Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
67
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Economic, Planning and Housing Committee - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 7th September 2023
6:30 PM
Thursday, 7th September 2023
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 7th September 2023
9:30 PM
Thursday, 7th September 2023
9:30 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Thursday, 7th September 2023
12:00 AM
Thursday, 7th September 2023
12:00 AM
Finished:
Thursday, 7th September 2023
2:00 AM
Thursday, 7th September 2023
2:00 AM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023
Location:
Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Deanes
Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Reserve
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Reserve
Mayor
Officer
Director of Regeneration
Sarah Longthorpe
Expected
Council Staff
Deputy Chief Executive
Rebecca Emmett
Expected
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Reserve
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence and substitutions
Minutes
Councillor Godesen is replaced by Councillor K Watts.
Councillor Robinson is replaced by Councillor S Carr.
Apologies received from Councillor Hussey.
Councillor Robinson is replaced by Councillor S Carr.
Apologies received from Councillor Hussey.
2
Appointment of Vice-Chair
To appoint a Vice-Chair to the Economic Planning Housing Committee for the 2023/24 municipal year.
Minutes
Councillor Ashfield was appointed as Vice Chair of the Economic Planning Housing Committee for the 2023/24 municipal year.
3
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
4
Urgent matters
To consider any items of business, other than those shown on this agenda and which, by reason of special circumstances to be stated at the meeting, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.
Minutes
There were no urgent matters.
5
Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023 30 Aug 2023
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
6
Local Plan Update: next steps and spatial strategy
Contact Officer: Joanne Brombley
This report sets out the proposed approach to progressing the Local Plan Update (LPU), providing a summary of the current position.
This report sets out the proposed approach to progressing the Local Plan Update (LPU), providing a summary of the current position.
Attachments:
- Document Report 30 Aug 2023
- Document Appendix 1 30 Aug 2023
- Document Appendix 2 30 Aug 2023
- Document Appendix 3 30 Aug 2023
- Document Site allocations for the Draft Plan 30 Aug 2023
Minutes
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure introduced the report which set out the proposed approach to progressing the Local Plan Update (LPU) and provided a summary of the current position.
The Chair invited visiting speakers,Alastair Rudman, Alan Renwick, Nick Harris, Mike Dearlove, TPRP Group (Tadley & Pamber Rural Protection), David George, Tracy Woodruff, Gareth Capner and Martin Biermann to address the Committee, their comments included:
The Lodge Farm site (SS3.70) was home to a large number of endangered species and any displacement of these species would impact negatively on biodiversity.
The level of proposed development was unsustainable.
Expressed concern that the proposed mitigations would not be delivered.
Stated that the infrastructure was required before any houses were built and that the infrastructure delivery plan and master planning documents should be in place first.
The Skates Lane development would be in the wrong place and a number of heritage and biodiversity issues had been overlooked.
Advised that data would be released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the coming weeks which would allow for a more accurate housing projection to be made using the Chelmer model.
Stated that the memorandums of understanding for the water companies had never been effectively implemented.
The River Loddon had already been downgraded and any further development would cause further impact.
Felt that the Grampium clause should be extended to include water quality.
Highlighted the impact of the Chineham incinerator and sewage works would have on the development’s residents.
Expressed concern in relation to the proposal for the Land East of Basingstoke (SS3.6).
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
The Local plan was an issue that Members and Officers took seriously.
Acknowledged the points raised in relation to the proposed sites, east of Basingstoke, Lodge Farm, Skates Lane, Whitchurch, South Manydown and Popham Garden village.
Stated that Consultants had been employed to create a housing number using the Chelmer method as soon as the figures were released by the ONS.
Confirmed that memorandums of understanding were being drawn up so that they were ready in time for Regulation 19.
Agreed to look at strengthening the Grampian clause in relation to water quality.
Advised Members that the climate issues were being addressed elsewhere in the policies.
The Chair invited visiting Councillors, Tomblin, Godesen, Morrow, Johnstone, Vaux, Lee, Taylor and Cubitt to address the Committee, their comments included:
Stated that SS3.9 was an isolated site and development would create a polarised settlement and encroach on the strategic gap. The site was also located too far away from local services and there was a lack of infrastructure.
SS3.8 would use the A33 which was already a major route which would make the air quality even worse.
Requested that the Committee recommend to Cabinet that SS3.7 should not be progressed due to its location near the sewage works.
Expressed support for pressing on with the local plan update with the strongest policies in place.
Ashford Hill was unsuitable for any further development. The Skates Lane site was in close proximity to AWE. Any development would result in the loss of leisure amenities and wildlife corridors.
Tadley was already built to capacity and the site was of factually certain archaeological significance. Any additional development would impact on Tadley’s already busy entry and exit routes.
Stated that the housing number had not been reduced which went against the unanimous full council motion.
Requested that the total housing number be reduced for the full period of the plan.
Advised that originally the Sewage works had been deliberately placed away from developments.
Noted that developments were being made in a piecemeal way without the proper infrastructure in place.
Acknowledged that the Environment Agency had previously objected to issues on the sites.
Stated that there should be increased protection for chalk rivers.
Requested that the Committee recommend that sites SS3.6, SS3.7 and SS3.8 be removed.
Stated that communities were being pitched against each other and that affordable housing was required as there were 5000 people on the housing register.
Due to the lack of 5-year land supply and that there had been no proposed changes to the Governments standard method, the step method would help to slow down development in Basingstoke and Deane.
Pleased that Oakley had not received an allocation as they had already provided a higher-than-average level of development.
Acknowledged that work had been carried out to identify a strategic gap between Oakley and the Manydown development.
Stated that warehousing was not required in the borough.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
A lot of the issues raised by the visiting Councillors echoed the comments made by the public speakers and confirmed that the comments would be reviewed.
Responded that the Cabinet did not agree with the Standard Housing Allocation Method (SHAM) but that the Council had to adhere to the planning regulations and couldn’t put forward a local plan that wouldn’t meet the requirements.
The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments:
The Housing Number
It was clarified that if the proposed “Step Approach” was agreed and had been approved by the inspector then it would become the accepted position of the Council.
Stated that it was vital to have an adopted Local Plan as any delay would risk the Council losing the ability to set its own policies.
The Committee were advised that, at the current time, the standard Housing Allocation method (SHAM) remained the default method to calculate a housing number unless exceptional circumstances were agreed, and that Legal advice would continue to be sought as the process moved forward.
Concern was raised over the high housing number and the administration’s approach to reduce the numbers in the first five years.
The Cabinet Member confirmed that the administration couldn’t promise that the necessary infrastructure would be in place and could only work with partners to request what was needed.
Expressed concern on the effect that development would have on the water quality and supply.
Southern Manydown
Stated that the proposed hospital allocation did not specifically mention the science park. The Planning Policy Manager advised that the allocation was at its early stages and was therefore more general but further detail regarding the actual proposals would be included as the discussions progressed.
Suggested that Officers look at Cherwell Council in relation to their self-build policies as often residents were living on a building site as the individual self-build houses took longer to build out.
Concerns were raised about whether the Plan should be allocating logistics floorspace in the borough, and the need to ensure that the Economic Needs Assessment was up to date. As there were vacancies for a number of jobs in warehousing already and the focus should be on well paid jobs instead.
Suggested that the relevant policies should be reviewed to ensure they delivered for self-build customers. There was concern that such properties were almost impossible to deliver.
Stated that CN5 was a scattered approach and that delivery of Gypsy and Traveller sites may be improved if the Plan allocated a single larger pitch.
Manydown should be a gateway to the countryside and should have strong links to the countryside with early delivery of infrastructure to support health and wellbeing.
Popham Garden Village
It was stated that the proposal for a new settlement would require a strong working relationship with Winchester in order for the site to be delivered.
Questioned whether there were other sites available if the site was not deliverable.
Felt that there was a need to build lifetime homes for residents so they could stay in their homes for longer.
East of Basingstoke and Lodge farm
· Stressed the importance of protecting the Loddon and chalk streams and highlighted the proximity of the sites to protected areas.
Highlighted the sites proximity to the sewage works and the potential impacts from odour.
Stated that the proposal went against advice from the environment agency.
Felt that the proposal would not allow the strategic gap to be maintained.
Raised concern over the bus gateway as it was difficult for cars to get through Pyotts Hill.
Stated that the site was unlikely to be delivered as there had been no progress for many years.
Members felt that the site should be removed from the local plan.
Sherfield Hill Farm
Stated that the A33 was nearly at capacity without any development taking place and that travel would be required to access any facilities. which were the other side of the A33. The potential for a footbridge over the A33 was raised as an example of the type of infrastructure that would be required.
The proposal would mean that there was no longer a gap between settlements and the impact on Church End was emphasised.
Some Members felt that the proposal would result in the urbanisation of the length of the A33 and erode the rural area.
Concerns were raised in relation to the impact on the river Loddon.
West of Upper Cufaude Farm
Stated that there was a lack of infrastructure such as secondary schools which would need to be built before any development took place and highlighted the various travel issues and the impact on the A33 and Cufuade Lane.
Expressed concern in relation to environmental issues and the fact that the land contained ancient woodlands.
Land west of Marnel Park
Expressed that housing should not be proposed in strategic gaps and that it was important to keep the distinctiveness of communities.
Stated that decisions made by the Development Control Committee to reject applications in strategic gaps had been upheld.
Weybrook Park Golf Course
Some members felt that the proposal would result in the loss of open space and the erosion of the strategic gap and reference was also made to the impact on the setting on the North Wessex Downs AONB.
Some members felt that the proposal would support the golf club, help deliver Biodiversity net gain and was located on the A340 which was an important employment corridor for Basingstoke and Deane.
Skates Lane
Some members felt that the site should be removed as there were heritage and ecological concerns, the A340 was an extremely busy road which would easily become gridlocked if there was an incident at AWE, there was a covenant on the land, and that there was a lack of infrastructure in Tadley and the site was some distance from facilities. It was stated that there was a need for housing in Tadley but that the site was not appropriate.
Some members felt that the site should be progressed as it was deliverable, outside of the DEPZ for AWE which prevented development in other parts of Tadley, and it was located on the A340 which was not as busy as the A33. It was also highlighted that Tadley had good facilities and bus routes and that any development would result in S106 money which would be invested back into Tadley. It was suggested that the shortage of young families in Tadley because of a lack of development had resulted in the schools not being at capacity.
It was questioned whether a secondary access could be created.
Redlands Lodge
It was felt that that if the proposed site for the East of Basingstoke was progressed then there would be no good reason not to build on the site which was located between the other allocated sites.
Land adjacent to Weybrook Golf Club
Stated that the proposal should be considered with the Weybrook Golf Club site.
Oakdown Farm
Some members stated that the site should form part of the local plan as an application would be put forward anyway.
Other members highlighted concerns about the provision of logistics floorspace.
Other
It was suggested that the Portals Paper Mill in Overton be put forward for development in the emerging local plan. It was questioned whether any oversupply could be used to reduce the allocation for other areas.
It was requested that the current settlement numbers be reviewed as they were too low for some settlements such as Headley, Bramley and Bishops Green.
Concern was raised over the time taken for sites to be delivered, especially if development partners were used. Clarification was requested on how many sites were at landowner, promoter, and developer stage. The Planning Policy Manager agreed to circulate a response.
The Chair invited visiting speakers,Alastair Rudman, Alan Renwick, Nick Harris, Mike Dearlove, TPRP Group (Tadley & Pamber Rural Protection), David George, Tracy Woodruff, Gareth Capner and Martin Biermann to address the Committee, their comments included:
The Lodge Farm site (SS3.70) was home to a large number of endangered species and any displacement of these species would impact negatively on biodiversity.
The level of proposed development was unsustainable.
Expressed concern that the proposed mitigations would not be delivered.
Stated that the infrastructure was required before any houses were built and that the infrastructure delivery plan and master planning documents should be in place first.
The Skates Lane development would be in the wrong place and a number of heritage and biodiversity issues had been overlooked.
Advised that data would be released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the coming weeks which would allow for a more accurate housing projection to be made using the Chelmer model.
Stated that the memorandums of understanding for the water companies had never been effectively implemented.
The River Loddon had already been downgraded and any further development would cause further impact.
Felt that the Grampium clause should be extended to include water quality.
Highlighted the impact of the Chineham incinerator and sewage works would have on the development’s residents.
Expressed concern in relation to the proposal for the Land East of Basingstoke (SS3.6).
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
The Local plan was an issue that Members and Officers took seriously.
Acknowledged the points raised in relation to the proposed sites, east of Basingstoke, Lodge Farm, Skates Lane, Whitchurch, South Manydown and Popham Garden village.
Stated that Consultants had been employed to create a housing number using the Chelmer method as soon as the figures were released by the ONS.
Confirmed that memorandums of understanding were being drawn up so that they were ready in time for Regulation 19.
Agreed to look at strengthening the Grampian clause in relation to water quality.
Advised Members that the climate issues were being addressed elsewhere in the policies.
The Chair invited visiting Councillors, Tomblin, Godesen, Morrow, Johnstone, Vaux, Lee, Taylor and Cubitt to address the Committee, their comments included:
Stated that SS3.9 was an isolated site and development would create a polarised settlement and encroach on the strategic gap. The site was also located too far away from local services and there was a lack of infrastructure.
SS3.8 would use the A33 which was already a major route which would make the air quality even worse.
Requested that the Committee recommend to Cabinet that SS3.7 should not be progressed due to its location near the sewage works.
Expressed support for pressing on with the local plan update with the strongest policies in place.
Ashford Hill was unsuitable for any further development. The Skates Lane site was in close proximity to AWE. Any development would result in the loss of leisure amenities and wildlife corridors.
Tadley was already built to capacity and the site was of factually certain archaeological significance. Any additional development would impact on Tadley’s already busy entry and exit routes.
Stated that the housing number had not been reduced which went against the unanimous full council motion.
Requested that the total housing number be reduced for the full period of the plan.
Advised that originally the Sewage works had been deliberately placed away from developments.
Noted that developments were being made in a piecemeal way without the proper infrastructure in place.
Acknowledged that the Environment Agency had previously objected to issues on the sites.
Stated that there should be increased protection for chalk rivers.
Requested that the Committee recommend that sites SS3.6, SS3.7 and SS3.8 be removed.
Stated that communities were being pitched against each other and that affordable housing was required as there were 5000 people on the housing register.
Due to the lack of 5-year land supply and that there had been no proposed changes to the Governments standard method, the step method would help to slow down development in Basingstoke and Deane.
Pleased that Oakley had not received an allocation as they had already provided a higher-than-average level of development.
Acknowledged that work had been carried out to identify a strategic gap between Oakley and the Manydown development.
Stated that warehousing was not required in the borough.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
A lot of the issues raised by the visiting Councillors echoed the comments made by the public speakers and confirmed that the comments would be reviewed.
Responded that the Cabinet did not agree with the Standard Housing Allocation Method (SHAM) but that the Council had to adhere to the planning regulations and couldn’t put forward a local plan that wouldn’t meet the requirements.
The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments:
The Housing Number
It was clarified that if the proposed “Step Approach” was agreed and had been approved by the inspector then it would become the accepted position of the Council.
Stated that it was vital to have an adopted Local Plan as any delay would risk the Council losing the ability to set its own policies.
The Committee were advised that, at the current time, the standard Housing Allocation method (SHAM) remained the default method to calculate a housing number unless exceptional circumstances were agreed, and that Legal advice would continue to be sought as the process moved forward.
Concern was raised over the high housing number and the administration’s approach to reduce the numbers in the first five years.
The Cabinet Member confirmed that the administration couldn’t promise that the necessary infrastructure would be in place and could only work with partners to request what was needed.
Expressed concern on the effect that development would have on the water quality and supply.
Southern Manydown
Stated that the proposed hospital allocation did not specifically mention the science park. The Planning Policy Manager advised that the allocation was at its early stages and was therefore more general but further detail regarding the actual proposals would be included as the discussions progressed.
Suggested that Officers look at Cherwell Council in relation to their self-build policies as often residents were living on a building site as the individual self-build houses took longer to build out.
Concerns were raised about whether the Plan should be allocating logistics floorspace in the borough, and the need to ensure that the Economic Needs Assessment was up to date. As there were vacancies for a number of jobs in warehousing already and the focus should be on well paid jobs instead.
Suggested that the relevant policies should be reviewed to ensure they delivered for self-build customers. There was concern that such properties were almost impossible to deliver.
Stated that CN5 was a scattered approach and that delivery of Gypsy and Traveller sites may be improved if the Plan allocated a single larger pitch.
Manydown should be a gateway to the countryside and should have strong links to the countryside with early delivery of infrastructure to support health and wellbeing.
Popham Garden Village
It was stated that the proposal for a new settlement would require a strong working relationship with Winchester in order for the site to be delivered.
Questioned whether there were other sites available if the site was not deliverable.
Felt that there was a need to build lifetime homes for residents so they could stay in their homes for longer.
East of Basingstoke and Lodge farm
· Stressed the importance of protecting the Loddon and chalk streams and highlighted the proximity of the sites to protected areas.
Highlighted the sites proximity to the sewage works and the potential impacts from odour.
Stated that the proposal went against advice from the environment agency.
Felt that the proposal would not allow the strategic gap to be maintained.
Raised concern over the bus gateway as it was difficult for cars to get through Pyotts Hill.
Stated that the site was unlikely to be delivered as there had been no progress for many years.
Members felt that the site should be removed from the local plan.
Sherfield Hill Farm
Stated that the A33 was nearly at capacity without any development taking place and that travel would be required to access any facilities. which were the other side of the A33. The potential for a footbridge over the A33 was raised as an example of the type of infrastructure that would be required.
The proposal would mean that there was no longer a gap between settlements and the impact on Church End was emphasised.
Some Members felt that the proposal would result in the urbanisation of the length of the A33 and erode the rural area.
Concerns were raised in relation to the impact on the river Loddon.
West of Upper Cufaude Farm
Stated that there was a lack of infrastructure such as secondary schools which would need to be built before any development took place and highlighted the various travel issues and the impact on the A33 and Cufuade Lane.
Expressed concern in relation to environmental issues and the fact that the land contained ancient woodlands.
Land west of Marnel Park
Expressed that housing should not be proposed in strategic gaps and that it was important to keep the distinctiveness of communities.
Stated that decisions made by the Development Control Committee to reject applications in strategic gaps had been upheld.
Weybrook Park Golf Course
Some members felt that the proposal would result in the loss of open space and the erosion of the strategic gap and reference was also made to the impact on the setting on the North Wessex Downs AONB.
Some members felt that the proposal would support the golf club, help deliver Biodiversity net gain and was located on the A340 which was an important employment corridor for Basingstoke and Deane.
Skates Lane
Some members felt that the site should be removed as there were heritage and ecological concerns, the A340 was an extremely busy road which would easily become gridlocked if there was an incident at AWE, there was a covenant on the land, and that there was a lack of infrastructure in Tadley and the site was some distance from facilities. It was stated that there was a need for housing in Tadley but that the site was not appropriate.
Some members felt that the site should be progressed as it was deliverable, outside of the DEPZ for AWE which prevented development in other parts of Tadley, and it was located on the A340 which was not as busy as the A33. It was also highlighted that Tadley had good facilities and bus routes and that any development would result in S106 money which would be invested back into Tadley. It was suggested that the shortage of young families in Tadley because of a lack of development had resulted in the schools not being at capacity.
It was questioned whether a secondary access could be created.
Redlands Lodge
It was felt that that if the proposed site for the East of Basingstoke was progressed then there would be no good reason not to build on the site which was located between the other allocated sites.
Land adjacent to Weybrook Golf Club
Stated that the proposal should be considered with the Weybrook Golf Club site.
Oakdown Farm
Some members stated that the site should form part of the local plan as an application would be put forward anyway.
Other members highlighted concerns about the provision of logistics floorspace.
Other
It was suggested that the Portals Paper Mill in Overton be put forward for development in the emerging local plan. It was questioned whether any oversupply could be used to reduce the allocation for other areas.
It was requested that the current settlement numbers be reviewed as they were too low for some settlements such as Headley, Bramley and Bishops Green.
Concern was raised over the time taken for sites to be delivered, especially if development partners were used. Clarification was requested on how many sites were at landowner, promoter, and developer stage. The Planning Policy Manager agreed to circulate a response.
7
Review of work programme
The Committee is asked to note and review its Work Programme and to receive updates from the Lead Members of Task and Finish Groups.
Attachments:
- Document EPH Committee Work Plan 30 Aug 2023
Minutes
The Committee requested an update from the portfolio holder on the status of the Councils major projects including Basing View, Leisure Park, Ice Rink and the aquadrome.
The Committee also requested an update on the Councils position in relation to the regeneration projects in areas such as Winklebury, Buckskin and South Ham.
The meeting on 7 September 2023 adjourned at 22:00pm.
The meeting reconvened on the 28 September 2023 and finished at 20:00pm.
The Committee also requested an update on the Councils position in relation to the regeneration projects in areas such as Winklebury, Buckskin and South Ham.
The meeting on 7 September 2023 adjourned at 22:00pm.
The meeting reconvened on the 28 September 2023 and finished at 20:00pm.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in