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, 16th October 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 16th October 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 16th October 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 16th October 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
16 Oct 2025
16 Oct 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Vice-Chair
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Councillor David McIntyre
Apologies
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services and Standards Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Eachus (Maternity Leave), Golding, Harper, Hussey, Lee, McIntyre, Minas-Bound and West.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations on interest.
3
Minutes of the meetings held on 17 July 2025 and 25 September 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 Printed minutes 17072025 1830 Council 08 Oct 2025
- Document Printed minutes 25092025 1830 Council 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings held on 17 July 2025 and 25 September 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor made the following announcements:
1) The Variety Show held at the Anvil on 4 October 2025 had been well received.
2) He had attended the 10th anniversary of the Social Inclusion Partnership. The event recognised the collaboration of a variety of organisations including local support from various charities, people with lived experience, council officers, registered providers and faith groups in joint efforts to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness in the borough.
3) The Mayors Civic Service was held on 11 October 2025.
4) The Mayors Charity Quiz would be held on Saturday 22 November at Oakridge Hall for All.
5) The Mayors Carol Service would be held on Saturday 6 December at St Michaels Church. All were welcome.
1) The Variety Show held at the Anvil on 4 October 2025 had been well received.
2) He had attended the 10th anniversary of the Social Inclusion Partnership. The event recognised the collaboration of a variety of organisations including local support from various charities, people with lived experience, council officers, registered providers and faith groups in joint efforts to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness in the borough.
3) The Mayors Civic Service was held on 11 October 2025.
4) The Mayors Charity Quiz would be held on Saturday 22 November at Oakridge Hall for All.
5) The Mayors Carol Service would be held on Saturday 6 December at St Michaels Church. All were welcome.
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 14 October 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 14 October 2025)
Minutes
1) From: Jane Love
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
As the current pitch and putt stands it is seldom used and therefore clearly not a popular pastime and therefore not needed, have the few current users been given the opportunity to say where they would like it and would they use it. Could the councillors say why they feel the need to re- site it to a beautiful area used by many at no cost to the council?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I’m going to take it bit by bit. One of the things said was it was seldom used and not needed. The current facility has had over 52,000 visits during 2024 and 2025. It is well used and it’s popular. England Golf recognises that it caters for leisure and recreational golfers. This includes youngsters, families and people in the latter stages of life who do not consider themselves golfers. They use the facility as a sport and leisure outing and it undoubtedly helps with their wellbeing. Have current users had their say? To understand all views on our proposals, we have and are engaging with users of the golf centre. We are getting their feedback. It is important that we hear and carefully consider all views to shape the next steps we take. With regards to the comment that there’s no cost to the council, the proposed location for reprovision is public open space and forms part of the wider Down Grange area which is home to our sports and leisure hub. The whole area is already maintained at a cost to the council. Thank you.
2) From: Michael Whittaker
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
1. Will the pedestrian public have unrestricted access across the park where the golf course is laid out?
2. Will a final decision as to whether the golf course is progressed await an irrevocable decision on the Wolff scheme being implemented?
3. What statistical evidence has been produced to show that the West Ham roundabout can cope with the volume of traffic and allow fire engines unrestricted passage?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Initial concept proposals have been designed to continue providing public access, protecting certain areas of the park while maintaining the safety of everyone using the site. This includes a series of walkways through and around the proposed course without the need for fencing. We are working to understand all views to determine the best way forward. The planning application would be submitted on a similar time scale to Great Wolf’s, so both applications could be reviewed together. If the Great Wolf scheme is not granted approval by the Local Planning Authority, there will be no need to re-provide facilities at Down Grange and the Basingstoke Golf Centre will continue to run as is. Great Wolf Resorts are carrying out work in preparation to submit a planning application for their proposed new indoor water park resort. Sorry, that was terribly read. They are submitting a planning application, Great Wolf currently. And the transport assessment would form part of that application.
3) From: Stuart Johnstone
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How does the Council propose that disc golf can be played safely alongside a new pitch and putt course at Down Grange Park?
Answer
Thank you, Stuart. We have had extensive discussions with clubs at Down Grange, including conversations with the disc golf club to understand how they informally use the space on the parkland. We will continue to liaise with the club to understand how disc golf could be incorporated alongside our proposals.
Supplementary Question
Given that Down Grange already hosts an award-winning disc golf club with multiple british champions, and a strong mental health record, can you explain why the council is now proposing to site golf facilities there where the two sports are quite clearly incompatible in the same space and whether this would have even been considered if the Great Wolf Development had not been proposed elsewhere?
Answer
Thanks. I would dispute that they’re incompatible. There’s a lot of places where they mix, footgolf, golf, disc golf. I’m not sure about disc golf because it’s a bit less popular as a sport compared to those other mixed-use places. However, I’ve been down to see the disc golf and what you do. I think it’s an incredibly diverse community. It’s a really up and coming thing. I would really like to work with you guys. We have pointed the guy that does most of the designing of your holes in the direction of the golf course designer, and I really think he should join him and look into it. I really think we can do something. How it works, I’m not sure yet but I definitely think we can make something where we can have a disc golf offering as well as a pitch and putt. You currently make disc golf work at Down Grange, so why can’t we make both work? Thanks.
4) From: Suzie Johnston
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Where will families, young people and local residents now be able to meet for informal recreation and picnics if large areas of Down Grange Park are turned over to pay-to-use golf?
Answer
Thank you, Suzie. Our initial proposals only use part of the parkland and include other improvements such as the proposed pond and wetland areas. It has been carefully designed to ensure golf balls are kept within this area with a buffer to the open spaces. This would maintain areas for all users, including families, to continue to enjoy the space at Down Grange for activities such as picnics.
Supplementary Question
And just a quick comment on that. I think the design of the park or the pitch and putt that I’ve seen so far, there is a lot of overlap with previous people’s questions. So, the usage right now and also the way that it’s designed, there is no space for people to go and sit in open areas for picnics, that wherever the balls are going to go, they will go in a triangle. You can’t sit on that triangle unfortunately and then there’s a pond where there would be other open space. But my question as a supplement is, as pitch and putt is a restricted, fee paying facility catering to a narrow demographic, how do these plans comply with the council’s own green infrastructure strategy commitment to keep Down Grange as a free, open and inclusive community space for everyone?
Answer
Right. There’s quite a lot in that supplementary to cover. But it is remaining open to the public. The biodiversity on the site will increase if this proposal went ahead. The talk of no spaces that aren’t free of golf balls, it’s clear from the way they positioned the holes that if they’re hitting the balls away from certain areas on purpose and there’s a large area in the middle of the site from the car park down that is a good place that won’t have any holes forcing it. There’s one hole but it’s surrounded by trees. So there is definitely areas in that park that will be good for having picnics. They also will be putting benches around the pond I believe. So, if, you know, they’re going to put benches there I’m sure they’re also confident that there’s no issues. I don’t know if you want to repeat any of your questions if I haven’t answered any of it because I might have missed some.
Supplementary Question
So, it was around the green infrastructure strategy commitment that the council set down a few years ago now. So, where there was a commitment in that to keep Down Grange as a free, open and inclusive community space for everybody?
Answer
Yes. So, it will be free and open still. As the strategy, I mean I’ve looked at the local nature recovery strategy and it does include the park as it is currently. It doesn’t have high biodiversity. And the proposals will actually increase biodiversity. The main area of conservation on that bit of land is in the conservation area where the group works. And that is not being affected by this proposal and of course, we’ll always support that. Thanks.
5) From: Miranda Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
What steps will the council take to prevent antisocial behaviour such as dirt bikes and e scooters being used across Down Grange Park if new golf facilities are introduced?
Answer
Thank you, Miranda, for your question. As I’m the Portfolio Holder for community safety, I am happy to answer the question. Our community safety team leads our partnership approach to antisocial behaviour, managing antisocial behaviour cases, and putting in place-based solutions to reduce ASB. So on the ground, antisocial behaviour is tackled by Community Safety Patrol Officers who carry out visible, uniformed patrols across the borough, proactively challenging antisocial behaviour where it happens and supporting those affected. We’re aware of recent concerns at Down Grange, including the deeply upsetting fire at the hockey club. Our teams are actively responding with regular high-visibility patrols, addressing ASB directly and working with the local police teams because they have the powers relating to vehicle nuisance. We are exploring further measures to help prevent crime and disorder in the area. ASB in any form is unacceptable and we’d encourage anyone who witnesses ASB to let the police know by calling 101, 999 in an emergency, or by reporting it online on the police’s website. The website may not provide an immediate answer, but it does allow the police to build up a map and understand if there’s a hot spot that will bring it up their priority list. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Why hasn’t the council properly explored and published alternative viable sites with the same level of detail and public engagement as Down Grange before pressing ahead? And does this not suggest a predetermined decision rather than an open consultation process?
Answer from the Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, so the Cabinet did look at all these sites and we didn’t choose to put it in our papers, but we have invited in ward councillors and councillors affected by the proposal to look at that and they’ve had the opportunity to share that with their residents. What was the rest of your question, I’ve forgotten?
Supplementary Question
Think that’s pretty much it. Just one last thing is as a resident on site and I think there are four of us along there, none of us have had any approach from the council, nor a letter engaging us and telling us of any of this. My neighbours in fact didn’t know. I only knew because I was president of the hockey club, and I actually informed my neighbours. So, the people on site seem to mean very little, and they’re private houses.
Answer
We’ve sent 4000 letters out locally. If some missed, then that’s unfortunate. But we’ve also, I mean, I’ve held 10 meetings with different clubs who are at Down Grange. If you’re not aware that those meetings have taken place, I’ll be quite amazed. Well, you’re at one of them. We’re glad you are and we’re not trying to hide anything. Like I say I’ve had 10 separate meetings. I’ve been on site countless times. We’ve put out comms. We’ve written to local news outlets. There has been a lot of engagement in this. The only formal engagement required of the council was actually at the planning stage. This is what we want to do, so, thanks.
6) From: Don Powell
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How does the Council propose that cross-country and athletics training—used by hundreds of young athletes each week—can take place safely in the same area as a pitch and putt course?
Answer
Thank you and thank you for your question. We have been talking to clubs and users to understand their informal uses of the site and I have also visited the site a number of times. We have been and continue to be very open with the clubs and are very happy to keep talking with them, and lines of communication continue to be open with the sports clubs. Following early discussions, the initial designs were amended to reduce the pitch and putt course from a 9-hole to a 6-hole course. This would reduce the space needed for the pitch and putt. However, further talks are going on with the athletics club about how their informal training could use other parts of the 110-acre site and existing training facilities could be enhanced. The council has a strong history of supporting the athletics club and the commitment remains.
Supplementary Question
Let me just say I don’t agree with what he said though. My supplementary is, Down Grange Park has been used by athletics clubs since the 1970s with up to 400 weekly users including world class athletes. How on earth can the council justify not being fully aware of the level of usage of that particular field, alongside the disc golf and the general recreation before deciding this was the best site to relocate golf facilities to?
Answer
I understand that and I have been to visit the training sessions and I do see how valuable they are. The fact is its public open space and any sports club in the borough just cannot claim a right to open green space. Moving forward, we do want to make sure that we don’t lose that training. We don’t want to reduce what our young athletes, you know, have the opportunities to do in this borough, but we also have a consideration of another facility that’s being lost. And that does also have a huge impact because it’s another sport and there’s a lot of people that play that. So somewhere in this borough we’re going to have to find a spot to re-provide those facilities and this one seems to be the least impactful spot and that’s the decision the cabinet made. But we’re looking into it. We have reached out to the athletics club and we honestly want to find a way to mitigate those training sessions and I just want those talks to happen, because at the moment, it’s a clear ‘we don’t want it’. But, you know, we don’t know what’s going to happen at this stage. But if it does happen, we need to have those talks so we at least have mitigation in place. Thank you.
7) From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Will dog walkers be required to keep dogs on leads or be restricted to paths if a pitch and putt course is introduced at Down Grange?
Answer
Thank you for your question, Lucy. Dogs will not be required to be on leads or restricted to paths if a pitch and putt course is introduced at Down Grange. As with any park in open space in the borough, we would ask owners to adhere to the Countryside Code and remain responsible, meaning dogs should be kept under control and in sight at all times. The pitch and putt course proposal has been designed to protect public access. I must note, dogs are already able to roam freely around the whole site, including the playing field pitches, and we trust in owners’ ability to sensibly manage their dogs. While dogs can be walked off lead, dogs that do not listen to commands or are around wildlife or children should be kept on a lead. And we would ask owners to be mindful of others around them. As at other public courses, we would also ask golf players to give way to the public and show consideration to other users of the site. Thanks.
Supplementary Question
I’m going to ask you to answer this without extolling the supposed virtues of your golf centre, or blaming the likes of Sports England, or the importance of golf over all other sports. So my supplementary question is, can the council please explain why you believe the public, the sports clubs and the dogs at Down Grange no longer require all the open natural untouched green space they currently enjoy at Down Grange Park and its surrounding areas?
Answer
I’m sorry, I won’t. I will take Sports England advice and I will take England Golf’s advice because that’s what I should do as a sports portfolio holder, and Golf England highly values the golf centre that we have, and it’s because of the fact it’s a grassroots facility. So, I will value that. I do also realise that it’s impactful on dog walkers and the space that you have, but I will ask that you share that space. This is a Cabinet decision and I’m just representing and answering the questions tonight.
Supplementary Question
My question is, why does the council believe the public no longer requires all this open space?
Answer
Yes, it’s still open to the public and people will still be able to walk their dogs. I think you’ll find at 7:00am till 9:00am you’ll be able to walk your dog without even seeing a golfer. Thank you.
8) From: Mark Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Can the cabinet member confirm what the anticipated running costs would be for the proposed pitch and putt at Down Grange Park-including staffing and police access, maintenance such as retrieving balls from ponds and costs associated with vandalism or antisocial behaviour, given past incidents such as arson at the hockey pavilion?
Answer
Thank you, Mark. We do not have detailed operational costs at this stage, and we expect the facility to be run by our appointed leisure operator. This would mean they would cover all costs associated with the operation and maintenance of this proposed facility. The current site generates a surplus and we expect the proposed facilities at Down Grange to be on par or potentially cheaper to run. This is a result of the modern technology that would be used on the golf pods compared to the driving range and the course being a more modest scale.
Supplementary Question
At what point does the public outcry actually matter to this administration? Thousands of residents have signed petitions, written emails, spoken out, yet it feels like our voices are not being listened to. People are losing faith in the council process. How loud do residents need to shout before you listen to us?
Answer
I can assure you that we are listening. There are all sorts of processes for feedback. It’s not just the petition. We’ve also had a public engagement event, a 5-hour long event that a lot of councillors were there, listening, and we’re almost finished putting that together, and we’ll share the results from that. We are listening to that. My comment would be we will listen to reasonable comments and we will shape our next steps from those reasonable comments. And yes, undoubtedly, we’re listening. I haven’t spent the last nine months coming to meet all you people not listening. I’ve done that because I think it’s the right thing to do and I want to make sure that we pick the right place to re-provide these facilities. Thanks.
9) From: Leigh Henderson
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
What research has the Council undertaken to understand the training and competition space requirements of different sports at Down Grange?
Answer
Thank you, Leigh. We have had extensive discussions with clubs at Down Grange. This includes the hockey club, athletics club, rugby club, rifle and pistol club, disc golf club and pétanque club. We have used these insights to adapt our initial proposals and I think you’re well aware of the links you have with the borough through our sports team. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Council representatives have repeatedly stated that the space will still be available for training and walking as has been noted. They have also said that no fences or netting will be required. Can the council guarantee that such devices will not be required in the future? The essence of the space will be fundamentally changed by the pitch and putt course. It would be destroyed by fences or netting along with the council’s reputation as a trusted local authority.
Answer
Well, yes, I can guarantee that the netting and fences will not be put around the site.
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
As the current pitch and putt stands it is seldom used and therefore clearly not a popular pastime and therefore not needed, have the few current users been given the opportunity to say where they would like it and would they use it. Could the councillors say why they feel the need to re- site it to a beautiful area used by many at no cost to the council?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I’m going to take it bit by bit. One of the things said was it was seldom used and not needed. The current facility has had over 52,000 visits during 2024 and 2025. It is well used and it’s popular. England Golf recognises that it caters for leisure and recreational golfers. This includes youngsters, families and people in the latter stages of life who do not consider themselves golfers. They use the facility as a sport and leisure outing and it undoubtedly helps with their wellbeing. Have current users had their say? To understand all views on our proposals, we have and are engaging with users of the golf centre. We are getting their feedback. It is important that we hear and carefully consider all views to shape the next steps we take. With regards to the comment that there’s no cost to the council, the proposed location for reprovision is public open space and forms part of the wider Down Grange area which is home to our sports and leisure hub. The whole area is already maintained at a cost to the council. Thank you.
2) From: Michael Whittaker
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
1. Will the pedestrian public have unrestricted access across the park where the golf course is laid out?
2. Will a final decision as to whether the golf course is progressed await an irrevocable decision on the Wolff scheme being implemented?
3. What statistical evidence has been produced to show that the West Ham roundabout can cope with the volume of traffic and allow fire engines unrestricted passage?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Initial concept proposals have been designed to continue providing public access, protecting certain areas of the park while maintaining the safety of everyone using the site. This includes a series of walkways through and around the proposed course without the need for fencing. We are working to understand all views to determine the best way forward. The planning application would be submitted on a similar time scale to Great Wolf’s, so both applications could be reviewed together. If the Great Wolf scheme is not granted approval by the Local Planning Authority, there will be no need to re-provide facilities at Down Grange and the Basingstoke Golf Centre will continue to run as is. Great Wolf Resorts are carrying out work in preparation to submit a planning application for their proposed new indoor water park resort. Sorry, that was terribly read. They are submitting a planning application, Great Wolf currently. And the transport assessment would form part of that application.
3) From: Stuart Johnstone
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How does the Council propose that disc golf can be played safely alongside a new pitch and putt course at Down Grange Park?
Answer
Thank you, Stuart. We have had extensive discussions with clubs at Down Grange, including conversations with the disc golf club to understand how they informally use the space on the parkland. We will continue to liaise with the club to understand how disc golf could be incorporated alongside our proposals.
Supplementary Question
Given that Down Grange already hosts an award-winning disc golf club with multiple british champions, and a strong mental health record, can you explain why the council is now proposing to site golf facilities there where the two sports are quite clearly incompatible in the same space and whether this would have even been considered if the Great Wolf Development had not been proposed elsewhere?
Answer
Thanks. I would dispute that they’re incompatible. There’s a lot of places where they mix, footgolf, golf, disc golf. I’m not sure about disc golf because it’s a bit less popular as a sport compared to those other mixed-use places. However, I’ve been down to see the disc golf and what you do. I think it’s an incredibly diverse community. It’s a really up and coming thing. I would really like to work with you guys. We have pointed the guy that does most of the designing of your holes in the direction of the golf course designer, and I really think he should join him and look into it. I really think we can do something. How it works, I’m not sure yet but I definitely think we can make something where we can have a disc golf offering as well as a pitch and putt. You currently make disc golf work at Down Grange, so why can’t we make both work? Thanks.
4) From: Suzie Johnston
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Where will families, young people and local residents now be able to meet for informal recreation and picnics if large areas of Down Grange Park are turned over to pay-to-use golf?
Answer
Thank you, Suzie. Our initial proposals only use part of the parkland and include other improvements such as the proposed pond and wetland areas. It has been carefully designed to ensure golf balls are kept within this area with a buffer to the open spaces. This would maintain areas for all users, including families, to continue to enjoy the space at Down Grange for activities such as picnics.
Supplementary Question
And just a quick comment on that. I think the design of the park or the pitch and putt that I’ve seen so far, there is a lot of overlap with previous people’s questions. So, the usage right now and also the way that it’s designed, there is no space for people to go and sit in open areas for picnics, that wherever the balls are going to go, they will go in a triangle. You can’t sit on that triangle unfortunately and then there’s a pond where there would be other open space. But my question as a supplement is, as pitch and putt is a restricted, fee paying facility catering to a narrow demographic, how do these plans comply with the council’s own green infrastructure strategy commitment to keep Down Grange as a free, open and inclusive community space for everyone?
Answer
Right. There’s quite a lot in that supplementary to cover. But it is remaining open to the public. The biodiversity on the site will increase if this proposal went ahead. The talk of no spaces that aren’t free of golf balls, it’s clear from the way they positioned the holes that if they’re hitting the balls away from certain areas on purpose and there’s a large area in the middle of the site from the car park down that is a good place that won’t have any holes forcing it. There’s one hole but it’s surrounded by trees. So there is definitely areas in that park that will be good for having picnics. They also will be putting benches around the pond I believe. So, if, you know, they’re going to put benches there I’m sure they’re also confident that there’s no issues. I don’t know if you want to repeat any of your questions if I haven’t answered any of it because I might have missed some.
Supplementary Question
So, it was around the green infrastructure strategy commitment that the council set down a few years ago now. So, where there was a commitment in that to keep Down Grange as a free, open and inclusive community space for everybody?
Answer
Yes. So, it will be free and open still. As the strategy, I mean I’ve looked at the local nature recovery strategy and it does include the park as it is currently. It doesn’t have high biodiversity. And the proposals will actually increase biodiversity. The main area of conservation on that bit of land is in the conservation area where the group works. And that is not being affected by this proposal and of course, we’ll always support that. Thanks.
5) From: Miranda Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
What steps will the council take to prevent antisocial behaviour such as dirt bikes and e scooters being used across Down Grange Park if new golf facilities are introduced?
Answer
Thank you, Miranda, for your question. As I’m the Portfolio Holder for community safety, I am happy to answer the question. Our community safety team leads our partnership approach to antisocial behaviour, managing antisocial behaviour cases, and putting in place-based solutions to reduce ASB. So on the ground, antisocial behaviour is tackled by Community Safety Patrol Officers who carry out visible, uniformed patrols across the borough, proactively challenging antisocial behaviour where it happens and supporting those affected. We’re aware of recent concerns at Down Grange, including the deeply upsetting fire at the hockey club. Our teams are actively responding with regular high-visibility patrols, addressing ASB directly and working with the local police teams because they have the powers relating to vehicle nuisance. We are exploring further measures to help prevent crime and disorder in the area. ASB in any form is unacceptable and we’d encourage anyone who witnesses ASB to let the police know by calling 101, 999 in an emergency, or by reporting it online on the police’s website. The website may not provide an immediate answer, but it does allow the police to build up a map and understand if there’s a hot spot that will bring it up their priority list. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Why hasn’t the council properly explored and published alternative viable sites with the same level of detail and public engagement as Down Grange before pressing ahead? And does this not suggest a predetermined decision rather than an open consultation process?
Answer from the Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, so the Cabinet did look at all these sites and we didn’t choose to put it in our papers, but we have invited in ward councillors and councillors affected by the proposal to look at that and they’ve had the opportunity to share that with their residents. What was the rest of your question, I’ve forgotten?
Supplementary Question
Think that’s pretty much it. Just one last thing is as a resident on site and I think there are four of us along there, none of us have had any approach from the council, nor a letter engaging us and telling us of any of this. My neighbours in fact didn’t know. I only knew because I was president of the hockey club, and I actually informed my neighbours. So, the people on site seem to mean very little, and they’re private houses.
Answer
We’ve sent 4000 letters out locally. If some missed, then that’s unfortunate. But we’ve also, I mean, I’ve held 10 meetings with different clubs who are at Down Grange. If you’re not aware that those meetings have taken place, I’ll be quite amazed. Well, you’re at one of them. We’re glad you are and we’re not trying to hide anything. Like I say I’ve had 10 separate meetings. I’ve been on site countless times. We’ve put out comms. We’ve written to local news outlets. There has been a lot of engagement in this. The only formal engagement required of the council was actually at the planning stage. This is what we want to do, so, thanks.
6) From: Don Powell
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How does the Council propose that cross-country and athletics training—used by hundreds of young athletes each week—can take place safely in the same area as a pitch and putt course?
Answer
Thank you and thank you for your question. We have been talking to clubs and users to understand their informal uses of the site and I have also visited the site a number of times. We have been and continue to be very open with the clubs and are very happy to keep talking with them, and lines of communication continue to be open with the sports clubs. Following early discussions, the initial designs were amended to reduce the pitch and putt course from a 9-hole to a 6-hole course. This would reduce the space needed for the pitch and putt. However, further talks are going on with the athletics club about how their informal training could use other parts of the 110-acre site and existing training facilities could be enhanced. The council has a strong history of supporting the athletics club and the commitment remains.
Supplementary Question
Let me just say I don’t agree with what he said though. My supplementary is, Down Grange Park has been used by athletics clubs since the 1970s with up to 400 weekly users including world class athletes. How on earth can the council justify not being fully aware of the level of usage of that particular field, alongside the disc golf and the general recreation before deciding this was the best site to relocate golf facilities to?
Answer
I understand that and I have been to visit the training sessions and I do see how valuable they are. The fact is its public open space and any sports club in the borough just cannot claim a right to open green space. Moving forward, we do want to make sure that we don’t lose that training. We don’t want to reduce what our young athletes, you know, have the opportunities to do in this borough, but we also have a consideration of another facility that’s being lost. And that does also have a huge impact because it’s another sport and there’s a lot of people that play that. So somewhere in this borough we’re going to have to find a spot to re-provide those facilities and this one seems to be the least impactful spot and that’s the decision the cabinet made. But we’re looking into it. We have reached out to the athletics club and we honestly want to find a way to mitigate those training sessions and I just want those talks to happen, because at the moment, it’s a clear ‘we don’t want it’. But, you know, we don’t know what’s going to happen at this stage. But if it does happen, we need to have those talks so we at least have mitigation in place. Thank you.
7) From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Will dog walkers be required to keep dogs on leads or be restricted to paths if a pitch and putt course is introduced at Down Grange?
Answer
Thank you for your question, Lucy. Dogs will not be required to be on leads or restricted to paths if a pitch and putt course is introduced at Down Grange. As with any park in open space in the borough, we would ask owners to adhere to the Countryside Code and remain responsible, meaning dogs should be kept under control and in sight at all times. The pitch and putt course proposal has been designed to protect public access. I must note, dogs are already able to roam freely around the whole site, including the playing field pitches, and we trust in owners’ ability to sensibly manage their dogs. While dogs can be walked off lead, dogs that do not listen to commands or are around wildlife or children should be kept on a lead. And we would ask owners to be mindful of others around them. As at other public courses, we would also ask golf players to give way to the public and show consideration to other users of the site. Thanks.
Supplementary Question
I’m going to ask you to answer this without extolling the supposed virtues of your golf centre, or blaming the likes of Sports England, or the importance of golf over all other sports. So my supplementary question is, can the council please explain why you believe the public, the sports clubs and the dogs at Down Grange no longer require all the open natural untouched green space they currently enjoy at Down Grange Park and its surrounding areas?
Answer
I’m sorry, I won’t. I will take Sports England advice and I will take England Golf’s advice because that’s what I should do as a sports portfolio holder, and Golf England highly values the golf centre that we have, and it’s because of the fact it’s a grassroots facility. So, I will value that. I do also realise that it’s impactful on dog walkers and the space that you have, but I will ask that you share that space. This is a Cabinet decision and I’m just representing and answering the questions tonight.
Supplementary Question
My question is, why does the council believe the public no longer requires all this open space?
Answer
Yes, it’s still open to the public and people will still be able to walk their dogs. I think you’ll find at 7:00am till 9:00am you’ll be able to walk your dog without even seeing a golfer. Thank you.
8) From: Mark Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Can the cabinet member confirm what the anticipated running costs would be for the proposed pitch and putt at Down Grange Park-including staffing and police access, maintenance such as retrieving balls from ponds and costs associated with vandalism or antisocial behaviour, given past incidents such as arson at the hockey pavilion?
Answer
Thank you, Mark. We do not have detailed operational costs at this stage, and we expect the facility to be run by our appointed leisure operator. This would mean they would cover all costs associated with the operation and maintenance of this proposed facility. The current site generates a surplus and we expect the proposed facilities at Down Grange to be on par or potentially cheaper to run. This is a result of the modern technology that would be used on the golf pods compared to the driving range and the course being a more modest scale.
Supplementary Question
At what point does the public outcry actually matter to this administration? Thousands of residents have signed petitions, written emails, spoken out, yet it feels like our voices are not being listened to. People are losing faith in the council process. How loud do residents need to shout before you listen to us?
Answer
I can assure you that we are listening. There are all sorts of processes for feedback. It’s not just the petition. We’ve also had a public engagement event, a 5-hour long event that a lot of councillors were there, listening, and we’re almost finished putting that together, and we’ll share the results from that. We are listening to that. My comment would be we will listen to reasonable comments and we will shape our next steps from those reasonable comments. And yes, undoubtedly, we’re listening. I haven’t spent the last nine months coming to meet all you people not listening. I’ve done that because I think it’s the right thing to do and I want to make sure that we pick the right place to re-provide these facilities. Thanks.
9) From: Leigh Henderson
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
What research has the Council undertaken to understand the training and competition space requirements of different sports at Down Grange?
Answer
Thank you, Leigh. We have had extensive discussions with clubs at Down Grange. This includes the hockey club, athletics club, rugby club, rifle and pistol club, disc golf club and pétanque club. We have used these insights to adapt our initial proposals and I think you’re well aware of the links you have with the borough through our sports team. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Council representatives have repeatedly stated that the space will still be available for training and walking as has been noted. They have also said that no fences or netting will be required. Can the council guarantee that such devices will not be required in the future? The essence of the space will be fundamentally changed by the pitch and putt course. It would be destroyed by fences or netting along with the council’s reputation as a trusted local authority.
Answer
Well, yes, I can guarantee that the netting and fences will not be put around the site.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 14 October 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 14 October 2025)
Minutes
Lucy Wain presented a petition on behalf of Claire Harrison which opposed the proposed destruction of the peaceful Down Grange Park for golf centre and car park.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside Bodies 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
The following changes to committee seats were agreed:
Environment and Infrastructure O&S Committee
Cllr Izett to replace Cllr Miller
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr McIntyre as a reserve member
Resources O&S Committee
Cllr Dillow to replace Cllr Miller as a reserve member
Development Control Committee
Cllr Ganesh to replace Cllr Miller
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr Ganesh as a reserve member
Cllr Perry to replace Cllr Golding as a reserve member
Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Cllr McIntyre to resign as a reserve member
Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr Miller
Residents Services O&S Committee
Cllr Mummalaneni to replace Cllr Izett
Environment and Infrastructure O&S Committee
Cllr Izett to replace Cllr Miller
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr McIntyre as a reserve member
Resources O&S Committee
Cllr Dillow to replace Cllr Miller as a reserve member
Development Control Committee
Cllr Ganesh to replace Cllr Miller
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr Ganesh as a reserve member
Cllr Perry to replace Cllr Golding as a reserve member
Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Cllr McIntyre to resign as a reserve member
Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee
Cllr Minas-Bound to replace Cllr Miller
Residents Services O&S Committee
Cllr Mummalaneni to replace Cllr Izett
8
Quarter 1 Capital Monitoring Report as at 30 June 2025
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 7 October 2025
Cabinet request Council to approve bullet point 8 as set out in the report:
8. Changes to the capital programme as described in section 6 to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as follows:
· an increase to the Manydown Development scheme of £1.139M in 2025/26 and £0.153M in 2026/27;
· a reduction to the New Waste Collection Contract scheme of £0.384M in 2025/26 and £0.069M in 2026/27;
· an increase to the Local Authority Housing Fund scheme of £0.644M in 2025/26; and
· a new capital scheme for Affordable Housing Schemes with a capital budget of £0.301M in 2025/26.
Cabinet request Council to approve bullet point 8 as set out in the report:
8. Changes to the capital programme as described in section 6 to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as follows:
· an increase to the Manydown Development scheme of £1.139M in 2025/26 and £0.153M in 2026/27;
· a reduction to the New Waste Collection Contract scheme of £0.384M in 2025/26 and £0.069M in 2026/27;
· an increase to the Local Authority Housing Fund scheme of £0.644M in 2025/26; and
· a new capital scheme for Affordable Housing Schemes with a capital budget of £0.301M in 2025/26.
Attachments:
- Document Q1 Capital Monitoring Report 2025-26 - Cabinet 08 Oct 2025
- Document Q1 Capital Monitoring Report 2025-26 Amendment 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which presented the position on the council’s capital programme for the first quarter of 2025/26 and sought approval for changes to capital programme scheme budgets to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities.
Resolved: To approve changes to the capital programme to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as follows:
· an increase to the Manydown Development scheme of £1.139M in 2025/26 and £0.153M in 2026/27;
· a reduction to the New Waste Collection Contract scheme of £0.384M in 2025/26 and £0.069M in 2026/27;
· an increase to the Local Authority Housing Fund scheme of £0.644M in 2025/26; and
· a new capital scheme for Affordable Housing Schemes with a capital budget of £0.301M in 2025/26.
Resolved: To approve changes to the capital programme to support the delivery of Council Plan Priorities as follows:
· an increase to the Manydown Development scheme of £1.139M in 2025/26 and £0.153M in 2026/27;
· a reduction to the New Waste Collection Contract scheme of £0.384M in 2025/26 and £0.069M in 2026/27;
· an increase to the Local Authority Housing Fund scheme of £0.644M in 2025/26; and
· a new capital scheme for Affordable Housing Schemes with a capital budget of £0.301M in 2025/26.
9
Allocation of Seats to Political Groups
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Allocation of Seats to Political Groups 08 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Proportionality 08 Oct 2025
- Document Allocation of Seats to Political Groups updated report 08 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Proposed Proportionality updated 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which presented a review of proportionality and seat allocation on committees because of two recent changes in the composition of the council.
Resolved: That the revised scheme of proportionality and allocation of seats be agreed.
Resolved: That the revised scheme of proportionality and allocation of seats be agreed.
10
Establishment of South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Report Amendments to the Constitution - South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration O&S Committee 08 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 1 amendment to Article 6 Part 2 08 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 2 amendment to Para 2 O & S RULES OF PROCEDURE 08 Oct 2025
- Document Appendix 3 Misc amendments to Constitution 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
A report which sought Council’s agreement to the establishment of the South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee through amendments to the constitution and to agree the size of the Committee and the frequency of the meetings was considered.
Resolved: Council
1) Agree the amendments to the Constitution in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the report, establishing the South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agree the terms of reference for the Committee.
2) Approve the committee size and proportionality as set out in paragraph 3.5 of the report in order to enable appointments to be made to the Committee, including the election of the Chair of the Committee.
3) Agree that there will be three meetings per municipal year and for one meeting to be scheduled in before the end of this municipal year, the date to be agreed with the Chair of the Committee.
4) Appoint the following councillors to the Committee:
Councillors Bowes, Dillow, Grassi, T Jones, Mummalaneni, Oborn, Slimin, Tuck and G Watts
Reserve Members: Councillors Ashfield, Conquest, Court, Harper, Hussey, Kotecha, Minas-Bound and K Watts.
5) Appoint Councillor Dillow as the Chair of the Committee.
Resolved: Council
1) Agree the amendments to the Constitution in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the report, establishing the South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agree the terms of reference for the Committee.
2) Approve the committee size and proportionality as set out in paragraph 3.5 of the report in order to enable appointments to be made to the Committee, including the election of the Chair of the Committee.
3) Agree that there will be three meetings per municipal year and for one meeting to be scheduled in before the end of this municipal year, the date to be agreed with the Chair of the Committee.
4) Appoint the following councillors to the Committee:
Councillors Bowes, Dillow, Grassi, T Jones, Mummalaneni, Oborn, Slimin, Tuck and G Watts
Reserve Members: Councillors Ashfield, Conquest, Court, Harper, Hussey, Kotecha, Minas-Bound and K Watts.
5) Appoint Councillor Dillow as the Chair of the Committee.
11
Appointment of Independent Person and Independent Standards Assessor
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Appointment of Independent Person and Independent Standards Assessor 08 Oct 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which sought approval of appointments as recommended by a recruitment panel formed of councillors from the Standards Committee.
Resolved: That Council
1) Agree to appoint Natasha Jindal as Independent Person and Karen McManus as Independent Standards Assessor for the period of 2 years from the 1 November 2025 with up to one two-year period of extension if required.
2) Agree to appoint Karen McManus as advisory non-voting member of the Standards Committee for the duration of her tenure as Independent Assessor.
Resolved: That Council
1) Agree to appoint Natasha Jindal as Independent Person and Karen McManus as Independent Standards Assessor for the period of 2 years from the 1 November 2025 with up to one two-year period of extension if required.
2) Agree to appoint Karen McManus as advisory non-voting member of the Standards Committee for the duration of her tenure as Independent Assessor.
12
Notice of Motion - Reconsider Golf Course Plans at Down Grange
Proposer: Councillor T Jones
Seconder: Councillor A McCormick
This Council notes:
1. The Cabinet’s decision in January 2025 to approve Down Grange Park as the preferred site for the provision of replacement golf facilities subject to obtaining planning permission.
2. The public petition opposing this proposal, signed by more than 6,000 residents, highlights widespread concern about the impact on a valued community green space.
3. The petition’s evidence shows that Down Grange is used by a wide range of groups — including sports clubs, families, community groups such as Brownies and Rainbows, dog-walkers, and residents seeking peace and wellbeing.
4. Concerns raised in the petition about the potential destruction of mature trees, loss of habitats and biodiversity, and the wider impact on public health and mental wellbeing.
This Council believes:
1. Down Grange is one of the Borough’s most important public open spaces, and proposals to change its use must be based on clear evidence of need, genuine community benefit, and environmental responsibility.
2. Decisions of such significance should be taken in full transparency with local residents, including publication of the decision making factors and full local consultation.
3. The voices of residents must be heard and respected in shaping the future of community land.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet reconsiders its decision to progress plans for a golf course at Down Grange in light of the strength of public opposition.
2. Ensure that a comprehensive public consultation is carried out, engaging residents, sports clubs, environmental groups, and other community stakeholders.
3. Call on Cabinet to publish in full the business case, environmental assessments, and consultation feedback underpinning this proposal including details of how this site was chosen over other options considered.
Seconder: Councillor A McCormick
This Council notes:
1. The Cabinet’s decision in January 2025 to approve Down Grange Park as the preferred site for the provision of replacement golf facilities subject to obtaining planning permission.
2. The public petition opposing this proposal, signed by more than 6,000 residents, highlights widespread concern about the impact on a valued community green space.
3. The petition’s evidence shows that Down Grange is used by a wide range of groups — including sports clubs, families, community groups such as Brownies and Rainbows, dog-walkers, and residents seeking peace and wellbeing.
4. Concerns raised in the petition about the potential destruction of mature trees, loss of habitats and biodiversity, and the wider impact on public health and mental wellbeing.
This Council believes:
1. Down Grange is one of the Borough’s most important public open spaces, and proposals to change its use must be based on clear evidence of need, genuine community benefit, and environmental responsibility.
2. Decisions of such significance should be taken in full transparency with local residents, including publication of the decision making factors and full local consultation.
3. The voices of residents must be heard and respected in shaping the future of community land.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet reconsiders its decision to progress plans for a golf course at Down Grange in light of the strength of public opposition.
2. Ensure that a comprehensive public consultation is carried out, engaging residents, sports clubs, environmental groups, and other community stakeholders.
3. Call on Cabinet to publish in full the business case, environmental assessments, and consultation feedback underpinning this proposal including details of how this site was chosen over other options considered.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor T Jones and seconded by Councillor McCormick:
This Council notes:
1. The Cabinet’s decision in January 2025 to approve Down Grange Park as the preferred site for the provision of replacement golf facilities subject to obtaining planning permission.
2. The public petition opposing this proposal, signed by more than 6,000 residents, highlights widespread concern about the impact on a valued community green space.
3. The petition’s evidence shows that Down Grange is used by a wide range of groups — including sports clubs, families, community groups such as Brownies and Rainbows, dog-walkers, and residents seeking peace and wellbeing.
4. Concerns raised in the petition about the potential destruction of mature trees, loss of habitats and biodiversity, and the wider impact on public health and mental wellbeing.
This Council believes:
1. Down Grange is one of the Borough’s most important public open spaces, and proposals to change its use must be based on clear evidence of need, genuine community benefit, and environmental responsibility.
2. Decisions of such significance should be taken in full transparency with local residents, including publication of the decision making factors and full local consultation.
3. The voices of residents must be heard and respected in shaping the future of community land.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet reconsiders its decision to progress plans for a golf course at Down Grange in light of the strength of public opposition.
2. Ensure that a comprehensive public consultation is carried out, engaging residents, sports clubs, environmental groups, and other community stakeholders.
3. Call on Cabinet to publish in full the business case, environmental assessments, and consultation feedback underpinning this proposal including details of how this site was chosen over other options considered.
Council debated the motion and discussed:
Sites considered and the constraints of all sites shortlisted resulting in Down Grange as the logical option based on evidence. The popularity of the pitch and putt and provision of inclusive golf facilities in the borough. Concerns that re-provision was not like for like or better golf provision than the current facilities Consideration of alternative more appropriate sites that could provide a better opportunity for golf re-provision. The strong depth of feeling displayed by residents opposing the proposal as demonstrated by the public questions and submission of a well-supported petition. Concerns regarding the impact of loss of green space to residents wellbeing and community activities. Concerns that a pitch and putt would limit access to other sporting activities currently at Down Grange. The impact on the natural environment and actions taken to improve biodiversity. Concerns regarding lack of transparency, consultation and scrutiny in the decision making process, however it was highlighted there were few representations made at the Cabinet meeting nine months ago when the decision was made, or any call-in of the decision from councillors or Scrutiny Committees. Consideration of an alternative solution which supports leisure growth without sacrificing green spaces. The benefits and investment to the borough of the Great Wolf Resorts development, the timescale required to reach planning permission submission stage, the impact of the golf re-provision strategy on the disposal of land to Great Wolf and future opportunities for the Leisure Park. Concerns regarding safety and lack of a risk assessment. Concerns regarding misinformation and misconceptions regarding planning policy, the type of golf facility being proposed, available use of land for park users and destruction of land and trees at Down Grange. Concerns and feedback from users were being considered as demonstrated by the proposal to increase parking spaces to improve access for users of the park. Concerns regarding the content and validity of signatories to the petition submitted to Council opposing the proposals. Publication of the business case evidence, further environmental consultation and engagement with users. Reference to consideration of the wider picture including the needs of users of Down Grange, users of the current pitch and putt facility and the benefits to the wider borough of the Great Wolf development. Clarity that the motion purely sought reconsideration of the decision in a more transparent way.
In response to a query regarding pre-determination, the Monitoring officer advised that Members of the Development Control Committee had received advice and would need to consider whether they were pre-determined when considering applications at the planning stage.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 17 votes in favour, 23 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
This Council notes:
1. The Cabinet’s decision in January 2025 to approve Down Grange Park as the preferred site for the provision of replacement golf facilities subject to obtaining planning permission.
2. The public petition opposing this proposal, signed by more than 6,000 residents, highlights widespread concern about the impact on a valued community green space.
3. The petition’s evidence shows that Down Grange is used by a wide range of groups — including sports clubs, families, community groups such as Brownies and Rainbows, dog-walkers, and residents seeking peace and wellbeing.
4. Concerns raised in the petition about the potential destruction of mature trees, loss of habitats and biodiversity, and the wider impact on public health and mental wellbeing.
This Council believes:
1. Down Grange is one of the Borough’s most important public open spaces, and proposals to change its use must be based on clear evidence of need, genuine community benefit, and environmental responsibility.
2. Decisions of such significance should be taken in full transparency with local residents, including publication of the decision making factors and full local consultation.
3. The voices of residents must be heard and respected in shaping the future of community land.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Request that Cabinet reconsiders its decision to progress plans for a golf course at Down Grange in light of the strength of public opposition.
2. Ensure that a comprehensive public consultation is carried out, engaging residents, sports clubs, environmental groups, and other community stakeholders.
3. Call on Cabinet to publish in full the business case, environmental assessments, and consultation feedback underpinning this proposal including details of how this site was chosen over other options considered.
Council debated the motion and discussed:
Sites considered and the constraints of all sites shortlisted resulting in Down Grange as the logical option based on evidence. The popularity of the pitch and putt and provision of inclusive golf facilities in the borough. Concerns that re-provision was not like for like or better golf provision than the current facilities Consideration of alternative more appropriate sites that could provide a better opportunity for golf re-provision. The strong depth of feeling displayed by residents opposing the proposal as demonstrated by the public questions and submission of a well-supported petition. Concerns regarding the impact of loss of green space to residents wellbeing and community activities. Concerns that a pitch and putt would limit access to other sporting activities currently at Down Grange. The impact on the natural environment and actions taken to improve biodiversity. Concerns regarding lack of transparency, consultation and scrutiny in the decision making process, however it was highlighted there were few representations made at the Cabinet meeting nine months ago when the decision was made, or any call-in of the decision from councillors or Scrutiny Committees. Consideration of an alternative solution which supports leisure growth without sacrificing green spaces. The benefits and investment to the borough of the Great Wolf Resorts development, the timescale required to reach planning permission submission stage, the impact of the golf re-provision strategy on the disposal of land to Great Wolf and future opportunities for the Leisure Park. Concerns regarding safety and lack of a risk assessment. Concerns regarding misinformation and misconceptions regarding planning policy, the type of golf facility being proposed, available use of land for park users and destruction of land and trees at Down Grange. Concerns and feedback from users were being considered as demonstrated by the proposal to increase parking spaces to improve access for users of the park. Concerns regarding the content and validity of signatories to the petition submitted to Council opposing the proposals. Publication of the business case evidence, further environmental consultation and engagement with users. Reference to consideration of the wider picture including the needs of users of Down Grange, users of the current pitch and putt facility and the benefits to the wider borough of the Great Wolf development. Clarity that the motion purely sought reconsideration of the decision in a more transparent way.
In response to a query regarding pre-determination, the Monitoring officer advised that Members of the Development Control Committee had received advice and would need to consider whether they were pre-determined when considering applications at the planning stage.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 17 votes in favour, 23 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be rejected.
13
Notice of Motion - Adoption of a Health in All Policies (HiAP) Approach
Proposer: Councillor Connor
Seconder: Councillor Harvey
This Council notes that:
1. The health and wellbeing of residents is shaped not only by healthcare services but also by wider determinants such as housing, transport, education, employment, environment, and community safety.
2. A “Health in All Policies” (HiAP) approach is recognised nationally and internationally as a best practice framework for embedding health considerations into decision-making across all sectors.
3. By adopting HiAP, councils can reduce health inequalities, improve quality of life, and deliver long-term savings through prevention and early intervention.
This Council believes that:
1. Every policy decision should consider its potential impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
2. Tackling health inequalities requires cross-departmental collaboration and partnership with external agencies, including the NHS, voluntary sector, and local communities.
3. Embedding health into all policies will strengthen our commitment to fairness, sustainability, and inclusive growth.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 this Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Recommend existing Cabinet and Committee reports include an assessment of potential health and wellbeing impacts.
2. Whilst recognising that it will ultimately be a decision for the new unitary council, advocate for a Health in All Policies approach as part of the planning, design and implementation of a new unitary council, including through work with local NHS partners, schools, businesses, and community organisations to align efforts in improving population health and reducing inequalities.
Seconder: Councillor Harvey
This Council notes that:
1. The health and wellbeing of residents is shaped not only by healthcare services but also by wider determinants such as housing, transport, education, employment, environment, and community safety.
2. A “Health in All Policies” (HiAP) approach is recognised nationally and internationally as a best practice framework for embedding health considerations into decision-making across all sectors.
3. By adopting HiAP, councils can reduce health inequalities, improve quality of life, and deliver long-term savings through prevention and early intervention.
This Council believes that:
1. Every policy decision should consider its potential impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
2. Tackling health inequalities requires cross-departmental collaboration and partnership with external agencies, including the NHS, voluntary sector, and local communities.
3. Embedding health into all policies will strengthen our commitment to fairness, sustainability, and inclusive growth.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 this Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Recommend existing Cabinet and Committee reports include an assessment of potential health and wellbeing impacts.
2. Whilst recognising that it will ultimately be a decision for the new unitary council, advocate for a Health in All Policies approach as part of the planning, design and implementation of a new unitary council, including through work with local NHS partners, schools, businesses, and community organisations to align efforts in improving population health and reducing inequalities.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Connor and seconded by Councillor Harvey:
This Council notes that:
1. The health and wellbeing of residents is shaped not only by healthcare services but also by wider determinants such as housing, transport, education, employment, environment, and community safety.
2. A “Health in All Policies” (HiAP) approach is recognised nationally and internationally as a best practice framework for embedding health considerations into decision-making across all sectors.
3. By adopting HiAP, councils can reduce health inequalities, improve quality of life, and deliver long-term savings through prevention and early intervention.
This Council believes that:
1. Every policy decision should consider its potential impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
2. Tackling health inequalities requires cross-departmental collaboration and partnership with external agencies, including the NHS, voluntary sector, and local communities.
3. Embedding health into all policies will strengthen our commitment to fairness, sustainability, and inclusive growth.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 this Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Recommend existing Cabinet and Committee reports include an assessment of potential health and wellbeing impacts.
2. Whilst recognising that it will ultimately be a decision for the new unitary council, advocate for a Health in All Policies approach as part of the planning, design and implementation of a new unitary council, including through work with local NHS partners, schools, businesses, and community organisations to align efforts in improving population health and reducing inequalities.
The motion was discussed and was supported by Members. Some Members welcomed the principle of the motion but felt it was premature given local authority reorganisation. Other comments concerned clarity regarding resources, training, who would lead delivery on the health assessment work and how it would be delivered and translated into policy. Reference was made to the Council’s existing Health and Wellbeing Strategy which should be considered in all aspects of council activities and was appropriate for the current authority. Other Members expressed a different view that the motion was timely with local government reorganisation on the horizon. It was commented that it was not a new approach and evidence suggested councils and residents had benefitted from the approach. It was acknowledged that public health was not the responsibility of lower tier authorities but could be in the future and there was a part to play in promoting better health and wellbeing by providing partners, facilities and services that support active lifestyles and community cohesion that prevent illness. Adopting the HiAP approach would further embed health and wellbeing considerations in the councils work and was important moving to a unitary authority. Examples of work being undertaken by the council which impact heath and health inequality were also cited.
The motion was put to a vote with 39 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet
This Council notes that:
1. The health and wellbeing of residents is shaped not only by healthcare services but also by wider determinants such as housing, transport, education, employment, environment, and community safety.
2. A “Health in All Policies” (HiAP) approach is recognised nationally and internationally as a best practice framework for embedding health considerations into decision-making across all sectors.
3. By adopting HiAP, councils can reduce health inequalities, improve quality of life, and deliver long-term savings through prevention and early intervention.
This Council believes that:
1. Every policy decision should consider its potential impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
2. Tackling health inequalities requires cross-departmental collaboration and partnership with external agencies, including the NHS, voluntary sector, and local communities.
3. Embedding health into all policies will strengthen our commitment to fairness, sustainability, and inclusive growth.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 this Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. Recommend existing Cabinet and Committee reports include an assessment of potential health and wellbeing impacts.
2. Whilst recognising that it will ultimately be a decision for the new unitary council, advocate for a Health in All Policies approach as part of the planning, design and implementation of a new unitary council, including through work with local NHS partners, schools, businesses, and community organisations to align efforts in improving population health and reducing inequalities.
The motion was discussed and was supported by Members. Some Members welcomed the principle of the motion but felt it was premature given local authority reorganisation. Other comments concerned clarity regarding resources, training, who would lead delivery on the health assessment work and how it would be delivered and translated into policy. Reference was made to the Council’s existing Health and Wellbeing Strategy which should be considered in all aspects of council activities and was appropriate for the current authority. Other Members expressed a different view that the motion was timely with local government reorganisation on the horizon. It was commented that it was not a new approach and evidence suggested councils and residents had benefitted from the approach. It was acknowledged that public health was not the responsibility of lower tier authorities but could be in the future and there was a part to play in promoting better health and wellbeing by providing partners, facilities and services that support active lifestyles and community cohesion that prevent illness. Adopting the HiAP approach would further embed health and wellbeing considerations in the councils work and was important moving to a unitary authority. Examples of work being undertaken by the council which impact heath and health inequality were also cited.
The motion was put to a vote with 39 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried and referred to Cabinet
14
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
1. From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Sport, Leisure and Culture
Down Grange Park golf proposal...
Over recent weeks, I have received a considerable number of objections from residents, local groups and long-standing users of the park who are deeply concerned about the loss of much-needed open space. At the recent public consultation meeting, walking groups, athletics coaches, dog walkers, The Down Grange Community Group, and the Old Down Wildlife Group all raised concerns with me and to officers at the meeting about safety, safeguarding, the erosion of community facilities, and the damage to biodiversity.
In addition, residents have taken the step of organising and signing an online petition, further demonstrating the strength of feeling against this proposal.
The message is clear: the community does NOT want to see Down Grange Park converted into a golf course.
With that context, I would like to ask the Cabinet Member:
Could the Cabinet Member set out clearly which 40+ alternative sites were initially considered and by whom. How the short list of 8 sites was decided for the relocation of the pitch & putt facility, and provide the reasons why each of these shortlisted locations was discounted?
Could the Cabinet Member also confirm that there is actually no statutory or legal requirement to reprovision the golf facility if the Great Wolf Resorts development goes ahead.
Answer
Yes Mr Mayor. Firstly I want to clarify that we are not proposing to put golf facilities on all the open land at Down Grange. Our proposals include a six-hole pitch and putt course and a golf pod-style driving range and it has been designed to keep large spaces as parkland for everyone to enjoy. As part of our work to provide grassroots sports facilities in the borough, we took a decision to reprovide the facilities that could be lost if Great Wolf Resorts is granted permission for its proposed indoor water park resort, on the golf centre site. We reviewed all council-owned land in the borough. This came out with 48 sites. We then assessed these sites, based on their size and ability to accommodate the facilities. I want to point out that obviously those 48 sites, a lot of them were very small and wouldn’t have allowed the sites for golf to fit in there. The remaining shortlisted sites following this process were:
Down Grange. Old Down. Beggarwood Park. Chineham Park. Popley Community Park. War Memorial Park and Old Common. And Manydown (South).
I’m sure probably raises a few eyebrows about the options and the sort of response you get with some of those. All the sites are challenging in some way, due to conservation issues, size, loss of play areas, being used for borough events, safety and lack of infrastructure amongst others. I know officers have briefed you on all of the shortlisted sites, but I am happy to resupply the detailed answers. Pretty much covered everything today. I’ll get this to you if you want.
Supplementary Question
I’m feeling a little bit frustrated. Nationally, people across the country are feeling more and more frustrated and angry that their voices aren’t being heard. And unfortunately, I feel that it’s no different in Basingstoke. From the proposed regeneration of Buckskin and South Ham, to these obviously frankly outrageous plans to relocate the pitch and putt to Down Grange Park. Residents, well they’ve gone now, but they just basically feel ignored and dismissed by this council’s administration. To push ahead against such strong public feeling shows just how out of touch and tin-eared this council’s administration, I feel has become. Will this council’s administration finally listen to its electorate and accept that this proposal is totally wrong, but develop a plan B that will protect the Great Wolf Development and kick these Down Grange Plans firmly into the rut? Thank you.
Answer
Councillor Dillow, you are well aware of the amount of engagement I’ve done on this. I’ve spent time with officers. I’ve had a lot of meetings over the last nine months. A lot of information has changed hands and I’ve also spent a lot of personal time going to see activities and the training sessions outside of this. So we are listening. The fact is that we have to listen to reasonable suggestions and there’s been a lot of misinformation put into this. Not saying that I don’t take on board the residents’ concerns but like you say nationally, you know, everyone is shouting but not a lot of people are listening. So I think actually we have to actually get in a room and talk about things properly, and that’s which I’m always open to do. At the moment we’ve got a very loud campaign. We’ve got councillors on the opposition who are on that campaign. Come see me. I’m frustrated that I don’t have more access and to talk to the campaign. Certain people in the campaign groups are very important in Down Grange. I want to go forward and I want the process to be more open. We want to talk more and we want to actually get to the bottom of this rather than saying that we’re destroying and the negative language. We actually want to get to the facts and what’s actually going to happen.
2. From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Residents Services and Housing
Down Grange Park BMX Track / Emergency Access
The BMX track at Down Grange Park has been used safely by local children for well over twenty years, yet the council has now proposed creating a new “emergency access” route through the conservation meadow from Homesteads Road. Residents feel this is unnecessary, given that there are alternative routes — such as via the Miller & Carter road and car park off of the A30 — which would cost nothing to the taxpayer and avoid damage to the meadow.
They also point out that at a public meeting, practical suggestions were made to resolve the fencing issues around the BMX track run-up areas, allowing riders to use the track safely while still protecting dog walkers, runners and all users of the park. These solutions appear to have been overlooked in favour of a more complicated and costly proposal.
With that in mind, could the Cabinet Member explain why the council has determined that the Homesteads Road entrance must be used to provide emergency vehicle access to the BMX track, when residents have suggested alternative cheaper options such as using the existing road to Miller & Carter, and why simple fencing adjustments to the BMX run-up areas cannot provide a satisfactory and safer solution?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Dillow, for yet another question. The access is a requirement of the Ambulance Service and allows the council to exercise its duty of care to the public and fulfil its insurance obligations. Discussions were held on site with the Ambulance Service to identify the most appropriate route to access the BMX jumps in the event of an accident. The Ambulance Service inspected the routes from Miller and Carter and said that this was not suitable. The route from Homesteads Road provides a direct route to the BMX track for ambulances in a safe manner. This route was agreed by the Ranger team who also looked at how it would least impact on the environment. The contractor has completed half of the track. The matting will be back filled with soil and seeded. So it will be grassed over and it will eventually be grass that will grow through. I can categorically reject the conspiracy theories about the access. The track is not suitable for HGVs and it will not be an access for the pitch and putt. As the sub-base that we have laid is 20cm deep with wooden sides. It is perfectly usable for ambulances which is the point and to be absolutely clear, the only people that have ever proposed housing on Down Grange was a Conservative County Council, and we stopped that, if you remember. The access has already proven itself when an ambulance service used it to attend an incident where someone had fallen in the meadow and dislocated their hip. May I also suggest, Councillor, that you need to stop chasing ambulances. Can I also say that when we’re talking about anger, Councillor Dillow, earlier on, you were notified of these proposals in February, May, and September and the first time that you raised these with us, Councillor Dillow was in September. So please stop using this Chamber for your political leaflets.
Supplementary Question
Actually, Councillor James sort of answered it but I just wanted to ask if she could possibly just reiterate so it’s on the record that the access route will categorically never be used for any maintenance traffic or construction traffic if the pitch and putt goes ahead. So ongoing, what was it? Is it just solely emergency access and nothing else?
Answer
I think you heard my response to what you actually asked so I don’t think I need to answer that. I’ve already said that tonight, haven’t I?
To: Cabinet Member for Sport, Leisure and Culture
Down Grange Park golf proposal...
Over recent weeks, I have received a considerable number of objections from residents, local groups and long-standing users of the park who are deeply concerned about the loss of much-needed open space. At the recent public consultation meeting, walking groups, athletics coaches, dog walkers, The Down Grange Community Group, and the Old Down Wildlife Group all raised concerns with me and to officers at the meeting about safety, safeguarding, the erosion of community facilities, and the damage to biodiversity.
In addition, residents have taken the step of organising and signing an online petition, further demonstrating the strength of feeling against this proposal.
The message is clear: the community does NOT want to see Down Grange Park converted into a golf course.
With that context, I would like to ask the Cabinet Member:
Could the Cabinet Member set out clearly which 40+ alternative sites were initially considered and by whom. How the short list of 8 sites was decided for the relocation of the pitch & putt facility, and provide the reasons why each of these shortlisted locations was discounted?
Could the Cabinet Member also confirm that there is actually no statutory or legal requirement to reprovision the golf facility if the Great Wolf Resorts development goes ahead.
Answer
Yes Mr Mayor. Firstly I want to clarify that we are not proposing to put golf facilities on all the open land at Down Grange. Our proposals include a six-hole pitch and putt course and a golf pod-style driving range and it has been designed to keep large spaces as parkland for everyone to enjoy. As part of our work to provide grassroots sports facilities in the borough, we took a decision to reprovide the facilities that could be lost if Great Wolf Resorts is granted permission for its proposed indoor water park resort, on the golf centre site. We reviewed all council-owned land in the borough. This came out with 48 sites. We then assessed these sites, based on their size and ability to accommodate the facilities. I want to point out that obviously those 48 sites, a lot of them were very small and wouldn’t have allowed the sites for golf to fit in there. The remaining shortlisted sites following this process were:
Down Grange. Old Down. Beggarwood Park. Chineham Park. Popley Community Park. War Memorial Park and Old Common. And Manydown (South).
I’m sure probably raises a few eyebrows about the options and the sort of response you get with some of those. All the sites are challenging in some way, due to conservation issues, size, loss of play areas, being used for borough events, safety and lack of infrastructure amongst others. I know officers have briefed you on all of the shortlisted sites, but I am happy to resupply the detailed answers. Pretty much covered everything today. I’ll get this to you if you want.
Supplementary Question
I’m feeling a little bit frustrated. Nationally, people across the country are feeling more and more frustrated and angry that their voices aren’t being heard. And unfortunately, I feel that it’s no different in Basingstoke. From the proposed regeneration of Buckskin and South Ham, to these obviously frankly outrageous plans to relocate the pitch and putt to Down Grange Park. Residents, well they’ve gone now, but they just basically feel ignored and dismissed by this council’s administration. To push ahead against such strong public feeling shows just how out of touch and tin-eared this council’s administration, I feel has become. Will this council’s administration finally listen to its electorate and accept that this proposal is totally wrong, but develop a plan B that will protect the Great Wolf Development and kick these Down Grange Plans firmly into the rut? Thank you.
Answer
Councillor Dillow, you are well aware of the amount of engagement I’ve done on this. I’ve spent time with officers. I’ve had a lot of meetings over the last nine months. A lot of information has changed hands and I’ve also spent a lot of personal time going to see activities and the training sessions outside of this. So we are listening. The fact is that we have to listen to reasonable suggestions and there’s been a lot of misinformation put into this. Not saying that I don’t take on board the residents’ concerns but like you say nationally, you know, everyone is shouting but not a lot of people are listening. So I think actually we have to actually get in a room and talk about things properly, and that’s which I’m always open to do. At the moment we’ve got a very loud campaign. We’ve got councillors on the opposition who are on that campaign. Come see me. I’m frustrated that I don’t have more access and to talk to the campaign. Certain people in the campaign groups are very important in Down Grange. I want to go forward and I want the process to be more open. We want to talk more and we want to actually get to the bottom of this rather than saying that we’re destroying and the negative language. We actually want to get to the facts and what’s actually going to happen.
2. From: Councillor Dillow
To: Cabinet Member for Residents Services and Housing
Down Grange Park BMX Track / Emergency Access
The BMX track at Down Grange Park has been used safely by local children for well over twenty years, yet the council has now proposed creating a new “emergency access” route through the conservation meadow from Homesteads Road. Residents feel this is unnecessary, given that there are alternative routes — such as via the Miller & Carter road and car park off of the A30 — which would cost nothing to the taxpayer and avoid damage to the meadow.
They also point out that at a public meeting, practical suggestions were made to resolve the fencing issues around the BMX track run-up areas, allowing riders to use the track safely while still protecting dog walkers, runners and all users of the park. These solutions appear to have been overlooked in favour of a more complicated and costly proposal.
With that in mind, could the Cabinet Member explain why the council has determined that the Homesteads Road entrance must be used to provide emergency vehicle access to the BMX track, when residents have suggested alternative cheaper options such as using the existing road to Miller & Carter, and why simple fencing adjustments to the BMX run-up areas cannot provide a satisfactory and safer solution?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Dillow, for yet another question. The access is a requirement of the Ambulance Service and allows the council to exercise its duty of care to the public and fulfil its insurance obligations. Discussions were held on site with the Ambulance Service to identify the most appropriate route to access the BMX jumps in the event of an accident. The Ambulance Service inspected the routes from Miller and Carter and said that this was not suitable. The route from Homesteads Road provides a direct route to the BMX track for ambulances in a safe manner. This route was agreed by the Ranger team who also looked at how it would least impact on the environment. The contractor has completed half of the track. The matting will be back filled with soil and seeded. So it will be grassed over and it will eventually be grass that will grow through. I can categorically reject the conspiracy theories about the access. The track is not suitable for HGVs and it will not be an access for the pitch and putt. As the sub-base that we have laid is 20cm deep with wooden sides. It is perfectly usable for ambulances which is the point and to be absolutely clear, the only people that have ever proposed housing on Down Grange was a Conservative County Council, and we stopped that, if you remember. The access has already proven itself when an ambulance service used it to attend an incident where someone had fallen in the meadow and dislocated their hip. May I also suggest, Councillor, that you need to stop chasing ambulances. Can I also say that when we’re talking about anger, Councillor Dillow, earlier on, you were notified of these proposals in February, May, and September and the first time that you raised these with us, Councillor Dillow was in September. So please stop using this Chamber for your political leaflets.
Supplementary Question
Actually, Councillor James sort of answered it but I just wanted to ask if she could possibly just reiterate so it’s on the record that the access route will categorically never be used for any maintenance traffic or construction traffic if the pitch and putt goes ahead. So ongoing, what was it? Is it just solely emergency access and nothing else?
Answer
I think you heard my response to what you actually asked so I don’t think I need to answer that. I’ve already said that tonight, haven’t I?
15
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
Development Control
25 June 2025
Cabinet
8 July 2025
Development Control
9 July 2025
Council
17 July 2025
Resources O&S
22 July 2025
Development Control
6 August 2025
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
4 September 2025
Development Control
10 September 2025
Resources O&S
11 September 2025
Standards
15 September 2025
Cabinet
16 September 2025
Residents Services O&S
17 September 2025
Development Control
24 September 2025
Council
25 September 2025
Audit and Accounts
29 September 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
25 June 2025
Cabinet
8 July 2025
Development Control
9 July 2025
Council
17 July 2025
Resources O&S
22 July 2025
Development Control
6 August 2025
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
4 September 2025
Development Control
10 September 2025
Resources O&S
11 September 2025
Standards
15 September 2025
Cabinet
16 September 2025
Residents Services O&S
17 September 2025
Development Control
24 September 2025
Council
25 September 2025
Audit and Accounts
29 September 2025
Minutes
There were no questions.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in