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 June 2026
6:30 PM
Thursday, 18th June 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 18th June 2026
9:30 PM
Thursday, 18th June 2026
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
New; Extraordinary
New; Extraordinary
Date:
18 Jun 2026
18 Jun 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
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
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Business Engagement
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 Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
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
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
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Chair of the South Ham & Buckskin Regeneration Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashfield, Banerjee, Bound, Blackberry, Carr, Connor, Court, Elliott and Tom.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Local Government Reorganisation
Report of the Leader of the Council and Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Attachments:
- Document LGR Council Report 18 June 26 v2 10 Jun 2026
- Document Appendix 1 and 2 - Interim warding 85 and 88 cllrs 10 Jun 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report which sought approval of interim warding patterns for the election to the shadow North Hampshire Unitary Council in May 2027 for submission to government as recommendations to be included in the Structural Changes Order (SCO) and the arrangements for a Joint Committee for North Hampshire to oversee early preparatory work.
The Leader of the Council proposed the recommendations set out in the report, which were seconded by the Co-Leader.
In introducing the report, the Leader advised that the reorganisation process had been determined by central government and had not been locally initiated. He noted that the Government had approved the joint proposal for four new unitary authorities in mainland Hampshire, including a North Hampshire Unitary Council, and that partner councils were now required to progress implementation.
He acknowledged the collaborative working and commitment of Hart and Rushmoor councils to develop options for a new council to be elected next May. He highlighted the importance of working together to develop a shared vision for the new council, ensuring locally responsive services and taking an active role in shaping the transition rather than having arrangements imposed. He advised that the report set out the democratic landscape within the constraints of the governments figures in the wards and the process for appointing to the joint committee, adding that the Group Leaders of the Conservative and Labour groups would act as substitute members moving forward.
During debate Members expressed a range of views. A number of Members raised concerns in respect of the proposed warding arrangements, particularly the reduction in the number of councillors and the potential impact on effective representation. Members noted that, under the proposals, some wards, particularly urban areas, would experience higher councillor-to-elector ratios than others, leading to perceived inequalities in representation, particularly compared to parished rural wards. Concerns were also expressed about councillors being spread too thinly, potentially affecting responsiveness to residents.
Several Members commented that the 85-member model did not achieve balanced electoral equality and resulted in significant variances between wards whereas the 88-member model offered a more equitable distribution, with improved electoral ratios across the authority. It was further suggested that a full boundary review would be preferable in determining appropriate warding arrangements.
Members expressed broader concerns regarding the impact of local government reorganisation on democracy, including the potential for larger wards, reduced local representation, and decision-making being perceived as more remote from communities. In addition, concerns were expressed regarding the increased workload for unitary councillors, noting that they would assume responsibilities currently exercised by both borough and county councils. Concerns were also raised regarding whether the level of member allowances would reflect the increased responsibility and the potential implications for diversity and accessibility of elected roles.
While there was criticism of the process set by central government, a number of Members accepted that reorganisation would proceed and emphasised the need for the Council to engage constructively to influence outcomes in the best interests of residents.
There was general support for the establishment of a Joint Committee for North Hampshire to oversee preparatory work however concern was raised about its composition, particularly the proportion of Hampshire County Council representation, and the potential influence this may have on shaping the new authority.
In summing up, The Leader reiterated that, although the Council had limited control over the overall process and timetable, it was important to participate actively to ensure that local priorities were reflected. He acknowledged the concerns raised regarding warding arrangements and confirmed that, whilst a 110 member model would have been more representative, this had not been accepted by government. The 88-member model would be recommended alongside the 85-member proposal.
The recommendations were put to a vote with votes 33 for, 8 against, 3 abstention and therefore approved.
Resolved: That Council
1) Note the government’s implementation arrangements for local government reorganisation and the emerging work on roles.
2) Approve the interim warding patterns for the election to the shadow North Hampshire Unitary Council at appendix 1 and appendix 2 of the report as recommendations to government.
3) Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in liaison with the Leader of the Council, to agree changes to the Rushmoor and Hart elements of the interim warding patterns following their approval processes and prior to submission to government.
4) Approve the establishment of a voluntary Joint Committee for North Hampshire in accordance with s101(5) Local Government Act 1972 and to appoint the Leader of the Council as one of the Council’s representatives on the Joint Committee and delegate authority to the Leader to appoint a second representative and substitutes.
5) Delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, the authority to approve the terms of reference and procedural rules for the voluntary Joint Committee and the Joint Committee established under the Structural Changes Order.
6) Agree that, upon enactment of the Structural Changes Order, the voluntary Joint Committee shall become the Joint Committee required to be established under the Structural Changes Order.
7) Agree that the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any necessary and consequential amendments to the Council’s Constitution.
The Leader of the Council proposed the recommendations set out in the report, which were seconded by the Co-Leader.
In introducing the report, the Leader advised that the reorganisation process had been determined by central government and had not been locally initiated. He noted that the Government had approved the joint proposal for four new unitary authorities in mainland Hampshire, including a North Hampshire Unitary Council, and that partner councils were now required to progress implementation.
He acknowledged the collaborative working and commitment of Hart and Rushmoor councils to develop options for a new council to be elected next May. He highlighted the importance of working together to develop a shared vision for the new council, ensuring locally responsive services and taking an active role in shaping the transition rather than having arrangements imposed. He advised that the report set out the democratic landscape within the constraints of the governments figures in the wards and the process for appointing to the joint committee, adding that the Group Leaders of the Conservative and Labour groups would act as substitute members moving forward.
During debate Members expressed a range of views. A number of Members raised concerns in respect of the proposed warding arrangements, particularly the reduction in the number of councillors and the potential impact on effective representation. Members noted that, under the proposals, some wards, particularly urban areas, would experience higher councillor-to-elector ratios than others, leading to perceived inequalities in representation, particularly compared to parished rural wards. Concerns were also expressed about councillors being spread too thinly, potentially affecting responsiveness to residents.
Several Members commented that the 85-member model did not achieve balanced electoral equality and resulted in significant variances between wards whereas the 88-member model offered a more equitable distribution, with improved electoral ratios across the authority. It was further suggested that a full boundary review would be preferable in determining appropriate warding arrangements.
Members expressed broader concerns regarding the impact of local government reorganisation on democracy, including the potential for larger wards, reduced local representation, and decision-making being perceived as more remote from communities. In addition, concerns were expressed regarding the increased workload for unitary councillors, noting that they would assume responsibilities currently exercised by both borough and county councils. Concerns were also raised regarding whether the level of member allowances would reflect the increased responsibility and the potential implications for diversity and accessibility of elected roles.
While there was criticism of the process set by central government, a number of Members accepted that reorganisation would proceed and emphasised the need for the Council to engage constructively to influence outcomes in the best interests of residents.
There was general support for the establishment of a Joint Committee for North Hampshire to oversee preparatory work however concern was raised about its composition, particularly the proportion of Hampshire County Council representation, and the potential influence this may have on shaping the new authority.
In summing up, The Leader reiterated that, although the Council had limited control over the overall process and timetable, it was important to participate actively to ensure that local priorities were reflected. He acknowledged the concerns raised regarding warding arrangements and confirmed that, whilst a 110 member model would have been more representative, this had not been accepted by government. The 88-member model would be recommended alongside the 85-member proposal.
The recommendations were put to a vote with votes 33 for, 8 against, 3 abstention and therefore approved.
Resolved: That Council
1) Note the government’s implementation arrangements for local government reorganisation and the emerging work on roles.
2) Approve the interim warding patterns for the election to the shadow North Hampshire Unitary Council at appendix 1 and appendix 2 of the report as recommendations to government.
3) Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in liaison with the Leader of the Council, to agree changes to the Rushmoor and Hart elements of the interim warding patterns following their approval processes and prior to submission to government.
4) Approve the establishment of a voluntary Joint Committee for North Hampshire in accordance with s101(5) Local Government Act 1972 and to appoint the Leader of the Council as one of the Council’s representatives on the Joint Committee and delegate authority to the Leader to appoint a second representative and substitutes.
5) Delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, the authority to approve the terms of reference and procedural rules for the voluntary Joint Committee and the Joint Committee established under the Structural Changes Order.
6) Agree that, upon enactment of the Structural Changes Order, the voluntary Joint Committee shall become the Joint Committee required to be established under the Structural Changes Order.
7) Agree that the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any necessary and consequential amendments to the Council’s Constitution.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in