the opportunity to be addressed using pronouns of their choice if they wish.
9
Part II Minutes of the Boards of the Council
Community and Environment Board – 13 November 2024
Policy and Organisation Board – 27 November 2024
Policy and Organisation Board – 27 November 2024
Attachments:
- Document C and E Part II 03 Dec 2024
- Document P and O PART II MINUTES 03 Dec 2024
Minutes
The Part II Minutes of the following Boards were presented to the Council.
Community Board – 13 November 2024
A Member asked why the caddies were being sourced from abroad. The Council was advised that Hampshire County Council had turned down an approach from the Districts for them to procure and purchase. This would as a result increase the cost.
Members acknowledge that residents were keen to see its inclusion, and it was recognised that the delay had been as a result of the County Council not sourcing a site for waste. The Council was advised that this location had now been sourced and a packaged agreed. A Member questioned that they had been advised that no such facility had been secured and investigations were ongoing with Dorset and Surrey Councils for an alternative.
Members welcomed the report and congratulated the officer on the work undertaken.
Policy and Organisation Board Part II Minutes – 27 November 2024.
A Member under 4.13.2 questioned the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Organisation Bard on the 27 November 2024 as a point raised on the minutes of the 30 September 2024 were not included in the Part II minutes.
The observation was that as the report and appendix were not exempt, the minutes of the meeting held on 30th September 2024 were now inaccurate as they did not refer to the amendment that was proposed in the exempt part of the meeting.
The Member had written to the Leader and the Deputy Leader about this matter and the fact that the publication of the report had shown that incorrect and misleading statements had been made within the meeting
Members welcomed the progress on the War Memorial and commended the effort to get it into place, acknowledging that the Canadian Memorial would remain in place.
A Member raised concern that there was an ongoing issue with the license for the War Memorial and it was advised that this was being explored. A legal response was still outstanding at this stage.
It was reported that the Styler family had been contacted regarding the paintings on site and that consideration should be given to liaising with the museum to hold them if required. It was noted that it was sad to lose such an important piece of history but recognised the current security costs were unsustainable.
Member noted that the progress with the LUF project was encouraging to open up the waterfront.
Concern was expressed that dog walkers were being encouraged to use the Alver Valley as opposed to the Beach for walking as there were a number of significant protected species in the Alver Valley too.
The commitment to the LUF money was welcomed as was the improvement to the Don Styler’s site. UK docks were onside with the LUF project an there had been a positive response from external partners as part of the peer review.
Progress was being made with the waterfront, bus station and the people’s park, in a large part as a result of the new Economic and Regeneration Manager taking post. It was also noted that the old bus station was shortly to be demolished but that additional asbestos had delayed this.
Community Board – 13 November 2024
A Member asked why the caddies were being sourced from abroad. The Council was advised that Hampshire County Council had turned down an approach from the Districts for them to procure and purchase. This would as a result increase the cost.
Members acknowledge that residents were keen to see its inclusion, and it was recognised that the delay had been as a result of the County Council not sourcing a site for waste. The Council was advised that this location had now been sourced and a packaged agreed. A Member questioned that they had been advised that no such facility had been secured and investigations were ongoing with Dorset and Surrey Councils for an alternative.
Members welcomed the report and congratulated the officer on the work undertaken.
Policy and Organisation Board Part II Minutes – 27 November 2024.
A Member under 4.13.2 questioned the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Organisation Bard on the 27 November 2024 as a point raised on the minutes of the 30 September 2024 were not included in the Part II minutes.
The observation was that as the report and appendix were not exempt, the minutes of the meeting held on 30th September 2024 were now inaccurate as they did not refer to the amendment that was proposed in the exempt part of the meeting.
The Member had written to the Leader and the Deputy Leader about this matter and the fact that the publication of the report had shown that incorrect and misleading statements had been made within the meeting
Members welcomed the progress on the War Memorial and commended the effort to get it into place, acknowledging that the Canadian Memorial would remain in place.
A Member raised concern that there was an ongoing issue with the license for the War Memorial and it was advised that this was being explored. A legal response was still outstanding at this stage.
It was reported that the Styler family had been contacted regarding the paintings on site and that consideration should be given to liaising with the museum to hold them if required. It was noted that it was sad to lose such an important piece of history but recognised the current security costs were unsustainable.
Member noted that the progress with the LUF project was encouraging to open up the waterfront.
Concern was expressed that dog walkers were being encouraged to use the Alver Valley as opposed to the Beach for walking as there were a number of significant protected species in the Alver Valley too.
The commitment to the LUF money was welcomed as was the improvement to the Don Styler’s site. UK docks were onside with the LUF project an there had been a positive response from external partners as part of the peer review.
Progress was being made with the waterfront, bus station and the people’s park, in a large part as a result of the new Economic and Regeneration Manager taking post. It was also noted that the old bus station was shortly to be demolished but that additional asbestos had delayed this.
10
Report on the Borough Council By-election in the Harbourside and Town Ward held on Thursday, 21 November 2024
To advise the Council of the results of the recent by-election.
Attachments:
- Document 2024 LGBE - Report to Full Council v1 03 Dec 2024
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Returning Officer detailing the results of the recent by-election.
The report was noted.
The report was noted.
11
REVIEW OF COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMITTEE AND DETERMINATION OF ALLOCATION OF SEATS
To advise the Council of the balance of the seats on the Council following the Harbourside and Town by-election and the position with regard to Political Groups and to undertake a review in accordance with the “Proportionality Rules” of the balance of seats on the Boards and Committees of the Council.
Attachments:
- Document Proportionality 03 Dec 2024
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor detailing the amendments to the Council’s proportionality as a result of the by-election.
The Board were provided with an addendum to the report including an amendment to the Board proportionality designations to parties.
RESOLVED: That the Board proportionality be agreed as below
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
TOTAL
Policy and Organisation
2
1
4
7
Community and Environment
2
1
4
7
Housing
3
0
4
7
Regulatory
3
0
4
7
TOTAL
10
2
16
28
Lib
Con
Lab
Total
Grants
3
1
1
5
Standards and Audit
3
2
0
5
6
3
1
10
The Board were provided with an addendum to the report including an amendment to the Board proportionality designations to parties.
RESOLVED: That the Board proportionality be agreed as below
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
TOTAL
Policy and Organisation
2
1
4
7
Community and Environment
2
1
4
7
Housing
3
0
4
7
Regulatory
3
0
4
7
TOTAL
10
2
16
28
Lib
Con
Lab
Total
Grants
3
1
1
5
Standards and Audit
3
2
0
5
6
3
1
10
12
APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS
Minutes
RESOLVED: That Councillor Meenaghan be appointed to the Housing Board, Councillor Philpott be appointed to the Standards and Audit Sub Board and that Councillor Brown continue on the Community and Environment Board.
13
Any other items
Minutes
Members commended the work of both Julie Smith and Graeme Jesty who were shortly to leave the Council and it was requested that investigations be made into how best to thank staff that were departing.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in