Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Council Meeting

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashfield, Carruthers (maternity leave), Freeman and Grant.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor made the following announcements:

1.     He congratulated Councillor Golding on the birth of her daughter and Councillor Carruthers on the birth of her son.

2.     He also congratulated Councillor Minas-Bound on his marriage.

3.     He addressed the issues raised regarding item 15, question 2 on the agenda as it related to procedural matters.

He informed members that the sound system and acoustics of the council chamber had been carefully examined when the new system that included electronic voting was installed 7 years ago. The microphone system and cameras were sensitive enough to cater for the speaker when standing to be detected and amplified so it reached everyone in the Council Chamber. He reminded members there was a loop capability installed for use within the chamber for those using hearing aids which was being examined to improve the sound quality.  He requested members experiencing difficulties to contact the Democratic Services team.

He reminded members there should be silence in the chamber whenever an individual was invited to speak in respect of the speaker and to those present who may have difficulty in hearing.

He referred to the request to provide written responses by Cabinet Members before the meeting and stated it was not a matter to be addressed at Council but would be taken forward for discussion by the Constitutional Working Group.

4.     He noted that Friday 24 February would mark the first anniversary since Russia invaded Ukraine.

There were no questions.

There were no petitions presented.

The following appointment to an outside body was agreed:

Councillor Carruthers be replaced by Councillor Rhatigan on Citizens Advice Tadley.

The Leader of the Council recommended the Draft Council Plan 2023-27 to Council for approval, which was duly seconded by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property.

The Mayor opened the debate.  There were a range of comments made by members both in support of the plan and opposed to the plan.  Comments were made in relation to:

·         The latest residents survey not being available to members.

·         Lack of key performance indicators (KPI’s) or baseline figures to measure against.

·         Regeneration in Buckskin, South Ham and Winklebury.

·         Lack of detail and ambition in the plan.

·         Health and housing being key areas for improvement.

·         Dissatisfaction with street cleanliness, littering and fly tipping.

·         Progression and increased resources for climate change and the natural environment.

·         Commitment to supporting vulnerable residents.

·         Delivery of affordable homes.

·         Low cost home ownership.

·         Local Plan Update and suitable housing number.

·         Support for arts and culture.

·         Lack of delivery of major projects.

·         Greater engagement with residents.

·         Value and regeneration of parks, open spaces and play areas.

·         Refresh of playing pitch and facility strategies.

·         Partnership working to improve safe walking and cycling routes.

·         Improvements to physical and mental health.

The Leader of the Council responded to some of the issues raised and committed to ensuring the residents survey was published. 

The recommendation was put to a vote with 26 votes in favour, 23 votes against and 0 abstentions.

Resolved: That the updated draft Council Plan 2023-2027 at appendix 1 of the report be approved.

The four Group Leaders delivered their annual budget speeches which covered a range of issues. 

The Leader of the Council proposed the revenue budget proposals for 2023/24, seconded by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property.  The proposals delivered a balanced budget, no Council Tax increase, investment in services and projects and additional funding for increased staffing resources to support delivery of the council plan.

The Leader of the Council proposed an amendment to the proposals, seconded by Councillor McCormick to provide additional £1.00M funding to support a further year of the COLAF scheme and a further £1.00M to support climate change activities, initiatives and projects, to be funded by the rephasing of the release of reserves already identified in the budget report in Section 7, paragraphs 7.29 to 7.31 totalling £7.97M.

The amendment was unanimously agreed.

Councillor G James, seconded by Councillor Konieczko proposed a further amendment to increase the council’s element of the council tax precept by £5 in 2023/24 in line with the referendum limits set out in the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2023/24. This would increase the charge from the current £136.42 to £141.42, an increase of less than 10p per week. Over the period of the MTFS this would generate an additional £1.41M of revenue income to the council.  The first two years would be held in the MTFS risk reserve, with the remainder of the MTFS, the additional income would reduce the overall budget gap.

It was proposed that the additional income in 2023/24 and 2024/25 be earmarked to provide financial support to residents through a public transport support scheme designed to make travel on public transport more affordable, thereby helping residents who were struggling with the high cost of fuel, reducing congestion on the roads and supporting the council’s climate and ecological emergencies.

The amendment was debated where members expressed a mixed range of views.  Points raised included objecting to tax increases, supporting local businesses, inflation assumptions, additional funding for cost of living support packages to residents in need, climate change reserves to focus on clean air and reducing carbon emissions, HCC were responsible for public transport.

The amendment was put to a vote with 17 votes in favour, 27[1] votes against, 5 abstentions.  The motion was rejected.

The budget proposals as amended were debated.  As required by law, a recorded vote was taken on the recommendations.  There voted 41 votes in favour, 4 against and 4 abstentions.

Resolved: That Council:

notes

1.     The S151 Officer’s (Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of reserves detailed in section 13 of the report.

2.     That the Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets (S151 Officer) on the 5 January 2023 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 69,037.3 Band D equivalents and for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as per Appendix 2 of the report.

3.     The county, police and fire authority precepts detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.

4.     That as the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by any major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2023/24 is excessive and the billing authority is therefore not required to hold a referendum, in accordance with section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

5.     The risks and sensitivities within the financial forecasts highlighted in section 10 and in Appendix 5 of the report.

determines

6.     That for the purposes of section 35 (2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any expenses incurred by the Borough Council in the financial year 2023/24 in performing functions in a part of the district which elsewhere in the district are performed by a Parish Council, shall not be special expenses of the Borough Council.

7.     That its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2023/24 (£136.42 at Band D) reflects a £0 (0.00%) increase which is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

approves

8.     The net Council Tax requirement of £9.42M for 2023/24, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals in sections 6 and 7 of the report and contributions to and from reserves as summarised in sections 7 and 9 of the report.

9.     The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1 of the report.

10.  The updated financial policies set out in Appendix 4 of the report including the revised New Homes Bonus Grant allocation policy.

11.  That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2023/24 be £136.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3 of the report.

12.  The 2023/24 net income budget of £0.11M for the Joint Manydown Committee as set out in section 15 of the report and that the net income is shared equally between the Council and Hampshire County Council.

13.  The Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix 3 of the report which brings together the Borough’s Council Tax Requirement and that of the other major preceptors (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire and Rescue and The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire) and sets the Council Tax charges for 2023/24.

14.  That the S151 Officer (Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2023/24 Council Taxes in the event that any of the precepting authorities change their precept calculation from that expected and reported at the Council meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property introduced a report which provided an update on the capital programme and Capital Programme Strategy for 2022/23 to 2026/27.  The updated capital programme for the period was £135.128 million with a net increase of £17.480 million.  New priorities included funding for home improvement financial assistance, play area improvements, Community Infrastructure Fund, heating system and moveable floor upgrade for Tadley pool, repairs and improvements to the Anvil and Haymarket and cycle and walking improvements.

Councillor McCormick proposed, seconded by Councillor G James an amendment to the recommendations.  The amendment related to expanding and improving the council’s Parking and Access Scheme known as Parking in Residential Areas (PIRA) programme.  The proposal was to ensure that new parking bays were future proofed for electric vehicles (EV).  The current Parking and Access Scheme had a total of £1.706 million proposed spend over the period of the Capital Programme with £1.324 million identified in 2023/24 and 2024/25.  The proposal was to increase the scheme by £1.00 million to be added £0.500 million in 2025/26 and 2026/27 bringing the scheme total over the period of 2023/24 to 2025/26 to £2.324 million.  Along with the additional £1.00 million added to the Climate Change Reserve, the additional spend would extend the scheme until at least 2026/27 and allow for the installation of EV charging for new bays.  It was proposed to fund the increase by utilising currently unallocated Capital Resources, specifically Revenue Reserves for Capital Purposes which currently stood at £17.88 million in 2026/27.  The use of the unallocated sum to fund the additional £1.00 million would reduce it to £16.88 million.

The amendment was unanimously agreed by members and carried.

The recommendations as amended were agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That Council

1.     Agree the addition of £18.693M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme savings of £0.213M, which gives rise to a net increase of £18.480M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 to 6 and Appendix 2 of the report (as amended).

2.     Approve the revised capital programme, which totals £136.128M (as detailed in sections 2 to 8 and Appendix 1 of the report as amended) and the associated use of resources.

3.     Approve expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.

4.     Approve the rephasing, slippage and scheme virements as set out in sections 7 and 8 and as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.

5.     Note that the capital programme remains fully funded up to 2026/27 based on the latest forecast of available resources.

6.     Approve the Capital Programme Strategy detailed in Appendix 4 of the report.

The Mayor, seconded by the Deputy Mayor, moved the recommendations to approve the Treasury Management Strategy for 2023/24.  The report set out the Treasury Management Policy Statement and proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2023/24 which set the framework and limits for the delivery of the council’s Treasury Management strategy.

Resolved: That

1.     The Treasury Management Policy Statement (set out in Appendix 1of the report) be noted.

2.     The Treasury Management Strategy for 2023/24 (set out in Appendix 2 of the report) be approved.

The Mayor moved the recommendations, duly seconded by the Deputy Mayor to approve the Capital Investment Strategy for 2023/24 and Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2023/24.  Both strategies must be approved by council before the start of the financial year and published on the council’s website.

The Mayor responded to Councillor McCormick, that a written response to his questions would be provided by the S151 Officer.

Resolved:     That Council approves:

1.     The Capital Investment Strategy for 2023/24 (Appendix 1 of the report) which includes:

a.    the Prudential Indicators for 2023/24 to 2026/27;

b.    the Authorised Limit for External Debt of £50.00M for 2023/24 (as set out in the prudential indicators); and

c.    the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2023/24.

2.    The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2023/24 (Appendix 2 of the report).

Council considered a report that recommended that the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2029 was ‘made’ by the council following a local referendum held on 19 January 2023 where the plan was supported by 95.1% of those who voted.  The plan would be used alongside the Adopted Local Plan and national planning policy and guidance to determine planning applications in the parish.

The local community and members of the steering group for the plan were commended for their hard work.

Resolved: That:

1.     Council, under section 38A(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, formally make the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Development Plan with immediate effect.

2.     That Council congratulates the Neighbourhood Planning Group and the local community on their work to develop the plan.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Tustain:

Full Council notes:

• A cost-of-living crisis is affecting families across Basingstoke & Deane, with inflation currently running at over 10%. Parents are struggling to afford school uniforms and lunches for their children.

• In 2021 the government passed the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act which mandates schools to “consider the costs of school uniform requirements, minimise branded items, and ensure items are available from suppliers which have evidenced their value for money”.

• Across Basingstoke, many schools still expect and require pupils to buy branded uniform items, which are often significantly more expensive than unbranded alternatives.

• Across Hampshire County Council, the number of pupils eligible for free school meals has increased from 6.3% to 11.9% in the last four years.

• In 2018, the Conservative government reduced the free school meal annual eligibility income from £16,190 to £7,400

Full council believes:

• No family should struggle to provide the basics, such as school uniforms and food, for their children.

• There is no justification for school uniform policies that require families to purchase branded items that are significantly more expensive than unbranded alternatives.

• No child should be adversely affected by poverty of their right to a decent education and the opportunity to achieve their potential.

Full council resolves to:

• Ask the cabinet to work with our Hampshire County Council partners to ensure all Basingstoke schools comply with the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act.

• Ask the council leader to write to the Minister of State for Education to review the eligibility criteria for free school meals, including those below the poverty line, defined as 60% of the current median household income of £31,400.

• Ask the council leader to write to the remaining MPs for the Basingstoke & Deane area to lobby the Minister of State for Education and their government on this issue.

• To place on record our thanks to all council services, community organisations and charities involved in supporting families of Basingstoke & Deane through the cost-of-living crisis and beyond.

The Mayor invited members to debate the motion where several members spoke in support of the motion.  The motion was unanimously agreed.

Resolved: That the motion be carried.

Question 1

From:  Councillor Mummalaneni

To:       Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Action

The Spencer Park, in Sinclair Drive, was partially fenced off since 2020 after borough council officers found that the play area and public open space near the park were ‘sinking’. This BDBC adopted park was partially out of use for more than 2 years. May I know when it will be fixed and why it took so long?

Answer

The importance of play areas is well recognised, and I understand the frustration of your local residents at Spencer Park, which has been partially fenced off for some considerable time and the inconvenience that has been caused. Monies have now been allocated in the capital programme to carry out works to fix these issues. The situation has been of a complex nature and has taken some time to resolve as a result of this. Many investigations had to be carried out to establish the cause of the sinking and then we had to establish responsibility with our legal teams and insurers. We couldn’t just accept responsibility, we must where possible hold developers to account to ensure proper development to avoid these things happening in the future. Works are now scheduled to be undertaken during 2023/2024 and will be commenced as a matter of urgency but I must just note that these will be subject to procurement processes. But officers are aware of the urgency.

Question 2

From:  Councillor Slimin

To:       The Mayor

Mr Mayor you will be aware that a number of councillors have expressed concerns about the sound system in the council chamber and that they have experienced difficulties hearing clearly what is being said.  I am aware that this may be being “looked at” but in the interests of removing discrimination on those harder of hearing. and enable all to fully participate in the meeting, can I ask that you consider the following requests.

1.     Will you agree to at least temporarily suspend the standing order 8.1 that requires members to stand when speaking at full council?

2.     If you agree with 1, will you under Standing order 2 use your discretion to move this question to announcements so it can apply to the meeting on 23 February 2023 from the start?

3.     Will you agree that all members of the Cabinet/Portfolio holders who have pre-prepared written statements they intend to read out in response to either a question moved with notice or motions raised by councillors should provide a written copy of their response to the questioner or the motion proposer and seconder just prior to the start of the meeting? This would enable them to ask any follow up questions or use in their summing up. 

4.     Finally could you ask all members to please speak clearly when addressing the Council so that, just as we afford assistance to all who have sight issues by offering large print or braille copies of papers, we assist any one with some hearing impairment, including members of the public, the same opportunity to hear clearly what is being said?

The Mayor addressed this question in his announcements (minute 82/22)

Question 3

From:  Councillor Rhatigan

To:       The Leader of the Council

What additional funding will BDBC provide and what pressures can BDBC apply to Hampshire County Council to mitigate and clean up the highways and roadsides from the scourge of litter?

Would the Leader agree that some areas of our beautiful borough are a total disgrace due to mindless disposal of litter?

Answer

Up and down the country, I think one of the rather disturbing impacts of the pandemic and lockdown has been what I would call the rubbish litter explosion that we have seen, and I absolutely take our responsibilities very seriously as one of the litter authorities locally. But there is also something about encouraging and cajoling our residents to take responsibility for their litter. I do think we suffer with it specifically locally because we have some very large and significantly used A-roads. There is something about putting resource focus not only into collecting that litter and enforcing any fines that are needed but also getting our residents to understand, and I think very often these are the same residents that will talk to us about climate change, about carbon, but actually perhaps don’t understand the damage that litter does. So, I absolutely agree with the spirit of the question, Councillor Rhatigan and absolutely will work really closely both with our officers and the officers of the County Council but of course there is also something very important that we consider which, of course is the risks involved on those A-roads when it comes to the litter picking.

Supplementary Question

There is a Community Action Day on the Monday of the Coronation and I wonder if you would ensure that there is an encouragement to pick up litter on that day across the borough?

Answer

Sounds great, I’m sure the King would love it.

Question 4

From:  Councillor Slimin

To:       Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Action

I am sure that like many on this council the public is increasingly aware of the damage to our health that air pollution can cause and it comes in many forms. 

However, is the Cabinet member aware of the article running on page 1 and 4 of the Times on 1st February 2023 under the headline “On-the-spot £300 fines to snuff out toxic wood burners?

If not then in summary the article says that the government are instructing councils to use new powers to issue civil penalties to those that breach the emissions standards set for wood burning stoves. In the worst cases this could result in a criminal prosecution and fines of £2500 a day.

The article says that very few councils have used existing powers to take polluters to court.  Can the Cabinet member advise how many have been prosecuted by BDBC since 2010 when the problems began to escalate as these stoves became more fashionable? 

How many other cases of air pollution from all sources have the council taken to court in the same period? 

Can the Cabinet member advise if this council will be using  their new powers under the 2021 Environment Act to issue civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 and if not why not?

Answer

The fines referred to are not available for this council to use. These fines can only be issued by those councils who have smoke control areas designated in their boroughs. They are a tool for councils to respond to persons in breach of the prohibitions of a smoke control area, and our borough has no smoke control areas. However, that said, we do of course recognise the importance of tackling air pollution and the impact that smoke can have on residents, and we run a campaign each year providing advice to people who have wood burners on should they take to minimise the impact of others and provide useful information on our website. In the event the council obtains evidence of air pollution, issues or offences will be dealt with in line with the council’s enforcement policies and those powers available in the Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Air Act. We have not had calls to prosecute anyone on this basis and the time frame referred to. If anyone is seriously affected by smoke from domestic burning, they should contact the council’s Environmental Health Team. The Environmental Health Team has always responded promptly and will usually visit the location a couple of times and can work with residents and write to them to prevent the pollution. Councillor Slimin did mention a specific matter which wasn’t in the question, but I was made aware of and on that occasion, I know that the Environmental Health Team were really helpful.  They went round to the property, they spoke to the resident, they wrote to the resident, and given those actions, the resident was then aware of the pollution, and they haven’t had any complaints since. So, our Environmental Health Team will work hard if allegations are made, to work to educate residents and assist them in tackling air pollution.

Supplementary Question

Thank you for being clear about what the response was even if it isn’t clear in writing. I do appreciate because I did actually go and check that this was indeed not covered by us because we don’t have any clean air zones and obviously that’s going to be very disappointing when I speak to my residents tomorrow having asked the question, and we’ll go back to them because they obviously still have concerns. Will the Cabinet Member and the new officers that are going to come on the Environmental Health Team actually consider whether or not we ought to be a clean air zone in Basingstoke and Tadley? I know they are not going to give me a reply now, but I hope that they can go away and come back with an answer.

Answer

We have no smoke control areas. We have a policy whereby we tackle climate change and if there are people concerned about smoke polluting the air, they can contact the Environmental Health team and under the Environmental Act and the Clean Air Act we have powers to do something. So, I think what we’ve got in place at the moment, and I think the situation Councillor Slimin referred to when one of her residents did make a complaint, our Environmental Health officers were on it doing things and working with the residents to sort things out straight away. So, I think that’s a congratulations to them and shows that we do take these issues seriously and we do have some powers that can do other stuff, but it’s good that we don’t have smoke control areas in the borough at the moment, we don’t need them. But we have a whole team of people that check it, and the powers if we need to.

Question 5

From:  Councillor Putty

To:       The Leader of the Council

Given the intense interests by the residents of Hatch Warren and Beggarwood, Kempshott and the Wildlife Nature Trust , Would you please confirm when will the designation of Local Nature Reserve be ratified and applied to this treasure and oasis of OLD DOWN for the enjoyment and passion of the great communities of the borough?

Answer

I’m sure it will come as a great relief to the residents in your ward that we have adopted our new Council Plan. Of course, the adoption of Old Down as an LNR is mentioned very specifically in the Council Plan. It will be added to our work stream on LNR’s because of course we do have many and we have a process to implement them. But I commit to keeping you updated with progress. Many people enjoy Old Down. 

Question 6

From:  Councillor Jeans

To:       The Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration

Further to the Development Control Committee’s recent refusal of the Two Saints supported housing scheme at 180 Culver Road, can the Portfolio Holder update the Council on the future of the site?

Answer

Sam has been a powerful champion for Brookvale and Kings Furlong on the future of 180 Culver Road. Following the decision of Development Control Committee in 2022 and Two Saints subsequent confirmation that they would not appeal, Sam asked me to investigate an alternative affordable homes regeneration proposal. So as a result, officers from the Borough Council and the County Council have been working together with Sovereign on plans to regenerate the site with a new affordable housing scheme. Sovereign will shortly bring forward a proposal comprising two-storey affordable houses with private gardens, and a highly sustainable design and I can confirm to the Council that we will have 100% nomination rights. 

Supplementary Question

Can the Portfolio Holder reassure me that the Council’s partners will engage neighbours and consult with the local community on these proposals and when they can expect something?

Answer

Given the public interest in 180 Culver Road, I’ve highlighted to Sovereign the importance of engagement on these plans. The scheme has already been presented to the local ward members of Councillor Mummalaneni and Councillor Jeans. It’s anticipated that a planning application will be submitted in Spring. Councillors can be assured that consultation with Culver Road residents will take place prior to an application being submitted.

Question 7

From:  Councillor Robinson

To:       The Leader of the Council

In view of the planning inspections decision to allow the solar farm development between Bramley and Silchester HCC highways have confirmed that they were unaware of one of the major access points and the effect on the local road network.

As a result of this the inspector did not have the opportunity to consider the issues which HCC highways may have raised.

Will the Leader commit to looking in to BDBC asking for a judicial review of the case so that the inspector can reconsider the decision in the light of all the necessary information?

Councillor Robinson provided an answer to his question:

The question was answered this morning in a meeting with the Chief Executive and other officers. I’d like to thank them for their time. Unfortunately, there is no justification for a judicial review in this case. As a result of this, sadly 88 hectares of agricultural land in Bramley will be lost to an industrial development.

Question 8

From:  Councillor Frost

To:       Cabinet Member for Finance and Property

I'd like to thank the Portfolio Holder for supporting my campaign to retain 24 Swan Street as an asset for the community. Can the Portfolio Holder update the Council on the next steps in selling 24 Swan Street to the Community Interest Company in Kingsclere?

Answer

I have certainly taken note of your campaign and that of other ward councillors and Kingsclere Parish Council following the registration of this building as an asset of community value. My visits and meetings with you and local people have convinced me of the good uses that the Kingsclere community want to bring to 24 Swan Street, in addition to the splendid existing dance school. It is planned to bring a report to Cabinet on March 7th recommending the sale of the building and providing for a six-month window for the community interest group to purchase at a price discounted against open market value because of the clear social and economic benefits to Kingsclere.

Supplementary Question

I’d like to thank Councillor Izett for giving the answer that he’s done but in an email he gave to me some time ago, it was that the building will be sold for the market value at a considerable discount. Does he have any idea about what he means by a considerable discount please?

Answer

I do but its best left to officers to discuss with a community interest group, not for me to be involved in. We do have a responsibility as a council to get best value for our assets but as I said to you, there is a significant social and economic benefit I think in this and so I really do hope that terms can be agreed and that 24 Swan Street becomes a community facility.

Question 9

From:  Councillor Gaskell

To:       The Leader of the Council

Can the Leader update the Council on his discussions regarding the mooted County Deal? Can he reassure us that he does not support a single, pan-Hampshire devolution deal that would cover the whole of the county — or which would involve an Elected Leader?

Answer

I think it’s fair to say, if and I don’t know the figures, 100 million, an extra 200 million is offered from government, we should of course work together as local authorities across our patch for the betterment of our residents. There have been many discussions, I have to say there is little agreement across the patch even though there have been many discussions. I don’t support the concept of an elected leader, but one of the things that I would like to see in any developing proposals is, and I think it’s really important that I put this on record, that any investment should have the economic centres of Southampton, Portsmouth and Basingstoke at its core by design and that what we all know is acknowledged that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council are best placed to lead on our own geographical area. I am happy to work with the leadership of the County Council on that basis, and also on a basis where we are one of equal partners. 

There were no questions.