Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
53
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
63
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Cabinet - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 11th November 2025
6:30 PM
Tuesday, 11th November 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Tuesday, 11th November 2025
9:30 PM
Tuesday, 11th November 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
11 Nov 2025
11 Nov 2025
Location:
Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Deanes
Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Chair
Leader
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Guest
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
There were no apologies for absence.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillors L James and P Harvey declared an interest in respect of agenda item 9 – Community Buildings Policy as the Chair and Trustee of Oakridge Hall for All.
3
Urgent matters
To consider any items of business, other than those shown on this agenda and which, by reason of special circumstances to be stated at the meeting, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.
Minutes
There were no urgent matters.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 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 07102025 1830 Cabinet 03 Nov 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.
5
Leader and Portfolio Holder Announcements
Minutes
There were no announcements.
6
Motion referred from Council - Adoption of a Health in All Policies (HiAP) Approach
To consider the resolution referred by Council at its meeting held on 16 October 2025.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 Council 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.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 Council 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
Cabinet considered the following motion referred from Council:
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 Council 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 Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion agreed to work with the proposer of the motion to take the actions set out in the motion.
As the Council is likely to be replaced by a new unitary council in April 2028 Council 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 Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion agreed to work with the proposer of the motion to take the actions set out in the motion.
7
Local Plan: Consultation on Proposed Updated Spatial Strategy
This report presents the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024-2042): Updated Spatial Strategy (USS) and recommends that it be published for public consultation, starting in November 2025, in line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Attachments:
- Document LP Cabinet Report _Final 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Draft Updated Spatial Strategy 2025 v2 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 2 - Proposed Allocations and Yields 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 3 - Draft Site Selection Report 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Draft Settlement Study 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 5 - Draft IDP 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 6 - Draft IIA 03 Nov 2025
Minutes
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure introduced the report which presented the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024-2042) (LP): Updated Spatial Strategy for public consultation in line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The implications to the LP of the publication of a new National Planning Framework (NPPF), notably a much higher housing need figure were highlighted, which had resulted in a significant amount of additional work and difficult decisions made to add sites to the Plan that had been omitted from previous iterations. It was considered that continuing with the plan was a better option than allowing speculative development or allowing planning powers to be taken away by Government. It was clarified that Cabinet were not taking decisions on planning applications related to any of the sites contained in the LP or the final sites that would be included. A further two rounds of public consultation would be undertaken before a final decision on sites would be made. The final submission for Plans to be submitted for review by the Planning Inspectorate was December 2026.
Visiting speakers were invited to address the meeting.
Ken Rhatigan was supportive of the work that had been undertaken and felt the Plan was the best of the worst solutions. He commented that the housing number for St Mary Bourne was too high and there were more appropriate sites to deliver better and more housing. He highlighted sites that should be reviewed which included Kingsclere, Headley and Burghclere and urged Cabinet to consider adding sites especially along the A340.
Gillian Moore, Alan Renick and Councillor Grassi raised concerns regarding the land at Whitmarsh Lane particularly Lodge Farm. It was considered that development within the area would cause significant environmental damage particularly to the River Loddon and the local habitat. Further concern was expressed regarding the proposal for a sizeable housing development near the incinerator and sewerage works and the impact on residents health, pollutants, odour and increase in sludge because of the increased housing. It was commented that the capacity of the A33 was also a concern and there was compelling evidence that development of the site was unsafe, unsustainable and irresponsible.
Councillor Carter from West Berkshire Council representing Burghclere and Mortimer presented a petition objecting to the inclusion in the LP of land at West End Farm, Mortimer West End for 350 homes. He highlighted the key issues for concern, namely the development would in practice function as a large extension to the village of Mortimer and would dwarf Mortimer West End which currently had around 20 houses and place significant pressure on infrastructure. He highlighted that Mortimer West End was not a category 3 settlement with no shops, school or bus link to Basingstoke or the railway station. He suggested the proposal was inconsistent with the council’s spatial strategy and SPS5.15. Furthermore the site would be dependent on services within West Berkshire e.g. doctors surgery etc but West Berkshire would not receive any CIL or Section 106 contributions to fund services. He further referred to the density of the proposal and the Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan. He concluded that a site with no services, cross boundary impacts and emergency planning constraints could not deliver sustainable growth and urged Cabinet to remove West End Farm from the draft Plan and focus instead on better connected sustainable sites within the borough’s own settlement hierarchy.
Mr McClean raised concerns regarding sewerage in chalk streams and accountability for the discharge of effluent. He also commented on the suitability of new housing stock and suggested all new builds should include an accessible cellar for the protection of the household. He suggested that standards that reflected the preservation of the natural environment by pre-washing sewerage and the inclusion of resilience in the construction of new builds could be embedded in the Plan.
Mark Thomas referred to Upper Swallick which had previously been rejected from the Local Plan as an unsuitable site for a number of well-defined reasons and did not meet the policy framework. He questioned why it had been included in the updated strategy at the expense of other sites which had been omitted. He highlighted the impact development would have for the topography of the land, nature, biodiversity, lack of road infrastructure, water and investment required to upgrade the power network. He requested the inclusion of the site be reconsidered.
Councillor Izett raised concerns regarding the proposed allocation of Oakley Farm in Highclere for 500 houses and the impact a large development would have on Highclere which currently consisted on 190 dwellings on the rural edge of the borough including green fields. He added that the site scored poorly for accessibility, highways, access and infrastructure and would need a transport assessment and travel plan. He further referred to conflicts with planning policies such as the site bordering flood zones and existing high areas of surface water and groundwater flooding which would require an exception test. He questioned how the preservation of heritage assets would be met over the listed granary and mill on the land, how the odour of the adjoining sewerage treatment works would be dealt with and how special conservation areas and commitment to rivers and biodiversity would be upheld. He highlighted recognised problems such as noise and emission pollution and the proximity to the A34 and Northwest Downs National Landscape and the pressures the site would place on the neighbouring authority. He concluded that the inclusion of the site would have a detrimental impact on the area’s rural character and setback the progress of the parishes neighbourhood plan.
Councillor McCormick asked a number of questions:
Policy SPS2A - How many houses would be built on Buckskin and South Ham; how many would be demolished and where was the masterplan referenced in the policy? Policy SPS5.1 – Why is reference to the secondary school ‘if required’ when there was a need following the closure of Fort Hill? Would the railway bridge at Worting be upgraded to cope with the additional houses and traffic and would there be a new railway station? Policy SPS5.3 – Why the reduction from 9,500 houses to 6,000? Policy SPS5.9 – Why include Upper Swallick when a planning application could be submitted by the landowner developer? Inclusion in the plan gave it legitimacy and was harder to refuse. The impact on the countryside and neighbouring residents would be devastating. Why reduce the housing at Southern Manydown and add Upper Swallick when both sites would use the A30?
Councillor Tuck expressed concern regarding the imposed housing number and exponential growth in the borough and the impact on water resources with over abstracted rivers and aquifers and sewerage spills. She recognised the imperative to move towards Regulation 18 however considered the data on which some site allocations were based, were out of date or incomplete.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure thanked speakers for their contributions and responded to the comments. He reiterated that the least worst sites that had been omitted from the previous plan had been included due to the imposed increased housing target. He added that as part of the Regulation 18 evidence base a water cycle study would be published which would consider the impact of all sites on waterways in terms of water supply and water treatment. He further acknowledged the concerns raised regarding environmental protection, liveability standards, accountability for sewerage, residents quality of life and confirmed the council were working with neighbouring authority West Berkshire. He further clarified that SNG were in the process of developing a masterplan for South Ham and Buckskin and Southern Manydown housing numbers had been reduced due to lower housing density than initially estimated.
Cabinet debated the proposals and acknowledged the work of officers and the Cabinet Member and the challenges encountered in bringing forward the Local Plan. Members discussed the government imposed increased housing target and requirement for additional sites acknowledging there were a significant number of planning consents that were not being built and identified sites for development that had not come forward. It was also acknowledged that whilst the Plan was not ideal, not having a LP would result in speculative development. Concerns were expressed that the national approach to planning was failing and the government target for new houses was not achievable. It was also highlighted that the previous work on the Local Plan had been reset by the new NPPF. It was acknowledged that good quality affordable homes were needed but infrastructure to support growth was also important particularly when an infrastructure deficit had been inherited from the previous plan. The consequences of the delay in the development of Manydown on villages was also highlighted. It was recognised that the borough need homes that meet local needs, supported by policies that drive better standards and infrastructure that was delivered not just promised. It was explained that the Plan was evidence led and evidence would continue to be updated such as the infrastructure delivery plan and water cycle study, data that was 6 years old could not be relied on. It was further clarified that the draft LP was not the final document, a significant amount of work and scrutiny within a restricted timescale was still required including further consultation prior to Regulation 19. Challenges to biodiversity and protection of environmental assets were also discussed and there positive comment was made in relation to forwarding thinking policies in the plan such as the liveability standards, focus on social rented housing and improvements to the regeneration policy.
Members agreed to publish the plan for consultation under Regulation 18.
Resolved: Cabinet agreed to
1. Approve the publication of the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024- 2042): Updated Spatial Strategy for public consultation (to be accompanied by associated Integrated Impact Assessment) under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, for a minimum period of six weeks in accordance with the council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement, commencing in November 2025.
2. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure to agree the final version of the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024-2042): Draft Updated Spatial Strategy version for public consultation (including minor text, layout and design changes as well as changes needed for clarification and for consultation purposes), and other supporting material to be produced for consultation purposes.
Visiting speakers were invited to address the meeting.
Ken Rhatigan was supportive of the work that had been undertaken and felt the Plan was the best of the worst solutions. He commented that the housing number for St Mary Bourne was too high and there were more appropriate sites to deliver better and more housing. He highlighted sites that should be reviewed which included Kingsclere, Headley and Burghclere and urged Cabinet to consider adding sites especially along the A340.
Gillian Moore, Alan Renick and Councillor Grassi raised concerns regarding the land at Whitmarsh Lane particularly Lodge Farm. It was considered that development within the area would cause significant environmental damage particularly to the River Loddon and the local habitat. Further concern was expressed regarding the proposal for a sizeable housing development near the incinerator and sewerage works and the impact on residents health, pollutants, odour and increase in sludge because of the increased housing. It was commented that the capacity of the A33 was also a concern and there was compelling evidence that development of the site was unsafe, unsustainable and irresponsible.
Councillor Carter from West Berkshire Council representing Burghclere and Mortimer presented a petition objecting to the inclusion in the LP of land at West End Farm, Mortimer West End for 350 homes. He highlighted the key issues for concern, namely the development would in practice function as a large extension to the village of Mortimer and would dwarf Mortimer West End which currently had around 20 houses and place significant pressure on infrastructure. He highlighted that Mortimer West End was not a category 3 settlement with no shops, school or bus link to Basingstoke or the railway station. He suggested the proposal was inconsistent with the council’s spatial strategy and SPS5.15. Furthermore the site would be dependent on services within West Berkshire e.g. doctors surgery etc but West Berkshire would not receive any CIL or Section 106 contributions to fund services. He further referred to the density of the proposal and the Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan. He concluded that a site with no services, cross boundary impacts and emergency planning constraints could not deliver sustainable growth and urged Cabinet to remove West End Farm from the draft Plan and focus instead on better connected sustainable sites within the borough’s own settlement hierarchy.
Mr McClean raised concerns regarding sewerage in chalk streams and accountability for the discharge of effluent. He also commented on the suitability of new housing stock and suggested all new builds should include an accessible cellar for the protection of the household. He suggested that standards that reflected the preservation of the natural environment by pre-washing sewerage and the inclusion of resilience in the construction of new builds could be embedded in the Plan.
Mark Thomas referred to Upper Swallick which had previously been rejected from the Local Plan as an unsuitable site for a number of well-defined reasons and did not meet the policy framework. He questioned why it had been included in the updated strategy at the expense of other sites which had been omitted. He highlighted the impact development would have for the topography of the land, nature, biodiversity, lack of road infrastructure, water and investment required to upgrade the power network. He requested the inclusion of the site be reconsidered.
Councillor Izett raised concerns regarding the proposed allocation of Oakley Farm in Highclere for 500 houses and the impact a large development would have on Highclere which currently consisted on 190 dwellings on the rural edge of the borough including green fields. He added that the site scored poorly for accessibility, highways, access and infrastructure and would need a transport assessment and travel plan. He further referred to conflicts with planning policies such as the site bordering flood zones and existing high areas of surface water and groundwater flooding which would require an exception test. He questioned how the preservation of heritage assets would be met over the listed granary and mill on the land, how the odour of the adjoining sewerage treatment works would be dealt with and how special conservation areas and commitment to rivers and biodiversity would be upheld. He highlighted recognised problems such as noise and emission pollution and the proximity to the A34 and Northwest Downs National Landscape and the pressures the site would place on the neighbouring authority. He concluded that the inclusion of the site would have a detrimental impact on the area’s rural character and setback the progress of the parishes neighbourhood plan.
Councillor McCormick asked a number of questions:
Policy SPS2A - How many houses would be built on Buckskin and South Ham; how many would be demolished and where was the masterplan referenced in the policy? Policy SPS5.1 – Why is reference to the secondary school ‘if required’ when there was a need following the closure of Fort Hill? Would the railway bridge at Worting be upgraded to cope with the additional houses and traffic and would there be a new railway station? Policy SPS5.3 – Why the reduction from 9,500 houses to 6,000? Policy SPS5.9 – Why include Upper Swallick when a planning application could be submitted by the landowner developer? Inclusion in the plan gave it legitimacy and was harder to refuse. The impact on the countryside and neighbouring residents would be devastating. Why reduce the housing at Southern Manydown and add Upper Swallick when both sites would use the A30?
Councillor Tuck expressed concern regarding the imposed housing number and exponential growth in the borough and the impact on water resources with over abstracted rivers and aquifers and sewerage spills. She recognised the imperative to move towards Regulation 18 however considered the data on which some site allocations were based, were out of date or incomplete.
The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure thanked speakers for their contributions and responded to the comments. He reiterated that the least worst sites that had been omitted from the previous plan had been included due to the imposed increased housing target. He added that as part of the Regulation 18 evidence base a water cycle study would be published which would consider the impact of all sites on waterways in terms of water supply and water treatment. He further acknowledged the concerns raised regarding environmental protection, liveability standards, accountability for sewerage, residents quality of life and confirmed the council were working with neighbouring authority West Berkshire. He further clarified that SNG were in the process of developing a masterplan for South Ham and Buckskin and Southern Manydown housing numbers had been reduced due to lower housing density than initially estimated.
Cabinet debated the proposals and acknowledged the work of officers and the Cabinet Member and the challenges encountered in bringing forward the Local Plan. Members discussed the government imposed increased housing target and requirement for additional sites acknowledging there were a significant number of planning consents that were not being built and identified sites for development that had not come forward. It was also acknowledged that whilst the Plan was not ideal, not having a LP would result in speculative development. Concerns were expressed that the national approach to planning was failing and the government target for new houses was not achievable. It was also highlighted that the previous work on the Local Plan had been reset by the new NPPF. It was acknowledged that good quality affordable homes were needed but infrastructure to support growth was also important particularly when an infrastructure deficit had been inherited from the previous plan. The consequences of the delay in the development of Manydown on villages was also highlighted. It was recognised that the borough need homes that meet local needs, supported by policies that drive better standards and infrastructure that was delivered not just promised. It was explained that the Plan was evidence led and evidence would continue to be updated such as the infrastructure delivery plan and water cycle study, data that was 6 years old could not be relied on. It was further clarified that the draft LP was not the final document, a significant amount of work and scrutiny within a restricted timescale was still required including further consultation prior to Regulation 19. Challenges to biodiversity and protection of environmental assets were also discussed and there positive comment was made in relation to forwarding thinking policies in the plan such as the liveability standards, focus on social rented housing and improvements to the regeneration policy.
Members agreed to publish the plan for consultation under Regulation 18.
Resolved: Cabinet agreed to
1. Approve the publication of the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024- 2042): Updated Spatial Strategy for public consultation (to be accompanied by associated Integrated Impact Assessment) under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, for a minimum period of six weeks in accordance with the council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement, commencing in November 2025.
2. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure to agree the final version of the Draft Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2024-2042): Draft Updated Spatial Strategy version for public consultation (including minor text, layout and design changes as well as changes needed for clarification and for consultation purposes), and other supporting material to be produced for consultation purposes.
8
Draft Proposals for 2026/27 Budget and Revised Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2026/27 to 2029/30
This report presents an updated medium term financial strategy (MTFS) and the Cabinet’s budget proposals for 2026/27 and an update on the longer-term view to 2029/30 for consultation as part of the annual reporting on the Policy and budget framework required under the Local Government Act 2000.
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Attachments:
- Document Report Draft Budget and MTFS Update 2026-27 to 2029-30 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Summary of revenue proposals 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 2 - Proposed capital programme updates 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 3 - Equality Impact Assessments 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 4 - Proposed Fees and Charges 2026-27 03 Nov 2025
Minutes
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property introduced a report which presented an updated medium term financial strategy (MTFS) and the Cabinet’s budget proposals for 2026/27 and an update on the longer-term view to 2029/30 for consultation as part of the annual reporting on the Policy and budget framework required under the Local Government Act 2000.
It was explained that the budget was subject to change once the local government funding settlement was known however the proposals put forward delivered a balanced budget for the next two years. Examples of key budget items were given which included renewal of software to give additional cyber security protection, a programme of visibility for CIL and S106 funding, additional planning resources, additional funding to support waste services, funding for jet washing to keep streets clean and funding to support the use of artificial intelligence. Following consultation final proposals would be presented to Council for approval in February.
Resolved: Cabinet:
1. Note the 2025/26 current year forecast outturn position as detailed in section 5 of the report.
2. Note the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy position set out in section 8 of the report and the risks and sensitivities associated with the forecast and the contingency plans set out in section 14of the report.
3. Note that consultation will run for 8 weeks during November and December 2025 as detailed in section 22 of the report.
4. Approve the budget proposals for consultation, including the proposals for changes to fees and charges, detailed in section 9 and appendices 1 and 4, with the Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) detailed in appendix 3 of the report.
5. Note that this update shows a balanced budget in 2026/27 and 2027/28, with an indicative budget gap in the last years of the MTFS, which may fall post local government reorganisation.
6. Note the initial proposals for additions to the capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 which are still subject to final review in section 12 and appendix 2 of the report.
It was explained that the budget was subject to change once the local government funding settlement was known however the proposals put forward delivered a balanced budget for the next two years. Examples of key budget items were given which included renewal of software to give additional cyber security protection, a programme of visibility for CIL and S106 funding, additional planning resources, additional funding to support waste services, funding for jet washing to keep streets clean and funding to support the use of artificial intelligence. Following consultation final proposals would be presented to Council for approval in February.
Resolved: Cabinet:
1. Note the 2025/26 current year forecast outturn position as detailed in section 5 of the report.
2. Note the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy position set out in section 8 of the report and the risks and sensitivities associated with the forecast and the contingency plans set out in section 14of the report.
3. Note that consultation will run for 8 weeks during November and December 2025 as detailed in section 22 of the report.
4. Approve the budget proposals for consultation, including the proposals for changes to fees and charges, detailed in section 9 and appendices 1 and 4, with the Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) detailed in appendix 3 of the report.
5. Note that this update shows a balanced budget in 2026/27 and 2027/28, with an indicative budget gap in the last years of the MTFS, which may fall post local government reorganisation.
6. Note the initial proposals for additions to the capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 which are still subject to final review in section 12 and appendix 2 of the report.
9
Community Buildings Policy
This report seeks adoption of the Community Buildings Policy, which sets out the council’s proposed approach to the provision of new community buildings and additions/improvements to existing community buildings in the borough to 2042 (in line with the new Local Plan period).
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Recommendation from the Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Attachments:
- Document Community Buildings Policy Report - FINAL 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Draft Community Buildings Policy 03 Nov 2025
- Document Appendix 2 - Draft Community Centres - general principles and preferred minimum requirements 03 Nov 2025
Minutes
Cabinet consider a report which presented a draft Community Buildings Policy which set out the council’s proposed approach to the provision of new community buildings and additions/improvements to existing community buildings in the borough to 2043.
The Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion thanked officers for their work to bring forward the policy and the Resident Services Committee for their contributions to shape the policy. It was highlighted that the policy recognised the contribution of volunteers and community associations and the importance of community buildings in providing a diverse range of activities and services within the community.
Visiting speaker Councillor McCormick agreed the policy was a good starting point. Regarding sustainability he questioned what progress had been made to existing community buildings to minimise energy use and be net zero ready with fossil fuel-free heating.
Visiting speaker Councillor Dillow referred to the importance of the delivery of community facilities at the start of any development not further down the line. He highlighted areas for concern within the policy:
· Emphasis on the importance of front-loading
· Allowing developers to offer financial contribution instead of delivering buildings on site.
· Needs assessments and audits of existing provision must not be used as a justification for postponing community facilities until late in the process.
· The policy does not formally require community buildings to be provided in phase one. Without firm commitment developers could push delivery of facilities to the end of their scheme.
· Emphasis on co-location of services could lead to fewer overall facilities or the loss of localised hubs essential to large estates.
Cabinet were requested to consider the concerns raised and engage with SNG Housing Association to ensure community facility provision was front loaded and delivered in the early stages of any regeneration across Buckskin and South Ham.
The Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion agreed to provide the information requested by Councillor McCormick. He acknowledged the comments regarding early delivery but referenced South Ham as an example where a masterplan was needed first to ensure the right facility was delivered in the right place. He also acknowledged the preference for buildings rather than contributions and referring to co-location considered the best way to run a community centre was ensuring a certain size of facility to accommodate activities the community needed.
During discussion commitment was expressed to the delivery of a community centre for South Ham as early as possible in the regeneration programme shaped with the community. A programme of works to install solar panels on community centres was highlighted and comment was made regarding the overlap between planning policy and the community building policy where a developer would have to provide an infrastructure development plan at the point of outline application. It was further acknowledged that S106 agreements which were index linked were required.
Resolved: Cabinet adopt the Community Buildings Policy and its accompanying general principles and preferred minimum requirements.
The Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion thanked officers for their work to bring forward the policy and the Resident Services Committee for their contributions to shape the policy. It was highlighted that the policy recognised the contribution of volunteers and community associations and the importance of community buildings in providing a diverse range of activities and services within the community.
Visiting speaker Councillor McCormick agreed the policy was a good starting point. Regarding sustainability he questioned what progress had been made to existing community buildings to minimise energy use and be net zero ready with fossil fuel-free heating.
Visiting speaker Councillor Dillow referred to the importance of the delivery of community facilities at the start of any development not further down the line. He highlighted areas for concern within the policy:
· Emphasis on the importance of front-loading
· Allowing developers to offer financial contribution instead of delivering buildings on site.
· Needs assessments and audits of existing provision must not be used as a justification for postponing community facilities until late in the process.
· The policy does not formally require community buildings to be provided in phase one. Without firm commitment developers could push delivery of facilities to the end of their scheme.
· Emphasis on co-location of services could lead to fewer overall facilities or the loss of localised hubs essential to large estates.
Cabinet were requested to consider the concerns raised and engage with SNG Housing Association to ensure community facility provision was front loaded and delivered in the early stages of any regeneration across Buckskin and South Ham.
The Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion agreed to provide the information requested by Councillor McCormick. He acknowledged the comments regarding early delivery but referenced South Ham as an example where a masterplan was needed first to ensure the right facility was delivered in the right place. He also acknowledged the preference for buildings rather than contributions and referring to co-location considered the best way to run a community centre was ensuring a certain size of facility to accommodate activities the community needed.
During discussion commitment was expressed to the delivery of a community centre for South Ham as early as possible in the regeneration programme shaped with the community. A programme of works to install solar panels on community centres was highlighted and comment was made regarding the overlap between planning policy and the community building policy where a developer would have to provide an infrastructure development plan at the point of outline application. It was further acknowledged that S106 agreements which were index linked were required.
Resolved: Cabinet adopt the Community Buildings Policy and its accompanying general principles and preferred minimum requirements.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in