Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
68
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 18th December 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 18th December 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 18th December 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 18th December 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
18 Dec 2025
18 Dec 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resident Services & Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Reform UK Group
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the South Ham & Buckskin Regeneration Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee and Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Chair
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Business Engagement
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Councillor Paul Basham
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Hayley Eachus
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Paul Gaskell
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Hannah Golding
Apologies
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Councillor Tony Jones
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Samir Kotecha
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Alex Lee
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Jenny Vaux
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Basham, Bowes, Connor, Eachus (Maternity Leave), Freeman, Golding, Harper, Putty and Tomblin.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillors Grassi and Tuck declared an interest in relation to Agenda item 11 – Old Basing and Lychpit Community Governance Review and left the meeting for the item.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 16 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 16102025 1830 Council 10 Dec 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the Year
1) In accordance with the ‘Method of Choosing a Mayor and Associated Matters’ protocol Members are advised that Councillor Jacky Tustain is invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting of Council for the next Municipal year. This is in order that the Mayor-elect may have notice of her election. Members are asked to show their support.
2) The person next in seniority is elected Deputy Mayor at the Annual Meeting and Members are asked to note that Councillor Sajish Tom is the next senior Member who has indicated his willingness to take up the role.
2) The person next in seniority is elected Deputy Mayor at the Annual Meeting and Members are asked to note that Councillor Sajish Tom is the next senior Member who has indicated his willingness to take up the role.
Minutes
Resolved: That
1) Councillor Jacky Tustain be invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2026/27 municipal year.
2) Councillor Sajish Tom be invited to stand for election as Deputy Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2026/27 municipal year.
1) Councillor Jacky Tustain be invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2026/27 municipal year.
2) Councillor Sajish Tom be invited to stand for election as Deputy Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2026/27 municipal year.
5
Announcements
Minutes
No announcements were made.
6
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 16 December 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 16 December 2025)
Minutes
Question 1
From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships, and Inclusion
Given the enormous and unavoidable health and safety issues with your proposed golf course development on Down Grange. What, specifically, will you be doing to guarantee that one of our protected groups in the UK - blind or partially sighted people - when walking around Down Grange Park will be one hundred percent safe from being hit by errant golf balls that they can't see?
Answer
Thank you for the question. So, an Equalities Impact Assessment which considers the impact of a particular project or piece of work on protected groups, was completed as part of the work to inform the process. Should pitch and putt reprovision plans proceed at Down Grange, the equalities impact assessment will be updated regularly as part of the ongoing project. In relation to pitch and putt course design, the course architect applies safety guidance in line with that used by recognised professional bodies.
Supplementary Question
So, I think we’d agree that also the wider general public are entitled to health and safety protection, particularly when it comes to their private employment being safe from council interference should they choose to stand up for a community matter such as saving Down Grange Park.
Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention that a member of this Cabinet rang a more senior person at my place of employment, identified me, discussed the things I had been saying and doing with regards to Down Grange and apparently read out content from an email I had sent to the council. Then a senior officer rang my place of work to find out what was said by the councillor in question, and then forwarded an email I’d sent to the council onto my employer. Only my name was identified and only my data was shared to my knowledge.
To date, Basingstoke Council are refusing to tell me exactly what of my own data was shared with my employer. This is now under investigation with the top authorities. It’s about safety of the public and breaches of data make the public unsafe. That’s why we have laws around it.
Can you please confirm that no member of the public will ever have their employer contacted or have their personal data breached for simply working hard for their community? And that you will put in place the necessary training to ensure this never happens again?
Answer
I’m sorry, I don’t see this as a supplementary question, but I’ll do my best to give an answer and that is I have no knowledge of the specific complaint that Ms Wain is making, but I’m confident that this council will always work to act accordingly under GDPR and any other relevant legislation. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Val Elliot
To: Cabinet Member for Resident’ Services and Housing
Old Down Woodland Park is a loved and well-used wild, open space that holds significant value for the local and wider community, including myself, providing essential opportunities for recreation, biodiversity, and education. It supports our health and well-being and serves as an important habitat for local wildlife. Indeed the site has an impressive wildflower meadow where the highest numbers, in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, of the Small Blue Butterfly have recorded along with 24 different species of butterfly.
As Old Down Woodland Park faces ongoing development pressures and is currently being considered for Green Space status in the forthcoming Local Plan update, it is increasingly important to formally recognise its environmental, ecological, and community value.
The local Old Down Wildlife Group committee has expressed strong support for securing long-term protection for the park and has highlighted that the 2026 Green Flag Award application window is now open. They believe, as do I and many residents, that an application submitted by the Council would significantly strengthened its success, and they have offered their expertise and assistance in preparing the submission.
Given Old Down Woodland Park’s strong alignment with the Green Flag Community Award criteria—including welcoming access, public safety, maintenance standards, environmental management, biodiversity, enjoyment and appreciation of nature, heritage, community involvement, and volunteer-led achievements—I respectfully ask whether the Council will commit to preparing and submitting an application? I also encourage direct liaison with the Old Down Wildlife Group committee to ensure the best possible outcome for our community and environment.
Answer
Thank you, Val, for your question. While I’m not the portfolio holder, I will respond for Councillor Tomblin. I’m really pleased to announce tonight that it is our intention as an administration to radically improve the protections afforded to Old Down. We will consult and look to bring forward a decision to designate Old Down as a local nature reserve.
We are currently consulting on designing Old Down a local green space in the Local Plan. We will give Old Down important protections. I know that this has been called for many years, Councillor Kotecha moved a motion on this very subject.
Can I also say, we would be very happy to meet with you to discuss your question and the Green Flag status. We’d be very happy to arrange a meeting in the New Year. Can I also say, the management of Old Down has significantly improved the quality of the chalk grasslands and overall biodiversity of the site with the latest Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centres Report 2025 stating the current management regime should be regarded as near perfect and is practically achievable. And I would like to say a really big thank you to everyone who has achieved this. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
I am delighted that there is so much enthusiasm and I’m sure the supporters with me are equally delighted. I do note in the Resident Services papers for last Tuesday, for the 16th that the SWOT analysis for Old Down shows that a threat to it being a site for the pitch and putt is its potential to be a local nature reserve. So, I really am delighted that we are really talking about that protection, but I do really want to be really clear what the plan is for making sure we get that local nature reserve status. Because I’m hearing at the moment it’s more about the green space. I just want to make sure we’re absolutely clear that we’re going to get the status.
Answer
No, I think you’re misunderstanding. Sorry. We will be doing both. Possibly three, you might get a Green Flag as well. So there’s all three. So it’s exciting stuff. So I can assure you we will be protecting Old Down.
Question 3
From: Claire Harrison
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How many responses did the council receive in reply to the public communication of their plans to move the Golf Centre and Pitch and Putt to Down Grange Park?
Answer
An online survey was made available for three weeks and received 616 responses. The figure includes both the surveys completed online and those completed in paper format at the public drop-in session held on Wednesday 10 September. An email box was also created for responses and has been contacted by 30 separate individuals, although some of those individuals have made contact on more than one occasion. Officers and councillors also carried out engagement with clubs and other users of facilities at Down Grange and Basingstoke Golf Centre.
Supplementary Question
So at this information meeting, the public were told that Down Grange was selected as a preferred site in January 2025. If this is the case, obviously we’ve got that report through now and we’ve had a look at it but it looks like Weller Designs was commissioned to draw up plans. A meeting happened in July 2024 with plans submitted on the 4 October 2024. So that timeline doesn’t look right. So, could you explain why Down Grange plans were submitted in October 2024 if the decision wasn’t made till January 2025?
Answer
I think I’d have to make sure of that timeline with officers to be honest with you. I’ll get that back to you. All I can say is that we engaged throughout the process from January and the designs were changed through that process after listening to people. I’ll get back to you with a reply.
Question 4
From: Cllr Simon Minas-Bound on behalf of Stewart Johnston
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure, and Culture
At the last full Council meeting we were told that the results of the public feedback on the Down Grange golf proposal would be released. Why has this not happened, and when can we expect to see it?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Simon on behalf of Stuart. A further report on the work to re-provide golf facilities will be considered by Cabinet at a meeting on Tuesday 6 January. The report for this meeting is due to go live tomorrow and this will include a summary of the feedback received as a result of the survey and our engagement with those using Down Grange for a range of different activities.
Question 5
From: Ray Gartland
To: Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Does the council acknowledge that Down Grange Park provides a unique environment and safe space in the Kempshott area for physical exercise and mental wellbeing, and is used regularly by a wide cross section of the local community?
Answer
Thank you, Ray, for your question. We’re fortunate to have many green spaces in the borough that people can enjoy in their spare time for formal and informal recreation. Down Grange is one of these valued spaces. Our parks and sports facilities where people can for example, run in regular events, in a group or on their own, play or practise team or individual sports on pitches and other areas so, there are open spaces where people can exercise, including taking walks, with or without dogs, in a green environment. There are lots of activities that mean these spaces support physical and mental wellbeing as well as giving access to nature.
Supplementary Question
I don’t feel that fully answered my question, so I’ll go with this question. There are thousands of local residents who consider it to be a unique environment and if we were to lose use of that environment for its current use, it would have a big impact. What message would you have for those people?
Answer
My message is that over a number of months now, the people who don’t agree with the proposal that the administration’s made, have made their views extremely clear and when a final decision is taken, we can be under no illusions as to the views of the residents expressed.
Question 6
From: Bethany Neal
To: Leader of the Council
I am representing a group of residents who live on Winchester Road in Kings Furlong. Over the past 18 months, there have been four serious collisions along this stretch of road, including a recent fatality involving a motorcyclist who was just 17 years old.
Winchester Road is a 30?mph residential street, serving three local schools and used daily by hundreds of children, families, pedestrians, and cyclists. Despite this, there are currently very few road safety measures, and speeding occurs frequently.
Our campaign group is calling on Hampshire Highways, on behalf of Hampshire County Council, to conduct an urgent road safety review and implement measures to make the street safer, including considering a lower speed limit.
This campaign has received strong support from local residents and businesses, including Spice and Spirits, SR Pharmacy, the Chinese takeaway, and the King of Wessex. We are planning to engage the local schools in the New Year.
Will the Borough Council support our campaign and lobby Hampshire County Council on behalf of local residents and businesses to improve road safety on Winchester Road?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Beth for your question. Can I just express first and most importantly, I think on behalf of the whole council I am sure, our deep sadness at the loss of life in the recent incident. Our thoughts go out to the family after such a tragic loss.
There are many roads around our Borough I think where we would seek to reduce the speed and improve the safety. Too many roads have become racetracks. Too often the County Council turns a deaf ear to the legitimate calls to reduce speed limits or improve road safety. Outside our schools too often it is chaos as parents park everywhere they can to pick up their children. I remember being told by a Hampshire Education Officer, what happens outside the school is no concern of ours. So we will support the campaign and its very important that we do support the campaign. We’ll meet and want to meet with you in the New Year and we will work out together discussing what we can do together more on this particular issue.
Hampshire have replied to our inquiry about the situation with the following response:
‘All fatal and potentially fatal incidents are subject to an investigation by the Casualty Reduction Partnership involving an officer of HCC and the Police and a five year review of the collision history of the local area. A site visit was undertaken, and some initial actions taken in addition to speaking to residents passing the site and their comments taken into consideration during the assessment. At this stage the Casualty Reduction Partnership are unable to speculate on the circumstances surrounding the collision.’
HCC continues to say:
‘At this stage it would be inappropriate to speculate on the circumstances surrounding the fatal collision until the Police have concluded their investigations, but some immediate concerns addressing the limitations to the visibility when regressing Pittard Road are already being addressed. This includes issuing a notice to a resident to the north of the junction to cut back vegetation which will also assist in ensuring the footway width is preserved and starting the process to install wooden dragons teeth in the verge to prevent the ad hoc parking which will be reinforced with double yellow lines in the future.’
They then finish by saying that they will continue their investigations.
I will make sure you get the full response of that and that we discuss the full response and the adequacy of that in the context of everything that you’re saying. I want to thank Luke Murphy, our MP for organising a round table on roads and traffic recently. It was an important meeting. The County sent just one officer, one single officer, just one for that vital conversation, and only one County Councillor attended. Hampshire County Council and the Police do need to hear the strength of feeling from our community and we will help express that clearly. I also want to share the full response as I say because I think that will guide us in the sort of actions that we think we can take and I look forward to meeting you and the good residents in the New Year.
Supplementary Question
So thank you for that and I think my other question would be is there anything within this council’s power, for instance like any funds for speed signed with the smiley faces, for example. Just thinking of those things.
Answer
There are two important points that we need to be really clear on. First of all, as a borough council, we’re not the highways authority and we need to be very clear on that so we don’t raise residents expectations that the borough council can somehow assume the responsibilities of the county. However, there are things that we can do and could look at, and we will talk about them with you. There are things that your local councillors can do to support you on those sorts of things. And so let’s discuss that in the New Year and find a way of achieving some of the things that you want to see achieved.
From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships, and Inclusion
Given the enormous and unavoidable health and safety issues with your proposed golf course development on Down Grange. What, specifically, will you be doing to guarantee that one of our protected groups in the UK - blind or partially sighted people - when walking around Down Grange Park will be one hundred percent safe from being hit by errant golf balls that they can't see?
Answer
Thank you for the question. So, an Equalities Impact Assessment which considers the impact of a particular project or piece of work on protected groups, was completed as part of the work to inform the process. Should pitch and putt reprovision plans proceed at Down Grange, the equalities impact assessment will be updated regularly as part of the ongoing project. In relation to pitch and putt course design, the course architect applies safety guidance in line with that used by recognised professional bodies.
Supplementary Question
So, I think we’d agree that also the wider general public are entitled to health and safety protection, particularly when it comes to their private employment being safe from council interference should they choose to stand up for a community matter such as saving Down Grange Park.
Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention that a member of this Cabinet rang a more senior person at my place of employment, identified me, discussed the things I had been saying and doing with regards to Down Grange and apparently read out content from an email I had sent to the council. Then a senior officer rang my place of work to find out what was said by the councillor in question, and then forwarded an email I’d sent to the council onto my employer. Only my name was identified and only my data was shared to my knowledge.
To date, Basingstoke Council are refusing to tell me exactly what of my own data was shared with my employer. This is now under investigation with the top authorities. It’s about safety of the public and breaches of data make the public unsafe. That’s why we have laws around it.
Can you please confirm that no member of the public will ever have their employer contacted or have their personal data breached for simply working hard for their community? And that you will put in place the necessary training to ensure this never happens again?
Answer
I’m sorry, I don’t see this as a supplementary question, but I’ll do my best to give an answer and that is I have no knowledge of the specific complaint that Ms Wain is making, but I’m confident that this council will always work to act accordingly under GDPR and any other relevant legislation. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Val Elliot
To: Cabinet Member for Resident’ Services and Housing
Old Down Woodland Park is a loved and well-used wild, open space that holds significant value for the local and wider community, including myself, providing essential opportunities for recreation, biodiversity, and education. It supports our health and well-being and serves as an important habitat for local wildlife. Indeed the site has an impressive wildflower meadow where the highest numbers, in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, of the Small Blue Butterfly have recorded along with 24 different species of butterfly.
As Old Down Woodland Park faces ongoing development pressures and is currently being considered for Green Space status in the forthcoming Local Plan update, it is increasingly important to formally recognise its environmental, ecological, and community value.
The local Old Down Wildlife Group committee has expressed strong support for securing long-term protection for the park and has highlighted that the 2026 Green Flag Award application window is now open. They believe, as do I and many residents, that an application submitted by the Council would significantly strengthened its success, and they have offered their expertise and assistance in preparing the submission.
Given Old Down Woodland Park’s strong alignment with the Green Flag Community Award criteria—including welcoming access, public safety, maintenance standards, environmental management, biodiversity, enjoyment and appreciation of nature, heritage, community involvement, and volunteer-led achievements—I respectfully ask whether the Council will commit to preparing and submitting an application? I also encourage direct liaison with the Old Down Wildlife Group committee to ensure the best possible outcome for our community and environment.
Answer
Thank you, Val, for your question. While I’m not the portfolio holder, I will respond for Councillor Tomblin. I’m really pleased to announce tonight that it is our intention as an administration to radically improve the protections afforded to Old Down. We will consult and look to bring forward a decision to designate Old Down as a local nature reserve.
We are currently consulting on designing Old Down a local green space in the Local Plan. We will give Old Down important protections. I know that this has been called for many years, Councillor Kotecha moved a motion on this very subject.
Can I also say, we would be very happy to meet with you to discuss your question and the Green Flag status. We’d be very happy to arrange a meeting in the New Year. Can I also say, the management of Old Down has significantly improved the quality of the chalk grasslands and overall biodiversity of the site with the latest Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centres Report 2025 stating the current management regime should be regarded as near perfect and is practically achievable. And I would like to say a really big thank you to everyone who has achieved this. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
I am delighted that there is so much enthusiasm and I’m sure the supporters with me are equally delighted. I do note in the Resident Services papers for last Tuesday, for the 16th that the SWOT analysis for Old Down shows that a threat to it being a site for the pitch and putt is its potential to be a local nature reserve. So, I really am delighted that we are really talking about that protection, but I do really want to be really clear what the plan is for making sure we get that local nature reserve status. Because I’m hearing at the moment it’s more about the green space. I just want to make sure we’re absolutely clear that we’re going to get the status.
Answer
No, I think you’re misunderstanding. Sorry. We will be doing both. Possibly three, you might get a Green Flag as well. So there’s all three. So it’s exciting stuff. So I can assure you we will be protecting Old Down.
Question 3
From: Claire Harrison
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
How many responses did the council receive in reply to the public communication of their plans to move the Golf Centre and Pitch and Putt to Down Grange Park?
Answer
An online survey was made available for three weeks and received 616 responses. The figure includes both the surveys completed online and those completed in paper format at the public drop-in session held on Wednesday 10 September. An email box was also created for responses and has been contacted by 30 separate individuals, although some of those individuals have made contact on more than one occasion. Officers and councillors also carried out engagement with clubs and other users of facilities at Down Grange and Basingstoke Golf Centre.
Supplementary Question
So at this information meeting, the public were told that Down Grange was selected as a preferred site in January 2025. If this is the case, obviously we’ve got that report through now and we’ve had a look at it but it looks like Weller Designs was commissioned to draw up plans. A meeting happened in July 2024 with plans submitted on the 4 October 2024. So that timeline doesn’t look right. So, could you explain why Down Grange plans were submitted in October 2024 if the decision wasn’t made till January 2025?
Answer
I think I’d have to make sure of that timeline with officers to be honest with you. I’ll get that back to you. All I can say is that we engaged throughout the process from January and the designs were changed through that process after listening to people. I’ll get back to you with a reply.
Question 4
From: Cllr Simon Minas-Bound on behalf of Stewart Johnston
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure, and Culture
At the last full Council meeting we were told that the results of the public feedback on the Down Grange golf proposal would be released. Why has this not happened, and when can we expect to see it?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Simon on behalf of Stuart. A further report on the work to re-provide golf facilities will be considered by Cabinet at a meeting on Tuesday 6 January. The report for this meeting is due to go live tomorrow and this will include a summary of the feedback received as a result of the survey and our engagement with those using Down Grange for a range of different activities.
Question 5
From: Ray Gartland
To: Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Does the council acknowledge that Down Grange Park provides a unique environment and safe space in the Kempshott area for physical exercise and mental wellbeing, and is used regularly by a wide cross section of the local community?
Answer
Thank you, Ray, for your question. We’re fortunate to have many green spaces in the borough that people can enjoy in their spare time for formal and informal recreation. Down Grange is one of these valued spaces. Our parks and sports facilities where people can for example, run in regular events, in a group or on their own, play or practise team or individual sports on pitches and other areas so, there are open spaces where people can exercise, including taking walks, with or without dogs, in a green environment. There are lots of activities that mean these spaces support physical and mental wellbeing as well as giving access to nature.
Supplementary Question
I don’t feel that fully answered my question, so I’ll go with this question. There are thousands of local residents who consider it to be a unique environment and if we were to lose use of that environment for its current use, it would have a big impact. What message would you have for those people?
Answer
My message is that over a number of months now, the people who don’t agree with the proposal that the administration’s made, have made their views extremely clear and when a final decision is taken, we can be under no illusions as to the views of the residents expressed.
Question 6
From: Bethany Neal
To: Leader of the Council
I am representing a group of residents who live on Winchester Road in Kings Furlong. Over the past 18 months, there have been four serious collisions along this stretch of road, including a recent fatality involving a motorcyclist who was just 17 years old.
Winchester Road is a 30?mph residential street, serving three local schools and used daily by hundreds of children, families, pedestrians, and cyclists. Despite this, there are currently very few road safety measures, and speeding occurs frequently.
Our campaign group is calling on Hampshire Highways, on behalf of Hampshire County Council, to conduct an urgent road safety review and implement measures to make the street safer, including considering a lower speed limit.
This campaign has received strong support from local residents and businesses, including Spice and Spirits, SR Pharmacy, the Chinese takeaway, and the King of Wessex. We are planning to engage the local schools in the New Year.
Will the Borough Council support our campaign and lobby Hampshire County Council on behalf of local residents and businesses to improve road safety on Winchester Road?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you Beth for your question. Can I just express first and most importantly, I think on behalf of the whole council I am sure, our deep sadness at the loss of life in the recent incident. Our thoughts go out to the family after such a tragic loss.
There are many roads around our Borough I think where we would seek to reduce the speed and improve the safety. Too many roads have become racetracks. Too often the County Council turns a deaf ear to the legitimate calls to reduce speed limits or improve road safety. Outside our schools too often it is chaos as parents park everywhere they can to pick up their children. I remember being told by a Hampshire Education Officer, what happens outside the school is no concern of ours. So we will support the campaign and its very important that we do support the campaign. We’ll meet and want to meet with you in the New Year and we will work out together discussing what we can do together more on this particular issue.
Hampshire have replied to our inquiry about the situation with the following response:
‘All fatal and potentially fatal incidents are subject to an investigation by the Casualty Reduction Partnership involving an officer of HCC and the Police and a five year review of the collision history of the local area. A site visit was undertaken, and some initial actions taken in addition to speaking to residents passing the site and their comments taken into consideration during the assessment. At this stage the Casualty Reduction Partnership are unable to speculate on the circumstances surrounding the collision.’
HCC continues to say:
‘At this stage it would be inappropriate to speculate on the circumstances surrounding the fatal collision until the Police have concluded their investigations, but some immediate concerns addressing the limitations to the visibility when regressing Pittard Road are already being addressed. This includes issuing a notice to a resident to the north of the junction to cut back vegetation which will also assist in ensuring the footway width is preserved and starting the process to install wooden dragons teeth in the verge to prevent the ad hoc parking which will be reinforced with double yellow lines in the future.’
They then finish by saying that they will continue their investigations.
I will make sure you get the full response of that and that we discuss the full response and the adequacy of that in the context of everything that you’re saying. I want to thank Luke Murphy, our MP for organising a round table on roads and traffic recently. It was an important meeting. The County sent just one officer, one single officer, just one for that vital conversation, and only one County Councillor attended. Hampshire County Council and the Police do need to hear the strength of feeling from our community and we will help express that clearly. I also want to share the full response as I say because I think that will guide us in the sort of actions that we think we can take and I look forward to meeting you and the good residents in the New Year.
Supplementary Question
So thank you for that and I think my other question would be is there anything within this council’s power, for instance like any funds for speed signed with the smiley faces, for example. Just thinking of those things.
Answer
There are two important points that we need to be really clear on. First of all, as a borough council, we’re not the highways authority and we need to be very clear on that so we don’t raise residents expectations that the borough council can somehow assume the responsibilities of the county. However, there are things that we can do and could look at, and we will talk about them with you. There are things that your local councillors can do to support you on those sorts of things. And so let’s discuss that in the New Year and find a way of achieving some of the things that you want to see achieved.
7
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 16 December 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 16 December 2025)
Minutes
No petitions were received.
8
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 10 Dec 2025
Minutes
There were no appointments or resignations to committees or outside bodies.
9
Council Tax Discretionary Discounts and Council Tax Support Scheme 2026/27
Report of the Chief Finance and S151 Officer
Attachments:
Minutes
Council Tax statute and Regulations provide for Council to decide on the
discretionary aspects of Council Tax and to approve a Local Council Tax
Support Scheme prior to setting the Council Tax base for each financial year
by 31 January. The report under consideration set out no proposed changes to the existing Council Tax Support Scheme and existing Council Tax discretionary discounts and long-term empty premiums and recommended a premium of 100% for second homes for 2026/27.
Resolved: That Council approve
1) The Council Tax Support Scheme remains unchanged for 2026/27.
2) The care leavers council tax discount remains unchanged for 2026/27.
3) The council tax discretionary discounts are maintained at the 2025/26 levels for
2026/27.
4) An additional premium is charged for second homes in 2026/27.
5) The long-term empty property premiums are maintained at the 2025/26 levels for 2026/27.
discretionary aspects of Council Tax and to approve a Local Council Tax
Support Scheme prior to setting the Council Tax base for each financial year
by 31 January. The report under consideration set out no proposed changes to the existing Council Tax Support Scheme and existing Council Tax discretionary discounts and long-term empty premiums and recommended a premium of 100% for second homes for 2026/27.
Resolved: That Council approve
1) The Council Tax Support Scheme remains unchanged for 2026/27.
2) The care leavers council tax discount remains unchanged for 2026/27.
3) The council tax discretionary discounts are maintained at the 2025/26 levels for
2026/27.
4) An additional premium is charged for second homes in 2026/27.
5) The long-term empty property premiums are maintained at the 2025/26 levels for 2026/27.
10
Dispensation Consideration
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Dispensation Report Cllr Eachus December 2025 10 Dec 2025
Minutes
Council considered a request to grant Councillor Eachus a further dispensation from attending meetings of the Council from 19 June 2025 for a period of 6 months on the grounds of parental leave.
Resolved: That Council
In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, approve a further dispensation for Councillor Eachus from attending meetings of the Council on the grounds of parental leave from 19 June 2025 for a period of 6 months.
Resolved: That Council
In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, approve a further dispensation for Councillor Eachus from attending meetings of the Council on the grounds of parental leave from 19 June 2025 for a period of 6 months.
11
Old Basing and Lychpit Community Governance Review
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Community Governance Review - Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council 10 Dec 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Proposal for CGR Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council 10 Dec 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Terms of Reference 10 Dec 2025
Minutes
Councillors Tuck and Grassi left the meeting for this item.
Council considered a report that sought authorisation to carry out a Community Governance Review as requested by Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council.
Resolved: That Council agree
1) That the Council undertake a Community Governance Review of the electoral arrangements for Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council with a view to establishing whether the two current parish wards should be abolished with one electoral area for the whole parish.
2) The Terms of Reference in Appendix 2, including the timetable and arrangements for public consultation.
3) That delegated authority be given to the Monitoring Officer to make amendments to the Terms of Reference as are necessary and appropriate and to prepare draft recommendations for consultation.
4) To note that a further report will be brought to Council in order that a decision may be made in respect of the final recommendations of the Review.
Council considered a report that sought authorisation to carry out a Community Governance Review as requested by Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council.
Resolved: That Council agree
1) That the Council undertake a Community Governance Review of the electoral arrangements for Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council with a view to establishing whether the two current parish wards should be abolished with one electoral area for the whole parish.
2) The Terms of Reference in Appendix 2, including the timetable and arrangements for public consultation.
3) That delegated authority be given to the Monitoring Officer to make amendments to the Terms of Reference as are necessary and appropriate and to prepare draft recommendations for consultation.
4) To note that a further report will be brought to Council in order that a decision may be made in respect of the final recommendations of the Review.
12
Calendar of Meetings 2026/27
To approve the calendar of meetings for the 2026/27 Municipal year.
Attachments:
- Document Draft Calendar of Meetings 2026_2027 10 Dec 2025
Minutes
The Calendar of meetings for the 2026/27 Municipal year was presented to Council for approval.
Resolved: That Council approve the calendar of meetings for the 20026/27 Municipal year.
Resolved: That Council approve the calendar of meetings for the 20026/27 Municipal year.
13
Notice of Motion - Supporting Local Business Logistics through a Dedicated Lorry Park
Proposer: Councillor Minas-Bound
Seconder: Councillor Izett
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane sits at the heart of the South East logistics network, strategically located on the M3 corridor with direct links to the A33, A30 and A339, serving major employers and distribution centres.
2) The borough’s success in attracting and retaining major logistics, manufacturing and service businesses has resulted in increasing demand for secure, well-managed overnight and rest facilities for HGV drivers.
3) Currently, the lack of a designated lorry park within the borough means many vehicles park overnight in local lay-bys and industrial estates, creating safety, security and environmental concerns and putting additional strain on local roads and communities.
4) The absence of suitable facilities also presents risks to driver welfare, increases opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, and impacts the image of Basingstoke as a well-managed business location.
5) There is growing pressure for a motorway service area and lorry park near Junction 6 of the M3, which could add further congestion to an already critical junction and undermine wider infrastructure priorities.
Council believes:
1) Providing a purpose-built, secure lorry park would improve safety for drivers, reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and demonstrate Basingstoke’s commitment to being a business-friendly borough.
2) A strategically located lorry park could be developed in partnership with the private sector, creating new business and employment opportunities while alleviating pressure on local roads.
3) Local solutions are preferable to external developments that could intensify congestion at Junction 6 or encroach on valuable greenfield land.
Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commission a feasibility study to identify potential locations within the borough suitable for a secure, commercially viable lorry park to support logistics, manufacturing, and distribution businesses.
2) Engage with key stakeholders — including Hampshire County Council (as the highways authority), local business groups, the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, and logistics operators — to ensure that the study reflects the real needs of the business community.
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with options, including potential delivery models and partnership opportunities, before considering next steps.
4) Work proactively with partners to identify external funding opportunities, including through the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Combined Authority, the Department for Transport, and private investment, to support delivery if feasible.
Seconder: Councillor Izett
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane sits at the heart of the South East logistics network, strategically located on the M3 corridor with direct links to the A33, A30 and A339, serving major employers and distribution centres.
2) The borough’s success in attracting and retaining major logistics, manufacturing and service businesses has resulted in increasing demand for secure, well-managed overnight and rest facilities for HGV drivers.
3) Currently, the lack of a designated lorry park within the borough means many vehicles park overnight in local lay-bys and industrial estates, creating safety, security and environmental concerns and putting additional strain on local roads and communities.
4) The absence of suitable facilities also presents risks to driver welfare, increases opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, and impacts the image of Basingstoke as a well-managed business location.
5) There is growing pressure for a motorway service area and lorry park near Junction 6 of the M3, which could add further congestion to an already critical junction and undermine wider infrastructure priorities.
Council believes:
1) Providing a purpose-built, secure lorry park would improve safety for drivers, reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and demonstrate Basingstoke’s commitment to being a business-friendly borough.
2) A strategically located lorry park could be developed in partnership with the private sector, creating new business and employment opportunities while alleviating pressure on local roads.
3) Local solutions are preferable to external developments that could intensify congestion at Junction 6 or encroach on valuable greenfield land.
Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commission a feasibility study to identify potential locations within the borough suitable for a secure, commercially viable lorry park to support logistics, manufacturing, and distribution businesses.
2) Engage with key stakeholders — including Hampshire County Council (as the highways authority), local business groups, the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, and logistics operators — to ensure that the study reflects the real needs of the business community.
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with options, including potential delivery models and partnership opportunities, before considering next steps.
4) Work proactively with partners to identify external funding opportunities, including through the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Combined Authority, the Department for Transport, and private investment, to support delivery if feasible.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Minas-Bound and seconded by Councillor Izett:
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane sits at the heart of the South East logistics network, strategically located on the M3 corridor with direct links to the A33, A30 and A339, serving major employers and distribution centres.
2) The borough’s success in attracting and retaining major logistics, manufacturing and service businesses has resulted in increasing demand for secure, well-managed overnight and rest facilities for HGV drivers.
3) Currently, the lack of a designated lorry park within the borough means many vehicles park overnight in local lay-bys and industrial estates, creating safety, security and environmental concerns and putting additional strain on local roads and communities.
4) The absence of suitable facilities also presents risks to driver welfare, increases opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, and impacts the image of Basingstoke as a well-managed business location.
5) There is growing pressure for a motorway service area and lorry park near Junction 6 of the M3, which could add further congestion to an already critical junction and undermine wider infrastructure priorities.
Council believes:
1) Providing a purpose-built, secure lorry park would improve safety for drivers, reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and demonstrate Basingstoke’s commitment to being a business-friendly borough.
2) A strategically located lorry park could be developed in partnership with the private sector, creating new business and employment opportunities while alleviating pressure on local roads.
3) Local solutions are preferable to external developments that could intensify congestion at Junction 6 or encroach on valuable greenfield land.
Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commission a feasibility study to identify potential locations within the borough suitable for a secure, commercially viable lorry park to support logistics, manufacturing, and distribution businesses.
2) Engage with key stakeholders — including Hampshire County Council (as the highways authority), local business groups, the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, and logistics operators — to ensure that the study reflects the real needs of the business community.
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with options, including potential delivery models and partnership opportunities, before considering next steps.
4) Work proactively with partners to identify external funding opportunities, including through the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Combined Authority, the Department for Transport, and private investment, to support delivery if feasible.
Council debated the motion. Areas of discussion included:
· Basingstoke’s strategic location as a logistics and business hub
· Infrastructure gap for the provision of HGV’s
· lorry parking in laybys, streets and industrial estates
· Impact on residents
· Lack of facilities, welfare and safety issues for lorry drivers
· Proposed motorway service station on Junction 6
· Challenges finding a suitable site to locate a lorry park that would not displace HGV movements away from strategic routes and onto local roads
· A Lorry park is not employment land so would be additional to those sites already identified in the Local Plan
· Budget and time implications exploring options
· The requirement for a secure and managed site to improve safety and reduce anti-social behaviour
· A feasibility study should be an options appraisal setting out feasibility, risks, delivery models and partnerships rather than an implied commitment to a particular solution.
Councillor Lee proposed an amendment to the wording of the motion as follows:
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with an options appraisal, including high level feasibility, risks, potential delivery models, partnership opportunities and funding considerations, before considering next steps.
The amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and agreed.
The motion as amended was broadly supported. Upon a recorded vote there voted 35 votes in favour and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion as amended be carried.
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane sits at the heart of the South East logistics network, strategically located on the M3 corridor with direct links to the A33, A30 and A339, serving major employers and distribution centres.
2) The borough’s success in attracting and retaining major logistics, manufacturing and service businesses has resulted in increasing demand for secure, well-managed overnight and rest facilities for HGV drivers.
3) Currently, the lack of a designated lorry park within the borough means many vehicles park overnight in local lay-bys and industrial estates, creating safety, security and environmental concerns and putting additional strain on local roads and communities.
4) The absence of suitable facilities also presents risks to driver welfare, increases opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, and impacts the image of Basingstoke as a well-managed business location.
5) There is growing pressure for a motorway service area and lorry park near Junction 6 of the M3, which could add further congestion to an already critical junction and undermine wider infrastructure priorities.
Council believes:
1) Providing a purpose-built, secure lorry park would improve safety for drivers, reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and demonstrate Basingstoke’s commitment to being a business-friendly borough.
2) A strategically located lorry park could be developed in partnership with the private sector, creating new business and employment opportunities while alleviating pressure on local roads.
3) Local solutions are preferable to external developments that could intensify congestion at Junction 6 or encroach on valuable greenfield land.
Council therefore resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Commission a feasibility study to identify potential locations within the borough suitable for a secure, commercially viable lorry park to support logistics, manufacturing, and distribution businesses.
2) Engage with key stakeholders — including Hampshire County Council (as the highways authority), local business groups, the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, and logistics operators — to ensure that the study reflects the real needs of the business community.
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with options, including potential delivery models and partnership opportunities, before considering next steps.
4) Work proactively with partners to identify external funding opportunities, including through the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Combined Authority, the Department for Transport, and private investment, to support delivery if feasible.
Council debated the motion. Areas of discussion included:
· Basingstoke’s strategic location as a logistics and business hub
· Infrastructure gap for the provision of HGV’s
· lorry parking in laybys, streets and industrial estates
· Impact on residents
· Lack of facilities, welfare and safety issues for lorry drivers
· Proposed motorway service station on Junction 6
· Challenges finding a suitable site to locate a lorry park that would not displace HGV movements away from strategic routes and onto local roads
· A Lorry park is not employment land so would be additional to those sites already identified in the Local Plan
· Budget and time implications exploring options
· The requirement for a secure and managed site to improve safety and reduce anti-social behaviour
· A feasibility study should be an options appraisal setting out feasibility, risks, delivery models and partnerships rather than an implied commitment to a particular solution.
Councillor Lee proposed an amendment to the wording of the motion as follows:
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
3) Report back to the Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months with an options appraisal, including high level feasibility, risks, potential delivery models, partnership opportunities and funding considerations, before considering next steps.
The amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and agreed.
The motion as amended was broadly supported. Upon a recorded vote there voted 35 votes in favour and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion as amended be carried.
14
Notice of Motion - Government Proposal To Delay The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral Election From May 2026 To May 2028
Proposer: Councillor Minas-Bound
Seconder: Councillor Carr
Council notes:
1) That the Labour Government is expected to announce that the first election for a Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayor – originally scheduled for May 2026 – will be delayed until May 2028, on the grounds that councils need more time to complete Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
2) That this Mayoral election was due to take place alongside the local elections in May 2026, forming a central democratic component of the proposed Hampshire & Isle of Wight devolution arrangements.
3) That delaying this democratic process by two years will deny residents the opportunity to elect their Mayor at the time originally promised and risks undermining confidence in the devolution programme.
4) That 13 local authorities across Hampshire supported progressing with a four-unitary model, and the proposed delay is inconsistent with the urgency the Government previously placed on progressing LGR.
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Council believes:
1) That democratic elections must take place on time and not be postponed for political convenience.
2) That residents deserve a clear, stable and transparent timetable for both devolution and reorganisation.
3) That any changes to the governance of Hampshire & the Isle of Wight should be shaped by local voices, not centrally dictated and then delayed without meaningful explanation.
Council resolves to:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
2) Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) Request that the Secretary of State provides urgent clarity on the status and timing of the scheduled May 2026 district and county elections, given the uncertainty created by this late proposed change to the Mayoral timetable.
4) Request that the Leader of the Council raises these concerns with neighbouring authorities and with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Local Government Association to ensure a coordinated response where appropriate.
5) Ask the Chief Executive to update all Members as soon as further detail emerges regarding the timetable for Local Government Reorganisation and any associated electoral implications.
Seconder: Councillor Carr
Council notes:
1) That the Labour Government is expected to announce that the first election for a Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayor – originally scheduled for May 2026 – will be delayed until May 2028, on the grounds that councils need more time to complete Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
2) That this Mayoral election was due to take place alongside the local elections in May 2026, forming a central democratic component of the proposed Hampshire & Isle of Wight devolution arrangements.
3) That delaying this democratic process by two years will deny residents the opportunity to elect their Mayor at the time originally promised and risks undermining confidence in the devolution programme.
4) That 13 local authorities across Hampshire supported progressing with a four-unitary model, and the proposed delay is inconsistent with the urgency the Government previously placed on progressing LGR.
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Council believes:
1) That democratic elections must take place on time and not be postponed for political convenience.
2) That residents deserve a clear, stable and transparent timetable for both devolution and reorganisation.
3) That any changes to the governance of Hampshire & the Isle of Wight should be shaped by local voices, not centrally dictated and then delayed without meaningful explanation.
Council resolves to:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
2) Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) Request that the Secretary of State provides urgent clarity on the status and timing of the scheduled May 2026 district and county elections, given the uncertainty created by this late proposed change to the Mayoral timetable.
4) Request that the Leader of the Council raises these concerns with neighbouring authorities and with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Local Government Association to ensure a coordinated response where appropriate.
5) Ask the Chief Executive to update all Members as soon as further detail emerges regarding the timetable for Local Government Reorganisation and any associated electoral implications.
Attachments:
- Document Amended Motion Final agreed - Elections 16 Feb 2026
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Minas-Bound and seconded by Councillor Carr:
Council notes:
1) That the Labour Government is expected to announce that the first election for a Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayor – originally scheduled for May 2026 – will be delayed until May 2028, on the grounds that councils need more time to complete Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
2) That this Mayoral election was due to take place alongside the local elections in May 2026, forming a central democratic component of the proposed Hampshire & Isle of Wight devolution arrangements.
3) That delaying this democratic process by two years will deny residents the opportunity to elect their Mayor at the time originally promised and risks undermining confidence in the devolution programme.
4) That 13 local authorities across Hampshire supported progressing with a four-unitary model, and the proposed delay is inconsistent with the urgency the Government previously placed on progressing LGR.
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Council believes:
1) That democratic elections must take place on time and not be postponed for political convenience.
2) That residents deserve a clear, stable and transparent timetable for both devolution and reorganisation.
3) That any changes to the governance of Hampshire & the Isle of Wight should be shaped by local voices, not centrally dictated and then delayed without meaningful explanation.
Council resolves to:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
2) Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) Request that the Secretary of State provides urgent clarity on the status and timing of the scheduled May 2026 district and county elections, given the uncertainty created by this late proposed change to the Mayoral timetable.
4) Request that the Leader of the Council raises these concerns with neighbouring authorities and with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Local Government Association to ensure a coordinated response where appropriate.
5) Ask the Chief Executive to update all Members as soon as further detail emerges regarding the timetable for Local Government Reorganisation and any associated electoral implications.
The Leader of the Council immediately proposed an amendment to the motion to reflect a ministerial statement that it was for councils to make their view known to government whether to postpone the May 2026 local elections.
The amendment was to amend the wording of paragraph 2, replace the wording in paragraph 3 and an additional resolution as set out below:
Council resolves:
2) That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of the State for Housing, Communities and Local Government confirming, following the Ministerial Statement of the 18 December, that this Council will not be applying to delay our elections, and that we affirm that it is our belief that the elections for Basingstoke & Deane Borough should go ahead in May 2026.
6) That the Leader of the Council write in support of the position, it is understood, of Hampshire County Council that the County Elections should not be postponed again and they should be held in May 2026.
The mover of the original motion accepted the amendments proposed. Upon discussion of the amendment by members, broad agreement was expressed that the elections should not be postponed. Some members considered that the amendment was a separate issue from the original motion regarding the Mayoral election and the issue of local elections should have formed a separate motion.
The amendment was put to a recorded vote, there voted 43 votes in favour and 1 abstention and therefore the amendment was carried.
Councillor Lee proposed a further amendment to the motion, seconded by Councillor Ibrahim.
The amendment was as follows:
To replace the wording in Council notes paragraph 5:
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
with: That concerns have been raised nationally and locally about the impact of delaying the inaugural mayoral election on democratic confidence, and that residents and councils require a clear, evidence-based explanation for the proposed change in timetable.
Replace the wording in Council resolves, paragraph 1:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
with: Express concern about the proposed delay to the inaugural Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election and request that the Government clearly sets out the justification for the delay, including the democratic, governance and accountability implications
The addition of the following resolutions:
1) Request that the Secretary of State publish a clear, updated timetable covering devolution legislation, interim governance arrangements before the election of a Mayor, Local Government Reorganisation milestones, and the revised date for the first Mayoral election.
2) Seek confirmation of which strategic decisions, powers and funding allocations may be exercised by any interim or shadow arrangements before the election of a Mayor, and what scrutiny and accountability mechanisms will apply during that period.
3) Request clarity on the status and timing of scheduled May 2026 local elections within the area, confirming whether any changes are proposed as a result of devolution or Local Government Reorganisation.
The mover of the original motion did not accept all of the amendments proposed, only the additional resolutions 1 and 2. Discussion of the amendment included comments relating to political motivation, democracy, strategic planning, governance arrangements timetable, strategic powers and funding and scrutiny and accountability. Upon a recorded vote the amendment was unanimously agreed.
The substantive motion was debated. Areas of discussion included the mayoral model and rationale for delaying the mayoral election, support for local elections to continue as planned, devolved powers, link between local government reorganisation and Mayoral election, democratic mandate to make decisions, two issues conflated in the motion, impact of delaying devolution.
The substantive motion was put to a recorded vote with 36 votes in favour and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion as amended be carried (Appendix 1)
Council notes:
1) That the Labour Government is expected to announce that the first election for a Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayor – originally scheduled for May 2026 – will be delayed until May 2028, on the grounds that councils need more time to complete Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
2) That this Mayoral election was due to take place alongside the local elections in May 2026, forming a central democratic component of the proposed Hampshire & Isle of Wight devolution arrangements.
3) That delaying this democratic process by two years will deny residents the opportunity to elect their Mayor at the time originally promised and risks undermining confidence in the devolution programme.
4) That 13 local authorities across Hampshire supported progressing with a four-unitary model, and the proposed delay is inconsistent with the urgency the Government previously placed on progressing LGR.
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Council believes:
1) That democratic elections must take place on time and not be postponed for political convenience.
2) That residents deserve a clear, stable and transparent timetable for both devolution and reorganisation.
3) That any changes to the governance of Hampshire & the Isle of Wight should be shaped by local voices, not centrally dictated and then delayed without meaningful explanation.
Council resolves to:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
2) Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) Request that the Secretary of State provides urgent clarity on the status and timing of the scheduled May 2026 district and county elections, given the uncertainty created by this late proposed change to the Mayoral timetable.
4) Request that the Leader of the Council raises these concerns with neighbouring authorities and with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Local Government Association to ensure a coordinated response where appropriate.
5) Ask the Chief Executive to update all Members as soon as further detail emerges regarding the timetable for Local Government Reorganisation and any associated electoral implications.
The Leader of the Council immediately proposed an amendment to the motion to reflect a ministerial statement that it was for councils to make their view known to government whether to postpone the May 2026 local elections.
The amendment was to amend the wording of paragraph 2, replace the wording in paragraph 3 and an additional resolution as set out below:
Council resolves:
2) That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government expressing this Council’s concern at the proposed delay and calling for the Mayoral election to proceed in May 2026 as originally planned.
3) That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of the State for Housing, Communities and Local Government confirming, following the Ministerial Statement of the 18 December, that this Council will not be applying to delay our elections, and that we affirm that it is our belief that the elections for Basingstoke & Deane Borough should go ahead in May 2026.
6) That the Leader of the Council write in support of the position, it is understood, of Hampshire County Council that the County Elections should not be postponed again and they should be held in May 2026.
The mover of the original motion accepted the amendments proposed. Upon discussion of the amendment by members, broad agreement was expressed that the elections should not be postponed. Some members considered that the amendment was a separate issue from the original motion regarding the Mayoral election and the issue of local elections should have formed a separate motion.
The amendment was put to a recorded vote, there voted 43 votes in favour and 1 abstention and therefore the amendment was carried.
Councillor Lee proposed a further amendment to the motion, seconded by Councillor Ibrahim.
The amendment was as follows:
To replace the wording in Council notes paragraph 5:
5) That national and local commentators have already raised concerns that such a delay may be politically motivated rather than based on the interests or wishes of residents across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
with: That concerns have been raised nationally and locally about the impact of delaying the inaugural mayoral election on democratic confidence, and that residents and councils require a clear, evidence-based explanation for the proposed change in timetable.
Replace the wording in Council resolves, paragraph 1:
1) Formally oppose the Labour Government’s proposal to delay the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election from May 2026 to May 2028.
with: Express concern about the proposed delay to the inaugural Hampshire & Isle of Wight Mayoral election and request that the Government clearly sets out the justification for the delay, including the democratic, governance and accountability implications
The addition of the following resolutions:
1) Request that the Secretary of State publish a clear, updated timetable covering devolution legislation, interim governance arrangements before the election of a Mayor, Local Government Reorganisation milestones, and the revised date for the first Mayoral election.
2) Seek confirmation of which strategic decisions, powers and funding allocations may be exercised by any interim or shadow arrangements before the election of a Mayor, and what scrutiny and accountability mechanisms will apply during that period.
3) Request clarity on the status and timing of scheduled May 2026 local elections within the area, confirming whether any changes are proposed as a result of devolution or Local Government Reorganisation.
The mover of the original motion did not accept all of the amendments proposed, only the additional resolutions 1 and 2. Discussion of the amendment included comments relating to political motivation, democracy, strategic planning, governance arrangements timetable, strategic powers and funding and scrutiny and accountability. Upon a recorded vote the amendment was unanimously agreed.
The substantive motion was debated. Areas of discussion included the mayoral model and rationale for delaying the mayoral election, support for local elections to continue as planned, devolved powers, link between local government reorganisation and Mayoral election, democratic mandate to make decisions, two issues conflated in the motion, impact of delaying devolution.
The substantive motion was put to a recorded vote with 36 votes in favour and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion as amended be carried (Appendix 1)
15
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Can the Council provide current statistics on how many high street commercial properties within Basingstoke town—both owned by the council and privately held—have been vacant for longer than 12 months? Additionally, how does this figure compare to national and regional averages?
Answer
So, the answer to the question is we don’t keep data on what private properties are empty or full. It’s impossible to do so or would take a lot of resources to do. So, what I can say is the latest data we have is in terms of high street stores in Basingstoke, 1.7% are vacant. That compares to 2.2% across the North Hampshire and Berkshire region. In terms of Basingstoke itself we have three empty properties but only two vacant properties. Very confusing. One is actually going through sale and the other one is being marketed as we speak.
Supplementary Question
Is three many or 1.7% more? So can the council consider the high street rental auction scheme for these three properties? Thank you.
Answer
Well, one’s just been sold already on the open market, so that one we wouldn’t be putting into the scheme. We haven’t got a scheme adopted. The motion was moved but we haven’t adopted the scheme yet. But one, we are always open to offers. It’s on the market. So, if people want to buy a property from us, they can. They’re available. They’re on the website. If you’re interested, get in contact with the team.
Question 2
From: Councillor G Watts
To: Leader of the Council
Following the changes by Hampshire County Council to not allow telephone booking slots at the Basingstoke Household Waste Recycling Centre, please can the Leader of the Council advise me of what representation he has made to get these changes reversed, or to scrap the booking system completely to allow inclusivity.
As the Leader is aware these changes have disenfranchised many Basingstoke and Deane residents from booking slots and has led to a potential increase in fly tipping.
Answer
Thank you, Gary, for raising the issue. I’ve expressed residents’ concerns directly to the Leader of the County Council. I’ve called it out publicly a few weeks ago. Our officers have escalated our concerns to the Head of Environmental Services at the County, and they’ve replied confirming that the decision was made by the County Cabinet as a part of their budget savings. They do not intend to change their stance. It’s disappointing that the Labour County Councillor for South Ham did not oppose the County Council budget which was full of the same cuts to the services. She chose to abstain. So, if the county now hold their decision, if the county continue with this, then we know in terms of any increase in fly tipping, who we can blame.
When we took over the administration in May 2023, this council had recorded 3,042 incidents of fly tipping and 276 tonnes of fly tipping. Because of the investment that we’ve made in frontline services and the hard work of officers and our teams, that figure has come down by nearly 50%. And we’ve moved more than half of the tonnage to 113 tonnes. We have also increased prosecutions.
This county decision disenfranchises many people who are not online or do not have someone able to help them get online to make a booking. I spoke to a pensioner just last week on this issue, who contacted me saying that they didn’t use a computer and they didn’t use a smartphone and they felt very strongly that they had been discriminated against. Now I’m not sure how this decision of the county got past their equalities impact assessment. The idea that people can’t use a computer but can go to the library to use a computer if they’re not online is pretty insulting really, especially when our libraries are also being subject to the same cuts. From our resident’s reaction, I think it’s pretty clear. We know that they feel that the withdrawal of the ability to book by telephone is fundamentally wrong, and as soon as I get the response from the leader of the County Council, I will be happy to share it with colleagues.
Supplementary Question
I would thank the Leader of the Council for that response. I also have had representation from pensioners. I’ve actually had to go and book slots for them and these people just haven’t got email and its really disenfranchised. So please, Leader of the Council, keep the pressure up on the county to get this reversed or to scrap the booking system altogether. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Gary, I will do so and I will make sure that the county council knows the strength of feeling that is out there. I think there’s two points to make. Firstly I don’t want this and I don’t think this should hopefully be any trend the county council sets. If this is the implementation of their digital first strategy, whereby residents cannot contact the county to get services delivered, it’s a pretty poor show. I think the way we recently adopted our own customer strategy, where we made it very very clear that we wanted somebody on the end of the telephone to have the inquiry and take the question from residents is really important. So, there’s quite a contrast there. But yeah, where we’re doing things and the way the county are doing things. I will keep the pressure up and I will make sure members know that.
Question 3
From: Councillor J Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
The borough is required by the Labour Government to find substantially more housing through the Local Plan to 2040.
Manydown South is a public asset, owned jointly by this council and HCC, and at 325 hectares has the potential to contribute substantially to meeting the borough’s increased housing target.
The Local Planning Authority is proposing that Manydown South delivers 2750 homes to 2040 of which only 1,150 would be on council land, the rest being on land adjoining owned by a third party. In terms of the ultimate development of council land at Manydown South the LPA is seeking to limit the land used for actual housing to 97 hectares or just 30% of the overall land, which is low by industry standards.
Could the portfolio holder reassure me and residents across the borough facing threats of unexpected new housing developments in their areas that he will ensure through the Reg 18 process the full utilisation of Manydown South for housing.
Answer
Thank you very much John for the question. There’s a fine balancing act here and I believe that we’ve included as many houses as we possibly can on Manydown South, whilst still making it an attractive place to live, and staying true to our vision for the area.
Let me briefly explain how I’ve come to that conclusion, and apologies in advance for bombarding you all with some statistics.So, the total area of Manydown South is around 340 hectares. Of that, about 110 hectares comprises the strategic gap. This is a big chunk of land but it's something that the residents of Oakley have told us that it’s important to them and we've listened. That leaves 230 hectares. Of that, 30 hectares is occupied by a scheduled monument. That gives us 200 hectares. I hope you're keeping up there, Mr Mayor. Of that, 80 hectares will be needed for the primary school, the secondary school, sports facilities, green space, woodland and buffer zones. We keep saying in this chamber, a number of us have said this numerous times, that we need to be building infrastructure and we need to support community facilities and Mr Mayor we have responded. We are leading the way and we are showing private developers it can be done, that we can build infrastructure first, that we can put in good community facilities in place and we can still make a financial return. That leaves us with about 120 hectares of gross developable area. Of that, around 25 hectares will be used for roads, paths and other utilities. That leaves around 95 hectares as a net deliverable area for housing. So as you see there is a solid rationale to the housing number that we have proposed as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. We have maximised the number of new homes on Manydown while building a thriving community that I hope everybody in this chamber will be proud to live in. We are certainly very proud of that.
Supplementary Question
Thank you for your response. The problem I have got is that there has been quite a bit of land lost in relation to development near ridge lines, I think the LPA is wanting larger buffers around woodland. So we’ve gone from 8,600 houses in 2022 down to 7,500 following that, and now down to 6,000 in total. And the point I’m trying to make is that only a small area of Manydown South is actually being built on by the LPA as you’ve conceded, but the LPA is still wanting a low density housing scheme on that land. My question is, are we really being ambitious enough with the scarce land resort? And are we really saying that we can only deliver 1,150 homes on our own council land in the period up to 2040, which is 14 years away?
Answer
Thank you very much. As I said at the start there’s a fine balancing act here. We have been developing the Local Plan, members of the council, certainly members of E&I have had input into the local plan making process. We talk about in the policy section the importance of having buffers, the importance of protecting our green space, the importance of community facilities, the importance of nature recovery. We apply those rules to the private developers who want to build in our area and we’ve got to take those rules ourselves, so it’s about getting that balancing act right. Yes, we want to maximise the number of homes on Manydown and we believe we are doing that, but equally we need to be respectful to the rules that we as a chamber, are wanting to propose not just for private developers, but also for us as public sector developers. So it’s about being fair and its about making sure that we commit to the high standards and this becomes an exemplar that private developers can follow suit and we can demonstrate to them that it actually works, the numbers do stack up and you can be ambitious and you can still deliver on time and on budget.
Question 4
From: Councillor Ibrahim
To: Leader of the Council
Time and time again, Hampshire County Council has let down the residents of Basingstoke.
I have consistently raised multiple issues on behalf of our community, particularly concerning traffic control. This includes persistent problems around Winchester Road, the Morrisons mini-roundabout, and at schools across the ward.
The Council's response is always to decline our requests. We are told resources are ‘extremely limited’, that issues don’t meet a specific criteria, or that suggested measures are ‘divisive’ and ‘always unpopular’.
This inaction has real consequences. We have recently seen the tragic loss of a teenager on Pittard Road. In response to this, residents are now circulating a petition demanding that Hampshire County Council make Winchester Road safer.
Furthermore, I am being contacted by residents in Deep Lane and other parts of the ward requesting safety measures due to a lack of parking restrictions, which is posing a direct risk to people.
To this end, will this council take the matter into its own hands, act on behalf of our residents, and formally press Hampshire County Council to conduct a full road safety audit and implement urgent measures, particularly in Brookvale and Kings Furlong, including Winchester Road, to make our roads safer?
Answer
Thank you, I gave a commitment to the residents this evening to write lobbying the county and also to meet with them to discuss what we can do as a borough council. A few years ago Hampshire County Council decided to take back the responsibility it had devolved to Basingstoke and Deane on highways. The impact was felt by our residents. We had a local contract for traffic orders, for parking solutions. County pulled those powers back to Winchester. That was a mistake. I remember we called that out across this chamber at the time. I remember a few years ago we had a motion on 20 mph zones and we all supported it. We called for a county review. Now it took an age for the County Council to do that review and we haven’t yet seen a single 20 mph zone introduced. As I said earlier, I welcome Luke Murphy’s round table on this issue because he’s engaged on this and I know he raised concerns on behalf of residents in Winchester Road. It was regrettable as I said that only one County Council officer was put up to come to that meeting, it should have been a director, it should have been a senior officer. She was brave to come. She accepted the questions that were put and it was also important that she took them back to county. But we should have had a senior person there. I also noted that there was only one County Councillor who sat around that table. Which begs the question, I hope that the Labour County Councillor for Brookvale has been lobbying the county on all of these issues because I know that she is your representative of Hampshire County Council and the Highways Authority. So I trust that you’ve asked her these questions, that you’re pressing her to ask to press county to undertake the safety review. Now, perhaps she could tell us what she’s done, who she’s spoken to, and what actions she’s taken to get county to undertake to deal with these issues. But meanwhile, I will write to county. We will raise these issues. We will lobby county on this, but we need to remember, and this is really important, that we make clear to our residents, we’re not the highways authority and we don’t want to mislead people into thinking that we can step in for the county when we have no powers to do so. We can lobby, which we will, we will write, which we will, we will be clear, which we will, we will back our residents. But we need the highways authority to step up here.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, my colleague and friend. Just want to say, I mean, considering I’m the councillor for this ward, I’ve been in touch with Hampshire County Council so many times and the last interaction with them was very much around this similar issue, Winchester Road and off roads, the speeds and the parking restriction, and they always come back saying, we don’t have resources, it’s not a priority, there’s no high risk and lots of excuses. I never kind of buy them, and very sad to see this happen. And yes, I agree with you, I’m not leaving any stone unturned, whether that’s a Labour County Councillor, whether they’re an MP because that is important. My question to you, would you bring me along with you to act together because this needs a joint force to put pressure on the County Council together, when it comes to lobbying to audit the roads especially in my ward?
Answer
Thank you, Abdel. There’s two things here that I think are really important. First of all, that the resident that came this evening that represents the campaign group that is specifically referencing the tragedy that took place on Winchester Road is really important, and we need to respect and also hear directly what they have to say and what we can do to support them. The issues that you’ve set out are the same issues that so many colleagues around this chamber experience in their wards by the lack of action from the highways authority in the way we want them to. I mean we recently had a zebra crossing put in at Sherborne Road. We’ve been fighting for it for a long time. The county had sat on the £150,000 of developer money they’d taken from the Chapel Gate development. The Chapel Gate development has been up since 2015. Yet they’ve sat on that money for all those years, not delivering that zebra crossing. They put the zebra crossing in and didn’t connect the belisha beacons, and then have to put the two barriers up either side to stop people using the crossing because they put the road markings in. These are some of the issues we all deal with. What I’m saying is I respect the point but you’re not the only one. And so we need to represent the chambers views on this, I think, and work out how we do that together. And let’s do that.
Question 5
From: Councillor S Carr
To: Leader of the Council
A Feasibility Report on the suitability of golf re-provision was presented to Residents Services Committee this week. It claimed that Down Grange was the most suitable location.
But residents were denied the chance to read this report — and prevented from scrutinising this Administration’s analysis of Down Grange against other suitable sites — because the report was deemed “confidential” under the terms of the 1972 Act.
Yet Conservative Councillors who read this report are clear that just 4 of the 76 pages of this report contain genuinely sensitive information that warrants exemption from publication.
So I ask the Leader of this Council, why was the Down Grange Feasibility Report hidden from public view when 90% of it was suitable for publication?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for the question. Officers identified that there was an error and they corrected it. So Tuesday night I understand that the right papers were published for members and residents.
Supplementary Question
I am deeply concerned that this administration is not being fully transparent with the public on a host of issues, not least Down Grange. It was disturbing to discover that the Head of Law and Governance had not seen the Down Grange feasibility report until the Conservatives raised it the day before the committee. So I ask the Leader, what is the internal governance process for the council determining whether information should be deemed confidential under the 1972 act? Can he assure us that exemption is not simply a decision of the lead officer or author or cabinet member to determine and to prevent further potential abuse of the 1972 act will he agree that all exemptions will face scrutiny by the Head of Law and Governance moving forwards?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. What a little mischievous question. The truth of the matter is it rests with the Monitoring Officer. It rests with the officers to decide that which is confidential and that which is not. It is thoroughly disingenuous to suggest that councillors are involved in those decisions, and that is not the case, and it’s very naughty for you to even suggest so.
From: Councillor Mummalaneni
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Can the Council provide current statistics on how many high street commercial properties within Basingstoke town—both owned by the council and privately held—have been vacant for longer than 12 months? Additionally, how does this figure compare to national and regional averages?
Answer
So, the answer to the question is we don’t keep data on what private properties are empty or full. It’s impossible to do so or would take a lot of resources to do. So, what I can say is the latest data we have is in terms of high street stores in Basingstoke, 1.7% are vacant. That compares to 2.2% across the North Hampshire and Berkshire region. In terms of Basingstoke itself we have three empty properties but only two vacant properties. Very confusing. One is actually going through sale and the other one is being marketed as we speak.
Supplementary Question
Is three many or 1.7% more? So can the council consider the high street rental auction scheme for these three properties? Thank you.
Answer
Well, one’s just been sold already on the open market, so that one we wouldn’t be putting into the scheme. We haven’t got a scheme adopted. The motion was moved but we haven’t adopted the scheme yet. But one, we are always open to offers. It’s on the market. So, if people want to buy a property from us, they can. They’re available. They’re on the website. If you’re interested, get in contact with the team.
Question 2
From: Councillor G Watts
To: Leader of the Council
Following the changes by Hampshire County Council to not allow telephone booking slots at the Basingstoke Household Waste Recycling Centre, please can the Leader of the Council advise me of what representation he has made to get these changes reversed, or to scrap the booking system completely to allow inclusivity.
As the Leader is aware these changes have disenfranchised many Basingstoke and Deane residents from booking slots and has led to a potential increase in fly tipping.
Answer
Thank you, Gary, for raising the issue. I’ve expressed residents’ concerns directly to the Leader of the County Council. I’ve called it out publicly a few weeks ago. Our officers have escalated our concerns to the Head of Environmental Services at the County, and they’ve replied confirming that the decision was made by the County Cabinet as a part of their budget savings. They do not intend to change their stance. It’s disappointing that the Labour County Councillor for South Ham did not oppose the County Council budget which was full of the same cuts to the services. She chose to abstain. So, if the county now hold their decision, if the county continue with this, then we know in terms of any increase in fly tipping, who we can blame.
When we took over the administration in May 2023, this council had recorded 3,042 incidents of fly tipping and 276 tonnes of fly tipping. Because of the investment that we’ve made in frontline services and the hard work of officers and our teams, that figure has come down by nearly 50%. And we’ve moved more than half of the tonnage to 113 tonnes. We have also increased prosecutions.
This county decision disenfranchises many people who are not online or do not have someone able to help them get online to make a booking. I spoke to a pensioner just last week on this issue, who contacted me saying that they didn’t use a computer and they didn’t use a smartphone and they felt very strongly that they had been discriminated against. Now I’m not sure how this decision of the county got past their equalities impact assessment. The idea that people can’t use a computer but can go to the library to use a computer if they’re not online is pretty insulting really, especially when our libraries are also being subject to the same cuts. From our resident’s reaction, I think it’s pretty clear. We know that they feel that the withdrawal of the ability to book by telephone is fundamentally wrong, and as soon as I get the response from the leader of the County Council, I will be happy to share it with colleagues.
Supplementary Question
I would thank the Leader of the Council for that response. I also have had representation from pensioners. I’ve actually had to go and book slots for them and these people just haven’t got email and its really disenfranchised. So please, Leader of the Council, keep the pressure up on the county to get this reversed or to scrap the booking system altogether. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Gary, I will do so and I will make sure that the county council knows the strength of feeling that is out there. I think there’s two points to make. Firstly I don’t want this and I don’t think this should hopefully be any trend the county council sets. If this is the implementation of their digital first strategy, whereby residents cannot contact the county to get services delivered, it’s a pretty poor show. I think the way we recently adopted our own customer strategy, where we made it very very clear that we wanted somebody on the end of the telephone to have the inquiry and take the question from residents is really important. So, there’s quite a contrast there. But yeah, where we’re doing things and the way the county are doing things. I will keep the pressure up and I will make sure members know that.
Question 3
From: Councillor J Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
The borough is required by the Labour Government to find substantially more housing through the Local Plan to 2040.
Manydown South is a public asset, owned jointly by this council and HCC, and at 325 hectares has the potential to contribute substantially to meeting the borough’s increased housing target.
The Local Planning Authority is proposing that Manydown South delivers 2750 homes to 2040 of which only 1,150 would be on council land, the rest being on land adjoining owned by a third party. In terms of the ultimate development of council land at Manydown South the LPA is seeking to limit the land used for actual housing to 97 hectares or just 30% of the overall land, which is low by industry standards.
Could the portfolio holder reassure me and residents across the borough facing threats of unexpected new housing developments in their areas that he will ensure through the Reg 18 process the full utilisation of Manydown South for housing.
Answer
Thank you very much John for the question. There’s a fine balancing act here and I believe that we’ve included as many houses as we possibly can on Manydown South, whilst still making it an attractive place to live, and staying true to our vision for the area.
Let me briefly explain how I’ve come to that conclusion, and apologies in advance for bombarding you all with some statistics.So, the total area of Manydown South is around 340 hectares. Of that, about 110 hectares comprises the strategic gap. This is a big chunk of land but it's something that the residents of Oakley have told us that it’s important to them and we've listened. That leaves 230 hectares. Of that, 30 hectares is occupied by a scheduled monument. That gives us 200 hectares. I hope you're keeping up there, Mr Mayor. Of that, 80 hectares will be needed for the primary school, the secondary school, sports facilities, green space, woodland and buffer zones. We keep saying in this chamber, a number of us have said this numerous times, that we need to be building infrastructure and we need to support community facilities and Mr Mayor we have responded. We are leading the way and we are showing private developers it can be done, that we can build infrastructure first, that we can put in good community facilities in place and we can still make a financial return. That leaves us with about 120 hectares of gross developable area. Of that, around 25 hectares will be used for roads, paths and other utilities. That leaves around 95 hectares as a net deliverable area for housing. So as you see there is a solid rationale to the housing number that we have proposed as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. We have maximised the number of new homes on Manydown while building a thriving community that I hope everybody in this chamber will be proud to live in. We are certainly very proud of that.
Supplementary Question
Thank you for your response. The problem I have got is that there has been quite a bit of land lost in relation to development near ridge lines, I think the LPA is wanting larger buffers around woodland. So we’ve gone from 8,600 houses in 2022 down to 7,500 following that, and now down to 6,000 in total. And the point I’m trying to make is that only a small area of Manydown South is actually being built on by the LPA as you’ve conceded, but the LPA is still wanting a low density housing scheme on that land. My question is, are we really being ambitious enough with the scarce land resort? And are we really saying that we can only deliver 1,150 homes on our own council land in the period up to 2040, which is 14 years away?
Answer
Thank you very much. As I said at the start there’s a fine balancing act here. We have been developing the Local Plan, members of the council, certainly members of E&I have had input into the local plan making process. We talk about in the policy section the importance of having buffers, the importance of protecting our green space, the importance of community facilities, the importance of nature recovery. We apply those rules to the private developers who want to build in our area and we’ve got to take those rules ourselves, so it’s about getting that balancing act right. Yes, we want to maximise the number of homes on Manydown and we believe we are doing that, but equally we need to be respectful to the rules that we as a chamber, are wanting to propose not just for private developers, but also for us as public sector developers. So it’s about being fair and its about making sure that we commit to the high standards and this becomes an exemplar that private developers can follow suit and we can demonstrate to them that it actually works, the numbers do stack up and you can be ambitious and you can still deliver on time and on budget.
Question 4
From: Councillor Ibrahim
To: Leader of the Council
Time and time again, Hampshire County Council has let down the residents of Basingstoke.
I have consistently raised multiple issues on behalf of our community, particularly concerning traffic control. This includes persistent problems around Winchester Road, the Morrisons mini-roundabout, and at schools across the ward.
The Council's response is always to decline our requests. We are told resources are ‘extremely limited’, that issues don’t meet a specific criteria, or that suggested measures are ‘divisive’ and ‘always unpopular’.
This inaction has real consequences. We have recently seen the tragic loss of a teenager on Pittard Road. In response to this, residents are now circulating a petition demanding that Hampshire County Council make Winchester Road safer.
Furthermore, I am being contacted by residents in Deep Lane and other parts of the ward requesting safety measures due to a lack of parking restrictions, which is posing a direct risk to people.
To this end, will this council take the matter into its own hands, act on behalf of our residents, and formally press Hampshire County Council to conduct a full road safety audit and implement urgent measures, particularly in Brookvale and Kings Furlong, including Winchester Road, to make our roads safer?
Answer
Thank you, I gave a commitment to the residents this evening to write lobbying the county and also to meet with them to discuss what we can do as a borough council. A few years ago Hampshire County Council decided to take back the responsibility it had devolved to Basingstoke and Deane on highways. The impact was felt by our residents. We had a local contract for traffic orders, for parking solutions. County pulled those powers back to Winchester. That was a mistake. I remember we called that out across this chamber at the time. I remember a few years ago we had a motion on 20 mph zones and we all supported it. We called for a county review. Now it took an age for the County Council to do that review and we haven’t yet seen a single 20 mph zone introduced. As I said earlier, I welcome Luke Murphy’s round table on this issue because he’s engaged on this and I know he raised concerns on behalf of residents in Winchester Road. It was regrettable as I said that only one County Council officer was put up to come to that meeting, it should have been a director, it should have been a senior officer. She was brave to come. She accepted the questions that were put and it was also important that she took them back to county. But we should have had a senior person there. I also noted that there was only one County Councillor who sat around that table. Which begs the question, I hope that the Labour County Councillor for Brookvale has been lobbying the county on all of these issues because I know that she is your representative of Hampshire County Council and the Highways Authority. So I trust that you’ve asked her these questions, that you’re pressing her to ask to press county to undertake the safety review. Now, perhaps she could tell us what she’s done, who she’s spoken to, and what actions she’s taken to get county to undertake to deal with these issues. But meanwhile, I will write to county. We will raise these issues. We will lobby county on this, but we need to remember, and this is really important, that we make clear to our residents, we’re not the highways authority and we don’t want to mislead people into thinking that we can step in for the county when we have no powers to do so. We can lobby, which we will, we will write, which we will, we will be clear, which we will, we will back our residents. But we need the highways authority to step up here.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, my colleague and friend. Just want to say, I mean, considering I’m the councillor for this ward, I’ve been in touch with Hampshire County Council so many times and the last interaction with them was very much around this similar issue, Winchester Road and off roads, the speeds and the parking restriction, and they always come back saying, we don’t have resources, it’s not a priority, there’s no high risk and lots of excuses. I never kind of buy them, and very sad to see this happen. And yes, I agree with you, I’m not leaving any stone unturned, whether that’s a Labour County Councillor, whether they’re an MP because that is important. My question to you, would you bring me along with you to act together because this needs a joint force to put pressure on the County Council together, when it comes to lobbying to audit the roads especially in my ward?
Answer
Thank you, Abdel. There’s two things here that I think are really important. First of all, that the resident that came this evening that represents the campaign group that is specifically referencing the tragedy that took place on Winchester Road is really important, and we need to respect and also hear directly what they have to say and what we can do to support them. The issues that you’ve set out are the same issues that so many colleagues around this chamber experience in their wards by the lack of action from the highways authority in the way we want them to. I mean we recently had a zebra crossing put in at Sherborne Road. We’ve been fighting for it for a long time. The county had sat on the £150,000 of developer money they’d taken from the Chapel Gate development. The Chapel Gate development has been up since 2015. Yet they’ve sat on that money for all those years, not delivering that zebra crossing. They put the zebra crossing in and didn’t connect the belisha beacons, and then have to put the two barriers up either side to stop people using the crossing because they put the road markings in. These are some of the issues we all deal with. What I’m saying is I respect the point but you’re not the only one. And so we need to represent the chambers views on this, I think, and work out how we do that together. And let’s do that.
Question 5
From: Councillor S Carr
To: Leader of the Council
A Feasibility Report on the suitability of golf re-provision was presented to Residents Services Committee this week. It claimed that Down Grange was the most suitable location.
But residents were denied the chance to read this report — and prevented from scrutinising this Administration’s analysis of Down Grange against other suitable sites — because the report was deemed “confidential” under the terms of the 1972 Act.
Yet Conservative Councillors who read this report are clear that just 4 of the 76 pages of this report contain genuinely sensitive information that warrants exemption from publication.
So I ask the Leader of this Council, why was the Down Grange Feasibility Report hidden from public view when 90% of it was suitable for publication?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for the question. Officers identified that there was an error and they corrected it. So Tuesday night I understand that the right papers were published for members and residents.
Supplementary Question
I am deeply concerned that this administration is not being fully transparent with the public on a host of issues, not least Down Grange. It was disturbing to discover that the Head of Law and Governance had not seen the Down Grange feasibility report until the Conservatives raised it the day before the committee. So I ask the Leader, what is the internal governance process for the council determining whether information should be deemed confidential under the 1972 act? Can he assure us that exemption is not simply a decision of the lead officer or author or cabinet member to determine and to prevent further potential abuse of the 1972 act will he agree that all exemptions will face scrutiny by the Head of Law and Governance moving forwards?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. What a little mischievous question. The truth of the matter is it rests with the Monitoring Officer. It rests with the officers to decide that which is confidential and that which is not. It is thoroughly disingenuous to suggest that councillors are involved in those decisions, and that is not the case, and it’s very naughty for you to even suggest so.
16
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
Human Resources
6 October 2025
Cabinet
7 October 2025
Development Control
8 October 2025
Resident Services O&S
15 October 2025
Council
16 October 2025
Licensing
3 November 2025
Cabinet
11 November 2025
Development Control
12 November 2025
Audit & Accounts
24 November 2025
Resources
25 November 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Human Resources
6 October 2025
Cabinet
7 October 2025
Development Control
8 October 2025
Resident Services O&S
15 October 2025
Council
16 October 2025
Licensing
3 November 2025
Cabinet
11 November 2025
Development Control
12 November 2025
Audit & Accounts
24 November 2025
Resources
25 November 2025
Minutes
There were no questions.
17
Exclusion of press and public
To consider whether, in view of the nature of the remaining items on the agenda, any of them are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt or confidential information within the terms of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
18
Confidential/exempt items for information
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in