Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
74
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Resources Committee - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 11th September 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 11th September 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 11th September 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 11th September 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
11 Sep 2025
11 Sep 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Meeting Attendees
Secretary
Ellie Cole
Expected
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Vice-Chair
Vice-Chair of the Resources Committee
Reserve
Chair of Development Control Committee
Reserve
Leader of the Conservative Group
Reserve
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Reserve
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Reserve
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Chair
Chair of the Resources Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence and substitutions
Minutes
No apologies for absence were given.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2025
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2025 03 Sep 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2025 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
4
Local Government Reorganisation
Contact Officer: Russell O’Keefe
To consider the report to Cabinet and Council with the full proposal to government for local government reorganisation.
To consider the report to Cabinet and Council with the full proposal to government for local government reorganisation.
Attachments:
- Document LGR Full Proposal Resources Ovrerview and Scrutiny Report September BDBC 03 Sep 2025
- Document LGR Full Proposal Draft Cabinet Council Report September BDBC 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Letter from the Secretary of State Feb 2025 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Interim plan approved by all 15 Councils March 2025 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 3 Interim Plan Feedback May 2025 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4a - Business Case UPDATED 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendix 1 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendices 2-4 03 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendices 5-8 03 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Chair advised the Committee that the proposal for local government reorganisation was a historic moment for Basingstoke and Deane and a major change in the way local government was organized.
He informed the Committee that it would provide comments and make recommendations to Cabinet before the proposal was then discussed by Council and then submitted to the Secretary of State by the 26 September 2025.
11 other district and unitary councils in Hampshire had agreed to the proposal and, if agreed, would end a very long period of the Council operating in its current form across its current geographical area.
The Chair thanked the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, officers and senior councillors for all their hard work in putting together such a complex piece of work over a short period of time.
The Leader of the Council introduced the report. He thanked Group Leaders and other councillors for cross-party working and for agreeing the proposal. He wanted to particularly acknowledge the collaborative approach throughout the process and to thank the officers at all Councils for undertaking such an approach. It was acknowledged that it was a lengthy process and had begun once the Government had published its white paper on devolution and local government reorganisation. It had started with all 15 Councils across Hampshire; Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council had subsequently left the process and Gosport Borough Council disagreed with the Local Government Reorganisation process.
The Leader informed the Committee that it was the Cabinet’s view that a unitary council for North Hampshire, comprising of Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, Hart District Council and Rushmoor Borough Council, was the best option for residents. It was large enough to meet the Government’s criteria but maintained a local connection to residents.
The proposal set out four mainland unitary authorities based on four economic centres of Basingstoke, Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester. These would embrace change but manage risk by bringing together local government expertise. A North Hampshire authority would be based around the economic pull of the M3 and its surrounding areas.
The Committee were advised that the results of the residents’ survey showed that those who responded were 10 to 1 in favour of a North Hampshire unitary authority.
The Chair read a letter from Mr Clive Sanders regarding the proposal. The Committee discussed the inclusion of Andover in the proposed North Hampshire unitary authority, but it was highlighted that this option was not preferred amongst those discussed by the other councils in Hampshire.
The Committee discussed the report section by section. The Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive introduced each section and members made comments on each one.
Section 1
It was the Committee’s view that the current two-tier system of local government had presented artificial barriers to residents with two councils having responsibilities for certain areas. The disconnection between planning responsibilities with one council and highway responsibilities with another had caused delays in some areas of work and some confusion for residents.
The Committee discussed the possibility of amending boundaries after the new unitary authority had vested but it was advised that some proposed boundary changes would not meet the Government’s test for new legislation to be brought forward to affect such changes. It was further highlighted that it was important to respect other partners in the process and what they wanted for their own areas.
Section 2
Clarification was sought on the role of the new Strategic Regional Mayor. The Chief Executive informed the Committee that each new authority would have a seat at the table on the new Combined County Authority.
Concern was raised that with the new Mayor being elected in 2026 and the Shadow Authorities being elected in 2027, the new unitary authorities would not be able to hold the Mayor to account until they were vested in 2028. The Committee stated that it wanted the current District and Borough Councils to have its voices heard until that point. It was emphasized that the elected Mayor would lead the direction of the Combined County Authority with executive powers.
The Leader of the Council highlighted that the culture of the new unitary authority was crucial to its success and that once a senior leadership team was in place, the building of that culture could begin.
Section 3
The Committee welcomed the proposal’s assessment of the economic centres, particularly that of Basingstoke as the key economic centre for North Hampshire.
The balance of the four mainland unitary approach was discussed and inequality and budget gaps were particularly highlighted. The Chief Executive informed the Committee that economic balance between the proposed areas was one of the key factors in putting together the proposal and the desire to ensure all new authorities started from a strong position in terms of reserves.
Section 4
The Committee discussed council tax harmonization and were informed that the process is set out in legislation and happens across a seven year period. Councillors set the level of council tax. Without council tax harmonization, there was a risk that parts of the same authority would pay different levels of council tax.
The Committee asked if there was a risk of service disruption during the reorganisation process. The Deputy Chief Executive advised members that high level testing would take place on the viability of ways of running certain services. Workstreams would be run on all the service areas and to look at ways that each would be best delivered. New unitary authorities would be running all services for the first time and work would need to be done to ensure they were delivered in the best way. The Leader of the Council further emphasized that services would be co-designed alongside partners, for example, in the health sector.
The Committee discussed financial inheritance, assets, revenue and debt and highlighted the importance of negotiation between existing authorities on the allocation of assets and existing contracts and ensuring that each new authority started from a strong financial position.
Section 5
The Committee made no comments on this section that dealt with the Isle of Wight.
Section 6
The Committee discussed the tailoring of services to each local area. It was advised that high-cost services such as social care would need to be aligned with the need of each local area.
The Chair highlighted the importance of democratic engagement and making services both easily accessible and easily accountable to residents. The Committee also emphasized the importance of ensuring the balance between the number of councillors and the number of residents. It was advised that the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) would decide the number of councillors first and then carry out a boundary review for the new unitary authority. The LGBCE would ensure the number of councillors was adequate for case work, committees and holding the executive to account.
The Committee were advised that the shadow authority would decide the committee structure and governance of the new authority. The Committee stated that it wished to see the involvement of town and parish councils in the preparations for the vesting of the new authority.
The issue of community governance reviews was discussed, and future neighbourhood arrangements were highlighted as one factor to be decided upon. The Leader of the Council highlighted that it was for these areas to determine what level of community representation they wanted.
Section 7
The Chief Executive advised the Committee that Chief Financial Officers from all 12 Councils were involved in the proposal and it was based on learning from other local government reorganisations. The financial case set out in the proposal used the shadow authority as a starting point. The key test was the pay-back period and how the new authorities would pay back the cost of the changes.
The Committee discussed the scrutiny of the implementation of reorganisation and were advised that the existing overview and scrutiny function of each council would fulfil that role until the shadow authority was elected in 2027.
The Chief Executive informed the Committee that there would be savings on duplicate staff posts once the Councils came together at vesting but the savings from staff tended to be 1-2%. He highlighted that there would be more opportunities for staff in a unitary authority.
The Committee discussed risk and emphasized the need for all Councils to work openly and collaboratively and risk would be greater if component Councils did not engage or share information. It was advised that the process has been heavily tested through judicial review during other reorganisation processes. The Committee agreed that it would expect all component Councils to act in a responsible and constructive way in the best interests of residents.
Section 8
The Committee discussed the implementation plan and were content with the timetable. Members emphasized the value of the scrutinizing the proposals and wished to look at local government reorganisation at appropriate points during the process.
The Chair thanked officers for all the work they had done on the proposal and was pleased to see Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council at the forefront of such a historic change.
RESOLVED: The Committee endorses the proposal and recommends to the Cabinet that:
1. The Boroughs and Districts in Hampshire should play a key role on the Combined County Authority with the Strategic Mayor until the vesting of the new unitary authorities on 1 April 2028.
2. Democratic engagement with town and parish councils and wider community groups is important during the public consultation and preparations for the vesting of the new unitary authority.
He informed the Committee that it would provide comments and make recommendations to Cabinet before the proposal was then discussed by Council and then submitted to the Secretary of State by the 26 September 2025.
11 other district and unitary councils in Hampshire had agreed to the proposal and, if agreed, would end a very long period of the Council operating in its current form across its current geographical area.
The Chair thanked the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, officers and senior councillors for all their hard work in putting together such a complex piece of work over a short period of time.
The Leader of the Council introduced the report. He thanked Group Leaders and other councillors for cross-party working and for agreeing the proposal. He wanted to particularly acknowledge the collaborative approach throughout the process and to thank the officers at all Councils for undertaking such an approach. It was acknowledged that it was a lengthy process and had begun once the Government had published its white paper on devolution and local government reorganisation. It had started with all 15 Councils across Hampshire; Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council had subsequently left the process and Gosport Borough Council disagreed with the Local Government Reorganisation process.
The Leader informed the Committee that it was the Cabinet’s view that a unitary council for North Hampshire, comprising of Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, Hart District Council and Rushmoor Borough Council, was the best option for residents. It was large enough to meet the Government’s criteria but maintained a local connection to residents.
The proposal set out four mainland unitary authorities based on four economic centres of Basingstoke, Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester. These would embrace change but manage risk by bringing together local government expertise. A North Hampshire authority would be based around the economic pull of the M3 and its surrounding areas.
The Committee were advised that the results of the residents’ survey showed that those who responded were 10 to 1 in favour of a North Hampshire unitary authority.
The Chair read a letter from Mr Clive Sanders regarding the proposal. The Committee discussed the inclusion of Andover in the proposed North Hampshire unitary authority, but it was highlighted that this option was not preferred amongst those discussed by the other councils in Hampshire.
The Committee discussed the report section by section. The Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive introduced each section and members made comments on each one.
Section 1
It was the Committee’s view that the current two-tier system of local government had presented artificial barriers to residents with two councils having responsibilities for certain areas. The disconnection between planning responsibilities with one council and highway responsibilities with another had caused delays in some areas of work and some confusion for residents.
The Committee discussed the possibility of amending boundaries after the new unitary authority had vested but it was advised that some proposed boundary changes would not meet the Government’s test for new legislation to be brought forward to affect such changes. It was further highlighted that it was important to respect other partners in the process and what they wanted for their own areas.
Section 2
Clarification was sought on the role of the new Strategic Regional Mayor. The Chief Executive informed the Committee that each new authority would have a seat at the table on the new Combined County Authority.
Concern was raised that with the new Mayor being elected in 2026 and the Shadow Authorities being elected in 2027, the new unitary authorities would not be able to hold the Mayor to account until they were vested in 2028. The Committee stated that it wanted the current District and Borough Councils to have its voices heard until that point. It was emphasized that the elected Mayor would lead the direction of the Combined County Authority with executive powers.
The Leader of the Council highlighted that the culture of the new unitary authority was crucial to its success and that once a senior leadership team was in place, the building of that culture could begin.
Section 3
The Committee welcomed the proposal’s assessment of the economic centres, particularly that of Basingstoke as the key economic centre for North Hampshire.
The balance of the four mainland unitary approach was discussed and inequality and budget gaps were particularly highlighted. The Chief Executive informed the Committee that economic balance between the proposed areas was one of the key factors in putting together the proposal and the desire to ensure all new authorities started from a strong position in terms of reserves.
Section 4
The Committee discussed council tax harmonization and were informed that the process is set out in legislation and happens across a seven year period. Councillors set the level of council tax. Without council tax harmonization, there was a risk that parts of the same authority would pay different levels of council tax.
The Committee asked if there was a risk of service disruption during the reorganisation process. The Deputy Chief Executive advised members that high level testing would take place on the viability of ways of running certain services. Workstreams would be run on all the service areas and to look at ways that each would be best delivered. New unitary authorities would be running all services for the first time and work would need to be done to ensure they were delivered in the best way. The Leader of the Council further emphasized that services would be co-designed alongside partners, for example, in the health sector.
The Committee discussed financial inheritance, assets, revenue and debt and highlighted the importance of negotiation between existing authorities on the allocation of assets and existing contracts and ensuring that each new authority started from a strong financial position.
Section 5
The Committee made no comments on this section that dealt with the Isle of Wight.
Section 6
The Committee discussed the tailoring of services to each local area. It was advised that high-cost services such as social care would need to be aligned with the need of each local area.
The Chair highlighted the importance of democratic engagement and making services both easily accessible and easily accountable to residents. The Committee also emphasized the importance of ensuring the balance between the number of councillors and the number of residents. It was advised that the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) would decide the number of councillors first and then carry out a boundary review for the new unitary authority. The LGBCE would ensure the number of councillors was adequate for case work, committees and holding the executive to account.
The Committee were advised that the shadow authority would decide the committee structure and governance of the new authority. The Committee stated that it wished to see the involvement of town and parish councils in the preparations for the vesting of the new authority.
The issue of community governance reviews was discussed, and future neighbourhood arrangements were highlighted as one factor to be decided upon. The Leader of the Council highlighted that it was for these areas to determine what level of community representation they wanted.
Section 7
The Chief Executive advised the Committee that Chief Financial Officers from all 12 Councils were involved in the proposal and it was based on learning from other local government reorganisations. The financial case set out in the proposal used the shadow authority as a starting point. The key test was the pay-back period and how the new authorities would pay back the cost of the changes.
The Committee discussed the scrutiny of the implementation of reorganisation and were advised that the existing overview and scrutiny function of each council would fulfil that role until the shadow authority was elected in 2027.
The Chief Executive informed the Committee that there would be savings on duplicate staff posts once the Councils came together at vesting but the savings from staff tended to be 1-2%. He highlighted that there would be more opportunities for staff in a unitary authority.
The Committee discussed risk and emphasized the need for all Councils to work openly and collaboratively and risk would be greater if component Councils did not engage or share information. It was advised that the process has been heavily tested through judicial review during other reorganisation processes. The Committee agreed that it would expect all component Councils to act in a responsible and constructive way in the best interests of residents.
Section 8
The Committee discussed the implementation plan and were content with the timetable. Members emphasized the value of the scrutinizing the proposals and wished to look at local government reorganisation at appropriate points during the process.
The Chair thanked officers for all the work they had done on the proposal and was pleased to see Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council at the forefront of such a historic change.
RESOLVED: The Committee endorses the proposal and recommends to the Cabinet that:
1. The Boroughs and Districts in Hampshire should play a key role on the Combined County Authority with the Strategic Mayor until the vesting of the new unitary authorities on 1 April 2028.
2. Democratic engagement with town and parish councils and wider community groups is important during the public consultation and preparations for the vesting of the new unitary authority.
5
Motion referred from Cabinet- Putting an End to Empty Shops - Empowering Our Local Economy
Cabinet considered the following Council motion and agreed that the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee be requested to undertake a review to explore the aspects of the motion and make any recommendations to Cabinet.
1) Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
2) Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
3) Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
4) Exclude from the scope of the HSRA scheme any shopping centres or retail sites that are solely owned or managed by a single entity — such as Festival Place and Chineham Shopping Centre — recognising that these are privately managed environments with distinct leasing strategies and operational frameworks.
1) Apply promptly to adopt the HSRA scheme, empowering intervention on long-term vacant properties.
2) Prioritise action on retail units in the Top of Town and other key local centres, ensuring all the core retail areas in neighbourhoods across the borough are designated as part of the scheme.
3) Develop a clear, strategic approach to HSRA implementation — engaging landlords, businesses, and community stakeholders to maximise impact.
4) Exclude from the scope of the HSRA scheme any shopping centres or retail sites that are solely owned or managed by a single entity — such as Festival Place and Chineham Shopping Centre — recognising that these are privately managed environments with distinct leasing strategies and operational frameworks.
Minutes
The Committee agreed to add the item to its work programme. The Democratic Services Officer would arrange for officers to prepare a report.
6
Motion referred from Council - Enhancing Local Resilience and Emergency Preparedness
Request that a report to the Resources Committee (subject to the agreement of the Chair and Committee) 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.
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.
Minutes
The Committee agreed to add the item to its work programme. The Democratic Services Officer would arrange for officers to prepare a report.
7
Review of work programme
The Committee is asked to note and review its Work Programme and to receive updates from the Lead Members of Task and Finish Groups.
Attachments:
- Document Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme May v2 03 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Democratic Services Officer introduced the work programme and gave a brief overview of the items that would be included on the agenda for the upcoming meetings.
The Chair advised that 2025/26 Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Key Performance Indicator Reviews would be taken together at the Committees meeting in January 2026. This was to allow more time to discuss the items on the work programme for the November meeting.
The Chair encouraged the Committee to submit topic suggestion forms for future agenda item topics.
The Chair advised that 2025/26 Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Key Performance Indicator Reviews would be taken together at the Committees meeting in January 2026. This was to allow more time to discuss the items on the work programme for the November meeting.
The Chair encouraged the Committee to submit topic suggestion forms for future agenda item topics.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in