Agenda and minutes

Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillor Burgess, Councillor Hammond and Councillor Ricketts.

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

There were none

The Mayor reminded the Council that he expected behavior in the Chamber to be appropriate.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 17 July 2024 be signed as a true and correct record.

(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 14 OCTOBER 2024 and likewise Standing Order No. 3.5 requires that notice of a Public Question should be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON MONDAY 14 OCTOBER  2024)

There were none.

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 15 OCTOBER 2024 )

There were six Members questions

A question in the name of Councillor Philpott to the Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board.

How much has the Council spent so far, and how much are they committed to spend, in their attempt to establish a Full Business Case for the Criterion Theatre?

Answer: Nothing

Supplementary question: There are no answers, it was supposed to have cost according to a report of 28 September 2022 £20000 and take 3 to 6 months. That £20000 was paid to Faithful and Gould and now an additional £35000 has been paid to Counterculture. Were both of these a misprint and it should actually have said 3-6 years and £200000.

Answer: The question was answered the answer is zero.

A question in the name of Councillor Huggins to the Chairman of the Community and Environment Board

Could the Chair of the community and Environmental Board,  provide details of the Councils rewilding plans and if this is likely to be noted at the C&E Board in the near future. Will the Councils rewilding plans detail how Ward Councillors can contribute into their local ward rewilding areas.  

Answer: If Councillor Huggins refers to the minutes of the meeting on the Community and Environment Board on the 16 November 2022 item 25 provided an update on the Natural Flower Zones agreed on the 8 September 2021 which sort approval of 70000sqm and officers requested that elected Members suggested sites for planting where ownership of land could be identified and plans could be worked on.

Supplementary question:

2021 and 2022 are a long time, a reasonable period for updates would be 3 to 6 months. As the Community Board between October 23 and October 24 had been cancelled twice why aren’t updates being provided to the Community and Environment Board. Whilst it is understood that policy and strategy will be presented to the Policy and Organisation Board there are many things that could be returned to the Community and Environment Board for consideration and requested that a work programme be presented to future meetings of the Community and Environment Board to keep the Members informed on progress of items in the remit of the Board.

Answer: The flood work had been completed at Stokes Bay and there would be updates at the next Board on another phase of work with the Coastal Partners.

A question in the name of Councillor Philpott to the Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board

When does the Council expect to have developed a financially sustainable Business Case for the Criterion Theatre?

There is a financially sustainable business case for the Criterion.

Supplementary: What is the definition of a financially sound business case?

Answer: One that is sustainable financially.

A question in the name of Councillor Philpott to the Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board

How much does the Council expect to spend in revenue support for the Criterion Theatre in addition to the £1.4 million quoted in the Council’s press release of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Housing Board – 25 September 2024

Policy and Organisation Board – 30 September 2024 (to follow)

RESOLVED: That the Council accept the Part II Minutes for the following Boards of the Council

Housing Board: 25 September 2024 

Members were given an update on the community alarms. The Council was advised that this did not impact residents in the sheltered schemes, and that there were 202 users impacted, down from 600 at its peak. The switch from analogue to digital meant that alarms would need to be upgraded. Services users would get options for their alarm and had been written to advising them of this. There had been no negative feedback. Many users had already switched to Hampshire County Council but other options were available.

Each user would be contacted individually to discuss options.

The Council was reassured that users would be provided with the correct and sometimes an enhanced service to what they were currently using as some could be used away from home.

Policy and Organisation Board 30 September 2024.

The Board welcomed the report of the Planning Policy and sought confirmation that the additional statement regarding the importance of the strategic settlement gap had been included in the final document.

It was recognised that the housing targets were significant and many local authorities would struggle to meet them. Concern was expressed that this would add pressure to the land off of Newgate Lane. 

Gosport was 75% built on and did not have a railway station, as a result it was difficult to see where additional properties would be situated.

Members recognised that there was a shortage of affordable housing but also ‘social’ housing but also that there were a number of properties empty that could be brought back into use.

It was welcomed that this had bene achieved at the Blakes site, and that new Council Houses were being constructed and that the Council was actively looking for additional sites.

Members express concerns about target numbers and about the ongoing nitrates issues and hoped that the Government would be lobbied on this.

Members welcomed the development at Blakes and complimented the work of the Chairman of the Housing Board, Head of Housing and outgoing Head of Commercial Property. It was recognised that it brought in funds to the Council, reopened and empty building and provided houses with bidding rights.

Work had been significant to protect the fabric of the building and to get a best value deal.

Members welcomed the Health and Safety Policy and the work that had gone into it.

Concern was expressed that the Annual Governance Statement report had indicated that the reasonable assurance was in decline and had done so over the previous two years and that if it continued that there wouldn’t be reasonable assurance issued and that if a reduced audit was taking place issues may be missed.

Members were advised that work was ongoing to catch up and that issues would be addressed.

The Policy and Organisation Board Part II Minutes included three exempt items. Members debated if these were to be discussed whether the Council should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Report to follow.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Corporate Policy and Community Safety.

The report was in front of the Council as it had been agreed to present an update after a year.

A Member advised that the report was inaccurate as it stated that support for the motion had been agreed alongside 20 other authorities, but that the motion agreed by Gosport Borough Council was different to these as it included a statement about the then Government. Some Members felt that it was right to identify those that had created the issues.

A Member advised that they felt that the contents of the report should also be on the agenda for the Community and Environment Board.

Members felt that flood protection was important and should be addressed and that the Environment Agency needed to make a decision on funding at Stoke Lake, but schemes had been delivered on Stokes Bay and Forton Lake.

The report was noted.

To make appointments to

Local Joint Staff Committee

Solent Airport

Portchester Crematorium Joint Committee (Standing Deputy)  

Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Joint Committee (Standing Deputy)

RESOLVED: That Councillor Brown be appointed as a Standing Deputy for the Portchester Crematorium Joint Committee

That Councillor Cully be appointed Standing Deputy for PUSH Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

That Councillor Cully be appointed to Local Joint Staff Committee

And that Councillor Burgess be appointed to Solent Airport.

Consideration was given to a report of the Deputy Chief Executive detailing the proposal for the renewal of the Community Skips Scheme. This was a late item that the Council agreed to take at the meeting.

Before the debate began it was proposed and seconded that Standing orders 4.1-4.15 be suspended as the report had been late to be presented and it could have been presented to the Policy and Organisation Board as the need for it was longstanding. The suspension of Standing Orders would allow for the report to be introduced by the Deputy Chief Executive.

A recorded vote was requested for the item and a vote was taken as follows.

Proposed suspension of Standing Orders 4.1-4.15.

For the proposal: Councillors Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Scard. (8)

Against the proposal: Councillors Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor. (16)

The motion was lost.

Members reiterated that it would have been known that the contract was ending and that the report should have been presented sooner. It was also advised that there had been an increase in fly tipping in the last year and that the spending was on a service already provided by Hampshire County Council.

The Council was advised that the figures for recycling stated by TJ waste were not accepted by the DEFRA and that the Leader of the Council should not be involved in contract discussions.

It was agreed that the recommendation had to include the Leader of the Council in finalising the discussion be removed.

Concern was expressed that the cost of the scheme was increasing year on year and that up to £780000 was being spent on a service already provided by the County Council. Members also sought confirmation of what recycling credits were received by TJ Waste as they would also receive an income from them.

Some Members felt that it was an unnecessary criticism of a scheme that was popular and was a lifeline for those without cars.

Members debated that the County Council was considering closing some Waste Recycling Centres, but it was also highlighted that the Centre in Gosport had never been under threat.

It was requested that a recorded vote be taken on the recommendation as amended.

For the recommendation: Councillors Ballard, Bradley, Bradley, Brown, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Finn, Herridge, Hutchison, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Maynard, Westerby, The Mayor. (16)

Against the recommendation: Councillors Casey, Hayes, Huggins, Jessop, Namdeo, Philpott, Raffaelli, Scard. (8)

RESOLVED: That full Council

1.    Notes the contents of this report

2.    Approves the continuation and funding of the community skip scheme and delegates authority to the Borough Treasurer and Deputy Chief Executive to award the renewal contract to the successful bidder following the completion of the current tender process.