Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
53
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
63
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Environment and Infrastructure Committee - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 4th September 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 4th September 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 4th September 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 4th September 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
04 Sep 2025
04 Sep 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services and Standards Committee
Secretary
Ellie Cole
Expected
Officer
Communications
Expected
Vice-Chair
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Councillor Keith Oborn
Basingstoke & Deane Independent Group
Apologies, sent representative
View Profile
Chair
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
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Reserve
Councillor David McIntyre
Not required
Reserve
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence and substitutions
Minutes
Councillor Miller was replaced by Councillor J Vaux.
Councillor Oborn was replaced by Councillor K Watts.
Councillor Oborn was replaced by Councillor K Watts.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor Chatburn declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was the Chair of the Tadley & Pamber Rural protection Group.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 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 5 June 2025 27 Aug 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2025 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
4
Local Plan: Updated Proposed Spatial Strategy
Contact Officer: Joanne Brombley
This report provides an update on the current position of the Local Plan.
This report provides an update on the current position of the Local Plan.
Attachments:
- Document Report 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 1 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 2 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 3 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 4 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 5 27 Aug 2025
- Document Appendix 6 27 Aug 2025
Minutes
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update on the current position of the Local Plan.
The Chair invited visiting members, Harvey, Jones and McCormick to address the Committee, their comments included:
Questioned the impact of high-rise flats on the landscape of Basingstoke and stated that infrastructure such as shops would be required.
Raised concern in relation to the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration and stated a lack of confidence that additional housing would be provided.
Transport infrastructure was required for the southwest of Basingstoke.
Expressed concern over the proposal for Upper Swallick.
Explained the process to date and stressed the difficult position and the tough decisions that would have to be made by the Council due to the governments housing targets.
Expressed concern over the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration plans.
The Chair invited visiting speakers, Ken Rhatigan, Alex Whitfield, Graham Falconer, Allan Forbes, Rob Waugh-Bacchus, Zena Lindsay, Marcus Simpson, Murray Campbell, Mandy Green, Gillian Moore and Stafford Napier to address the Committee, their comments included:
Stated that the Council should promote opportunities for small and medium developers such as Bishops Green.
Suggested the A340 corridor be considered as there were jobs at both ends.
Requested that the settlement boundary be expanded to include a strategic gap, that the distributor road be changed from the diagonal position to go round the outside and to move the public transport interchange closer to the main entrance.
Stated the Oakley Farm proposal could be an expensive failure due to previous rejected planning applications.
Expressed concern in relation to ecology and biodiversity implication at Popham.
Questioned whether 50% of South Ham was privately owned as referenced in the appendix.
Reference was made to Skates Lane as a Site of special scientific interest (SSI) and that construction work would impact the road used as the AWE evacuation and Emergency services route.
Stressed the importance of resident engagement and an evidence-based plan.
Concern was raised in relation to Land at Whitmarsh Lane as it was felt that no other area faced the same combination of challenges such as the sewage works, Chineham incinerator and flood plain.
Questioned whether officers had been engaging with other planning authorities where plans went across borders.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
Thanked all speakers for attending and explained the challenges of putting together a Local Plan.
Committed to continued discussions in relation to SMEs.
Confirmed that Officers would review the comments made and particularly in in relation to the Hospital proposal.
Acknowledged the infrastructure issues.
The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments:
Questioned the phasing process and the provision of community facilities Officers confirmed that these were not included in the process at the current time and that more information would be available in the regulation 18 consultation.
Sought clarification on the statutory utility supply service capacity, Officers Confirmed that this would form part of the Infrastructure Delivery strategy and that a Water cycle study had been commissioned.
Made reference to a neighbourhood renewal increase to 1,000 and questioned where that would be. Officers responded that the plan was not specific and covered all priority areas over the whole plan period.
Questioned whether Highclere & East Woodhay could get credit for previous delivery.
Suggested that strategic gaps needed to be built in to ensure that they were meaningful such as Manydown and Oakley.
Expressed disappointment that the system was not fit for purpose and the impact that it would have on residents.
Stated that there were also residents that were keen for more homes so that they could continue to live in the Borough.
Resolved: The Committee provides its comments to the Cabinet member for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Chair invited visiting members, Harvey, Jones and McCormick to address the Committee, their comments included:
Questioned the impact of high-rise flats on the landscape of Basingstoke and stated that infrastructure such as shops would be required.
Raised concern in relation to the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration and stated a lack of confidence that additional housing would be provided.
Transport infrastructure was required for the southwest of Basingstoke.
Expressed concern over the proposal for Upper Swallick.
Explained the process to date and stressed the difficult position and the tough decisions that would have to be made by the Council due to the governments housing targets.
Expressed concern over the South Ham and Buckskin regeneration plans.
The Chair invited visiting speakers, Ken Rhatigan, Alex Whitfield, Graham Falconer, Allan Forbes, Rob Waugh-Bacchus, Zena Lindsay, Marcus Simpson, Murray Campbell, Mandy Green, Gillian Moore and Stafford Napier to address the Committee, their comments included:
Stated that the Council should promote opportunities for small and medium developers such as Bishops Green.
Suggested the A340 corridor be considered as there were jobs at both ends.
Requested that the settlement boundary be expanded to include a strategic gap, that the distributor road be changed from the diagonal position to go round the outside and to move the public transport interchange closer to the main entrance.
Stated the Oakley Farm proposal could be an expensive failure due to previous rejected planning applications.
Expressed concern in relation to ecology and biodiversity implication at Popham.
Questioned whether 50% of South Ham was privately owned as referenced in the appendix.
Reference was made to Skates Lane as a Site of special scientific interest (SSI) and that construction work would impact the road used as the AWE evacuation and Emergency services route.
Stressed the importance of resident engagement and an evidence-based plan.
Concern was raised in relation to Land at Whitmarsh Lane as it was felt that no other area faced the same combination of challenges such as the sewage works, Chineham incinerator and flood plain.
Questioned whether officers had been engaging with other planning authorities where plans went across borders.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure responded to the comments made and advised that:
Thanked all speakers for attending and explained the challenges of putting together a Local Plan.
Committed to continued discussions in relation to SMEs.
Confirmed that Officers would review the comments made and particularly in in relation to the Hospital proposal.
Acknowledged the infrastructure issues.
The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments:
Questioned the phasing process and the provision of community facilities Officers confirmed that these were not included in the process at the current time and that more information would be available in the regulation 18 consultation.
Sought clarification on the statutory utility supply service capacity, Officers Confirmed that this would form part of the Infrastructure Delivery strategy and that a Water cycle study had been commissioned.
Made reference to a neighbourhood renewal increase to 1,000 and questioned where that would be. Officers responded that the plan was not specific and covered all priority areas over the whole plan period.
Questioned whether Highclere & East Woodhay could get credit for previous delivery.
Suggested that strategic gaps needed to be built in to ensure that they were meaningful such as Manydown and Oakley.
Expressed disappointment that the system was not fit for purpose and the impact that it would have on residents.
Stated that there were also residents that were keen for more homes so that they could continue to live in the Borough.
Resolved: The Committee provides its comments to the Cabinet member for Planning and Infrastructure.
5
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 27 Aug 2025
Minutes
The Chair introduced the work programme and gave a brief overview of the items that would be included on the agenda for the upcoming meetings.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in