Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
53
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
63
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 25th September 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 25th September 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 25th September 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 25th September 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
New; Extraordinary
New; Extraordinary
Date:
25 Sep 2025
25 Sep 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services and Standards Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Councillor David McIntyre
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bound, Court, Eachus (Maternity Leave), Izett, Perry, Tom, G Watts, K Watts.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Members were informed that in relation to agenda item 3, Local Government Reorganisation, the Monitoring Officer had considered the position in respect of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in relation to councillor allowances for all elected members, and particularly those who were also County Councillors.
Having carefully considered the nature of the interest and the matter for discussion, the Monitoring Officer issued a dispensation to allow those members also elected to the County Council to contribute and vote on the item.
It was considered that all other elected members of the borough council did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of their Basingstoke and Deane councillor allowance and as such did not require a dispensation.
No declarations of interest were made.
Having carefully considered the nature of the interest and the matter for discussion, the Monitoring Officer issued a dispensation to allow those members also elected to the County Council to contribute and vote on the item.
It was considered that all other elected members of the borough council did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of their Basingstoke and Deane councillor allowance and as such did not require a dispensation.
No declarations of interest were made.
3
Local Government Reorganisation
Report of the Leader of the Council and Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Attachments:
- Document LGR Full Proposal Draft Cabinet Council Report September BDBC 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Letter from the Secretary of State Feb 2025 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Interim plan approved by all 15 Councils March 2025 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 3 Interim Plan Feedback May 2025 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4a - Business Case UPDATED 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendix 1 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendix 4b - Supporting Appndices - Appendices 2-4 17 Sep 2025
- Document Appendiix 4b - Supporting Appendices - Appendices 5-8 17 Sep 2025
Minutes
The Leader of the Council introduced a report which presented the full proposal for submission to government for local government reorganisation. He provided a summary of the background to the proposal explaining that government had decided the two tier system of local government needed to be replaced by new unitary authorities. The proposal was supported by the majority of Hampshire Councils and met government criteria. He explained that it was in the best interest of residents for BDBC to be part of the process and work with the other 11 Hampshire councils to promote option 1 which would bring Basingstoke and Deane together with Rushmoor Borough Council and Hart District Council to make a new unitary authority. He expressed thanks to councillors for their participation, engagement and contributions to achieve the right option for residents to maintain a local connection whilst being large enough to sustain all services under one authority. He reiterated that all existing councils would no longer exist and it was for government to decide on which proposals to implement. He added that the success of a new unitary authority would require all officers and councillors to work together for a common goal and embrace change. He highlighted the overwhelming support for a North Hampshire Authority from residents, partners, the business community, voluntary sector and Parish and Town councils amongst others. Thanks were expressed to MP’s from a number of parties for helping to send letters to the government endorsing option 1 and the Chamber of Commerce, Destination Basingstoke and other organisations for engaging in the process. He concluded that the proposal would be submitted to government on 26 September 2025.
A minor amendment was made to paragraph 2 of the recommendations to add liaison with Group Leaders to make any final amendments to the full proposal.
Due to the significance of the debate, a motion was proposed, seconded and agreed to suspend council procedure rules 8.6 and 8.7 to allow all members unlimited time to speak.
Group Leaders and Members were invited to discuss the proposals. Members debated and commented on:
The benefits of the proposal with emphasis on the scale of a new authority that would be large enough to be financially sustainable and small enough to keep a local connection, bringing together areas that share economic, social and transport links, allowing housing growth with infrastructure delivery, creating a strong position to bid for investment, shape skills and innovation, delivery of better health and wellbeing outcomes by working closely with partners and delivering a single accountable council. Recognition that North Hampshire was the biggest opportunity for economic growth. Emphasis on improved services and benefits from new ways of working for residents Creating governance arrangements for a strong local voice. The challenges ahead and period of uncertainty. Expression of thanks to officers, group leaders and members for communication, collaboration, cross party working and commitment to achieve the best proposal for the benefit of residents. The proposal supported by 12 councils for 4 unitary authorities versus Hampshire County Council’s competing proposal for 3 unitary authorities for mainland Hampshire. The importance of continuing to engage with residents to promote the option 1 proposal. Recognition that the two tier system was confusing for residents and created a barrier to service delivery. Recognition of the ambitious timescale and huge challenges of reorganisation, however the greater risk was to do nothing. Resilience in local government was not just the size of an authority but coherence of areas, recognising that urban and rural areas have different priorities and the distinct identity of North Hampshire should be central to future decisions. The North Hampshire proposal offered better balance, was strong enough to deliver but local enough to protect local identity and promote accountability. Emphasis that locality and accountability were key. Recognition of residents concerns regarding the size of unitary authority, impact on local decision making, service delivery, efficiency savings, LGR was not in the best interest of residents. Autonomy over a wider range of services but concerns regarding financial impact and funding available for discretionary initiatives. Some reluctance was expressed to support option 1, however it was considered the better option than the alternative HCC proposal. The Council’s priorities should not get lost in reorganisation and should support it. Recognition that reorganisation was an opportunity to deliver services differently and align priorities of upper and lower tier authorities to make real improvements to residents lives. Concern regarding the cost of reorganisation and the impact to residents. The importance of scrutiny of the proposal moving forwards. That central government would take the final decision, there were merits in both proposals being put forward. The difficult relationship between BDBC and HCC and the favouritism displayed by HCC towards the south of Hampshire over the north.
Upon a recorded vote on the recommendations, there voted 45 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.
Resolved:
1. To approve the full proposal to government at appendix 4, including the Council’s primary support for option 1 within the proposal, for submission to government by the 26 September 2025 deadline.
2. To delegate authority to the Chief Executive in liaison with the Leader of the Council and Group Leaders to make any final amendments to the full proposal in advance of submission to the government.
A minor amendment was made to paragraph 2 of the recommendations to add liaison with Group Leaders to make any final amendments to the full proposal.
Due to the significance of the debate, a motion was proposed, seconded and agreed to suspend council procedure rules 8.6 and 8.7 to allow all members unlimited time to speak.
Group Leaders and Members were invited to discuss the proposals. Members debated and commented on:
The benefits of the proposal with emphasis on the scale of a new authority that would be large enough to be financially sustainable and small enough to keep a local connection, bringing together areas that share economic, social and transport links, allowing housing growth with infrastructure delivery, creating a strong position to bid for investment, shape skills and innovation, delivery of better health and wellbeing outcomes by working closely with partners and delivering a single accountable council. Recognition that North Hampshire was the biggest opportunity for economic growth. Emphasis on improved services and benefits from new ways of working for residents Creating governance arrangements for a strong local voice. The challenges ahead and period of uncertainty. Expression of thanks to officers, group leaders and members for communication, collaboration, cross party working and commitment to achieve the best proposal for the benefit of residents. The proposal supported by 12 councils for 4 unitary authorities versus Hampshire County Council’s competing proposal for 3 unitary authorities for mainland Hampshire. The importance of continuing to engage with residents to promote the option 1 proposal. Recognition that the two tier system was confusing for residents and created a barrier to service delivery. Recognition of the ambitious timescale and huge challenges of reorganisation, however the greater risk was to do nothing. Resilience in local government was not just the size of an authority but coherence of areas, recognising that urban and rural areas have different priorities and the distinct identity of North Hampshire should be central to future decisions. The North Hampshire proposal offered better balance, was strong enough to deliver but local enough to protect local identity and promote accountability. Emphasis that locality and accountability were key. Recognition of residents concerns regarding the size of unitary authority, impact on local decision making, service delivery, efficiency savings, LGR was not in the best interest of residents. Autonomy over a wider range of services but concerns regarding financial impact and funding available for discretionary initiatives. Some reluctance was expressed to support option 1, however it was considered the better option than the alternative HCC proposal. The Council’s priorities should not get lost in reorganisation and should support it. Recognition that reorganisation was an opportunity to deliver services differently and align priorities of upper and lower tier authorities to make real improvements to residents lives. Concern regarding the cost of reorganisation and the impact to residents. The importance of scrutiny of the proposal moving forwards. That central government would take the final decision, there were merits in both proposals being put forward. The difficult relationship between BDBC and HCC and the favouritism displayed by HCC towards the south of Hampshire over the north.
Upon a recorded vote on the recommendations, there voted 45 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.
Resolved:
1. To approve the full proposal to government at appendix 4, including the Council’s primary support for option 1 within the proposal, for submission to government by the 26 September 2025 deadline.
2. To delegate authority to the Chief Executive in liaison with the Leader of the Council and Group Leaders to make any final amendments to the full proposal in advance of submission to the government.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in