Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
28
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2025):
47
Meetings (2024):
47
Meeting
Council - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 5th February 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 5th February 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 5th February 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 5th February 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
05 Feb 2025
05 Feb 2025
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
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Raffaelli.
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
Councillors Burgess, Chegwyn, Huggins, Meenaghan and Philpott advised that they were Hampshire County Councillors, and that some of the motions presented tonight would also be considered by the County Council.
Councillor Huggins advised that she would abstain from the vote on the motion relating to Stubbington Study Centre as she was on the Cabinet for the decision and did not want to predetermine.
Councillor Ballard advised that she had a personal interest in the draft budget as she had previously worked for a homeless charity.
Councillor Huggins advised that she would abstain from the vote on the motion relating to Stubbington Study Centre as she was on the Cabinet for the decision and did not want to predetermine.
Councillor Ballard advised that she had a personal interest in the draft budget as she had previously worked for a homeless charity.
3
Mayors Communications
Minutes
The Mayor advised that he wished the meeting to remain in good spirit and that Members should behave appropriately.
4
Minutes of the Council meetings held on 11 December 2024
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 11December 2024
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 11/12/2024 Council 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 December 2024 be signed as a true and correct record.
5
Deputations and Public Questions
(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 3 FEBRUARY 2025 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 3 FEBRUARY 2025)
Minutes
One Deputation and one public question had been received. The deputation was heard at the point at which the motion on Climate and Nature was discussed.
Public Question – Thomas Emery
Given the current parking charges and regulations in the town centre, many residents and visitors find it increasingly difficult to shop as well as meet friends for lunch which in turn has had a massive impact on the local business’s that currently occupy the town centre, if you are as invested in bringing this town centre back to life, will you either reduce the car parking fees or provide free car parking for all shoppers of the high street for a maximum of two hours.
Answer: There is already free parking in the Town Centre and Morrisons had two hours free parking and wasn’t full so could be utilised. The administration had reintroduced free parking, after it had been scrapped and parking income was key to supporting the Council.
Car parking charges in Gosport were lower than in surrounding Boroughs and no Boroughs had free parking. The offer in Gosport was generous and that it would always be kept under review like County Council parking and other Boroughs.
Public Question – Thomas Emery
Given the current parking charges and regulations in the town centre, many residents and visitors find it increasingly difficult to shop as well as meet friends for lunch which in turn has had a massive impact on the local business’s that currently occupy the town centre, if you are as invested in bringing this town centre back to life, will you either reduce the car parking fees or provide free car parking for all shoppers of the high street for a maximum of two hours.
Answer: There is already free parking in the Town Centre and Morrisons had two hours free parking and wasn’t full so could be utilised. The administration had reintroduced free parking, after it had been scrapped and parking income was key to supporting the Council.
Car parking charges in Gosport were lower than in surrounding Boroughs and no Boroughs had free parking. The offer in Gosport was generous and that it would always be kept under review like County Council parking and other Boroughs.
6
Members questions
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 4 FEBRUARY 2025 )
Minutes
There were none.
7
PART I MINUTES OF THE HOUSING BOARD
To consider the following PART I minutes of the Housing Board -15 January 2025
Attachments:
- Document Part 1 Housing Board 28 Jan 2025
- Document Part 1 Housing Board m 28 Jan 2025
- Document Business Plan update 25-26 v4 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix A 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix B 28 Jan 2025
- Document APPENDIX C 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix D revised 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the Part I minutes of the Housing Board on 15 January 2025.
The report was presented as well balanced and was presenting an increase of CPI plus 1% which equated to approximately £2.60 per week, with two thirds of customers covered by housing benefit.
The Council was advised that the report and the proposal were forward thinking and that there was commitment to renewing provision of housing stock and increasing stock of short term accommodation to reduce the amount of B and Bs and accommodation outside the Borough that was used.
The work of the team behind the report was commended, as savings had been achieved and it was recognised that the work of recently retired Julie Smith should not go unnoticed.
RESOLVED: That
i) Council Dwelling rents increase by CPI + 1% (2.7%) as set out in the Social Housing rent guidance
ii) The revised HRA Business Plan Financial Model extract (Appendix A) and associated 2024/25 revised budget and 2025/26 Budget (Appendix B) is agreed
iii) Service charges increase on average by 3%
iv) The rent for all garages increases in line with inflation as agreed in the garage renewal strategy.
The report was presented as well balanced and was presenting an increase of CPI plus 1% which equated to approximately £2.60 per week, with two thirds of customers covered by housing benefit.
The Council was advised that the report and the proposal were forward thinking and that there was commitment to renewing provision of housing stock and increasing stock of short term accommodation to reduce the amount of B and Bs and accommodation outside the Borough that was used.
The work of the team behind the report was commended, as savings had been achieved and it was recognised that the work of recently retired Julie Smith should not go unnoticed.
RESOLVED: That
i) Council Dwelling rents increase by CPI + 1% (2.7%) as set out in the Social Housing rent guidance
ii) The revised HRA Business Plan Financial Model extract (Appendix A) and associated 2024/25 revised budget and 2025/26 Budget (Appendix B) is agreed
iii) Service charges increase on average by 3%
iv) The rent for all garages increases in line with inflation as agreed in the garage renewal strategy.
8
Notice of Motion
That the following notices of motion be considered
MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE and NATURE (CAN) BILL
Proposed by Councillor Maynard
Seconded by Councillor Finn
Introduction
TheClimate andNature (CAN)Bill isa legallybinding missionstatement whichwill ensure policyand actionon theclimate andnature crisisis science-ledand people-oriented.
The UK led the world with the Climate Change Act of 2008, and did so again with its commitment to Net Zero by 2050. In both cases, other countries followed our lead. The CAN Bill would set a gold standard for other developed nations. By passing it, UK politicians would help inspire positive action across theworld.
Motion
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) unreservedly lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the affects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
Motion on Local Government Reorganisation - 'Hands Off Gosport'
Proposed by: Councillor Peter Chegwyn
Seconded by: Councillor Rob Hylands
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
Motion on Stubbington Study Centre
Proposed by Councillor Bradley
Seconded by Councillor Cox
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to think again and keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open.
MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE and NATURE (CAN) BILL
Proposed by Councillor Maynard
Seconded by Councillor Finn
Introduction
TheClimate andNature (CAN)Bill isa legallybinding missionstatement whichwill ensure policyand actionon theclimate andnature crisisis science-ledand people-oriented.
The UK led the world with the Climate Change Act of 2008, and did so again with its commitment to Net Zero by 2050. In both cases, other countries followed our lead. The CAN Bill would set a gold standard for other developed nations. By passing it, UK politicians would help inspire positive action across theworld.
Motion
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) unreservedly lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the affects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
Motion on Local Government Reorganisation - 'Hands Off Gosport'
Proposed by: Councillor Peter Chegwyn
Seconded by: Councillor Rob Hylands
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
Motion on Stubbington Study Centre
Proposed by Councillor Bradley
Seconded by Councillor Cox
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to think again and keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open.
Minutes
Three notices of motion had been received.
MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE and NATURE (CAN) BILL
Proposed by Councillor Maynard
Seconded by Councillor Finn
Malcolm Spencer was invited to address the Board
Good evening.
Thank you for allowing me, as a representative of Gosport Friends of the Earth, to present to you the case for supporting the Climate and Nature Bill. I know that the agenda for tonight is full, so I will make this presentation very very brief.
The Climate and Nature Bill, as the saying goes, “does what it says on the tin”. Informed by the science, it commits the government to reducing carbon emissions, at home and abroad, , to reducing the loss of plant and wildlife and to involving the public.
The climate and nature and the public are linked because if the climate changes then plants and wildlife cannot adapt quickly enough. As nature is our ally in combatting and adapting to climate change, a loss of plants and wildlife leads to a more rapid climate change. And to make the necessary changes the public needs to be on-side.
This is urgent. The average worldwide temperature in 2024 was already above the 1.5 degC, that was the target set in Paris in 2015. Also it was announced that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were higher than they have been for over 3 million years. As for nature, scientists tell us that 28% of plants AND animals (yes more than a quarter) are threatened with COMPLETE extinction.
BUT, we know what needs to be done to slow climate change and how to bring species back from the brink. This bill encourages the necessary measures.
So why is the Bill important for Gosport?
A warmer climate means fiercer storms that make flooding more likely. And it also means a rise in sea level. The current forecast is that sea levels will rise between 10 and 60 cm by 2050 - that's only 25 years away. That makes sea defences very expensive or may even make Gosport indefensible. And for nature, surveys have shown that in Hampshire some 46 plants are already considered extinct; and we know that involving people with nature is good for their physical and mental health.
Why is supporting the Bill beneficial to Gosport?
A government, committed by the bill, will need to take action and find the money to support those actions. A prepared Gosport will be able to take advantage of that money to keep people safe from floods, to build energy efficient homes and adapt to a sustainable and healthier future. I am sure you all want that for Gosport. The public is already aware of Climate Change and expects government, local and national, to take action. Supporting this Bill is one way of showing you are taking action. And improving nature locally improves how people feel and when people feel happy, they are more likely to support their local council.
We should take action NOW to secure a sustainable future.
Voting to support this motion, tonight, and joining 380 other councils, is one small step in the right direction. I therefore ask you to vote for this motion this evening.
Introduction
TheClimate andNature (CAN)Bill isa legallybinding missionstatement whichwill ensure policyand actionon theclimate andnature crisisis science-ledand people-oriented.
The UK led the world with the Climate Change Act of 2008, and did so again with its commitment to Net Zero by 2050. In both cases, other countries followed our lead. The CAN Bill would set a gold standard for other developed nations. By passing it, UK politicians would help inspire positive action across theworld.
Motion
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) unreservedly lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
The motion was proposed as an important motion that deserved progress to committee and a second reading as it was currently being delayed by whips and there was concern that some MPs did not appreciate the importance of the proposal.
The purpose of CAN bill was to present something legally binding and a statement of action reinforcing the steps taken and on climate action in 2008 with a commitment to be net zero by 2025 and that positive action was needed. Action was needed now to address the issue.
Clarification was sought that the motion was being considered at Full Council and not in line with the constitution at the Community and Environment Board. It was agreed the motion would be heard by Council.
An amendment to the motion was proposed.
Proposed by Councillor Huggins
Seconded by Councillor Philpott
Gosport Borough Council welcomes the contribution the climate and nature bill makes to the debate on climate change and will watch the Bill’s progress through Parliament with interest, The bill would create a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the UK implements and achieves new climate change and nature targets for central government and provision for devolved administrations., However with its delay and uncertainty on how it will impact local authority duty, Gosport should ensure it has a current Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan so as not to fall behind and have a clear mechanism to monitor climate action.
The Council was advised that if this was adopted it would push for real change, impact and action.
An additional amendment was proposed.
Proposed by Councillor Cully
Seconded by Councillor Brown
Remove the word unreservedly
Councillor Huggins advised as proposer of the first motion, she was potentially comfortable with second proposed amendment.
Members advised that the scale of the damage required a greater national accountability and that despite promises made, there had been no progress since 2008.
Member felt there needed to be further progress and that there was an urgency to this progressing.
Members expressed concern that the Bill had not yet passed through to debate and felt that it was important there was cross party agreement in support of this particularly as it would not be scrutinised until July. Members felt that pressure should be continued to be placed on the government.
Members felt it was important that the public interest was maintained and momentum and was upheld.
Councillor Huggins agreed to withdraw her amendment.
A vote was taken on the subsequent amendment and carried.
A vote was taken on the substantive motion as follows:
RESOLVED:
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
Motion on Local Government Reorganisation - 'Hands Off Gosport'
Proposed by: Councillor Peter Chegwyn
Seconded by: Councillor Rob Hylands
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
Councillor Chegwyn advised that he was happy to accept each paragraph individually to be voted on.
The Council was advised that this was a fast moving subject that impacted the future of all Councils and that if it did go ahead it was important that Gosport had a seat at the table with other Council’s.
Since the publication of the agenda the Government had granted permission for the postponement of the County Council elections in May, some Members advised that they felt that the proposals were unhealthy and would not benefit the residents of Gosport in anyway. The super merge approach to Council’s would not work and decisions should be taken by Councillors in their own locality. There was concern that Gosport Borough Council would be swallowed up by the other larger authorities and that the proposals were to address the many unitaries that were in deficit.
There was no current clear timetable, but it was likely that Mayoral elections would take place in 2026 but it was reiterated that it was felt it was dangerous to give up on democracy in such a way.
It was reiterated that it would be welcome that the motion received cross party support, as it was felt the Gosport Councillors knew what was best for the residents of Gosport.
Members reiterated their hands off stance and in doing so highlighted the unique challenges presented by the Borough.
Some Members advised that they could not support the motion in its current state, and did not include a mandate for the Council leader to act on the behalf of the Council as the only non executive Council in Hampshire.
Concern was also expressed that the motion was unamendable at it was dealing with so many unknowns.
An amendment to the motion was put forward.
Proposed by Councillor June Cully
Seconded by Councillor Jonathan Brown
That the following be added to the end of paragraph one
We want the Leader and the CEO to engage with the process to achieve the best outcome and opportunities for the Borough.
It was clarified that this was an addition to the first paragraph and not a replacement for the second.
Disappointment was expressed that some group leaders had not reached out to discuss the matter in advance of the meeting. Members were also reminded that the proposal would be having a significant impact on staff and that this should be respected.
Members reiterated that they should all agree and be working towards what was best for Gosport and that it was felt that this was not devolution, as the power from that should be sent downwards.
Members expressed concern that five Councillors would represent Gosport in an authority that had little knowledge of the uniqueness and challenges in the Borough and that the Borough would be swept up in a larger authority and forgotten about. Whilst it was accepted savings could be made, Gosport Borough Council were already ahead of the curve with shared services and efficiencies.
It was also stated that the amalgamation of Councils would not be solved until the gap in funding of Adult and Children’s services was addressed.
A vote was taken on the amendment and agreed.
A named vote was taken on the substantive motion in separate paragraphs as follows.
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart. We want the Leader and the CEO to engage with the process to achieve the best outcome and opportunities for the Borough.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, , Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Brown, Burgess, Casey, Cully, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Motion on Stubbington Study Centre
Proposed by Councillor Bradley
Seconded by Councillor Cox
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to think again and keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open.
Councillor Huggins did not take part in the debate or voting as a Member of the Committee making the decision on the proposal at Hampshire County Council, so as not to make any predetermination.
Members expressed their concern that the decision was being made by Hampshire County Council without any real consideration for the importance of the local facility and whilst it was accepted that vulnerable children needed specific facilities this was not the most appropriate location.
Members expressed concern that the Haven Centre had been lost and now it was possible Stubbington Study Centre would be too.
A notice of amendment was given
Proposed by Councillor Philpott
Seconded by Councillor Ricketts
Remove the words ‘to think again and’
Add to the very end ‘and advises residents and other interested groups to also engage in the consultation.
Councillor Bradley advised as proposer she was happy with the amendment and it was agreed by the Council.
Members reiterated their concern and requested that all affected and interested parties take part in the consultation and attend a protest march on Saturday 8th February. It had been hinted that Calshot was an appropriate alternative to Stubbington but they were very different centres and Calshot was centred on older children.
The proposals had been discussed with the Leader of Fareham Borough Council and there was agreement that the facility should not close and reiterated the importance of speaking up against the proposals and the impact its loss would have.
Members reiterated the importance of the centre and the ability to have a local voice and that those making the decision were detached from the reality of the importance of the centre.
RESOLVED:
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open and advises residents and other interested groups to also engage in the consultation.
MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE and NATURE (CAN) BILL
Proposed by Councillor Maynard
Seconded by Councillor Finn
Malcolm Spencer was invited to address the Board
Good evening.
Thank you for allowing me, as a representative of Gosport Friends of the Earth, to present to you the case for supporting the Climate and Nature Bill. I know that the agenda for tonight is full, so I will make this presentation very very brief.
The Climate and Nature Bill, as the saying goes, “does what it says on the tin”. Informed by the science, it commits the government to reducing carbon emissions, at home and abroad, , to reducing the loss of plant and wildlife and to involving the public.
The climate and nature and the public are linked because if the climate changes then plants and wildlife cannot adapt quickly enough. As nature is our ally in combatting and adapting to climate change, a loss of plants and wildlife leads to a more rapid climate change. And to make the necessary changes the public needs to be on-side.
This is urgent. The average worldwide temperature in 2024 was already above the 1.5 degC, that was the target set in Paris in 2015. Also it was announced that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were higher than they have been for over 3 million years. As for nature, scientists tell us that 28% of plants AND animals (yes more than a quarter) are threatened with COMPLETE extinction.
BUT, we know what needs to be done to slow climate change and how to bring species back from the brink. This bill encourages the necessary measures.
So why is the Bill important for Gosport?
A warmer climate means fiercer storms that make flooding more likely. And it also means a rise in sea level. The current forecast is that sea levels will rise between 10 and 60 cm by 2050 - that's only 25 years away. That makes sea defences very expensive or may even make Gosport indefensible. And for nature, surveys have shown that in Hampshire some 46 plants are already considered extinct; and we know that involving people with nature is good for their physical and mental health.
Why is supporting the Bill beneficial to Gosport?
A government, committed by the bill, will need to take action and find the money to support those actions. A prepared Gosport will be able to take advantage of that money to keep people safe from floods, to build energy efficient homes and adapt to a sustainable and healthier future. I am sure you all want that for Gosport. The public is already aware of Climate Change and expects government, local and national, to take action. Supporting this Bill is one way of showing you are taking action. And improving nature locally improves how people feel and when people feel happy, they are more likely to support their local council.
We should take action NOW to secure a sustainable future.
Voting to support this motion, tonight, and joining 380 other councils, is one small step in the right direction. I therefore ask you to vote for this motion this evening.
Introduction
TheClimate andNature (CAN)Bill isa legallybinding missionstatement whichwill ensure policyand actionon theclimate andnature crisisis science-ledand people-oriented.
The UK led the world with the Climate Change Act of 2008, and did so again with its commitment to Net Zero by 2050. In both cases, other countries followed our lead. The CAN Bill would set a gold standard for other developed nations. By passing it, UK politicians would help inspire positive action across theworld.
Motion
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) unreservedly lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
The motion was proposed as an important motion that deserved progress to committee and a second reading as it was currently being delayed by whips and there was concern that some MPs did not appreciate the importance of the proposal.
The purpose of CAN bill was to present something legally binding and a statement of action reinforcing the steps taken and on climate action in 2008 with a commitment to be net zero by 2025 and that positive action was needed. Action was needed now to address the issue.
Clarification was sought that the motion was being considered at Full Council and not in line with the constitution at the Community and Environment Board. It was agreed the motion would be heard by Council.
An amendment to the motion was proposed.
Proposed by Councillor Huggins
Seconded by Councillor Philpott
Gosport Borough Council welcomes the contribution the climate and nature bill makes to the debate on climate change and will watch the Bill’s progress through Parliament with interest, The bill would create a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the UK implements and achieves new climate change and nature targets for central government and provision for devolved administrations., However with its delay and uncertainty on how it will impact local authority duty, Gosport should ensure it has a current Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan so as not to fall behind and have a clear mechanism to monitor climate action.
The Council was advised that if this was adopted it would push for real change, impact and action.
An additional amendment was proposed.
Proposed by Councillor Cully
Seconded by Councillor Brown
Remove the word unreservedly
Councillor Huggins advised as proposer of the first motion, she was potentially comfortable with second proposed amendment.
Members advised that the scale of the damage required a greater national accountability and that despite promises made, there had been no progress since 2008.
Member felt there needed to be further progress and that there was an urgency to this progressing.
Members expressed concern that the Bill had not yet passed through to debate and felt that it was important there was cross party agreement in support of this particularly as it would not be scrutinised until July. Members felt that pressure should be continued to be placed on the government.
Members felt it was important that the public interest was maintained and momentum and was upheld.
Councillor Huggins agreed to withdraw her amendment.
A vote was taken on the subsequent amendment and carried.
A vote was taken on the substantive motion as follows:
RESOLVED:
Gosport Borough Council (GBC) lends its support to the passing and implementation of the CAN Bill. In so doing, GBC acknowledges the extreme urgency of the action needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and the extreme negative impact on the natural habitat that is happening right now, increasing at an exponential rate; thereby, seriously damaging the life chances of the coming generations.
Motion on Local Government Reorganisation - 'Hands Off Gosport'
Proposed by: Councillor Peter Chegwyn
Seconded by: Councillor Rob Hylands
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
Councillor Chegwyn advised that he was happy to accept each paragraph individually to be voted on.
The Council was advised that this was a fast moving subject that impacted the future of all Councils and that if it did go ahead it was important that Gosport had a seat at the table with other Council’s.
Since the publication of the agenda the Government had granted permission for the postponement of the County Council elections in May, some Members advised that they felt that the proposals were unhealthy and would not benefit the residents of Gosport in anyway. The super merge approach to Council’s would not work and decisions should be taken by Councillors in their own locality. There was concern that Gosport Borough Council would be swallowed up by the other larger authorities and that the proposals were to address the many unitaries that were in deficit.
There was no current clear timetable, but it was likely that Mayoral elections would take place in 2026 but it was reiterated that it was felt it was dangerous to give up on democracy in such a way.
It was reiterated that it would be welcome that the motion received cross party support, as it was felt the Gosport Councillors knew what was best for the residents of Gosport.
Members reiterated their hands off stance and in doing so highlighted the unique challenges presented by the Borough.
Some Members advised that they could not support the motion in its current state, and did not include a mandate for the Council leader to act on the behalf of the Council as the only non executive Council in Hampshire.
Concern was also expressed that the motion was unamendable at it was dealing with so many unknowns.
An amendment to the motion was put forward.
Proposed by Councillor June Cully
Seconded by Councillor Jonathan Brown
That the following be added to the end of paragraph one
We want the Leader and the CEO to engage with the process to achieve the best outcome and opportunities for the Borough.
It was clarified that this was an addition to the first paragraph and not a replacement for the second.
Disappointment was expressed that some group leaders had not reached out to discuss the matter in advance of the meeting. Members were also reminded that the proposal would be having a significant impact on staff and that this should be respected.
Members reiterated that they should all agree and be working towards what was best for Gosport and that it was felt that this was not devolution, as the power from that should be sent downwards.
Members expressed concern that five Councillors would represent Gosport in an authority that had little knowledge of the uniqueness and challenges in the Borough and that the Borough would be swept up in a larger authority and forgotten about. Whilst it was accepted savings could be made, Gosport Borough Council were already ahead of the curve with shared services and efficiencies.
It was also stated that the amalgamation of Councils would not be solved until the gap in funding of Adult and Children’s services was addressed.
A vote was taken on the amendment and agreed.
A named vote was taken on the substantive motion in separate paragraphs as follows.
Gosport Borough Council is opposed to the Government's plans for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Councillors believe that decisions on Gosport's future are best made by elected Gosport councillors of whichever party who are accountable to local Gosport residents, not by councillors from other parts of Hampshire who are less likely to have Gosport's best interests at heart. We want the Leader and the CEO to engage with the process to achieve the best outcome and opportunities for the Borough.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Gosport Borough Council also believes that the Government's Devolution proposals are flawed insofar as they concentrate powers in the hands of Metro-style Mayors and new regional councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Gosport Council believes true devolution would devolve powers down to District, Town & Parish Councils who are closer to the people they serve and thereby more democratic & accountable. Council notes there is little evidence to suggest 'bigger is better' or likely to produce the financial savings which the Government claims. Gosport Council rejects plans for a 'Greater Portsmouth' Unitary Authority merging the existing Portsmouth Unitary Authority with the existing Gosport, Fareham & Havant Borough & District Councils.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, , Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Brown, Burgess, Casey, Cully, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Gosport Borough Council is also opposed to the attempt by Hampshire County Council to postpone or cancel this May's County Council elections. Gosport councillors believe that both County & Borough councillors should be accountable to local residents through the ballot box and that any attempt by politicians to cancel or postpone elections for political reasons sets a very dangerous precedent.
FOR THE RECOMMENDATION:
Councillor Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION:
None
ABSTENTION:
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard.
Motion on Stubbington Study Centre
Proposed by Councillor Bradley
Seconded by Councillor Cox
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to think again and keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open.
Councillor Huggins did not take part in the debate or voting as a Member of the Committee making the decision on the proposal at Hampshire County Council, so as not to make any predetermination.
Members expressed their concern that the decision was being made by Hampshire County Council without any real consideration for the importance of the local facility and whilst it was accepted that vulnerable children needed specific facilities this was not the most appropriate location.
Members expressed concern that the Haven Centre had been lost and now it was possible Stubbington Study Centre would be too.
A notice of amendment was given
Proposed by Councillor Philpott
Seconded by Councillor Ricketts
Remove the words ‘to think again and’
Add to the very end ‘and advises residents and other interested groups to also engage in the consultation.
Councillor Bradley advised as proposer she was happy with the amendment and it was agreed by the Council.
Members reiterated their concern and requested that all affected and interested parties take part in the consultation and attend a protest march on Saturday 8th February. It had been hinted that Calshot was an appropriate alternative to Stubbington but they were very different centres and Calshot was centred on older children.
The proposals had been discussed with the Leader of Fareham Borough Council and there was agreement that the facility should not close and reiterated the importance of speaking up against the proposals and the impact its loss would have.
Members reiterated the importance of the centre and the ability to have a local voice and that those making the decision were detached from the reality of the importance of the centre.
RESOLVED:
Gosport Borough Council regrets the proposal by Hampshire County Council to close the Stubbington Study Centre. This much-loved facility has benefitted thousands of Gosport youngsters over many years. Gosport Council calls on Hampshire County Council to keep the Stubbington Study Centre open. Council instructs the Chief Executive to respond to the official consultation on behalf of the Council and make it clear that Gosport Council believes the Study Centre is too good to lose and should remain open and advises residents and other interested groups to also engage in the consultation.
9
Part II minutes of the Board of the Council
Community and Environment Board – 8 January 2025
Policy and Organisation Board – 2 January 2025, 21 January 2025, and 5 February 2025 (to follow)
Policy and Organisation Board – 2 January 2025, 21 January 2025, and 5 February 2025 (to follow)
Attachments:
- Document Part II C&E 2025.01.08 28 Jan 2025
- Document P and O Part II 02.01.2025 28 Jan 2025
- Document 2025.01.21 Part II 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the Part II Minutes of the Boards be received.
The Part II Minutes of the Community and Environment Board on the 8 January 2025 were presented to the Council.
The report was welcome, including the acknowledgement of addressing the Alver river issues. It was hoped that this would improve the flooding issues upstream.
A Member advised that the update was welcome, particularly after the devastating flooding in Alverstoke.
It was acknowledged that the section 19 report had still not been published but that it would only cover the inquiry into the response to the Alverstoke Flooding and not the cause.
It was recognised that there were separate issues relating to Stoke Lake, these included the on pause flood defence scheme and the sluice gate. This was in addition to the separate issue of the algae on the lake.
It was acknowledge that the shortfall in funding for the flood defences now sat at £3.25 million, significantly more than the original £800000 and whilst Gosport Borough Council and the Coastal Partners were committed to the project the Environment Agency had been written to requesting support for the deficit. It was also acknowledged that this would be one of many requests received for flood prevention work from across the country.
It was also recognised that the recent flooding event was evidence that the correct decision had been made when deciding not to build on Stokesmead as properties there would also have been flooded.
The Part II Minutes of the Policy and Organisation Board on the 2 January 2025, 21 January 2025, and 5 February 2025.
Subsequent to the meeting on the 21 January 2025 the Letter of Representation had been received and was welcome.
The Part II Minutes of the Community and Environment Board on the 8 January 2025 were presented to the Council.
The report was welcome, including the acknowledgement of addressing the Alver river issues. It was hoped that this would improve the flooding issues upstream.
A Member advised that the update was welcome, particularly after the devastating flooding in Alverstoke.
It was acknowledged that the section 19 report had still not been published but that it would only cover the inquiry into the response to the Alverstoke Flooding and not the cause.
It was recognised that there were separate issues relating to Stoke Lake, these included the on pause flood defence scheme and the sluice gate. This was in addition to the separate issue of the algae on the lake.
It was acknowledge that the shortfall in funding for the flood defences now sat at £3.25 million, significantly more than the original £800000 and whilst Gosport Borough Council and the Coastal Partners were committed to the project the Environment Agency had been written to requesting support for the deficit. It was also acknowledged that this would be one of many requests received for flood prevention work from across the country.
It was also recognised that the recent flooding event was evidence that the correct decision had been made when deciding not to build on Stokesmead as properties there would also have been flooded.
The Part II Minutes of the Policy and Organisation Board on the 2 January 2025, 21 January 2025, and 5 February 2025.
Subsequent to the meeting on the 21 January 2025 the Letter of Representation had been received and was welcome.
10
MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY & BUDGET (REVENUE & CAPITAL) 2025/26
Report to follow
Attachments:
- Document Revenue budget report 2025-26 Gosport 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix A General Fund Budget 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix B General Fund Forecast 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix C Summary of Service Budgets 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix D Capital Additions 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix E Capital Programme 2025-26 v3 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix F Prudential Indicators 28 Jan 2025
- Document Appendix G Final Gosport Pay Policy Statement 2025-26 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer detailing the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget 2025/26
The Leader of the Council introduced the budget as good for Gosport, the settlement statement had continued to decrease but the budget had been delivered without any cuts to services and with £2 million in place to provide extra provision.
The average band D property in Gosport would have their Council tax increased by 14p a week for services that continued to improve the Borough with the Borough Council’s increase of 2.99 % one of the lowest in the country.
Hampshire County Council had requested to have their precept increased by 15% but this had been rejected by the Government and would now be set at 4.99% unless they wished to hold a referendum at huge cost to the tax payer. The County Council had significant debt whereas Gosport Borough Council were financially sound.
Members praised the work of the financial team and requested that thanks to them be recorded.
The Council was advised that the administration had been left with £1.7million deficit and with inflation reaching up to 10% and charges only being levied previously at 2% there was a need to address this. It had therefore been necessary to utilise some of the reserves but doing so had allowed for development and progress for the Town.
Cuts were being made at the County Council to things like school transport, libraries, Stubbington Study Centre whereas Gosport was delivering services such as improved sports facilities.
The Council had undertaken significant savings and needed to undertake additional savings in the future to address the national payout deficit. The Council had been hit with significant costs, such as the pay award and a reduction in recycling income.
There had been significant progress within housing to secure additional properties and dispose of assets such as Blakes Maternity Hospital. These were beneficial to supporting the need for emergency housing.
The Council would continue to support important work such as CAB and would continue with grants accessible to community groups. There was also funding being used to support outdoor access and in turn this would support mental health.
There was additional support for sports facilities at the leisure centre including a padel ball court, as well as improvement to the football pitches and tennis courts at Privett Park. These were scheduled for improvement and the importance of providing facilities was reiterated.
Work was being done to improve lighting at Bridgemary Skate park, improvements to the splash park at a cost reduction to what was predicted. Money had been spent on improving buildings, investing arts and culture, supporting businesses and bringing life into the town. Improvements had been made to the Market.
It was reiterated that the financial settlement from the Government had reduced significantly.
The Council was advised that work had been done to secure rental of the Car Park at Fort Road at a rate of £60,000 pa to the IRC development for 10 years whilst protecting the access to the waterfront and the ability for the public to park.
The commitment to providing free entertainment, supporting festivals, the Criterion and the People’s Park was all reiterated and the levelling up funding was an opportunity to open the waterfront up and redevelop the Falklands Gardens.
Investment was being made in play areas, utilizing section 106 and CIL money and prudent decisions were being taken to protect the Council against future issues such as sink holes.
It was acknowledged that tough decisions needed to be made and that there was not funding for all projects such as CCTV monitoring. There was however still CCTV recording and recently a letter had been received advising how the CCTV recording in Gosport had recently supported solving significant crime in the West Midlands.
It was reiterated that the budget was sound and good for Gosport and equated to 11p a week rise in the Council tax for a band b property.
A Member expressed concern that a large proportion of the budget speech focused on the County Council and was not important to the Borough.
Concern was expressed at the rate in which the reserves were being spent, as they could only be spent once. The administration continued to spend money on the community skips, often in very close proximity to the 7 day a week HWRC that was provided at no cost to the Borough Council.
In addition the Criterion continued to have money spent on it, despite the Policy and Organisation Board being advised the exit strategy would be implemented if a business case and progress was not forthcoming by autumn 2024. Significant money had been spent on the building with nothing to show for it. The People’s Park was no further forward but costs had increased significantly to over £4million.
An amendment was proposed to the motion as attached to the minutes and summarised below.
Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2025/26
That the recommendations to Agenda Item 10 - Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2025/26 be amended as follows: -
Recommendation 2.2) be amended to:
A General Fund Budget for 2025/26 of £13,172,150 as set out in Appendix A (Amended) and broken down in Appendix C be amended to include the changes described below:
i) Reductions to Revenue Estimates
Savings Proposal
Impact on Level of Service & Service Outcomes
2025/26
2026/27
&
Future
Years
£
£
Community & Environment Board
Cease Community Skips Scheme
Locally provided skips for waste disposal will be unavailable to residents
160,470
160,470
Policy & Organisation Board
Grants Panel - Organisations
Reduction in value of funding available to voluntary and community organisations
25,000
25,000
Grants Panel - Events Fund
Reduction in value of funding available for local events
25,000
25,000
Total
210,470
210,470
ii) Additions to Revenue Estimates
Increases to Board Estimates
2025/26
2026/27
&
Future
Years
£
£
Community & Environment Board
CCTV Monitoring
197,470
197,470
Pathway Lighting (see Capital Programme Amendment) - maintenance and energy
3,000
3,000
Stanley Park Toilets (See Capital Programme Amendment) - maintenance and cleansing costs
10,000
10,000
Total
210,470
210,470
Recommendation 2.17 be amended to:-
The Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2027/28 as set out in Appendix E (amended) is approved, including the changes described below:
i) Reductions to the Capital Programme
Scheme Deletions / Reductions
Scheme Cost
£
Policy & Organisation Board
Reduce
Criterion Building - Acquisition & Refurbishment
1,246,000
Total
1,246,000
ii) Additions to Capital Programme
Scheme Additions / Increases
Scheme Cost
£
Community & Environment Board
Add
Public toilets in Stanley Park
70,000
Add
Solar panels (Leisure Centre)
177,000
Add
Privett Park pavilions and paths
550,000
Add
Pathway lighting within parks and open spaces
150,000
Add
Play area refurbishment and improvements to existing facilities across the Borough
299,000
Total
1,246,000
Recommendation 2.23 be added:
That the Council declare the Criterion Building surplus to requirements and seek to dispose of the asset on the open market; the capital receipt generated to reduce the amount of borrowing being used to finance the Capital Programme in general.
SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS
Under Recommendation 2.16, the Section 151 Officer advises as follows: -
The proposals contained within this amendment do not alter the statements made by the Section 151 Officer in Section 9 of this report.
BOROUGH SOLICITOR’S COMMENTS
The Borough Solicitor is satisfied that it is within the Council’s powers to approve the amendment as set out and supports the advice of the Section 151 Officer given above.
It requested that clarification be given as to whether the recently signed community skips contract could be cancelled and would there be a financial penalty for doing so and it was advised that there was a 2 month notice period for either party.
The Council was updated that significant funding had been lost from the crematorium but that the new incinerations had been installed, were working well ad it was hoped that there could be a return to sharing surplus in the future the existing generators were over 35 years old. The improvement to the cockle pond path was welcome and the importance of the grants reiterated as was the provision of 3g pitches on Walpole Park. The inclusion of a running track at Gosport Park was also welcome. The consideration of the inclusion of toilets at Stanley Park was deemed to be unnecessary.
The work on the bastion was welcome and Stoke Lake, the bastion water work allowed for the bastion garden work to be finalised.
The skips were welcomed as they provided a facility for those that did not have access to a vehicle and it was welcomed that there were provisions for the improvement in IT and that there would be work undertaken to keep the Imagination Refinery open.
It was also welcomed that other options were being explored to fund recording of CCTV. The People’s Park and the improvement to harbourside facilities in Gosport was also welcome.
A Member advised that they felt the budget was a balanced and forward looking budget and that the administration were delivering on their promised manifesto. The commitment was to improve the Borough before it was left with nothing.
The skatepark in Lee on Solent was an example of the issues within the Borough and that tough decisions had had to be made with regards to budgets and spending.
The Borough was offering sports courts that were the first of their kind in the South and thanks were reiterated to the Council’s officers for the work that had been undertaken in producing the budget.
Councillor Philpott as the amendment proposer reiterated that the skips were just a waste transfer station that came at a cost to the residents and suggested that a reduction in grant funding would be acceptable and that CCTV monitoring was essential. Climate change motions were being proposed but the solar panals proposed for the leisure centre had been removed from the budget. Some Members felt that the proposed budget was smoke and mirrors.
The debate concluded with summeries of previous statements and a named voted on the proposed amendment as follows.
FOR the amendment
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard
AGAINST the amendment
Councillor Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
The amendment was LOST
The substantive motion was voted on and recorded as follows.
FOR the recommendation
Councillor Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST the amendment
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard
This was agreed.
The Leader of the Council introduced the budget as good for Gosport, the settlement statement had continued to decrease but the budget had been delivered without any cuts to services and with £2 million in place to provide extra provision.
The average band D property in Gosport would have their Council tax increased by 14p a week for services that continued to improve the Borough with the Borough Council’s increase of 2.99 % one of the lowest in the country.
Hampshire County Council had requested to have their precept increased by 15% but this had been rejected by the Government and would now be set at 4.99% unless they wished to hold a referendum at huge cost to the tax payer. The County Council had significant debt whereas Gosport Borough Council were financially sound.
Members praised the work of the financial team and requested that thanks to them be recorded.
The Council was advised that the administration had been left with £1.7million deficit and with inflation reaching up to 10% and charges only being levied previously at 2% there was a need to address this. It had therefore been necessary to utilise some of the reserves but doing so had allowed for development and progress for the Town.
Cuts were being made at the County Council to things like school transport, libraries, Stubbington Study Centre whereas Gosport was delivering services such as improved sports facilities.
The Council had undertaken significant savings and needed to undertake additional savings in the future to address the national payout deficit. The Council had been hit with significant costs, such as the pay award and a reduction in recycling income.
There had been significant progress within housing to secure additional properties and dispose of assets such as Blakes Maternity Hospital. These were beneficial to supporting the need for emergency housing.
The Council would continue to support important work such as CAB and would continue with grants accessible to community groups. There was also funding being used to support outdoor access and in turn this would support mental health.
There was additional support for sports facilities at the leisure centre including a padel ball court, as well as improvement to the football pitches and tennis courts at Privett Park. These were scheduled for improvement and the importance of providing facilities was reiterated.
Work was being done to improve lighting at Bridgemary Skate park, improvements to the splash park at a cost reduction to what was predicted. Money had been spent on improving buildings, investing arts and culture, supporting businesses and bringing life into the town. Improvements had been made to the Market.
It was reiterated that the financial settlement from the Government had reduced significantly.
The Council was advised that work had been done to secure rental of the Car Park at Fort Road at a rate of £60,000 pa to the IRC development for 10 years whilst protecting the access to the waterfront and the ability for the public to park.
The commitment to providing free entertainment, supporting festivals, the Criterion and the People’s Park was all reiterated and the levelling up funding was an opportunity to open the waterfront up and redevelop the Falklands Gardens.
Investment was being made in play areas, utilizing section 106 and CIL money and prudent decisions were being taken to protect the Council against future issues such as sink holes.
It was acknowledged that tough decisions needed to be made and that there was not funding for all projects such as CCTV monitoring. There was however still CCTV recording and recently a letter had been received advising how the CCTV recording in Gosport had recently supported solving significant crime in the West Midlands.
It was reiterated that the budget was sound and good for Gosport and equated to 11p a week rise in the Council tax for a band b property.
A Member expressed concern that a large proportion of the budget speech focused on the County Council and was not important to the Borough.
Concern was expressed at the rate in which the reserves were being spent, as they could only be spent once. The administration continued to spend money on the community skips, often in very close proximity to the 7 day a week HWRC that was provided at no cost to the Borough Council.
In addition the Criterion continued to have money spent on it, despite the Policy and Organisation Board being advised the exit strategy would be implemented if a business case and progress was not forthcoming by autumn 2024. Significant money had been spent on the building with nothing to show for it. The People’s Park was no further forward but costs had increased significantly to over £4million.
An amendment was proposed to the motion as attached to the minutes and summarised below.
Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2025/26
That the recommendations to Agenda Item 10 - Medium Term Financial Strategy & Budget (Revenue & Capital) 2025/26 be amended as follows: -
Recommendation 2.2) be amended to:
A General Fund Budget for 2025/26 of £13,172,150 as set out in Appendix A (Amended) and broken down in Appendix C be amended to include the changes described below:
i) Reductions to Revenue Estimates
Savings Proposal
Impact on Level of Service & Service Outcomes
2025/26
2026/27
&
Future
Years
£
£
Community & Environment Board
Cease Community Skips Scheme
Locally provided skips for waste disposal will be unavailable to residents
160,470
160,470
Policy & Organisation Board
Grants Panel - Organisations
Reduction in value of funding available to voluntary and community organisations
25,000
25,000
Grants Panel - Events Fund
Reduction in value of funding available for local events
25,000
25,000
Total
210,470
210,470
ii) Additions to Revenue Estimates
Increases to Board Estimates
2025/26
2026/27
&
Future
Years
£
£
Community & Environment Board
CCTV Monitoring
197,470
197,470
Pathway Lighting (see Capital Programme Amendment) - maintenance and energy
3,000
3,000
Stanley Park Toilets (See Capital Programme Amendment) - maintenance and cleansing costs
10,000
10,000
Total
210,470
210,470
Recommendation 2.17 be amended to:-
The Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2027/28 as set out in Appendix E (amended) is approved, including the changes described below:
i) Reductions to the Capital Programme
Scheme Deletions / Reductions
Scheme Cost
£
Policy & Organisation Board
Reduce
Criterion Building - Acquisition & Refurbishment
1,246,000
Total
1,246,000
ii) Additions to Capital Programme
Scheme Additions / Increases
Scheme Cost
£
Community & Environment Board
Add
Public toilets in Stanley Park
70,000
Add
Solar panels (Leisure Centre)
177,000
Add
Privett Park pavilions and paths
550,000
Add
Pathway lighting within parks and open spaces
150,000
Add
Play area refurbishment and improvements to existing facilities across the Borough
299,000
Total
1,246,000
Recommendation 2.23 be added:
That the Council declare the Criterion Building surplus to requirements and seek to dispose of the asset on the open market; the capital receipt generated to reduce the amount of borrowing being used to finance the Capital Programme in general.
SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS
Under Recommendation 2.16, the Section 151 Officer advises as follows: -
The proposals contained within this amendment do not alter the statements made by the Section 151 Officer in Section 9 of this report.
BOROUGH SOLICITOR’S COMMENTS
The Borough Solicitor is satisfied that it is within the Council’s powers to approve the amendment as set out and supports the advice of the Section 151 Officer given above.
It requested that clarification be given as to whether the recently signed community skips contract could be cancelled and would there be a financial penalty for doing so and it was advised that there was a 2 month notice period for either party.
The Council was updated that significant funding had been lost from the crematorium but that the new incinerations had been installed, were working well ad it was hoped that there could be a return to sharing surplus in the future the existing generators were over 35 years old. The improvement to the cockle pond path was welcome and the importance of the grants reiterated as was the provision of 3g pitches on Walpole Park. The inclusion of a running track at Gosport Park was also welcome. The consideration of the inclusion of toilets at Stanley Park was deemed to be unnecessary.
The work on the bastion was welcome and Stoke Lake, the bastion water work allowed for the bastion garden work to be finalised.
The skips were welcomed as they provided a facility for those that did not have access to a vehicle and it was welcomed that there were provisions for the improvement in IT and that there would be work undertaken to keep the Imagination Refinery open.
It was also welcomed that other options were being explored to fund recording of CCTV. The People’s Park and the improvement to harbourside facilities in Gosport was also welcome.
A Member advised that they felt the budget was a balanced and forward looking budget and that the administration were delivering on their promised manifesto. The commitment was to improve the Borough before it was left with nothing.
The skatepark in Lee on Solent was an example of the issues within the Borough and that tough decisions had had to be made with regards to budgets and spending.
The Borough was offering sports courts that were the first of their kind in the South and thanks were reiterated to the Council’s officers for the work that had been undertaken in producing the budget.
Councillor Philpott as the amendment proposer reiterated that the skips were just a waste transfer station that came at a cost to the residents and suggested that a reduction in grant funding would be acceptable and that CCTV monitoring was essential. Climate change motions were being proposed but the solar panals proposed for the leisure centre had been removed from the budget. Some Members felt that the proposed budget was smoke and mirrors.
The debate concluded with summeries of previous statements and a named voted on the proposed amendment as follows.
FOR the amendment
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard
AGAINST the amendment
Councillor Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
The amendment was LOST
The substantive motion was voted on and recorded as follows.
FOR the recommendation
Councillor Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Hammond, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor.
AGAINST the amendment
Councillor Burgess, Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Meenaghan, Namdeo, Philpott, Ricketts, Scard
This was agreed.
11
Appointment of Data Protection Officer
For Council to agree an appointment to the role of Data Protection Officer
Attachments:
- Document DPO report 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Executive.
RESOLVED: That James Wild be appointed the Data Protection Officer.
RESOLVED: That James Wild be appointed the Data Protection Officer.
12
Appointment of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer
This report sets out the proposal to appoint a Returning Officer for the administration of elections and an Electoral Registration Officer for the registration of electors, following the retirement of the present postholder on 31 January 2025 and to delegate authority to appoint Deputy Electoral Registration Officers to the Electoral Registration Officer.
Attachments:
- Document ERO 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Chief Executive detailing the proposal for the appointment for Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.
The Council were advised that there had been a change in the proposed officer and the proposal was to appoint Debbie Gore as both Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.
That the Full Council
a) Appoints Debbie Gore as Returning Officer for elections and as the Electoral Registration Officer
b) Provides appropriate insurance to enable the roles of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer to be undertaken. In the event of such insurance carrying an 'excess' clause by which an initial portion of risk is not insured, the Council, through its internal insurance fund or otherwise, will indemnify the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer up to the value of such excess
c) Appoint Jessie Regan as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer with full powers and delegates authority to the Electoral Registration Officer to appoint further Deputy Electoral Registration Officers if required, subject to such appointees holding satisfactory qualifications and experience as required, and
d) expresses its thanks to Graeme Jesty for undertaking the duties of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer and wishes him a long and happy retirement.
The Council were advised that there had been a change in the proposed officer and the proposal was to appoint Debbie Gore as both Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.
That the Full Council
a) Appoints Debbie Gore as Returning Officer for elections and as the Electoral Registration Officer
b) Provides appropriate insurance to enable the roles of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer to be undertaken. In the event of such insurance carrying an 'excess' clause by which an initial portion of risk is not insured, the Council, through its internal insurance fund or otherwise, will indemnify the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer up to the value of such excess
c) Appoint Jessie Regan as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer with full powers and delegates authority to the Electoral Registration Officer to appoint further Deputy Electoral Registration Officers if required, subject to such appointees holding satisfactory qualifications and experience as required, and
d) expresses its thanks to Graeme Jesty for undertaking the duties of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer and wishes him a long and happy retirement.
13
Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2025/26
The purpose of this report is to update Members on the Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for 2024/25 with regards to claimant caseload and expenditure, and to propose the working-age scheme for the next financial year 2025/26, for which no changes are intended.
Attachments:
- Document Council Tax Reduction Report - 2025 26 FINAL DRAFT 28 Jan 2025
- Document Gosport S13A 202526 Scheme FINAL_DRAFT 28 Jan 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Benefits Manager detailing the update to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme.
RESOLVED:
That Council approves the LCTS scheme for 2025/26, which
¾ Maintains the current scheme for those of working-age, and
¾ Notes the continuation of the statutory scheme for pension-age customers.
The pension-age scheme will, as in previous years, be updated to reflect the annual uprating of allowances and premiums together with any statutory base legislation changes required. These are summarised at paragraph 2.6.
RESOLVED:
That Council approves the LCTS scheme for 2025/26, which
¾ Maintains the current scheme for those of working-age, and
¾ Notes the continuation of the statutory scheme for pension-age customers.
The pension-age scheme will, as in previous years, be updated to reflect the annual uprating of allowances and premiums together with any statutory base legislation changes required. These are summarised at paragraph 2.6.
14
Election of Mayor Elect and Deputy Elect
In accordance with Standing Order No. 2.4 the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer has written to Group Leaders and Members of the Council inviting them to submit Member nominations for the selection of Mayor-Elect and Deputy Mayor Elect for the next Municipal Year. One nominations has been received by the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, Councillor K Bradley for Mayor elect and no nominations for Deputy Mayor Elect.
Minutes
One nomination was received for Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26, Councillor K Bradley
RESOLVED: Councillor K Bradley is Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26.
One nomination was received for Deputy Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26, Councillor Earle.
RESOLVED: Councillor Earle was is Deputy Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26.
RESOLVED: Councillor K Bradley is Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26.
One nomination was received for Deputy Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26, Councillor Earle.
RESOLVED: Councillor Earle was is Deputy Mayor Elect for the Municipal Year 2025/26.
15
Any other items
Minutes
There were none.
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in