Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
28
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2025):
50
Meetings (2024):
47
Meeting
Regulatory Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 30th September 2025
6:00 PM
Tuesday, 30th September 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Tuesday, 30th September 2025
10:00 PM
Tuesday, 30th September 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Confirmed; Extraordinary
Date:
30 Sep 2025
30 Sep 2025
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Council Staff
Head of Planning and Regeneration and Assistant to the Chief Executive
Debbie Gore
Copy docmts only
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
Minutes
Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillors Casey
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
3
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Friday 26 September 2025. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
A deputation was received on item 25/00199/FULL – Immigration Removal Centre, 2 Dolphin Way.
4
Public Questions - Standing Order 3.5
(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Friday 26 September 2025).
Minutes
There were none.
5
Report of the Development Manager
To consider the report of the Development Manager.
Attachments:
- Document Final agenda 22 Sep 2025
- Document Site Plan - Item 1 - Haslar IRC 22 Sep 2025
- Document Site plan - Item 2 - Gosport Borough FC 22 Sep 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
25/00199/FULL - INSTALLATION OF LIKE FOR LIKE REPLACEMENT FENCING, GATES AND TIMBER FENCE PANELS
Immigration Removal Centre 2 Dolphin Way Gosport Hampshire PO12 2AW
The Board was provided with an update that following discussions with the applicant and consultation with the County Ecologist, Condition 3 was no longer recommended to be imposed. This was due to the scale and nature of the proposed works which is considered to have only very minor impacts upon the welfare of overwintering birds.
Conditions 1 and 2 remain as recommended and the Officer recommendation remains for approval
Alison Godbold was invited to address the Board. She advised that she was representing a number of residents that lived in the proximity of the IRC.
She advised the Board that despite the promise of and contact with the Home Office and MP communication regarding the development on site had been poor. There had been promises of information since November 2022 but this had only been received in August 2025 in addition an Engagment event that was promised in January 2023 was actually not taking place until October 2025. This was not acceptable to the neighbouring residents and what was wanted from them was dates and times of scheduled development, the programme of what was taking place. In addition what the impact would be to the local residents and how the developers were planning to mitigate the impact of the significant work on site.
The Board was advised that residents had been told that work was not to commence on the site until 08:00 but that regularly those working on the site arrived at 06:15 creating a large amount of noise disturbance to neighbouring residents and parking in a way that was inconsiderate to the surrounding area. Work regularly began on site at 7am causing great disturbance to the neighbours.
The Board was advised that the case officer’s report had stated that the potential disturbance from the replacement fence was not significant enough to require conditioning but it was felt that the replacement of 187 fence panels and their concrete posts would create noise disturbance given their close proximity to the properties. The Board was advised that the residents strongly disagreed that there would be no disturbance and requested that there be a condition on the development on work taking place between 8am and 5pm as the best practical method of reducing noise disturbance to the neighbours.
The Board was advised that an ecological survey was undertaken that had advised that there were bats present and that badgers were also present on the site. The Board were also advised that this was out of date as it should be undertaken in the most recent survey season. The Board was advised that contact had been made with Natural England, and the Rural Policing Team to ensure that the correct consideration was given to the wildlife on site and on the boatyard site, and that this should not be ignored as it was in close proximity to the site that would be impacted by the fence being replaced.
It was reiterated that wildlife should be protected and appropriate licenses obtained before work was undertaken and that the work undertaken was sensitive and timely to neighbouring residents as well as wildlife and also that restrictions on hours were stuck to ensure that there was less disturbance to the residents and that the contractors work within the parameters that minimised this.
A Member advised that in some circumstances Community Liaison Panels were appropriate to ensure liaison between residents and developers and in this instance the Home Office and questioned if this was something offered to the residents, would they engage and welcome this and were advised that they would.
The Board was advised that a newsletter had been sent but that this had not been particularly useful information and contained no contact details for any queries or complaints and was confirmed that a resident’s panel would be welcome.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the typical arrival to the site was 06:15 and that machinery noise started at 07:00, but that if machinery was in situ, this could be earlier. Ward Councillors had communicated the best they can, but were provided with limited information. The Developer also provided limited response to any questions.
The Board was advised that conditions in existence and potential proposals could be investigated.
MunierJussab was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the senior project lead for phase one, leading the construction on site and was representing the Home Office.
He thanked Members for the opportunity to address the Board and advised that the planning permission requested was for a replacement fence to the perimeter of the site, replacing an existing fence. The requested replacement was like for like at 5.2 metres but did not fall within the remit of permitted development, the limit of which was 4.5 metres. The fence needed to be replaced for longevity and because the existing fence was coming to the end of its useful life. There was no fundamental impact from its installation and the recommendation for approval was welcome.
In answer to a Member’s question, Mr. Jussab advised that he felt that 8am until 5pm were appropriate working hours, he advised that he attended the site every Wednesday and reiterated to those on site that construction work should not be taking place outside of these hours. He would relay, and reaffirm that this was the case to the contractors and accepted that work should not be taking place outside of these hours.
He advised the Board that the replacement fence would not impact on local residents as it was the existing perimeter, nor would it impact wildlife as it was like for like.
It was recognised that a programme of work would be useful to give an understanding of the scheduled work and the suggestion of better communication was valued, but did sit outside of the remit of the role held and would need to be passed on to the communications team.
Communication was essential as the project moved forward and this was recognised but it was reiterated the fence work was not taking place to the rear of the properties in Fort Road.
A Member acknowledged that there was a stakeholders meeting in the upcoming weeks, but reiterated that it was felt this should be more of a two way discussion between residents and the constructors and take place more frequently as required.
It was reiterated that the fence could have been constructed under permitted development if it had been 4.5 metres or less, however the guidance for such sites is that the minimum accepted height is 5.2 metres meaning it needed a full planning application.
The Board was advised that the Home Office employed professional ecologists that undertook a watching brief on the site and that work would be stopped if required. It was reiterated that the replacement fence did not sit within the remit of the more overgrown area of the site and therefore the ecological impact was minimal.
The Board was advised that some of the work undertaken had been done so without a formal planning application submitted as there was exemptions for planning permission requirements on some Crown Land where the Crown was the applicant. Development could in these circumstances be undertaken as permitted development.
The Board were reminded that the county ecologist, had discussed the application with the applicant and that it been agreed that the condition 3 of the report was not required as a result of the low impact of the application.
Members expressed concern at the disturbance the proposal and additional work was causing the residents recognising the valid concerns of the neighbouring residents and felt that the inclusion of a condition limiting construction hours to 8am until 5pm and recognised the disruption working outside of these hours was causing. It was felt that even if this small part of the development could be restricted it would support residents in some way.
The Board was advised by the planning officer that it was considered that the work to install a replacement fence would not lead to disturbance of such significance asto warrant the imposition of a condition limiting timings.
Members advised that they did not agree and suggested that a condition imposing conditions on working hours be implemented.
Members sought additional clarification on whether it could be identified that the work being undertaken could be shown to be that of working on the fence, and therefore enforceable if breached and it was advised given that it was for work on a perimeter fence it was likely that it would be.
A Member also sough clarification on the agreement to designated the area as a Conservation Area and queried whether this offered any additional protection to the site when considering whether or not a planning application needed to be considered.
The Board was advised that the Conservation Area had been designated in part to protect the site from elements of demolition when the site was being considered for onward sale by the Ministry of Justice. The site had been transferred to the Home Office.
Members advised that they hoped that the consideration of community liaison panels would be considered and that as the applicant was present they were listening to the concerns of the local residents and committed to improve working practices.
It was suggested that the applicant and the deputee engage in meaningful conversations in how better communication could be undertaken and maintained, again considering the use of such a panel.
It was also noted that the ward Councillor was happy to act as a conduit between the applicant and the residents if required.
It was proposed and seconded that an additional condition, condition 3 be included, that
3) the work only be permitted to be undertaken between the hours of 08:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager, with the removal of the condition preventing works in the overwintering period for migrant birds and with an additional condition restricting working hours in respect of the proposed development
25/00156/FULL - INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL PITCH, TO REPLACE EXISTING GRASS PITCH (RETROSPECTIVE) (as amplified by information received 08.08.25 and 15.08.25)
Gosport Borough Football Club Privett Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3SX
and 15.08.25)
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that Community Use agreements were centred around the community use of the facility as opposed to the impacts on the neighbouring community and Sport England were content with the Agreement proposed.
Members welcomed that this saw the conclusion of the project and praised the football club for their swift work in getting the pitch installed and recognised the benefit that an all-weather pitch provided. Members also recognised that there was a solution to the biodiversity issues presented and it was advised that the Council would be responsible for the costs involved.
A Member suggested that an additional element be added to condition 3 and that delegation be given to the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Board who would in turn consult with the Group Leaders if appropriate.
The pitch could potentially be used for other sports as well as women’s and youth football teams and the club was recognised as an asset to the Borough.
Members recognised there were some concerns from neighbours, but on the whole there was support. The concern related to ancillary actions from increased use of the pitch, such as floodlights and tannoy systems and hoped that the club would continue to be good neighbours with their use.
It was confirmed that the community use agreement was based on the Sports England model and seen as the blueprint for such agreements.
Members recognised the benefits this brought to the club, meaning they could train on site, and utilise the facilities more, it was also reiterated that the proposal would benefit the wider community.
It was proposed and seconded that an amendment be made to recommendation three that delegated authority be granted to the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Board. This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00156/FULL be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory Community Use Agreement and a Biodiversity Gain Plan and conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00199/FULL - INSTALLATION OF LIKE FOR LIKE REPLACEMENT FENCING, GATES AND TIMBER FENCE PANELS
Immigration Removal Centre 2 Dolphin Way Gosport Hampshire PO12 2AW
The Board was provided with an update that following discussions with the applicant and consultation with the County Ecologist, Condition 3 was no longer recommended to be imposed. This was due to the scale and nature of the proposed works which is considered to have only very minor impacts upon the welfare of overwintering birds.
Conditions 1 and 2 remain as recommended and the Officer recommendation remains for approval
Alison Godbold was invited to address the Board. She advised that she was representing a number of residents that lived in the proximity of the IRC.
She advised the Board that despite the promise of and contact with the Home Office and MP communication regarding the development on site had been poor. There had been promises of information since November 2022 but this had only been received in August 2025 in addition an Engagment event that was promised in January 2023 was actually not taking place until October 2025. This was not acceptable to the neighbouring residents and what was wanted from them was dates and times of scheduled development, the programme of what was taking place. In addition what the impact would be to the local residents and how the developers were planning to mitigate the impact of the significant work on site.
The Board was advised that residents had been told that work was not to commence on the site until 08:00 but that regularly those working on the site arrived at 06:15 creating a large amount of noise disturbance to neighbouring residents and parking in a way that was inconsiderate to the surrounding area. Work regularly began on site at 7am causing great disturbance to the neighbours.
The Board was advised that the case officer’s report had stated that the potential disturbance from the replacement fence was not significant enough to require conditioning but it was felt that the replacement of 187 fence panels and their concrete posts would create noise disturbance given their close proximity to the properties. The Board was advised that the residents strongly disagreed that there would be no disturbance and requested that there be a condition on the development on work taking place between 8am and 5pm as the best practical method of reducing noise disturbance to the neighbours.
The Board was advised that an ecological survey was undertaken that had advised that there were bats present and that badgers were also present on the site. The Board were also advised that this was out of date as it should be undertaken in the most recent survey season. The Board was advised that contact had been made with Natural England, and the Rural Policing Team to ensure that the correct consideration was given to the wildlife on site and on the boatyard site, and that this should not be ignored as it was in close proximity to the site that would be impacted by the fence being replaced.
It was reiterated that wildlife should be protected and appropriate licenses obtained before work was undertaken and that the work undertaken was sensitive and timely to neighbouring residents as well as wildlife and also that restrictions on hours were stuck to ensure that there was less disturbance to the residents and that the contractors work within the parameters that minimised this.
A Member advised that in some circumstances Community Liaison Panels were appropriate to ensure liaison between residents and developers and in this instance the Home Office and questioned if this was something offered to the residents, would they engage and welcome this and were advised that they would.
The Board was advised that a newsletter had been sent but that this had not been particularly useful information and contained no contact details for any queries or complaints and was confirmed that a resident’s panel would be welcome.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the typical arrival to the site was 06:15 and that machinery noise started at 07:00, but that if machinery was in situ, this could be earlier. Ward Councillors had communicated the best they can, but were provided with limited information. The Developer also provided limited response to any questions.
The Board was advised that conditions in existence and potential proposals could be investigated.
MunierJussab was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the senior project lead for phase one, leading the construction on site and was representing the Home Office.
He thanked Members for the opportunity to address the Board and advised that the planning permission requested was for a replacement fence to the perimeter of the site, replacing an existing fence. The requested replacement was like for like at 5.2 metres but did not fall within the remit of permitted development, the limit of which was 4.5 metres. The fence needed to be replaced for longevity and because the existing fence was coming to the end of its useful life. There was no fundamental impact from its installation and the recommendation for approval was welcome.
In answer to a Member’s question, Mr. Jussab advised that he felt that 8am until 5pm were appropriate working hours, he advised that he attended the site every Wednesday and reiterated to those on site that construction work should not be taking place outside of these hours. He would relay, and reaffirm that this was the case to the contractors and accepted that work should not be taking place outside of these hours.
He advised the Board that the replacement fence would not impact on local residents as it was the existing perimeter, nor would it impact wildlife as it was like for like.
It was recognised that a programme of work would be useful to give an understanding of the scheduled work and the suggestion of better communication was valued, but did sit outside of the remit of the role held and would need to be passed on to the communications team.
Communication was essential as the project moved forward and this was recognised but it was reiterated the fence work was not taking place to the rear of the properties in Fort Road.
A Member acknowledged that there was a stakeholders meeting in the upcoming weeks, but reiterated that it was felt this should be more of a two way discussion between residents and the constructors and take place more frequently as required.
It was reiterated that the fence could have been constructed under permitted development if it had been 4.5 metres or less, however the guidance for such sites is that the minimum accepted height is 5.2 metres meaning it needed a full planning application.
The Board was advised that the Home Office employed professional ecologists that undertook a watching brief on the site and that work would be stopped if required. It was reiterated that the replacement fence did not sit within the remit of the more overgrown area of the site and therefore the ecological impact was minimal.
The Board was advised that some of the work undertaken had been done so without a formal planning application submitted as there was exemptions for planning permission requirements on some Crown Land where the Crown was the applicant. Development could in these circumstances be undertaken as permitted development.
The Board were reminded that the county ecologist, had discussed the application with the applicant and that it been agreed that the condition 3 of the report was not required as a result of the low impact of the application.
Members expressed concern at the disturbance the proposal and additional work was causing the residents recognising the valid concerns of the neighbouring residents and felt that the inclusion of a condition limiting construction hours to 8am until 5pm and recognised the disruption working outside of these hours was causing. It was felt that even if this small part of the development could be restricted it would support residents in some way.
The Board was advised by the planning officer that it was considered that the work to install a replacement fence would not lead to disturbance of such significance asto warrant the imposition of a condition limiting timings.
Members advised that they did not agree and suggested that a condition imposing conditions on working hours be implemented.
Members sought additional clarification on whether it could be identified that the work being undertaken could be shown to be that of working on the fence, and therefore enforceable if breached and it was advised given that it was for work on a perimeter fence it was likely that it would be.
A Member also sough clarification on the agreement to designated the area as a Conservation Area and queried whether this offered any additional protection to the site when considering whether or not a planning application needed to be considered.
The Board was advised that the Conservation Area had been designated in part to protect the site from elements of demolition when the site was being considered for onward sale by the Ministry of Justice. The site had been transferred to the Home Office.
Members advised that they hoped that the consideration of community liaison panels would be considered and that as the applicant was present they were listening to the concerns of the local residents and committed to improve working practices.
It was suggested that the applicant and the deputee engage in meaningful conversations in how better communication could be undertaken and maintained, again considering the use of such a panel.
It was also noted that the ward Councillor was happy to act as a conduit between the applicant and the residents if required.
It was proposed and seconded that an additional condition, condition 3 be included, that
3) the work only be permitted to be undertaken between the hours of 08:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager, with the removal of the condition preventing works in the overwintering period for migrant birds and with an additional condition restricting working hours in respect of the proposed development
25/00156/FULL - INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL PITCH, TO REPLACE EXISTING GRASS PITCH (RETROSPECTIVE) (as amplified by information received 08.08.25 and 15.08.25)
Gosport Borough Football Club Privett Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3SX
and 15.08.25)
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that Community Use agreements were centred around the community use of the facility as opposed to the impacts on the neighbouring community and Sport England were content with the Agreement proposed.
Members welcomed that this saw the conclusion of the project and praised the football club for their swift work in getting the pitch installed and recognised the benefit that an all-weather pitch provided. Members also recognised that there was a solution to the biodiversity issues presented and it was advised that the Council would be responsible for the costs involved.
A Member suggested that an additional element be added to condition 3 and that delegation be given to the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Board who would in turn consult with the Group Leaders if appropriate.
The pitch could potentially be used for other sports as well as women’s and youth football teams and the club was recognised as an asset to the Borough.
Members recognised there were some concerns from neighbours, but on the whole there was support. The concern related to ancillary actions from increased use of the pitch, such as floodlights and tannoy systems and hoped that the club would continue to be good neighbours with their use.
It was confirmed that the community use agreement was based on the Sports England model and seen as the blueprint for such agreements.
Members recognised the benefits this brought to the club, meaning they could train on site, and utilise the facilities more, it was also reiterated that the proposal would benefit the wider community.
It was proposed and seconded that an amendment be made to recommendation three that delegated authority be granted to the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Board. This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00156/FULL be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory Community Use Agreement and a Biodiversity Gain Plan and conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
6
Any Other Items
Minutes
There were none.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in