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, 15th May 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 15th May 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 15th May 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 15th May 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
15 May 2025
15 May 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Chair
Mayor
Vice-Chair
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
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
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Carr, Cubitt, Eachus (Maternity Leave), Hussey, Johnstone, Konieczko, Lee, McIntyre, McKay
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 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 20032025 1830 Council 07 May 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
A minutes silence was observed in remembrance of Hannah Williams who had sadly passed away. She was a friend to the council and a champion for arts and culture in the community.
5
Membership of Cabinet
To note those councillors appointed by the Leader as Members of the Cabinet including the Deputy Leader.
Minutes
The Leader of the Council announced membership of the Cabinet:
Councillor Paul Harvey Leader
Councillor Gavin James Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Councillor Chris Tomblin Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Councillor Laura James Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Councillor John McKay Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Councillor Kerry Morrow Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Councillor Andy Konieczko Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Councillor Onnalee Cubitt Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Councillor Paul Harvey Leader
Councillor Gavin James Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Councillor Chris Tomblin Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Councillor Laura James Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Councillor John McKay Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Councillor Kerry Morrow Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Councillor Andy Konieczko Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Councillor Onnalee Cubitt Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
6
Allocation of Seats to Political Groups
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Allocation of seats 15.05.25 07 May 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Proportionality 07 May 2025
- Document Agreed Proportionality 26 Jun 2025
Minutes
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires local authorities to review committee membership and political representation annually. Council considered a report which sought approval to the committee sizes together with the scheme of proportionality for 2025/26.
Resolved: That Council
1) Approve the committee sizes and scheme of proportionality for 2024/25 as set out in appendix 1 of the minutes, in order to enable appointments to be made to Committees of Council.
2) Agree to depart from political proportionality in the allocation of seats to Standards Committee.
Resolved: That Council
1) Approve the committee sizes and scheme of proportionality for 2024/25 as set out in appendix 1 of the minutes, in order to enable appointments to be made to Committees of Council.
2) Agree to depart from political proportionality in the allocation of seats to Standards Committee.
7
Appointment of Committees
To appoint Members of the Council to the following committees for the council year 2025/26 in accordance with the wishes of political groups, together with standing panels of substitute members:
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee
2) Resident Services Committee
3) Resources Committee
4) Audit and Accounts Committee
5) Development Control Committee
6) Human Resources Committee
7) Licensing Committee
8) Standards Committee
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee
2) Resident Services Committee
3) Resources Committee
4) Audit and Accounts Committee
5) Development Control Committee
6) Human Resources Committee
7) Licensing Committee
8) Standards Committee
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Attachments:
- Document Agreed committee composition 15 May 2025 26 Jun 2025
Minutes
Nominations were received for the appointment of Members of the Council and a standing panel of substitute members to the Council’s Committees for the year 2025/26.
Resolved: That appointments be made to Committees for the 2025/26 council year as set out in appendix 2 of the minutes.
Resolved: That appointments be made to Committees for the 2025/26 council year as set out in appendix 2 of the minutes.
8
Election of Committee Chairs
To elect Chairs of the following committees for the council year 2025/26 in accordance with the Committee Procedure Rules:
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee
2) Resident Services Committee
3) Resources Committee
4) Audit and Accounts Committee
5) Development Control Committee
6) Human Resources Committee
7) Licensing Committee
8) Standards Committee
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Note: Vice-Chairs will be appointed by Committees at their first available meeting after the annual meeting of the Council
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee
2) Resident Services Committee
3) Resources Committee
4) Audit and Accounts Committee
5) Development Control Committee
6) Human Resources Committee
7) Licensing Committee
8) Standards Committee
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Note: Vice-Chairs will be appointed by Committees at their first available meeting after the annual meeting of the Council
Minutes
Nominations were received for the appointment of Chairs to the Committees of the Council.
Nominations were received for Cllr Durrant and Cllr McCormick for the role of Chair of the Development Control Committee. Upon a recorded vote there voted 24 votes for Councillor Durrant and 21 votes for Cllr McCormick.
Councillor Durrant: Cllrs Ashfield, Basham, Bound, Bowes, Chatburn, Connor, Conquest, Durrant, Grassi, Hart, Harvey, Howard-Sorrell, G James, L James, Jenkin, J Jones, Kotecha, Morrow, Oborn, Phillimore, Slimin, Tomblin, Tuck,K Watts
Councillor McCormick: Cllrs Court, Dillow, Freeman, Ganesh, Gaskell, Golding, Harper, Ibrahim, Izett, T Jones, McCormick, Miller, Minas-Bound, Mummalaneni, Perry, Putty, Tom, Tustain, Vaux, G Watts, West
Resolved: That Members be appointed to the role of Chair for the following Committees of the Council:
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee – Councillor Z West
2) Resident Services Committee – Councillor Tustain
3) Resources Committee – Councillor Izett
4) Audit and Accounts Committee – Councillor Basham
5) Development Control Committee – Councillor Durrant
6) Human Resources Committee – Councillor Bowes
7) Licensing Committee – Councillor T Jones
8) Standards Committee – A Povey
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee – Councillor Howard-Sorrell
Nominations were received for Cllr Durrant and Cllr McCormick for the role of Chair of the Development Control Committee. Upon a recorded vote there voted 24 votes for Councillor Durrant and 21 votes for Cllr McCormick.
Councillor Durrant: Cllrs Ashfield, Basham, Bound, Bowes, Chatburn, Connor, Conquest, Durrant, Grassi, Hart, Harvey, Howard-Sorrell, G James, L James, Jenkin, J Jones, Kotecha, Morrow, Oborn, Phillimore, Slimin, Tomblin, Tuck,K Watts
Councillor McCormick: Cllrs Court, Dillow, Freeman, Ganesh, Gaskell, Golding, Harper, Ibrahim, Izett, T Jones, McCormick, Miller, Minas-Bound, Mummalaneni, Perry, Putty, Tom, Tustain, Vaux, G Watts, West
Resolved: That Members be appointed to the role of Chair for the following Committees of the Council:
1) Environment and Infrastructure Committee – Councillor Z West
2) Resident Services Committee – Councillor Tustain
3) Resources Committee – Councillor Izett
4) Audit and Accounts Committee – Councillor Basham
5) Development Control Committee – Councillor Durrant
6) Human Resources Committee – Councillor Bowes
7) Licensing Committee – Councillor T Jones
8) Standards Committee – A Povey
9) Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee – Councillor Howard-Sorrell
9
Appointment to Joint Bodies
To make appointments to the following:
1) Joint Manydown Committee
To appoint 4 Members.
The membership to comprise of Cabinet Members and Members from the following wards: Kempshott and Buckskin, Oakley and the Candovers, Sherborne St John and Rooksdown, Winklebury and Manydown.
For information the current Members are Councillors Cubitt, Freeman, J Jones and West.
2) Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
To appoint 3 Members to a joint Scrutiny Committee (comprising Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane).
The membership to consist of 1 Conservative councillor, 1 councillor from the Independent Forum and 1 councillor from the Liberal Democrat Group
For information the current Members are Councillors Howard-Sorrell, Connor and Miller
3) PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication joint Committee.
To appoint 1 Member.
For information the current Member is Councillor T Jones.
4) Hampshire Police and Crime Panel
To re-confirm Councillor McKay as the main representative on the panel and Councillor Basham as Deputy to the panel.
1) Joint Manydown Committee
To appoint 4 Members.
The membership to comprise of Cabinet Members and Members from the following wards: Kempshott and Buckskin, Oakley and the Candovers, Sherborne St John and Rooksdown, Winklebury and Manydown.
For information the current Members are Councillors Cubitt, Freeman, J Jones and West.
2) Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
To appoint 3 Members to a joint Scrutiny Committee (comprising Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane).
The membership to consist of 1 Conservative councillor, 1 councillor from the Independent Forum and 1 councillor from the Liberal Democrat Group
For information the current Members are Councillors Howard-Sorrell, Connor and Miller
3) PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication joint Committee.
To appoint 1 Member.
For information the current Member is Councillor T Jones.
4) Hampshire Police and Crime Panel
To re-confirm Councillor McKay as the main representative on the panel and Councillor Basham as Deputy to the panel.
Minutes
Nominations were received for appointments to joint bodies.
Resolved: That Members be appointed to joint bodies as follows:
1) Joint Manydown Committee – Councillors Cubitt, Freeman, J Jones and West.
2) Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee – Councillors Hart, Miller and Tustain.
3) Hampshire Police and Crime Panel – Councillor McKay (main representative) and Councillor Basham (deputy representative)
4) PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication joint Committee – Vacant.
Resolved: That Members be appointed to joint bodies as follows:
1) Joint Manydown Committee – Councillors Cubitt, Freeman, J Jones and West.
2) Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee – Councillors Hart, Miller and Tustain.
3) Hampshire Police and Crime Panel – Councillor McKay (main representative) and Councillor Basham (deputy representative)
4) PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication joint Committee – Vacant.
10
Appointments to Outside Bodies
To make appointments to outside bodies. (As in previous years it is hoped that a largely agreed list of appointments will be available to Council on 15 May 2025, with votes only required where agreement has not been reached).
Attachments:
- Document Outside Body Appointments 07 May 2025
- Document Agreed Outside Body Appointments 15052025 26 Jun 2025
Minutes
Nominations were received for representatives to sit on outside bodies.
Resolved: That Members be appointed as council representatives to sit on outside bodies as set out in appendix 3 of the minutes.
Resolved: That Members be appointed as council representatives to sit on outside bodies as set out in appendix 3 of the minutes.
11
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 13 May 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 13 May 2025)
Minutes
Question 1
From: Mr Simpson
To: Leader of the Council
Can the relevant committee chair, member or councillor confirm that the below version of the MoU between BDBC and SNG is hereby struck out pending the introduction of enhanced governance for the regeneration project to address the improvements in the points below?
https://democracy.basingstoke.gov.uk/.../s36291/Report.pdf
With the new MoU managing the contentious issues of how to:
· improve governance of the regeneration by involving BASH residents in the governance process that oversees the regeneration
· relocate those private owners whose land is co-mingled with majority SNG owned land
· ensure full disclosure of the “to be” post regeneration estate layout for BASH on a road by road basis so it is clear which residents are impacted
· cost the trade-off of the private profit made from CPOing privately owned land to support or fully recover the cost to build the social housing
· enshrine the open book accounting principle where the “Private Profit” is base lined and compared to that base throughout the project life cycle
o present fully costed to be plans
o outline timescales in a GANTT chart
o state the mix of existing properties and what the “to be” mix is so that if there is more private housing its profit is known and earmarked for “profit share”
· for those properties impacted establish the “fair profit share” needed to enable their owners to move to a like for like home elsewhere
· clearly state that the “profit share” is the fairest and most transparent way to ensure that the regeneration is seen to be “in the public interest”.
· ensure that SNG and the Hill Group by adopting the above improved governance processes may satisfy BDBC that the use of its CPO powers is “in the public interest” and this is the Council’s preferred and most transparent method of demonstrating this to residents.
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, and it’s good to see you Marcus and thank you for the question. You’ve reached out and I thank you for that and I’m looking forward to seeing you and continuing our conversation on many of these points in some detail. It’s important to recognise that SNG are going to reset the conversation with residents in South Ham and Buckskin. The opportunity for investment in the community and to see that benefit communities across South Ham and Buckskin is a once in a generation prospect. SNG have heard the communities voice loud and clear. They’ve undertaken consultation and engagement already with over 1,300 people at their events, but they respect what they have heard, and Marcus what you are saying here is part of that. I know that they have already engaged with you and want to engage more, with all residents, and they propose a summer of engagement so that they can listen, hear, and then actively work with the community to genuinely co-design what comes next. Residents need to own the way forward. Things like the MOU are always under review, and it is yet to be finalised. The important point for us to remember is the need that so many people have for improvements to their homes, for new investment in shops and community facilities, like the Westside Community Centre, and so much more. But again, I stress this needs to be co-designed. The many different communities in South Ham and Buckskin need to be heard and feel part of the process and understand the opportunity. SNG recognise this and want to expand the co-design work they have done and involve many more people, as many want to be involved, as you said yourself, Marcus. They are going door to door; they are proposing to undertake a deep listening programme over the summer; they want to hear from people with their questions.Let me address the concerns of people. It is important that we all support residents to understand SNG’s reset, that they are not scared by things that might be said that are untrue, either through canvassing, or leaflets, or rumours on social media. It’s also important to recognise that SNG have listened and are establishing a dedicated local team of people and tradespeople to meet residents’ expectations of better maintenance and better service from SNG. This is a significant move on their part. The way forward to benefit people is to work together to support residents. So, the points you raise here Marcus need to be addressed by SNG. We have already facilitated meetings with residents and I’m very happy to arrange for you to meet with them so that we can see these questions discussed fully and respectfully. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
So basically, I’d like to clarify then that at the moment that memorandum does not include the power for the Council to use its CPO powers at this point in time?
Answer
The Council has a set of powers that it is given by government in legislation. Legally we cannot rule out receiving a request to consider, but we have not received a request. SNG have made no request and in 23 years I don’t know of the council ever using these powers in this way and any use must have a very strong case to show it is in the communities’ interests. Now any suggestion other than that would be deliberately misleading people and scaremongering and that’s not being responsible. So, it is important that we take these questions, that we sit with SNG, and we have a discussion respectfully, that we go through them in detail and that you have the answers that you’re seeking.
Question 2
From: Jenny Levy on behalf of Gillian Smallman, Chair of Natural Basingstoke
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke strongly support this motion. Can you please advise the next steps that will be taken to progress rapidly towards protecting our irreplaceable chalk streams, and their valuable adjacent landscape?”
Answer
Jenny, thank you very much for your question. There is clearly much to be considered to take this mammoth task forward and I certainly support the Rights of Rivers motion wholeheartedly. The quality of our rivers should be of grave concern to all of us. So, assuming the members of this house support the motion later this evening, then after Council, the matter will be raised at Cabinet. They will come to a view on how best to progress, what information is required, who can supply the data and what powers the Council have to act. They will then set a course of action, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and indeed our community volunteers to progress outcomes as quickly as we can. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Within that, will Council be pushing for the government to publish the chalk stream recovery pack, which was never published and has now been shelved. This pack may well give clear indication about the best actions for maintaining and protecting chalk streams.
Answer
Thank you for your question again. Yes, indeed we will. We’ll be lobbying. As part of our, that is a power we all have is to lobby the government to make sure that we get an answer from them at the very least. So yes, we totally support that, and we’ll be actioning that as soon as we can. Thank you.
Question 3
From:Mr Bates
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
The Gailey Brook in Kingsclere is a rare chalk stream, not only rare in the UK but globally. Increasing pressures from reduced water flow and human interference have significantly depleted the rich and vibrant ecology which once called this river home. As a riparian landowner for over 22 years and the Chair of the Kingsclere Community centre, I have observed the degradation of the Brook, starved of its native wildlife and natural flow - both of which are considered as fundamental within the Declaration for River Rights.
Fish and other wildlife are now absent from the once beautiful Mill Pond, which is now silt clogged, and in the summer months, a fly infested eye sore. KCA, Greener Kingsclere, Southern Water and the Environment Agency recently met with over 100 residents regarding their ongoing plans to restore the vibrant ecology of the Brook, inspired by Cllr Conquest and facilitated by myself. Southern Water and their partners concluded that 30% of the natural stream flow is removed by water processing from bore holes and returned downstream by the Thames Water waste treatment plant. Kingsclere is isolated from the water mains system and relies solely on bore hole water from the same aquifer which feeds the springs at the head of Gailey Brook. Intervention from experts suggests that we are at an inflection point between Gailey Brook being a sterile water course or returning to a beautiful local natural asset.
As a community, KCA has agreed to be a charitable vehicle to help to galvanise support & encourage volunteer activity. Our question as a community is “Will the Borough work alongside Southern Water, the Environment Agency and the Kingsclere Community to reverse the degradation of the Gailey Brook, and other local chalk streams, to support increased protections for chalk streams and accelerate restoration efforts.
Answer
Andy, if I may call you Andy, so many thanks again for your question and for your clear commitment to this important matter for the community and for the borough at a whole. Given the importance of the borough’s water environment, the council will protect and enhance its qualities and support the River Basin Management Plans objectives for improving the state of the borough’s water bodies within the Thames and the South Eastern Basins. The motion later tonight will support us to look at all the natural water infrastructure within our borough, which will certainly include Gaileys Brook. The council is keen to support any work which meets this key objective. And therefore I’m very interested in what your partnership and the body that you represent is seeking to achieve and I would be open to a further discussion including relevant council officers should you feel that a meeting with us together would be of future benefit. Thank you again for your question.
Supplementary Question
My only supplementary question for the record was I was going to ask that we could meet with the borough outside the formal process to work at that. So, that’s been answered magnificently. So, thank you very much everybody.
From: Mr Simpson
To: Leader of the Council
Can the relevant committee chair, member or councillor confirm that the below version of the MoU between BDBC and SNG is hereby struck out pending the introduction of enhanced governance for the regeneration project to address the improvements in the points below?
https://democracy.basingstoke.gov.uk/.../s36291/Report.pdf
With the new MoU managing the contentious issues of how to:
· improve governance of the regeneration by involving BASH residents in the governance process that oversees the regeneration
· relocate those private owners whose land is co-mingled with majority SNG owned land
· ensure full disclosure of the “to be” post regeneration estate layout for BASH on a road by road basis so it is clear which residents are impacted
· cost the trade-off of the private profit made from CPOing privately owned land to support or fully recover the cost to build the social housing
· enshrine the open book accounting principle where the “Private Profit” is base lined and compared to that base throughout the project life cycle
o present fully costed to be plans
o outline timescales in a GANTT chart
o state the mix of existing properties and what the “to be” mix is so that if there is more private housing its profit is known and earmarked for “profit share”
· for those properties impacted establish the “fair profit share” needed to enable their owners to move to a like for like home elsewhere
· clearly state that the “profit share” is the fairest and most transparent way to ensure that the regeneration is seen to be “in the public interest”.
· ensure that SNG and the Hill Group by adopting the above improved governance processes may satisfy BDBC that the use of its CPO powers is “in the public interest” and this is the Council’s preferred and most transparent method of demonstrating this to residents.
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, and it’s good to see you Marcus and thank you for the question. You’ve reached out and I thank you for that and I’m looking forward to seeing you and continuing our conversation on many of these points in some detail. It’s important to recognise that SNG are going to reset the conversation with residents in South Ham and Buckskin. The opportunity for investment in the community and to see that benefit communities across South Ham and Buckskin is a once in a generation prospect. SNG have heard the communities voice loud and clear. They’ve undertaken consultation and engagement already with over 1,300 people at their events, but they respect what they have heard, and Marcus what you are saying here is part of that. I know that they have already engaged with you and want to engage more, with all residents, and they propose a summer of engagement so that they can listen, hear, and then actively work with the community to genuinely co-design what comes next. Residents need to own the way forward. Things like the MOU are always under review, and it is yet to be finalised. The important point for us to remember is the need that so many people have for improvements to their homes, for new investment in shops and community facilities, like the Westside Community Centre, and so much more. But again, I stress this needs to be co-designed. The many different communities in South Ham and Buckskin need to be heard and feel part of the process and understand the opportunity. SNG recognise this and want to expand the co-design work they have done and involve many more people, as many want to be involved, as you said yourself, Marcus. They are going door to door; they are proposing to undertake a deep listening programme over the summer; they want to hear from people with their questions.Let me address the concerns of people. It is important that we all support residents to understand SNG’s reset, that they are not scared by things that might be said that are untrue, either through canvassing, or leaflets, or rumours on social media. It’s also important to recognise that SNG have listened and are establishing a dedicated local team of people and tradespeople to meet residents’ expectations of better maintenance and better service from SNG. This is a significant move on their part. The way forward to benefit people is to work together to support residents. So, the points you raise here Marcus need to be addressed by SNG. We have already facilitated meetings with residents and I’m very happy to arrange for you to meet with them so that we can see these questions discussed fully and respectfully. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
So basically, I’d like to clarify then that at the moment that memorandum does not include the power for the Council to use its CPO powers at this point in time?
Answer
The Council has a set of powers that it is given by government in legislation. Legally we cannot rule out receiving a request to consider, but we have not received a request. SNG have made no request and in 23 years I don’t know of the council ever using these powers in this way and any use must have a very strong case to show it is in the communities’ interests. Now any suggestion other than that would be deliberately misleading people and scaremongering and that’s not being responsible. So, it is important that we take these questions, that we sit with SNG, and we have a discussion respectfully, that we go through them in detail and that you have the answers that you’re seeking.
Question 2
From: Jenny Levy on behalf of Gillian Smallman, Chair of Natural Basingstoke
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke strongly support this motion. Can you please advise the next steps that will be taken to progress rapidly towards protecting our irreplaceable chalk streams, and their valuable adjacent landscape?”
Answer
Jenny, thank you very much for your question. There is clearly much to be considered to take this mammoth task forward and I certainly support the Rights of Rivers motion wholeheartedly. The quality of our rivers should be of grave concern to all of us. So, assuming the members of this house support the motion later this evening, then after Council, the matter will be raised at Cabinet. They will come to a view on how best to progress, what information is required, who can supply the data and what powers the Council have to act. They will then set a course of action, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and indeed our community volunteers to progress outcomes as quickly as we can. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Within that, will Council be pushing for the government to publish the chalk stream recovery pack, which was never published and has now been shelved. This pack may well give clear indication about the best actions for maintaining and protecting chalk streams.
Answer
Thank you for your question again. Yes, indeed we will. We’ll be lobbying. As part of our, that is a power we all have is to lobby the government to make sure that we get an answer from them at the very least. So yes, we totally support that, and we’ll be actioning that as soon as we can. Thank you.
Question 3
From:Mr Bates
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
The Gailey Brook in Kingsclere is a rare chalk stream, not only rare in the UK but globally. Increasing pressures from reduced water flow and human interference have significantly depleted the rich and vibrant ecology which once called this river home. As a riparian landowner for over 22 years and the Chair of the Kingsclere Community centre, I have observed the degradation of the Brook, starved of its native wildlife and natural flow - both of which are considered as fundamental within the Declaration for River Rights.
Fish and other wildlife are now absent from the once beautiful Mill Pond, which is now silt clogged, and in the summer months, a fly infested eye sore. KCA, Greener Kingsclere, Southern Water and the Environment Agency recently met with over 100 residents regarding their ongoing plans to restore the vibrant ecology of the Brook, inspired by Cllr Conquest and facilitated by myself. Southern Water and their partners concluded that 30% of the natural stream flow is removed by water processing from bore holes and returned downstream by the Thames Water waste treatment plant. Kingsclere is isolated from the water mains system and relies solely on bore hole water from the same aquifer which feeds the springs at the head of Gailey Brook. Intervention from experts suggests that we are at an inflection point between Gailey Brook being a sterile water course or returning to a beautiful local natural asset.
As a community, KCA has agreed to be a charitable vehicle to help to galvanise support & encourage volunteer activity. Our question as a community is “Will the Borough work alongside Southern Water, the Environment Agency and the Kingsclere Community to reverse the degradation of the Gailey Brook, and other local chalk streams, to support increased protections for chalk streams and accelerate restoration efforts.
Answer
Andy, if I may call you Andy, so many thanks again for your question and for your clear commitment to this important matter for the community and for the borough at a whole. Given the importance of the borough’s water environment, the council will protect and enhance its qualities and support the River Basin Management Plans objectives for improving the state of the borough’s water bodies within the Thames and the South Eastern Basins. The motion later tonight will support us to look at all the natural water infrastructure within our borough, which will certainly include Gaileys Brook. The council is keen to support any work which meets this key objective. And therefore I’m very interested in what your partnership and the body that you represent is seeking to achieve and I would be open to a further discussion including relevant council officers should you feel that a meeting with us together would be of future benefit. Thank you again for your question.
Supplementary Question
My only supplementary question for the record was I was going to ask that we could meet with the borough outside the formal process to work at that. So, that’s been answered magnificently. So, thank you very much everybody.
12
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 13 May 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 13 May 2025)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
13
Dispensation Consideration
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Dispensation Report Cllr Eachus May 2025 07 May 2025
Minutes
Council considered a request for a dispensation for Councillor Eachus for non-attendance at council meetings for a period of six consecutive months due to parental leave.
Resolved: That Council
In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, approve a dispensation for Councillor Eachus from attending meetings of the Council on the grounds of parental leave from 19 December 2024 for a period of 6 months.
Resolved: That Council
In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, approve a dispensation for Councillor Eachus from attending meetings of the Council on the grounds of parental leave from 19 December 2024 for a period of 6 months.
14
Notice of Motion - Putting an End to Empty Shops - Empowering Our Local Economy.
Proposer: Councillor West
Seconder: Councillor Ibrahim
Across Basingstoke and Deane, long-term vacant commercial units are blighting our high streets and local centres. From our town centre to the retail hubs that form the centre of many of our neighbourhoods like at the Winklebury Centre, residents and businesses alike are frustrated by the lack of progress in bringing empty spaces back into use. Empty units damage footfall, drain confidence, and hold back our local economy. At the same time businesses and organisations are crying out for units that they can afford to lease, whilst high rent demands leave units across the town empty. People are tired of hearing that nothing can be done — it’s time to prove otherwise.
The Government’s High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA) scheme gives councils the power to act where landlords won’t. By becoming an adopter of this scheme, our council could take the lead in tackling vacancy, supporting small businesses, and injecting life back into our town and local centres. These powers can deter speculative rents and ensure retail spaces serve our communities — not sit empty for years.
This Council notes:
· The Government’s HSRA scheme enables local authorities to auction leases for commercial properties left vacant for over 12 months.
· Retail vacancies across Basingstoke and Deane harm local economic growth and community confidence.
· Key retail areas — including the Top of Town and district centres — continue to suffer from long-term empty units with little existing power for the council to intervene.
This Council believes:
· HSRA offers a vital tool to revitalise our high streets, support local enterprise, and create thriving public spaces.
· Persistent vacancies in core commercial areas undermine the future prosperity of our borough.
· Proactively bringing vacant properties back into use will foster a safer, more vibrant, and economically resilient community.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
· Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
· Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
· Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
Seconder: Councillor Ibrahim
Across Basingstoke and Deane, long-term vacant commercial units are blighting our high streets and local centres. From our town centre to the retail hubs that form the centre of many of our neighbourhoods like at the Winklebury Centre, residents and businesses alike are frustrated by the lack of progress in bringing empty spaces back into use. Empty units damage footfall, drain confidence, and hold back our local economy. At the same time businesses and organisations are crying out for units that they can afford to lease, whilst high rent demands leave units across the town empty. People are tired of hearing that nothing can be done — it’s time to prove otherwise.
The Government’s High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA) scheme gives councils the power to act where landlords won’t. By becoming an adopter of this scheme, our council could take the lead in tackling vacancy, supporting small businesses, and injecting life back into our town and local centres. These powers can deter speculative rents and ensure retail spaces serve our communities — not sit empty for years.
This Council notes:
· The Government’s HSRA scheme enables local authorities to auction leases for commercial properties left vacant for over 12 months.
· Retail vacancies across Basingstoke and Deane harm local economic growth and community confidence.
· Key retail areas — including the Top of Town and district centres — continue to suffer from long-term empty units with little existing power for the council to intervene.
This Council believes:
· HSRA offers a vital tool to revitalise our high streets, support local enterprise, and create thriving public spaces.
· Persistent vacancies in core commercial areas undermine the future prosperity of our borough.
· Proactively bringing vacant properties back into use will foster a safer, more vibrant, and economically resilient community.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
· Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
· Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
· Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
Minutes
The following motion was moved by Councillor West and seconded by Councillor Ibrahim:
Across Basingstoke and Deane, long-term vacant commercial units are blighting our high streets and local centres. From our town centre to the retail hubs that form the centre of many of our neighbourhoods like at the Winklebury Centre, residents and businesses alike are frustrated by the lack of progress in bringing empty spaces back into use. Empty units damage footfall, drain confidence, and hold back our local economy. At the same time businesses and organisations are crying out for units that they can afford to lease, whilst high rent demands leave units across the town empty. People are tired of hearing that nothing can be done — it’s time to prove otherwise.
The Government’s High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA) scheme gives councils the power to act where landlords won’t. By becoming an adopter of this scheme, our council could take the lead in tackling vacancy, supporting small businesses, and injecting life back into our town and local centres. These powers can deter speculative rents and ensure retail spaces serve our communities — not sit empty for years.
This Council notes:
· The Government’s HSRA scheme enables local authorities to auction leases for commercial properties left vacant for over 12 months.
· Retail vacancies across Basingstoke and Deane harm local economic growth and community confidence.
· Key retail areas — including the Top of Town and district centres — continue to suffer from long-term empty units with little existing power for the council to intervene.
This Council believes:
· HSRA offers a vital tool to revitalise our high streets, support local enterprise, and create thriving public spaces.
· Persistent vacancies in core commercial areas undermine the future prosperity of our borough.
· Proactively bringing vacant properties back into use will foster a safer, more vibrant, and economically resilient community.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
· Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
· Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
· Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
· Exclude from the scope of the HSRA scheme any shopping centres or retail sites that are solely owned or managed by a single entity — such as Festival Place and Chineham Shopping Centre — recognising that these are privately managed environments with distinct leasing strategies and operational frameworks.
The Mayor invited debate on the motion.
It was acknowledged that empty shops was a problem across the country with high business rates and internet shopping being the primary causes of shop vacancies. Furthermore boarded up and empty shops could be a deterrent to people visiting the area and could often lead to littering, poor maintained buildings, anti-social behaviour and consequently more retail outlets closing.
Although it was acknowledged that the motion was well-intended concerns were raised regarding the 12 month auction process, the implications on officer resources with little reward, how to determine whether a property was empty, the impact on landlords struggling to let an empty unit as 12 months was a relatively short period of time, unclear what the implications were for landlords unable to afford to return properties in a poor state to a reasonable standard and the message that could be portrayed to investors in the borough.
It was highlighted that rents in festival place had been significantly reduced in response to falling market demand but new tenants were being secured and footfall had increased to pre-covid levels.
It was commented that the HSRA scheme could be a useful tool where landlords were not actively managing their properties to potentially offer opportunities to local people and organisations to use the space temporarily. Several members also considered the scheme a useful tool to improve areas where neglectful landlords had allowed their properties to fall into disrepair and a mechanism when required to deal with properties left vacant for a substantial period of time.
Some Members did not support the motion. It was commented that the HRSA scheme was more appropriate in areas where town centres and retail had collapsed. Furthermore the council should continue to support landlords and partners already working to keeping centres vibrant, safe and future ready. It was suggested that the motion was premature but if more detail regarding the scheme became available consideration could be given to how the scheme could be implemented locally.
It was commented that as there could be budget implications, further work should be undertaken to consider the implications before adopting the HRSA scheme. It was suggested that an overview and scrutiny committee undertake a detailed piece of work to consider the concerns and comments raised, implications of the scheme and whether it would be a viable option for the borough, to support Cabinet to reach a conclusion.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 33 votes in favour, 8 votes against and 2 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Across Basingstoke and Deane, long-term vacant commercial units are blighting our high streets and local centres. From our town centre to the retail hubs that form the centre of many of our neighbourhoods like at the Winklebury Centre, residents and businesses alike are frustrated by the lack of progress in bringing empty spaces back into use. Empty units damage footfall, drain confidence, and hold back our local economy. At the same time businesses and organisations are crying out for units that they can afford to lease, whilst high rent demands leave units across the town empty. People are tired of hearing that nothing can be done — it’s time to prove otherwise.
The Government’s High Street Rental Auctions (HSRA) scheme gives councils the power to act where landlords won’t. By becoming an adopter of this scheme, our council could take the lead in tackling vacancy, supporting small businesses, and injecting life back into our town and local centres. These powers can deter speculative rents and ensure retail spaces serve our communities — not sit empty for years.
This Council notes:
· The Government’s HSRA scheme enables local authorities to auction leases for commercial properties left vacant for over 12 months.
· Retail vacancies across Basingstoke and Deane harm local economic growth and community confidence.
· Key retail areas — including the Top of Town and district centres — continue to suffer from long-term empty units with little existing power for the council to intervene.
This Council believes:
· HSRA offers a vital tool to revitalise our high streets, support local enterprise, and create thriving public spaces.
· Persistent vacancies in core commercial areas undermine the future prosperity of our borough.
· Proactively bringing vacant properties back into use will foster a safer, more vibrant, and economically resilient community.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
· Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
· Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
· Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
· Exclude from the scope of the HSRA scheme any shopping centres or retail sites that are solely owned or managed by a single entity — such as Festival Place and Chineham Shopping Centre — recognising that these are privately managed environments with distinct leasing strategies and operational frameworks.
The Mayor invited debate on the motion.
It was acknowledged that empty shops was a problem across the country with high business rates and internet shopping being the primary causes of shop vacancies. Furthermore boarded up and empty shops could be a deterrent to people visiting the area and could often lead to littering, poor maintained buildings, anti-social behaviour and consequently more retail outlets closing.
Although it was acknowledged that the motion was well-intended concerns were raised regarding the 12 month auction process, the implications on officer resources with little reward, how to determine whether a property was empty, the impact on landlords struggling to let an empty unit as 12 months was a relatively short period of time, unclear what the implications were for landlords unable to afford to return properties in a poor state to a reasonable standard and the message that could be portrayed to investors in the borough.
It was highlighted that rents in festival place had been significantly reduced in response to falling market demand but new tenants were being secured and footfall had increased to pre-covid levels.
It was commented that the HSRA scheme could be a useful tool where landlords were not actively managing their properties to potentially offer opportunities to local people and organisations to use the space temporarily. Several members also considered the scheme a useful tool to improve areas where neglectful landlords had allowed their properties to fall into disrepair and a mechanism when required to deal with properties left vacant for a substantial period of time.
Some Members did not support the motion. It was commented that the HRSA scheme was more appropriate in areas where town centres and retail had collapsed. Furthermore the council should continue to support landlords and partners already working to keeping centres vibrant, safe and future ready. It was suggested that the motion was premature but if more detail regarding the scheme became available consideration could be given to how the scheme could be implemented locally.
It was commented that as there could be budget implications, further work should be undertaken to consider the implications before adopting the HRSA scheme. It was suggested that an overview and scrutiny committee undertake a detailed piece of work to consider the concerns and comments raised, implications of the scheme and whether it would be a viable option for the borough, to support Cabinet to reach a conclusion.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 33 votes in favour, 8 votes against and 2 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
15
Notice of Motion - Hampshire County Council to end funding for Adult Day Service at Newman Court at the expense of some of our most vulnerable residents.
Proposer: Councillor Bowes
Seconder: Councillor McCormick
Newman Court is a specialist unit providing care for older adults with a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or cognitive impairment. Providing mental stimulation, through activities and socialisation it is also invaluable in providing much needed respite for carers. Over the years an aging population has meant there are almost insurmountable pressures on adult social care. Combined with years of austerity and cuts, havens like Newman Court are more valuable and necessary than ever, yet the County Council would have us believe the need is falling and it’s somehow ok to end funding as they attempt to fill the gap in their finances. They claim ending the funding for Newman Court, together with a similar facility, Chesil Lodge in Winchester, will “eventually contribute around £250,000”. A drop in their almost £98 million deficit ocean. Closing this facility will not save them from possible bankruptcy, it is a pointless short term non solution that will cost a vast amount more than any perceived saving.
Make no mistake, the need is not falling. Prior to the pandemic there was a waiting list. For 2 years after the pandemic, no new referrals were taken, and as a result the number of attendees is considerably less, for now. The need is, however, rising and unless Basingstoke is somehow bucking the trend of the rest of the country, if not most of the developed world, that is a trend that will only continue.
Council notes that:
· The day care service at Newman Court provides a vital haven for participants and respite for carers.
· That continuation and consistency of care are important for those with cognitive impairment.
· Suggested alternatives of similar care in Reading or Farnborough are impractical due to the interruption in consistency of care and the time and cost spent travelling.
Council believes:
· The closure of the facility at Newman House could result in the cognitive decline of participants and be detrimental to the mental health of carers.
· The closure of the facility could result in carers being unable to join the workforce due to lack of respite in their care of loved ones.
· Any savings made by removing funding for Newman Court day services will be far outweighed by the cost of providing possible full-time care for some participants and the mental health costs of carers.
Council Resolves to:
· Request cabinet to oppose the closure, taking reasonable steps in support of users of Newman Court to campaign against the closure (such as through the use of local media) and to write to the leader of Hampshire County Council to express our deep concern at the removal of funding for Newman House and request the reversal of this flawed plan.
Seconder: Councillor McCormick
Newman Court is a specialist unit providing care for older adults with a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or cognitive impairment. Providing mental stimulation, through activities and socialisation it is also invaluable in providing much needed respite for carers. Over the years an aging population has meant there are almost insurmountable pressures on adult social care. Combined with years of austerity and cuts, havens like Newman Court are more valuable and necessary than ever, yet the County Council would have us believe the need is falling and it’s somehow ok to end funding as they attempt to fill the gap in their finances. They claim ending the funding for Newman Court, together with a similar facility, Chesil Lodge in Winchester, will “eventually contribute around £250,000”. A drop in their almost £98 million deficit ocean. Closing this facility will not save them from possible bankruptcy, it is a pointless short term non solution that will cost a vast amount more than any perceived saving.
Make no mistake, the need is not falling. Prior to the pandemic there was a waiting list. For 2 years after the pandemic, no new referrals were taken, and as a result the number of attendees is considerably less, for now. The need is, however, rising and unless Basingstoke is somehow bucking the trend of the rest of the country, if not most of the developed world, that is a trend that will only continue.
Council notes that:
· The day care service at Newman Court provides a vital haven for participants and respite for carers.
· That continuation and consistency of care are important for those with cognitive impairment.
· Suggested alternatives of similar care in Reading or Farnborough are impractical due to the interruption in consistency of care and the time and cost spent travelling.
Council believes:
· The closure of the facility at Newman House could result in the cognitive decline of participants and be detrimental to the mental health of carers.
· The closure of the facility could result in carers being unable to join the workforce due to lack of respite in their care of loved ones.
· Any savings made by removing funding for Newman Court day services will be far outweighed by the cost of providing possible full-time care for some participants and the mental health costs of carers.
Council Resolves to:
· Request cabinet to oppose the closure, taking reasonable steps in support of users of Newman Court to campaign against the closure (such as through the use of local media) and to write to the leader of Hampshire County Council to express our deep concern at the removal of funding for Newman House and request the reversal of this flawed plan.
Minutes
The following motion was moved by Councillor Bowes and seconded by Councillor McCormick:
Newman Court is a specialist unit providing care for older adults with a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or cognitive impairment. Providing mental stimulation, through activities and socialisation it is also invaluable in providing much needed respite for carers. Over the years an aging population has meant there are almost insurmountable pressures on adult social care. Combined with years of austerity and cuts, havens like Newman Court are more valuable and necessary than ever, yet the County Council would have us believe the need is falling and it’s somehow ok to end funding as they attempt to fill the gap in their finances. They claim ending the funding for Newman Court, together with a similar facility, Chesil Lodge in Winchester, will “eventually contribute around £250,000”. A drop in their almost £98 million deficit ocean. Closing this facility will not save them from possible bankruptcy, it is a pointless short term non solution that will cost a vast amount more than any perceived saving.
Make no mistake, the need is not falling. Prior to the pandemic there was a waiting list. For 2 years after the pandemic, no new referrals were taken, and as a result the number of attendees is considerably less, for now. The need is, however, rising and unless Basingstoke is somehow bucking the trend of the rest of the country, if not most of the developed world, that is a trend that will only continue.
Council notes that:
· The day care service at Newman Court provides a vital haven for participants and respite for carers.
· That continuation and consistency of care are important for those with cognitive impairment.
· Suggested alternatives of similar care in Reading or Farnborough are impractical due to the interruption in consistency of care and the time and cost spent travelling.
Council believes:
· The closure of the facility at Newman House could result in the cognitive decline of participants and be detrimental to the mental health of carers.
· The closure of the facility could result in carers being unable to join the workforce due to lack of respite in their care of loved ones.
· Any savings made by removing funding for Newman Court day services will be far outweighed by the cost of providing possible full-time care for some participants and the mental health costs of carers.
Council Resolves to:
· Request cabinet to oppose the closure, taking reasonable steps in support of users of Newman Court to campaign against the closure (such as through the use of local media) and to write to the leader of Hampshire County Council to express our deep concern at the removal of funding for Newman House and request the reversal of this flawed plan.
Upon a recorded vote the motion was agreed unanimously with 43 votes in Council debated the motion. Several members expressed concern regarding the proposed closure of the facility and the impact of its closure in providing vital services for residents. The financial position of HCC was recognised however it was commented that the proposed funding cut would not materially affect their financial position but would have a devastating effect on users. It was also commented that closure of the facility would result in additional intensive care needs of participants on social services, which would cost more in the future and therefore closure was a short sighted proposal, particularly as demand for dementia care was growing. Furthermore any closure would be more difficult to reinstate at a later date through local government reorganisation. It was highlighted that national funding issues for children’s services and adult social care was unresolved and the pressures on HCC and the NHS demonstrated the importance of devolution. Caution was expressed regarding ambition to design and transform services in the future. It was further commented that responsibility for funding pressures of HCC were as a result of national government funding issues and consequences of political decisions taken at HCC. Further comments were made regarding addressing the consequences of an ageing population, the impact on women who were more likely to be unpaid carers, minoritized communities and the poorest people in the community to access alternative services and the economic value of unpaid carers.
Members were urged to demonstrate to service users and their carers that they mattered and support the motion.
favour.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Newman Court is a specialist unit providing care for older adults with a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or cognitive impairment. Providing mental stimulation, through activities and socialisation it is also invaluable in providing much needed respite for carers. Over the years an aging population has meant there are almost insurmountable pressures on adult social care. Combined with years of austerity and cuts, havens like Newman Court are more valuable and necessary than ever, yet the County Council would have us believe the need is falling and it’s somehow ok to end funding as they attempt to fill the gap in their finances. They claim ending the funding for Newman Court, together with a similar facility, Chesil Lodge in Winchester, will “eventually contribute around £250,000”. A drop in their almost £98 million deficit ocean. Closing this facility will not save them from possible bankruptcy, it is a pointless short term non solution that will cost a vast amount more than any perceived saving.
Make no mistake, the need is not falling. Prior to the pandemic there was a waiting list. For 2 years after the pandemic, no new referrals were taken, and as a result the number of attendees is considerably less, for now. The need is, however, rising and unless Basingstoke is somehow bucking the trend of the rest of the country, if not most of the developed world, that is a trend that will only continue.
Council notes that:
· The day care service at Newman Court provides a vital haven for participants and respite for carers.
· That continuation and consistency of care are important for those with cognitive impairment.
· Suggested alternatives of similar care in Reading or Farnborough are impractical due to the interruption in consistency of care and the time and cost spent travelling.
Council believes:
· The closure of the facility at Newman House could result in the cognitive decline of participants and be detrimental to the mental health of carers.
· The closure of the facility could result in carers being unable to join the workforce due to lack of respite in their care of loved ones.
· Any savings made by removing funding for Newman Court day services will be far outweighed by the cost of providing possible full-time care for some participants and the mental health costs of carers.
Council Resolves to:
· Request cabinet to oppose the closure, taking reasonable steps in support of users of Newman Court to campaign against the closure (such as through the use of local media) and to write to the leader of Hampshire County Council to express our deep concern at the removal of funding for Newman House and request the reversal of this flawed plan.
Upon a recorded vote the motion was agreed unanimously with 43 votes in Council debated the motion. Several members expressed concern regarding the proposed closure of the facility and the impact of its closure in providing vital services for residents. The financial position of HCC was recognised however it was commented that the proposed funding cut would not materially affect their financial position but would have a devastating effect on users. It was also commented that closure of the facility would result in additional intensive care needs of participants on social services, which would cost more in the future and therefore closure was a short sighted proposal, particularly as demand for dementia care was growing. Furthermore any closure would be more difficult to reinstate at a later date through local government reorganisation. It was highlighted that national funding issues for children’s services and adult social care was unresolved and the pressures on HCC and the NHS demonstrated the importance of devolution. Caution was expressed regarding ambition to design and transform services in the future. It was further commented that responsibility for funding pressures of HCC were as a result of national government funding issues and consequences of political decisions taken at HCC. Further comments were made regarding addressing the consequences of an ageing population, the impact on women who were more likely to be unpaid carers, minoritized communities and the poorest people in the community to access alternative services and the economic value of unpaid carers.
Members were urged to demonstrate to service users and their carers that they mattered and support the motion.
favour.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
16
Notice of Motion - Rights of our Rivers (Chalk Streams)
Proposer: Councillor Tuck
Seconder: Councillor Conquest
Council Notes:
Our globally rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams are exceptionally vulnerable to over-abstraction and habitat degradation, given numerous pressures from unabated pollution and accelerating urbanisation.
Within Basingstoke & Deane Borough, we are lucky to enjoy internationally recognised rare natural chalk streams including the River Loddon and River Test amongst others, which deserve protection and support. There is broad consensus among nature NGOs including The Wildlife Trusts and the World Wildlife Fund that the rarity and ecological significance of these streams should earn them a special protected status.
With only 14% of UK rivers in good ecological health and 0% in good chemical health, it is clear that our environmental laws and regulations need urgent revision. Water quality in chalk streams across the UK continues to worsen, with unabated pollution from our highways significantly disrupting the unique and fragile ecology of these rivers, with detrimental impacts for wildlife. Salmon, genetically distinct to southern chalk streams, are at a tipping point of extinction, compounded by deteriorating water quality.
Consultation with residents of the Borough has revealed significant concern about the increasing pressures of over-abstraction, wastewater pollution and road-runoff which degrade local rivers. They are concerned that new developments in the Borough will exacerbate these problems and place further pressure on the water supply.
While degradation of these precious waterways continues, there is hope in an emerging global movement of governments recognising the Rights of Nature, in particular the Rights of Rivers.
Rights of Nature is an innovative way to alter our relationship with nature – from one of dominance to one of interdependency requiring a respectful, holistic and empathic approach. The idea of extending legal personhood rights to non-human entities is not a new concept, with these rights already extended to corporations globally to provide distinct legal status from individuals within an organisation.
Residents are supportive of the Rights of the River framework and are eager to be involved with further efforts to clean up local rivers, valuing community engagement, education opportunities and citizen science projects to understand their local rivers.
The Universal Declaration of River Rights establishes that all rivers shall possess, at minimum, the following fundamental rights:
1) The right to flow,
2) The right to perform essential functions within the river’s ecosystem,
3) The right to be free from pollution,
4) The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers,
5) The right to native biodiversity, and;
6) The right to regeneration and restoration.
Council recommendations and requests of Cabinet:
1) This Council recognises the growing global movement of ‘Rights of Nature’ as an important framework for modifying and improving its relationship with the natural environment.
2) This Council is committed to supporting our interactions with local rivers and chalk streams in the context of the ‘Rights of Rivers’ movement, through which the health of our waterways and native species can be maintained and improved.
3) This Council requests Cabinet to work alongside local communities and relevant stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the Rights of Rivers along our rivers and chalk streams. This will involve producing a ‘Declaration on the Rights of the River’ by relevant stakeholders to seek endorsement by the Council by Spring 2026.
4) This Council requests Cabinet to reaffirm existing Statements of Common Ground to ensure that partners legally responsible and accountable for monitoring, protecting and improving the standards and water quality fulfil their obligations at all times.
5) This Council request Cabinet to write to the Environment Agency (EA) to express the Council’s concerns about the poor ecological and chemical health of these rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams. This communication must require the EA to explain to the Council in detail how they have been, and how they plan to further protect and enhance our chalk streams.
6) This Council, in accordance with the Adopted 2016 Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029), Policy EM6 and its successors, requests Cabinet to:
a) Work in collaboration with all relevant agencies and stakeholders to safeguard and enhance water and habitat quality in our chalk streams.
b) Ensure that Strategic Planning will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams and that the Council will take all necessary measures to protect these ecosystems, including within the Local Plan review and its successors.
c) Within the scope of agreed policy, to request officers and the development control process to safeguard, where they are able, that individual planning decisions will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams, with any development proposals within a river catchment required, including consideration of the imposition of a condition of the planning process, to have no adverse impact on the health, water quality or ecological integrity, including no deterioration within band status, and to, where possible, deliver improvements.
Seconder: Councillor Conquest
Council Notes:
Our globally rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams are exceptionally vulnerable to over-abstraction and habitat degradation, given numerous pressures from unabated pollution and accelerating urbanisation.
Within Basingstoke & Deane Borough, we are lucky to enjoy internationally recognised rare natural chalk streams including the River Loddon and River Test amongst others, which deserve protection and support. There is broad consensus among nature NGOs including The Wildlife Trusts and the World Wildlife Fund that the rarity and ecological significance of these streams should earn them a special protected status.
With only 14% of UK rivers in good ecological health and 0% in good chemical health, it is clear that our environmental laws and regulations need urgent revision. Water quality in chalk streams across the UK continues to worsen, with unabated pollution from our highways significantly disrupting the unique and fragile ecology of these rivers, with detrimental impacts for wildlife. Salmon, genetically distinct to southern chalk streams, are at a tipping point of extinction, compounded by deteriorating water quality.
Consultation with residents of the Borough has revealed significant concern about the increasing pressures of over-abstraction, wastewater pollution and road-runoff which degrade local rivers. They are concerned that new developments in the Borough will exacerbate these problems and place further pressure on the water supply.
While degradation of these precious waterways continues, there is hope in an emerging global movement of governments recognising the Rights of Nature, in particular the Rights of Rivers.
Rights of Nature is an innovative way to alter our relationship with nature – from one of dominance to one of interdependency requiring a respectful, holistic and empathic approach. The idea of extending legal personhood rights to non-human entities is not a new concept, with these rights already extended to corporations globally to provide distinct legal status from individuals within an organisation.
Residents are supportive of the Rights of the River framework and are eager to be involved with further efforts to clean up local rivers, valuing community engagement, education opportunities and citizen science projects to understand their local rivers.
The Universal Declaration of River Rights establishes that all rivers shall possess, at minimum, the following fundamental rights:
1) The right to flow,
2) The right to perform essential functions within the river’s ecosystem,
3) The right to be free from pollution,
4) The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers,
5) The right to native biodiversity, and;
6) The right to regeneration and restoration.
Council recommendations and requests of Cabinet:
1) This Council recognises the growing global movement of ‘Rights of Nature’ as an important framework for modifying and improving its relationship with the natural environment.
2) This Council is committed to supporting our interactions with local rivers and chalk streams in the context of the ‘Rights of Rivers’ movement, through which the health of our waterways and native species can be maintained and improved.
3) This Council requests Cabinet to work alongside local communities and relevant stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the Rights of Rivers along our rivers and chalk streams. This will involve producing a ‘Declaration on the Rights of the River’ by relevant stakeholders to seek endorsement by the Council by Spring 2026.
4) This Council requests Cabinet to reaffirm existing Statements of Common Ground to ensure that partners legally responsible and accountable for monitoring, protecting and improving the standards and water quality fulfil their obligations at all times.
5) This Council request Cabinet to write to the Environment Agency (EA) to express the Council’s concerns about the poor ecological and chemical health of these rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams. This communication must require the EA to explain to the Council in detail how they have been, and how they plan to further protect and enhance our chalk streams.
6) This Council, in accordance with the Adopted 2016 Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029), Policy EM6 and its successors, requests Cabinet to:
a) Work in collaboration with all relevant agencies and stakeholders to safeguard and enhance water and habitat quality in our chalk streams.
b) Ensure that Strategic Planning will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams and that the Council will take all necessary measures to protect these ecosystems, including within the Local Plan review and its successors.
c) Within the scope of agreed policy, to request officers and the development control process to safeguard, where they are able, that individual planning decisions will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams, with any development proposals within a river catchment required, including consideration of the imposition of a condition of the planning process, to have no adverse impact on the health, water quality or ecological integrity, including no deterioration within band status, and to, where possible, deliver improvements.
Minutes
The following motion was moved by Councillor Tuck and seconded by Councillor Conquest:
Council Notes:
Our globally rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams are exceptionally vulnerable to over-abstraction and habitat degradation, given numerous pressures from unabated pollution and accelerating urbanisation.
Within Basingstoke & Deane Borough, we are lucky to enjoy internationally recognised rare natural chalk streams including the River Loddon and River Test amongst others, which deserve protection and support. There is broad consensus among nature NGOs including The Wildlife Trusts and the World Wildlife Fund that the rarity and ecological significance of these streams should earn them a special protected status.
With only 14% of UK rivers in good ecological health and 0% in good chemical health, it is clear that our environmental laws and regulations need urgent revision. Water quality in chalk streams across the UK continues to worsen, with unabated pollution from our highways significantly disrupting the unique and fragile ecology of these rivers, with detrimental impacts for wildlife. Salmon, genetically distinct to southern chalk streams, are at a tipping point of extinction, compounded by deteriorating water quality.
Consultation with residents of the Borough has revealed significant concern about the increasing pressures of over-abstraction, wastewater pollution and road-runoff which degrade local rivers. They are concerned that new developments in the Borough will exacerbate these problems and place further pressure on the water supply.
While degradation of these precious waterways continues, there is hope in an emerging global movement of governments recognising the Rights of Nature, in particular the Rights of Rivers.
Rights of Nature is an innovative way to alter our relationship with nature – from one of dominance to one of interdependency requiring a respectful, holistic and empathic approach. The idea of extending legal personhood rights to non-human entities is not a new concept, with these rights already extended to corporations globally to provide distinct legal status from individuals within an organisation.
Residents are supportive of the Rights of the River framework and are eager to be involved with further efforts to clean up local rivers, valuing community engagement, education opportunities and citizen science projects to understand their local rivers.
The Universal Declaration of River Rights establishes that all rivers shall possess, at minimum, the following fundamental rights:
1) The right to flow,
2) The right to perform essential functions within the river’s ecosystem,
3) The right to be free from pollution,
4) The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers,
5) The right to native biodiversity, and;
6) The right to regeneration and restoration.
Council recommendations and requests of Cabinet:
1) This Council recognises the growing global movement of ‘Rights of Nature’ as an important framework for modifying and improving its relationship with the natural environment.
2) This Council is committed to supporting our interactions with local rivers and chalk streams in the context of the ‘Rights of Rivers’ movement, through which the health of our waterways and native species can be maintained and improved.
3) This Council requests Cabinet to work alongside local communities and relevant stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the Rights of Rivers along our rivers and chalk streams. This will involve producing a ‘Declaration on the Rights of the River’ by relevant stakeholders to seek endorsement by the Council by Spring 2026.
4) This Council requests Cabinet to reaffirm existing Statements of Common Ground to ensure that partners legally responsible and accountable for monitoring, protecting and improving the standards and water quality fulfil their obligations at all times.
5) This Council request Cabinet to write to the Environment Agency (EA) to express the Council’s concerns about the poor ecological and chemical health of these rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams. This communication must require the EA to explain to the Council in detail how they have been, and how they plan to further protect and enhance our chalk streams.
6) This Council, in accordance with the Adopted 2016 Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029), Policy EM6 and its successors, requests Cabinet to:
a) Work in collaboration with all relevant agencies and stakeholders to safeguard and enhance water and habitat quality in our chalk streams.
b) Ensure that Strategic Planning will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams and that the Council will take all necessary measures within its remit to protect these ecosystems, including within the Local Plan review and its successors.
c) Within the scope of agreed policy, to request officers and the development control process to safeguard, where they are able, that individual planning decisions will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams, with any development proposals within a river catchment required, including consideration of the imposition of a condition of the planning process, to have no adverse impact on the health, water quality or ecological integrity, including no deterioration within band status, and to, where possible, deliver improvements.
The Mayor invited debate on the motion. It was recognised that the motion raised important issues for consideration particularly as Hampshire had more river and wetland sites of national importance for wildlife than any other county in England.
A range of comments and concerns were also made which included:
Water quality and potable water supply in the context of the climate and ecological emergency. Sewerage discharge in waterways and the impact on biodiversity. Statutory bodies needed to be held to account. Commitment to work with statutory bodies and voluntary groups to protect, manage and improve the water quality of the boroughs waterways. Concern that protection for chalk streams and blanket bogs had been removed from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which sends the wrong message that nature can be an afterthought in the face of planning pressures. Economic growth and environmental protection must go together. History of neglect of waterways by successive governments. Government and water companies needed to take responsibility. The District Council’s Network was lobbying government cross party on changes to the infrastructure bill. The North Wessex Downs National Landscape had carried out a range of studies regarding chalk streams and could provide a valuable contribution to discussions. Concern that references in the motion to planning and the Local Plan may be unenforceable.
The motion was put to a recorded vote where there voted 41 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Council Notes:
Our globally rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams are exceptionally vulnerable to over-abstraction and habitat degradation, given numerous pressures from unabated pollution and accelerating urbanisation.
Within Basingstoke & Deane Borough, we are lucky to enjoy internationally recognised rare natural chalk streams including the River Loddon and River Test amongst others, which deserve protection and support. There is broad consensus among nature NGOs including The Wildlife Trusts and the World Wildlife Fund that the rarity and ecological significance of these streams should earn them a special protected status.
With only 14% of UK rivers in good ecological health and 0% in good chemical health, it is clear that our environmental laws and regulations need urgent revision. Water quality in chalk streams across the UK continues to worsen, with unabated pollution from our highways significantly disrupting the unique and fragile ecology of these rivers, with detrimental impacts for wildlife. Salmon, genetically distinct to southern chalk streams, are at a tipping point of extinction, compounded by deteriorating water quality.
Consultation with residents of the Borough has revealed significant concern about the increasing pressures of over-abstraction, wastewater pollution and road-runoff which degrade local rivers. They are concerned that new developments in the Borough will exacerbate these problems and place further pressure on the water supply.
While degradation of these precious waterways continues, there is hope in an emerging global movement of governments recognising the Rights of Nature, in particular the Rights of Rivers.
Rights of Nature is an innovative way to alter our relationship with nature – from one of dominance to one of interdependency requiring a respectful, holistic and empathic approach. The idea of extending legal personhood rights to non-human entities is not a new concept, with these rights already extended to corporations globally to provide distinct legal status from individuals within an organisation.
Residents are supportive of the Rights of the River framework and are eager to be involved with further efforts to clean up local rivers, valuing community engagement, education opportunities and citizen science projects to understand their local rivers.
The Universal Declaration of River Rights establishes that all rivers shall possess, at minimum, the following fundamental rights:
1) The right to flow,
2) The right to perform essential functions within the river’s ecosystem,
3) The right to be free from pollution,
4) The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers,
5) The right to native biodiversity, and;
6) The right to regeneration and restoration.
Council recommendations and requests of Cabinet:
1) This Council recognises the growing global movement of ‘Rights of Nature’ as an important framework for modifying and improving its relationship with the natural environment.
2) This Council is committed to supporting our interactions with local rivers and chalk streams in the context of the ‘Rights of Rivers’ movement, through which the health of our waterways and native species can be maintained and improved.
3) This Council requests Cabinet to work alongside local communities and relevant stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the Rights of Rivers along our rivers and chalk streams. This will involve producing a ‘Declaration on the Rights of the River’ by relevant stakeholders to seek endorsement by the Council by Spring 2026.
4) This Council requests Cabinet to reaffirm existing Statements of Common Ground to ensure that partners legally responsible and accountable for monitoring, protecting and improving the standards and water quality fulfil their obligations at all times.
5) This Council request Cabinet to write to the Environment Agency (EA) to express the Council’s concerns about the poor ecological and chemical health of these rare and ecologically fragile chalk streams. This communication must require the EA to explain to the Council in detail how they have been, and how they plan to further protect and enhance our chalk streams.
6) This Council, in accordance with the Adopted 2016 Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029), Policy EM6 and its successors, requests Cabinet to:
a) Work in collaboration with all relevant agencies and stakeholders to safeguard and enhance water and habitat quality in our chalk streams.
b) Ensure that Strategic Planning will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams and that the Council will take all necessary measures within its remit to protect these ecosystems, including within the Local Plan review and its successors.
c) Within the scope of agreed policy, to request officers and the development control process to safeguard, where they are able, that individual planning decisions will take account of the Rights of Rivers and chalk streams, with any development proposals within a river catchment required, including consideration of the imposition of a condition of the planning process, to have no adverse impact on the health, water quality or ecological integrity, including no deterioration within band status, and to, where possible, deliver improvements.
The Mayor invited debate on the motion. It was recognised that the motion raised important issues for consideration particularly as Hampshire had more river and wetland sites of national importance for wildlife than any other county in England.
A range of comments and concerns were also made which included:
Water quality and potable water supply in the context of the climate and ecological emergency. Sewerage discharge in waterways and the impact on biodiversity. Statutory bodies needed to be held to account. Commitment to work with statutory bodies and voluntary groups to protect, manage and improve the water quality of the boroughs waterways. Concern that protection for chalk streams and blanket bogs had been removed from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which sends the wrong message that nature can be an afterthought in the face of planning pressures. Economic growth and environmental protection must go together. History of neglect of waterways by successive governments. Government and water companies needed to take responsibility. The District Council’s Network was lobbying government cross party on changes to the infrastructure bill. The North Wessex Downs National Landscape had carried out a range of studies regarding chalk streams and could provide a valuable contribution to discussions. Concern that references in the motion to planning and the Local Plan may be unenforceable.
The motion was put to a recorded vote where there voted 41 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
17
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Leader of the Council
Homeowners in Buckskin and South Ham are frightened and angry. At recent public engagement events hosted by SNG, many left feeling uncertain and distressed by the looming threat of compulsory purchase orders tied to the proposed regeneration plans. These are not just houses — they are people’s homes, built over lifetimes, rich with memories and community ties, their forever homes.
Now, homeowners are left in limbo. They don’t know if or when they might be impacted. Should they invest in their homes? Should they go ahead with that new kitchen, redecorate the lounge, or carry out repairs — or will it all be for nothing if a CPO forces them out?
This lack of clarity is deeply unfair. Will the administration today give a clear and unambiguous commitment that no homeowner will be forced out of their home against their will? Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust that local people have placed in this council.
Answer
I would like to respond, Mr Mayor. Sean, you are one of the ward councillors and you know the answer to this question. You’ve had the answer from SNG and you’ve also had it from me on more than one occasion. I couldn’t have been clearer about this. So, you asking this question feels more about politics than helping residents and is certainly amplifying the uncertainty and the fear they’re feeling. Marcus came here this evening as a resident with concerns and questions. He’s not the only resident.
You’ve been briefed by SNG, you have the facts, you also know that they propose to reset the conversation. SNG respect and have heard the views of residents. So, the choice is really either to work with SNG to represent your residents or to continue to put out you have is either to work with SNG to represent your residents or continue to put out leaflets and ask questions like this, where you already know the answer. The answer would be no different if you were sat here. Legally we cannot rule out receiving a request to consider, but we have not received a request, SNG have made no such request and in 23 years I do not know of this council ever using these powers in this way, and any use must have a very strong case to show it’s in the community’s interest.
Any suggestion other than that is deliberately misleading people and scaremongering, that is not being responsible. So here’s a question to you, are you going get behind SNGs reset and summer of engagement? Will you promote that? Will you help shape that? Will you take that consultation positively into the community and help your residents who want to see investment in their community? Will you help residents co-design? Will you support them shaping the future? And will you take those messages with us, as we are, to SNG to bring all the community together with SNG to move the project forward positively and constructively?
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, so will the council Leader and importantly the Portfolio Holder for Major Projects and Regeneration commit to attending future public engagement events like I have, held by SNG, so that they can witness firsthand the level of concern and uncertainty being expressed by both tenants and homeowners affected by the proposed regeneration in both Buckskin and South Ham? Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Sean, we’ve both been to events in Buckskin and events in South Ham. More than that, I’ve sat in the living rooms of residents and spoken directly to them about the concerns they have, about the fact of leaflets that have been distributed that have scared them terribly. That’s a mistake and that should also be an issue we consider. How communication to residents is made and done is incredibly important. We should not spread fear. We should not engage in that kind of politics. So, let’s take a step back. Let’s listen to the residents who have genuine concerns about the future of their community.
And let’s also not forget that Buckskin and South Ham is not one community. There are many communities in Buckskin and South Ham, different communities, and they each need to be heard, and they each have different needs, and different parts to play in this process. Let’s help bind them together with SNG in a way that brings ideas and thoughts about how that community can change and grow in the future, around the community facilities, the shops, the schools, the housing that we need, and the housing that needs to be protected and sustained. There’s a whole range of things that we need to talk about with SNG, with residents engaged, so they understand the process. But the point is that we take residents with us. So yes, I’m very happy to continue in those public meetings.
Question 2
From: Councillor Tom
To: Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Could the Cabinet Portfolio Holder share their thoughts on the possibility of developing a maze in Basingstoke as a unique tourist attraction? Such an initiative could help make our town even more distinct and memorable, potentially boosting tourism and fostering local pride.
I believe that a well-designed maze could not only enhance the visitor experience but also contribute to the local economy. With the idea of making Basingstoke “A-maze-ingstoke”, how feasible would it be to explore the creation of such an attraction?
Answer
I’m responding because I was around the last time this was put forward to the Leisure Park MAP in about 2011. So, you’re not the first councillor, unfortunately to put this idea. You’re not even the first councillor from Popley. It was one of your predecessors who did it. We very quickly established we’d need to take a very large piece of public open space. Not always a popular thing. We would then need to staff it when the venue is open because clearly if someone had a medical emergency, someone’s got to be there to help emergency services get through the maze to find them and support them. Then we’d have to seal it at night to make sure at night no one else went in there and had the same issue. So, we’d have lots of security. We’d also have to maintain a hell of a lot of hedges and that would need to be carefully maintained throughout the year. It’s a significant maintenance burden on our officers. That’s what happened last time we looked into it. Turned out to be something of a labyrinth and I’d hedge my bets that if we looked into it again, we will find if we’ve taken the wrong turn and it results in a dead end. So, I think rather than doing that and looking for the exit, we’ll get lost now. Thank you.
Question 3
From:Councillor Court
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Subject: Protection and Future Use of Old Down Woodland Park
Old Down Woodland Park is widely recognised as one of Basingstoke’s most important natural spaces, including being one of the best sites in Hampshire for the Small Blue butterfly, and currently holds Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) status. There is, however, a current proposal to use Section 106 funds from neighbouring housing developments to install recreational infrastructure in Old Down Woodland Park, such as park benches, signage, or play equipment.
What assessment, if any, has been undertaken to evaluate the impact such installations would have on the park’s biodiversity and its fundamentally wild character?
Will the Portfolio Holder agree that the primary purpose of Old Down Woodland Park should be to protect nature and one of conservation, and that it is vital that any use of section 106 funds supports its protection, not its degradation and that any future enhancements to the site should reflect that purpose?
Answer
I thank Cllr Court for his question. Old Down is a multi-functional green space within the town and is an important resource both to wildlife and residents in the local area having been laid out in the late 1990s as part of the adjacent Gabriel Park housing estate. It functions as an area for informal recreation and play, elements that continue today but the site is also very important for its value as a nature conservation resource as reflected in the SINC designation you referred to. I can assure you that this will continue to be the case, and a key aim of the proposals funded by the open space 106 contributions is to ensure that the naturalistic character and the nature within Old Down are protected.
The pressure on the site though has increased over the years with more people from new and nearby residential developments at Kennel Farm, Hounsome Fields, and Basingstoke Golf Course visiting Old Down. So, a balance needs to be made between protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats and species within the site, and also ensuring that the site meets the needs of all local residents. And it’s the intention that the project would achieve this. The journey of the project to date has included close involvement and liaison with a number of internal teams including the biodiversity and ranger teams in order to assess if there are any impacts of proposals on habitats and wildlife species. Local members and Portfolio Holders were engaged with the development of options for the initial consultation carried out last year. From the initial consultation with the community, there was clearly a split in the support which indicated broad support for the options presented but with nature conservation concerns.
Several Cabinet Members have since met with representatives from Natural Basingstoke, Greener Basingstoke, and the local Conservation groups as part of this ongoing consultation process. So, the scheme is currently being developed in more detail and we have committed to carrying out a further public consultation regarding the proposals later this year. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Why has there been no meaningful progress in advancing the parks designation as a local nature reserve and whether this designation is currently being prioritised? And will the portfolio holder commit to fully engaging with local stakeholders including the Old Down Wildlife Group, whose members have expressed deep concerns the park is at risk of being urbanised and losing its ecological value?
Answer
Thank you, yes. Firstly your second part, we will commit to engage with all of the various bodies. That’s an absolute certainty because we want to get this right. The other issue is technically, I think we’ve answered this in questions before, the protection that you get from a LNR is not as, well, its equivalent to a SINC, they’re both protected, they work the same. It’s just a different method, so at this stage it is something that the officers are not pushing forward because we feel it’s protected enough at this present time. Thank you.
Question 4
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Subject: Access to Concessionary Rates for Disabled Residents at the Aquadrome
I have been contacted by a resident of my ward who was unable to access the concessionary rate at the council-owned Aquadrome. Despite presenting valid and officially recognised proof of disability in the form of a Hampshire Yellow Card and Gateway Card for his son he was told he had to register to access the concessionary rates.
Can the Cabinet Member explain why disabled residents who already hold recognised forms of identification issued by the local authority are still required to undergo a further registration process to access concessionary rates at council-run facilities?
Will the council review this process, with a view to removing unnecessary barriers for casual disabled users and ensuring the policy aligns with the council’s stated commitment to accessibility and inclusion?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and it’s great to see you in the chair. The Aquadrome is currently managed on behalf of the council and the Leisure Trust by Serco Leisure. Serco Leisure’s policy requires a resident to provide valid recognised proof of disability such as the Hampshire Yellow Card in order to qualify for the concessionary rate. Once evidence has been provided, people are required to register onto the Serco system as a one off and then they are provided with the ‘More membership card’. The reason for this is to allow people to access the facility turnstiles without them having to wait at reception at busy pinch point times. The centre staff also register users on the system to ensure staff are aware that during an emergency situation, that there are residents using the facility that may require additional support in evacuating the building. It is a requirement to have user details should any incidents occur, and details need to be passed to the emergency services. There are also added benefits to having the card such as early booking opportunities and access to the facilities. With the resident’s permission, I am happy to ask Serco to support the resident to register onto the system, so he has access to the benefits provided through the More card and ensure staff at the Aquadrome are equipped to provide the right support to keep the resident safe in the case of an emergency.
Supplementary Question
Following the reports from a resident in my ward that the Aquadrome may have been unsafe during the recent Easter school holidays due to overcrowding in the lagoon with over 50 people waiting nearly half an hour to use the changing room facilities. Will the administration investigate how this situation arose and whether ticketing levels can be better managed to ensure a safer and more enjoyable experience to users. Thank you.
Answer
Yes, I’d certainly happily investigate. Also, please come to me as soon as you can with these issues.
Question 5
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
What assessment has the administration undertaken to fully understand the significant adverse impact that the proposed relocation of the Golf Centre’s pitch and putt course to Down Grange Park would have on local residents and existing community groups — including dog walkers, the Basingstoke Athletics Club, and the Basingstoke Disc Golf Club — who currently make regular use of this valued green space? Has there been any formal consultation with the current users of Down Grange Park regarding the potential impact of these proposals?
What alternative sites have been explored and assessed for the Golf Centre’s relocation?
What consideration has been given to the biodiversity, mature habitats, and wildlife present at Down Grange Park in the decision-making process?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Dillow for your question. As you know, the decision taken by Cabinet in January identified land south of Down Grange House as the preferred site to take forward for the potential relocation of the pitch and putt, driving range and adventure golf currently located at Basingstoke Golf Centre, should Great Wolf get planning permission.
A review of council-owned land that would provide enough space to re-locate the facilities currently on offer at the golf centre was carried out. Given the space required to accommodate the pitch and putt and as a large part of the area already is home to the sports complex, Down Grange was identified as the most suitable site to take forward for further investigation.
It was disappointing to see the language used in a petition claiming that the proposals would lead to the destruction of land at Down Grange. I can assure everyone in this Chamber that this is just not true. As a Cabinet, we are absolutely focused on protecting and enhancing biodiversity and our wider environment. That is why it is one of our priorities in the Council Plan.
As part of the commitment, we would protect established trees, plants and habitats and explore wider improvements to enhance the open space to deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity value of the land, which is our land. This would all be independently assessed as part of any future planning application.
At a time when other councils can’t afford to invest, or are forced to close sports facilities, we remain committed to exploring how we can enhance our facilities. We want to see the future sporting stars come from Basingstoke. The facilities at Down Grange offer the perfect environment to nurture young talent and provide a clear path from grass sports to professional competition. Subject to getting planning permission, the proposals being developed by Great Wolf would provide amazing new leisure facilities and attract thousands of visitors to the borough. Importantly, it would unlock vital investment and we are actively exploring how this could be used to enhance the facilities at Down Grange. Just to say that we want to get to the planning stage of the proposal where we actually understand what’s there and not so much about the destruction and what’s out there at the moment. It’s a different picture.
Supplementary Question
The Council’s website currently states that the proposed location would avoid the need to use any of the area currently used by other clubs at Down Grange Sports Complex and protects the natural landscape of this area at Down Grange. Now, in my view, this statement is inaccurate. I’ve spoken to users of Down Grange Park, adjacent to the Miller and Carter restaurant. It is actively used every day by groups including the athletics club and the disc golf club as well as by local residents and dog walkers for recreation and exercise.
So will the portfolio holder commit to correcting this statement on the council’s website to accurately reflect the genuine and significant impact the proposal to relocate the pitch and putt course to this much-loved green space would have on existing users and community groups. Thank you.
Answer
Yes, thank you Mr Mayor. I’m also aware of extra use that’s down there. I’ve been having conversations with sports clubs and some other users that I wasn’t aware of, and I’ve asked council officers on the use of that area. So, we’re learning all the time. I’m happy to change the wording. I’m sure it wasn’t on purpose. I’m sure the wording is more about the formal use of Down Grange and obviously not the full use, but yeah, I’m happy to look into the wording.
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Leader of the Council
Homeowners in Buckskin and South Ham are frightened and angry. At recent public engagement events hosted by SNG, many left feeling uncertain and distressed by the looming threat of compulsory purchase orders tied to the proposed regeneration plans. These are not just houses — they are people’s homes, built over lifetimes, rich with memories and community ties, their forever homes.
Now, homeowners are left in limbo. They don’t know if or when they might be impacted. Should they invest in their homes? Should they go ahead with that new kitchen, redecorate the lounge, or carry out repairs — or will it all be for nothing if a CPO forces them out?
This lack of clarity is deeply unfair. Will the administration today give a clear and unambiguous commitment that no homeowner will be forced out of their home against their will? Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust that local people have placed in this council.
Answer
I would like to respond, Mr Mayor. Sean, you are one of the ward councillors and you know the answer to this question. You’ve had the answer from SNG and you’ve also had it from me on more than one occasion. I couldn’t have been clearer about this. So, you asking this question feels more about politics than helping residents and is certainly amplifying the uncertainty and the fear they’re feeling. Marcus came here this evening as a resident with concerns and questions. He’s not the only resident.
You’ve been briefed by SNG, you have the facts, you also know that they propose to reset the conversation. SNG respect and have heard the views of residents. So, the choice is really either to work with SNG to represent your residents or to continue to put out you have is either to work with SNG to represent your residents or continue to put out leaflets and ask questions like this, where you already know the answer. The answer would be no different if you were sat here. Legally we cannot rule out receiving a request to consider, but we have not received a request, SNG have made no such request and in 23 years I do not know of this council ever using these powers in this way, and any use must have a very strong case to show it’s in the community’s interest.
Any suggestion other than that is deliberately misleading people and scaremongering, that is not being responsible. So here’s a question to you, are you going get behind SNGs reset and summer of engagement? Will you promote that? Will you help shape that? Will you take that consultation positively into the community and help your residents who want to see investment in their community? Will you help residents co-design? Will you support them shaping the future? And will you take those messages with us, as we are, to SNG to bring all the community together with SNG to move the project forward positively and constructively?
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor, so will the council Leader and importantly the Portfolio Holder for Major Projects and Regeneration commit to attending future public engagement events like I have, held by SNG, so that they can witness firsthand the level of concern and uncertainty being expressed by both tenants and homeowners affected by the proposed regeneration in both Buckskin and South Ham? Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Sean, we’ve both been to events in Buckskin and events in South Ham. More than that, I’ve sat in the living rooms of residents and spoken directly to them about the concerns they have, about the fact of leaflets that have been distributed that have scared them terribly. That’s a mistake and that should also be an issue we consider. How communication to residents is made and done is incredibly important. We should not spread fear. We should not engage in that kind of politics. So, let’s take a step back. Let’s listen to the residents who have genuine concerns about the future of their community.
And let’s also not forget that Buckskin and South Ham is not one community. There are many communities in Buckskin and South Ham, different communities, and they each need to be heard, and they each have different needs, and different parts to play in this process. Let’s help bind them together with SNG in a way that brings ideas and thoughts about how that community can change and grow in the future, around the community facilities, the shops, the schools, the housing that we need, and the housing that needs to be protected and sustained. There’s a whole range of things that we need to talk about with SNG, with residents engaged, so they understand the process. But the point is that we take residents with us. So yes, I’m very happy to continue in those public meetings.
Question 2
From: Councillor Tom
To: Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Could the Cabinet Portfolio Holder share their thoughts on the possibility of developing a maze in Basingstoke as a unique tourist attraction? Such an initiative could help make our town even more distinct and memorable, potentially boosting tourism and fostering local pride.
I believe that a well-designed maze could not only enhance the visitor experience but also contribute to the local economy. With the idea of making Basingstoke “A-maze-ingstoke”, how feasible would it be to explore the creation of such an attraction?
Answer
I’m responding because I was around the last time this was put forward to the Leisure Park MAP in about 2011. So, you’re not the first councillor, unfortunately to put this idea. You’re not even the first councillor from Popley. It was one of your predecessors who did it. We very quickly established we’d need to take a very large piece of public open space. Not always a popular thing. We would then need to staff it when the venue is open because clearly if someone had a medical emergency, someone’s got to be there to help emergency services get through the maze to find them and support them. Then we’d have to seal it at night to make sure at night no one else went in there and had the same issue. So, we’d have lots of security. We’d also have to maintain a hell of a lot of hedges and that would need to be carefully maintained throughout the year. It’s a significant maintenance burden on our officers. That’s what happened last time we looked into it. Turned out to be something of a labyrinth and I’d hedge my bets that if we looked into it again, we will find if we’ve taken the wrong turn and it results in a dead end. So, I think rather than doing that and looking for the exit, we’ll get lost now. Thank you.
Question 3
From:Councillor Court
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Subject: Protection and Future Use of Old Down Woodland Park
Old Down Woodland Park is widely recognised as one of Basingstoke’s most important natural spaces, including being one of the best sites in Hampshire for the Small Blue butterfly, and currently holds Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) status. There is, however, a current proposal to use Section 106 funds from neighbouring housing developments to install recreational infrastructure in Old Down Woodland Park, such as park benches, signage, or play equipment.
What assessment, if any, has been undertaken to evaluate the impact such installations would have on the park’s biodiversity and its fundamentally wild character?
Will the Portfolio Holder agree that the primary purpose of Old Down Woodland Park should be to protect nature and one of conservation, and that it is vital that any use of section 106 funds supports its protection, not its degradation and that any future enhancements to the site should reflect that purpose?
Answer
I thank Cllr Court for his question. Old Down is a multi-functional green space within the town and is an important resource both to wildlife and residents in the local area having been laid out in the late 1990s as part of the adjacent Gabriel Park housing estate. It functions as an area for informal recreation and play, elements that continue today but the site is also very important for its value as a nature conservation resource as reflected in the SINC designation you referred to. I can assure you that this will continue to be the case, and a key aim of the proposals funded by the open space 106 contributions is to ensure that the naturalistic character and the nature within Old Down are protected.
The pressure on the site though has increased over the years with more people from new and nearby residential developments at Kennel Farm, Hounsome Fields, and Basingstoke Golf Course visiting Old Down. So, a balance needs to be made between protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats and species within the site, and also ensuring that the site meets the needs of all local residents. And it’s the intention that the project would achieve this. The journey of the project to date has included close involvement and liaison with a number of internal teams including the biodiversity and ranger teams in order to assess if there are any impacts of proposals on habitats and wildlife species. Local members and Portfolio Holders were engaged with the development of options for the initial consultation carried out last year. From the initial consultation with the community, there was clearly a split in the support which indicated broad support for the options presented but with nature conservation concerns.
Several Cabinet Members have since met with representatives from Natural Basingstoke, Greener Basingstoke, and the local Conservation groups as part of this ongoing consultation process. So, the scheme is currently being developed in more detail and we have committed to carrying out a further public consultation regarding the proposals later this year. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Why has there been no meaningful progress in advancing the parks designation as a local nature reserve and whether this designation is currently being prioritised? And will the portfolio holder commit to fully engaging with local stakeholders including the Old Down Wildlife Group, whose members have expressed deep concerns the park is at risk of being urbanised and losing its ecological value?
Answer
Thank you, yes. Firstly your second part, we will commit to engage with all of the various bodies. That’s an absolute certainty because we want to get this right. The other issue is technically, I think we’ve answered this in questions before, the protection that you get from a LNR is not as, well, its equivalent to a SINC, they’re both protected, they work the same. It’s just a different method, so at this stage it is something that the officers are not pushing forward because we feel it’s protected enough at this present time. Thank you.
Question 4
From:Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Subject: Access to Concessionary Rates for Disabled Residents at the Aquadrome
I have been contacted by a resident of my ward who was unable to access the concessionary rate at the council-owned Aquadrome. Despite presenting valid and officially recognised proof of disability in the form of a Hampshire Yellow Card and Gateway Card for his son he was told he had to register to access the concessionary rates.
Can the Cabinet Member explain why disabled residents who already hold recognised forms of identification issued by the local authority are still required to undergo a further registration process to access concessionary rates at council-run facilities?
Will the council review this process, with a view to removing unnecessary barriers for casual disabled users and ensuring the policy aligns with the council’s stated commitment to accessibility and inclusion?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and it’s great to see you in the chair. The Aquadrome is currently managed on behalf of the council and the Leisure Trust by Serco Leisure. Serco Leisure’s policy requires a resident to provide valid recognised proof of disability such as the Hampshire Yellow Card in order to qualify for the concessionary rate. Once evidence has been provided, people are required to register onto the Serco system as a one off and then they are provided with the ‘More membership card’. The reason for this is to allow people to access the facility turnstiles without them having to wait at reception at busy pinch point times. The centre staff also register users on the system to ensure staff are aware that during an emergency situation, that there are residents using the facility that may require additional support in evacuating the building. It is a requirement to have user details should any incidents occur, and details need to be passed to the emergency services. There are also added benefits to having the card such as early booking opportunities and access to the facilities. With the resident’s permission, I am happy to ask Serco to support the resident to register onto the system, so he has access to the benefits provided through the More card and ensure staff at the Aquadrome are equipped to provide the right support to keep the resident safe in the case of an emergency.
Supplementary Question
Following the reports from a resident in my ward that the Aquadrome may have been unsafe during the recent Easter school holidays due to overcrowding in the lagoon with over 50 people waiting nearly half an hour to use the changing room facilities. Will the administration investigate how this situation arose and whether ticketing levels can be better managed to ensure a safer and more enjoyable experience to users. Thank you.
Answer
Yes, I’d certainly happily investigate. Also, please come to me as soon as you can with these issues.
Question 5
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
What assessment has the administration undertaken to fully understand the significant adverse impact that the proposed relocation of the Golf Centre’s pitch and putt course to Down Grange Park would have on local residents and existing community groups — including dog walkers, the Basingstoke Athletics Club, and the Basingstoke Disc Golf Club — who currently make regular use of this valued green space? Has there been any formal consultation with the current users of Down Grange Park regarding the potential impact of these proposals?
What alternative sites have been explored and assessed for the Golf Centre’s relocation?
What consideration has been given to the biodiversity, mature habitats, and wildlife present at Down Grange Park in the decision-making process?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Dillow for your question. As you know, the decision taken by Cabinet in January identified land south of Down Grange House as the preferred site to take forward for the potential relocation of the pitch and putt, driving range and adventure golf currently located at Basingstoke Golf Centre, should Great Wolf get planning permission.
A review of council-owned land that would provide enough space to re-locate the facilities currently on offer at the golf centre was carried out. Given the space required to accommodate the pitch and putt and as a large part of the area already is home to the sports complex, Down Grange was identified as the most suitable site to take forward for further investigation.
It was disappointing to see the language used in a petition claiming that the proposals would lead to the destruction of land at Down Grange. I can assure everyone in this Chamber that this is just not true. As a Cabinet, we are absolutely focused on protecting and enhancing biodiversity and our wider environment. That is why it is one of our priorities in the Council Plan.
As part of the commitment, we would protect established trees, plants and habitats and explore wider improvements to enhance the open space to deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity value of the land, which is our land. This would all be independently assessed as part of any future planning application.
At a time when other councils can’t afford to invest, or are forced to close sports facilities, we remain committed to exploring how we can enhance our facilities. We want to see the future sporting stars come from Basingstoke. The facilities at Down Grange offer the perfect environment to nurture young talent and provide a clear path from grass sports to professional competition. Subject to getting planning permission, the proposals being developed by Great Wolf would provide amazing new leisure facilities and attract thousands of visitors to the borough. Importantly, it would unlock vital investment and we are actively exploring how this could be used to enhance the facilities at Down Grange. Just to say that we want to get to the planning stage of the proposal where we actually understand what’s there and not so much about the destruction and what’s out there at the moment. It’s a different picture.
Supplementary Question
The Council’s website currently states that the proposed location would avoid the need to use any of the area currently used by other clubs at Down Grange Sports Complex and protects the natural landscape of this area at Down Grange. Now, in my view, this statement is inaccurate. I’ve spoken to users of Down Grange Park, adjacent to the Miller and Carter restaurant. It is actively used every day by groups including the athletics club and the disc golf club as well as by local residents and dog walkers for recreation and exercise.
So will the portfolio holder commit to correcting this statement on the council’s website to accurately reflect the genuine and significant impact the proposal to relocate the pitch and putt course to this much-loved green space would have on existing users and community groups. Thank you.
Answer
Yes, thank you Mr Mayor. I’m also aware of extra use that’s down there. I’ve been having conversations with sports clubs and some other users that I wasn’t aware of, and I’ve asked council officers on the use of that area. So, we’re learning all the time. I’m happy to change the wording. I’m sure it wasn’t on purpose. I’m sure the wording is more about the formal use of Down Grange and obviously not the full use, but yeah, I’m happy to look into the wording.
18
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
Human Resources
3 March 2025
Development Control
12 March 2025
Standards
17 March 2025
Cabinet
18 March 2025
Resident Services
19 March 2025
Council
20 March 2025
Resources
25 March 2025
Audit and Accounts
31 March 2025
Environment and Infrastructure
3 April 2025
Development Control
9 April 2025
Development Control
23 April 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Human Resources
3 March 2025
Development Control
12 March 2025
Standards
17 March 2025
Cabinet
18 March 2025
Resident Services
19 March 2025
Council
20 March 2025
Resources
25 March 2025
Audit and Accounts
31 March 2025
Environment and Infrastructure
3 April 2025
Development Control
9 April 2025
Development Control
23 April 2025
Minutes
There were no questions.
19
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
20
Updates, Questions and Amendments
Attachments:
- Document Combined Updates and Amendments v2 07 May 2025
20
Confidential/exempt items for information
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in