Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
70
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 17th October 2024
6:30 PM
Thursday, 17th October 2024
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 17th October 2024
9:30 PM
Thursday, 17th October 2024
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
17 Oct 2024
17 Oct 2024
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Vice-Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Cubitt, Carr and Tustain.
Councillor Konieczko arrived late to the meeting at 7.54 pm.
Councillor Konieczko arrived late to the meeting at 7.54 pm.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2024
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 Printed minutes 18072024 1830 Council 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor announced that on 15 October he conferred British citizenship to people from around the world who had settled in the borough.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 15 October 2024)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 15 October 2024)
Minutes
There were no questions.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 15 October 2024)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 15 October 2024)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside bodies 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
The following appointments were made to outside bodies:
1) Councillor Izett be appointed as the representative on South East Employers.
2) Councillor K Watts be appointed as the representative on Young people’s Information.
1) Councillor Izett be appointed as the representative on South East Employers.
2) Councillor K Watts be appointed as the representative on Young people’s Information.
8
Quarter 1 Capital Monitoring Report as at 30 June 2024
Recommendation from the Cabinet Meeting held on 10 September 2024:
Council is requested to approve recommendation 8 as set out in the report:
That Council approve additions to the capital programme of £0.300M to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as set out in section 8 of the report to fund a new capital scheme:
• Maritime House
Council is requested to approve recommendation 8 as set out in the report:
That Council approve additions to the capital programme of £0.300M to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as set out in section 8 of the report to fund a new capital scheme:
• Maritime House
Attachments:
- Document Q1 Capital Monitoring Report 2024-25 - CABINET FINAL 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
Council considered a report which presented the position on the council’s capital programme for the first quarter of 2024/15 and sought approval of an additional new capital scheme, Maritime House.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property responded to questions raised regarding income received from the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIL). In relation to the allocation of strategic CIL receipts for the Leisure Park, it was highlighted that the replacement of the aquadrome would require significant funds and therefore the council would need to maximise the use of capital budgets and programme funding available. The CIL money dedicated for the town centre had been earmarked for that use subject to other capital receipts that may be received. It was clarified that CIL funding related to parish councils with neighbourhood plans had been protected and was available for parishes to use.
With regard to the Labour Governments change of policy to scrap CIL in favour of S106, council was assured that a level of reserves was being held pending further information being available.
Resolved: To approve additions to the capital programme of £0.300M to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as set out in section 8 of the report to fund a new capital scheme, Maritime House.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property responded to questions raised regarding income received from the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIL). In relation to the allocation of strategic CIL receipts for the Leisure Park, it was highlighted that the replacement of the aquadrome would require significant funds and therefore the council would need to maximise the use of capital budgets and programme funding available. The CIL money dedicated for the town centre had been earmarked for that use subject to other capital receipts that may be received. It was clarified that CIL funding related to parish councils with neighbourhood plans had been protected and was available for parishes to use.
With regard to the Labour Governments change of policy to scrap CIL in favour of S106, council was assured that a level of reserves was being held pending further information being available.
Resolved: To approve additions to the capital programme of £0.300M to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as set out in section 8 of the report to fund a new capital scheme, Maritime House.
9
Amendments to the Constitution
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Amendments to the Constitution 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
Council noted an amendment made by the Monitoring Officer to Part 2 of the Public Participation at Meetings rules related to Tree Preservation Orders.
Resolved:
To note the alteration made to Part 2 of the Public Participation at Meetings rules relating to Public Participation in respect of Development Control Matters that are not Planning Applications in relation to the confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders to ensure that public speaking is limited to persons who have made a representation within the statutory consultation period of the 28 days pursuant to the Regulations.
Resolved:
To note the alteration made to Part 2 of the Public Participation at Meetings rules relating to Public Participation in respect of Development Control Matters that are not Planning Applications in relation to the confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders to ensure that public speaking is limited to persons who have made a representation within the statutory consultation period of the 28 days pursuant to the Regulations.
10
Audit and Accounts Committee Annual Report 2023/24
Report of the Chair of the audit and Accounts Committee
Attachments:
- Document AAC Annual Report Cover paper - Council October 2024 09 Oct 2024
- Document Appendix 1 - AAC Annual Report 2023-24 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
Council received the first annual report of the Audit and Accounts committee which provided information on the work of the committee in the previous financial year.
Resolved: To note the annual report of the Audit and Accounts Committee for 2023/24.
Resolved: To note the annual report of the Audit and Accounts Committee for 2023/24.
11
Calendar of Meetings 2025/26
To agree the calendar of meetings for 2025/26.
Attachments:
- Document Draft Calendar of Meetings 2025_2026 09 Oct 2024
Minutes
The calendar of meetings for 2025/26 was presented to Council for approval.
Resolved: To agree the calendar of meetings for the 2025/26 municipal year.
Resolved: To agree the calendar of meetings for the 2025/26 municipal year.
12
Notice of Motion - Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and Protecting Pensioners from Fuel Poverty
Proposer: Councillor Mummalaneni
Seconder: Councillor Ganesh
Council Notes:
1) The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
2) The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
3) The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping older residents of Basingstoke and Deane and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months, thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
4) The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
5) The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.
Council believes:
1) That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
2) While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across Basingstoke and Deane sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
3) The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
4) The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
2) Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
3) Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.
4) Encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through council services and partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in Basingstoke and Deane are supported in claiming their entitlement.
Seconder: Councillor Ganesh
Council Notes:
1) The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
2) The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
3) The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping older residents of Basingstoke and Deane and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months, thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
4) The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
5) The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.
Council believes:
1) That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
2) While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across Basingstoke and Deane sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
3) The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
4) The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
2) Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
3) Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.
4) Encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through council services and partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in Basingstoke and Deane are supported in claiming their entitlement.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Mummalaneni and seconded by Councillor Ganesh:
Council Notes:
1) The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
2) The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
3) The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping older residents of Basingstoke and Deane and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months, thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
4) The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
5) The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.
Council believes:
1) That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
2) While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across Basingstoke and Deane sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
3) The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
4) The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
2) Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
3) Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.
4) Encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through council services and partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in Basingstoke and Deane are supported in claiming their entitlement.
Councillors spoke to the motion. In relation to promoting the uptake of pension credit, it was highlighted that partners such as Citizens Advice would likely experience a strain on limited resources. An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Bowes to add the following wording to paragraph 4 of the resolution:
To request government to provide charities with the necessary funding to accomplish this.
The amendment was agreed by the proposer and seconder.
Most councillors were supportive of the motion. Some councillors supported the governments approach to restricting the fuel allowance to those pensioners most in need. Comments made during debate included:
· Many pensioners could find it difficult to make a claim for pension credit without assistance.
· Pensioners drawing the new state pension would be above the threshold to claim pension credit.
· Other councils across the country had supported similar motions regarding the fuel allowance. Supporting the motion would demonstrate to national government the views of local government for their residents.
· Some pensioners had higher disposable incomes than working families. Redirecting public funds through means testing would ensure that funds were directed to those people most in need.
· Pensioners with income just above the threshold for pension credit who would lose the winter fuel payment would be those most effected. The government could have taken time to find a fairer and better approach that protected the most vulnerable.
· Residents who could be entitled to pension credit and needed support were encouraged to contact their local ward member.
· Resources were available to help pensioners impacted such as the commitment to the triple lock on the state pension, warm homes plan and government funding committed to Hampshire County Council (HCC) for household support.
· ‘Hitting the Cold Spots’ was highlighted as a scheme run by HCC and a charity partner to provide help and advice for residents on keeping the home warm.
· There were insufficient resources to assist pensioners to claim pension credit in a timely manner.
The motion was put to a recorded vote. There voted 39 in favour, 3 against and 7 abstentions.
Resolved: That the motion as amended be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Council Notes:
1) The Labour Government’s recent decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, as announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
2) The estimated impact of this decision, which Age UK says will mean 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
3) The significant role that Winter Fuel Payments play in helping older residents of Basingstoke and Deane and across the UK afford heating during the coldest months, thereby preventing 'heat or eat' dilemmas and safeguarding health.
4) The criticism from Age UK, the Countryside Alliance and other charities, highlighting the social injustice and potential health risks posed by this sudden policy change.
5) The additional strain this decision will place on vulnerable pensioners, many of whom do not claim Pension Credit despite being eligible, further exacerbating their financial hardship.
Council believes:
1) That the Winter Fuel Payment has been a lifeline for many older people across the UK and that restricting its availability solely to those on Pension Credit risks leaving many pensioners in financial hardship.
2) While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many thousands across Basingstoke and Deane sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.
3) The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments, especially with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures, is deeply unfair and will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of our poorest older residents.
4) The government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Bring forward a Council-led local awareness campaign to alert those eligible of Pension Credit which in some respects will help access to the Winter Fuel Payment for those most in need.
2) Request that the Council Leader write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.
3) Commit the Council to signing the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK and write to all members offering them the opportunity to sign the petition themselves.
4) Encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through council services and partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in Basingstoke and Deane are supported in claiming their entitlement.
Councillors spoke to the motion. In relation to promoting the uptake of pension credit, it was highlighted that partners such as Citizens Advice would likely experience a strain on limited resources. An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Bowes to add the following wording to paragraph 4 of the resolution:
To request government to provide charities with the necessary funding to accomplish this.
The amendment was agreed by the proposer and seconder.
Most councillors were supportive of the motion. Some councillors supported the governments approach to restricting the fuel allowance to those pensioners most in need. Comments made during debate included:
· Many pensioners could find it difficult to make a claim for pension credit without assistance.
· Pensioners drawing the new state pension would be above the threshold to claim pension credit.
· Other councils across the country had supported similar motions regarding the fuel allowance. Supporting the motion would demonstrate to national government the views of local government for their residents.
· Some pensioners had higher disposable incomes than working families. Redirecting public funds through means testing would ensure that funds were directed to those people most in need.
· Pensioners with income just above the threshold for pension credit who would lose the winter fuel payment would be those most effected. The government could have taken time to find a fairer and better approach that protected the most vulnerable.
· Residents who could be entitled to pension credit and needed support were encouraged to contact their local ward member.
· Resources were available to help pensioners impacted such as the commitment to the triple lock on the state pension, warm homes plan and government funding committed to Hampshire County Council (HCC) for household support.
· ‘Hitting the Cold Spots’ was highlighted as a scheme run by HCC and a charity partner to provide help and advice for residents on keeping the home warm.
· There were insufficient resources to assist pensioners to claim pension credit in a timely manner.
The motion was put to a recorded vote. There voted 39 in favour, 3 against and 7 abstentions.
Resolved: That the motion as amended be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
13
Motion on Notice - Rejecting Labour's Imposed Housing Targets for Basingstoke and Deane
Proposer: Councillor McIntyre
Seconder: Councillor Jenny Vaux
Full Council notes:
1) The Labour government’s imposed 37% increase in Basingstoke and Deane’s housing targets, requiring the borough to deliver 1,137 homes per year, disregards the reality of our borough’s infrastructure limitations, environmental challenges, and the will of local residents.
2) The Independent and Liberal Democrat led administration of Basingstoke and Deane has submitted a response to the government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), claiming to speak on behalf of the entire council, without a full council debate or vote. This undermines the democratic process and fails to represent the views of all elected representatives and residents.
3) The administration’s response contains a dangerous new position on the development of "New Towns," indicating their willingness to consider such proposals in Basingstoke and Deane. This shift has not been subject to public consultation or full council approval and would be met with fierce opposition by local communities who value the rural character and integrity of our borough.
4) The Labour government’s top-down approach to housing targets, combined with the Independent and Liberal Democrat administration’s willingness to entertain ideas like "New Towns," threatens to fundamentally alter the identity of Basingstoke and Deane, destroying our strategic gaps, green spaces, and the quality of life for current and future residents.
5) Basingstoke and Deane’s strategic gaps serve a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, and the threat of "New Towns" or large-scale developments would erode these crucial areas, leading to overdevelopment, increased traffic congestion, pressure on public services, and environmental damage.
Full Council believes:
1) The Labour government’s housing targets are incompatible with the principles of local democracy, environmental sustainability, and responsible planning. These approaches represent an attack on the character and autonomy of Basingstoke and Deane.
2) A proposal for New Towns would be completely unacceptable to the residents of Basingstoke and Deane, and the council must stand against any attempt to impose such developments, which would be devastating for our local environment, infrastructure, and community cohesion.
3) Any housing targets should be evidence-based and reflect local needs, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability goals, rather than being imposed by central government or rubber-stamped by an administration without proper consultation.
Council resolves:
1) To press Cabinet to strongly oppose any proposal for “New Towns” within Basingstoke and Deane, reaffirming the council’s commitment to protecting strategic gaps and preventing unsustainable, large-scale developments that would harm the borough’s character and environment.
2) To urge Cabinet to engage with residents through a public consultation process to gather their views on the proposed housing targets, the threat of "New Towns," and the council’s position, ensuring that the voices of the people of Basingstoke and Deane are heard and respected.
3) To reaffirm our commitment to brownfield development and strategic gaps protection, ensuring that the character of our towns and villages is preserved.
4) To call for stronger protections against speculative unplanned development in our borough in future revisions of the NPPF.
Council resolves to request that Cabinet:
1) Formally express the council's concern regarding the 37% housing target increase and request the government to reconsider this number, taking into account local infrastructure, environmental limits, and the borough’s ability to meet these targets without compromising on sustainable growth.
2) Request that the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, revoke the imposed housing target increase, and to call for local councils to retain the ability to set evidence-based housing figures that are aligned with the unique infrastructure and environmental challenges of each area.
Seconder: Councillor Jenny Vaux
Full Council notes:
1) The Labour government’s imposed 37% increase in Basingstoke and Deane’s housing targets, requiring the borough to deliver 1,137 homes per year, disregards the reality of our borough’s infrastructure limitations, environmental challenges, and the will of local residents.
2) The Independent and Liberal Democrat led administration of Basingstoke and Deane has submitted a response to the government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), claiming to speak on behalf of the entire council, without a full council debate or vote. This undermines the democratic process and fails to represent the views of all elected representatives and residents.
3) The administration’s response contains a dangerous new position on the development of "New Towns," indicating their willingness to consider such proposals in Basingstoke and Deane. This shift has not been subject to public consultation or full council approval and would be met with fierce opposition by local communities who value the rural character and integrity of our borough.
4) The Labour government’s top-down approach to housing targets, combined with the Independent and Liberal Democrat administration’s willingness to entertain ideas like "New Towns," threatens to fundamentally alter the identity of Basingstoke and Deane, destroying our strategic gaps, green spaces, and the quality of life for current and future residents.
5) Basingstoke and Deane’s strategic gaps serve a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, and the threat of "New Towns" or large-scale developments would erode these crucial areas, leading to overdevelopment, increased traffic congestion, pressure on public services, and environmental damage.
Full Council believes:
1) The Labour government’s housing targets are incompatible with the principles of local democracy, environmental sustainability, and responsible planning. These approaches represent an attack on the character and autonomy of Basingstoke and Deane.
2) A proposal for New Towns would be completely unacceptable to the residents of Basingstoke and Deane, and the council must stand against any attempt to impose such developments, which would be devastating for our local environment, infrastructure, and community cohesion.
3) Any housing targets should be evidence-based and reflect local needs, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability goals, rather than being imposed by central government or rubber-stamped by an administration without proper consultation.
Council resolves:
1) To press Cabinet to strongly oppose any proposal for “New Towns” within Basingstoke and Deane, reaffirming the council’s commitment to protecting strategic gaps and preventing unsustainable, large-scale developments that would harm the borough’s character and environment.
2) To urge Cabinet to engage with residents through a public consultation process to gather their views on the proposed housing targets, the threat of "New Towns," and the council’s position, ensuring that the voices of the people of Basingstoke and Deane are heard and respected.
3) To reaffirm our commitment to brownfield development and strategic gaps protection, ensuring that the character of our towns and villages is preserved.
4) To call for stronger protections against speculative unplanned development in our borough in future revisions of the NPPF.
Council resolves to request that Cabinet:
1) Formally express the council's concern regarding the 37% housing target increase and request the government to reconsider this number, taking into account local infrastructure, environmental limits, and the borough’s ability to meet these targets without compromising on sustainable growth.
2) Request that the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, revoke the imposed housing target increase, and to call for local councils to retain the ability to set evidence-based housing figures that are aligned with the unique infrastructure and environmental challenges of each area.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor McIntyre and seconded by Councillor Vaux:
Full Council notes:
1) The Labour government’s imposed 37% increase in Basingstoke and Deane’s housing targets, requiring the borough to deliver 1,137 homes per year, disregards the reality of our borough’s infrastructure limitations, environmental challenges, and the will of local residents.
2) The Independent and Liberal Democrat led administration of Basingstoke and Deane has submitted a response to the government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), claiming to speak on behalf of the entire council, without a full council debate or vote. This undermines the democratic process and fails to represent the views of all elected representatives and residents.
3) The administration’s response contains a dangerous new position on the development of "New Towns," indicating their willingness to consider such proposals in Basingstoke and Deane. This shift has not been subject to public consultation or full council approval and would be met with fierce opposition by local communities who value the rural character and integrity of our borough.
4) The Labour government’s top-down approach to housing targets, combined with the Independent and Liberal Democrat administration’s willingness to entertain ideas like "New Towns," threatens to fundamentally alter the identity of Basingstoke and Deane, destroying our strategic gaps, green spaces, and the quality of life for current and future residents.
5) Basingstoke and Deane’s strategic gaps serve a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, and the threat of "New Towns" or large-scale developments would erode these crucial areas, leading to overdevelopment, increased traffic congestion, pressure on public services, and environmental damage.
Full Council believes:
1) The Labour government’s housing targets are incompatible with the principles of local democracy, environmental sustainability, and responsible planning. These approaches represent an attack on the character and autonomy of Basingstoke and Deane.
2) A proposal for New Towns would be completely unacceptable to the residents of Basingstoke and Deane, and the council must stand against any attempt to impose such developments, which would be devastating for our local environment, infrastructure, and community cohesion.
3) Any housing targets should be evidence-based and reflect local needs, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability goals, rather than being imposed by central government or rubber-stamped by an administration without proper consultation.
Council resolves:
1) To press Cabinet to strongly oppose any proposal for “New Towns” within Basingstoke and Deane, reaffirming the council’s commitment to protecting strategic gaps and preventing unsustainable, large-scale developments that would harm the borough’s character and environment.
2) To urge Cabinet to engage with residents through a public consultation process to gather their views on the proposed housing targets, the threat of "New Towns," and the council’s position, ensuring that the voices of the people of Basingstoke and Deane are heard and respected.
3) To reaffirm our commitment to brownfield development and strategic gaps protection, ensuring that the character of our towns and villages is preserved.
4) To call for stronger protections against speculative unplanned development in our borough in future revisions of the NPPF.
Council resolves to request that Cabinet:
1) Formally express the council's concern regarding the 37% housing target increase and request the government to reconsider this number, taking into account local infrastructure, environmental limits, and the borough’s ability to meet these targets without compromising on sustainable growth.
2) Request that the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, revoke the imposed housing target increase, and to call for local councils to retain the ability to set evidence-based housing figures that are aligned with the unique infrastructure and environmental challenges of each area.
Councillors discussed the motion. Comments made included:
· The government’s proposals were not in the best interests of the borough. Accepting the imposed housing targets without challenge would require restarting the local plan process, delaying essential developments and leaving the borough vulnerable to speculative development.
· It was acknowledged that more homes, particularly social and affordable housing, were required in the borough but it was essential to build the right homes in the right places.
· Need to protect green fields from development and stop urban sprawl from engulfing villages.
· Concern regarding the lack of detail in the draft NPPF for improved infrastructure alongside additional housing requirements.
· Concerns regarding any proposals for New Towns.
· Concern regarding the removal of the urban uplift making it easier for developers to take green fields on the edge of urban areas rather than tackling brownfield sites.
· Councillors need to work together to oppose any proposals for New Towns and to protect green spaces and the integrity of rural communities.
· The Administration’s view to strongly object to the governments proposed housing target was reiterated and had been expressed directly to government, through its response to the NPPF consultation and indirectly through MP’s.
· The council would continue to lobby government and HCC to ensure sufficient funding to implement infrastructure upgrades to support additional housing.
· If was clarified that once the new NPPF was finalised, the Local Plan would be updated accordingly and would be open to consultation.
· It was reiterated that New Towns in the borough were not supported by the Administration.
· Many actions requested in the motion had already been actioned. The motion did not help achieve the objective of finalising the draft local plan with a lower housing number and tough environmental and liveability standards.
· The motion was untruthful and hypocritical.
· There was a need to engage with government to address infrastructure needs and housing targets rather than outrightly rejecting the housing target.
· The motion failed to acknowledge key facts. Development must be sustainable and supported by the right infrastructure. The previous administration and government failed to ensure the right infrastructure was delivered alongside new housing. Opposition by the previous administration to the development of Manydown which would have addressed some of the housing and infrastructure issues and led to the lack of a 5 year land supply, has resulted in speculative development across the borough.
· There should be a balanced approach to development to provide homes where needed and at a pace that will not overwhelm infrastructure, in consultation with residents.
The motion was put to a recorded vote with 13 votes in favour, 32 votes against and 5 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
Full Council notes:
1) The Labour government’s imposed 37% increase in Basingstoke and Deane’s housing targets, requiring the borough to deliver 1,137 homes per year, disregards the reality of our borough’s infrastructure limitations, environmental challenges, and the will of local residents.
2) The Independent and Liberal Democrat led administration of Basingstoke and Deane has submitted a response to the government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), claiming to speak on behalf of the entire council, without a full council debate or vote. This undermines the democratic process and fails to represent the views of all elected representatives and residents.
3) The administration’s response contains a dangerous new position on the development of "New Towns," indicating their willingness to consider such proposals in Basingstoke and Deane. This shift has not been subject to public consultation or full council approval and would be met with fierce opposition by local communities who value the rural character and integrity of our borough.
4) The Labour government’s top-down approach to housing targets, combined with the Independent and Liberal Democrat administration’s willingness to entertain ideas like "New Towns," threatens to fundamentally alter the identity of Basingstoke and Deane, destroying our strategic gaps, green spaces, and the quality of life for current and future residents.
5) Basingstoke and Deane’s strategic gaps serve a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, and the threat of "New Towns" or large-scale developments would erode these crucial areas, leading to overdevelopment, increased traffic congestion, pressure on public services, and environmental damage.
Full Council believes:
1) The Labour government’s housing targets are incompatible with the principles of local democracy, environmental sustainability, and responsible planning. These approaches represent an attack on the character and autonomy of Basingstoke and Deane.
2) A proposal for New Towns would be completely unacceptable to the residents of Basingstoke and Deane, and the council must stand against any attempt to impose such developments, which would be devastating for our local environment, infrastructure, and community cohesion.
3) Any housing targets should be evidence-based and reflect local needs, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability goals, rather than being imposed by central government or rubber-stamped by an administration without proper consultation.
Council resolves:
1) To press Cabinet to strongly oppose any proposal for “New Towns” within Basingstoke and Deane, reaffirming the council’s commitment to protecting strategic gaps and preventing unsustainable, large-scale developments that would harm the borough’s character and environment.
2) To urge Cabinet to engage with residents through a public consultation process to gather their views on the proposed housing targets, the threat of "New Towns," and the council’s position, ensuring that the voices of the people of Basingstoke and Deane are heard and respected.
3) To reaffirm our commitment to brownfield development and strategic gaps protection, ensuring that the character of our towns and villages is preserved.
4) To call for stronger protections against speculative unplanned development in our borough in future revisions of the NPPF.
Council resolves to request that Cabinet:
1) Formally express the council's concern regarding the 37% housing target increase and request the government to reconsider this number, taking into account local infrastructure, environmental limits, and the borough’s ability to meet these targets without compromising on sustainable growth.
2) Request that the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, revoke the imposed housing target increase, and to call for local councils to retain the ability to set evidence-based housing figures that are aligned with the unique infrastructure and environmental challenges of each area.
Councillors discussed the motion. Comments made included:
· The government’s proposals were not in the best interests of the borough. Accepting the imposed housing targets without challenge would require restarting the local plan process, delaying essential developments and leaving the borough vulnerable to speculative development.
· It was acknowledged that more homes, particularly social and affordable housing, were required in the borough but it was essential to build the right homes in the right places.
· Need to protect green fields from development and stop urban sprawl from engulfing villages.
· Concern regarding the lack of detail in the draft NPPF for improved infrastructure alongside additional housing requirements.
· Concerns regarding any proposals for New Towns.
· Concern regarding the removal of the urban uplift making it easier for developers to take green fields on the edge of urban areas rather than tackling brownfield sites.
· Councillors need to work together to oppose any proposals for New Towns and to protect green spaces and the integrity of rural communities.
· The Administration’s view to strongly object to the governments proposed housing target was reiterated and had been expressed directly to government, through its response to the NPPF consultation and indirectly through MP’s.
· The council would continue to lobby government and HCC to ensure sufficient funding to implement infrastructure upgrades to support additional housing.
· If was clarified that once the new NPPF was finalised, the Local Plan would be updated accordingly and would be open to consultation.
· It was reiterated that New Towns in the borough were not supported by the Administration.
· Many actions requested in the motion had already been actioned. The motion did not help achieve the objective of finalising the draft local plan with a lower housing number and tough environmental and liveability standards.
· The motion was untruthful and hypocritical.
· There was a need to engage with government to address infrastructure needs and housing targets rather than outrightly rejecting the housing target.
· The motion failed to acknowledge key facts. Development must be sustainable and supported by the right infrastructure. The previous administration and government failed to ensure the right infrastructure was delivered alongside new housing. Opposition by the previous administration to the development of Manydown which would have addressed some of the housing and infrastructure issues and led to the lack of a 5 year land supply, has resulted in speculative development across the borough.
· There should be a balanced approach to development to provide homes where needed and at a pace that will not overwhelm infrastructure, in consultation with residents.
The motion was put to a recorded vote with 13 votes in favour, 32 votes against and 5 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
14
Motion on Notice - Provision of a Temporary Ice Rink Facility
Proposer: Councillor Dillow.
Seconder: Councillor Lee.
This Council notes that:
1) This is the chance for our Council’s administration to put up or shut up, and finally decide whether they wish to Keep Ice In Basingstoke. It’s about deciding what we prioritise, and lets not deny that how we spend our residents’ money is a political choice.
2) The current ice rink in Basingstoke, a vital community asset, is set to undergo essential refurbishment and repair, with an agreement between Planet Ice and Standard Securities close to being signed.
3) The ice rink is more than just a sports venue; it is a unique community hub where people of all ages gather to build friendships, support their physical and mental well-being, and enjoy sporting activities such as ice skating and ice hockey.
4) The closure of the ice rink for refurbishment will leave no local facility for ice skaters, ice hockey players, and ice coaches to train or pursue their passions, affecting not only their mental health but also the livelihoods of professional coaches and local businesses on the leisure park due to reduced footfall.
5) Without a temporary solution, the ice community will be forced to travel considerable distances to continue participating in these activities, increasing costs and diminishing access to sport and recreation for all ages.
6) Basingstoke and Deane is one of country’s richest Councils, acknowledged by our leader Cllr Harvey and the BDI manifesto. Government officials have ranked local authorities from 1 to 317, with low numbers indicating higher levels of deprivation. Basingstoke and Deane was placed a very comfortable 243rd in the table nationally. Our Council also has notable assets including business parks and leisure developments, which generate and provide long-term revenue streams that increase the council’s overall wealth.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commit to Keep Ice in Basingstoke by providing a temporary real ice rink facility for the town and the wider community during the closure of the current ice rink for refurbishment and repair.
2) Prioritise this temporary solution to ensure continuity of access to ice sports and to support the mental health, well-being, and livelihoods of those who use and depend on our local ice rink.
3) Require officers to obtain costings and estimated revenues, the best source of council funding, and an implementation plan to provide a temporary real ice rink as a matter of urgency, to enable Cabinet to decide at the earliest opportunity on how best to progress the provision of a temporary facility whilst repairs are carried out to the current ice rink.
By adopting this motion, the Council and its administration will reaffirm its commitment to Keep Ice In Basingstoke, supporting the ice community as promised, maintaining access to Basingstoke's unique ice rink facility whilst safeguarding the interests of residents, businesses, and sports participants during the refurbishment period.
Seconder: Councillor Lee.
This Council notes that:
1) This is the chance for our Council’s administration to put up or shut up, and finally decide whether they wish to Keep Ice In Basingstoke. It’s about deciding what we prioritise, and lets not deny that how we spend our residents’ money is a political choice.
2) The current ice rink in Basingstoke, a vital community asset, is set to undergo essential refurbishment and repair, with an agreement between Planet Ice and Standard Securities close to being signed.
3) The ice rink is more than just a sports venue; it is a unique community hub where people of all ages gather to build friendships, support their physical and mental well-being, and enjoy sporting activities such as ice skating and ice hockey.
4) The closure of the ice rink for refurbishment will leave no local facility for ice skaters, ice hockey players, and ice coaches to train or pursue their passions, affecting not only their mental health but also the livelihoods of professional coaches and local businesses on the leisure park due to reduced footfall.
5) Without a temporary solution, the ice community will be forced to travel considerable distances to continue participating in these activities, increasing costs and diminishing access to sport and recreation for all ages.
6) Basingstoke and Deane is one of country’s richest Councils, acknowledged by our leader Cllr Harvey and the BDI manifesto. Government officials have ranked local authorities from 1 to 317, with low numbers indicating higher levels of deprivation. Basingstoke and Deane was placed a very comfortable 243rd in the table nationally. Our Council also has notable assets including business parks and leisure developments, which generate and provide long-term revenue streams that increase the council’s overall wealth.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commit to Keep Ice in Basingstoke by providing a temporary real ice rink facility for the town and the wider community during the closure of the current ice rink for refurbishment and repair.
2) Prioritise this temporary solution to ensure continuity of access to ice sports and to support the mental health, well-being, and livelihoods of those who use and depend on our local ice rink.
3) Require officers to obtain costings and estimated revenues, the best source of council funding, and an implementation plan to provide a temporary real ice rink as a matter of urgency, to enable Cabinet to decide at the earliest opportunity on how best to progress the provision of a temporary facility whilst repairs are carried out to the current ice rink.
By adopting this motion, the Council and its administration will reaffirm its commitment to Keep Ice In Basingstoke, supporting the ice community as promised, maintaining access to Basingstoke's unique ice rink facility whilst safeguarding the interests of residents, businesses, and sports participants during the refurbishment period.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Dillow and seconded by Councillor Lee.
This Council notes that:
1) This is the chance for our Council’s administration to put up or shut up, and finally decide whether they wish to Keep Ice In Basingstoke. It’s about deciding what we prioritise, and lets not deny that how we spend our residents’ money is a political choice.
2) The current ice rink in Basingstoke, a vital community asset, is set to undergo essential refurbishment and repair, with an agreement between Planet Ice and Standard Securities close to being signed.
3) The ice rink is more than just a sports venue; it is a unique community hub where people of all ages gather to build friendships, support their physical and mental well-being, and enjoy sporting activities such as ice skating and ice hockey.
4) The closure of the ice rink for refurbishment will leave no local facility for ice skaters, ice hockey players, and ice coaches to train or pursue their passions, affecting not only their mental health but also the livelihoods of professional coaches and local businesses on the leisure park due to reduced footfall.
5) Without a temporary solution, the ice community will be forced to travel considerable distances to continue participating in these activities, increasing costs and diminishing access to sport and recreation for all ages.
6) Basingstoke and Deane is one of country’s richest Councils, acknowledged by our leader Cllr Harvey and the BDI manifesto. Government officials have ranked local authorities from 1 to 317, with low numbers indicating higher levels of deprivation. Basingstoke and Deane was placed a very comfortable 243rd in the table nationally. Our Council also has notable assets including business parks and leisure developments, which generate and provide long-term revenue streams that increase the council’s overall wealth.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Decide whether to Keep Ice in Basingstoke by providing a temporary real ice rink facility for the town and the wider community during the closure of the current ice rink for refurbishment and repair.
2) If agreed, prioritise this temporary solution to ensure continuity of access to ice sports and to support the mental health, well-being, and livelihoods of those who use and depend on our local ice rink.
3) If agreed, require officers to obtain costings and estimated revenues, the best source of council funding, and an implementation plan to provide a temporary real ice rink as a matter of urgency, to enable Cabinet to decide at the earliest opportunity on how best to progress the provision of a temporary facility whilst repairs are carried out to the current ice rink.
By adopting this motion, the Council and its administration will reaffirm its commitment to Keep Ice In Basingstoke, supporting the ice community as promised, maintaining access to Basingstoke's unique ice rink facility whilst safeguarding the interests of residents, businesses, and sports participants during the refurbishment period.
The motion was debated. Support was expressed for keeping ice in Basingstoke and its importance to residents of the borough, however there was a mixed range of comments in relation to the motion which included:
· A significant amount of time had been spent investigating the feasibility of a temporary ice rink following a previous motion, by both officers and Residents Services committee. The motion was offensive to the work of the committee. Estimated costings of £2 million to provide a temporary rink had been provided and explored by the committee who had made recommendations to Cabinet.
· The motion was ill conceived and fiscally irresponsible. The council had a responsibility to ensure residents money was spent well for core services for the whole community. The motion looked to secure a temporary ice rink but did not appreciate the council’s wider responsibilities.
· £2 million in revenue funding to provide a temporary ice rink would have consequences for core services or would result in cuts to discretionary services.
· The restoration of the rink would likely be completed before a temporary facility could be provided which was not good use of residents money.
· The effort of officers to reach a resolution was recognised.
· Concern with the language used in the motion ‘put up or shut up’.
· Focus should be on ensuring the ice rink was repaired as quickly as possible.
· The Administration needed to demonstrate integrity and honour the promises it made to the community. Providing a temporary ice rink was more than maintaining a facility, it was about supporting the wellbeing of residents, preserving livelihoods, and fostering the spirit of the town.
· The motion asked the Administration to think about asking a different question. Make a decision about how much the council would spend and see what could be delivered by working with the ice users. Look at it from a different perspective.
· The ice rink was a facility that residents viewed as a priority and funding was available to be used for residents priorities rather than kept as reserves.
· The council should invest in all sports. It was unfair that just because a sport was played in a private building it should not be considered for any funding.
· It was not acceptable that children were having to travel long distances out of the borough to other facilities to be able to continue their sport.
An amendment to the motion was proposed to remove the wording ‘put up or shut up’ which was agreed. Further discussion took place on the amendment before the motion was put to a recorded vote.
Upon a vote there voted 21 votes in favour, 25 votes against and 3 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
This Council notes that:
1) This is the chance for our Council’s administration to put up or shut up, and finally decide whether they wish to Keep Ice In Basingstoke. It’s about deciding what we prioritise, and lets not deny that how we spend our residents’ money is a political choice.
2) The current ice rink in Basingstoke, a vital community asset, is set to undergo essential refurbishment and repair, with an agreement between Planet Ice and Standard Securities close to being signed.
3) The ice rink is more than just a sports venue; it is a unique community hub where people of all ages gather to build friendships, support their physical and mental well-being, and enjoy sporting activities such as ice skating and ice hockey.
4) The closure of the ice rink for refurbishment will leave no local facility for ice skaters, ice hockey players, and ice coaches to train or pursue their passions, affecting not only their mental health but also the livelihoods of professional coaches and local businesses on the leisure park due to reduced footfall.
5) Without a temporary solution, the ice community will be forced to travel considerable distances to continue participating in these activities, increasing costs and diminishing access to sport and recreation for all ages.
6) Basingstoke and Deane is one of country’s richest Councils, acknowledged by our leader Cllr Harvey and the BDI manifesto. Government officials have ranked local authorities from 1 to 317, with low numbers indicating higher levels of deprivation. Basingstoke and Deane was placed a very comfortable 243rd in the table nationally. Our Council also has notable assets including business parks and leisure developments, which generate and provide long-term revenue streams that increase the council’s overall wealth.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Decide whether to Keep Ice in Basingstoke by providing a temporary real ice rink facility for the town and the wider community during the closure of the current ice rink for refurbishment and repair.
2) If agreed, prioritise this temporary solution to ensure continuity of access to ice sports and to support the mental health, well-being, and livelihoods of those who use and depend on our local ice rink.
3) If agreed, require officers to obtain costings and estimated revenues, the best source of council funding, and an implementation plan to provide a temporary real ice rink as a matter of urgency, to enable Cabinet to decide at the earliest opportunity on how best to progress the provision of a temporary facility whilst repairs are carried out to the current ice rink.
By adopting this motion, the Council and its administration will reaffirm its commitment to Keep Ice In Basingstoke, supporting the ice community as promised, maintaining access to Basingstoke's unique ice rink facility whilst safeguarding the interests of residents, businesses, and sports participants during the refurbishment period.
The motion was debated. Support was expressed for keeping ice in Basingstoke and its importance to residents of the borough, however there was a mixed range of comments in relation to the motion which included:
· A significant amount of time had been spent investigating the feasibility of a temporary ice rink following a previous motion, by both officers and Residents Services committee. The motion was offensive to the work of the committee. Estimated costings of £2 million to provide a temporary rink had been provided and explored by the committee who had made recommendations to Cabinet.
· The motion was ill conceived and fiscally irresponsible. The council had a responsibility to ensure residents money was spent well for core services for the whole community. The motion looked to secure a temporary ice rink but did not appreciate the council’s wider responsibilities.
· £2 million in revenue funding to provide a temporary ice rink would have consequences for core services or would result in cuts to discretionary services.
· The restoration of the rink would likely be completed before a temporary facility could be provided which was not good use of residents money.
· The effort of officers to reach a resolution was recognised.
· Concern with the language used in the motion ‘put up or shut up’.
· Focus should be on ensuring the ice rink was repaired as quickly as possible.
· The Administration needed to demonstrate integrity and honour the promises it made to the community. Providing a temporary ice rink was more than maintaining a facility, it was about supporting the wellbeing of residents, preserving livelihoods, and fostering the spirit of the town.
· The motion asked the Administration to think about asking a different question. Make a decision about how much the council would spend and see what could be delivered by working with the ice users. Look at it from a different perspective.
· The ice rink was a facility that residents viewed as a priority and funding was available to be used for residents priorities rather than kept as reserves.
· The council should invest in all sports. It was unfair that just because a sport was played in a private building it should not be considered for any funding.
· It was not acceptable that children were having to travel long distances out of the borough to other facilities to be able to continue their sport.
An amendment to the motion was proposed to remove the wording ‘put up or shut up’ which was agreed. Further discussion took place on the amendment before the motion was put to a recorded vote.
Upon a vote there voted 21 votes in favour, 25 votes against and 3 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
15
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
Chapel Gate is in our ward. The leader will be aware that I engage regularly with First Port, Vivid Housing's estate manager at Chapel Gate. I am concerned by two recent changes at First Port. First, it has introduced a "Political Correspondence Executive" to handle councillor communications; in my experience this has not improved anything, in fact it seems designed to slow and frustrate councillor work and is being used to stop councillors engaging first hand with property site managers on matters affecting our residents. Second, First Port has started to refuse councillors access to meetings where residents have specifically asked for their ward councillor to attend, using excuses of confidentiality, or denying residents full transparency if the councillor attends. This is not good for residents, democracy, or the efficient delivery of our work as community advocates and arbitrators.
Luke Murphy MP recently raised problems at Chapel Gate in Parliament. I have asked Mr Murphy what more can be done to shine a light on this poor practice nationally. However, tonight I ask the Leader what this council can do about these new developments locally? We have approximately 1,200 residents that are served by First Port in Norden alone. Public services must not be run in private.
Will the Leader commit to asking the board of Vivid housing, and its contractor First Port, for these practices to be reviewed and ideally revoked? Failing that, for them to give this council a clear written answer explaining how they believe these actions can be justified? If they insist on this approach, we have to ask whether companies like this are still welcome in Basingstoke and Deane?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Basham, thank you Paul. We know that members across this chamber feel very strongly about management companies and their practices, their exorbitant fees, and the lack of responsiveness to residents. In this particular example, the introduction of a post which could be considered to frustrate councillors undertaking their democratic representative role has been a serious concern. We have a responsibility to support our residents where they seek our help. Management companies should not make that process of representing residents difficult. They should work with us to resolve the concerns of residents and not put barriers in that way. I will raise the issue that you have raised here and request that the CEO of First Port and the CX of Vivid address this issue. I will write to Government to highlight this issue and work with our MP to ensure that we coordinate the representation of residents. Yes, you’re right to raise the issue because we need to be absolutely clear that councillors have a right and duty to represent residents. And if colleagues have other examples of management companies doing this in our Borough or concerns about management companies, I would encourage you please to share this.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would just say to Members, getting a question on the paper, it’s quite powerful. Today I’ve had an update from both Vivid and First Port and they are, on the face of it, positive updates. Don’t underestimate what asking a question here can do. I appreciate many of you are more experienced than me. I’ve been quite taken aback. But we do have some real problems with First Port locally and I guess my question is, if any of you are having problems with management companies, I’m becoming quite experienced in this, so please do reach out.
Answer
Thank you Paul and I agree.
Question 2
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Green Space and Pond in School Close, Buckskin
I would like to express serious concerns regarding the current condition of the green space and pond located in School Close, Buckskin. This area, nestled within a residential community, has the potential to serve as both a recreational space for local families and children, and a vital habitat for wildlife, particularly given the thriving blackberry bushes and other natural features that could benefit local ecosystems.
However, the space has been neglected, with the pond and surrounding vegetation becoming heavily overgrown. The pond itself is almost entirely covered with plants and brambles, obscuring it from view, and the broken fencing around it poses a significant safety risk, offering no protection to prevent children from falling in. Additionally, the pond requires clearing and repair to restore it to a condition that supports both local wildlife and safe community use.
I therefore ask, will the Council take the following urgent actions?
1) Clear the overgrown vegetation from the green space to make it a usable area for families and a healthier habitat for wildlife.
2) Repair or replace the broken fencing around the pond to ensure the safety of children and pets.
3) Clear and repair the pond itself to restore its ecological and community value.
Answer
Thank you, Councillor, for your question. The open space at School Close, which includes a wooden fenced area around a former pond, received substantial pruning and clearing in September 2023 by the Grounds Maintenance team and is due another visit in November this year. The grass on the site is mown regularly throughout the year in line with the standard maintenance of the area. The site is also litter-picked once a week by our Street Cleansing team. Officers from the Ranger and Biodiversity teams had surveyed this area of open space. The Grounds Maintenance team are exploring options for the site. We will be contacting you and fellow councillors to discuss proposals for the future of the space. This is all as part of the extensive work to improve our environment in Buckskin. Can I thank the officers in the Streetcare MAD team for what they have done already in Buckskin in Lowlands Road, Dalewood Road, Malvern, Black Dam Close, Sperrin Close, Wrekin, Berwyn, Sidlaw, Ochil, Bodmin, Exmoor, Prescelly, Quantock, Charnwood, Campsie, Grampian and Buckskin Lane. They have undertaken a huge amount of work as a direct result of our investment in frontline services.
Supplementary Question
I think the urgency is the repair of the fencing around the pond to ensure that it is safe. But this issue raises the question whether there are any other areas in our green space and in our Borough that have been neglected and therefore could be a safety risk, and will the Portfolio Holder confirm that maybe a review of green spaces and ponds across the borough will be carried out to ensure areas that we are responsible for are safe for residents to use? Thank you.
Answer
Thank you. We take seriously the issue of risk and like I said this is a former pond and I visited the site and there is no water in the site but it does need to be addressed, the area, and the fence needs to be addressed and what we’re going to do as I said, is there’s a big piece of work been going on and we’re calling Councillors in to look at what our proposals are and we would seek your support for those and please work with us on that area. I think you’ll be very happy with what we’re proposing.
Question 3
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
How many enforcement cases have been logged and fixed penalty notices issued in the part year for stationary idling?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor and I thank Councillor McCormick for your question. In January 2019, as part of the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency commitment, we launched the Clean Air Basingstoke Initiative to encourage people to walk, cycle more rather than drive and turn off their vehicles when they are parked instead of letting them idle. I still carry the sticker in my car rear window. At that time, the Hampshire County Council allowed us to manage on-street parking enforcement on its behalf. We were able to adopt powers to enforce against idling vehicles under the Road Traffic Vehicle Emissions Fixed Penalty England Regulations 2002. Our officers could ask drivers who left their engines running to switch them off and if they did not do so, issue them with a fixed penalty notice of £20. No fines were issued under these powers as drivers all switched their engines off when asked. The Council does not hold a record of how many drivers were spoken to however, under these powers. In April 2022 the County Council terminated our enforcement arrangement. While this means our officers can no longer issue fixed penalty notices for idling, this was only one way in which we were able to maintain and improve upon the relatively good quality of the air in our borough, which currently meets all national air quality standards. Our enforcement officers continue to respond to reports about idling vehicles in car parks including asking people to turn off their engines. Signs have also been put up to discourage idling at Down Grange, Basingstoke Train Station, and in other areas throughout the borough. Alongside this, we also continue to promote anti-idling messages and encourage positive behavioural changes such as walking and cycling more and car sharing through our Clean Air Basingstoke Campaign and our Sustainable Basingstoke Initiative and of course via the council’s communications including social media and the annual resident’s newspaper. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Given the fact that Hampshire County Council have now taken powers back, what is the portfolio holder now going to do about it? Thank you.
Answer
In answer to that, I think I covered that, that we are going to carry on with this as something we want people to change their behaviour. It seems that people have changed their behaviour because we didn’t actually catch anybody doing it. We can’t actually enforce the fines as I explained, so we will just maintain this as part of our education programme in communications as we go forward. Thank you.
Question 4
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
Greenwich Leisure Limited - GLL who operates the sports centre in Festival Place under the brand "Better" recently closed its Saturday morning cardiac rehabilitation classes. Classes that have been running for over 20 years. They now operate a single class on a Thursday evening, at a time suitable for working-age cardiac rehabilitation. I am missing that class to be here tonight. Cardiac rehabilitation was invented in this borough by local GP Dr Hugh Bethell and physiotherapist Dr Sally Turner, who opened The Basingstoke & Alton Rehabilitation Unit in 1976.
The British Heart Foundation recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week for cardiac rehabilitation. The sports centre used to offer 180 minutes a week at times suitable for working residents. It now offers just 60 minutes a week to working people - and without adequate support those classes are also at risk. GLL says that not enough referrals are coming through from the hospital to support the continuation of classes. But people in Basingstoke and Deane have not stopped having heart problems.
Something is clearly broken between the North Hampshire hospital cardiac referral team and GLL - and our Integrated Care Board is not taking notice or action. Alternative classes delivered at council facilities at Tadley Pool and the Aquadrome only take place during daytime - unsuitable for working people.
Will the leader commit to getting the parties together to urgently discuss steps to put cardiac rehabilitation back onto the timetable for working people in Basingstoke?
Answer
Thank you, Paul, for your question, thank you Councillor Basham. I know this is something that really matters to you and many other residents. Yes, I will pick this up with colleagues, Councillor Morrow and Councillor McKay and we will see what we can do to help the situation. You rightly say that Basingstoke’s NHS has led in the field of cardiac rehabilitation and so we should embrace the benefits it offers and so accessibility for working people should be better than currently on offer. We need regularly with the ICB and the hospital, whose responsibility this is. We will raise it with them directly and we will come back.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Councillor Harvey. I’m aware that this Council used to support what was then Basingstoke Sports Trust I think before it was taken over by GLL with a small financial grant. I’m not going to ask you to offer or even look at extending any sort of grant to GLL. But what I would ask is that at the appropriate time, would you be prepared to consider something at the Aquadrome and or the Tadley Gym which are sports centres that are under the Council’s control.
Answer – Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Thank you, Mr Mayor, just to say I’ve already asked the Head of Service and we were already looking at that option, she was quite positive.
Question 5
From: Councillor Izett
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
The Government's confirmed decision to cut winter fuel payments will impact thousands of pensioners in our borough at a time when gas and electricity costs are rising sharply by 10 per cent from October 1st.
The Cost of Living Fund (COLAF) first established by this council in 2022 has helped many of our residents who struggle to pay their food and fuel bills.
The current COLAF round has received over 1000 claims and is expected to be fully allocated by December.
As a council it is important that we use our financial resources to help those hardest hit so they can warm their homes this winter.
Does Cllr James agree that this council should fund a further COLAF round of £1m to help its least well off residents and will he task officers to advise on how this can be best financed and can be extended to pensioners whose income will be reduced by the loss of winter fuel payment?
Answer
Thank you for that question, I agree the withdrawal of the universal winter fuel allowance will push many pensioners into poverty. Just going to highlight a few issues with the suggestion. Firstly, the Chancellor has indicated there’ll be several cuts in the budget. It would be wrong to make a commitment to a specific group until we know the full scale of those cuts when they’re announced. Secondly, one of the cuts that could be announced is to our own funding, and that’s part of the reason why we have never committed to COLAF this early in the financial year, it’s never been a budget draft, it’s always come along later once we’ve got outturns and once we’ve got that final funding settlement from the government. I do think however, we do need to review how effective COLAF has been, it’s now been running three years, that was never the plan, it’s not had the resources or the setup, so we can do some work from that and obviously hopefully we’ll bring that to Resources when the draft budget comes to you to have a look at. What I will say is this administration is committed to reducing poverty in the borough and we are developing an anti-poverty strategy to achieve that and obviously part of that is looking at whether COLAF or other schemes might be better in the future.
Supplementary Question
The point is that the existing COLAF scheme is shortly going to run out, but I think hearing what Councillor James says, I think his hearts in the right place if it can be funded and I hope that this council can continue to be generous to the least well off in the borough.
Answer
We certainly want to support the less well off in the borough and that’s a big question to ask about how effective COLAF has been. We’ve got some early indication that most of the people who claimed it in year one have come back and claimed it in the subsequent year, so it’s not dealing with poverty, it’s offering short term respite. Obviously, we’re still collecting data on that but if 50% of the people it isn’t really helping because they’re coming back, we may need to look at doing something differently. The example I always give is if you give a pensioner 100 pounds to heat their home, they can keep it warm for a month. If you send the Green Team round to give them new insulation and put some draft exclusion in and teach them how to manage their heat, they may stay warm for a year and that kind of thing solves the poverty better sometimes than just a short-term cash-flow.
Question 6
From: Councillor Freeman
To: Leader of the Council
In November 2023, the plans for the Winklebury Regeneration were approved, despite widespread opposition from all ward councillors, the Winklebury and Manydown Community Action Group, and the majority of residents. We were told that we had to approve the plans swiftly, as the funding for the project was “time-limited”. Given that it is now nearly a year since the plans were approved, but the work has yet to start as there are still ongoing delays with the final details, what is the status of this ‘time-limited’ funding?
Answer – by the Leader of the Council
Thank you, Angie, thank you Councillor Freeman. I just want to say from the start that I respect the representation that you’re making on behalf of your residents in this question. This is complex and involves a lot of moving parts, as any development does. It also involves legal agreements, pre-commencement planning conditions and programme decisions by Vivid to move the project forward. I understand that Vivid secured funding that was available under Homes England grants running into 2026. Now at the moment there is no funding for housing projects beyond that, so for them it was a critical step in securing that funding. We are all waiting to see what the government will do on future funding for social housing in the coming months, perhaps through the upcoming budget, I hope it is announced in the upcoming Budget and we have some certainty around the grants beyond 2026 that Homes England will be able to offer. What we do know is that construction costs and inflation have made development very difficult for our housing partners. But the hard yards following permission to get the Section 106 and the other legal sign offs continue. This is the normal situation for any development programme. Now only Vivid know absolutely about the day-to-day detail of their project. We’ve arranged for you to get monthly updates from them, and you will continue to get information from Vivid as they make progress on this in meetings as well as those briefings. We also need to encourage effective communication with residents. What I do know is that Vivid have heard you very clearly.
Supplementary Question
Given the funding issues and the rising cost of building works, please can Winklebury residents have some guarantee that vital community facilities like the proposed medical centre and the new preschool building will not be reduced in size or discarded altogether because they are no longer economically viable. We have a serious concern in our community that this regeneration which has been less than ideal from the start is just basically going to benefit nobody but Vivid commercially and Winklebury residents are being let down badly. I would like to explore further options and what we can do to make sure this is a lot better offering for our residents.
Answer
You will know, because we had the meeting that you attended where we sat around the table with Vivid and had that conversation where myself and the Portfolio Holder for Major Projects and Regeneration were very forceful about the point, not only of the surgery being the 550 square metres, not the 225 square metres. Also, the community centre in terms of the hall and the aspects that were part of the application that was approved. Also, the social housing, I think that’s an important point because what the grant funding will enable, we hope, is that the grant funding would unlock the socially rented housing that we’re looking for particularly the family housing that we’re looking for and that has always been a key part of the increase in number but also the four beds, the big family housing that we will get on the back of this. So I completely agree with you, we have to keep Vivid’s feet to the fire on this but what I do know is they are cooperating and they are seeking to work with us as partners should. We have to maintain that and keep that going and as I say, we can have the conversation with them but another piece of this puzzle is that residents can have the conversation with them too, we need that interaction.
Question 7
From: Councillor McIntyre
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Council’s Ownership and Future Plans for ‘Land at South Ham’
The current lease to Basingstoke Town Limited is set at £65 per year until 2052. Considering this rate and the potential revaluation of the land, how does the council justify this arrangement, and is there an intention to renegotiate the lease to reflect current market values and ensure better use of public assets?
Answer
Thank you. This is a historic arrangement made in May 1962 so I think I’m in the clear and possibly even Councillor Izett is in the clear as well on this one. It was leased to the football club, as you say for £65 per annum. For the next 30 years it’s on a fixed rent, it’s a contractual obligation and although the football club has relocated, the arrangement is on land, it’s still in force and it can’t be extinguished. Legally we can’t do anything with it.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and previously Councillor James you’ve discussed reactive disposals where properties could be sold if the right opportunity arises without actually informing residents and councillors in advance. Is this what you’re proposing for the land at the Camrose which the Council owns? Are there plans for a reactive disposal of this land that the Council has yet to disclose? Thank you.
Answer
I don’t think this land falls under the Property Investment Strategy which is where we’d normally disclose it. It depends on the valuation in which case it would go to I think it’s up to £250,000 or £350,000, it would come to the Head of Regeneration, Director of Regeneration. It would still be published as a decision notice because of the sensitivity around the site, we’d make sure that certainly the ward councillors are aware and any other interests, and I know you’ve been very interested in following the football club were aware. At this stage we’re not proposing, we’re not planning to dispose of it because let’s face it, we’re not telling anyone anything, we’ll see what happens. Sometimes in property it’s best to just say nothing.
Question 8
From: Councillor West
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Early last year when the new administration began their work there was talk of discussions around council housing, the need for us to work towards having council housing stock again, which is highlighted by the sheer number of cases many of us receive around housing issues and the long housing waiting list. In light of new national focus on the issue of council housing please could an update be provided on where this administration has got to in exploring council housing options.
Answer
Thank you, Councillor West, for the question. I’m really glad that you’ve asked this. We have a suite of housing update papers going to the committee in November for Residents Services, and one of the papers will set out the latest position on our work to bring forward new affordable housing and the quickest way the council can enable the delivery of social rented, and just to take the opportunity to actually make clarity, social rents in relation to local housing allowance is incorrect, the information that was given. They’re much higher than a social rent, just to clarify. I want to thank the officers for all the work that they’re doing on this agenda. I’m pleased to say that this year we will see the delivery of 494 new affordable homes with a significant increase in the number of socially rented homes. It is vital that we ensure that any new affordable housings delivered must indeed be affordable, whether through low-cost home ownership models or ensuring new rented accommodation is set at social rents. We are lucky to have Homes England strategic partnerships already operating in the Borough ready to stream the governments grant funding available and bring forward the new homes we need. For the next year we will be bringing forward exciting proposals to directly acquire and ensure better supported homes for the most vulnerable homeless residents.
Supplementary Question
Thank you for that and nothing more at the time other than I will continue to support and scrutinise the administration on delivery on this. I think we both share that ambition for getting this delivered. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you Councillor West and I really look forward to working with you and I’m happy to meet with you to discuss the work that we’re doing if you would like a briefing.
Question 9
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Could you provide an update on the current status of Sovereign’s proposal for 180 Culver Road?
Answer
Thank you Councillor. As you are a County Councillor, and this is County land, I do hope you will lobby your own Conservative County Administration to ensure that this site does come forward for affordable housing. The Culver Road site has been particularly challenging to bring forward for redevelopment due to the drainage constraints and significant viability challenges. The Council and its partners- Hampshire County Council who own the site, and SNG Housing Association have been committed to pursuing the project and invested significant time and resources trying to bring an affordable housing scheme forward. SNG are undertaking further analysis and testing to explore every option available. We will of course inform all ward members as soon as there is anything further to report.
Supplementary Question
Does it mean that SNG is now reconsidering that they don’t want to do it?
Answer
I don’t think you heard what I said, if I just recall. SNG are undertaking further analysis and testing to explore every option available and as I said, you are a County Councillor and this is County Council owned land. I suggest you actually talk to the County and help us to drive forward this development.
Question 10
From: Councillor McIntyre
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Wider Sporting Facilities and Future Strategy
Given that other councils have managed to protect and invest in their sporting assets for the benefit of the community. Is the council willing to review and reassess the current situation at the Camrose ground, given the scrapping of the Link Road and the need to develop suitable sporting facilities for Basingstoke's growing population?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor. I think it’s safe to say we will always have an eye on what is happening at the Camrose site. But most of the facts remain the same. Basron Development Limited owns the majority of the land, and has, on appeal, won two planning applications to redevelop the Camrose site. The Council’s land is not included in these planning applications. The Council owned land is a small strip, 1.92 acres in size and has little influence over what the owner of the site can or cannot do with their land. As for the Council protecting and investing in their sporting assets, we most certainly do. I’m happy to report that work to enhance the facilities at Winklebury Football Complex are now complete, allowing Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to play at their current level. The club is also due to open its new clubhouse, which is massive for the social side of the football club, but also will be an important opportunity for the club to boost their revenue income and strengthen their business plan. Away from football we are replacing our much-loved Aquadrome with a new leisure and water offering. This significant investment is attracting further investment into the leisure park. Getting Manydown over the line will also open up exciting opportunities, where development will deliver investment in sport.
Supplementary Question
My understanding of the lease is that if the club should cease to exist or if the land which is immediately to the south of the demised property or part thereof, shall cease to be used by the club, the landlords may re-enter on the demised property. I believe the club, Basingstoke Town Football Club, no longer uses the land. Why has the Council allowed the continuation of this lease despite apparent breaches of the lease that restricts the use of the land to that of a football ground? Thank you.
Answer - Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Sorry I needed the leave the room, I caught the end of that. There’s a 30-year lease in place. We’ve got no contractual control of the piece of land.
Question 11
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Leader of the Council
When can we expect the implementation of a portal for councillors to monitor residents' reported issues and their resolutions, a feature that was promised, similar to the system Hampshire County Council has had in place for years?
Answer
Thank you Arun for the question. Well historically there have been discussions about portals, one more for customers to use, which would also be used by councillors. There was actually a decision made by your own previous administration about three years ago now not to provide a portal for customers, as this can be an extra barrier to accessing services online. As a Council we’ve got absolutely no recollection of HCC being referred to as a model we could or should use. It’s the first time it’s been raised by you. So, I’m not sure really where the questions coming from but if you want to talk to me about it Arun, I’m happy to pick this up with you. You’ve actually said three letters in your question which is more in verbal than you had on writing which was CRM. You talked about portals in your question. You spoke about CRM in your verbal question to me. If we want to have a conversation about the CRM, I know officers are progressing that piece of work, that’s different to the portal I think that you were talking about. So, with respect, your question has confused us trying to understand exactly what you meant. Talk to us, have a conversation about what you want to raise and let’s get to the bottom of giving you a proper answer. Very happy to.
Supplementary Question
This portal and CRM are one and same which was promised when officers briefed us when you were in administration and this is promised and this is what exactly we are asking for, and now it is diverting the case with saying that where is existing. I cant understand it here Mr Mayor.
Answer
Arun, you’ve been clear in what you’ve said this evening and I’m happy to come back with a proper written response to you. Thank you for clarifying.
Question 12
From:Councillor McIntyre
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Support for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club
Can the portfolio holder update us on what plans the council has to work with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to ensure it has a sustainable and long-term home, given the limitations at Winklebury and the financial constraints imposed by the Hampshire Football Association?
Answer
Mr Mayor, our plan as a Council is to empower Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to grow sustainably both on and off the field and support them where it is reasonable to do so. I believe the relationship with the club is good and that the club is currently thriving at Winklebury. The club are doing a wonderful job. They are unbeaten this season and are putting an incredible amount of effort in, both on and off the pitch. The supporters and volunteers deserve massive praise. After support from the council, the Football Foundation and Hants FA, the club’s new clubhouse will give the club a significant income stream and enhance the matchday experience for all players and supporters, but most importantly make the club more sustainable. As a council we are supporting the club’s relationship with Hampshire FA and any financial arrangements between the two parties are agreed upon in their management agreement. Winklebury has passed the ground grading requirements for tier 3 football and going forward we will continue to work with the club and Hampshire FA to find a suitable long-term solution for the football club. We are all aware that the club’s aspirations for a new facility. The Council is willing to work with the club on this, but as pointing out this would require significant outside investment. Our focus is to continue to support the club going forward in a sustainable way and with open lines of communication with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club and Hampshire FA, we will continue to work together to achieve our shared goals. Thanks.
Supplementary Question
If the Council’s plan is to continue upgrading Winklebury for Basingstoke Town Football Club how will the loss of the grass pitch and general football facilities at Winklebury be addressed? These facilities are vital for grassroots football including children’s teams, women’s teams, walking football and other community groups who must not be overlooked in the process. Thank you.
Answer
I assume you mean an artificial pitch not a grass pitch. I’ve gone through all the ground grading book from the FA. What we will do is we’ll continue working with the football club and the Hampshire FA to come up with that solution together. It’s not for the council to dictate what we’re going to do. We’ll continue working together to come up with that solution.
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
Chapel Gate is in our ward. The leader will be aware that I engage regularly with First Port, Vivid Housing's estate manager at Chapel Gate. I am concerned by two recent changes at First Port. First, it has introduced a "Political Correspondence Executive" to handle councillor communications; in my experience this has not improved anything, in fact it seems designed to slow and frustrate councillor work and is being used to stop councillors engaging first hand with property site managers on matters affecting our residents. Second, First Port has started to refuse councillors access to meetings where residents have specifically asked for their ward councillor to attend, using excuses of confidentiality, or denying residents full transparency if the councillor attends. This is not good for residents, democracy, or the efficient delivery of our work as community advocates and arbitrators.
Luke Murphy MP recently raised problems at Chapel Gate in Parliament. I have asked Mr Murphy what more can be done to shine a light on this poor practice nationally. However, tonight I ask the Leader what this council can do about these new developments locally? We have approximately 1,200 residents that are served by First Port in Norden alone. Public services must not be run in private.
Will the Leader commit to asking the board of Vivid housing, and its contractor First Port, for these practices to be reviewed and ideally revoked? Failing that, for them to give this council a clear written answer explaining how they believe these actions can be justified? If they insist on this approach, we have to ask whether companies like this are still welcome in Basingstoke and Deane?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Basham, thank you Paul. We know that members across this chamber feel very strongly about management companies and their practices, their exorbitant fees, and the lack of responsiveness to residents. In this particular example, the introduction of a post which could be considered to frustrate councillors undertaking their democratic representative role has been a serious concern. We have a responsibility to support our residents where they seek our help. Management companies should not make that process of representing residents difficult. They should work with us to resolve the concerns of residents and not put barriers in that way. I will raise the issue that you have raised here and request that the CEO of First Port and the CX of Vivid address this issue. I will write to Government to highlight this issue and work with our MP to ensure that we coordinate the representation of residents. Yes, you’re right to raise the issue because we need to be absolutely clear that councillors have a right and duty to represent residents. And if colleagues have other examples of management companies doing this in our Borough or concerns about management companies, I would encourage you please to share this.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would just say to Members, getting a question on the paper, it’s quite powerful. Today I’ve had an update from both Vivid and First Port and they are, on the face of it, positive updates. Don’t underestimate what asking a question here can do. I appreciate many of you are more experienced than me. I’ve been quite taken aback. But we do have some real problems with First Port locally and I guess my question is, if any of you are having problems with management companies, I’m becoming quite experienced in this, so please do reach out.
Answer
Thank you Paul and I agree.
Question 2
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Green Space and Pond in School Close, Buckskin
I would like to express serious concerns regarding the current condition of the green space and pond located in School Close, Buckskin. This area, nestled within a residential community, has the potential to serve as both a recreational space for local families and children, and a vital habitat for wildlife, particularly given the thriving blackberry bushes and other natural features that could benefit local ecosystems.
However, the space has been neglected, with the pond and surrounding vegetation becoming heavily overgrown. The pond itself is almost entirely covered with plants and brambles, obscuring it from view, and the broken fencing around it poses a significant safety risk, offering no protection to prevent children from falling in. Additionally, the pond requires clearing and repair to restore it to a condition that supports both local wildlife and safe community use.
I therefore ask, will the Council take the following urgent actions?
1) Clear the overgrown vegetation from the green space to make it a usable area for families and a healthier habitat for wildlife.
2) Repair or replace the broken fencing around the pond to ensure the safety of children and pets.
3) Clear and repair the pond itself to restore its ecological and community value.
Answer
Thank you, Councillor, for your question. The open space at School Close, which includes a wooden fenced area around a former pond, received substantial pruning and clearing in September 2023 by the Grounds Maintenance team and is due another visit in November this year. The grass on the site is mown regularly throughout the year in line with the standard maintenance of the area. The site is also litter-picked once a week by our Street Cleansing team. Officers from the Ranger and Biodiversity teams had surveyed this area of open space. The Grounds Maintenance team are exploring options for the site. We will be contacting you and fellow councillors to discuss proposals for the future of the space. This is all as part of the extensive work to improve our environment in Buckskin. Can I thank the officers in the Streetcare MAD team for what they have done already in Buckskin in Lowlands Road, Dalewood Road, Malvern, Black Dam Close, Sperrin Close, Wrekin, Berwyn, Sidlaw, Ochil, Bodmin, Exmoor, Prescelly, Quantock, Charnwood, Campsie, Grampian and Buckskin Lane. They have undertaken a huge amount of work as a direct result of our investment in frontline services.
Supplementary Question
I think the urgency is the repair of the fencing around the pond to ensure that it is safe. But this issue raises the question whether there are any other areas in our green space and in our Borough that have been neglected and therefore could be a safety risk, and will the Portfolio Holder confirm that maybe a review of green spaces and ponds across the borough will be carried out to ensure areas that we are responsible for are safe for residents to use? Thank you.
Answer
Thank you. We take seriously the issue of risk and like I said this is a former pond and I visited the site and there is no water in the site but it does need to be addressed, the area, and the fence needs to be addressed and what we’re going to do as I said, is there’s a big piece of work been going on and we’re calling Councillors in to look at what our proposals are and we would seek your support for those and please work with us on that area. I think you’ll be very happy with what we’re proposing.
Question 3
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
How many enforcement cases have been logged and fixed penalty notices issued in the part year for stationary idling?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor and I thank Councillor McCormick for your question. In January 2019, as part of the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency commitment, we launched the Clean Air Basingstoke Initiative to encourage people to walk, cycle more rather than drive and turn off their vehicles when they are parked instead of letting them idle. I still carry the sticker in my car rear window. At that time, the Hampshire County Council allowed us to manage on-street parking enforcement on its behalf. We were able to adopt powers to enforce against idling vehicles under the Road Traffic Vehicle Emissions Fixed Penalty England Regulations 2002. Our officers could ask drivers who left their engines running to switch them off and if they did not do so, issue them with a fixed penalty notice of £20. No fines were issued under these powers as drivers all switched their engines off when asked. The Council does not hold a record of how many drivers were spoken to however, under these powers. In April 2022 the County Council terminated our enforcement arrangement. While this means our officers can no longer issue fixed penalty notices for idling, this was only one way in which we were able to maintain and improve upon the relatively good quality of the air in our borough, which currently meets all national air quality standards. Our enforcement officers continue to respond to reports about idling vehicles in car parks including asking people to turn off their engines. Signs have also been put up to discourage idling at Down Grange, Basingstoke Train Station, and in other areas throughout the borough. Alongside this, we also continue to promote anti-idling messages and encourage positive behavioural changes such as walking and cycling more and car sharing through our Clean Air Basingstoke Campaign and our Sustainable Basingstoke Initiative and of course via the council’s communications including social media and the annual resident’s newspaper. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Given the fact that Hampshire County Council have now taken powers back, what is the portfolio holder now going to do about it? Thank you.
Answer
In answer to that, I think I covered that, that we are going to carry on with this as something we want people to change their behaviour. It seems that people have changed their behaviour because we didn’t actually catch anybody doing it. We can’t actually enforce the fines as I explained, so we will just maintain this as part of our education programme in communications as we go forward. Thank you.
Question 4
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
Greenwich Leisure Limited - GLL who operates the sports centre in Festival Place under the brand "Better" recently closed its Saturday morning cardiac rehabilitation classes. Classes that have been running for over 20 years. They now operate a single class on a Thursday evening, at a time suitable for working-age cardiac rehabilitation. I am missing that class to be here tonight. Cardiac rehabilitation was invented in this borough by local GP Dr Hugh Bethell and physiotherapist Dr Sally Turner, who opened The Basingstoke & Alton Rehabilitation Unit in 1976.
The British Heart Foundation recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week for cardiac rehabilitation. The sports centre used to offer 180 minutes a week at times suitable for working residents. It now offers just 60 minutes a week to working people - and without adequate support those classes are also at risk. GLL says that not enough referrals are coming through from the hospital to support the continuation of classes. But people in Basingstoke and Deane have not stopped having heart problems.
Something is clearly broken between the North Hampshire hospital cardiac referral team and GLL - and our Integrated Care Board is not taking notice or action. Alternative classes delivered at council facilities at Tadley Pool and the Aquadrome only take place during daytime - unsuitable for working people.
Will the leader commit to getting the parties together to urgently discuss steps to put cardiac rehabilitation back onto the timetable for working people in Basingstoke?
Answer
Thank you, Paul, for your question, thank you Councillor Basham. I know this is something that really matters to you and many other residents. Yes, I will pick this up with colleagues, Councillor Morrow and Councillor McKay and we will see what we can do to help the situation. You rightly say that Basingstoke’s NHS has led in the field of cardiac rehabilitation and so we should embrace the benefits it offers and so accessibility for working people should be better than currently on offer. We need regularly with the ICB and the hospital, whose responsibility this is. We will raise it with them directly and we will come back.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Councillor Harvey. I’m aware that this Council used to support what was then Basingstoke Sports Trust I think before it was taken over by GLL with a small financial grant. I’m not going to ask you to offer or even look at extending any sort of grant to GLL. But what I would ask is that at the appropriate time, would you be prepared to consider something at the Aquadrome and or the Tadley Gym which are sports centres that are under the Council’s control.
Answer – Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Thank you, Mr Mayor, just to say I’ve already asked the Head of Service and we were already looking at that option, she was quite positive.
Question 5
From: Councillor Izett
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
The Government's confirmed decision to cut winter fuel payments will impact thousands of pensioners in our borough at a time when gas and electricity costs are rising sharply by 10 per cent from October 1st.
The Cost of Living Fund (COLAF) first established by this council in 2022 has helped many of our residents who struggle to pay their food and fuel bills.
The current COLAF round has received over 1000 claims and is expected to be fully allocated by December.
As a council it is important that we use our financial resources to help those hardest hit so they can warm their homes this winter.
Does Cllr James agree that this council should fund a further COLAF round of £1m to help its least well off residents and will he task officers to advise on how this can be best financed and can be extended to pensioners whose income will be reduced by the loss of winter fuel payment?
Answer
Thank you for that question, I agree the withdrawal of the universal winter fuel allowance will push many pensioners into poverty. Just going to highlight a few issues with the suggestion. Firstly, the Chancellor has indicated there’ll be several cuts in the budget. It would be wrong to make a commitment to a specific group until we know the full scale of those cuts when they’re announced. Secondly, one of the cuts that could be announced is to our own funding, and that’s part of the reason why we have never committed to COLAF this early in the financial year, it’s never been a budget draft, it’s always come along later once we’ve got outturns and once we’ve got that final funding settlement from the government. I do think however, we do need to review how effective COLAF has been, it’s now been running three years, that was never the plan, it’s not had the resources or the setup, so we can do some work from that and obviously hopefully we’ll bring that to Resources when the draft budget comes to you to have a look at. What I will say is this administration is committed to reducing poverty in the borough and we are developing an anti-poverty strategy to achieve that and obviously part of that is looking at whether COLAF or other schemes might be better in the future.
Supplementary Question
The point is that the existing COLAF scheme is shortly going to run out, but I think hearing what Councillor James says, I think his hearts in the right place if it can be funded and I hope that this council can continue to be generous to the least well off in the borough.
Answer
We certainly want to support the less well off in the borough and that’s a big question to ask about how effective COLAF has been. We’ve got some early indication that most of the people who claimed it in year one have come back and claimed it in the subsequent year, so it’s not dealing with poverty, it’s offering short term respite. Obviously, we’re still collecting data on that but if 50% of the people it isn’t really helping because they’re coming back, we may need to look at doing something differently. The example I always give is if you give a pensioner 100 pounds to heat their home, they can keep it warm for a month. If you send the Green Team round to give them new insulation and put some draft exclusion in and teach them how to manage their heat, they may stay warm for a year and that kind of thing solves the poverty better sometimes than just a short-term cash-flow.
Question 6
From: Councillor Freeman
To: Leader of the Council
In November 2023, the plans for the Winklebury Regeneration were approved, despite widespread opposition from all ward councillors, the Winklebury and Manydown Community Action Group, and the majority of residents. We were told that we had to approve the plans swiftly, as the funding for the project was “time-limited”. Given that it is now nearly a year since the plans were approved, but the work has yet to start as there are still ongoing delays with the final details, what is the status of this ‘time-limited’ funding?
Answer – by the Leader of the Council
Thank you, Angie, thank you Councillor Freeman. I just want to say from the start that I respect the representation that you’re making on behalf of your residents in this question. This is complex and involves a lot of moving parts, as any development does. It also involves legal agreements, pre-commencement planning conditions and programme decisions by Vivid to move the project forward. I understand that Vivid secured funding that was available under Homes England grants running into 2026. Now at the moment there is no funding for housing projects beyond that, so for them it was a critical step in securing that funding. We are all waiting to see what the government will do on future funding for social housing in the coming months, perhaps through the upcoming budget, I hope it is announced in the upcoming Budget and we have some certainty around the grants beyond 2026 that Homes England will be able to offer. What we do know is that construction costs and inflation have made development very difficult for our housing partners. But the hard yards following permission to get the Section 106 and the other legal sign offs continue. This is the normal situation for any development programme. Now only Vivid know absolutely about the day-to-day detail of their project. We’ve arranged for you to get monthly updates from them, and you will continue to get information from Vivid as they make progress on this in meetings as well as those briefings. We also need to encourage effective communication with residents. What I do know is that Vivid have heard you very clearly.
Supplementary Question
Given the funding issues and the rising cost of building works, please can Winklebury residents have some guarantee that vital community facilities like the proposed medical centre and the new preschool building will not be reduced in size or discarded altogether because they are no longer economically viable. We have a serious concern in our community that this regeneration which has been less than ideal from the start is just basically going to benefit nobody but Vivid commercially and Winklebury residents are being let down badly. I would like to explore further options and what we can do to make sure this is a lot better offering for our residents.
Answer
You will know, because we had the meeting that you attended where we sat around the table with Vivid and had that conversation where myself and the Portfolio Holder for Major Projects and Regeneration were very forceful about the point, not only of the surgery being the 550 square metres, not the 225 square metres. Also, the community centre in terms of the hall and the aspects that were part of the application that was approved. Also, the social housing, I think that’s an important point because what the grant funding will enable, we hope, is that the grant funding would unlock the socially rented housing that we’re looking for particularly the family housing that we’re looking for and that has always been a key part of the increase in number but also the four beds, the big family housing that we will get on the back of this. So I completely agree with you, we have to keep Vivid’s feet to the fire on this but what I do know is they are cooperating and they are seeking to work with us as partners should. We have to maintain that and keep that going and as I say, we can have the conversation with them but another piece of this puzzle is that residents can have the conversation with them too, we need that interaction.
Question 7
From: Councillor McIntyre
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Council’s Ownership and Future Plans for ‘Land at South Ham’
The current lease to Basingstoke Town Limited is set at £65 per year until 2052. Considering this rate and the potential revaluation of the land, how does the council justify this arrangement, and is there an intention to renegotiate the lease to reflect current market values and ensure better use of public assets?
Answer
Thank you. This is a historic arrangement made in May 1962 so I think I’m in the clear and possibly even Councillor Izett is in the clear as well on this one. It was leased to the football club, as you say for £65 per annum. For the next 30 years it’s on a fixed rent, it’s a contractual obligation and although the football club has relocated, the arrangement is on land, it’s still in force and it can’t be extinguished. Legally we can’t do anything with it.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and previously Councillor James you’ve discussed reactive disposals where properties could be sold if the right opportunity arises without actually informing residents and councillors in advance. Is this what you’re proposing for the land at the Camrose which the Council owns? Are there plans for a reactive disposal of this land that the Council has yet to disclose? Thank you.
Answer
I don’t think this land falls under the Property Investment Strategy which is where we’d normally disclose it. It depends on the valuation in which case it would go to I think it’s up to £250,000 or £350,000, it would come to the Head of Regeneration, Director of Regeneration. It would still be published as a decision notice because of the sensitivity around the site, we’d make sure that certainly the ward councillors are aware and any other interests, and I know you’ve been very interested in following the football club were aware. At this stage we’re not proposing, we’re not planning to dispose of it because let’s face it, we’re not telling anyone anything, we’ll see what happens. Sometimes in property it’s best to just say nothing.
Question 8
From: Councillor West
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Early last year when the new administration began their work there was talk of discussions around council housing, the need for us to work towards having council housing stock again, which is highlighted by the sheer number of cases many of us receive around housing issues and the long housing waiting list. In light of new national focus on the issue of council housing please could an update be provided on where this administration has got to in exploring council housing options.
Answer
Thank you, Councillor West, for the question. I’m really glad that you’ve asked this. We have a suite of housing update papers going to the committee in November for Residents Services, and one of the papers will set out the latest position on our work to bring forward new affordable housing and the quickest way the council can enable the delivery of social rented, and just to take the opportunity to actually make clarity, social rents in relation to local housing allowance is incorrect, the information that was given. They’re much higher than a social rent, just to clarify. I want to thank the officers for all the work that they’re doing on this agenda. I’m pleased to say that this year we will see the delivery of 494 new affordable homes with a significant increase in the number of socially rented homes. It is vital that we ensure that any new affordable housings delivered must indeed be affordable, whether through low-cost home ownership models or ensuring new rented accommodation is set at social rents. We are lucky to have Homes England strategic partnerships already operating in the Borough ready to stream the governments grant funding available and bring forward the new homes we need. For the next year we will be bringing forward exciting proposals to directly acquire and ensure better supported homes for the most vulnerable homeless residents.
Supplementary Question
Thank you for that and nothing more at the time other than I will continue to support and scrutinise the administration on delivery on this. I think we both share that ambition for getting this delivered. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you Councillor West and I really look forward to working with you and I’m happy to meet with you to discuss the work that we’re doing if you would like a briefing.
Question 9
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Could you provide an update on the current status of Sovereign’s proposal for 180 Culver Road?
Answer
Thank you Councillor. As you are a County Councillor, and this is County land, I do hope you will lobby your own Conservative County Administration to ensure that this site does come forward for affordable housing. The Culver Road site has been particularly challenging to bring forward for redevelopment due to the drainage constraints and significant viability challenges. The Council and its partners- Hampshire County Council who own the site, and SNG Housing Association have been committed to pursuing the project and invested significant time and resources trying to bring an affordable housing scheme forward. SNG are undertaking further analysis and testing to explore every option available. We will of course inform all ward members as soon as there is anything further to report.
Supplementary Question
Does it mean that SNG is now reconsidering that they don’t want to do it?
Answer
I don’t think you heard what I said, if I just recall. SNG are undertaking further analysis and testing to explore every option available and as I said, you are a County Councillor and this is County Council owned land. I suggest you actually talk to the County and help us to drive forward this development.
Question 10
From: Councillor McIntyre
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Wider Sporting Facilities and Future Strategy
Given that other councils have managed to protect and invest in their sporting assets for the benefit of the community. Is the council willing to review and reassess the current situation at the Camrose ground, given the scrapping of the Link Road and the need to develop suitable sporting facilities for Basingstoke's growing population?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor. I think it’s safe to say we will always have an eye on what is happening at the Camrose site. But most of the facts remain the same. Basron Development Limited owns the majority of the land, and has, on appeal, won two planning applications to redevelop the Camrose site. The Council’s land is not included in these planning applications. The Council owned land is a small strip, 1.92 acres in size and has little influence over what the owner of the site can or cannot do with their land. As for the Council protecting and investing in their sporting assets, we most certainly do. I’m happy to report that work to enhance the facilities at Winklebury Football Complex are now complete, allowing Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to play at their current level. The club is also due to open its new clubhouse, which is massive for the social side of the football club, but also will be an important opportunity for the club to boost their revenue income and strengthen their business plan. Away from football we are replacing our much-loved Aquadrome with a new leisure and water offering. This significant investment is attracting further investment into the leisure park. Getting Manydown over the line will also open up exciting opportunities, where development will deliver investment in sport.
Supplementary Question
My understanding of the lease is that if the club should cease to exist or if the land which is immediately to the south of the demised property or part thereof, shall cease to be used by the club, the landlords may re-enter on the demised property. I believe the club, Basingstoke Town Football Club, no longer uses the land. Why has the Council allowed the continuation of this lease despite apparent breaches of the lease that restricts the use of the land to that of a football ground? Thank you.
Answer - Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Sorry I needed the leave the room, I caught the end of that. There’s a 30-year lease in place. We’ve got no contractual control of the piece of land.
Question 11
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Leader of the Council
When can we expect the implementation of a portal for councillors to monitor residents' reported issues and their resolutions, a feature that was promised, similar to the system Hampshire County Council has had in place for years?
Answer
Thank you Arun for the question. Well historically there have been discussions about portals, one more for customers to use, which would also be used by councillors. There was actually a decision made by your own previous administration about three years ago now not to provide a portal for customers, as this can be an extra barrier to accessing services online. As a Council we’ve got absolutely no recollection of HCC being referred to as a model we could or should use. It’s the first time it’s been raised by you. So, I’m not sure really where the questions coming from but if you want to talk to me about it Arun, I’m happy to pick this up with you. You’ve actually said three letters in your question which is more in verbal than you had on writing which was CRM. You talked about portals in your question. You spoke about CRM in your verbal question to me. If we want to have a conversation about the CRM, I know officers are progressing that piece of work, that’s different to the portal I think that you were talking about. So, with respect, your question has confused us trying to understand exactly what you meant. Talk to us, have a conversation about what you want to raise and let’s get to the bottom of giving you a proper answer. Very happy to.
Supplementary Question
This portal and CRM are one and same which was promised when officers briefed us when you were in administration and this is promised and this is what exactly we are asking for, and now it is diverting the case with saying that where is existing. I cant understand it here Mr Mayor.
Answer
Arun, you’ve been clear in what you’ve said this evening and I’m happy to come back with a proper written response to you. Thank you for clarifying.
Question 12
From:Councillor McIntyre
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Support for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club
Can the portfolio holder update us on what plans the council has to work with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to ensure it has a sustainable and long-term home, given the limitations at Winklebury and the financial constraints imposed by the Hampshire Football Association?
Answer
Mr Mayor, our plan as a Council is to empower Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to grow sustainably both on and off the field and support them where it is reasonable to do so. I believe the relationship with the club is good and that the club is currently thriving at Winklebury. The club are doing a wonderful job. They are unbeaten this season and are putting an incredible amount of effort in, both on and off the pitch. The supporters and volunteers deserve massive praise. After support from the council, the Football Foundation and Hants FA, the club’s new clubhouse will give the club a significant income stream and enhance the matchday experience for all players and supporters, but most importantly make the club more sustainable. As a council we are supporting the club’s relationship with Hampshire FA and any financial arrangements between the two parties are agreed upon in their management agreement. Winklebury has passed the ground grading requirements for tier 3 football and going forward we will continue to work with the club and Hampshire FA to find a suitable long-term solution for the football club. We are all aware that the club’s aspirations for a new facility. The Council is willing to work with the club on this, but as pointing out this would require significant outside investment. Our focus is to continue to support the club going forward in a sustainable way and with open lines of communication with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club and Hampshire FA, we will continue to work together to achieve our shared goals. Thanks.
Supplementary Question
If the Council’s plan is to continue upgrading Winklebury for Basingstoke Town Football Club how will the loss of the grass pitch and general football facilities at Winklebury be addressed? These facilities are vital for grassroots football including children’s teams, women’s teams, walking football and other community groups who must not be overlooked in the process. Thank you.
Answer
I assume you mean an artificial pitch not a grass pitch. I’ve gone through all the ground grading book from the FA. What we will do is we’ll continue working with the football club and the Hampshire FA to come up with that solution together. It’s not for the council to dictate what we’re going to do. We’ll continue working together to come up with that solution.
16
Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee
To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
10 July 2024
Cabinet
16 July 2024
Residents Services O&S
17 July 2024
Council
18 July 2024
Standards
22 July 2024
Resources O&S
23 July 2024 & 4 September 2024
Audit and Accounts
29 July 2024
Cabinet
30 July 2024
Development Control
7 August 2024
Licensing
2 September 2024
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 September 2024
Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
9 September 2024
Cabinet
10 September 2024
Development Control
11 September 2024
Resident Services O&S
18 September 2024
Audit and Accounts
30 September 2024
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
10 July 2024
Cabinet
16 July 2024
Residents Services O&S
17 July 2024
Council
18 July 2024
Standards
22 July 2024
Resources O&S
23 July 2024 & 4 September 2024
Audit and Accounts
29 July 2024
Cabinet
30 July 2024
Development Control
7 August 2024
Licensing
2 September 2024
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 September 2024
Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
9 September 2024
Cabinet
10 September 2024
Development Control
11 September 2024
Resident Services O&S
18 September 2024
Audit and Accounts
30 September 2024
Minutes
Question 1
From:Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
I’m not sure if one of the Winklebury councillors had the same question that I had but on the Cabinet meeting 16th July, minute 6/24, Capital Outturn, can we have a progress report on the Manydown land drawdown and transfer?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I actually have the great pleasure of saying to the Chamber that the actual deal for Manydown, the process of Manydown has finally been signed. And the process will lead now to the full and total completion as you do with a house. What it means is it has secured three and a half thousand houses on North Manydown, fourteen hundred of which will be affordable homes. So yes, Councillor James is absolutely right, we’ve delivered 494 in this year’s delivery of affordable homes in future we will have fourteen hundred more to add to that via the delivery of Manydown North. So, can I thank the officers, if you’ll give me a bit of discretion Mr Mayor, can I thank the officers who have put so much time and effort into this, not least the process of signing and sealing which took god knows how long with the documentation required, and thank you Fiona that your arm didn’t drop off to say the least. But just the amount of sheer hard work that has gone into this to get this far. It really does show what we’ve managed to achieve in 15 months, picking up from where it had previously been left off, by the administration to get it as far as they did. Manydown will be delivered.
Question 2
From: Councillor Lee
To: Leader of the Council
This is on the Cabinet meeting dated 10 September 2024. And the minute number is 23/24, the Winklebury Regeneration. Apologies I couldn’t make the meeting at the night due to work commitments. During the discussion on this item however, the Cabinet Member for Residents Services stated that the loss of public open space at Carisbrooke Close would be replaced by a larger open space and play area at the former Fort Hill School. Now as the leader played a considerable role alongside Labour councillors in opposing the closure of the school at the time by Conservatives, he would have been well aware that this land at Fort Hill was already in use by the community when the school was closed, sorry when the school was open and was lost when the Tories closed it. Does he therefore agree with me and my fellow ward councillors that the disposal of the land at Carisbrooke Close therefore actually represents a loss of much well-loved open space for the community of Winklebury and Manydown.
Answer
Thank you, Alex, I’m going to tread with care here because I am not a planning expert and that deserves a proper full planning response because it’s probably an LPA interpretation and view of it beyond officers supporting as well to give the correct answer to your question. So, I’m not going to leap up now and give you an answer and get it wrong. I think you deserve the right answer. I appreciate you weren’t at the last meeting and we’ll keep this conversation going about these particularly important matters for you, Councillor West and Councillor Freeman. So it isn’t just a matter of asking it this evening, let’s have the conversation and get a proper answer if that’s ok.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, so I appreciate the response and would welcome a written response on that. I’ve lost my train of thought now. In our ward, we do suffer from a considerable lack of public open space, we’ve lost the land of Harlech Hall, we’ve lost the play council site as well with this. If this does constitute a loss can I ask that he and the officers work with ways to identify other sites within the local area that may not be currently public land to be brought into public land?
Answer
Thanks Alex, I’m very conscious you’re not the only ward that suffers from that issue. It would be wrong I think to make a promise to a particular community beyond all other communities as well that suffer from the same issue, and it is actually an issue of the way the estates are designed, the way they were sold, the way the land has been split up into various parcels over the years, it’s a much bigger issue than just Winklebury to be fair. I think it’s probably worth that we think about this very carefully, but one thing I would just say in terms of linking the two questions together is that Manydown North will provide a huge country park as part of it on Winklebury’s doorsteps. It’s not the same as delivering within the community but it’s part of a wider solution. However, taking the point away, let us think seriously about what you’re saying and understand it. There is only so much that this authority can do beyond the land that we own and others have obviously own privately or own in public interest such as hospitals and schools and so on. Let’s be very careful with this.
Question 3
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
Reference Cabinet 30th July, minute 15/24, Waste Service Review. In view of the report featured on BBC News on Tuesday 15th October, that burning rubbish is now the UK’s dirtiest form of power, producing as much carbon as coal and also in view of the increasing instance of plastic including refuse bags themselves in a non-recyclable waste. Finally, in view of the Cabinet portfolio holders previous campaign history on Chineham incinerator, would the leader give us his view on the continued use of Chineham incinerator to dispose of our non-recyclable waste?
Answer
Andy. Thank you, Councillor McCormick, in standing up and answering on behalf of the borough, I would ask you to direct your question to the County Council as the disposal authority. That’s where the question should truly rest with all due respect.
From:Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
I’m not sure if one of the Winklebury councillors had the same question that I had but on the Cabinet meeting 16th July, minute 6/24, Capital Outturn, can we have a progress report on the Manydown land drawdown and transfer?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I actually have the great pleasure of saying to the Chamber that the actual deal for Manydown, the process of Manydown has finally been signed. And the process will lead now to the full and total completion as you do with a house. What it means is it has secured three and a half thousand houses on North Manydown, fourteen hundred of which will be affordable homes. So yes, Councillor James is absolutely right, we’ve delivered 494 in this year’s delivery of affordable homes in future we will have fourteen hundred more to add to that via the delivery of Manydown North. So, can I thank the officers, if you’ll give me a bit of discretion Mr Mayor, can I thank the officers who have put so much time and effort into this, not least the process of signing and sealing which took god knows how long with the documentation required, and thank you Fiona that your arm didn’t drop off to say the least. But just the amount of sheer hard work that has gone into this to get this far. It really does show what we’ve managed to achieve in 15 months, picking up from where it had previously been left off, by the administration to get it as far as they did. Manydown will be delivered.
Question 2
From: Councillor Lee
To: Leader of the Council
This is on the Cabinet meeting dated 10 September 2024. And the minute number is 23/24, the Winklebury Regeneration. Apologies I couldn’t make the meeting at the night due to work commitments. During the discussion on this item however, the Cabinet Member for Residents Services stated that the loss of public open space at Carisbrooke Close would be replaced by a larger open space and play area at the former Fort Hill School. Now as the leader played a considerable role alongside Labour councillors in opposing the closure of the school at the time by Conservatives, he would have been well aware that this land at Fort Hill was already in use by the community when the school was closed, sorry when the school was open and was lost when the Tories closed it. Does he therefore agree with me and my fellow ward councillors that the disposal of the land at Carisbrooke Close therefore actually represents a loss of much well-loved open space for the community of Winklebury and Manydown.
Answer
Thank you, Alex, I’m going to tread with care here because I am not a planning expert and that deserves a proper full planning response because it’s probably an LPA interpretation and view of it beyond officers supporting as well to give the correct answer to your question. So, I’m not going to leap up now and give you an answer and get it wrong. I think you deserve the right answer. I appreciate you weren’t at the last meeting and we’ll keep this conversation going about these particularly important matters for you, Councillor West and Councillor Freeman. So it isn’t just a matter of asking it this evening, let’s have the conversation and get a proper answer if that’s ok.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, so I appreciate the response and would welcome a written response on that. I’ve lost my train of thought now. In our ward, we do suffer from a considerable lack of public open space, we’ve lost the land of Harlech Hall, we’ve lost the play council site as well with this. If this does constitute a loss can I ask that he and the officers work with ways to identify other sites within the local area that may not be currently public land to be brought into public land?
Answer
Thanks Alex, I’m very conscious you’re not the only ward that suffers from that issue. It would be wrong I think to make a promise to a particular community beyond all other communities as well that suffer from the same issue, and it is actually an issue of the way the estates are designed, the way they were sold, the way the land has been split up into various parcels over the years, it’s a much bigger issue than just Winklebury to be fair. I think it’s probably worth that we think about this very carefully, but one thing I would just say in terms of linking the two questions together is that Manydown North will provide a huge country park as part of it on Winklebury’s doorsteps. It’s not the same as delivering within the community but it’s part of a wider solution. However, taking the point away, let us think seriously about what you’re saying and understand it. There is only so much that this authority can do beyond the land that we own and others have obviously own privately or own in public interest such as hospitals and schools and so on. Let’s be very careful with this.
Question 3
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Leader of the Council
Reference Cabinet 30th July, minute 15/24, Waste Service Review. In view of the report featured on BBC News on Tuesday 15th October, that burning rubbish is now the UK’s dirtiest form of power, producing as much carbon as coal and also in view of the increasing instance of plastic including refuse bags themselves in a non-recyclable waste. Finally, in view of the Cabinet portfolio holders previous campaign history on Chineham incinerator, would the leader give us his view on the continued use of Chineham incinerator to dispose of our non-recyclable waste?
Answer
Andy. Thank you, Councillor McCormick, in standing up and answering on behalf of the borough, I would ask you to direct your question to the County Council as the disposal authority. That’s where the question should truly rest with all due respect.
17
Exclusion of press and public
To consider whether, in view of the nature of the remaining items on the agenda, any of them are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt or confidential information within the terms of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
18
Confidential/exempt items for information
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in