Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
74
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 17th July 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 17th July 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 17th July 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 17th July 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
17 Jul 2025
17 Jul 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
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
Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Councillor Michael Howard-Sorrell
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Ashfield, Basham, Carr, Eachus (Maternity leave), Golding, Harper, McCormick, McIntyre, Perry and Putty.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor Vaux declared an interest in relation to agenda items 8 and 9 (capital and revenue reports) as she was a member of the tennis centre.
Councillor Bowes declared an interest in agenda item 18 (Motion – establishment of a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee) as she was a resident of South Ham and abstained from the vote.
Councillor Bowes declared an interest in agenda item 18 (Motion – establishment of a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee) as she was a resident of South Ham and abstained from the vote.
3
Minutes of the meetings held on 8 May 2025 and 15 May 2025
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meetings be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Printed minutes 08052025 1830 Council 09 Jul 2025
- Document Public minutes 15052025 1830 Council 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings held on 8 May 2025 and 15 May 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor encouraged everyone to attend the Variety Show to be held on 4 October 2025 at the Anvil in aid of his charities.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 15 July 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 15 July 2025)
Minutes
Question 1
From: Mr Simpson
To: Leader of the Council
In governance arrangements please can the proposed Overview Committee for BASH regeneration terms of reference include the “like for like” principle for those residents that are to be displaced by the regeneration? This is where the profit from any land acquired, or tenancy terminated is first applied to ensure that these residents receive “like for like” alternative accommodation in the town with no material detriment such as displacement outside of either South Ham or Buckskin or “shared ownership” versus outright ownership for example. If the regeneration is to be undertaken with a joint venture partner, then any profit must first be applied to guarantee “like for like” for residents before any other distribution can be made to either SNG or its development partner(s). Profit should be baselined prior to the project’s commencement and restated in line with any subsequent updates to “the plan”.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Marcus for your question. This is definitely an important issue that SNG need to hear residents’ views on. The right place to debate the “like for like” point you raise is then really important. Basingstoke and Deane’s Overview Committees can scrutinise the work of this council. They may ask partners to participate, but we can’t compel them, and we cannot command them. We need to make that point very clear. And as MHCLG made clear in their reply to your email, housing associations are independent bodies and run their own governance and scrutiny processes. So, in answer, the Overview Committee as proposed would only be able to ask SNG that question and invite them to participate. We need a different process to get residents more involved. What we really need is an inclusive process integral to SNG’s decision making. It’s an SNG project. It’s for them to agree what processes they will create, working with residents. Now, I think that a Resident Steering Group directly involving residents and councillors working with SNG would be a good idea. The way to build trust is for residents to be involved in co-designing the process that moves forward. That involves answering your question and addressing the sensible points that you raise.
Supplementary Question
Just a quick one. Just to make sure I’ve understood correctly then, Councillor Harvey. So SNG wouldn’t be compelled to participate in this scrutiny committee. And what about me as a resident? Can I attend and say something?
Answer
Thank you, Marcus. The council has a Scrutiny Committee to oversee its business. Councillors of those committees decide what they scrutinise. They set the agenda of those committees and those committees offer them the opportunity to dive deep into certain subjects of their choice. So, we need to make it clear that our processes are set down in our Constitution, and in that Constitution, members of the public get two minutes to make a representation at those committees. It’s not an interaction or an engagement. It’s about councillors discussing and debating council decisions and policies. In this situation, I don’t think residents will get what you want from setting up an Overview Committee, but it is councillors prerogative supported by officers to do so. And it’s not for me as Leader to comment on what scrutiny should or should not look at. That’s their choice. But given SNG is a sovereign body, no pun intended. I must stress that this is not a council-led project. I firmly believe, and I’m of the view that a Resident Steering Group led by SNG directly involving residents and councillors will be an inclusive and directly address the accountability point. It needs to be a body that derives its authority from SNG. Reference has been made in emails to Manydown Overview Committee. It was a good decision to scrutinise the borough council’s involvement in that project because it was the borough bouncil’s own project and we were the landowner and developer. And that’s a fundamentally different point in this project where the project is led by SNG. I hope that answers your question, Marcus. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Ms Lindsay – BASH Chair
To: Leader of the Council
How will the council, independently validate and guarantee that SNG will take full account of the local communities views with regard to the regeneration project in South Ham and Buckskin, as opposed to SNG simply going through the motions of engagement which the local community simply do not trust?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Ms Lindsay, for your question. You raise a really important point. Accountability and trust are important to the process SNG are embarking on and I can assure you it’s my belief that they’re not simply going through the motions. They have heard the community very loud and very clear, and they want to work with the community, with you, to co-design what comes forward, to work up ideas. So, a process that sees residents at the heart of their engagement structure would be a massive step forward. I know SNG are listening on that very point, and we’ll be advocating for residents to be at the heart of that process. We’ll be championing the resident’s role in that process as we should. You will be the judge of that process, not the council. You will either work with SNG constructively shaping what comes and therein they’ll earn your trust. You’ll only trust them if their actions and step by step you’ll see them meet your expectations in engagement and listening. But crucially, you’ll have that opportunity to co-design. And there is a job of work for them to do to rebuild the trust. The door’s wide open for BASH and for other residents to work with SNG and we strongly encourage that. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Harvey, will you commit to attending the BASH meeting on the 22nd of July at the Howard Bowls Club. We want you to hear the concerns of the residents. Simon Minas-Bound, Conservative Leader has confirmed he’s attending and also Sean Dillow is also attending.
Answer
Yes, I’ve had conversations with you throughout. I’ve had conversations with Marcus throughout. We’ve met with SNG together. I’ve got no issue attending and discussing and we’ll put that in the diary.
From: Mr Simpson
To: Leader of the Council
In governance arrangements please can the proposed Overview Committee for BASH regeneration terms of reference include the “like for like” principle for those residents that are to be displaced by the regeneration? This is where the profit from any land acquired, or tenancy terminated is first applied to ensure that these residents receive “like for like” alternative accommodation in the town with no material detriment such as displacement outside of either South Ham or Buckskin or “shared ownership” versus outright ownership for example. If the regeneration is to be undertaken with a joint venture partner, then any profit must first be applied to guarantee “like for like” for residents before any other distribution can be made to either SNG or its development partner(s). Profit should be baselined prior to the project’s commencement and restated in line with any subsequent updates to “the plan”.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Marcus for your question. This is definitely an important issue that SNG need to hear residents’ views on. The right place to debate the “like for like” point you raise is then really important. Basingstoke and Deane’s Overview Committees can scrutinise the work of this council. They may ask partners to participate, but we can’t compel them, and we cannot command them. We need to make that point very clear. And as MHCLG made clear in their reply to your email, housing associations are independent bodies and run their own governance and scrutiny processes. So, in answer, the Overview Committee as proposed would only be able to ask SNG that question and invite them to participate. We need a different process to get residents more involved. What we really need is an inclusive process integral to SNG’s decision making. It’s an SNG project. It’s for them to agree what processes they will create, working with residents. Now, I think that a Resident Steering Group directly involving residents and councillors working with SNG would be a good idea. The way to build trust is for residents to be involved in co-designing the process that moves forward. That involves answering your question and addressing the sensible points that you raise.
Supplementary Question
Just a quick one. Just to make sure I’ve understood correctly then, Councillor Harvey. So SNG wouldn’t be compelled to participate in this scrutiny committee. And what about me as a resident? Can I attend and say something?
Answer
Thank you, Marcus. The council has a Scrutiny Committee to oversee its business. Councillors of those committees decide what they scrutinise. They set the agenda of those committees and those committees offer them the opportunity to dive deep into certain subjects of their choice. So, we need to make it clear that our processes are set down in our Constitution, and in that Constitution, members of the public get two minutes to make a representation at those committees. It’s not an interaction or an engagement. It’s about councillors discussing and debating council decisions and policies. In this situation, I don’t think residents will get what you want from setting up an Overview Committee, but it is councillors prerogative supported by officers to do so. And it’s not for me as Leader to comment on what scrutiny should or should not look at. That’s their choice. But given SNG is a sovereign body, no pun intended. I must stress that this is not a council-led project. I firmly believe, and I’m of the view that a Resident Steering Group led by SNG directly involving residents and councillors will be an inclusive and directly address the accountability point. It needs to be a body that derives its authority from SNG. Reference has been made in emails to Manydown Overview Committee. It was a good decision to scrutinise the borough council’s involvement in that project because it was the borough bouncil’s own project and we were the landowner and developer. And that’s a fundamentally different point in this project where the project is led by SNG. I hope that answers your question, Marcus. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Ms Lindsay – BASH Chair
To: Leader of the Council
How will the council, independently validate and guarantee that SNG will take full account of the local communities views with regard to the regeneration project in South Ham and Buckskin, as opposed to SNG simply going through the motions of engagement which the local community simply do not trust?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Ms Lindsay, for your question. You raise a really important point. Accountability and trust are important to the process SNG are embarking on and I can assure you it’s my belief that they’re not simply going through the motions. They have heard the community very loud and very clear, and they want to work with the community, with you, to co-design what comes forward, to work up ideas. So, a process that sees residents at the heart of their engagement structure would be a massive step forward. I know SNG are listening on that very point, and we’ll be advocating for residents to be at the heart of that process. We’ll be championing the resident’s role in that process as we should. You will be the judge of that process, not the council. You will either work with SNG constructively shaping what comes and therein they’ll earn your trust. You’ll only trust them if their actions and step by step you’ll see them meet your expectations in engagement and listening. But crucially, you’ll have that opportunity to co-design. And there is a job of work for them to do to rebuild the trust. The door’s wide open for BASH and for other residents to work with SNG and we strongly encourage that. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Harvey, will you commit to attending the BASH meeting on the 22nd of July at the Howard Bowls Club. We want you to hear the concerns of the residents. Simon Minas-Bound, Conservative Leader has confirmed he’s attending and also Sean Dillow is also attending.
Answer
Yes, I’ve had conversations with you throughout. I’ve had conversations with Marcus throughout. We’ve met with SNG together. I’ve got no issue attending and discussing and we’ll put that in the diary.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 15 July 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 15 July 2025)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
PATROL Adjudication Joint Committee – Statutory requirement that 1 Member be appointed to this body.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
PATROL Adjudication Joint Committee – Statutory requirement that 1 Member be appointed to this body.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside Bodies 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The following changes to committee seats were made:
1. Councillor K Watts replace Councillor Howard-Sorrell on the Development Control Committee
2. Councillor Oborn replace Councillor K Watts as a substitute member on the Development Control Committee
3. Councillor Konieczko be appointed to PATROL Adjudication Joint Committee
1. Councillor K Watts replace Councillor Howard-Sorrell on the Development Control Committee
2. Councillor Oborn replace Councillor K Watts as a substitute member on the Development Control Committee
3. Councillor Konieczko be appointed to PATROL Adjudication Joint Committee
8
Revenue Outturn Report 2024/25
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 8 July 2025
That Council approve the proposed transfer of the outturn surplus of £1.09M to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3 of the report:
• To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.80M; and
• To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.29M
That Council approve the proposed transfer of the outturn surplus of £1.09M to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3 of the report:
• To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.80M; and
• To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.29M
Attachments:
- Document Revenue Outturn Report 2024-25 Council 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the outturn position for the council’s revenue budget for 2024/25. An overall net expenditure surplus of £1.09 million was reported mainly because of being unable to progress some planned programmes such as the Local Plan.
Disappointment was expressed that revenue money that could have been spent in the borough was being put into reserves. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property explained that money was drawn from reserves to support the revenue budget and invited proposals for schemes to be bought forward for consideration.
Resolved: Council agree to transfer the outturn surplus of £1.09M to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3 of the report:
• To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.80M; and
• To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.29M
Disappointment was expressed that revenue money that could have been spent in the borough was being put into reserves. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property explained that money was drawn from reserves to support the revenue budget and invited proposals for schemes to be bought forward for consideration.
Resolved: Council agree to transfer the outturn surplus of £1.09M to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3 of the report:
• To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.80M; and
• To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.29M
9
Capital Programme Outturn 2024/25
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 8 July 2025
That Council note bullet points 1-6 and approve bullet points 7-10 as set out in the report.
That Council note bullet points 1-6 and approve bullet points 7-10 as set out in the report.
Attachments:
- Document Capital Programme Outturn 2024-25 Council 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property introduced a report which presented the final capital outturn position for 2024/25, compared it with the latest approved budget, and provided explanations of the significant variances. He stated that the capital programme had been reviewed and mitigations for challenges in delivering schemes had been considered and appropriate actions would be taken to address them when delivering the programme for 2025/26.
With reference to play area improvements at Sherfield Park, disappointment was expressed at the length of time taken to transfer land from the developer which had delayed the delivery of many community facilities.
Regarding the saving of £0.400 million in relation to the tennis centre, assurance was sought that toilet facilities would be provided near to the tennis courts in the War Memorial Park. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property agreed to investigate the matter and provide a response.
Resolved: That Council
note:
1. That the actual capital spending in 2024/25 was £27.362M as shown in Table 3 of the report. This is £2.908M less than the latest agreed capital programme budget of £30.270M. The actual capital financing in 2024/25 is also shown in Table 3 of the report.
2. The 2024/25 significant outturn variations and explanations for them are shown in Appendix 1 and section 2 of the report.
3. The addition of £0.014M to the programme and rephasing since the last reported position in February 2025, under delegated powers, as shown in Table 4 and paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7 of the report.
4. The impact of scheme variances for 2024/25 on future years’ capital expenditure has been included in the revised capital programme to 2028/29 aligned to Council Plan Priorities.
5. The revised capital programme for 2025/26 to 2028/29, adjusted for slippage and rephasing and additions contained within section 3 of the report and detailed in Appendices 2 and 3 of the report.
6. That the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2028/29, based on the latest forecast of available resources.
Council approve:
7. Additions to the capital programme of £0.192M shown in Appendix 2 of the report and as detailed in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18 as follows:
Open Space Improvements - £0.016M in 2025/26 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions
Replacement/refurbishment of community facilities - £0.115M funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions
Home improvement assistance fund - £0.061M in 2025/26 funded from additional external grant funding
8. A new capital scheme named Capital Contingency Fund with a scheme budget of £0.150M in 2025/26 funded from a draw from the General Reserve For Capital Purposes as detailed in paragraph 3.19 of the report.
9. The other capital programme changes shown in Appendix 2 of the report including 2024/25 outturn and future years rephasing, savings and a scheme virement detailed in paragraph 3.24 of the report, relating to additional works at the Down Grange BMX track (£0.040M in 2025/26).
10. The revised capital programme for 2025/26 to 2028/29 as shown in Appendix 3 of the report and the capital programme financing as shown in section 3 of the report.
With reference to play area improvements at Sherfield Park, disappointment was expressed at the length of time taken to transfer land from the developer which had delayed the delivery of many community facilities.
Regarding the saving of £0.400 million in relation to the tennis centre, assurance was sought that toilet facilities would be provided near to the tennis courts in the War Memorial Park. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property agreed to investigate the matter and provide a response.
Resolved: That Council
note:
1. That the actual capital spending in 2024/25 was £27.362M as shown in Table 3 of the report. This is £2.908M less than the latest agreed capital programme budget of £30.270M. The actual capital financing in 2024/25 is also shown in Table 3 of the report.
2. The 2024/25 significant outturn variations and explanations for them are shown in Appendix 1 and section 2 of the report.
3. The addition of £0.014M to the programme and rephasing since the last reported position in February 2025, under delegated powers, as shown in Table 4 and paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7 of the report.
4. The impact of scheme variances for 2024/25 on future years’ capital expenditure has been included in the revised capital programme to 2028/29 aligned to Council Plan Priorities.
5. The revised capital programme for 2025/26 to 2028/29, adjusted for slippage and rephasing and additions contained within section 3 of the report and detailed in Appendices 2 and 3 of the report.
6. That the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2028/29, based on the latest forecast of available resources.
Council approve:
7. Additions to the capital programme of £0.192M shown in Appendix 2 of the report and as detailed in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18 as follows:
Open Space Improvements - £0.016M in 2025/26 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions
Replacement/refurbishment of community facilities - £0.115M funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions
Home improvement assistance fund - £0.061M in 2025/26 funded from additional external grant funding
8. A new capital scheme named Capital Contingency Fund with a scheme budget of £0.150M in 2025/26 funded from a draw from the General Reserve For Capital Purposes as detailed in paragraph 3.19 of the report.
9. The other capital programme changes shown in Appendix 2 of the report including 2024/25 outturn and future years rephasing, savings and a scheme virement detailed in paragraph 3.24 of the report, relating to additional works at the Down Grange BMX track (£0.040M in 2025/26).
10. The revised capital programme for 2025/26 to 2028/29 as shown in Appendix 3 of the report and the capital programme financing as shown in section 3 of the report.
10
Treasury Management 2024/25 Annual Report
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document TREASURY MANAGEMENT OUTTURN REPORT 2024_25 COUNCIL 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
Council noted a report which detailed the activity within the council’s treasury management function from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
Resolved: To note the Treasury Management Annual Report 2025/25.
Resolved: To note the Treasury Management Annual Report 2025/25.
11
Reappointment of co-opted member of the Audit and Accounts Committee and extension of terms of Independent Persons and Independent Standards Assessor on Standards Committee
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) and Head of Law and Governance
Minutes
Council considered a report which requested approval for the re-appointment of co-opted members to the Audit and Accounts Committee and Standards Committee, and Independent Persons.
Resolved: That Council agree to
1. Re-appoint Richard Harbord as a Co-opted Member of the Audit and Accounts Committee for a further period of two years.
2. Extend the period of appointment of Melvin Kenyon and Ray Tomkinson as Independent Persons from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2027.
3. Extend the period of appointment of Amanda Lewis as Independent Standards Assessor and co-opted member of the Standards Committee from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 202
Resolved: That Council agree to
1. Re-appoint Richard Harbord as a Co-opted Member of the Audit and Accounts Committee for a further period of two years.
2. Extend the period of appointment of Melvin Kenyon and Ray Tomkinson as Independent Persons from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2027.
3. Extend the period of appointment of Amanda Lewis as Independent Standards Assessor and co-opted member of the Standards Committee from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 202
12
Audit and Accounts Committee Annual Report
Report of the Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Attachments:
- Document AAC Annual Report - Council July 2025 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
Council considered the annual report on the work undertaken by the Audit and Accounts Committee in the previous financial year.
Resolved: Council note the annual report of the Audit and Accounts Committee for 2024/25.
Resolved: Council note the annual report of the Audit and Accounts Committee for 2024/25.
13
Standards Committee Annual Report 2024/25
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Annual Report of the Standards Committee 2024 2025_v1 09 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Annual Report of the Standards Committee 2024 2025 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
Council considered the annual report of the Standards Committee which summarised the main areas of work of the committee over the past year and reported upon the annual number of complaints received and the determination or dismissal of the complaints.
Resolved: To note the Standards Committee Annual Report 2024/25.
Resolved: To note the Standards Committee Annual Report 2024/25.
14
Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2024/25
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 202425 09 Jul 2025
- Document Enc. 2 for Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 202425 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the key work and activities undertaken by the Council’s three overview and scrutiny committees: Resources, Resident Services and Environment and Infrastructure for the 2024/2025 municipal year.
Resolved: To note the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25.
Resolved: To note the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25.
15
Notice of Motion - Housing Pressures in Basingstoke and Deane
Proposer: Councillor Minas-Bound
Seconder: Councillor Ganesh
This Council recognises the growing pressures on social housing and the private rental sector in Basingstoke and Deane. Demand is being driven by a combination of factors, including regional population growth, economic development in the borough and surrounding areas, and participation in national resettlement and asylum support programmes.
We acknowledge that Basingstoke and Deane, like other parts of Hampshire, is contributing to national efforts to house displaced individuals under schemes such as the Afghan Resettlement Programme and the asylum dispersal programme. This support is placing additional strain on local housing stock and public services that are already under pressure.
We further recognise the growing concerns nationally and locally around the scale of illegal economic migration, and the pressure this places on housing, health, education, and other public services.
This Council also notes the new Labour Government’s pledge to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. While this aim is understandable in principle, there is growing concern about the lack of clarity on where displaced individuals will be accommodated instead. Without a credible and fully funded alternative plan, this policy risks intensifying pressure on local housing, potentially diverting supply from residents and destabilising already stretched services.
This Council believes that without a clear, managed, and fair approach to all forms of migration, the capacity of local areas to support both local needs and true humanitarian commitments will be compromised.
This Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to outline the specific housing pressures in Basingstoke and Deane and seek urgent assurances that government-funded migration accommodation schemes will not reduce the availability of housing for local residents.
2. Affirm its commitment to prioritising Basingstoke and Deane residents for access to social and affordable housing wherever legally and practically possible.
3. Request that any future government-funded schemes affecting housing supply in the borough are accompanied by sufficient, targeted housing investment to ensure that the needs of local residents are not displaced.
4. Call on central government to fully fund all local support services associated with national resettlement and asylum schemes, to ensure the cost is not passed on to local council tax payers and that local authority budgets are not unfairly burdened.
5. Urge the Home Office and relevant departments to provide clearer data and planning coordination around all forms of migration—particularly irregular and unplanned arrivals—to ensure that national policy does not compromise the capacity of local councils to support those most in need.
6. Request urgent clarity from central government on the practical implications of ending the use of asylum hotels by 2029, including details of alternative accommodation plans and how these will be funded and delivered without further pressure on local housing allocations.
Seconder: Councillor Ganesh
This Council recognises the growing pressures on social housing and the private rental sector in Basingstoke and Deane. Demand is being driven by a combination of factors, including regional population growth, economic development in the borough and surrounding areas, and participation in national resettlement and asylum support programmes.
We acknowledge that Basingstoke and Deane, like other parts of Hampshire, is contributing to national efforts to house displaced individuals under schemes such as the Afghan Resettlement Programme and the asylum dispersal programme. This support is placing additional strain on local housing stock and public services that are already under pressure.
We further recognise the growing concerns nationally and locally around the scale of illegal economic migration, and the pressure this places on housing, health, education, and other public services.
This Council also notes the new Labour Government’s pledge to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. While this aim is understandable in principle, there is growing concern about the lack of clarity on where displaced individuals will be accommodated instead. Without a credible and fully funded alternative plan, this policy risks intensifying pressure on local housing, potentially diverting supply from residents and destabilising already stretched services.
This Council believes that without a clear, managed, and fair approach to all forms of migration, the capacity of local areas to support both local needs and true humanitarian commitments will be compromised.
This Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to outline the specific housing pressures in Basingstoke and Deane and seek urgent assurances that government-funded migration accommodation schemes will not reduce the availability of housing for local residents.
2. Affirm its commitment to prioritising Basingstoke and Deane residents for access to social and affordable housing wherever legally and practically possible.
3. Request that any future government-funded schemes affecting housing supply in the borough are accompanied by sufficient, targeted housing investment to ensure that the needs of local residents are not displaced.
4. Call on central government to fully fund all local support services associated with national resettlement and asylum schemes, to ensure the cost is not passed on to local council tax payers and that local authority budgets are not unfairly burdened.
5. Urge the Home Office and relevant departments to provide clearer data and planning coordination around all forms of migration—particularly irregular and unplanned arrivals—to ensure that national policy does not compromise the capacity of local councils to support those most in need.
6. Request urgent clarity from central government on the practical implications of ending the use of asylum hotels by 2029, including details of alternative accommodation plans and how these will be funded and delivered without further pressure on local housing allocations.
Minutes
The following motion was moved by Councillor Minas-Bound and seconded by Councillor Ganesh:
This Council recognises the growing pressures on social housing and the private rental sector in Basingstoke and Deane. Demand is being driven by a combination of factors, including regional population growth, economic development in the borough and surrounding areas, and participation in national resettlement and asylum support programmes.
We acknowledge that Basingstoke and Deane, like other parts of Hampshire, is contributing to national efforts to house displaced individuals under schemes such as the Afghan Resettlement Programme and the asylum dispersal programme. This support is placing additional strain on local housing stock and public services that are already under pressure.
We further recognise the growing concerns nationally and locally around the scale of illegal economic migration, and the pressure this places on housing, health, education, and other public services.
This Council also notes the new Labour Government’s pledge to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. While this aim is understandable in principle, there is growing concern about the lack of clarity on where displaced individuals will be accommodated instead. Without a credible and fully funded alternative plan, this policy risks intensifying pressure on local housing, potentially diverting supply from residents and destabilising already stretched services.
This Council believes that without a clear, managed, and fair approach to all forms of migration, the capacity of local areas to support both local needs and true humanitarian commitments will be compromised.
This Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to outline the specific housing pressures in Basingstoke and Deane and seek urgent assurances that government-funded migration accommodation schemes will not reduce the availability of housing for local residents.
2. Affirm its commitment to prioritising Basingstoke and Deane residents for access to social and affordable housing wherever legally and practically possible.
3. Request that any future government-funded schemes affecting housing supply in the borough are accompanied by sufficient, targeted housing investment to ensure that the needs of local residents are not displaced.
4. Call on central government to fully fund all local support services associated with national resettlement and asylum schemes, to ensure the cost is not passed on to local council tax payers and that local authority budgets are not unfairly burdened.
5. Urge the Home Office and relevant departments to provide clearer data and planning coordination around all forms of migration—particularly irregular and unplanned arrivals—to ensure that national policy does not compromise the capacity of local councils to support those most in need.
6. Request urgent clarity from central government on the practical implications of ending the use of asylum hotels by 2029, including details of alternative accommodation plans and how these will be funded and delivered without further pressure on local housing allocations.
The Mayor invited Council to debate the motion. A range of comments were made which included:
Concern that the issues raised were national issues. Concern that speculation based on false information could conflate asylum concerns with local emotive issues such as demand for affordable housing which could be inflammatory and destabilise work being undertaken with housing partners and the Home Office. It was clarified that asylum seekers had no recourse to public funds, all aspects of their support was administered and funded by the Home Office. They were not housed in social housing and could not join the housing register or access any support services. All refugee schemes had been government funded and any properties delivered were separate from the social housing delivery programme. Provision for refugees had not been at the expense of services or resources for local residents. Housing pressures in the borough were driven by local demand not regional demand. Concern regarding population growth driven by immigration and the pressures that placed on local resources and services. Better integration and support systems both locally and nationally were required. Successive governments had failed to control migration and address the impact on local authorities. Concern was expressed regarding some aspects of the motion that could conflict with the law and basic human dignity. Refugees, asylum seekers and resettled individuals were part of the community and policy should not stigmatize or exclude them. It was right to request government to strengthen funding, planning and meaningful coordination on housing and migration but the council’s response must be based on compassion, fact and legal clarity. The infrastructure deficit in the borough related to the major ongoing lack of investment over many years by government not refugee families housed under a resettlement programme. Concern that the motion was not factually correct and misleading. There was a robust allocations policy already in place which confirmed commitment to prioritising housing for residents in the borough. Acknowledgement of pressures on housing and infrastructure however the largest driver of population growth was not refugees or asylum seekers but an increase in life expectancy. Housing need in the borough was not caused by the resettlement of refugees in the borough. The motion did not consider many of the real reasons for housing pressures or underfunded public services and infrastructure but to seek assurances, processes and funding already available. There were different mechanisms for processing asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants. A discussion on immigration should be based on fact not populism.
In summing up the debate, the mover of the motion clarified that the motion concerned the future and building a plan. It was not about immigration or refugees but a conversation about coordination, housing and the pressures that the borough will face in the future.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 10 votes in favour, 33 votes against and 1 abstention.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
This Council recognises the growing pressures on social housing and the private rental sector in Basingstoke and Deane. Demand is being driven by a combination of factors, including regional population growth, economic development in the borough and surrounding areas, and participation in national resettlement and asylum support programmes.
We acknowledge that Basingstoke and Deane, like other parts of Hampshire, is contributing to national efforts to house displaced individuals under schemes such as the Afghan Resettlement Programme and the asylum dispersal programme. This support is placing additional strain on local housing stock and public services that are already under pressure.
We further recognise the growing concerns nationally and locally around the scale of illegal economic migration, and the pressure this places on housing, health, education, and other public services.
This Council also notes the new Labour Government’s pledge to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. While this aim is understandable in principle, there is growing concern about the lack of clarity on where displaced individuals will be accommodated instead. Without a credible and fully funded alternative plan, this policy risks intensifying pressure on local housing, potentially diverting supply from residents and destabilising already stretched services.
This Council believes that without a clear, managed, and fair approach to all forms of migration, the capacity of local areas to support both local needs and true humanitarian commitments will be compromised.
This Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to outline the specific housing pressures in Basingstoke and Deane and seek urgent assurances that government-funded migration accommodation schemes will not reduce the availability of housing for local residents.
2. Affirm its commitment to prioritising Basingstoke and Deane residents for access to social and affordable housing wherever legally and practically possible.
3. Request that any future government-funded schemes affecting housing supply in the borough are accompanied by sufficient, targeted housing investment to ensure that the needs of local residents are not displaced.
4. Call on central government to fully fund all local support services associated with national resettlement and asylum schemes, to ensure the cost is not passed on to local council tax payers and that local authority budgets are not unfairly burdened.
5. Urge the Home Office and relevant departments to provide clearer data and planning coordination around all forms of migration—particularly irregular and unplanned arrivals—to ensure that national policy does not compromise the capacity of local councils to support those most in need.
6. Request urgent clarity from central government on the practical implications of ending the use of asylum hotels by 2029, including details of alternative accommodation plans and how these will be funded and delivered without further pressure on local housing allocations.
The Mayor invited Council to debate the motion. A range of comments were made which included:
Concern that the issues raised were national issues. Concern that speculation based on false information could conflate asylum concerns with local emotive issues such as demand for affordable housing which could be inflammatory and destabilise work being undertaken with housing partners and the Home Office. It was clarified that asylum seekers had no recourse to public funds, all aspects of their support was administered and funded by the Home Office. They were not housed in social housing and could not join the housing register or access any support services. All refugee schemes had been government funded and any properties delivered were separate from the social housing delivery programme. Provision for refugees had not been at the expense of services or resources for local residents. Housing pressures in the borough were driven by local demand not regional demand. Concern regarding population growth driven by immigration and the pressures that placed on local resources and services. Better integration and support systems both locally and nationally were required. Successive governments had failed to control migration and address the impact on local authorities. Concern was expressed regarding some aspects of the motion that could conflict with the law and basic human dignity. Refugees, asylum seekers and resettled individuals were part of the community and policy should not stigmatize or exclude them. It was right to request government to strengthen funding, planning and meaningful coordination on housing and migration but the council’s response must be based on compassion, fact and legal clarity. The infrastructure deficit in the borough related to the major ongoing lack of investment over many years by government not refugee families housed under a resettlement programme. Concern that the motion was not factually correct and misleading. There was a robust allocations policy already in place which confirmed commitment to prioritising housing for residents in the borough. Acknowledgement of pressures on housing and infrastructure however the largest driver of population growth was not refugees or asylum seekers but an increase in life expectancy. Housing need in the borough was not caused by the resettlement of refugees in the borough. The motion did not consider many of the real reasons for housing pressures or underfunded public services and infrastructure but to seek assurances, processes and funding already available. There were different mechanisms for processing asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants. A discussion on immigration should be based on fact not populism.
In summing up the debate, the mover of the motion clarified that the motion concerned the future and building a plan. It was not about immigration or refugees but a conversation about coordination, housing and the pressures that the borough will face in the future.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 10 votes in favour, 33 votes against and 1 abstention.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
16
Notice of Motion - Backing Local Voices: Standing Up for Neighbourhood Planning
Proposer: Councillor Minas-Bound
Seconder: Councillor Izett
Council notes:
That Neighbourhood Plans are a vital tool for empowering local communities to shape the future of their areas, allowing them to influence where development of homes, employment spaces and community facilities should or should not take place, and to set out local priorities.
That the recent Spending Review by central government has resulted in the withdrawal of funding to support parish and town councils in preparing Neighbourhood Plans.
That this decision will significantly undermine the ability of local councils and communities to engage in plan-making, and risks silencing the voice of residents in shaping development.
That the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) has strongly opposed this withdrawal of funding, highlighting the importance of continued support for neighbourhood planning as a key component of local democracy.
Council believes:
That neighbourhood planning must continue to be supported as an essential part of the local planning system.
That withdrawing support at this stage not only disempowers communities but risks poor planning outcomes that do not reflect local needs or aspirations.
Council resolves to:
Express its strong support for Neighbourhood Planning and affirm the importance of continued investment in the process.
Support the position of NALC in calling for central government to reinstate funding for neighbourhood planning.
Request that the Cabinet urgently explores alternative sources of funding or support mechanisms to enable parish and town councils within our area to continue with neighbourhood planning work despite the withdrawal of central government support.
Request the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this council’s concern about the impact of the funding cut and urging the government to reconsider its position.
Seconder: Councillor Izett
Council notes:
That Neighbourhood Plans are a vital tool for empowering local communities to shape the future of their areas, allowing them to influence where development of homes, employment spaces and community facilities should or should not take place, and to set out local priorities.
That the recent Spending Review by central government has resulted in the withdrawal of funding to support parish and town councils in preparing Neighbourhood Plans.
That this decision will significantly undermine the ability of local councils and communities to engage in plan-making, and risks silencing the voice of residents in shaping development.
That the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) has strongly opposed this withdrawal of funding, highlighting the importance of continued support for neighbourhood planning as a key component of local democracy.
Council believes:
That neighbourhood planning must continue to be supported as an essential part of the local planning system.
That withdrawing support at this stage not only disempowers communities but risks poor planning outcomes that do not reflect local needs or aspirations.
Council resolves to:
Express its strong support for Neighbourhood Planning and affirm the importance of continued investment in the process.
Support the position of NALC in calling for central government to reinstate funding for neighbourhood planning.
Request that the Cabinet urgently explores alternative sources of funding or support mechanisms to enable parish and town councils within our area to continue with neighbourhood planning work despite the withdrawal of central government support.
Request the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this council’s concern about the impact of the funding cut and urging the government to reconsider its position.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Minas-Bound and seconded by Councillor Izett:
Council notes:
· That Neighbourhood Plans are a vital tool for empowering local communities to shape the future of their areas, allowing them to influence where development of homes, employment spaces and community facilities should or should not take place, and to set out local priorities.
· That the recent Spending Review by central government has resulted in the withdrawal of funding to support parish and town councils in preparing Neighbourhood Plans.
· That this decision will significantly undermine the ability of local councils and communities to engage in plan-making, and risks silencing the voice of residents in shaping development.
· That the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) has strongly opposed this withdrawal of funding, highlighting the importance of continued support for neighbourhood planning as a key component of local democracy.
Council believes:
· That neighbourhood planning must continue to be supported as an essential part of the local planning system.
· That withdrawing support at this stage not only disempowers communities but risks poor planning outcomes that do not reflect local needs or aspirations.
Council resolves to:
1. Express its strong support for Neighbourhood Planning and affirm the importance of continued investment in the process.
2. Support the position of NALC in calling for central government to reinstate funding for neighbourhood planning.
3. Request that the Cabinet urgently explores alternative sources of funding or support mechanisms to enable parish and town councils within our area to continue with neighbourhood planning work despite the withdrawal of central government support.
4. Request the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this council’s concern about the impact of the funding cut and urging the government to reconsider its position.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure highlighted the number of Neighbourhood Plans that had received unanimous support from Council which demonstrated the importance of the plans in the overall housing planning process, as a symbol of a flourishing local democracy and product of significant investment of time and effort by community volunteers. He expressed disappointment at the government cut to funding to support neighbourhood plans but felt it was not the council’s role to plug funding gaps. He was however supportive of the motion. He informed Council that once aware of the withdrawal of funding, the planning team had contacted parish and town councils to ascertain their progress in the neighbourhood planning process and once responses had been received there would be a better understanding of the potential financial implications
The motion was unanimously supported.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Council notes:
· That Neighbourhood Plans are a vital tool for empowering local communities to shape the future of their areas, allowing them to influence where development of homes, employment spaces and community facilities should or should not take place, and to set out local priorities.
· That the recent Spending Review by central government has resulted in the withdrawal of funding to support parish and town councils in preparing Neighbourhood Plans.
· That this decision will significantly undermine the ability of local councils and communities to engage in plan-making, and risks silencing the voice of residents in shaping development.
· That the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) has strongly opposed this withdrawal of funding, highlighting the importance of continued support for neighbourhood planning as a key component of local democracy.
Council believes:
· That neighbourhood planning must continue to be supported as an essential part of the local planning system.
· That withdrawing support at this stage not only disempowers communities but risks poor planning outcomes that do not reflect local needs or aspirations.
Council resolves to:
1. Express its strong support for Neighbourhood Planning and affirm the importance of continued investment in the process.
2. Support the position of NALC in calling for central government to reinstate funding for neighbourhood planning.
3. Request that the Cabinet urgently explores alternative sources of funding or support mechanisms to enable parish and town councils within our area to continue with neighbourhood planning work despite the withdrawal of central government support.
4. Request the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this council’s concern about the impact of the funding cut and urging the government to reconsider its position.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure highlighted the number of Neighbourhood Plans that had received unanimous support from Council which demonstrated the importance of the plans in the overall housing planning process, as a symbol of a flourishing local democracy and product of significant investment of time and effort by community volunteers. He expressed disappointment at the government cut to funding to support neighbourhood plans but felt it was not the council’s role to plug funding gaps. He was however supportive of the motion. He informed Council that once aware of the withdrawal of funding, the planning team had contacted parish and town councils to ascertain their progress in the neighbourhood planning process and once responses had been received there would be a better understanding of the potential financial implications
The motion was unanimously supported.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
17
Notice of Motion - Enhancing Local Resilience and Emergency Preparedness
Proposer: Councillor Lee
Seconder: Councillor Miller
Council notes:
Global instability, including armed conflicts, energy insecurity, and cyber threats, continues to pose potential risks to national and local infrastructure.
Local authorities are designated as Category 1 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, responsible for preparing for and responding to major incidents affecting their communities.
Resilience planning is not limited to specific scenarios but covers a wide range of emergencies, including natural disasters, industrial accidents, infrastructure failures, and—in extreme cases—national security events.
Resilient communities are better placed to withstand and recover from emergencies, whether caused by natural disasters, infrastructure failure, or national security events.
Council recognises:
The importance of having up-to-date, tested, and inclusive emergency response plans that reflect current risk profiles and support the wellbeing of all residents.
The value of robust and inclusive emergency planning to safeguard life, maintain key services, and support the most vulnerable residents.
Building community awareness and institutional preparedness can reduce harm, improve response effectiveness, and maintain essential services in a crisis.
Council therefore resolves to:
Request that Cabinet review and update existing emergency preparedness and business continuity plans to ensure they remain fit for purpose in today’s evolving risk landscape, including scenarios involving large-scale infrastructure disruption or national security incidents.
Request Cabinet to work closely with the Local Resilience Forum and other Category 1 and 2 responders, where feasible, to:
Test and strengthen joint response protocols.
Ensure that planning takes into account vulnerable populations, public health, and digital inclusion
Identify and protect critical local infrastructure.
Request a report to the Resources Committee (subject to the agreement of the Chair) and to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion, outlining:
The council’s current state of readiness for major civil emergencies, including, but not limited to, national security events.
Opportunities to improve staff training, public communications, and coordination with partners;
Any gaps in funding, guidance, or support from central government that may need addressing.
Request Cabinet to consider launching a public awareness initiative to help residents better understand how to prepare their households for a range of emergencies (e.g. prolonged power outages, water supply issues, or communication blackouts), working in partnership with national guidance bodies and local emergency services.
This council reaffirms its commitment to public safety, service continuity, and responsible forward planning, recognising that resilience is a shared responsibility that must be continuously developed and maintained.
Seconder: Councillor Miller
Council notes:
Global instability, including armed conflicts, energy insecurity, and cyber threats, continues to pose potential risks to national and local infrastructure.
Local authorities are designated as Category 1 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, responsible for preparing for and responding to major incidents affecting their communities.
Resilience planning is not limited to specific scenarios but covers a wide range of emergencies, including natural disasters, industrial accidents, infrastructure failures, and—in extreme cases—national security events.
Resilient communities are better placed to withstand and recover from emergencies, whether caused by natural disasters, infrastructure failure, or national security events.
Council recognises:
The importance of having up-to-date, tested, and inclusive emergency response plans that reflect current risk profiles and support the wellbeing of all residents.
The value of robust and inclusive emergency planning to safeguard life, maintain key services, and support the most vulnerable residents.
Building community awareness and institutional preparedness can reduce harm, improve response effectiveness, and maintain essential services in a crisis.
Council therefore resolves to:
Request that Cabinet review and update existing emergency preparedness and business continuity plans to ensure they remain fit for purpose in today’s evolving risk landscape, including scenarios involving large-scale infrastructure disruption or national security incidents.
Request Cabinet to work closely with the Local Resilience Forum and other Category 1 and 2 responders, where feasible, to:
Test and strengthen joint response protocols.
Ensure that planning takes into account vulnerable populations, public health, and digital inclusion
Identify and protect critical local infrastructure.
Request a report to the Resources Committee (subject to the agreement of the Chair) and to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion, outlining:
The council’s current state of readiness for major civil emergencies, including, but not limited to, national security events.
Opportunities to improve staff training, public communications, and coordination with partners;
Any gaps in funding, guidance, or support from central government that may need addressing.
Request Cabinet to consider launching a public awareness initiative to help residents better understand how to prepare their households for a range of emergencies (e.g. prolonged power outages, water supply issues, or communication blackouts), working in partnership with national guidance bodies and local emergency services.
This council reaffirms its commitment to public safety, service continuity, and responsible forward planning, recognising that resilience is a shared responsibility that must be continuously developed and maintained.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Miller:
Council notes:
· Global instability, including armed conflicts, energy insecurity, and cyber threats, continues to pose potential risks to national and local infrastructure.
· Local authorities are designated as Category 1 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, responsible for preparing for and responding to major incidents affecting their communities.
· Resilience planning is not limited to specific scenarios but covers a wide range of emergencies, including natural disasters, industrial accidents, infrastructure failures, and—in extreme cases—national security events.
· Resilient communities are better placed to withstand and recover from emergencies, whether caused by natural disasters, infrastructure failure, or national security events.
Council recognises:
· The importance of having up-to-date, tested, and inclusive emergency response plans that reflect current risk profiles and support the wellbeing of all residents.
· The value of robust and inclusive emergency planning to safeguard life, maintain key services, and support the most vulnerable residents.
· Building community awareness and institutional preparedness can reduce harm, improve response effectiveness, and maintain essential services in a crisis.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet review and update existing emergency preparedness and business continuity plans to ensure they remain fit for purpose in today’s evolving risk landscape, including scenarios involving large-scale infrastructure disruption or national security incidents.
2. Request Cabinet to work closely with the Local Resilience Forum and other Category 1 and 2 responders, where feasible, to:
a. Test and strengthen joint response protocols.
b. Ensure that planning takes into account vulnerable populations, public health, and digital inclusion
c. Identify and protect critical local infrastructure.
3. Request a report to the Resources Committee (subject to the agreement of the Chair) and to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion, outlining:
a. The council’s current state of readiness for major civil emergencies, including, but not limited to, national security events.
b. Opportunities to improve staff training, public communications, and coordination with partners;
c. Any gaps in funding, guidance, or support from central government that may need addressing.
4. Request Cabinet to consider launching a public awareness initiative to help residents better understand how to prepare their households for a range of emergencies (e.g. prolonged power outages, water supply issues, or communication blackouts), working in partnership with national guidance bodies and local emergency services.
This council reaffirms its commitment to public safety, service continuity, and responsible forward planning, recognising that resilience is a shared responsibility that must be continuously developed and maintained.
Council debated the motion. Responding to the motion, the Leader of the Council thanked officers for their work which he considered put the borough in a strong position to deal with emergency situations. He provided a summary of the work that had been undertaken which included a review and refresh of business continuity plans, awareness and scenario testing which was regularly reported to the Business Continuity Steering Group, who also review the wider emergency preparedness and agreement of the Emergency Planning and Business Continuity Exercising and Testing Strategy. He added that the authority played an active role in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’s Local Resilience Forum whose recovery framework covered a wide range of risks and who worked with a wide range of partners. He added that local emergency planning arrangements were routinely updated. Emergency planning was recorded on the corporate risk register and had received a substantial assurance following a recent audit review. Furthermore response to actual incidents in the past, demonstrated the council’s preparedness and robust emergency response capability. He added that the authority continued to work with a range of partners such as West Berkshire Council and the offsite emergency response teams around the atomic weapons establishment, parish and town councils to support and develop local resilience plans and Basingstoke Voluntary Action to ensure a coordinated approach to community preparedness and resilience. He concluded there were already well established mechanisms in place to ensure emergency planning and business continuity arrangements were fit for purpose and therefore could not support all aspects of the motion.
Further Members spoke to the motion. Comments were made regarding the importance of enhancing local resilience given a period of uncertainty such as climate change, cyber threats, public health and economic instability and challenging the mechanisms already in place. With reference to the Local Resilience Forum it was suggested that some parish councils, community associations and various other community groups that could provide valuable contributions to category 1 and 2 responders in emergency preparedness, were not being involved. The extensive work of organisations both nationally and locally to ensure resilience was also highlighted. The work being undertaken was acknowledged but it was suggested there was room to expand particularly concerning raising public awareness.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 29 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 7 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
Council notes:
· Global instability, including armed conflicts, energy insecurity, and cyber threats, continues to pose potential risks to national and local infrastructure.
· Local authorities are designated as Category 1 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, responsible for preparing for and responding to major incidents affecting their communities.
· Resilience planning is not limited to specific scenarios but covers a wide range of emergencies, including natural disasters, industrial accidents, infrastructure failures, and—in extreme cases—national security events.
· Resilient communities are better placed to withstand and recover from emergencies, whether caused by natural disasters, infrastructure failure, or national security events.
Council recognises:
· The importance of having up-to-date, tested, and inclusive emergency response plans that reflect current risk profiles and support the wellbeing of all residents.
· The value of robust and inclusive emergency planning to safeguard life, maintain key services, and support the most vulnerable residents.
· Building community awareness and institutional preparedness can reduce harm, improve response effectiveness, and maintain essential services in a crisis.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet review and update existing emergency preparedness and business continuity plans to ensure they remain fit for purpose in today’s evolving risk landscape, including scenarios involving large-scale infrastructure disruption or national security incidents.
2. Request Cabinet to work closely with the Local Resilience Forum and other Category 1 and 2 responders, where feasible, to:
a. Test and strengthen joint response protocols.
b. Ensure that planning takes into account vulnerable populations, public health, and digital inclusion
c. Identify and protect critical local infrastructure.
3. Request a report to the Resources Committee (subject to the agreement of the Chair) and to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion, outlining:
a. The council’s current state of readiness for major civil emergencies, including, but not limited to, national security events.
b. Opportunities to improve staff training, public communications, and coordination with partners;
c. Any gaps in funding, guidance, or support from central government that may need addressing.
4. Request Cabinet to consider launching a public awareness initiative to help residents better understand how to prepare their households for a range of emergencies (e.g. prolonged power outages, water supply issues, or communication blackouts), working in partnership with national guidance bodies and local emergency services.
This council reaffirms its commitment to public safety, service continuity, and responsible forward planning, recognising that resilience is a shared responsibility that must be continuously developed and maintained.
Council debated the motion. Responding to the motion, the Leader of the Council thanked officers for their work which he considered put the borough in a strong position to deal with emergency situations. He provided a summary of the work that had been undertaken which included a review and refresh of business continuity plans, awareness and scenario testing which was regularly reported to the Business Continuity Steering Group, who also review the wider emergency preparedness and agreement of the Emergency Planning and Business Continuity Exercising and Testing Strategy. He added that the authority played an active role in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’s Local Resilience Forum whose recovery framework covered a wide range of risks and who worked with a wide range of partners. He added that local emergency planning arrangements were routinely updated. Emergency planning was recorded on the corporate risk register and had received a substantial assurance following a recent audit review. Furthermore response to actual incidents in the past, demonstrated the council’s preparedness and robust emergency response capability. He added that the authority continued to work with a range of partners such as West Berkshire Council and the offsite emergency response teams around the atomic weapons establishment, parish and town councils to support and develop local resilience plans and Basingstoke Voluntary Action to ensure a coordinated approach to community preparedness and resilience. He concluded there were already well established mechanisms in place to ensure emergency planning and business continuity arrangements were fit for purpose and therefore could not support all aspects of the motion.
Further Members spoke to the motion. Comments were made regarding the importance of enhancing local resilience given a period of uncertainty such as climate change, cyber threats, public health and economic instability and challenging the mechanisms already in place. With reference to the Local Resilience Forum it was suggested that some parish councils, community associations and various other community groups that could provide valuable contributions to category 1 and 2 responders in emergency preparedness, were not being involved. The extensive work of organisations both nationally and locally to ensure resilience was also highlighted. The work being undertaken was acknowledged but it was suggested there was room to expand particularly concerning raising public awareness.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 29 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 7 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.
18
Notice of Motion - Establishment of a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee
Proposer: Councillor G Watts
Seconder: Councillor Dillow
Council notes:
· Similar to the Manydown development, the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration project is one of the most significant local regeneration initiatives in recent years, with the potential to deliver lasting change for residents in terms of housing, infrastructure, green space, and community wellbeing.
· This project will involve complex planning, significant public funding, and sustained engagement with residents, stakeholders, and service providers.
· The existing Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which would ordinarily scrutinise such projects, is likely to be at capacity due to the demands of the Local Plan review and associated infrastructure planning.
Council believes:
· That robust democratic oversight and transparency are essential to the success and public confidence in regeneration projects of this scale.
· A dedicated forum for scrutiny, similar to the Manydown Overview Committee, will help ensure that regeneration in South Ham and Buckskin is delivered in a way that is accountable, community-led, and aligned with the borough’s broader strategic objectives.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Establish a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee, comprising cross-party representation from affected and neighbouring wards, to scrutinise the development and delivery of the regeneration programme in these wards.
2. Task the Overview Committee with:
a. Reviewing progress against regeneration milestones.
b. Holding project leads and partners to account.
c. Ensuring meaningful resident engagement is taking place.
d. Reporting findings and recommendations to full council, cabinet, and relevant committees regularly.
3. Request that Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer bring forward detailed terms of reference and governance arrangements for the committee at the next council meeting.
Seconder: Councillor Dillow
Council notes:
· Similar to the Manydown development, the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration project is one of the most significant local regeneration initiatives in recent years, with the potential to deliver lasting change for residents in terms of housing, infrastructure, green space, and community wellbeing.
· This project will involve complex planning, significant public funding, and sustained engagement with residents, stakeholders, and service providers.
· The existing Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which would ordinarily scrutinise such projects, is likely to be at capacity due to the demands of the Local Plan review and associated infrastructure planning.
Council believes:
· That robust democratic oversight and transparency are essential to the success and public confidence in regeneration projects of this scale.
· A dedicated forum for scrutiny, similar to the Manydown Overview Committee, will help ensure that regeneration in South Ham and Buckskin is delivered in a way that is accountable, community-led, and aligned with the borough’s broader strategic objectives.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Establish a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee, comprising cross-party representation from affected and neighbouring wards, to scrutinise the development and delivery of the regeneration programme in these wards.
2. Task the Overview Committee with:
a. Reviewing progress against regeneration milestones.
b. Holding project leads and partners to account.
c. Ensuring meaningful resident engagement is taking place.
d. Reporting findings and recommendations to full council, cabinet, and relevant committees regularly.
3. Request that Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer bring forward detailed terms of reference and governance arrangements for the committee at the next council meeting.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor G Watts and seconded by Councillor Dillow:
Council notes:
· Similar to the Manydown development, the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration project is one of the most significant local regeneration initiatives in recent years, with the potential to deliver lasting change for residents in terms of housing, infrastructure, green space, and community wellbeing.
· This project will involve complex planning, significant public funding, and sustained engagement with residents, stakeholders, and service providers.
· The existing Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which would ordinarily scrutinise such projects, is likely to be at capacity due to the demands of the Local Plan review and associated infrastructure planning.
Council believes:
· That robust democratic oversight and transparency are essential to the success and public confidence in regeneration projects of this scale.
· A dedicated forum for scrutiny, similar to the Manydown Overview Committee, will help ensure that regeneration in South Ham and Buckskin is delivered in a way that is accountable, community-led, and aligned with the borough’s broader strategic objectives.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Establish a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee, comprising cross-party representation from affected and neighbouring wards, to scrutinise the development and delivery of the regeneration programme in these wards.
2. Task the Overview Committee with:
a. Reviewing progress against regeneration milestones.
b. Holding project leads and partners to account.
c. Ensuring meaningful resident engagement is taking place.
d. Reporting findings and recommendations to full council, cabinet, and relevant committees regularly.
3. Request that Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer bring forward detailed terms of reference and governance arrangements for the committee at the next council meeting.
The Mayor opened the motion to debate where a range of comments were made which included:
Acknowledgement that SNG had lost the trust of residents of Buckskin and South Ham which needed to be rebuilt through collaboration. The regeneration was a scheme led by SNG not the council. An overview and scrutiny committee could not compel SNG to attend, only invite them to take part. It was suggested that a steering group would enable better resident engagement and collaboration with SNG. The Manydown development was a council led project on council owned land where a scrutiny committee could hold the Executive to account for the decisions being made as the landowner. The Southam and Buckskin regeneration scheme was different as it was a housing association led scheme and an independent body which run their own governance and scrutiny processes. Residents needed to be directly involved in any processes so their contributions could feed directly to any decisions or actions made. The composition of an overview and scrutiny committee would have to be proportionate to the political make-up of the council. It would not enable all ward members for Buckskin and South Ham to fully involve themselves in debate and discussion. An alternative model to an overview and scrutiny committee should be considered as there were no officers with responsibility for the project to present reports to a committee, no requirement for SNG to attend and all ward members could not be fully involved in discussions. The council should be proactive in replacing the community centre in South Ham rather than waiting for SNG to replace it. The lack of information and inadequate responses from SNG to questions raised at meetings was a concern for ward councillors. The major regeneration project had huge potential to improve housing, reshape public spaces, strengthen infrastructure and bring lasting benefits to residents. A dedicated committee would ensure that what was delivered was accountable, inclusive and aligned with long-term goals for the borough and provide governance. Whilst a suggested resident led project board had its benefits of being responsive, local and rooted in the community there was concern that whilst residents voices were essential there may not be the broadest cross-section of representation. Concern that a board would have no formal powers, no public reporting duty and no statutory accountability in contrast to a committee comprised of councillors from the effected and neighbouring wards which would be publicly accountable, structurally inclusive and transparent. A committee would not interfere with SNG’s internal governance but enable the council to set an expectation that a partner delivering change effecting residents in the borough should be prepared to attend a democratically consulted, public facing committee to provide information and answer legitimate questions. It was suggested that the council had failed to provide effective guidance to SNG and as a partner had let them down. A committee would help to ensure regeneration was joined up, inclusive and fair and demonstrate to residents that the council was working and listening to them. It would provide a long-term commitment, clear oversight, strong partnership and focus on outcomes that matter to local people. Concerns that an overview and scrutiny committee would not meet the objectives set out in the motion. Clarity was provided on the composition of a new committee and special responsibility allowance.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 26 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 16 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
Council notes:
· Similar to the Manydown development, the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration project is one of the most significant local regeneration initiatives in recent years, with the potential to deliver lasting change for residents in terms of housing, infrastructure, green space, and community wellbeing.
· This project will involve complex planning, significant public funding, and sustained engagement with residents, stakeholders, and service providers.
· The existing Environment and Infrastructure Committee, which would ordinarily scrutinise such projects, is likely to be at capacity due to the demands of the Local Plan review and associated infrastructure planning.
Council believes:
· That robust democratic oversight and transparency are essential to the success and public confidence in regeneration projects of this scale.
· A dedicated forum for scrutiny, similar to the Manydown Overview Committee, will help ensure that regeneration in South Ham and Buckskin is delivered in a way that is accountable, community-led, and aligned with the borough’s broader strategic objectives.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Establish a South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee, comprising cross-party representation from affected and neighbouring wards, to scrutinise the development and delivery of the regeneration programme in these wards.
2. Task the Overview Committee with:
a. Reviewing progress against regeneration milestones.
b. Holding project leads and partners to account.
c. Ensuring meaningful resident engagement is taking place.
d. Reporting findings and recommendations to full council, cabinet, and relevant committees regularly.
3. Request that Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer bring forward detailed terms of reference and governance arrangements for the committee at the next council meeting.
The Mayor opened the motion to debate where a range of comments were made which included:
Acknowledgement that SNG had lost the trust of residents of Buckskin and South Ham which needed to be rebuilt through collaboration. The regeneration was a scheme led by SNG not the council. An overview and scrutiny committee could not compel SNG to attend, only invite them to take part. It was suggested that a steering group would enable better resident engagement and collaboration with SNG. The Manydown development was a council led project on council owned land where a scrutiny committee could hold the Executive to account for the decisions being made as the landowner. The Southam and Buckskin regeneration scheme was different as it was a housing association led scheme and an independent body which run their own governance and scrutiny processes. Residents needed to be directly involved in any processes so their contributions could feed directly to any decisions or actions made. The composition of an overview and scrutiny committee would have to be proportionate to the political make-up of the council. It would not enable all ward members for Buckskin and South Ham to fully involve themselves in debate and discussion. An alternative model to an overview and scrutiny committee should be considered as there were no officers with responsibility for the project to present reports to a committee, no requirement for SNG to attend and all ward members could not be fully involved in discussions. The council should be proactive in replacing the community centre in South Ham rather than waiting for SNG to replace it. The lack of information and inadequate responses from SNG to questions raised at meetings was a concern for ward councillors. The major regeneration project had huge potential to improve housing, reshape public spaces, strengthen infrastructure and bring lasting benefits to residents. A dedicated committee would ensure that what was delivered was accountable, inclusive and aligned with long-term goals for the borough and provide governance. Whilst a suggested resident led project board had its benefits of being responsive, local and rooted in the community there was concern that whilst residents voices were essential there may not be the broadest cross-section of representation. Concern that a board would have no formal powers, no public reporting duty and no statutory accountability in contrast to a committee comprised of councillors from the effected and neighbouring wards which would be publicly accountable, structurally inclusive and transparent. A committee would not interfere with SNG’s internal governance but enable the council to set an expectation that a partner delivering change effecting residents in the borough should be prepared to attend a democratically consulted, public facing committee to provide information and answer legitimate questions. It was suggested that the council had failed to provide effective guidance to SNG and as a partner had let them down. A committee would help to ensure regeneration was joined up, inclusive and fair and demonstrate to residents that the council was working and listening to them. It would provide a long-term commitment, clear oversight, strong partnership and focus on outcomes that matter to local people. Concerns that an overview and scrutiny committee would not meet the objectives set out in the motion. Clarity was provided on the composition of a new committee and special responsibility allowance.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 26 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 16 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
19
Notice of Motion - Consideration of a Basingstoke Town Council
Proposer: Councillor Tustain
Seconder: Councillor T Jones
With the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation bringing together several district councils, the unparished areas of Basingstoke will become further removed from local representation, increasing community-focused disadvantage compared to those areas currently parished.
The deputy prime minister recognised that people value the role of governance at the community scale and that can be a concern when local government is reorganised. She also stated that the government want to see stronger community arrangements when reorganisation happens in the way councils engage at a neighbourhood or area level. The intention of devolution and LGR is to also rewire the relationship between town and parish councils and principal Local Authorities, strengthening expectations on engagement and community voice.[1]
This council notes that
This borough contains many parished areas and two town councils, but a large proportion of Basingstoke town is unparished.
Once the new unitaries are defined there will be a democratic deficiency through lack of local representation for the unparished areas of the town of Basingstoke due to the removal of the district council.
Basingstoke as the largest town in Hampshire has a strong local identity, a lot of heritage and proud history.
This council therefore requests:
A report (setting out timetable, terms of reference, resource and financial implications) be prepared for the next ordinary council meeting seeking approval that a Community Governance Review (CGR) is undertaken across the borough.[2]
[1] English Devolution White Paper - GOV.UK
[2] SLCC | Establishing Strong Local Councils for Your Unparished Communities
Seconder: Councillor T Jones
With the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation bringing together several district councils, the unparished areas of Basingstoke will become further removed from local representation, increasing community-focused disadvantage compared to those areas currently parished.
The deputy prime minister recognised that people value the role of governance at the community scale and that can be a concern when local government is reorganised. She also stated that the government want to see stronger community arrangements when reorganisation happens in the way councils engage at a neighbourhood or area level. The intention of devolution and LGR is to also rewire the relationship between town and parish councils and principal Local Authorities, strengthening expectations on engagement and community voice.[1]
This council notes that
This borough contains many parished areas and two town councils, but a large proportion of Basingstoke town is unparished.
Once the new unitaries are defined there will be a democratic deficiency through lack of local representation for the unparished areas of the town of Basingstoke due to the removal of the district council.
Basingstoke as the largest town in Hampshire has a strong local identity, a lot of heritage and proud history.
This council therefore requests:
A report (setting out timetable, terms of reference, resource and financial implications) be prepared for the next ordinary council meeting seeking approval that a Community Governance Review (CGR) is undertaken across the borough.[2]
[1] English Devolution White Paper - GOV.UK
[2] SLCC | Establishing Strong Local Councils for Your Unparished Communities
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Tustain and seconded by Councillor T Jones:
With the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation bringing together several district councils, the unparished areas of Basingstoke will become further removed from local representation, increasing community-focused disadvantage compared to those areas currently parished.
The deputy prime minister recognised that people value the role of governance at the community scale and that can be a concern when local government is reorganised. She also stated that the government want to see stronger community arrangements when reorganisation happens in the way councils engage at a neighbourhood or area level. The intention of devolution and LGR is to also rewire the relationship between town and parish councils and principal Local Authorities, strengthening expectations on engagement and community voice.
This council notes that
This borough contains many parished areas and two town councils, but a large proportion of Basingstoke town is unparished.
Once the new unitaries are defined there will be a democratic deficiency through lack of local representation for the unparished areas of the town of Basingstoke due to the removal of the district council.
Basingstoke as the largest town in Hampshire has a strong local identity, a lot of heritage and proud history.
This council therefore resolves:
That, in principle, a Community Governance Review (CGR) is undertaken across the borough with terms of reference drafted to include consultation on the creation of a Basingstoke Town Council. That a report seeking formal approval for the CGR and the terms of reference shall be brought to the next full council meeting.
The Mayor opened debate. A range of comments were made which included:
Agreed with the principle of the motion but it was too early in the LGR process. Need to have further discussions and look at all the options at the right time. It was suggested that options could be considered by committee and presented back to Council to make a better informed decision.
Support for governance arrangement for Basingstoke in the future but it was not right time now.
There should be a focus on area committees.
CGR adds confusion as some residents were already paying management agent fees, parish precept, district and county council tax. Many residents would not be prepared to pay another charge.
History of other authorities going through the same process had resulted in more cost to residents for services being delivered in an inefficient way.
Everyone supports local engagement but how we have good democracy, good engagement and local decision making is something that must be addressed in the submission to government. Local committees are the way forward.
Support for localism but it’s the wrong motion at the wrong time, need to be further down the journey to decide whether there is a gap that needs filling
Lots of different forms of democratic engagement that need to be considered.
CGR at this pace risks undermining the debate that needs to take place on a North Hampshire Level.
Not every area wants to be parished, but those that do deserve to be consulted. A Basingstoke Town Council could be explored but there must be recognition that some town areas might want to be parished.
A need to have time to think, seek advice and discuss a CGR, not rush into it. The Motion, if carried, would involve a CGR of the whole borough. No conversation has been had with any of the parishes as to whether they want a CGR in the first place. That should be the first action.
The decision facing council now is whether to support the principal business case for a North Hampshire Authority as opposed to the proposal from HCC advocating for a much larger authority.
A CGR takes time and can’t be rushed. The motion was overly ambitious and impossible to achieve.
There is a need to follow a proper process. It is unclear what government reform and unitary authorities will look like. When that is known consultation can take place with communities to ascertain how they want representation. The time is not right now.
The mover of the motion acknowledged the comments made but felt the intention of the motion had been misinterpreted. She clarified the intention of the motion was to create terms of reference to guide a journey through local government reorganisation and understand what was required locally. The motion did not set a timescale or stipulate what the terms of reference should contain. Residents deserved to have a way to feel part of their community and have a way to address the issues that mattered to them.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 10 votes in favour, 26 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
With the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation bringing together several district councils, the unparished areas of Basingstoke will become further removed from local representation, increasing community-focused disadvantage compared to those areas currently parished.
The deputy prime minister recognised that people value the role of governance at the community scale and that can be a concern when local government is reorganised. She also stated that the government want to see stronger community arrangements when reorganisation happens in the way councils engage at a neighbourhood or area level. The intention of devolution and LGR is to also rewire the relationship between town and parish councils and principal Local Authorities, strengthening expectations on engagement and community voice.
This council notes that
This borough contains many parished areas and two town councils, but a large proportion of Basingstoke town is unparished.
Once the new unitaries are defined there will be a democratic deficiency through lack of local representation for the unparished areas of the town of Basingstoke due to the removal of the district council.
Basingstoke as the largest town in Hampshire has a strong local identity, a lot of heritage and proud history.
This council therefore resolves:
That, in principle, a Community Governance Review (CGR) is undertaken across the borough with terms of reference drafted to include consultation on the creation of a Basingstoke Town Council. That a report seeking formal approval for the CGR and the terms of reference shall be brought to the next full council meeting.
The Mayor opened debate. A range of comments were made which included:
Agreed with the principle of the motion but it was too early in the LGR process. Need to have further discussions and look at all the options at the right time. It was suggested that options could be considered by committee and presented back to Council to make a better informed decision.
Support for governance arrangement for Basingstoke in the future but it was not right time now.
There should be a focus on area committees.
CGR adds confusion as some residents were already paying management agent fees, parish precept, district and county council tax. Many residents would not be prepared to pay another charge.
History of other authorities going through the same process had resulted in more cost to residents for services being delivered in an inefficient way.
Everyone supports local engagement but how we have good democracy, good engagement and local decision making is something that must be addressed in the submission to government. Local committees are the way forward.
Support for localism but it’s the wrong motion at the wrong time, need to be further down the journey to decide whether there is a gap that needs filling
Lots of different forms of democratic engagement that need to be considered.
CGR at this pace risks undermining the debate that needs to take place on a North Hampshire Level.
Not every area wants to be parished, but those that do deserve to be consulted. A Basingstoke Town Council could be explored but there must be recognition that some town areas might want to be parished.
A need to have time to think, seek advice and discuss a CGR, not rush into it. The Motion, if carried, would involve a CGR of the whole borough. No conversation has been had with any of the parishes as to whether they want a CGR in the first place. That should be the first action.
The decision facing council now is whether to support the principal business case for a North Hampshire Authority as opposed to the proposal from HCC advocating for a much larger authority.
A CGR takes time and can’t be rushed. The motion was overly ambitious and impossible to achieve.
There is a need to follow a proper process. It is unclear what government reform and unitary authorities will look like. When that is known consultation can take place with communities to ascertain how they want representation. The time is not right now.
The mover of the motion acknowledged the comments made but felt the intention of the motion had been misinterpreted. She clarified the intention of the motion was to create terms of reference to guide a journey through local government reorganisation and understand what was required locally. The motion did not set a timescale or stipulate what the terms of reference should contain. Residents deserved to have a way to feel part of their community and have a way to address the issues that mattered to them.
Upon a recorded vote, there voted 10 votes in favour, 26 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
20
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Leader of the Council
Supporting the ‘My Things Matter’ Campaign for Children in Care
I have recently been contacted by a Basingstoke resident who is in the process of becoming an adoptive parent. Their experience has highlighted a distressing and sadly common issue for children and young people in care: the practice of moving them between placements using bin bags to carry their belongings.
Research from the National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) - found that:
80% of care-experienced children had their belongings moved in bin bags at least once, 3 in 5 said personal items were lost or damaged during such moves, 4 in 5 were never asked for feedback on their moving experience, And only 1 in 3 local authorities provide written guidance for staff and carers when a child is moved.
This is clearly unacceptable.
The NYAS My Things Matter campaign, in partnership with Madlug (Make a Difference Luggage), aims to end this practice. They offer free, pack-away travel bags to local authorities to ensure children can move with dignity and respect.
So far, 72 councils have signed up to the campaign — but it appears Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is not among them.
While I fully recognise that Children’s Services are the legal responsibility of Hampshire County Council, I believe there is real value in this Council publicly backing the campaign and writing to Hampshire County Council to encourage them to sign up. Doing so would show leadership, amplify the campaign’s message, and demonstrate that we care deeply about the dignity and wellbeing of children in our local community — even when the direct responsibility lies elsewhere.
Will the Council Leader therefore:
Support and sign the pledge for the My Things Matter campaign; Publicly express the Council’s support for ending the use of bin bags in care moves; Write to Hampshire County Council urging them to sign up to the campaign to emphasise that all children in care in our area should be moved with dignity?
Link for reference: https://www.nyas.net/support-us/policy-and-research/current-campaigns/my-things-matter/
Answer
Thanks Councillor Dillow for the question. It looks like you got the same email many others or most of us got this week. I take it you support that this administration has reached out to sign up in support of the NYAS campaign. It’s clearly, from what you’ve just said, got cross-group support, so that’s good, and I’m very pleased that we have signed up to the campaign. I noticed on the list of authorities that have signed up, Hampshire County Council has not. Southampton and Portsmouth both have, and I welcome our fellow council’s endorsement of this campaign. I’m very happy to publicly endorse the campaign on behalf of the administration because we all agree that this is a matter of dignity and it has an absolute relevance to respect. We’re confirming with Hampshire what they actually do, and I’ve written to them to establish their practise, but also to urge them to sign up to the campaign themselves and they should.
While we can’t commit a future new council to policy, that’s something that it would determine, we can ensure that if, by signing up as we have done, we set the trend, we set the message and we can lobby them to be also signatories to this when they come into existence. I want to thank the residents, the many residents that have written to many of us this week, highlighting the issue and how important it is to them. And I hope they will also support our action in signing up to this campaign. So, I welcome Councillor Dillow’s endorsement of the action that we’ve taken.
Supplementary Question
I did obviously copy Councillor Harvey in when I originally submitted this question. So, I think you’ve already probably done this, but would you be kind enough to copy me into the correspondence that you sent to Hampshire County Council urging them to sign up to this important campaign?
Answer
We’ll arrange for that.
Question 2
From: Councillor Lee
To: Leader of the Council
Since the restructuring of our committee system to make scrutiny "leaner", we've seen an increase in the use of All Member Briefings rather than formal scrutiny through the relevant committees. Could the Leader clarify whether the administration considers this shift to be effective in terms of democratic oversight and transparency? And what assessment has been made of whether these briefings are a suitable substitute for the robust scrutiny function that committees are designed to provide?
Answer
It’s actually an important question. I’d quite like to address the chamber if you don’t mind Mr Mayor, if that would be accepted. I just want to point out, and this is really important that scrutiny is a member-led and not a members of the cabinet process. Member briefings are not intended as a substitute for the scrutiny and policy development process. If there is a reduction in the formal scrutiny meetings, then it’s not a matter for the administration, but for the committee chairs and the committee members to consider what items could and should be brought to a committee. I note that several meetings have been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. Now, members have received training on scrutiny last year where the best practise of scrutiny was emphasised and that was really good. Member briefings are intended to share information with all members and we’ve been keen, as well as officers to share information about some really key operational aspects of the council’s business, including the roll out of food waste in October, housing, local government reform and a myriad of subjects. That’s because of our desire to be transparent and inclusive. Now the feedback from those events has been really welcome and it’s inputed in those meetings and in what’s come from them, but they’re not intended to replace scrutiny, and they shouldn’t, and they’re not meant to. So, information and issues related to housing for example have been particularly well received with a highly positive feedback. And on the list of subject areas that have been delivered since May 24 and also been continuing to develop, there’s other 10 sessions or more are planned for member briefings. But I want to make it absolutely clear, we are really very happy to work with committee chairs to facilitate the scrutiny of policy. We need that to be led by members and committee chairs but we’re very happy to take part in the process. But we shouldn’t conflate member briefings with the scrutiny process. They are very different things.
Supplementary Question- From Councillor West on behalf of Councillor Lee
Thank you, Councillor Harvey, and I really appreciate the clarity on that point. I think what is important and Alex and many of our group have actually been discussing this as a concern for us, is that often when chairs and others are bringing scrutiny issues up with officers, that we are being told that there is information via these other routes that as you discussed aren’t actually for scrutiny. So, a lot of the time we’re being told, oh well that’s being covered on that briefing, or we could do a briefing on that rather than it being scrutinised in this way. It’s not something that obviously you want to happen, it’s not something we want to happen. So hopefully we can work together to make sure that doesn’t happen going forward.
Answer
I just think we need to be really really clear. I totally respect what Councillor West has said. The officers advice is the officers advice, as it always is and we always respect that. But if committee members and the chairs want to bring items forward for scrutiny, one of the points of the committee training was to deep dive into particular subjects. So not get report after report after report for noting or necessarily discuss things just for the sake of discussing things, but to actually pick things in terms of scrutiny and to go through a process that involves working with our officer team to explore a particular area of policy, to explore a particular decision that was made, whatever it might be. So, I think, you know, the opportunity for scrutiny here really is there and I think the member briefings have a particular role that they play in part of involving all members in some of the biggest decisions and the most important pieces of information that we share. For example, working with our housing partners and bringing them in to be scrutinised alongside what we do. And we’ve done that on a regular basis and we’re very grateful to SNG, and to Vivid, for coming into the borough council to work with us in terms of scrutinising their processes.
From: Councillor Dillow
To: Leader of the Council
Supporting the ‘My Things Matter’ Campaign for Children in Care
I have recently been contacted by a Basingstoke resident who is in the process of becoming an adoptive parent. Their experience has highlighted a distressing and sadly common issue for children and young people in care: the practice of moving them between placements using bin bags to carry their belongings.
Research from the National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) - found that:
80% of care-experienced children had their belongings moved in bin bags at least once, 3 in 5 said personal items were lost or damaged during such moves, 4 in 5 were never asked for feedback on their moving experience, And only 1 in 3 local authorities provide written guidance for staff and carers when a child is moved.
This is clearly unacceptable.
The NYAS My Things Matter campaign, in partnership with Madlug (Make a Difference Luggage), aims to end this practice. They offer free, pack-away travel bags to local authorities to ensure children can move with dignity and respect.
So far, 72 councils have signed up to the campaign — but it appears Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is not among them.
While I fully recognise that Children’s Services are the legal responsibility of Hampshire County Council, I believe there is real value in this Council publicly backing the campaign and writing to Hampshire County Council to encourage them to sign up. Doing so would show leadership, amplify the campaign’s message, and demonstrate that we care deeply about the dignity and wellbeing of children in our local community — even when the direct responsibility lies elsewhere.
Will the Council Leader therefore:
Support and sign the pledge for the My Things Matter campaign; Publicly express the Council’s support for ending the use of bin bags in care moves; Write to Hampshire County Council urging them to sign up to the campaign to emphasise that all children in care in our area should be moved with dignity?
Link for reference: https://www.nyas.net/support-us/policy-and-research/current-campaigns/my-things-matter/
Answer
Thanks Councillor Dillow for the question. It looks like you got the same email many others or most of us got this week. I take it you support that this administration has reached out to sign up in support of the NYAS campaign. It’s clearly, from what you’ve just said, got cross-group support, so that’s good, and I’m very pleased that we have signed up to the campaign. I noticed on the list of authorities that have signed up, Hampshire County Council has not. Southampton and Portsmouth both have, and I welcome our fellow council’s endorsement of this campaign. I’m very happy to publicly endorse the campaign on behalf of the administration because we all agree that this is a matter of dignity and it has an absolute relevance to respect. We’re confirming with Hampshire what they actually do, and I’ve written to them to establish their practise, but also to urge them to sign up to the campaign themselves and they should.
While we can’t commit a future new council to policy, that’s something that it would determine, we can ensure that if, by signing up as we have done, we set the trend, we set the message and we can lobby them to be also signatories to this when they come into existence. I want to thank the residents, the many residents that have written to many of us this week, highlighting the issue and how important it is to them. And I hope they will also support our action in signing up to this campaign. So, I welcome Councillor Dillow’s endorsement of the action that we’ve taken.
Supplementary Question
I did obviously copy Councillor Harvey in when I originally submitted this question. So, I think you’ve already probably done this, but would you be kind enough to copy me into the correspondence that you sent to Hampshire County Council urging them to sign up to this important campaign?
Answer
We’ll arrange for that.
Question 2
From: Councillor Lee
To: Leader of the Council
Since the restructuring of our committee system to make scrutiny "leaner", we've seen an increase in the use of All Member Briefings rather than formal scrutiny through the relevant committees. Could the Leader clarify whether the administration considers this shift to be effective in terms of democratic oversight and transparency? And what assessment has been made of whether these briefings are a suitable substitute for the robust scrutiny function that committees are designed to provide?
Answer
It’s actually an important question. I’d quite like to address the chamber if you don’t mind Mr Mayor, if that would be accepted. I just want to point out, and this is really important that scrutiny is a member-led and not a members of the cabinet process. Member briefings are not intended as a substitute for the scrutiny and policy development process. If there is a reduction in the formal scrutiny meetings, then it’s not a matter for the administration, but for the committee chairs and the committee members to consider what items could and should be brought to a committee. I note that several meetings have been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. Now, members have received training on scrutiny last year where the best practise of scrutiny was emphasised and that was really good. Member briefings are intended to share information with all members and we’ve been keen, as well as officers to share information about some really key operational aspects of the council’s business, including the roll out of food waste in October, housing, local government reform and a myriad of subjects. That’s because of our desire to be transparent and inclusive. Now the feedback from those events has been really welcome and it’s inputed in those meetings and in what’s come from them, but they’re not intended to replace scrutiny, and they shouldn’t, and they’re not meant to. So, information and issues related to housing for example have been particularly well received with a highly positive feedback. And on the list of subject areas that have been delivered since May 24 and also been continuing to develop, there’s other 10 sessions or more are planned for member briefings. But I want to make it absolutely clear, we are really very happy to work with committee chairs to facilitate the scrutiny of policy. We need that to be led by members and committee chairs but we’re very happy to take part in the process. But we shouldn’t conflate member briefings with the scrutiny process. They are very different things.
Supplementary Question- From Councillor West on behalf of Councillor Lee
Thank you, Councillor Harvey, and I really appreciate the clarity on that point. I think what is important and Alex and many of our group have actually been discussing this as a concern for us, is that often when chairs and others are bringing scrutiny issues up with officers, that we are being told that there is information via these other routes that as you discussed aren’t actually for scrutiny. So, a lot of the time we’re being told, oh well that’s being covered on that briefing, or we could do a briefing on that rather than it being scrutinised in this way. It’s not something that obviously you want to happen, it’s not something we want to happen. So hopefully we can work together to make sure that doesn’t happen going forward.
Answer
I just think we need to be really really clear. I totally respect what Councillor West has said. The officers advice is the officers advice, as it always is and we always respect that. But if committee members and the chairs want to bring items forward for scrutiny, one of the points of the committee training was to deep dive into particular subjects. So not get report after report after report for noting or necessarily discuss things just for the sake of discussing things, but to actually pick things in terms of scrutiny and to go through a process that involves working with our officer team to explore a particular area of policy, to explore a particular decision that was made, whatever it might be. So, I think, you know, the opportunity for scrutiny here really is there and I think the member briefings have a particular role that they play in part of involving all members in some of the biggest decisions and the most important pieces of information that we share. For example, working with our housing partners and bringing them in to be scrutinised alongside what we do. And we’ve done that on a regular basis and we’re very grateful to SNG, and to Vivid, for coming into the borough council to work with us in terms of scrutinising their processes.
21
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
Council
8 May 2025
Development Control
14 May 2025
Council
15 May 2025
Development Control
28 May 2025
Licensing
2 June 2025
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 June 2025
Cabinet
10 June 2025
Development Control
11 June 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Council
8 May 2025
Development Control
14 May 2025
Council
15 May 2025
Development Control
28 May 2025
Licensing
2 June 2025
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
5 June 2025
Cabinet
10 June 2025
Development Control
11 June 2025
Minutes
There were no questions.
22
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
23
Confidential/exempt items for information
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in