Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
68
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 19th December 2024
6:30 PM
Thursday, 19th December 2024
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 19th December 2024
9:30 PM
Thursday, 19th December 2024
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
19 Dec 2024
19 Dec 2024
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
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
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Grassi, T Jones, McIntyre, Mummalaneni and Z West.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 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 17102024 1830 Council 11 Dec 2024
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the Year
1) In accordance with the ‘Method of Choosing a Mayor and Associated Matters’ protocol Members are advised that Councillor Colin Phillimore is invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting of Council for the next Municipal year. This is in order that the Mayor-elect may have notice of his election. Members are asked to show their support.
2) The person next in seniority is elected Deputy Mayor at the Annual Meeting and Members are asked to note that Councillor Jacky Tustain is the next senior Member who has indicated her willingness to take up the role.
2) The person next in seniority is elected Deputy Mayor at the Annual Meeting and Members are asked to note that Councillor Jacky Tustain is the next senior Member who has indicated her willingness to take up the role.
Minutes
Resolved: That
1) Councillor Colin Phillimore be invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2025/26 municipal year.
2) Councillor Jacky Tustain be invited to stand for election as Deputy Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2025/26 municipal year.
1) Councillor Colin Phillimore be invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2025/26 municipal year.
2) Councillor Jacky Tustain be invited to stand for election as Deputy Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2025/26 municipal year.
5
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor gave thanks to officers for their hard work during the year and wished a merry Christmas and happy New Year to all.
6
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 17 December 2024)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 17 December 2024)
Minutes
There were no questions.
7
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 17 December 2024)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 17 December 2024)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
8
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 11 Dec 2024
Minutes
Councillor Tom was appointed as a council representative on the Trustees of Basingstoke Charities outside body.
9
Quarter 2 Capital Monitoring Report as at 30 September 2024
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 10 December 2024:
Cabinet request Council to approve the following capital programme amendments as set out in paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8 of the report.
8) A budget virement of £5.365M from the Manydown Land and Infrastructure Funding Scheme to the Manydown Development scheme (2024/25 £2.365M and 2025/26 £3.000M).
9) The renaming and repurposing of The Malls Upgrading/Updating scheme to Town Centre Improvements.
Cabinet request Council to approve the following capital programme amendments as set out in paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8 of the report.
8) A budget virement of £5.365M from the Manydown Land and Infrastructure Funding Scheme to the Manydown Development scheme (2024/25 £2.365M and 2025/26 £3.000M).
9) The renaming and repurposing of The Malls Upgrading/Updating scheme to Town Centre Improvements.
Attachments:
- Document Q2 Capital Monitoring Report 2024-25 11 Dec 2024
Minutes
Council considered a report which presented the position on the council’s capital programme for the second quarter of 2024/25 and sought approval for two amendments to the programme. The report presented a capital expenditure below the latest approved budget of £6.859 million which related to delayed spend for the Manydown development and May Place.
Resolved: To agree
1) A budget virement of £5.365M from the Manydown Land and Infrastructure Funding Scheme to the Manydown Development scheme (2024/25 £2.365M and 2025/26 £3.000M).
2) The renaming and repurposing of The Malls Upgrading/Updating scheme to Town Centre Improvements.
Resolved: To agree
1) A budget virement of £5.365M from the Manydown Land and Infrastructure Funding Scheme to the Manydown Development scheme (2024/25 £2.365M and 2025/26 £3.000M).
2) The renaming and repurposing of The Malls Upgrading/Updating scheme to Town Centre Improvements.
10
Council Tax Discretionary Discounts and Council Tax Support Scheme 2025/26
Report of the Chief Finance and S151 Officer
Attachments:
- Document Counciltaxdiscretionaryreport2025 11 Dec 2024
Minutes
Council Tax statute and Regulations provide for Council to decide on the discretionary aspects of Council Tax and to approve a Local Council Tax Support Scheme prior to setting the Council Tax base for each financial year by 31 January. The report under consideration set out no proposed changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme and minor changes to the existing council tax discretionary discount scheme.
Resolved: To approve that
1) The Council Tax Support Scheme is unchanged for 2025/26.
2) The care leavers council tax discount is unchanged for 2025/26.
3) Council tax discretionary discounts are maintained at the 2024/25 levels for 2025/26 except for the empty and unfurnished discount.
4) The empty and unfurnished discount is reduced to 2 months at 100% instead of 3 months 100% and 3 months 50%.
5) An additional premium is charged for second homes in 2026/27.
6) The long-term empty property premiums are maintained at the 2024/25 levels for 2025/26.
Resolved: To approve that
1) The Council Tax Support Scheme is unchanged for 2025/26.
2) The care leavers council tax discount is unchanged for 2025/26.
3) Council tax discretionary discounts are maintained at the 2024/25 levels for 2025/26 except for the empty and unfurnished discount.
4) The empty and unfurnished discount is reduced to 2 months at 100% instead of 3 months 100% and 3 months 50%.
5) An additional premium is charged for second homes in 2026/27.
6) The long-term empty property premiums are maintained at the 2024/25 levels for 2025/26.
11
Notice of Motion - Family Farm Tax
Proposer: Councillor Minas-Bound
Seconder: Councillor Vaux
Council notes that:
· The recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax and will have a detrimental impact on Family Farms and farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
Council believes that:
· The Labour Government have committed a shameful betrayal and let down farmers by breaking their promise to not introduce a Family Farm Tax.
· The Family Farm Tax will damage the ability of farmers to pass on their farms to their children.
· Labour’s Family Farm Tax will threaten food security by forcing the sale of family farms.
· The Labour Government’s Family Farm Tax will make British food production harder.
· The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed and Keir Starmer promised not to introduce a tax like this.
· Numerous rural and farming organisations such as the National Farmers Union and Country Land and Business Association have warned that countless farms will be harmed, threatening food security and rural areas.
· The comments made by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed that already struggling farmers will have to ‘do more with less’ show distain for farmers and the sector.
· At a time when many farmers in Basingstoke and Deane are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms.
Council resolves:
· To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision and calls on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
· To request the council administration to engage with local farmers and community representatives on what support the Council can provide to them.
· To request that the council administration publish a list of affected farms.
Seconder: Councillor Vaux
Council notes that:
· The recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax and will have a detrimental impact on Family Farms and farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
Council believes that:
· The Labour Government have committed a shameful betrayal and let down farmers by breaking their promise to not introduce a Family Farm Tax.
· The Family Farm Tax will damage the ability of farmers to pass on their farms to their children.
· Labour’s Family Farm Tax will threaten food security by forcing the sale of family farms.
· The Labour Government’s Family Farm Tax will make British food production harder.
· The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed and Keir Starmer promised not to introduce a tax like this.
· Numerous rural and farming organisations such as the National Farmers Union and Country Land and Business Association have warned that countless farms will be harmed, threatening food security and rural areas.
· The comments made by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed that already struggling farmers will have to ‘do more with less’ show distain for farmers and the sector.
· At a time when many farmers in Basingstoke and Deane are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms.
Council resolves:
· To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision and calls on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
· To request the council administration to engage with local farmers and community representatives on what support the Council can provide to them.
· To request that the council administration publish a list of affected farms.
Minutes
Councillor Minas-Bound proposed the following altered motion which was seconded by Councillor Vaux:
Council notes that:
· The recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax and will have a detrimental impact on Family Farms and farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
Council believes that:
· The Labour Government have committed a shameful betrayal and let down farmers by breaking their promise to not introduce a Family Farm Tax.
· The Family Farm Tax will damage the ability of farmers to pass on their farms to their children.
· Labour’s Family Farm Tax will threaten food security by forcing the sale of family farms.
· The Labour Government’s Family Farm Tax will make British food production harder.
· The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed and Keir Starmer promised not to introduce a tax like this.
· Numerous rural and farming organisations such as the National Farmers Union and Country Land and Business Association have warned that countless farms will be harmed, threatening food security and rural areas.
· The comments made by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed that already struggling farmers will have to ‘do more with less’ show distain for farmers and the sector.
· At a time when many farmers in Basingstoke and Deane are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms.
Council resolves:
1) To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision and calls on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
2) To request the council administration to engage with local farmers and community representatives on what support the Council can provide to them.
3) To request the council administration, in the next 12 months, to develop a Rural Strategy that aims to achieve:
1) Inclusive, sustainable rural communities, where everyone has the opportunity to participate, and can access the services and facilities they need.
2) An environmentally and economically sound rural borough where the needs of farming, conservation and development are appropriately balanced.
3) Residents feel supported to take ownership and drive improvements in their own communities.
4) Ensure our rural communities can be safe and welcoming for residents, visitors and businesses.
The motion was fully debated and a range of views were expressed which included:
Support farmers and protect local food production and food security. Increasing tax burdens on farmers should be in ways and time scales which farming can manage sustainably. The tax will not only effect farmers but have consequences for food security, local communities and rural economies. The government could have considered alternative options to inheritance tax such as capital gains tax which would allow family farms to be passed to future generations without damaging the future of the farms. With reference to the request in the motion to develop a Rural Strategy, it was commented that a significant amount of work had already been undertaken to develop several policies within the draft Local Plan to support sustainable communities. It was suggested that as the tax was imposed by government, writing to respective MP’s to outline concerns was the best course of action. The council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy 2022 – 2027 embedded a large part of the request of the motion. Investment and support for rural communities by the council included grants to improve shop fronts, improvement to public toilet facilities and play areas and additional funding for litter picking. The government had failed to understand the economics of agriculture. Family farmers may have land and assets built up over generations but were cash poor. Farmers have expensive equipment costs and tight margins. The tax would affect an estimated 70,000 farmers and for many would mean making a profit impossible, resulting in the sale of land or entire farms which would culminate in corporate ownership. Family farmers care most about food standards and quality and do the most for nature recovery, biodiversity and sustainable land management and are essential to the functioning of rural communities. The inheritance tax proposals were aimed at preventing land banking and closing a tax loophole. Only the wealthiest farmers would be impacted by inheritance tax. As most farms were tenanted, the tax loophole impacted tenant farmers by driving up rents and land prices making it harder for new farmers to buy farms. There was no evidence to support the threat to food security. Most raw ingredients were imported and a significant amount of food was imported from the EU. Farmers had lost more in EU subsidies than they would through inheritance tax. The motion painted a misleading picture of the government’s inheritance tax reforms and was scare mongering. Of an estimated 209,000 farms only 500 were expected to be affected annually and less than 1% of farms in the borough. Most family farms would not pay any more in tax due to the reliefs already in place enabling farms to be passed on to the next generation without any tax burden. The 7 year rule to gift assets was highlighted. Food security was influenced by global supply chains, trade policies and climate change, not inheritance tax. The tax reforms would strengthen food security by ensuring farmland remained with genuine farmers rather than speculative investors using farmland as a tax shelter with no intention of farming it and would close loopholes and prioritise productive use of farmland. The tax reforms level the playing field to ensure reliefs are reserved for those actively contributing to agriculture and target the wealthiest landowners who misuse the system to avoid paying taxes whilst protecting many family farms through exemptions. Consideration should be given to the unintended consequences of the tax on family farms. Future generations of young farmers could be lost if they see no future in farming. The motion concerns national policy which the local authority can have little impact on. Councillors serve local people and should focus on debating local issues they can affect. Local farmers were deeply concerned and angry about the tax changes and therefore it was a local issue that the council should debate and raise local concerns to influence those in government. The policy was targeted at large commercial enterprises, the government could make changes to achieve their objectives and spare small farmers.
In summing up the debate, the proposer thanked councillors for their contributions. He considered there wasn’t anything discussed in council that wasn’t impacted by national policy in some way. He referred to local farmers who overwhelmingly felt the change in policy would affect them and explained that the motion had been altered to request the development of a Rural Strategy because feedback he had received from rural farmers and rural communities was that their concerns and voices were not reflected in policies. He asked councillors to support the motion and reflect the voices and concerns of farmers who look after a significant area of the borough.
The motion was put to a vote. There voted 24 votes in favour, 10 votes against and 11 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
Council notes that:
· The recent 2024 Autumn Budget change to Inheritance Tax relief announced by the Labour Government will introduce a Family Farm Tax and will have a detrimental impact on Family Farms and farmers’ ability to pass on their farms to the next generation of farmers.
Council believes that:
· The Labour Government have committed a shameful betrayal and let down farmers by breaking their promise to not introduce a Family Farm Tax.
· The Family Farm Tax will damage the ability of farmers to pass on their farms to their children.
· Labour’s Family Farm Tax will threaten food security by forcing the sale of family farms.
· The Labour Government’s Family Farm Tax will make British food production harder.
· The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed and Keir Starmer promised not to introduce a tax like this.
· Numerous rural and farming organisations such as the National Farmers Union and Country Land and Business Association have warned that countless farms will be harmed, threatening food security and rural areas.
· The comments made by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed that already struggling farmers will have to ‘do more with less’ show distain for farmers and the sector.
· At a time when many farmers in Basingstoke and Deane are struggling with soaring costs and energy prices, this sudden tax rise will damage the future of their farms.
Council resolves:
1) To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to outline the Council’s dismay at this decision and calls on the Government to stop the Family Farm Tax.
2) To request the council administration to engage with local farmers and community representatives on what support the Council can provide to them.
3) To request the council administration, in the next 12 months, to develop a Rural Strategy that aims to achieve:
1) Inclusive, sustainable rural communities, where everyone has the opportunity to participate, and can access the services and facilities they need.
2) An environmentally and economically sound rural borough where the needs of farming, conservation and development are appropriately balanced.
3) Residents feel supported to take ownership and drive improvements in their own communities.
4) Ensure our rural communities can be safe and welcoming for residents, visitors and businesses.
The motion was fully debated and a range of views were expressed which included:
Support farmers and protect local food production and food security. Increasing tax burdens on farmers should be in ways and time scales which farming can manage sustainably. The tax will not only effect farmers but have consequences for food security, local communities and rural economies. The government could have considered alternative options to inheritance tax such as capital gains tax which would allow family farms to be passed to future generations without damaging the future of the farms. With reference to the request in the motion to develop a Rural Strategy, it was commented that a significant amount of work had already been undertaken to develop several policies within the draft Local Plan to support sustainable communities. It was suggested that as the tax was imposed by government, writing to respective MP’s to outline concerns was the best course of action. The council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy 2022 – 2027 embedded a large part of the request of the motion. Investment and support for rural communities by the council included grants to improve shop fronts, improvement to public toilet facilities and play areas and additional funding for litter picking. The government had failed to understand the economics of agriculture. Family farmers may have land and assets built up over generations but were cash poor. Farmers have expensive equipment costs and tight margins. The tax would affect an estimated 70,000 farmers and for many would mean making a profit impossible, resulting in the sale of land or entire farms which would culminate in corporate ownership. Family farmers care most about food standards and quality and do the most for nature recovery, biodiversity and sustainable land management and are essential to the functioning of rural communities. The inheritance tax proposals were aimed at preventing land banking and closing a tax loophole. Only the wealthiest farmers would be impacted by inheritance tax. As most farms were tenanted, the tax loophole impacted tenant farmers by driving up rents and land prices making it harder for new farmers to buy farms. There was no evidence to support the threat to food security. Most raw ingredients were imported and a significant amount of food was imported from the EU. Farmers had lost more in EU subsidies than they would through inheritance tax. The motion painted a misleading picture of the government’s inheritance tax reforms and was scare mongering. Of an estimated 209,000 farms only 500 were expected to be affected annually and less than 1% of farms in the borough. Most family farms would not pay any more in tax due to the reliefs already in place enabling farms to be passed on to the next generation without any tax burden. The 7 year rule to gift assets was highlighted. Food security was influenced by global supply chains, trade policies and climate change, not inheritance tax. The tax reforms would strengthen food security by ensuring farmland remained with genuine farmers rather than speculative investors using farmland as a tax shelter with no intention of farming it and would close loopholes and prioritise productive use of farmland. The tax reforms level the playing field to ensure reliefs are reserved for those actively contributing to agriculture and target the wealthiest landowners who misuse the system to avoid paying taxes whilst protecting many family farms through exemptions. Consideration should be given to the unintended consequences of the tax on family farms. Future generations of young farmers could be lost if they see no future in farming. The motion concerns national policy which the local authority can have little impact on. Councillors serve local people and should focus on debating local issues they can affect. Local farmers were deeply concerned and angry about the tax changes and therefore it was a local issue that the council should debate and raise local concerns to influence those in government. The policy was targeted at large commercial enterprises, the government could make changes to achieve their objectives and spare small farmers.
In summing up the debate, the proposer thanked councillors for their contributions. He considered there wasn’t anything discussed in council that wasn’t impacted by national policy in some way. He referred to local farmers who overwhelmingly felt the change in policy would affect them and explained that the motion had been altered to request the development of a Rural Strategy because feedback he had received from rural farmers and rural communities was that their concerns and voices were not reflected in policies. He asked councillors to support the motion and reflect the voices and concerns of farmers who look after a significant area of the borough.
The motion was put to a vote. There voted 24 votes in favour, 10 votes against and 11 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
12
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor Izett
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Cllr James is aware that the borough's accounts for 2022-23 have not been audited and will now never be because they have been "disclaimed" by our appointed auditors, EY (Ernst & Young). Disclaiming accounts is a serious matter as typically it means the auditor is unable to give an opinion on our financial statements due to lack of sufficient evidence. Audit and Accounts Committee on 25th November was obliged to approve these unaudited accounts.
This has happened through no failures by our Chief Financial Officer, Adam Swain and his team. Full financial and other information was provided to EY well on time. The fault lies entirely with EY who have conceded that they lacked the resources to do the work and in fact completed very little of it. They concentrated their available staff on larger councils it seems. Many councils across the country have been similarly let down by EY.
Will he join me in expressing his concern about the way we have been failed and put at risk by our professional advisers? While we should have every confidence that our CFO's calculations are correct and errors will not pass through into the 2023/24 accounts, it is a significant omission that these have not been corroborated by our appointed auditors as we have every right to expect.
Answer
Yes, I absolutely do share his view, it’s not necessarily Ernst & Young’s sole issue here, it’s a national issue as you’ll be aware. I think we’re getting close to a thousand unaudited accounts now from local authorities.
The problem started in 2014, you’ll all remember the bonfire of the quangos, and the Audit Commission was one of those quangos Eric Pickles got rid of. It was replaced by seven bodies working together and us commission our own from the private sector to do our audits. That didn’t work because it didn’t have the resources. The government did have a Kingsman review that suggested doing something else, they didn’t like the Kingsman reviews proposals, so they then commissioned another review which proposed OLAR. They didn’t like that either, so they went away and thought about it. They came back and said they’d do AGA with a bit of OLAR underneath it. Then the Minister changed. Then Kemi Badenoch announced it was definitely going to be done. It was going to go into the King’s Speech. By then, unfortunately Rishi Sunak decided to get rid of AGA because it was going to impact on business, and he wanted to concentrate on economic growth which meant the local government bit disappeared as well. And so nothing actually happened until the emergency procedures introduced in February 2024 by the last Conservative government which would mean there’s this backstop where everything just gets killed off on the 30th September and never gets audited, and then of course we can’t ever really audit anything again because how do you audit something when you have no confidence in the opening balance because the last lot of accounts weren’t audited. So, this is going to be an ongoing problem that’s going to carry on for a while.
The good news is that yesterday the government did issue a new consultation paper on their new regime for audit and governance for local authorities. It was really helpful because of course the finance world was looking at the local government finance settlement at exactly the same time they issued that new consultation which runs until the 29th January so we’ve got five weeks, in which two most of the council is closed, to comment on their new proposals, which is for a local audit office because they didn’t want to adopt the government’s idea of an office of local audit, and decided to have a local audit, so there you go.
Read the consultation, great Christmas reading, you can get a hard copy and if you haven’t bought anything for Councillor Basham yet, I suggest that is the thing he’d most want. But yes, I am equally frustrated, it’s a serious matter.
Supplementary Question
It does get worse though, as he will be aware, because the way that auditors are procured centrally. We’ve paid EY the full amount, over £50,000, for work that they haven’t done. So, can he give me some assurance that he will get as much of our money back for residents as possible?
Answer
If it’s possible we’ll get the money back, we shouldn’t be paying for something we haven’t got but I think that’s not the worst problem. The worst problem could come if you imagine that the government suddenly had this idea of merging loads of local authorities together, when there’s lots of them, and I’m not saying Rushmoor, haven’t had their accounts audited for three years and have significant financial problems because all those problems will be wrapped into one authority and we’ll never work out what happened but surely they’re not going to do that. Are they? Oh, they are.
Question 2
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Given the Administration "supports the government’s ambition to make homes more affordable" how can it then oppose the only means of making this happen, i.e., building more houses?
Answer
Thank you for the question. We’ve been talking a lot about economics this evening. I remember being taught in my A-Level economics classes about supply and demand. It was a long time ago, Mr Mayor, but I do remember the basic principle, which is if you increase supply, prices should fall. So, I can see where Councillor McCormick is going with this particular question.
In theory, if we allocate more land for houses in the Local Plan, that should lead to more houses being built so greater housing land supply and therefore lower house prices. However, as we all know, theory doesn’t always translate into reality, particularly when we come to talking about the housing market. Allocating more land for houses in our Local Plan doesn’t necessarily lead to more houses being built. It might lead to more planning consents - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the houses will be delivered when we need them to. In fact, developers have a very strong financial incentive not to build out all of their planning consents. If they were to do that, we would see housing supply increase and prices fall. Great news for our residents, but not particularly good news for the developers profit margins. So many developers will sit on housing consents, sometimes for years in order to maintain their profits. That’s why we have nearly 7,000 outstanding planning consents in our borough at the moment.
So, I’d argue that improving housing affordability isn’t about allocating more land to homes in our Local Plan. It’s about getting developers building by incentivising them to get out there rather than to hold onto land and restrict supply. Even the government acknowledged this in its announcement last week, although we’ve yet to see how effective its proposals will be. It’s also about local authorities taking a lead role in house building in their borough, which is exactly what we’re now doing with Manydown and also through the work that our officers are undertaking to look at potential development opportunities on land that we own. It’s about working with social housing providers to encourage them to invest in new homes, lobbying government to ensure that grant funding continues to be available to make housing affordable and also pushing developers to deliver according to our Local Plan. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Well, the answer as I understand it is basically that he wants the government to accelerate housebuilding but he doesn’t see any role for the council in that. We have sat on a load of land, and we’ve just passed a motion tonight that is in favour of land banking. So, my supplemental question is this- what means does the portfolio holder see that we can accelerate house building locally, given that we have taken 28 years to bring Manydown forward and we’ve got a number of other MDAs in the pipeline that may take just as long?
Answer
Well, I think I’ve already outlined a lot of the initiatives that we are undertaking as a borough council in order to make sure that the homes that we need are delivered but in a sustainable way with the right infrastructure in place, with the right supporting facilities and to make sure that we deliver homes that are generally sustainable from an environmental perspective. We want the right homes, in the right places, with the right supporting infrastructure. That’s the basis of our Local Plan and that will be the basis of the Local Plan that we continue to draft in response to the new NPPF.
Question 3
From: Councillor Minas-Bound
To: Leader of the Council
Given the proposed changes to local government, how will you work with all party-political groups to ensure that the unique needs of residents and businesses in our borough are protected, particularly in light of the likely impacts such as rising Council Tax, reduced services, and the potential loss of key Basingstoke and Deane assets?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Thank you Cllr Minas-Bound for your question. The government have announced their intention to proceed with devolution and local government reorganisation. The small print of their proposals is important, and so we’ve begun work through the considerable detail to understand and be in a better position to discuss the implications. It’s just 72 hours since they published the White Paper. So, before we set any debate going amongst ourselves or our communities, it is best that we have an informed understanding.
There are a series of questions that government need to answer about their proposals. Questions that reflect our concerns and also to provide clarity on a number of key points. Questions that are being raised by the District Councils Network. Questions that are being raised by the County Councils Network. Questions that are being raised by our neighbouring councils. But there are a couple of really important things I want to say tonight. Let’s be absolutely clear, Basingstoke and Deane is a successful borough council, and we have a duty to continue to deliver the very best services for our residents, and to focus on their needs and their priorities. Nothing should divert us from that focus. So, I want to say that we are absolutely concentrated on the work and projects that will make a difference to our residents’ lives.
Let’s also be absolutely clear and I hope we all share this principle, we are here to represent the interests of all our residents and businesses in Basingstoke and Deane and they are our priority. They do say things usually come in threes, so we’ve had the NPPF reform, we’ve got a Devolution White Paper and now we’ve got the Local Government Financial Settlement all just before Christmas. Let’s take stock, let’s be clear in our purpose and approach and then ensure we move forward informed and primed to advocate for our communities’ best interests. There are some fundamental points we need to explore together. Group Leaders is where this can begin, this conversation, and it has already done so, and groups, I know that officers will support groups in having briefings to make sure we are thoroughly informed so the debate can then proceed.
Supplementary Question
Only, Mr Mayor that I hope the leader understands that he has my full support.
Answer
I hope we have the support of the full chamber because we’re going to need it during this process.
Question 4
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
With Pension Credit applications surging by 145% since the Chancellor's announcement that Winter Fuel Payments would be means-tested, and given that Pension Credit unlocks additional benefits like free TV licenses and NHS support, what steps is the council taking to raise awareness and assist residents in applying for Pension Credit to ensure they access this crucial support?
Answer
Thank you for that question, based on the motion from last time. The council has been active in making sure that all residents who might be entitled to pension credit do take a look at that. Our benefits team have been working, obviously pension credit itself is dealt with by the DWP, we don’t have the data and information. However, where we know people are getting housing benefit and or council tax benefits, we are writing to them and making sure they’re aware of pension credit and to check their entitlement to it. We’ve also changed our template letters we send out to working age people recognising that working age people do eventually retire and some might be close to retirement and need to get that claim in straight away to benefit as soon as possible from it. Any customers who come into the council offices and talk to the benefits team, again, there’s a bit of a visual assessment of their age and obviously we’re having that conversation with them as well.
In addition, our Green Team have also picked this up, they’ve been going around doing home visits on people, anyone they visit they talk about pension credit to make sure they’re fully aware of it as well. And it’s also been on the screens in reception. We’ve also been busy putting out on Facebook and a thing called X, which I didn’t think ran anymore but apparently it does. So, we’ve sent that out and we’re busy, if you can’t read, I don’t know what we’re doing. But we’re doing stuff online to push out stuff to people who are virtual. So, we are doing all we possibly can with the resources we’ve got to make sure everyone’s aware and I encourage councillors, when they go and do their casework, to also ask that question, speak to the resident and see and know if they’re entitled or not.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mayor, it’s just a quick one. Considering obviously the 21 December deadline for pension credit applications to be eligible for backdated payments which obviously includes the winter fuel payment. What measures are the council implementing to promote the cost-of-living assistance fund, focusing on those that live in fuel poverty but can’t claim pension credit, and how long is the backlog of applications?
Answer
In terms of the backlog for the DWP, I don’t know. COLAF we are behind, because the problem with COLAF is we don’t put any resources into it because we weren’t expected to run it until an amendment that comes into council. So, there are some going through. I haven’t had an updated figure yet. We were running to the point where we were going to have to close COLAF because I think we had enough backlog to say we couldn’t accept any more referrals into it because we might run out of money in that scheme. But I’ll get a written answer and update you as soon as I can.
Question 5
From:Councillor Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Given this week's announcement by the Government about local government reorganisation and the future of borough and district councils in England, can he provide assurance that our re-drafted Local Plan will be completed before reorganisation takes effect and that the costs and work involved in making a new plan will be worthwhile for our residents?
Answer
Thank you for that question, I’ll get my crystal ball out. Joking aside, I’m sure that everybody in this chamber would agree that the efforts made by our officers, fellow councillors, town and parish councils and local residents in helping us to update our Local Plan so far and helping to shape the future of our borough are worthwhile, both now and in the future, and that will remain the case regardless of what happens with local government reorganisation. We have a duty to think carefully about the places that we’re creating, and I know that as a collective we take that duty very seriously and are doing what we can with it. However, I understand the concern that is being raised by the question, so let me do my best to answer it.
I can’t tell you when we are likely to be directly affected by local government reform here in Basingstoke and Deane. As you know, the government announced its English Devolution White Paper earlier this week, and we’re still waiting for a lot of the detail to become available, and then we actually have to process all of that information. As far as I can see, the government hasn’t provided any detailed timelines on when it expects this reorganisation to happen. The White Paper simply states that the government ‘will deliver an ambitious first wave of reorganisation in this Parliament’. So, I think we can all make a guess as to what that’s likely to mean. We have had thankfully, a few days to at least examine the new NPPF and I can give you a bit more detail about the timelines for that. The new NPPF sets us a deadline of December 2026, two years from now by which we need to submit our Local Plan for examination. But we want to move more quickly than that. The government has removed the protection, as we all know, that we had from unwanted speculative development by taking away the four-year housing land supply threshold. So, this administration’s perspective is that the sooner that we can move to finalise the plan, the better. We’re working on a detailed timetable at the moment. Officers will be working hard over the coming weeks and days to finalise that, and I hope to better share more information on that timeline as it’s something that we do control in the next few weeks.
Supplementary Question
Crystal ball time again I’m afraid, is he worried that as a result of local government reorganisation, this borough may be allocated even more housing from other areas?
Answer
I am very worried by local government reorganisation in general.
Question 6
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
With the deal now signed to progress the Manydown development, can the council provide an update on the status of plans to designate Old Down Woodland Park as a Local Nature Reserve, confirming that it is on an LNR priority list, ensuring its long-term protection and enhancement? Old Down Woodland Park in Basingstoke is an important local green space that offers numerous benefits to the community. It is a cherished resource for the town, emphasizing the importance of preserving and maintaining such spaces for future generations.
Key points about its importance include:
1) Natural Habitat: The park is a valuable wildlife habitat, home to a variety of flora and fauna. It plays a role in supporting biodiversity within Basingstoke, providing a haven for birds, insects, and small mammals.
2) Recreational Space: The woodland is popular with residents for outdoor activities such as walking, running, and cycling. Its network of trails and paths makes it accessible and enjoyable for families and individuals alike.
3) Community Well-Being: As a peaceful green space, Old Down Woodland Park contributes to mental health and well-being by offering a natural environment for relaxation and exercise.
4) Educational Value: The park serves as an informal outdoor classroom where families can learn about nature, conservation, and local ecosystems.
5) Conservation Efforts: It is an area where community groups and volunteers actively engage in conservation projects, such as planting trees, clearing invasive species, and maintaining paths, fostering local pride and environmental stewardship.
6) Climate Resilience: The woodland contributes to climate change mitigation by improving air quality, sequestering carbon, and managing rainwater through natural absorption, which helps reduce flooding risks.
7) Proximity to Local Communities: Located near residential areas, including Kempshott, and Beggarwood, the park provides easily accessible green space for residents, enhancing their quality of life.
Answer
I thank Cllr Dillow for his question. I also thank him for entering into the spirit of Christmas, delivering repeats and old chestnuts. Now I recall this was last raised in July 2023 and the position has not changed.
Old Down is a cherished area that our officer teams and volunteer groups are enthusiastically maintaining for both its biodiversity and public recreation use. Old Down is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation – a SINC. It’s designated for its important chalk grassland, butterfly interest and community value. SINCs are locally designated and have no legal protection. However, they are designated for the presence of important priority habitats covered by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 – that’s NERC, I shall refer to it again, which also covers protected and notable species, plus sometimes geological or community importance. These areas are protected from impacts of development as a matter of policy under the council’s Local Plan, and SINCs within the council’s ownership in our control are also protected under the council’s legal obligation to protect and enhance biodiversity again, under NERC. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) manages the Hampshire SINC system on behalf of the local planning authorities. SINCs are ultimately the responsibility of the local authority. We have 800 in our Borough. Any proposal for a SINC deletion or a major change must be put forward to the annual SINC Advisory Panel for consideration. So, I must emphasise that regardless of which designation it has, LNR or SINC, as a public body, we have to protect the habitat and the species it supports due to the legal duty placed on us by NERC and the Environment Act of 2021 to conserve and enhance the biodiversity. The external validation of a SINC gives it additional significance to an LNR which is only declared by us, the local authority. Old Down has not got anything at all to do with the Manydown North development. It could be possibly linked to Manydown South, that was brought to EPH on 3 March. So hopefully you will see that we are fully committed to making sure that Old Down continues to thrive. Thank you.
From: Councillor Izett
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Cllr James is aware that the borough's accounts for 2022-23 have not been audited and will now never be because they have been "disclaimed" by our appointed auditors, EY (Ernst & Young). Disclaiming accounts is a serious matter as typically it means the auditor is unable to give an opinion on our financial statements due to lack of sufficient evidence. Audit and Accounts Committee on 25th November was obliged to approve these unaudited accounts.
This has happened through no failures by our Chief Financial Officer, Adam Swain and his team. Full financial and other information was provided to EY well on time. The fault lies entirely with EY who have conceded that they lacked the resources to do the work and in fact completed very little of it. They concentrated their available staff on larger councils it seems. Many councils across the country have been similarly let down by EY.
Will he join me in expressing his concern about the way we have been failed and put at risk by our professional advisers? While we should have every confidence that our CFO's calculations are correct and errors will not pass through into the 2023/24 accounts, it is a significant omission that these have not been corroborated by our appointed auditors as we have every right to expect.
Answer
Yes, I absolutely do share his view, it’s not necessarily Ernst & Young’s sole issue here, it’s a national issue as you’ll be aware. I think we’re getting close to a thousand unaudited accounts now from local authorities.
The problem started in 2014, you’ll all remember the bonfire of the quangos, and the Audit Commission was one of those quangos Eric Pickles got rid of. It was replaced by seven bodies working together and us commission our own from the private sector to do our audits. That didn’t work because it didn’t have the resources. The government did have a Kingsman review that suggested doing something else, they didn’t like the Kingsman reviews proposals, so they then commissioned another review which proposed OLAR. They didn’t like that either, so they went away and thought about it. They came back and said they’d do AGA with a bit of OLAR underneath it. Then the Minister changed. Then Kemi Badenoch announced it was definitely going to be done. It was going to go into the King’s Speech. By then, unfortunately Rishi Sunak decided to get rid of AGA because it was going to impact on business, and he wanted to concentrate on economic growth which meant the local government bit disappeared as well. And so nothing actually happened until the emergency procedures introduced in February 2024 by the last Conservative government which would mean there’s this backstop where everything just gets killed off on the 30th September and never gets audited, and then of course we can’t ever really audit anything again because how do you audit something when you have no confidence in the opening balance because the last lot of accounts weren’t audited. So, this is going to be an ongoing problem that’s going to carry on for a while.
The good news is that yesterday the government did issue a new consultation paper on their new regime for audit and governance for local authorities. It was really helpful because of course the finance world was looking at the local government finance settlement at exactly the same time they issued that new consultation which runs until the 29th January so we’ve got five weeks, in which two most of the council is closed, to comment on their new proposals, which is for a local audit office because they didn’t want to adopt the government’s idea of an office of local audit, and decided to have a local audit, so there you go.
Read the consultation, great Christmas reading, you can get a hard copy and if you haven’t bought anything for Councillor Basham yet, I suggest that is the thing he’d most want. But yes, I am equally frustrated, it’s a serious matter.
Supplementary Question
It does get worse though, as he will be aware, because the way that auditors are procured centrally. We’ve paid EY the full amount, over £50,000, for work that they haven’t done. So, can he give me some assurance that he will get as much of our money back for residents as possible?
Answer
If it’s possible we’ll get the money back, we shouldn’t be paying for something we haven’t got but I think that’s not the worst problem. The worst problem could come if you imagine that the government suddenly had this idea of merging loads of local authorities together, when there’s lots of them, and I’m not saying Rushmoor, haven’t had their accounts audited for three years and have significant financial problems because all those problems will be wrapped into one authority and we’ll never work out what happened but surely they’re not going to do that. Are they? Oh, they are.
Question 2
From: Councillor McCormick
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Given the Administration "supports the government’s ambition to make homes more affordable" how can it then oppose the only means of making this happen, i.e., building more houses?
Answer
Thank you for the question. We’ve been talking a lot about economics this evening. I remember being taught in my A-Level economics classes about supply and demand. It was a long time ago, Mr Mayor, but I do remember the basic principle, which is if you increase supply, prices should fall. So, I can see where Councillor McCormick is going with this particular question.
In theory, if we allocate more land for houses in the Local Plan, that should lead to more houses being built so greater housing land supply and therefore lower house prices. However, as we all know, theory doesn’t always translate into reality, particularly when we come to talking about the housing market. Allocating more land for houses in our Local Plan doesn’t necessarily lead to more houses being built. It might lead to more planning consents - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the houses will be delivered when we need them to. In fact, developers have a very strong financial incentive not to build out all of their planning consents. If they were to do that, we would see housing supply increase and prices fall. Great news for our residents, but not particularly good news for the developers profit margins. So many developers will sit on housing consents, sometimes for years in order to maintain their profits. That’s why we have nearly 7,000 outstanding planning consents in our borough at the moment.
So, I’d argue that improving housing affordability isn’t about allocating more land to homes in our Local Plan. It’s about getting developers building by incentivising them to get out there rather than to hold onto land and restrict supply. Even the government acknowledged this in its announcement last week, although we’ve yet to see how effective its proposals will be. It’s also about local authorities taking a lead role in house building in their borough, which is exactly what we’re now doing with Manydown and also through the work that our officers are undertaking to look at potential development opportunities on land that we own. It’s about working with social housing providers to encourage them to invest in new homes, lobbying government to ensure that grant funding continues to be available to make housing affordable and also pushing developers to deliver according to our Local Plan. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Well, the answer as I understand it is basically that he wants the government to accelerate housebuilding but he doesn’t see any role for the council in that. We have sat on a load of land, and we’ve just passed a motion tonight that is in favour of land banking. So, my supplemental question is this- what means does the portfolio holder see that we can accelerate house building locally, given that we have taken 28 years to bring Manydown forward and we’ve got a number of other MDAs in the pipeline that may take just as long?
Answer
Well, I think I’ve already outlined a lot of the initiatives that we are undertaking as a borough council in order to make sure that the homes that we need are delivered but in a sustainable way with the right infrastructure in place, with the right supporting facilities and to make sure that we deliver homes that are generally sustainable from an environmental perspective. We want the right homes, in the right places, with the right supporting infrastructure. That’s the basis of our Local Plan and that will be the basis of the Local Plan that we continue to draft in response to the new NPPF.
Question 3
From: Councillor Minas-Bound
To: Leader of the Council
Given the proposed changes to local government, how will you work with all party-political groups to ensure that the unique needs of residents and businesses in our borough are protected, particularly in light of the likely impacts such as rising Council Tax, reduced services, and the potential loss of key Basingstoke and Deane assets?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Thank you Cllr Minas-Bound for your question. The government have announced their intention to proceed with devolution and local government reorganisation. The small print of their proposals is important, and so we’ve begun work through the considerable detail to understand and be in a better position to discuss the implications. It’s just 72 hours since they published the White Paper. So, before we set any debate going amongst ourselves or our communities, it is best that we have an informed understanding.
There are a series of questions that government need to answer about their proposals. Questions that reflect our concerns and also to provide clarity on a number of key points. Questions that are being raised by the District Councils Network. Questions that are being raised by the County Councils Network. Questions that are being raised by our neighbouring councils. But there are a couple of really important things I want to say tonight. Let’s be absolutely clear, Basingstoke and Deane is a successful borough council, and we have a duty to continue to deliver the very best services for our residents, and to focus on their needs and their priorities. Nothing should divert us from that focus. So, I want to say that we are absolutely concentrated on the work and projects that will make a difference to our residents’ lives.
Let’s also be absolutely clear and I hope we all share this principle, we are here to represent the interests of all our residents and businesses in Basingstoke and Deane and they are our priority. They do say things usually come in threes, so we’ve had the NPPF reform, we’ve got a Devolution White Paper and now we’ve got the Local Government Financial Settlement all just before Christmas. Let’s take stock, let’s be clear in our purpose and approach and then ensure we move forward informed and primed to advocate for our communities’ best interests. There are some fundamental points we need to explore together. Group Leaders is where this can begin, this conversation, and it has already done so, and groups, I know that officers will support groups in having briefings to make sure we are thoroughly informed so the debate can then proceed.
Supplementary Question
Only, Mr Mayor that I hope the leader understands that he has my full support.
Answer
I hope we have the support of the full chamber because we’re going to need it during this process.
Question 4
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
With Pension Credit applications surging by 145% since the Chancellor's announcement that Winter Fuel Payments would be means-tested, and given that Pension Credit unlocks additional benefits like free TV licenses and NHS support, what steps is the council taking to raise awareness and assist residents in applying for Pension Credit to ensure they access this crucial support?
Answer
Thank you for that question, based on the motion from last time. The council has been active in making sure that all residents who might be entitled to pension credit do take a look at that. Our benefits team have been working, obviously pension credit itself is dealt with by the DWP, we don’t have the data and information. However, where we know people are getting housing benefit and or council tax benefits, we are writing to them and making sure they’re aware of pension credit and to check their entitlement to it. We’ve also changed our template letters we send out to working age people recognising that working age people do eventually retire and some might be close to retirement and need to get that claim in straight away to benefit as soon as possible from it. Any customers who come into the council offices and talk to the benefits team, again, there’s a bit of a visual assessment of their age and obviously we’re having that conversation with them as well.
In addition, our Green Team have also picked this up, they’ve been going around doing home visits on people, anyone they visit they talk about pension credit to make sure they’re fully aware of it as well. And it’s also been on the screens in reception. We’ve also been busy putting out on Facebook and a thing called X, which I didn’t think ran anymore but apparently it does. So, we’ve sent that out and we’re busy, if you can’t read, I don’t know what we’re doing. But we’re doing stuff online to push out stuff to people who are virtual. So, we are doing all we possibly can with the resources we’ve got to make sure everyone’s aware and I encourage councillors, when they go and do their casework, to also ask that question, speak to the resident and see and know if they’re entitled or not.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mayor, it’s just a quick one. Considering obviously the 21 December deadline for pension credit applications to be eligible for backdated payments which obviously includes the winter fuel payment. What measures are the council implementing to promote the cost-of-living assistance fund, focusing on those that live in fuel poverty but can’t claim pension credit, and how long is the backlog of applications?
Answer
In terms of the backlog for the DWP, I don’t know. COLAF we are behind, because the problem with COLAF is we don’t put any resources into it because we weren’t expected to run it until an amendment that comes into council. So, there are some going through. I haven’t had an updated figure yet. We were running to the point where we were going to have to close COLAF because I think we had enough backlog to say we couldn’t accept any more referrals into it because we might run out of money in that scheme. But I’ll get a written answer and update you as soon as I can.
Question 5
From:Councillor Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Given this week's announcement by the Government about local government reorganisation and the future of borough and district councils in England, can he provide assurance that our re-drafted Local Plan will be completed before reorganisation takes effect and that the costs and work involved in making a new plan will be worthwhile for our residents?
Answer
Thank you for that question, I’ll get my crystal ball out. Joking aside, I’m sure that everybody in this chamber would agree that the efforts made by our officers, fellow councillors, town and parish councils and local residents in helping us to update our Local Plan so far and helping to shape the future of our borough are worthwhile, both now and in the future, and that will remain the case regardless of what happens with local government reorganisation. We have a duty to think carefully about the places that we’re creating, and I know that as a collective we take that duty very seriously and are doing what we can with it. However, I understand the concern that is being raised by the question, so let me do my best to answer it.
I can’t tell you when we are likely to be directly affected by local government reform here in Basingstoke and Deane. As you know, the government announced its English Devolution White Paper earlier this week, and we’re still waiting for a lot of the detail to become available, and then we actually have to process all of that information. As far as I can see, the government hasn’t provided any detailed timelines on when it expects this reorganisation to happen. The White Paper simply states that the government ‘will deliver an ambitious first wave of reorganisation in this Parliament’. So, I think we can all make a guess as to what that’s likely to mean. We have had thankfully, a few days to at least examine the new NPPF and I can give you a bit more detail about the timelines for that. The new NPPF sets us a deadline of December 2026, two years from now by which we need to submit our Local Plan for examination. But we want to move more quickly than that. The government has removed the protection, as we all know, that we had from unwanted speculative development by taking away the four-year housing land supply threshold. So, this administration’s perspective is that the sooner that we can move to finalise the plan, the better. We’re working on a detailed timetable at the moment. Officers will be working hard over the coming weeks and days to finalise that, and I hope to better share more information on that timeline as it’s something that we do control in the next few weeks.
Supplementary Question
Crystal ball time again I’m afraid, is he worried that as a result of local government reorganisation, this borough may be allocated even more housing from other areas?
Answer
I am very worried by local government reorganisation in general.
Question 6
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
With the deal now signed to progress the Manydown development, can the council provide an update on the status of plans to designate Old Down Woodland Park as a Local Nature Reserve, confirming that it is on an LNR priority list, ensuring its long-term protection and enhancement? Old Down Woodland Park in Basingstoke is an important local green space that offers numerous benefits to the community. It is a cherished resource for the town, emphasizing the importance of preserving and maintaining such spaces for future generations.
Key points about its importance include:
1) Natural Habitat: The park is a valuable wildlife habitat, home to a variety of flora and fauna. It plays a role in supporting biodiversity within Basingstoke, providing a haven for birds, insects, and small mammals.
2) Recreational Space: The woodland is popular with residents for outdoor activities such as walking, running, and cycling. Its network of trails and paths makes it accessible and enjoyable for families and individuals alike.
3) Community Well-Being: As a peaceful green space, Old Down Woodland Park contributes to mental health and well-being by offering a natural environment for relaxation and exercise.
4) Educational Value: The park serves as an informal outdoor classroom where families can learn about nature, conservation, and local ecosystems.
5) Conservation Efforts: It is an area where community groups and volunteers actively engage in conservation projects, such as planting trees, clearing invasive species, and maintaining paths, fostering local pride and environmental stewardship.
6) Climate Resilience: The woodland contributes to climate change mitigation by improving air quality, sequestering carbon, and managing rainwater through natural absorption, which helps reduce flooding risks.
7) Proximity to Local Communities: Located near residential areas, including Kempshott, and Beggarwood, the park provides easily accessible green space for residents, enhancing their quality of life.
Answer
I thank Cllr Dillow for his question. I also thank him for entering into the spirit of Christmas, delivering repeats and old chestnuts. Now I recall this was last raised in July 2023 and the position has not changed.
Old Down is a cherished area that our officer teams and volunteer groups are enthusiastically maintaining for both its biodiversity and public recreation use. Old Down is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation – a SINC. It’s designated for its important chalk grassland, butterfly interest and community value. SINCs are locally designated and have no legal protection. However, they are designated for the presence of important priority habitats covered by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 – that’s NERC, I shall refer to it again, which also covers protected and notable species, plus sometimes geological or community importance. These areas are protected from impacts of development as a matter of policy under the council’s Local Plan, and SINCs within the council’s ownership in our control are also protected under the council’s legal obligation to protect and enhance biodiversity again, under NERC. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) manages the Hampshire SINC system on behalf of the local planning authorities. SINCs are ultimately the responsibility of the local authority. We have 800 in our Borough. Any proposal for a SINC deletion or a major change must be put forward to the annual SINC Advisory Panel for consideration. So, I must emphasise that regardless of which designation it has, LNR or SINC, as a public body, we have to protect the habitat and the species it supports due to the legal duty placed on us by NERC and the Environment Act of 2021 to conserve and enhance the biodiversity. The external validation of a SINC gives it additional significance to an LNR which is only declared by us, the local authority. Old Down has not got anything at all to do with the Manydown North development. It could be possibly linked to Manydown South, that was brought to EPH on 3 March. So hopefully you will see that we are fully committed to making sure that Old Down continues to thrive. Thank you.
13
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
Environment & Infrastructure
3 October 2024
Human Resources
7 October 2024
Cabinet
8 October 2024
Development Control
9 October 2024
Council
17 October 2024
Licensing
4 November 2024
Cabinet
5 November 2024
Development Control
6 November 2024
Standards
11 November 2024
Residents Services
13 November 2024
Resources
19 November 2024
Development Control
20 November 2024
Audit & Accounts
25 November 2024
Committee
Meeting Date
Environment & Infrastructure
3 October 2024
Human Resources
7 October 2024
Cabinet
8 October 2024
Development Control
9 October 2024
Council
17 October 2024
Licensing
4 November 2024
Cabinet
5 November 2024
Development Control
6 November 2024
Standards
11 November 2024
Residents Services
13 November 2024
Resources
19 November 2024
Development Control
20 November 2024
Audit & Accounts
25 November 2024
Minutes
Question 1
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Chair of Resident Services Committee- Cllr Tustain
Thank you, Mr Mayor, obviously as you know I’ve campaigned tirelessly to support the ice rink community. I’m pleased to announce tonight that Nice Leisure and Standard Securities have now completed the transaction on the lease agreement for the ice rink. This will secure and keep ice in Basingstoke. My question to the committee chair is whether Planet Ice have been invited, as requested, to come to the committee to give councillors an update.
Answer
I’ll have to get back to you in writing on that one. We haven’t invited them as yet, but I’ll talk to the relevant portfolio holder.
Question 2
From: Councillor Vaux
To: Chair of Resident Services Committee- Cllr Tustain
Thank you, Mr Mayor, this is question on Resident Services Committee meeting held on the 13th of November, Minute 20/24 - The Annual Review of Housing Allocations Scheme. It might be better if the portfolio holder for Resident Services answers rather than the chair, but I’ll leave it to you. But at the Resident Services Committee meeting members had an in-depth discussion about how applicants are prioritised as part of our Housing Allocations scheme. While our armed forces veterans are given priority, only veterans with an urgent housing need are placed in band 1- our highest priority banding, and urgent housing need, we learned at the committee, is a very high bar, including risks of fatal harm, or a life-threatening condition directly linked to their unsuitable housing. Otherwise, our veterans are placed in band 2. Now yesterday, the government announced updated statutory guidance to improve access to social housing for members of the armed forces. Will this guidance change how veterans and members of the armed forces are assessed for priority housing in our borough? Thank you.
Answer
I’ll ask the portfolio holder if she knows and if not, we’ll have to discuss.
Answer from the Leader of the Council- Councillor Harvey
We will happily provide a written response.
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Chair of Resident Services Committee- Cllr Tustain
Thank you, Mr Mayor, obviously as you know I’ve campaigned tirelessly to support the ice rink community. I’m pleased to announce tonight that Nice Leisure and Standard Securities have now completed the transaction on the lease agreement for the ice rink. This will secure and keep ice in Basingstoke. My question to the committee chair is whether Planet Ice have been invited, as requested, to come to the committee to give councillors an update.
Answer
I’ll have to get back to you in writing on that one. We haven’t invited them as yet, but I’ll talk to the relevant portfolio holder.
Question 2
From: Councillor Vaux
To: Chair of Resident Services Committee- Cllr Tustain
Thank you, Mr Mayor, this is question on Resident Services Committee meeting held on the 13th of November, Minute 20/24 - The Annual Review of Housing Allocations Scheme. It might be better if the portfolio holder for Resident Services answers rather than the chair, but I’ll leave it to you. But at the Resident Services Committee meeting members had an in-depth discussion about how applicants are prioritised as part of our Housing Allocations scheme. While our armed forces veterans are given priority, only veterans with an urgent housing need are placed in band 1- our highest priority banding, and urgent housing need, we learned at the committee, is a very high bar, including risks of fatal harm, or a life-threatening condition directly linked to their unsuitable housing. Otherwise, our veterans are placed in band 2. Now yesterday, the government announced updated statutory guidance to improve access to social housing for members of the armed forces. Will this guidance change how veterans and members of the armed forces are assessed for priority housing in our borough? Thank you.
Answer
I’ll ask the portfolio holder if she knows and if not, we’ll have to discuss.
Answer from the Leader of the Council- Councillor Harvey
We will happily provide a written response.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in