Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Cabinet Meeting

There were no apologies.

Councillor Harvey declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 7 – Council owned community centres as he was a trustee for Hall For All. 

Councillor L James also declared a non-pecuniary interest in the same agenda item as she was the Chair for Hall for All.

They left the meeting when the item was under consideration.

There were no urgent items.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2023 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

Cabinet considered a motion referred from Council regarding soft play facilities in the borough:

Cabinet were requested to:

·       Task officers with conducting a feasibility study to identify barriers that may currently prevent the re-establishment of indoor soft play facilities in Basingstoke and Deane and to seek potential solutions.

·       Explore potential incentives, financial or otherwise, that can be extended to commercial soft play operators to encourage them to establish or re-establish their presence in Basingstoke and Deane.

·       Engage with existing and potential soft play operators to understand their specific challenges and requirements, with a view to tailoring support mechanisms that are both practical and effective.

·       Engage with residents, especially families with young children, to gauge their needs and preferences in relation to indoor soft play facilities, ensuring that any future endeavours align with community desires.

·       Report back to the Council within six months with findings, potential action plans, and recommendations on the way forward.

Cabinet discussed the motion.  The Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration stated that soft play was something being considered as part of the aquadrome proposal. 

Resolved:

Cabinet agree to request officers to look at the current position regarding soft play in the borough to provide an informed position in which to take further any future actions.

The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure introduced the report which presented the draft Local Plan Update (LPU).  The report set out the benefits of moving forward with the LPU, set out an outline of the key elements of work undertaken since the spring, set out the key elements of the LPU and explained how the consultation would take place. The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure stated that a huge amount of work had been undertaken to have the plan ready for Regulation 18 consultation.  He summarised the key aspects of the plan such as the stepped trajectory regarding the housing number, strengthened policies with particular focus on setting higher standards in relation to issues such as net zero, water quality, and liveability.  Regarding the Spatial Strategy, he had listened to comments made and removed three sites, Lodge Farm, the land west of Upper Cufaude Farm and Skates Lane and added in, following consultation, the former Portals site in Overton and an increase in the number of new homes in the town centre.  He further highlighted the Infrastructure delivery plan where new homes would have to be accompanied by significant investment in infrastructure.

Referring to the recent government announcement regarding the NPPF he stated that in reality there had been little change however further expert guidance would be sought to provide clarity on how the new rules would affect the councils approach to the LPU and crucially whether it would allow the freedom for council’s to set their own housing number.

In the meantime, he considered it vital to share the draft LPU with residents.  Starting Regulation 18 consultation would provide much needed additional protection against speculative development due to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply.  Once Regulation 18 was underway there would only be a requirement to demonstrate a 4 year housing land supply to regain full planning powers. The council currently had a land supply for 4.6 years below the mandated 5 year housing land supply.

Visiting speakers were invited to address the meeting:

Mr Morris spoke regarding Tadley.  He referred to the lack of significant housing allocations over the years which had seen a population decline resulting in an increase in aging population.  He added that the draft LP recognised Tadley had an appropriate level of services and facilities to support a reasonable amount of the new 945 dwellings needed.  He further referred to the need for additional affordable housing in the borough including Tadley.  He felt that to reject consideration of any allocation in Tadley due to the DEPZ was disingenuous as there were reasonable areas to the south of the town that were acceptable such as Skates Lane.  He felt that Tadley deserved to be recognised for its importance as the second largest settlement with significant local employers who needed to attract and maintain quality staff.  He asked whether it was worth reinvestigating the need for a housing allocation at Tadley to meet the requirements of the town for the LP period.

County Councillor Stephen Reid referred to an open letter from the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure to the Secretary of State which asked four questions:

·       Whether he would remove the standard method for calculating housing numbers

·       Whether he would put the power for determining housing targets back in local hands

·       Whether he would release councils from the 5 year housing land supply rules

·       Whether he would enable councils to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist

He added that the answer to the questions was yes, in whole or in part and that the standard housing method was now advisory, it was not mandated.  He added that housing targets were back in local hands, councils with an up to date LP would no longer have to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and councils were able to determine whether they have exceptional circumstances.  He added that the LPU had been drafted without taking those answers into account and without looking at the options for slowing down the rate of growth.  He suggested it would be unwise and unsafe to take the next step to go out to consultation on a plan drafted in ignorance of the facts.  He recommended that the plan be reviewed in light of the information and consideration be given to whether there was scope to reduce the housing number for the borough.  The consultation should be started based on the lower number rather than a change at a later date.

Mr Young representing North Waltham Parish Council referred to the planning meeting which considered an application for warehouses on land at Oakdown Farm.  He added there was no support for the plans as there was no justifiable need and it would create more housing demand. He questioned what had changed as the site had been included in the draft LPU.

Councillor Rhatigan gave thanks to the officer team for their efforts to produce the draft LPU and Cabinet Member for his willingness to listen to feedback and his flexibility.  He disagreed with previous comment regarding delaying the consultation on the plan which would result in a continuation of planning by appeal.  He considered there were deficiencies in the plan and referred to the lack of housing allocation for Tadley.  He felt the withdrawal of the previous allocation was wrong.  He also felt there was no credence given to the gypsy and traveller population.  He suggested there should be provision for single sites that the gypsy and traveller population would feel comfortable with and it was a missed opportunity.  Furthermore, there had not been proper consultation with the gypsy and traveller community.  He further referred to the A340, an arterial road with good employment at either end with AWE and the hospital.  He felt there should be consideration of green credentials, housing needed to be close to where jobs were so people don’t have to get in a car to get to employment.  He also suggested there should be individual sites for self-build dwellings rather than pepper potted in big developments.  He looked forward to the consultation and hoped that by working together the plan could be improved.

Councillor McCormick felt there was no reason to delay the plan any further.  He welcomed the revisions to the NPPF particularly the requirement to demonstrate a 4 year rather than 5 year land supply once Regulation 18 had commenced.  He asked when the consultation would start.

The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure thanked the speakers for their comments and encouraged them to respond to the public consultation. 

Responding to the comments raised he agreed that more housing was required in Tadley but should be the right scheme on the right sites.  Skates Lane had been removed from the LPU for several reasons such as access, proximity to facilities and concerns regarding biodiversity and heritage. 

He clarified that expert advice had been sought regarding changes to the NPPF and he would consider that advice before making any changes to the LP housing number.  He added that Regulation 18 was the first public consultation stage of the process and changes to the plan could be made throughout the update process. He acknowledged the lack of a 5 year land supply was a concern of many residents and parishes but starting the Regulation 18 consultation process would give planning powers back to the Development Control Committee as the council had a 4 year land supply which met the requirement. 

He confirmed that the Oakdown Farm site was included in the draft Spatial Strategy that had been considered by the EPH committee in September and remained in the current allocation.  He explained that it remained as an economic need assessment was required, which looked at how much office, industrial and logistic spaces was needed in the borough in order to support jobs and other economic activity that would arise from new dwellings. 

Regarding gypsy and traveller accommodation he confirmed that a piece of work was being undertaken and would be ready for Regulation 19 consultation which involved consultation with the gypsy and traveller community to ensure that pitch provision would meet their requirements.  He further clarified that the LPU addressed the comment raised regarding self-build dwellings and confirmed that the Regulation 18 consultation would commence on 22 January 2024 and would run until the beginning of March.

Cabinet discussed the proposal.  Thanks were given to the Cabinet Member and officer team for their efforts to produce the LPU and the level of engagement that had been undertaken with parish councils. 

Various policies were welcomed such as the delivery of 60% affordable housing, building design particularly in relation to adequate storage in flats, balconies, communal areas and commitment to liveability and climate policies which supported the aim to make the borough carbon neutral and adapt to the changing climate.  It was commented that if progress was not made on the update of the LP, the council could lose control of planning therefore it was important to move to Regulation 18 consultation. 

Comment was also made regarding the Skates Lane site, previously referred to by a visiting speaker, which was regarded as having special biodiversity and should be a wildlife corridor and not included in the LP as a development site.  Cabinet Members were in agreement that it was important for residents to have their say regarding the LPU and residents were encouraged to take part in the consultation.

The Leader of the Council clarified that no response had been received from Government to the letters written regarding the housing number, planning policy or the 5 year land supply.  He also highlighted that the borough had over the last few years, delivered far more than 850 homes a year set out in the last LP which would not count in the context of over supply or historic supply.  He clarified that the standard housing method remained.  He further stressed that if the LPU was delayed any further the council would run the risk of further speculative development, planning by appeal.  The council needed to retain control over planning with a strong policy framework to control development in the borough.  He further highlighted the importance of the quality of new development in terms of build quality, meeting climate and ecological priorities and the impact on the environment such as chalk streams and rivers.  He added that the policy framework was an important step to protecting the natural environment as much as encouraging development in the places affordable housing could be sustained, particularly socially rented housing.  He further highlighted that the plan would be reviewed by a government inspector so needed to be a robust plan, right for the borough. 

He expressed thanks to everyone who had been involved to get the LPU to the Regulation 18 stage and considered that it was important to continue with the process which would mean demonstrating a 4year land supply and defend the borough from speculative development.

The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure also expressed thanks to everyone who had engaged in the process particularly the Popham Airfield community and encouraged everyone to respond to the public consultation.

The recommendations were unanimously agreed.

Resolved:   That Cabinet

1.    Approve that the draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update be published for public consultation (to be accompanied by associated Integrated Impact Assessment) under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a minimum period of six weeks in accordance with the council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement, commencing in January 2024.

2.    Delegate agreement of the final version of the draft Regulation 18 (Pre-Publication) version of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update for public consultation (including minor text, layout and design changes as well as changes needed for clarification and for consultation purposes), and other supporting material to be produced for consultation purposes, to the Head of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure.

Councillors Harvey and L James left the meeting for this item.  Councillor G James took the Chair for the item.

Cabinet considered a report which sought approval to implement a new approach to the asset management and monitoring of council-owned community centres. The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property explained there were 23 community centres in council ownership with varying leases which needed reviewing to enable better management of the assets to ensure protection for local communities and enable the community centres to thrive in the future.  He highlighted the importance of volunteers in running the community centres and their understanding of what is expected of them and what support was available to them.  This had been achieved through new leases which would include a service level agreement.  He added it was important to be able to monitor the performance of the community centres and provide support when necessary to protect the asset for the community.

Visiting speaker Councillor G Watts addressed the meeting.  He highlighted the issues with Westside Community Centre where RAAC had been identified and subsequently the operation and users were moved to other facilities in the borough.  He added that the community facility had been at full capacity and thanked the council for financial support to address the shortfall.  Reports commissioned by HCC and the borough identified structural issues within the buildings in need of urgent repair and recommended possible demolition of the site.  He requested commitment from the council to set up a feasibility study to look at providing a new facility either on the site or in the South Ham area including identifying provision of financial support and engagement with Sovereign, ward members and the community centre management.

The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure acknowledged the important issue raised by Councillor Watts and gave an undertaking to keep ward members up to date with the situation.  He added work was ongoing with demolition likely, but replacement of the facility would be considered.  Both the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion and Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration gave a commitment to do whatever was possible to provide a successful community base in South Ham and discuss the issue with Sovereign in the wider context of the regeneration of South Ham.

Resolved: 

Cabinet note the content of the report and approve the implementation of the new lease and SLA approach.