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, 19th March 2026
6:30 PM
Thursday, 19th March 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 19th March 2026
9:30 PM
Thursday, 19th March 2026
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
19 Mar 2026
19 Mar 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Business Engagement
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Reform UK Group
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Chair
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
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
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resident Services & Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Councillor Paul Basham
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Hayley Eachus
Absent
Committee Member
Councillor Paul Gaskell
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Councillor Tony Jones
Apologies
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 for absence were received from Councillors Ashfield, Blackberry, Court, Johnstone, T Jones, Mummalaneni, Oborn, Tustain and West.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor Carr indicated that he may need to leave the meeting when public question number 4 was considered.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026
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 26022026 1830 Council 11 Mar 2026
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor thanked those councillors who were retiring for their service to the borough and offered best wishes to those standing in the forthcoming elections.
Councillor Lee, who was retiring as a councillor expressed his thanks for the assistance he had received during his 4 years in office.
Councillor Lee, who was retiring as a councillor expressed his thanks for the assistance he had received during his 4 years in office.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 17 March 2026)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 17 March 2026)
Minutes
Question 1
From: Bikram Banerjee
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
I have launched an online petition, now supported by over 500 residents, titled “Protect Basingstoke Library at Festival Place,” raising concerns about proposed reductions to the library’s space and services.
In light of this strong public support and the library’s importance for education, digital access and community wellbeing, what formal action is Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council taking to represent residents’ concerns and advocate for protecting Basingstoke Library?
Answer
Yes, I will respond, thank you Mayor, and the reason I would like to respond even though Mr Banerjee is not here is I wanted to thank him for highlighting the public’s support for the Basingstoke library at Festival Place. This council recognises that the Basingstoke library, or the Discovery Centre, as it’s known, is an important community hub that provides a place for reading, learning, access to services and is a place for meetings and a place for reflection that contributes to the wellbeing of the people who use its facilities. The library is wholly in the ownership of Hampshire County Council and it was their decision to evict Citizens Advice and to reduce the floor space of our public library. We objected strongly to their decision, as did Citizens Advice. Hampshire County Council chose to ignore these objections and decided to proceed in the face of our formal opposition. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Bikram Banerjee
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Residents of Penrith Road and Bramblys Drive have raised escalating concerns that the current 9am–6pm Controlled Parking Zone restriction is leading to significant evening and weekend displacement parking.
While Hampshire County Council reviews the potential extension to 24-hour protection, what immediate interim enforcement measures is Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council prepared to implement — including confirmation of current enforcement frequency, consideration of targeted evening patrols, and assessment of whether CAMS car park overflow access could provide temporary relief?
Answer
Yes, thank you very much Mr Mayor, I will respond for the benefit of the residents living in Penrith Road and Bramblys Drive. So I wanted to thank Bikram also for the question and I’m very sorry to hear about the challenges that residents in those two streets are experiencing. I know from my own casework in Brighton Hill just how much frustration parking problems can cause for local residents. The question asks what measures Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is prepared to implement. I think we need to go back a step and ask what measures Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is able to implement and unfortunately, the answer to that question isn’t particularly positive. Since April 2023, Hampshire County Council has been directly responsible for all traffic and on-street parking matters in our borough, including the enforcement of traffic regulation orders. We as a borough council no longer have enforcement powers, we can’t issue fines, we can’t ask vehicles to move on, we can’t paint yellow lines. I thought Bikram’s suggestion of potentially using the CAMS car park as a temporary overflow was a really interesting one, but again this isn’t a borough council car park, so we can’t offer it out to residents for their use. So the solution lies very much in ensuring that Hampshire County Council reviews the parking protections and improves its patrols. I’ve asked the officer team here to contact their counterparts in Hampshire County Council’s on-street parking enforcement team to see if they can help speed things along. I’d also encourage residents, particularly those most affected by this, to raise their concerns directly with Hampshire County Council as well to make sure that they really get the message. Thank you.
Question 3
From: John Harrison
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
What environmental, ecological or wildlife surveys have been carried out in Down Grange Park, the area in and around the front of Miller and Carter?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you John for your question. So, as part of the initial work to investigate the reprovision of the golf facilities, a preliminary ecological assessment and a baseline biodiversity assessment were both undertaken at Down Grange by a qualified ecology consultant. This work was followed by surveys throughout April to October 2025 to identify whether there are any protected species on site including reptiles and bats. In addition, an arboricultural survey was completed to identify the trees to be protected, including the root zones to avoid any works being undertaken that damage the trees on site. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC), carried out habitat surveys of the wooded area next to the Miller & Carter car park in 2023 and Down Grange meadow in 2022, and they concluded:
“An excellent variety of species were recorded during the survey, 118 in all, with an impressive 16 species of chalk grassland indicator species recorded. These chalk grassland species have been sown as part of a chalk grassland restoration program, although it will take a continuing targeted grassland management policy to carry the grassland restoration forward to a point where it could qualify as Priority Habitat and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation”, as we call SINCS.
The wooded area next to the Miller and Carter car park survey reports: “A scrubby site with some ornamental plantings and some mature trees. Likely to support ‘significant’ reptile populations”.
So additionally, Hampshire’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), the mapping, highlights that the meadow and area in front of Miller and Carter is “an area that could become of particular importance for biodiversity”. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Are these surveys, results, data available in the public domain or can they be provided?
Answer
Thank you, yes. The best approach is to contact HBIC at Hampshire and if you would like a link, if you could email me, I can send you the link. I could read it out to you, but you’d probably fall asleep before it finishes, I’m afraid. But yes, they are available to the public but from HBIC, is the best source. Thank you.
Question 4
Councillor Carr left the meeting for this item.
From: Leslie Smith
To: Leader of the Council
I have read the article in the Basingstoke Gazette, dated March 6th, in which the Council Leader refers to letters to the Supply Authorities and the Environment Agency. The points made were that:
That Basingstoke and the surrounding communities are heavily dependent on the chalk stream aquifer at a time when the Environment Agency has warned of historically low groundwater levels exist in parts of the South East, including Basingstoke.
That existing water management rules already limit how much water can be taken from the Upper Loddon when river levels are low, and that South East Water now have to bring in water from outstanding areas.
That the Leader and Cllr Konieczko have urged Thames Water to immediately upgrade the Basingstoke sewage treatment works before 2027 target, and to prioritise the site in its next investment programme. National targets suggested cutting storm overflows is wholly unacceptable at the levels that they have set for 2040-2045.
They have also urged Southern Water at Whitchurch to limit phosphorus emissions and contaminant loads to meet Water Framework Directive directions.
And finally
Urged the Environment Agency to use its enforcement powers to insist that Basingstoke is treated as a priority site for investment and to deliver the necessary infrastructure before further large-scale housing is built.
All of the above measures are consistent with a Council’s obligation, as detailed in the latest NPPF (Dec 25), Section 10. W1.1 This advises that the Local Plan development stage, early engagement with utility providers should take precedent and take into account and address potential constraints to development arising from current or anticipated infrastructure shortfalls.
Based on the above, can the Leader please confirm and expand what he meant by his comments in the article that the borough’s next Local Plan cannot simply “pile thousands more homes” on top of failing infrastructure and given the known infrastructure shortfalls, will he confirm that these matters are of such significance that the uplift in housing that Basingstoke & Deane is demanded to take by the government is indeed totally unsuitable?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Smith, thank you very much for your question. You are quite right to highlight the serious water infrastructure issues facing this borough in regard to the building of new homes.?Let’s not forget that the Local Plan process began back in 2019. It began back in 2019, seven years ago. We inherited a stalled plan and started straight away to move the process forward and in those eighteen months we had a plan ready to go. That plan would in fact be coming back to this Council for adoption now had the government not changed the NPPF and increased our housing target by nearly 40%. They’ve now decided to bring in another brand new NPPF that again has huge implications for plan making and centralises even more power away from communities and local councils into the government’s hands. They keep moving the goal posts. It is this administration that has asked the questions on infrastructure that needed to be asked. We’ve demanded the honest truth and our draft Water Cycle Study and other evidence lays it out plainly. I want to commend Councillor Konieczko and our officers for the work they are doing. They’ve had to be fleet of foot and they’ve had to adapt to an ever changing planning legislation landscape. There are really significant points that I want to make in order to answer your question fully.
On fresh water supply:
South East Water has told us directly that the housing numbers are now considerably higher than those they factored into their Water Resources Management Plan. In their own words in our Water Cycle Study, they say that they "would not be able to accommodate any level of growth in excess of our current Water Resource Management Plan 2024 forecast assumptions."
And our Water Cycle Study says: “This effectively puts a cap on the amount of development that is possible within the Basingstoke Water Resource Zone.” That’s the Bracknell Water Resource Zone overall to them. “Careful coordination of the development plans in the early part of the Local Plan period, in collaboration with other neighbouring authorities, is required in order to ensure that the growth doesn’t exceed the Water Resource Management Plan 2024 forecast.”
Let’s just put that in context. The government has forced our housing target up from approximately 830 dwellings per annum to 1,152. That’s an increase of nearly 40%, requiring over 6,000 additional new homes on top of the 15,000 that were previously planned. South East Water is telling us clearly: the water is not currently there to deliver the uplift. The solution, a transfer pipeline from the Surrey Hills Service Reservoir to Basingstoke, is not expected until the early 2030s. Until then, the water is simply not there. That pipeline has already been delayed for over a decade, and that’s a key point. We have absolutely no control over the water companies or their infrastructure plans. However, we are expected to plan for thousands of houses. Developers and landowners cannot build what cannot be supplied. This will shape our Local Plan and it should be considered in every planning decision that we make in the meantime. We’ve argued, and we vehemently believe, that the Government’s increased housing target was wrong. We will now work with the regulators and South East Water to protect our precious chalk streams and aquifers.
The Environment Agency’s response to our recent Regulation 18 consultation, which will be published on Monday alongside the other responses we have received to the Draft Local Plan is very clear and it agrees with our concerns that we have raised, and I quote:
“There is a risk that growth proposed in the plan could present an unacceptable impact and compromise statutory environmental objectives.”
South East Water do not currently have a defined programme for the delivery of this strategic infrastructure. Although, its 2024 plans for this to be operational in 2030-31, meaning that pipeline. And this is important. They say that the SSI, that relates to the Greywell Aquifer is currently assessed as unfavourable declining condition. The impact of abstraction at Greywell on the triple SI is contributing to a failure of the Basingstoke Chalk Water Framework Directive Groundwater Body and it is preventing it from achieving good qualitative status. Therefore they recommend that BDBC expand the Water Cycle Study to include an assessment of the impacts of any proposed growth on abstraction sources and relevant receptors within South East Water’s zone area.
The Environment Agency says it is actively reviewing the South East Water Greywell licences. South East Water then add to that with their representation to our Regulation 18 which again backs up our causes for concern that we raised in the first place, and I quote:
?“From an early review of the latest housing forecast figures, increased to meet the government targets and provided to us by local authorities within our supply area, we identified that we cannot accommodate additional growth beyond that which was assumed in our resource plan of 2024 without compromising our level of service commitments to our customers and the environment. Until this major infrastructure scheme is completed any growth in the short term will pose a risk to the security of supply to customers and to the environment.Until this new transfer scheme is completed, there’s a risk we may not be able to fully accommodate the level of housing that’s been assumed. The delivery of major infrastructure presents a significant challenge, impacting the planned route, overall cost and timeline. In particular, the route of that pipeline, of the large diameter main that needs to be created is going to cross built up areas and highly sensitive environmental sites in order that it can get to Basingstoke.”
These are huge challenges in delivering this new pipeline and it is not guaranteed that it can actually be delivered in the timeframe suggested. So, as you can see there are significant implications now that need careful review and further work. ?
On wastewater:
Thames Water have not guaranteed that the infrastructure required at the Chineham or the Sherfield on Loddon Sewage Treatment Works will be ready by 2027. Worse still, they have confirmed that investment to tackle storm overflow won't be realised until 2040 or 2045 at the earliest. Residents didn’t expect to wake up to tankers lining the Reading Road, dumping raw sewage into their pipes. And in the first months of this year alone, over 650 hours of raw sewage has been discharged into the River Loddon. We believe that Thames Water are no longer meeting their permit requirements.
Southern Water are no better. Phosphorous is the major pollutant that’s threatening the aquifer and the River Test. The River Test is a Site of Scientific Interest supporting Atlantic salmon, otters and water voles and key parts of the Test are currently classified by the Environment Agency as being in an unfavourable condition. Southern Water are not monitoring phosphorous adequately nor tackling it in any planned investment at the Whitchurch treatment works. So we’ve called both of these privatised companies out for the damage they’re doing to our precious chalk stream rivers. This administration takes this evidence very seriously. It is absolutely critical that we fully understand the existing supply-demand deficit, the ongoing environmental harm and the risk of further deterioration in our waterways and aquifers. We need a duty of candour to be applied to the utility companies because we’ve seen years of under investment and that lack of infrastructure is now having huge implications. There are serious, unanswered questions over investment programmes and infrastructure that could still be a decade away. Once we understand the scale of the work needed to resolve these issues, the council’s Cabinet will need to agree a new timetable for the Local Plan. We are uncovering the truth. We have finally asked the right questions and we will continue to shine a light until the people of this borough get the infrastructure they were promised and deserve.
Supplementary Question
It seems to me there’s a fundamental flaw in the planning process as the utility services providers are not statutory consultees in the planning process. Basingstoke are caught up in this like other councils because they’re required to produce a plan and ultimately be responsible for delivering it, remember delivering it, otherwise you could lose your planning control. They’re responsible for delivering it but they have no information, they have no control about delivery and they cannot force statutory authorities to give them the information required. So you’re in a really invidious position, and I just wonder what the council can do to address this because it doesn’t just apply to this council, it applies to every council because they’re all in the same problem. Thank you very much.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I think it’s fair to say that this administration have long held concerns about the effect of the lack of investment in our water rivers in our chalk streams. I mean these are world renowned rare chalk streams that we are responsible for protecting in our borough. And we do see the water companies deliberately, because they haven’t invested, the only thing they’ve got left to do is discharge it into those rivers when they can’t cope with the storm overflow, and that actual act of doing that is destroying those rivers. Its poisoning those rivers. So, there is a really serious issue to be considered about the wastewater. In terms of supply, South East water have been honest with us. They cannot meet the supply to meet the uplift, and that is a really important statement from them. They have been honest with us. But that raises really important concerns as a result of the Reg18 process that we now need to address and need to understand the full implications of and that will result in a new timetable associated with the Local Plan. It is right, years of underinvestment in infrastructure is now coming home to roost. Decades of, if I think about it, over a decade waiting for this pipeline to be delivered. So that is now a major issue that this borough and many other boroughs are facing. And you’re right, the disconnect between what is done nationally and done locally is a serious point here. When the government continues to get its long screwdriver out and continues to tinker with the NPPF and takes powers away from us and centralises them, it makes our life a lot more difficult trying to control and do the right thing by our residents in this important area. But we will continue to do so. We’re not going to give up on this. We’re going to do the work that’s required in order to tell the truth of what’s going on with the infrastructure that residents care about.
Question 5
From: Miranda Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Given that the area in front of and around Down Grange House is historic, there are a number of significant old trees there. Has anything been done to identify which trees need protecting and how do you plan to protect them?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, thank you Miranda, thank you for your question. They’re absolutely stunning aren’t they those trees. They’re really beautiful and I can understand that you love them because they are worth loving. We have over 80,000 trees in the borough that we have responsibility for, that we manage and maintain. That’s excluding all of those within the woodland areas that we also take care of. So there’s a lot of trees. All of the trees are mapped. So those trees in your area you’re referring to in Down Grange have been mapped and assessed and a tree survey has been carried out. We carry out a tree survey every five years, and then if there are concerns about those trees we can carry out works earlier. So, we will do a survey earlier if we feel there is a need. The reality is because those trees are on our land, they’re protected. So, you have protection and we also have a commitment as a borough to deliver many more trees and that’s what we’re doing. So just to reassure you, those trees are protected.
Supplementary Question
Just a very short one really on the trees again. Obviously, some of the trees are going to naturally die off. I’ve been looking at some of those all my life. They’re going to go, but there are a lot of shrubs that were out there, obviously planted because it was gardens for the house. I don’t see those being looked after and I actually did ask once whether I could go out and do a bit of pruning but was told I wasn’t allowed to touch them. Is it possible to look at some of the old photographs and pictures to show what used to be planted there and when things die off naturally or, you know are diseased, then they can be replanted, because it’s such a lovely area, it would be nice to try and keep that going.
Answer
Miranda, I’m very happy for you to meet with me and for us to talk about what could be done going forward. Obviously, the trees are looked after by one department and grounds maintenance look after the bushes, but you know, they’re doing a great job and I’m sure if there’s work to be done, we can arrange that. But what we are going to do in the future, but I give you a reassurance that let’s meet and let’s have a chat about what we can do. Let me and you meet and we’ll go on from there.
Question 6
From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
In light of the unprecedented public uproar that occurred when the Council picked Down Grange for their golf course, and thanks to the community of Basingstoke and some wonderful councillors here, the council now know how special Down Grange is to this town. Out of the 7,000 plus people who signed the petition, many thousands of those were Basingstoke residents and therefore voters in the upcoming election. I’d also like to note that should the council propose putting something else on Down Grange that displaces the public, the size of the fight will be exactly the same as the previous fight that we just won. So just a point for the record. But so with all of this in mind, I’d like to suggest that there’s an opportunity in front of this council to make a proactive decision on securing the future of Down Grange for the public that you represent. This is a political gift and a potential vote winner. So my question is, is this council willing to ensure the protection of the Down Grange meadow, and the whole area in front of Miller and Carter, by making them both a Local Nature Reserve Area?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Lucy, for your question. So, I can certainly state that this council is committed to safeguarding important natural green spaces to the benefit for people and wildlife by declaring them local nature reserves. And I’m pleased to say that Down Grange Meadow is on our priority list of areas to get this protective status in the future. The exact area of land that would be included is subject to a process that includes consulting with local people and Natural England to gather their views, along with wildlife surveys and legal checks. We’ve just, as you know, just started work to make land at Old Down, in southern Basingstoke, a local nature reserve. This process is set out in law, and it takes about 18 months. So, the land at Down Grange Meadow is a little further down on our list, but it’s on it and it’s important to us. So, thank you.
Supplementary Question
So just a follow up to that. So, you only mentioned Down Grange Meadow. So does that exclude Down Grange Park? And also what time frame do you propose starting that 18 month process for both of those areas?
Answer
Thank you. Yes, perhaps I should have said the whole area, Down Grange and that land in the front. As I referred to in the answer to the previous question, there is a lot of value in the land at the front of Miller and Carter. Timescale, well I can’t give you an exact timescale. It really depends on the workload of these 18 months of the list and everything that’s going on. But we are committed to giving you additional safeguards and granting this LNR, but it does take a little bit of time, but we’re on the case. Thank you.
From: Bikram Banerjee
To: Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
I have launched an online petition, now supported by over 500 residents, titled “Protect Basingstoke Library at Festival Place,” raising concerns about proposed reductions to the library’s space and services.
In light of this strong public support and the library’s importance for education, digital access and community wellbeing, what formal action is Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council taking to represent residents’ concerns and advocate for protecting Basingstoke Library?
Answer
Yes, I will respond, thank you Mayor, and the reason I would like to respond even though Mr Banerjee is not here is I wanted to thank him for highlighting the public’s support for the Basingstoke library at Festival Place. This council recognises that the Basingstoke library, or the Discovery Centre, as it’s known, is an important community hub that provides a place for reading, learning, access to services and is a place for meetings and a place for reflection that contributes to the wellbeing of the people who use its facilities. The library is wholly in the ownership of Hampshire County Council and it was their decision to evict Citizens Advice and to reduce the floor space of our public library. We objected strongly to their decision, as did Citizens Advice. Hampshire County Council chose to ignore these objections and decided to proceed in the face of our formal opposition. Thank you.
Question 2
From: Bikram Banerjee
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Residents of Penrith Road and Bramblys Drive have raised escalating concerns that the current 9am–6pm Controlled Parking Zone restriction is leading to significant evening and weekend displacement parking.
While Hampshire County Council reviews the potential extension to 24-hour protection, what immediate interim enforcement measures is Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council prepared to implement — including confirmation of current enforcement frequency, consideration of targeted evening patrols, and assessment of whether CAMS car park overflow access could provide temporary relief?
Answer
Yes, thank you very much Mr Mayor, I will respond for the benefit of the residents living in Penrith Road and Bramblys Drive. So I wanted to thank Bikram also for the question and I’m very sorry to hear about the challenges that residents in those two streets are experiencing. I know from my own casework in Brighton Hill just how much frustration parking problems can cause for local residents. The question asks what measures Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is prepared to implement. I think we need to go back a step and ask what measures Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is able to implement and unfortunately, the answer to that question isn’t particularly positive. Since April 2023, Hampshire County Council has been directly responsible for all traffic and on-street parking matters in our borough, including the enforcement of traffic regulation orders. We as a borough council no longer have enforcement powers, we can’t issue fines, we can’t ask vehicles to move on, we can’t paint yellow lines. I thought Bikram’s suggestion of potentially using the CAMS car park as a temporary overflow was a really interesting one, but again this isn’t a borough council car park, so we can’t offer it out to residents for their use. So the solution lies very much in ensuring that Hampshire County Council reviews the parking protections and improves its patrols. I’ve asked the officer team here to contact their counterparts in Hampshire County Council’s on-street parking enforcement team to see if they can help speed things along. I’d also encourage residents, particularly those most affected by this, to raise their concerns directly with Hampshire County Council as well to make sure that they really get the message. Thank you.
Question 3
From: John Harrison
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
What environmental, ecological or wildlife surveys have been carried out in Down Grange Park, the area in and around the front of Miller and Carter?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you John for your question. So, as part of the initial work to investigate the reprovision of the golf facilities, a preliminary ecological assessment and a baseline biodiversity assessment were both undertaken at Down Grange by a qualified ecology consultant. This work was followed by surveys throughout April to October 2025 to identify whether there are any protected species on site including reptiles and bats. In addition, an arboricultural survey was completed to identify the trees to be protected, including the root zones to avoid any works being undertaken that damage the trees on site. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC), carried out habitat surveys of the wooded area next to the Miller & Carter car park in 2023 and Down Grange meadow in 2022, and they concluded:
“An excellent variety of species were recorded during the survey, 118 in all, with an impressive 16 species of chalk grassland indicator species recorded. These chalk grassland species have been sown as part of a chalk grassland restoration program, although it will take a continuing targeted grassland management policy to carry the grassland restoration forward to a point where it could qualify as Priority Habitat and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation”, as we call SINCS.
The wooded area next to the Miller and Carter car park survey reports: “A scrubby site with some ornamental plantings and some mature trees. Likely to support ‘significant’ reptile populations”.
So additionally, Hampshire’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), the mapping, highlights that the meadow and area in front of Miller and Carter is “an area that could become of particular importance for biodiversity”. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Are these surveys, results, data available in the public domain or can they be provided?
Answer
Thank you, yes. The best approach is to contact HBIC at Hampshire and if you would like a link, if you could email me, I can send you the link. I could read it out to you, but you’d probably fall asleep before it finishes, I’m afraid. But yes, they are available to the public but from HBIC, is the best source. Thank you.
Question 4
Councillor Carr left the meeting for this item.
From: Leslie Smith
To: Leader of the Council
I have read the article in the Basingstoke Gazette, dated March 6th, in which the Council Leader refers to letters to the Supply Authorities and the Environment Agency. The points made were that:
That Basingstoke and the surrounding communities are heavily dependent on the chalk stream aquifer at a time when the Environment Agency has warned of historically low groundwater levels exist in parts of the South East, including Basingstoke.
That existing water management rules already limit how much water can be taken from the Upper Loddon when river levels are low, and that South East Water now have to bring in water from outstanding areas.
That the Leader and Cllr Konieczko have urged Thames Water to immediately upgrade the Basingstoke sewage treatment works before 2027 target, and to prioritise the site in its next investment programme. National targets suggested cutting storm overflows is wholly unacceptable at the levels that they have set for 2040-2045.
They have also urged Southern Water at Whitchurch to limit phosphorus emissions and contaminant loads to meet Water Framework Directive directions.
And finally
Urged the Environment Agency to use its enforcement powers to insist that Basingstoke is treated as a priority site for investment and to deliver the necessary infrastructure before further large-scale housing is built.
All of the above measures are consistent with a Council’s obligation, as detailed in the latest NPPF (Dec 25), Section 10. W1.1 This advises that the Local Plan development stage, early engagement with utility providers should take precedent and take into account and address potential constraints to development arising from current or anticipated infrastructure shortfalls.
Based on the above, can the Leader please confirm and expand what he meant by his comments in the article that the borough’s next Local Plan cannot simply “pile thousands more homes” on top of failing infrastructure and given the known infrastructure shortfalls, will he confirm that these matters are of such significance that the uplift in housing that Basingstoke & Deane is demanded to take by the government is indeed totally unsuitable?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Smith, thank you very much for your question. You are quite right to highlight the serious water infrastructure issues facing this borough in regard to the building of new homes.?Let’s not forget that the Local Plan process began back in 2019. It began back in 2019, seven years ago. We inherited a stalled plan and started straight away to move the process forward and in those eighteen months we had a plan ready to go. That plan would in fact be coming back to this Council for adoption now had the government not changed the NPPF and increased our housing target by nearly 40%. They’ve now decided to bring in another brand new NPPF that again has huge implications for plan making and centralises even more power away from communities and local councils into the government’s hands. They keep moving the goal posts. It is this administration that has asked the questions on infrastructure that needed to be asked. We’ve demanded the honest truth and our draft Water Cycle Study and other evidence lays it out plainly. I want to commend Councillor Konieczko and our officers for the work they are doing. They’ve had to be fleet of foot and they’ve had to adapt to an ever changing planning legislation landscape. There are really significant points that I want to make in order to answer your question fully.
On fresh water supply:
South East Water has told us directly that the housing numbers are now considerably higher than those they factored into their Water Resources Management Plan. In their own words in our Water Cycle Study, they say that they "would not be able to accommodate any level of growth in excess of our current Water Resource Management Plan 2024 forecast assumptions."
And our Water Cycle Study says: “This effectively puts a cap on the amount of development that is possible within the Basingstoke Water Resource Zone.” That’s the Bracknell Water Resource Zone overall to them. “Careful coordination of the development plans in the early part of the Local Plan period, in collaboration with other neighbouring authorities, is required in order to ensure that the growth doesn’t exceed the Water Resource Management Plan 2024 forecast.”
Let’s just put that in context. The government has forced our housing target up from approximately 830 dwellings per annum to 1,152. That’s an increase of nearly 40%, requiring over 6,000 additional new homes on top of the 15,000 that were previously planned. South East Water is telling us clearly: the water is not currently there to deliver the uplift. The solution, a transfer pipeline from the Surrey Hills Service Reservoir to Basingstoke, is not expected until the early 2030s. Until then, the water is simply not there. That pipeline has already been delayed for over a decade, and that’s a key point. We have absolutely no control over the water companies or their infrastructure plans. However, we are expected to plan for thousands of houses. Developers and landowners cannot build what cannot be supplied. This will shape our Local Plan and it should be considered in every planning decision that we make in the meantime. We’ve argued, and we vehemently believe, that the Government’s increased housing target was wrong. We will now work with the regulators and South East Water to protect our precious chalk streams and aquifers.
The Environment Agency’s response to our recent Regulation 18 consultation, which will be published on Monday alongside the other responses we have received to the Draft Local Plan is very clear and it agrees with our concerns that we have raised, and I quote:
“There is a risk that growth proposed in the plan could present an unacceptable impact and compromise statutory environmental objectives.”
South East Water do not currently have a defined programme for the delivery of this strategic infrastructure. Although, its 2024 plans for this to be operational in 2030-31, meaning that pipeline. And this is important. They say that the SSI, that relates to the Greywell Aquifer is currently assessed as unfavourable declining condition. The impact of abstraction at Greywell on the triple SI is contributing to a failure of the Basingstoke Chalk Water Framework Directive Groundwater Body and it is preventing it from achieving good qualitative status. Therefore they recommend that BDBC expand the Water Cycle Study to include an assessment of the impacts of any proposed growth on abstraction sources and relevant receptors within South East Water’s zone area.
The Environment Agency says it is actively reviewing the South East Water Greywell licences. South East Water then add to that with their representation to our Regulation 18 which again backs up our causes for concern that we raised in the first place, and I quote:
?“From an early review of the latest housing forecast figures, increased to meet the government targets and provided to us by local authorities within our supply area, we identified that we cannot accommodate additional growth beyond that which was assumed in our resource plan of 2024 without compromising our level of service commitments to our customers and the environment. Until this major infrastructure scheme is completed any growth in the short term will pose a risk to the security of supply to customers and to the environment.Until this new transfer scheme is completed, there’s a risk we may not be able to fully accommodate the level of housing that’s been assumed. The delivery of major infrastructure presents a significant challenge, impacting the planned route, overall cost and timeline. In particular, the route of that pipeline, of the large diameter main that needs to be created is going to cross built up areas and highly sensitive environmental sites in order that it can get to Basingstoke.”
These are huge challenges in delivering this new pipeline and it is not guaranteed that it can actually be delivered in the timeframe suggested. So, as you can see there are significant implications now that need careful review and further work. ?
On wastewater:
Thames Water have not guaranteed that the infrastructure required at the Chineham or the Sherfield on Loddon Sewage Treatment Works will be ready by 2027. Worse still, they have confirmed that investment to tackle storm overflow won't be realised until 2040 or 2045 at the earliest. Residents didn’t expect to wake up to tankers lining the Reading Road, dumping raw sewage into their pipes. And in the first months of this year alone, over 650 hours of raw sewage has been discharged into the River Loddon. We believe that Thames Water are no longer meeting their permit requirements.
Southern Water are no better. Phosphorous is the major pollutant that’s threatening the aquifer and the River Test. The River Test is a Site of Scientific Interest supporting Atlantic salmon, otters and water voles and key parts of the Test are currently classified by the Environment Agency as being in an unfavourable condition. Southern Water are not monitoring phosphorous adequately nor tackling it in any planned investment at the Whitchurch treatment works. So we’ve called both of these privatised companies out for the damage they’re doing to our precious chalk stream rivers. This administration takes this evidence very seriously. It is absolutely critical that we fully understand the existing supply-demand deficit, the ongoing environmental harm and the risk of further deterioration in our waterways and aquifers. We need a duty of candour to be applied to the utility companies because we’ve seen years of under investment and that lack of infrastructure is now having huge implications. There are serious, unanswered questions over investment programmes and infrastructure that could still be a decade away. Once we understand the scale of the work needed to resolve these issues, the council’s Cabinet will need to agree a new timetable for the Local Plan. We are uncovering the truth. We have finally asked the right questions and we will continue to shine a light until the people of this borough get the infrastructure they were promised and deserve.
Supplementary Question
It seems to me there’s a fundamental flaw in the planning process as the utility services providers are not statutory consultees in the planning process. Basingstoke are caught up in this like other councils because they’re required to produce a plan and ultimately be responsible for delivering it, remember delivering it, otherwise you could lose your planning control. They’re responsible for delivering it but they have no information, they have no control about delivery and they cannot force statutory authorities to give them the information required. So you’re in a really invidious position, and I just wonder what the council can do to address this because it doesn’t just apply to this council, it applies to every council because they’re all in the same problem. Thank you very much.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, I think it’s fair to say that this administration have long held concerns about the effect of the lack of investment in our water rivers in our chalk streams. I mean these are world renowned rare chalk streams that we are responsible for protecting in our borough. And we do see the water companies deliberately, because they haven’t invested, the only thing they’ve got left to do is discharge it into those rivers when they can’t cope with the storm overflow, and that actual act of doing that is destroying those rivers. Its poisoning those rivers. So, there is a really serious issue to be considered about the wastewater. In terms of supply, South East water have been honest with us. They cannot meet the supply to meet the uplift, and that is a really important statement from them. They have been honest with us. But that raises really important concerns as a result of the Reg18 process that we now need to address and need to understand the full implications of and that will result in a new timetable associated with the Local Plan. It is right, years of underinvestment in infrastructure is now coming home to roost. Decades of, if I think about it, over a decade waiting for this pipeline to be delivered. So that is now a major issue that this borough and many other boroughs are facing. And you’re right, the disconnect between what is done nationally and done locally is a serious point here. When the government continues to get its long screwdriver out and continues to tinker with the NPPF and takes powers away from us and centralises them, it makes our life a lot more difficult trying to control and do the right thing by our residents in this important area. But we will continue to do so. We’re not going to give up on this. We’re going to do the work that’s required in order to tell the truth of what’s going on with the infrastructure that residents care about.
Question 5
From: Miranda Smith
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Given that the area in front of and around Down Grange House is historic, there are a number of significant old trees there. Has anything been done to identify which trees need protecting and how do you plan to protect them?
Answer
Thank you Mr Mayor, thank you Miranda, thank you for your question. They’re absolutely stunning aren’t they those trees. They’re really beautiful and I can understand that you love them because they are worth loving. We have over 80,000 trees in the borough that we have responsibility for, that we manage and maintain. That’s excluding all of those within the woodland areas that we also take care of. So there’s a lot of trees. All of the trees are mapped. So those trees in your area you’re referring to in Down Grange have been mapped and assessed and a tree survey has been carried out. We carry out a tree survey every five years, and then if there are concerns about those trees we can carry out works earlier. So, we will do a survey earlier if we feel there is a need. The reality is because those trees are on our land, they’re protected. So, you have protection and we also have a commitment as a borough to deliver many more trees and that’s what we’re doing. So just to reassure you, those trees are protected.
Supplementary Question
Just a very short one really on the trees again. Obviously, some of the trees are going to naturally die off. I’ve been looking at some of those all my life. They’re going to go, but there are a lot of shrubs that were out there, obviously planted because it was gardens for the house. I don’t see those being looked after and I actually did ask once whether I could go out and do a bit of pruning but was told I wasn’t allowed to touch them. Is it possible to look at some of the old photographs and pictures to show what used to be planted there and when things die off naturally or, you know are diseased, then they can be replanted, because it’s such a lovely area, it would be nice to try and keep that going.
Answer
Miranda, I’m very happy for you to meet with me and for us to talk about what could be done going forward. Obviously, the trees are looked after by one department and grounds maintenance look after the bushes, but you know, they’re doing a great job and I’m sure if there’s work to be done, we can arrange that. But what we are going to do in the future, but I give you a reassurance that let’s meet and let’s have a chat about what we can do. Let me and you meet and we’ll go on from there.
Question 6
From: Lucy Wain
To: Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
In light of the unprecedented public uproar that occurred when the Council picked Down Grange for their golf course, and thanks to the community of Basingstoke and some wonderful councillors here, the council now know how special Down Grange is to this town. Out of the 7,000 plus people who signed the petition, many thousands of those were Basingstoke residents and therefore voters in the upcoming election. I’d also like to note that should the council propose putting something else on Down Grange that displaces the public, the size of the fight will be exactly the same as the previous fight that we just won. So just a point for the record. But so with all of this in mind, I’d like to suggest that there’s an opportunity in front of this council to make a proactive decision on securing the future of Down Grange for the public that you represent. This is a political gift and a potential vote winner. So my question is, is this council willing to ensure the protection of the Down Grange meadow, and the whole area in front of Miller and Carter, by making them both a Local Nature Reserve Area?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Lucy, for your question. So, I can certainly state that this council is committed to safeguarding important natural green spaces to the benefit for people and wildlife by declaring them local nature reserves. And I’m pleased to say that Down Grange Meadow is on our priority list of areas to get this protective status in the future. The exact area of land that would be included is subject to a process that includes consulting with local people and Natural England to gather their views, along with wildlife surveys and legal checks. We’ve just, as you know, just started work to make land at Old Down, in southern Basingstoke, a local nature reserve. This process is set out in law, and it takes about 18 months. So, the land at Down Grange Meadow is a little further down on our list, but it’s on it and it’s important to us. So, thank you.
Supplementary Question
So just a follow up to that. So, you only mentioned Down Grange Meadow. So does that exclude Down Grange Park? And also what time frame do you propose starting that 18 month process for both of those areas?
Answer
Thank you. Yes, perhaps I should have said the whole area, Down Grange and that land in the front. As I referred to in the answer to the previous question, there is a lot of value in the land at the front of Miller and Carter. Timescale, well I can’t give you an exact timescale. It really depends on the workload of these 18 months of the list and everything that’s going on. But we are committed to giving you additional safeguards and granting this LNR, but it does take a little bit of time, but we’re on the case. Thank you.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 17 March 2026)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 17 March 2026)
Minutes
No petitions were received.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside Bodies 11 Mar 2026
Minutes
There were no appointments or resignations to committees or outside bodies.
8
Pay Policy Statement 2026/2027
Recommendation from the Human Resources Committee held on 2 March 2026.
To approve the Pay Policy Statement 2026/27.
To approve the Pay Policy Statement 2026/27.
Attachments:
- Document Pay Policy Statement 2026-2027 11 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix One 11 Mar 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report which proposed the council’s annual Pay Policy Statement for 2026/27 as recommended by the Human Resources Committee.
Resolved: That the Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 be approved.
Resolved: That the Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 be approved.
9
Extension of Terms of Independent Standards Assessors
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Extension of terms of ISAs (002) 11 Mar 2026
Minutes
Approval was sought to extend the appointment of the Independent Standards Assessors for a further 2 year period commencing on 20 May 2026.
Resolved: That the appointment of Amanda Povey and Sylvia Goddard as Independent Standards Assessors and co-opted members of the Standards Committee be extended for a further two-year period from 20 May 2026 to 19 May 2028.
Resolved: That the appointment of Amanda Povey and Sylvia Goddard as Independent Standards Assessors and co-opted members of the Standards Committee be extended for a further two-year period from 20 May 2026 to 19 May 2028.
10
Member Allowances Scheme - Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Report Member Allowances Scheme 2026 27 11 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - IRP Report and appendices 11 Mar 2026
- Document Appendix 2 Members Allowances Scheme 2026 2027 11 Mar 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report proposing the adoption of a new Members Allowance Scheme following consideration of the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP).
During the debate, a councillor raised concerns regarding the Independent Remuneration Panel’s report, including issues relating to consultation confidentiality, the valuation of certain roles, the proposed uplift being equivalent to a cost-of-living increase, and references to the authority’s position within public sector discount bands. It was suggested that the existing scheme should remain in place.
The Mayor agreed to a short adjournment to allow group leaders to discuss the matters raised.
Upon resumption of the meeting, Councillor Minas-Bound proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor G James, that the existing Members Allowance Scheme be retained until 2027/28, when the authority was scheduled to be dissolved, with the addition of a new special responsibility allowance for the role of Chair of the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee and no inflationary increase.
Members debated the amendment. Several members spoke against it, citing that an independent and robust process had been undertaken, concerns there would be no inflationary uplift, and that some members did not wish to be responsible for setting their own renumeration. It was argued that the recommendations of the IRP should be accepted.
In light of the discussion Councillor Minas-Bound altered his amendment to include an uplift of 3.2% to account for inflation.
Further comments were made regarding the public perception of councillors determining their own pay and reiterating that the independent report should be accepted.
The altered amendment was put to a vote and lost, with 2 votes in favour, 27 votes against and 10 abstentions.
The substantive recommendations were then put to a recorded vote and were approved with 33 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: That Council:
1. Note the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel.
2. Adopt the revised Member Allowances Scheme, as detailed in Appendix 2 of the report, for the municipal year 2026/2027, effective from 1 April 2026.
3. Adopt the percentage increase in staff salaries (National Joint Council for Local Government Services terms and conditions) as the index for the scheme for a maximum of 4 years from April 2026
4. Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance to take all necessary action to implement recommendations 2 and 3 above and to undertake the necessary publicity requirements in relation to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and scheme adopted, in addition to updating the constitution.
During the debate, a councillor raised concerns regarding the Independent Remuneration Panel’s report, including issues relating to consultation confidentiality, the valuation of certain roles, the proposed uplift being equivalent to a cost-of-living increase, and references to the authority’s position within public sector discount bands. It was suggested that the existing scheme should remain in place.
The Mayor agreed to a short adjournment to allow group leaders to discuss the matters raised.
Upon resumption of the meeting, Councillor Minas-Bound proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor G James, that the existing Members Allowance Scheme be retained until 2027/28, when the authority was scheduled to be dissolved, with the addition of a new special responsibility allowance for the role of Chair of the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee and no inflationary increase.
Members debated the amendment. Several members spoke against it, citing that an independent and robust process had been undertaken, concerns there would be no inflationary uplift, and that some members did not wish to be responsible for setting their own renumeration. It was argued that the recommendations of the IRP should be accepted.
In light of the discussion Councillor Minas-Bound altered his amendment to include an uplift of 3.2% to account for inflation.
Further comments were made regarding the public perception of councillors determining their own pay and reiterating that the independent report should be accepted.
The altered amendment was put to a vote and lost, with 2 votes in favour, 27 votes against and 10 abstentions.
The substantive recommendations were then put to a recorded vote and were approved with 33 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: That Council:
1. Note the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel.
2. Adopt the revised Member Allowances Scheme, as detailed in Appendix 2 of the report, for the municipal year 2026/2027, effective from 1 April 2026.
3. Adopt the percentage increase in staff salaries (National Joint Council for Local Government Services terms and conditions) as the index for the scheme for a maximum of 4 years from April 2026
4. Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance to take all necessary action to implement recommendations 2 and 3 above and to undertake the necessary publicity requirements in relation to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and scheme adopted, in addition to updating the constitution.
11
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
In October we experienced some problems regarding the handling of petitions by this council. Petitions form an important part of our democracy. A petition that had been pre-verified by Democratic Services as no more than 3,135 eligible signatures was later presented as "over 6,300 signatures" by a representative of the petitioner. Councillors brought a motion using this higher number and several continued to innocently quote that number in the press for months afterward. The Mayor was not told the 3,135 agreed number before the meeting, so was unable to inform council.
It is incumbent upon this council to be accurate and transparent. On this occasion, our Constitution failed to support either. Cllr McCormick has described that evening in the press as " frankly shocking - it was an embarrassment to this council." Weaknesses in our constitution weaken this council and our democracy. If our Constitution better supported the facts and transparency around petitions, then perhaps it would have been less embarrassing for those concerned.
Our housing target and our revised Local Plan are contentious, and we are likely to receive more petitions soon. There is currently a Save Buckskin and South Ham petition, again on Change.org, at approximately 2,500 signatures. How many are actual residents affected by the plans? We cannot afford a repeat, nor work with numbers that are potentially 100% overstated that may affect councillor and officer judgment. We must learn from our mistakes and act.
Can the leader please update me on plans to review our constitution in this regard?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it’s important just to say that we all respect petitions. They are an important way for residents to raise concerns. And while we do accept petitions from other petition platforms, these may attract many signatures. Now, we only count those from people who live, or work, or study in the borough. But this means that the total number of signatures on a petition may not be the same as the ones that we count, exactly as the point being made. For example, for triggering a council debate, if the number reaches 4,000. Officers are working on a revised petitions scheme to address issues which were not agreed on the last occasion the scheme came before council and other matters that have since arisen. The Monitoring Officer has confirmed that the draft revised scheme will be ready for presentation to the Constitutional Working Group for review in the new civic year following the election period. They’ll be bringing it forward.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Harvey, can you assure me that these new changes to the constitution will require the confirmed petition number to be published by council officers and communicated to the Mayor before the meeting to stop the inflation of statistics and weaponisation of our complaints process for political gain?
Answer
Thank you, Paul. The key point is that the Constitutional Working Party is going to debate that very point and they will bring those proposals forward. I can assure you that the points you’ve raised will be captured and they will be debated. They will not be lost in any way, shape or form. The officers that bring it forward will then provide the constitutional changes for this chamber following the Constitutional Working Party to decide in terms of the changes.
Question 2
From: Councillor Minas-Bound
To: Leader of the Council
At a time when Basingstoke and Deane is actively preparing its bid to become a UK Town of Culture, and rightly seeking to showcase the strength, creativity and ambition of our local cultural offer, will you step forward—on behalf of the Council—to sponsor the “Arts and Entertainment” category at the Destination Basingstoke Place to be Proud of Awards?
Does he agree that visibly backing this award would send a strong and timely signal of support to our local artists, performers, venues and creative organisations—demonstrating that this Council is fully committed to championing and investing in the cultural ecosystem that underpins both community pride and our Town of Culture aspirations?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Our bid for the next phase of the competition to become Town of Culture has got to be submitted by the 31st of March. Now, we’re bidding on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane’s cultural compact who will be agreeing and planning and procuring and commissioning the delivery of the programme if the bid is successful. It is a wonderful opportunity to showcase Basingstoke and Deane. The cultural compact has worked collectively with its members who have in turn consulted with their own audiences and stakeholders resulting in a shared, shaped vision of the bid. Statements of support and ideas have been gathered and will be published via the Love Basingstoke website reflecting local backing. We’ve had over 30 statements of support from individuals and organisations and local businesses. There are many blogs which the Gazette is now picking up and publishing. Young people have been central to the process and QMC has involved over 1,800 young people being directly involved in shaping and giving comment to the bid. We’ve also engaged widely with families and residents and at a town centre pop-up event attended by over 600 people. Participants shared their stories about what makes Basingstoke special, and this idea of what makes Basingstoke special, Basingstoke’s story, needs to be at the heart of the bid and the heart of how we promote ourselves within the bid to government. An additional 200 responses have been gathered during the Let it Glow festival and identifying particularly there that culture is at the heart of our local identity. 60 stakeholders from across all sectors attended a dedicated event and they helped shape the strategic direction of the bid for the 31st of March. We’re going to establish a Basingstoke Cultural Partnership Panel that’s going to be made up of residents, young people, artists and community representatives if the bid is successful. That group will act as the cultural decision makers and help commission and allocate funds. And it’s going to embed a really important point that communities design and deliver the projects in the spaces that they already use. It’s not just in our amazing cultural facilities, but that we take this to the communities that are directly involved. So local people participating and leading the project and particularly developing skills and confidence and ownership of this whole bid. In direct answer to your question, we are already the main sponsor for the place to be proud of awards. We have specifically sponsored the lifetime achievement category, but I spoke to Destination Basingstoke at the Town of Culture event last Friday where we specifically discussed this category and we are looking at sponsoring it too and we’ll work on when to confirm it.
Supplementary Question
Just a statement if I could be indulged Mr Mayor which is brilliant news. Let’s see that we support it 100%.
Answer
Thank you for the support.
Question 3
From: Councillor Tuck
To: Leader of the Council
Can you confirm the Council’s commitment to take immediate action, to protect Swifts and House Martins in the Borough by:
· Supporting, collaborating on, and promoting the charity led Basingstoke Swift Streets Project.
· Accelerating installation of Swift boxes, Swift bricks, House Martin nesting cups and complementary ecological enhancements, on suitable properties within the Council’s portfolio, commencing with initial installations at Goldings and Brookvale Village Hall in spring 2026, followed by a rapid assessment of Council properties to identify suitable locations, leading to an annual programme in 2026 and 2027.
· Undertaking a campaign to actively promote and encourage the installation of Swift bricks and artificial House Martin nesting cups, by developers, on all new build properties with immediate effect.
· Encouraging the installation of Swift bricks and artificial House Martin nesting cups on existing Housing Association properties and also as part of the regeneration of Buckskin and South Ham.
Answer
Thank you very much Kate. The council is committed to supporting wildlife as we’ve already heard this evening, including Swifts and House Martins and playing its part towards nature recovery in the borough. As a part of that, we’re in early discussions with Hampshire Swifts and Natural Basingstoke about how we can work together to encourage more residents to put more Swift boxes and nesting cups on their homes wherever that’s suitable. We’re also pleased to say that we have just given a grant of £500 to take forward the work to install six bespoke Swift boxes on the eaves of St Michaels Church in Basingstoke Town Centre. As for our own buildings, we’re going to be starting an assessment to identify where the Swift bricks could be installed and then take into account the cost, the future management and the maintenance arrangements. Once the assessment is complete, we’ll move ahead with the installations at those sites. And we will encourage developers to install Swift Bricks on their properties. We can’t force them to do it but we can generally encourage them to do it, particularly perhaps through planning policy. We can also do the same with Housing Associations. They are responsible but we want to encourage them just as you rightly say and that they take it forward in the Buckskin and South Ham Regeneration. So completely agree Kate and thank you.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Leader. I’m very pleased to hear about the St Micheal’s nesting cups and so on. Couple of things. One, we seem to have moved extremely slowly on our own property portfolio. I do think we could step on the gas. Swift’s are due back imminently and I really think we could manage to get something done this spring season. Will you commit to providing an update at the next Full Council meeting which I realise will now be in May, please.
Answer
I’ll try and come back to you before that yourself in terms of asking the question but yes, we’re happy to come back to you on that.
Question 4
From: Councillor Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
In a recent letter to Parish Clerks, the Cabinet member for Planning argues "the proposed changes to the NPPF and removing of funding support for Neighbourhood Plan making are both part of the Govt's strategy of centralising the planning system and taking a more top down approach".
What confidence does the Cabinet member for Planning have that this council will be able to secure an approved new Local Plan by Spring 2027 given the Govt's increased housing targets, proposed changes to the planning rules and deadline for the draft plan submission of December 2026?
Can he understand why many community-minded residents who have volunteered so much time and effort into making Neighbourhood Plans for their areas are now asking the question, what is the point?
Answer
Thank you very much for the question, John, which is timely given the decisions that the council is taking on these very two important issues that you mention, the progress of our Local Plan and our support for neighbourhood planning. So the draft water cycle study that we commissioned last year as part of our Local Plan making process raised questions about South East Water’s ability to provide a resilient supply of fresh water to our borough in the future. As part of the Regulation 18 public consultation, it became clear that the Environment Agency and Natural England share our concerns.? And as the Leader has already revealed, we’ve confirmed this evening that we’ll now take the important step of following this up with more detailed investigation.? We’ve consistently said that the Local Plan-making process needs infrastructure to be provided first. Our residents and, indeed, everybody in this Chamber has told us that they support this position. This vital additional research gives us a chance to properly address those concerns. This is what ‘infrastructure first’ looks like in practice. So let me reassure residents and fellow Councillors that we’ll continue to do everything we can to find the best solution for our borough. We must have clear assurances that sufficient infrastructure will be in place to serve the homes we’re being asked to build.?
Let me turn now to neighbourhood planning. As you know, the council has recently responded to the Government’s consultation on yet another National Planning Policy Framework. I wanted to give parish and town councils in our borough an opportunity to comment on that NPPF as well. It’s my view, as you’ve said, that the planning system is becoming increasingly centralised and decision making is being taken away from our town and parish councils. So I understand why they’re concerned and I do share their fears. But it’s also important to state that this administration remains enthusiastic and enthusiastic supporters of local democracy, the decentralisation of decision making and localism. And Neighbourhood Plans are perhaps the most visible expression of that. That’s why Cabinet agreed last week to provide financial assistance for the time consuming and often costly process of producing Neighbourhood Plans after the government had pulled the funding. We strongly believe that residents should have a say in determining the future of planning in their areas and that’s why we’ll do all we can to support the neighbourhood planning process.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Andy, for your answer and we appreciate the difficulties that you face on this side of the Chamber. What contingency plans do you have in the event that the Draft Local Plan doesn’t clear one of the many obstacles put in its way by the government including what we’ve heard tonight about water infrastructure. Could that involve restarting the plan again or even working with a government appointed commissioner or commissar?
Answer
Thank you for the supplementary. So, for years, residents have been raising concerns about water infrastructure in our borough. For years, councillors across this chamber from all groups and all parties have echoed those concerns. We now potentially have some evidence of a supply demand imbalance to help back up those concerns. And for the first time, it feels like the industry regulators are listening to us and taking us seriously. So, we’ve got an opportunity to do something about it. When we understand the scale of the work needed to resolve those issues, this council’s Cabinet will need to agree a new timescale for the Local Plan. Residents wouldn’t forgive us if we ploughed on, knowing that there are question marks over something as critical as our water supply.
From: Councillor Basham
To: Leader of the Council
In October we experienced some problems regarding the handling of petitions by this council. Petitions form an important part of our democracy. A petition that had been pre-verified by Democratic Services as no more than 3,135 eligible signatures was later presented as "over 6,300 signatures" by a representative of the petitioner. Councillors brought a motion using this higher number and several continued to innocently quote that number in the press for months afterward. The Mayor was not told the 3,135 agreed number before the meeting, so was unable to inform council.
It is incumbent upon this council to be accurate and transparent. On this occasion, our Constitution failed to support either. Cllr McCormick has described that evening in the press as " frankly shocking - it was an embarrassment to this council." Weaknesses in our constitution weaken this council and our democracy. If our Constitution better supported the facts and transparency around petitions, then perhaps it would have been less embarrassing for those concerned.
Our housing target and our revised Local Plan are contentious, and we are likely to receive more petitions soon. There is currently a Save Buckskin and South Ham petition, again on Change.org, at approximately 2,500 signatures. How many are actual residents affected by the plans? We cannot afford a repeat, nor work with numbers that are potentially 100% overstated that may affect councillor and officer judgment. We must learn from our mistakes and act.
Can the leader please update me on plans to review our constitution in this regard?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it’s important just to say that we all respect petitions. They are an important way for residents to raise concerns. And while we do accept petitions from other petition platforms, these may attract many signatures. Now, we only count those from people who live, or work, or study in the borough. But this means that the total number of signatures on a petition may not be the same as the ones that we count, exactly as the point being made. For example, for triggering a council debate, if the number reaches 4,000. Officers are working on a revised petitions scheme to address issues which were not agreed on the last occasion the scheme came before council and other matters that have since arisen. The Monitoring Officer has confirmed that the draft revised scheme will be ready for presentation to the Constitutional Working Group for review in the new civic year following the election period. They’ll be bringing it forward.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Harvey, can you assure me that these new changes to the constitution will require the confirmed petition number to be published by council officers and communicated to the Mayor before the meeting to stop the inflation of statistics and weaponisation of our complaints process for political gain?
Answer
Thank you, Paul. The key point is that the Constitutional Working Party is going to debate that very point and they will bring those proposals forward. I can assure you that the points you’ve raised will be captured and they will be debated. They will not be lost in any way, shape or form. The officers that bring it forward will then provide the constitutional changes for this chamber following the Constitutional Working Party to decide in terms of the changes.
Question 2
From: Councillor Minas-Bound
To: Leader of the Council
At a time when Basingstoke and Deane is actively preparing its bid to become a UK Town of Culture, and rightly seeking to showcase the strength, creativity and ambition of our local cultural offer, will you step forward—on behalf of the Council—to sponsor the “Arts and Entertainment” category at the Destination Basingstoke Place to be Proud of Awards?
Does he agree that visibly backing this award would send a strong and timely signal of support to our local artists, performers, venues and creative organisations—demonstrating that this Council is fully committed to championing and investing in the cultural ecosystem that underpins both community pride and our Town of Culture aspirations?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Our bid for the next phase of the competition to become Town of Culture has got to be submitted by the 31st of March. Now, we’re bidding on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane’s cultural compact who will be agreeing and planning and procuring and commissioning the delivery of the programme if the bid is successful. It is a wonderful opportunity to showcase Basingstoke and Deane. The cultural compact has worked collectively with its members who have in turn consulted with their own audiences and stakeholders resulting in a shared, shaped vision of the bid. Statements of support and ideas have been gathered and will be published via the Love Basingstoke website reflecting local backing. We’ve had over 30 statements of support from individuals and organisations and local businesses. There are many blogs which the Gazette is now picking up and publishing. Young people have been central to the process and QMC has involved over 1,800 young people being directly involved in shaping and giving comment to the bid. We’ve also engaged widely with families and residents and at a town centre pop-up event attended by over 600 people. Participants shared their stories about what makes Basingstoke special, and this idea of what makes Basingstoke special, Basingstoke’s story, needs to be at the heart of the bid and the heart of how we promote ourselves within the bid to government. An additional 200 responses have been gathered during the Let it Glow festival and identifying particularly there that culture is at the heart of our local identity. 60 stakeholders from across all sectors attended a dedicated event and they helped shape the strategic direction of the bid for the 31st of March. We’re going to establish a Basingstoke Cultural Partnership Panel that’s going to be made up of residents, young people, artists and community representatives if the bid is successful. That group will act as the cultural decision makers and help commission and allocate funds. And it’s going to embed a really important point that communities design and deliver the projects in the spaces that they already use. It’s not just in our amazing cultural facilities, but that we take this to the communities that are directly involved. So local people participating and leading the project and particularly developing skills and confidence and ownership of this whole bid. In direct answer to your question, we are already the main sponsor for the place to be proud of awards. We have specifically sponsored the lifetime achievement category, but I spoke to Destination Basingstoke at the Town of Culture event last Friday where we specifically discussed this category and we are looking at sponsoring it too and we’ll work on when to confirm it.
Supplementary Question
Just a statement if I could be indulged Mr Mayor which is brilliant news. Let’s see that we support it 100%.
Answer
Thank you for the support.
Question 3
From: Councillor Tuck
To: Leader of the Council
Can you confirm the Council’s commitment to take immediate action, to protect Swifts and House Martins in the Borough by:
· Supporting, collaborating on, and promoting the charity led Basingstoke Swift Streets Project.
· Accelerating installation of Swift boxes, Swift bricks, House Martin nesting cups and complementary ecological enhancements, on suitable properties within the Council’s portfolio, commencing with initial installations at Goldings and Brookvale Village Hall in spring 2026, followed by a rapid assessment of Council properties to identify suitable locations, leading to an annual programme in 2026 and 2027.
· Undertaking a campaign to actively promote and encourage the installation of Swift bricks and artificial House Martin nesting cups, by developers, on all new build properties with immediate effect.
· Encouraging the installation of Swift bricks and artificial House Martin nesting cups on existing Housing Association properties and also as part of the regeneration of Buckskin and South Ham.
Answer
Thank you very much Kate. The council is committed to supporting wildlife as we’ve already heard this evening, including Swifts and House Martins and playing its part towards nature recovery in the borough. As a part of that, we’re in early discussions with Hampshire Swifts and Natural Basingstoke about how we can work together to encourage more residents to put more Swift boxes and nesting cups on their homes wherever that’s suitable. We’re also pleased to say that we have just given a grant of £500 to take forward the work to install six bespoke Swift boxes on the eaves of St Michaels Church in Basingstoke Town Centre. As for our own buildings, we’re going to be starting an assessment to identify where the Swift bricks could be installed and then take into account the cost, the future management and the maintenance arrangements. Once the assessment is complete, we’ll move ahead with the installations at those sites. And we will encourage developers to install Swift Bricks on their properties. We can’t force them to do it but we can generally encourage them to do it, particularly perhaps through planning policy. We can also do the same with Housing Associations. They are responsible but we want to encourage them just as you rightly say and that they take it forward in the Buckskin and South Ham Regeneration. So completely agree Kate and thank you.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Leader. I’m very pleased to hear about the St Micheal’s nesting cups and so on. Couple of things. One, we seem to have moved extremely slowly on our own property portfolio. I do think we could step on the gas. Swift’s are due back imminently and I really think we could manage to get something done this spring season. Will you commit to providing an update at the next Full Council meeting which I realise will now be in May, please.
Answer
I’ll try and come back to you before that yourself in terms of asking the question but yes, we’re happy to come back to you on that.
Question 4
From: Councillor Izett
To: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
In a recent letter to Parish Clerks, the Cabinet member for Planning argues "the proposed changes to the NPPF and removing of funding support for Neighbourhood Plan making are both part of the Govt's strategy of centralising the planning system and taking a more top down approach".
What confidence does the Cabinet member for Planning have that this council will be able to secure an approved new Local Plan by Spring 2027 given the Govt's increased housing targets, proposed changes to the planning rules and deadline for the draft plan submission of December 2026?
Can he understand why many community-minded residents who have volunteered so much time and effort into making Neighbourhood Plans for their areas are now asking the question, what is the point?
Answer
Thank you very much for the question, John, which is timely given the decisions that the council is taking on these very two important issues that you mention, the progress of our Local Plan and our support for neighbourhood planning. So the draft water cycle study that we commissioned last year as part of our Local Plan making process raised questions about South East Water’s ability to provide a resilient supply of fresh water to our borough in the future. As part of the Regulation 18 public consultation, it became clear that the Environment Agency and Natural England share our concerns.? And as the Leader has already revealed, we’ve confirmed this evening that we’ll now take the important step of following this up with more detailed investigation.? We’ve consistently said that the Local Plan-making process needs infrastructure to be provided first. Our residents and, indeed, everybody in this Chamber has told us that they support this position. This vital additional research gives us a chance to properly address those concerns. This is what ‘infrastructure first’ looks like in practice. So let me reassure residents and fellow Councillors that we’ll continue to do everything we can to find the best solution for our borough. We must have clear assurances that sufficient infrastructure will be in place to serve the homes we’re being asked to build.?
Let me turn now to neighbourhood planning. As you know, the council has recently responded to the Government’s consultation on yet another National Planning Policy Framework. I wanted to give parish and town councils in our borough an opportunity to comment on that NPPF as well. It’s my view, as you’ve said, that the planning system is becoming increasingly centralised and decision making is being taken away from our town and parish councils. So I understand why they’re concerned and I do share their fears. But it’s also important to state that this administration remains enthusiastic and enthusiastic supporters of local democracy, the decentralisation of decision making and localism. And Neighbourhood Plans are perhaps the most visible expression of that. That’s why Cabinet agreed last week to provide financial assistance for the time consuming and often costly process of producing Neighbourhood Plans after the government had pulled the funding. We strongly believe that residents should have a say in determining the future of planning in their areas and that’s why we’ll do all we can to support the neighbourhood planning process.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Andy, for your answer and we appreciate the difficulties that you face on this side of the Chamber. What contingency plans do you have in the event that the Draft Local Plan doesn’t clear one of the many obstacles put in its way by the government including what we’ve heard tonight about water infrastructure. Could that involve restarting the plan again or even working with a government appointed commissioner or commissar?
Answer
Thank you for the supplementary. So, for years, residents have been raising concerns about water infrastructure in our borough. For years, councillors across this chamber from all groups and all parties have echoed those concerns. We now potentially have some evidence of a supply demand imbalance to help back up those concerns. And for the first time, it feels like the industry regulators are listening to us and taking us seriously. So, we’ve got an opportunity to do something about it. When we understand the scale of the work needed to resolve those issues, this council’s Cabinet will need to agree a new timescale for the Local Plan. Residents wouldn’t forgive us if we ploughed on, knowing that there are question marks over something as critical as our water supply.
12
Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee
To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
11 February 2026
Residents Services O&S
12 February 2026
Development Control
25 February 2026
Council
26 February 2026
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
11 February 2026
Residents Services O&S
12 February 2026
Development Control
25 February 2026
Council
26 February 2026
Minutes
There were no questions.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in