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, 16th July 2026
6:30 PM
Thursday, 16th July 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 16th July 2026
9:30 PM
Thursday, 16th July 2026
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
16 Jul 2026
16 Jul 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
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
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
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
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee and Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carr, Perry, Putty, Jenkins, L James, Hussey, Hynes, Harper and Jordan.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor Grassi declared an interest in agenda item 11, Old Basing and Lychpit Community Governance Review, by virtue of being a parish councillor on Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council.
Councillor Phillimore declared an interest in agenda item 9, the Revenue Outturn Report in relation to the Winklebury Stadium Complex lease surrender item, as a former director and treasurer of Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
Councillor Phillimore declared an interest in agenda item 9, the Revenue Outturn Report in relation to the Winklebury Stadium Complex lease surrender item, as a former director and treasurer of Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
3
Minutes of the meetings held on 14 and 21 May 2026 and 18 June 2026
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meetings be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Printed minutes 14th-May-2026 18.30 Council 08 Jul 2026
- Document Public minutes 21st-May-2026 18.30 Council 08 Jul 2026
- Document Printed minutes 18th-Jun-2026 18.30 Council 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings held on 14 May 2026, 21 May 2026 and 18 June 2026 were approved as correct records and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor reflected on a number of recent engagements across the borough, including attendance at community events and performances. She highlighted the significant contribution made by volunteers, community groups and residents in supporting local communities and improving quality of life across the borough.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 14 July 2026)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 14 July 2026)
Minutes
There were no questions from members of the public.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 14 July 2026)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 14 July 2026)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
Crime and Disorder Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee
To appoint 1 councillor from either the Labour or Liberal Democrat group
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Loddon Social Enterprise
To agree that Cllr Tustain replace Cllr Miller
Crime and Disorder Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee
To appoint 1 councillor from either the Labour or Liberal Democrat group
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Loddon Social Enterprise
To agree that Cllr Tustain replace Cllr Miller
Attachments:
- Document Outside Body Appointments 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
The following appointments were made to committees and outside bodies:
1) Councillor Conquest be appointed to the Crime and Disorder Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
2) Councillor Tustain be appointed as the Council’s representative on Loddon Social Enterprise Ltd in place of Councillor Miller.
1) Councillor Conquest be appointed to the Crime and Disorder Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
2) Councillor Tustain be appointed as the Council’s representative on Loddon Social Enterprise Ltd in place of Councillor Miller.
8
Capital Programme Outturn for 2025/26
Subject to recommendations from the Cabinet Meeting held on 9 July 2026
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 9 June 2026
Fanum House Redevelopment Strategy
Cabinet recommends Council to note that the funding requirements for this new project will be included in the MFTS Update and Capital Programme Outturn and updated to Council in July 2026. (See section 3.13)
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 9 June 2026
Fanum House Redevelopment Strategy
Cabinet recommends Council to note that the funding requirements for this new project will be included in the MFTS Update and Capital Programme Outturn and updated to Council in July 2026. (See section 3.13)
Attachments:
- Document Capital Programme Outturn Report 2025-26 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property presented the Capital Outturn Report 2024/25, reporting capital expenditure of £66.3 million, £1.1 million below the approved budget. He outlined the impact of increasing construction and development costs on the delivery of the capital programme and proposed the addition of a capital scheme at Basing View to facilitate the demolition of Fanum House, funded through property disposals.
During discussion, members welcomed the continued level of capital investment across the borough, including investment in play areas and improvements at the War Memorial Park skate park. Questions were raised regarding increased costs associated with the May Place House project, the phasing and delivery of the Basing View 5G Living Lab project, investment proposals relating to Basing View and Fanum House, and the recurring pattern of programme slippage and underspends.
In response, assurance was provided that robust procurement processes had been followed, that construction costs continued to create pressures across projects, and that grant funding would contribute towards additional costs where appropriate. Clarification was also provided regarding the Basing View Regeneration budget and the purpose of the proposed funding.
Resolved: Council
note:
1) That the actual capital spending in 2025/26 was £16.281M as shown in Table 3 of the report. This is £1.085M less than the latest agreed capital programme budget of £17.366M. The actual capital financing in 2025/26 is also shown in Table 3 of the report.
2) The 2025/26 significant outturn variations and explanations for them are shown in Appendix 1 and section 2 of the report.
3) The addition of £0.019M to the programme and rephasing since the last reported position in February 2026, under delegated powers, as shown in Table 4 and paragraph 2.6 of the report.
4) The impact of scheme variances for 2025/26 on future years’ capital expenditure has been included in the revised capital programme to 2029/30 aligned to Council Plan Priorities.
5) The revised capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30, adjusted for slippage and rephasing and additions contained within section 3 of the report and detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.
6) That the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2029/30, based on the latest forecast of available resources.
approve:
7) Additions to existing capital programme schemes of £1.751M as follows:
Play Area Improvements - £0.008M in 2026/27 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions; May Place House - £0.161M in 2026/27 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions and £0.374M in 2026/27 funded from housing capital receipts; Local Authority Housing Fund - £0.825M in 2026/27 and £0.202M in 2028/29 funded from government grant; and Waste Water Treatment Works - £0.181M in 2026/27 funded from government grant.
8) Two new capital schemes and funding as follows:
Basing View Regeneration with a scheme budget of £1.100M in 2026/27, £3.800M in 2027/28 and £2.200M in 2028/29 funded from capital receipts realised from property disposals. War Memorial Park Skate Park Improvements with a scheme budget of £0.033M in 2026/27 funded from savings identified in the existing capital programme.
9) The other capital programme changes shown in Appendix 2 of the report including 2025/26 outturn and future years rephasing and savings.
The revised capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 as shown in Appendix 3 and the capital programme financing as shown in section 4 of the report
During discussion, members welcomed the continued level of capital investment across the borough, including investment in play areas and improvements at the War Memorial Park skate park. Questions were raised regarding increased costs associated with the May Place House project, the phasing and delivery of the Basing View 5G Living Lab project, investment proposals relating to Basing View and Fanum House, and the recurring pattern of programme slippage and underspends.
In response, assurance was provided that robust procurement processes had been followed, that construction costs continued to create pressures across projects, and that grant funding would contribute towards additional costs where appropriate. Clarification was also provided regarding the Basing View Regeneration budget and the purpose of the proposed funding.
Resolved: Council
note:
1) That the actual capital spending in 2025/26 was £16.281M as shown in Table 3 of the report. This is £1.085M less than the latest agreed capital programme budget of £17.366M. The actual capital financing in 2025/26 is also shown in Table 3 of the report.
2) The 2025/26 significant outturn variations and explanations for them are shown in Appendix 1 and section 2 of the report.
3) The addition of £0.019M to the programme and rephasing since the last reported position in February 2026, under delegated powers, as shown in Table 4 and paragraph 2.6 of the report.
4) The impact of scheme variances for 2025/26 on future years’ capital expenditure has been included in the revised capital programme to 2029/30 aligned to Council Plan Priorities.
5) The revised capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30, adjusted for slippage and rephasing and additions contained within section 3 of the report and detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.
6) That the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2029/30, based on the latest forecast of available resources.
approve:
7) Additions to existing capital programme schemes of £1.751M as follows:
Play Area Improvements - £0.008M in 2026/27 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions; May Place House - £0.161M in 2026/27 funded from S106 Developers’ Contributions and £0.374M in 2026/27 funded from housing capital receipts; Local Authority Housing Fund - £0.825M in 2026/27 and £0.202M in 2028/29 funded from government grant; and Waste Water Treatment Works - £0.181M in 2026/27 funded from government grant.
8) Two new capital schemes and funding as follows:
Basing View Regeneration with a scheme budget of £1.100M in 2026/27, £3.800M in 2027/28 and £2.200M in 2028/29 funded from capital receipts realised from property disposals. War Memorial Park Skate Park Improvements with a scheme budget of £0.033M in 2026/27 funded from savings identified in the existing capital programme.
9) The other capital programme changes shown in Appendix 2 of the report including 2025/26 outturn and future years rephasing and savings.
The revised capital programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 as shown in Appendix 3 and the capital programme financing as shown in section 4 of the report
9
Revenue Outturn Report 2025/26
Subject to recommendations from the Cabinet meeting to be held on 9 July 2026
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 9 June 2026
Winklebury Stadium Complex - Basingstoke Town Community Football Club
Cabinet recommends to Council to note that the revenue funding requirements for the surrender of the leases by Hampshire Football Association will be included in the MFTS Update and Revenue Programme Outturn updated to Council in July 2026 (see section 9.1)
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 9 June 2026
Winklebury Stadium Complex - Basingstoke Town Community Football Club
Cabinet recommends to Council to note that the revenue funding requirements for the surrender of the leases by Hampshire Football Association will be included in the MFTS Update and Revenue Programme Outturn updated to Council in July 2026 (see section 9.1)
Attachments:
- Document Revenue Outturn Report 2025-26 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property introduced the Revenue Outturn Report for 2025/26, reporting an overall underspend of approximately £1.5 million. He advised that £580,000 related to commitments to be carried forward into 2026/27, £600,000 of ring-fenced government grant funding would be transferred to earmarked reserves, and the remaining £930,000 would be transferred to the MTFS risk reserves. He highlighted budget pressures including a £600,000 adverse variance in housing benefits, £450,000 arising from lower than anticipated staff vacancies, and £600,000 additional household waste collection costs, which had been offset by additional grant funding, increased waste-related income and higher investment returns.
He also outlined proposals relating to the Winklebury Stadium complex, including provision within the revenue programme to support arrangements intended to secure a sustainable long-term home for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
Members discussed the proposed arrangements relating to the Winklebury Stadium Complex and Basingstoke Town Community Football Club. Members welcomed the opportunity to support a long-term future for the club and secure greater certainty for the stadium complex. Concerns were raised regarding governance, financial arrangements and parking impacts, while support was expressed for the wider community benefits associated with the proposal.
Questions were also raised regarding increasing transaction costs associated with card payments.
In response, it was noted that the proposals represented a significant opportunity to support the football club's long-term sustainability and future development. Assurance was provided that parking issues would continue to be addressed and that further information on payment processing costs would be provided separately.
Resolved: That Council approve:
1) The proposed transfer of the remaining outturn surplus of £1.51M after grant and income reserve transfers, to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3:
· To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.58M for release in future years as required; and
· To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.93M
2) The proposed addition to the 2026/27 revenue budget, from the MTFS risk reserve, to fund to the lease surrender for the Winklebury Stadium as detailed in section 9 of the report.
He also outlined proposals relating to the Winklebury Stadium complex, including provision within the revenue programme to support arrangements intended to secure a sustainable long-term home for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
Members discussed the proposed arrangements relating to the Winklebury Stadium Complex and Basingstoke Town Community Football Club. Members welcomed the opportunity to support a long-term future for the club and secure greater certainty for the stadium complex. Concerns were raised regarding governance, financial arrangements and parking impacts, while support was expressed for the wider community benefits associated with the proposal.
Questions were also raised regarding increasing transaction costs associated with card payments.
In response, it was noted that the proposals represented a significant opportunity to support the football club's long-term sustainability and future development. Assurance was provided that parking issues would continue to be addressed and that further information on payment processing costs would be provided separately.
Resolved: That Council approve:
1) The proposed transfer of the remaining outturn surplus of £1.51M after grant and income reserve transfers, to earmarked revenue reserves as detailed in section 3:
· To the Budget Carry Forward Reserve £0.58M for release in future years as required; and
· To the MTFS Risk Reserve £0.93M
2) The proposed addition to the 2026/27 revenue budget, from the MTFS risk reserve, to fund to the lease surrender for the Winklebury Stadium as detailed in section 9 of the report.
10
Treasury Management 2025/26 Annual Report
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2025_26 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Council considered the Treasury Management 2025/26 Annual Report.
Members noted the recent loan provided to Rushmoor Borough Council and were advised that the arrangement had been undertaken on appropriate market terms. It was further noted that the arrangement would either form part of the proposed North Hampshire unitary authority arrangements or be repaid in accordance with the agreed terms.
Resolved that:
The Treasury Management 2025/26 Annual Report be noted and the amendments to the Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27 be approved
Members noted the recent loan provided to Rushmoor Borough Council and were advised that the arrangement had been undertaken on appropriate market terms. It was further noted that the arrangement would either form part of the proposed North Hampshire unitary authority arrangements or be repaid in accordance with the agreed terms.
Resolved that:
The Treasury Management 2025/26 Annual Report be noted and the amendments to the Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27 be approved
11
Old Basing and Lychpit Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Report 08 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 1 - Terms of Reference 08 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 2 - Public Notice 08 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 3 - Draft Recommendations 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Councillor Grassi left the meeting for consideration of this item.
Council considered a report which presented the final recommendations arising from the Community Governance Review.
Members acknowledged the work undertaken by parish councillors and officers throughout the review process. Reference was made to the important role parish councils continued to play in representing local communities and ensuring local voices were heard.
Resolved that: Council
1) Note the outcome of the consultations.
2) Agree the final recommendations for the Community Governance Review as detailed in para 3.7 of the report.
Authorise the Head of Law and Governance to make the Reorganisation of Community Governance Order and to take all necessary steps to give effect to the decision.
Council considered a report which presented the final recommendations arising from the Community Governance Review.
Members acknowledged the work undertaken by parish councillors and officers throughout the review process. Reference was made to the important role parish councils continued to play in representing local communities and ensuring local voices were heard.
Resolved that: Council
1) Note the outcome of the consultations.
2) Agree the final recommendations for the Community Governance Review as detailed in para 3.7 of the report.
Authorise the Head of Law and Governance to make the Reorganisation of Community Governance Order and to take all necessary steps to give effect to the decision.
12
Appointment of Interim S151 Officer
Report of the Chief Executive
Attachments:
- Document Appointment of Interim Section 151 Officer 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Council considered a report regarding the appointment of an Interim Section 151 Officer.
Resolved: that Sarah Finch be appointed as Interim Section 151 Officer from 1 October 2026.
Resolved: that Sarah Finch be appointed as Interim Section 151 Officer from 1 October 2026.
13
Audit and Accounts Committee Annual Report 2025/26
Report of the Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Attachments:
- Document AAC Annual Report 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Council received and noted the Annual Report of the Audit and Accounts Committee.
14
Standards Committee Annual Report
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Report 08 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 1 Draft Annual Report 2025 2026 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Council received and noted the Annual Report of the Standards Committee for 2025/26.
15
Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Report 08 Jul 2026
- Document Appendix 1 08 Jul 2026
Minutes
Council received and noted the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2025/26.
16
Notice of Motion - Protecting South Ham And Buckskin Residents From Compulsory Purchase And Ensuring Full Democratic Accountability
Proposer: Cllr Sean Dillow
Seconder: Cllr Val Elliott
Council notes that:
1. Residents in South Ham and Buckskin have repeatedly expressed serious concern, distress and uncertainty regarding regeneration proposals affecting their communities, particularly the possibility that Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) could be used to force people from their homes.
2. At Full Council on 15 May 2025, concerns regarding the possible use of compulsory purchase powers in connection with regeneration proposals were formally raised, demonstrating the depth of public anxiety surrounding this issue.
3. The ongoing uncertainty has left many residents in an unacceptable state of limbo, affecting decisions about their homes, finances, family circumstances, retirement plans and future aspirations.
4. Home ownership represents far more than a financial asset. For many residents, it reflects decades of hard work, investment, family memories and deep-rooted ties to their local community.
5. Regeneration should be something done with residents, not to residents, and communities should not be expected to live indefinitely under the shadow of potential compulsory acquisition.
6. Decisions of this magnitude, involving people's homes, livelihoods and community stability, should not be taken by a small executive body but should be subject to full democratic debate and scrutiny.
Council believes that:
1. Residents should be able to continue their lives with confidence and certainty, without fear that they may one day be compelled to leave their homes.
2. The use of compulsory purchase powers against established homeowners in regeneration schemes should only ever be contemplated in the most exceptional circumstances and must never be regarded as a routine planning or regeneration tool.
3. The Council's preferred position is that regeneration should be achieved through voluntary participation, agreement and partnership with residents rather than through compulsory acquisition.
4. No resident should be made financially, socially or materially worse off as a consequence of regeneration proposals or the use of compulsory purchase powers.
5. Where a resident is displaced through compulsory acquisition, the guiding principle of 'Equivalence' should be used so that they are able to secure a comparable replacement home within their local community and maintain their existing family, social and support networks.
6. Decisions relating to the potential compulsory acquisition of homes are of such significance that they should be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee where elected councillors can debate and determine the matter openly, transparently and democratically.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. State clearly that this Council does not support the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to force owner-occupiers from their homes in areas proposed for regeneration, including South Ham and Buckskin, except in the most exceptional circumstances where all reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably exhausted.
2. Request the Leader of the Council to bring forward a formal policy commitment setting out how this principle will be embedded within the Council's regeneration approach, so that residents are provided with certainty and assurance rather than remaining in prolonged uncertainty.
3. Affirm that any future proposal involving the potential use of Compulsory Purchase powers in South Ham and Buckskin must first be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that:
a) All reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably explored and exhausted.
b) Independent advice relating to resident protections and compensation arrangements has been made available to affected residents; and
c) The legal, financial, social and community impacts have been clearly identified and publicly reported.
4. Request that the Council publicly communicate its agreed position on Compulsory Purchase Orders to all relevant local housing associations, relevant Borough and County Councillors and to all residents in areas designated for regeneration, including homeowners and tenants, in South Ham and Buckskin, so that families in these estates can have clarity and reassurance regarding the future of their homes and communities.
Council resolves to request the Leader of the Council
5. to write to the Secretary of State, local Members of Parliament and the Local Government Association seeking changes to national compulsory purchase legislation to establish a statutory right of ‘Equivalence’, so that any homeowner displaced through compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes shall receive compensation sufficient to secure a comparable replacement property of equivalent size, tenure and standard within their local community, together with all reasonable legal, moving, professional and associated costs, ensuring that no resident is made financially worse off, displaced from their community, or denied the opportunity to remain in the area as a direct consequence of compulsory acquisition.
Seconder: Cllr Val Elliott
Council notes that:
1. Residents in South Ham and Buckskin have repeatedly expressed serious concern, distress and uncertainty regarding regeneration proposals affecting their communities, particularly the possibility that Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) could be used to force people from their homes.
2. At Full Council on 15 May 2025, concerns regarding the possible use of compulsory purchase powers in connection with regeneration proposals were formally raised, demonstrating the depth of public anxiety surrounding this issue.
3. The ongoing uncertainty has left many residents in an unacceptable state of limbo, affecting decisions about their homes, finances, family circumstances, retirement plans and future aspirations.
4. Home ownership represents far more than a financial asset. For many residents, it reflects decades of hard work, investment, family memories and deep-rooted ties to their local community.
5. Regeneration should be something done with residents, not to residents, and communities should not be expected to live indefinitely under the shadow of potential compulsory acquisition.
6. Decisions of this magnitude, involving people's homes, livelihoods and community stability, should not be taken by a small executive body but should be subject to full democratic debate and scrutiny.
Council believes that:
1. Residents should be able to continue their lives with confidence and certainty, without fear that they may one day be compelled to leave their homes.
2. The use of compulsory purchase powers against established homeowners in regeneration schemes should only ever be contemplated in the most exceptional circumstances and must never be regarded as a routine planning or regeneration tool.
3. The Council's preferred position is that regeneration should be achieved through voluntary participation, agreement and partnership with residents rather than through compulsory acquisition.
4. No resident should be made financially, socially or materially worse off as a consequence of regeneration proposals or the use of compulsory purchase powers.
5. Where a resident is displaced through compulsory acquisition, the guiding principle of 'Equivalence' should be used so that they are able to secure a comparable replacement home within their local community and maintain their existing family, social and support networks.
6. Decisions relating to the potential compulsory acquisition of homes are of such significance that they should be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee where elected councillors can debate and determine the matter openly, transparently and democratically.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. State clearly that this Council does not support the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to force owner-occupiers from their homes in areas proposed for regeneration, including South Ham and Buckskin, except in the most exceptional circumstances where all reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably exhausted.
2. Request the Leader of the Council to bring forward a formal policy commitment setting out how this principle will be embedded within the Council's regeneration approach, so that residents are provided with certainty and assurance rather than remaining in prolonged uncertainty.
3. Affirm that any future proposal involving the potential use of Compulsory Purchase powers in South Ham and Buckskin must first be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that:
a) All reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably explored and exhausted.
b) Independent advice relating to resident protections and compensation arrangements has been made available to affected residents; and
c) The legal, financial, social and community impacts have been clearly identified and publicly reported.
4. Request that the Council publicly communicate its agreed position on Compulsory Purchase Orders to all relevant local housing associations, relevant Borough and County Councillors and to all residents in areas designated for regeneration, including homeowners and tenants, in South Ham and Buckskin, so that families in these estates can have clarity and reassurance regarding the future of their homes and communities.
Council resolves to request the Leader of the Council
5. to write to the Secretary of State, local Members of Parliament and the Local Government Association seeking changes to national compulsory purchase legislation to establish a statutory right of ‘Equivalence’, so that any homeowner displaced through compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes shall receive compensation sufficient to secure a comparable replacement property of equivalent size, tenure and standard within their local community, together with all reasonable legal, moving, professional and associated costs, ensuring that no resident is made financially worse off, displaced from their community, or denied the opportunity to remain in the area as a direct consequence of compulsory acquisition.
Minutes
Council considered the following motion proposed by Councillor Dillow and seconded by Councillor Elliott:
Council notes that:
1. Residents in South Ham and Buckskin have repeatedly expressed serious concern, distress and uncertainty regarding regeneration proposals affecting their communities, particularly the possibility that Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) could be used to force people from their homes.
2. At Full Council on 15 May 2025, concerns regarding the possible use of compulsory purchase powers in connection with regeneration proposals were formally raised, demonstrating the depth of public anxiety surrounding this issue.
3. The ongoing uncertainty has left many residents in an unacceptable state of limbo, affecting decisions about their homes, finances, family circumstances, retirement plans and future aspirations.
4. Home ownership represents far more than a financial asset. For many residents, it reflects decades of hard work, investment, family memories and deep-rooted ties to their local community.
5. Regeneration should be something done with residents, not to residents, and communities should not be expected to live indefinitely under the shadow of potential compulsory acquisition.
6. Decisions of this magnitude, involving people's homes, livelihoods and community stability, should not be taken by a small executive body but should be subject to full democratic debate and scrutiny.
Council believes that:
1. Residents should be able to continue their lives with confidence and certainty, without fear that they may one day be compelled to leave their homes.
2. The use of compulsory purchase powers against established homeowners in regeneration schemes should only ever be contemplated in the most exceptional circumstances and must never be regarded as a routine planning or regeneration tool.
3. The Council's preferred position is that regeneration should be achieved through voluntary participation, agreement and partnership with residents rather than through compulsory acquisition.
4. No resident should be made financially, socially or materially worse off as a consequence of regeneration proposals or the use of compulsory purchase powers.
5. Where a resident is displaced through compulsory acquisition, the guiding principle of 'Equivalence' should be used so that they are able to secure a comparable replacement home within their local community and maintain their existing family, social and support networks.
6. Decisions relating to the potential compulsory acquisition of homes are of such significance that they should be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee where elected councillors can debate and determine the matter openly, transparently and democratically.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. State clearly that this Council does not support the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to force owner-occupiers from their homes in areas proposed for regeneration, including South Ham and Buckskin, except in the most exceptional circumstances where all reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably exhausted.
2. Request the Leader of the Council to bring forward a formal policy commitment setting out how this principle will be embedded within the Council's regeneration approach, so that residents are provided with certainty and assurance rather than remaining in prolonged uncertainty.
3. Affirm that any future proposal involving the potential use of Compulsory Purchase powers in South Ham and Buckskin must first be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that:
a) All reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably explored and exhausted.
b) Independent advice relating to resident protections and compensation arrangements has been made available to affected residents; and
c) The legal, financial, social and community impacts have been clearly identified and publicly reported.
4. Request that the Council publicly communicate its agreed position on Compulsory Purchase Orders to all relevant local housing associations, relevant Borough and County Councillors and to all residents in areas designated for regeneration, including homeowners and tenants, in South Ham and Buckskin, so that families in these estates can have clarity and reassurance regarding the future of their homes and communities.
Council resolves to request the Leader of the Council
5. to write to the Secretary of State, local Members of Parliament and the Local Government Association seeking changes to national compulsory purchase legislation to establish a statutory right of ‘Equivalence’, so that any homeowner displaced through compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes shall receive compensation sufficient to secure a comparable replacement property of equivalent size, tenure and standard within their local community, together with all reasonable legal, moving, professional and associated costs, ensuring that no resident is made financially worse off, displaced from their community, or denied the opportunity to remain in the area as a direct consequence of compulsory acquisition.
In presenting the motion, the continuing uncertainty facing residents in South Ham and Buckskin in relation to the proposed regeneration programme was highlighted. It was noted that many residents remained concerned about the potential impact on their homes, their ability to remain within their communities and the possibility of compulsory purchase powers being used in the future.
Reference was made to the effect the uncertainty was having on residents, with some delaying decisions regarding home improvements and future housing arrangements while awaiting greater clarity. Members noted concerns that residents had been left unable to plan for the future and sought reassurance about the security of their homes and communities.
The motion sought to reaffirm that compulsory purchase powers should only be considered as a measure of last resort and that any regeneration proposals should ensure residents were not left worse off. Emphasis was placed on the principle of equivalence, with affected residents expected to have the opportunity to remain within their local community in comparable accommodation and maintain established family, social and support networks.
In seconding the motion, it was emphasised that residents' concerns extended beyond property values and compensation arrangements. Members noted that homes represented places where families had been raised, memories created and long-standing community relationships established. It was argued that residents deserved clarity, reassurance and meaningful involvement in decisions that could significantly affect their lives.
During the debate, members from across the Council acknowledged the
considerable anxiety being experienced by residents and expressed support for the principle that compulsory purchase powers should only be used in exceptional circumstances and as a genuine last resort. It was noted that this reflected the Council's long-standing position and that any use of such powers would require a compelling public interest justification.
Members stressed the importance of regeneration being undertaken with communities rather than imposed upon them. Concern was expressed that residents continued to lack clear information about the scope and implications of the proposals, resulting in uncertainty and a loss of confidence in the process. Several members commented on the strength of feeling within the affected communities and the need for greater engagement, transparency and reassurance.
The debate also highlighted the importance of ensuring that residents were not disadvantaged by regeneration proposals. Members discussed the principle that homeowners should not be left financially or socially worse off and that consideration should be given not only to property values but also to residents' ability to remain near family, friends, services and established community networks.
Whilst there was broad support for the motion's objectives, some members questioned whether the wording would provide additional reassurance beyond existing policy and statutory protections. It was also noted that the compulsory purchase process was governed by legislation and that final decisions would not rest solely with the Council. The need to avoid raising expectations about measures that may be outside the Council's direct control was emphasised.
A suggestion was made that any future regeneration proposals should be subject to a residents' ballot. The proposer indicated that they did not wish to incorporate this suggestion into the motion.
In closing the debate, it was emphasised that the purpose of the motion was to demonstrate the Council's commitment to protecting residents' interests, ensuring affected households were treated fairly throughout any regeneration process, and providing reassurance that compulsory purchase powers would only be considered as a last resort.
A recorded vote was requested with 38 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: That the motion be carried.
Council notes that:
1. Residents in South Ham and Buckskin have repeatedly expressed serious concern, distress and uncertainty regarding regeneration proposals affecting their communities, particularly the possibility that Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) could be used to force people from their homes.
2. At Full Council on 15 May 2025, concerns regarding the possible use of compulsory purchase powers in connection with regeneration proposals were formally raised, demonstrating the depth of public anxiety surrounding this issue.
3. The ongoing uncertainty has left many residents in an unacceptable state of limbo, affecting decisions about their homes, finances, family circumstances, retirement plans and future aspirations.
4. Home ownership represents far more than a financial asset. For many residents, it reflects decades of hard work, investment, family memories and deep-rooted ties to their local community.
5. Regeneration should be something done with residents, not to residents, and communities should not be expected to live indefinitely under the shadow of potential compulsory acquisition.
6. Decisions of this magnitude, involving people's homes, livelihoods and community stability, should not be taken by a small executive body but should be subject to full democratic debate and scrutiny.
Council believes that:
1. Residents should be able to continue their lives with confidence and certainty, without fear that they may one day be compelled to leave their homes.
2. The use of compulsory purchase powers against established homeowners in regeneration schemes should only ever be contemplated in the most exceptional circumstances and must never be regarded as a routine planning or regeneration tool.
3. The Council's preferred position is that regeneration should be achieved through voluntary participation, agreement and partnership with residents rather than through compulsory acquisition.
4. No resident should be made financially, socially or materially worse off as a consequence of regeneration proposals or the use of compulsory purchase powers.
5. Where a resident is displaced through compulsory acquisition, the guiding principle of 'Equivalence' should be used so that they are able to secure a comparable replacement home within their local community and maintain their existing family, social and support networks.
6. Decisions relating to the potential compulsory acquisition of homes are of such significance that they should be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee where elected councillors can debate and determine the matter openly, transparently and democratically.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1. State clearly that this Council does not support the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to force owner-occupiers from their homes in areas proposed for regeneration, including South Ham and Buckskin, except in the most exceptional circumstances where all reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably exhausted.
2. Request the Leader of the Council to bring forward a formal policy commitment setting out how this principle will be embedded within the Council's regeneration approach, so that residents are provided with certainty and assurance rather than remaining in prolonged uncertainty.
3. Affirm that any future proposal involving the potential use of Compulsory Purchase powers in South Ham and Buckskin must first be referred to the South Ham and Buckskin Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that:
a) All reasonable alternatives have been demonstrably explored and exhausted.
b) Independent advice relating to resident protections and compensation arrangements has been made available to affected residents; and
c) The legal, financial, social and community impacts have been clearly identified and publicly reported.
4. Request that the Council publicly communicate its agreed position on Compulsory Purchase Orders to all relevant local housing associations, relevant Borough and County Councillors and to all residents in areas designated for regeneration, including homeowners and tenants, in South Ham and Buckskin, so that families in these estates can have clarity and reassurance regarding the future of their homes and communities.
Council resolves to request the Leader of the Council
5. to write to the Secretary of State, local Members of Parliament and the Local Government Association seeking changes to national compulsory purchase legislation to establish a statutory right of ‘Equivalence’, so that any homeowner displaced through compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes shall receive compensation sufficient to secure a comparable replacement property of equivalent size, tenure and standard within their local community, together with all reasonable legal, moving, professional and associated costs, ensuring that no resident is made financially worse off, displaced from their community, or denied the opportunity to remain in the area as a direct consequence of compulsory acquisition.
In presenting the motion, the continuing uncertainty facing residents in South Ham and Buckskin in relation to the proposed regeneration programme was highlighted. It was noted that many residents remained concerned about the potential impact on their homes, their ability to remain within their communities and the possibility of compulsory purchase powers being used in the future.
Reference was made to the effect the uncertainty was having on residents, with some delaying decisions regarding home improvements and future housing arrangements while awaiting greater clarity. Members noted concerns that residents had been left unable to plan for the future and sought reassurance about the security of their homes and communities.
The motion sought to reaffirm that compulsory purchase powers should only be considered as a measure of last resort and that any regeneration proposals should ensure residents were not left worse off. Emphasis was placed on the principle of equivalence, with affected residents expected to have the opportunity to remain within their local community in comparable accommodation and maintain established family, social and support networks.
In seconding the motion, it was emphasised that residents' concerns extended beyond property values and compensation arrangements. Members noted that homes represented places where families had been raised, memories created and long-standing community relationships established. It was argued that residents deserved clarity, reassurance and meaningful involvement in decisions that could significantly affect their lives.
During the debate, members from across the Council acknowledged the
considerable anxiety being experienced by residents and expressed support for the principle that compulsory purchase powers should only be used in exceptional circumstances and as a genuine last resort. It was noted that this reflected the Council's long-standing position and that any use of such powers would require a compelling public interest justification.
Members stressed the importance of regeneration being undertaken with communities rather than imposed upon them. Concern was expressed that residents continued to lack clear information about the scope and implications of the proposals, resulting in uncertainty and a loss of confidence in the process. Several members commented on the strength of feeling within the affected communities and the need for greater engagement, transparency and reassurance.
The debate also highlighted the importance of ensuring that residents were not disadvantaged by regeneration proposals. Members discussed the principle that homeowners should not be left financially or socially worse off and that consideration should be given not only to property values but also to residents' ability to remain near family, friends, services and established community networks.
Whilst there was broad support for the motion's objectives, some members questioned whether the wording would provide additional reassurance beyond existing policy and statutory protections. It was also noted that the compulsory purchase process was governed by legislation and that final decisions would not rest solely with the Council. The need to avoid raising expectations about measures that may be outside the Council's direct control was emphasised.
A suggestion was made that any future regeneration proposals should be subject to a residents' ballot. The proposer indicated that they did not wish to incorporate this suggestion into the motion.
In closing the debate, it was emphasised that the purpose of the motion was to demonstrate the Council's commitment to protecting residents' interests, ensuring affected households were treated fairly throughout any regeneration process, and providing reassurance that compulsory purchase powers would only be considered as a last resort.
A recorded vote was requested with 38 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 6 abstentions.
Resolved: That the motion be carried.
17
Notice of Motion - Increasing Biodiversity Net Gain Through the Local Plan
Proposer: Cllr Ganesh
Seconder: TBC
Nature is declining nationally and locally, increasing pressure on wildlife, water quality and ecosystem resilience. As Basingstoke and Deane prepare its new Local Plan, the Council can ensure future development leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state. Although the Environment Act 2021 introduced a mandatory minimum Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement of 10%, planning guidance recognises that local planning authorities may set higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirements through Local Plans where supported by robust evidence and viability assessments. There is growing evidence that higher biodiversity gains may be appropriate in environmentally sensitive areas, including North Hampshire's internationally important chalk stream catchments.
This Council notes that:
1. The Environment Act 2021 requires a minimum 10% BNG, but local planning authorities may set higher levels through Local Plans where supported by evidence, viability testing and national policy.
2. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has advocated that local planning authorities should consider Biodiversity Net Gain requirements of 15–20%, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Basingstoke and Deane contain internationally important chalk stream catchments, priority habitats and ecological networks that would benefit from enhanced biodiversity protection.
3. Higher BNG would support nature recovery, climate resilience, water quality, habitat connectivity and the Council’s wider environmental ambitions.
This Council believes that:
1. The statutory 10% BNG should be treated as a minimum, not the limit of local ambition. Where justified, higher BNG can better protect and enhance the natural environment.
2. The emerging Local Plan is the appropriate mechanism to set an evidence?based BNG policy reflecting the borough’s environmental assets, including chalk stream catchments, while balancing ambition with viability and national policy.
3. Sustainable development should deliver measurable, lasting improvements for nature by creating, restoring and connecting habitats alongside new homes, employment and infrastructure.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to develop a locally specific policy for the emerging Local Plan and consults on an evidence?based policy to increase BNG above the statutory 10%, with a target of up to 20% for qualifying developments where supported by ecological evidence, viability assessments and national policy.
2. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare the ecological evidence, viability assessment and draft policy options required to support an enhanced Biodiversity Net Gain policy through the Local Plan process, working with Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Natural Basingstoke and other relevant stakeholders.
3. Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supporting greater flexibility for local planning authorities to adopt Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum where justified by local evidence, and requesting continued support for ambitious, locally led nature recovery through the planning system.
Seconder: TBC
Nature is declining nationally and locally, increasing pressure on wildlife, water quality and ecosystem resilience. As Basingstoke and Deane prepare its new Local Plan, the Council can ensure future development leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state. Although the Environment Act 2021 introduced a mandatory minimum Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement of 10%, planning guidance recognises that local planning authorities may set higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirements through Local Plans where supported by robust evidence and viability assessments. There is growing evidence that higher biodiversity gains may be appropriate in environmentally sensitive areas, including North Hampshire's internationally important chalk stream catchments.
This Council notes that:
1. The Environment Act 2021 requires a minimum 10% BNG, but local planning authorities may set higher levels through Local Plans where supported by evidence, viability testing and national policy.
2. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has advocated that local planning authorities should consider Biodiversity Net Gain requirements of 15–20%, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Basingstoke and Deane contain internationally important chalk stream catchments, priority habitats and ecological networks that would benefit from enhanced biodiversity protection.
3. Higher BNG would support nature recovery, climate resilience, water quality, habitat connectivity and the Council’s wider environmental ambitions.
This Council believes that:
1. The statutory 10% BNG should be treated as a minimum, not the limit of local ambition. Where justified, higher BNG can better protect and enhance the natural environment.
2. The emerging Local Plan is the appropriate mechanism to set an evidence?based BNG policy reflecting the borough’s environmental assets, including chalk stream catchments, while balancing ambition with viability and national policy.
3. Sustainable development should deliver measurable, lasting improvements for nature by creating, restoring and connecting habitats alongside new homes, employment and infrastructure.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to develop a locally specific policy for the emerging Local Plan and consults on an evidence?based policy to increase BNG above the statutory 10%, with a target of up to 20% for qualifying developments where supported by ecological evidence, viability assessments and national policy.
2. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare the ecological evidence, viability assessment and draft policy options required to support an enhanced Biodiversity Net Gain policy through the Local Plan process, working with Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Natural Basingstoke and other relevant stakeholders.
3. Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supporting greater flexibility for local planning authorities to adopt Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum where justified by local evidence, and requesting continued support for ambitious, locally led nature recovery through the planning system.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Ganesh and seconded by Councillor Minas-Bound:
Nature is declining nationally and locally, increasing pressure on wildlife, water quality and ecosystem resilience. As Basingstoke and Deane prepare its new Local Plan, the Council can ensure future development leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state. Although the Environment Act 2021 introduced a mandatory minimum Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement of 10%, planning guidance recognises that local planning authorities may set higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirements through Local Plans where supported by robust evidence and viability assessments. There is growing evidence that higher biodiversity gains may be appropriate in environmentally sensitive areas, including North Hampshire's internationally important chalk stream catchments.
This Council notes that:
1. The Environment Act 2021 requires a minimum 10% BNG, but local planning authorities may set higher levels through Local Plans where supported by evidence, viability testing and national policy.
2. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has advocated that local planning authorities should consider Biodiversity Net Gain requirements of 15–20%, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Basingstoke and Deane contain internationally important chalk stream catchments, priority habitats and ecological networks that would benefit from enhanced biodiversity protection.
3. Higher BNG would support nature recovery, climate resilience, water quality, habitat connectivity and the Council’s wider environmental ambitions.
4. The Council's commissioned Biodiversity Audit and Assessment (2024) was undertaken in part to explore the potential for Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum and concluded that there is a strong ecological case for greater ambition, including consideration of 20% BNG for larger developments. However, the audit did not include the viability assessments, develop economics testing, benchmarking against other authorities or policy examination evidence that would normally be required to justify a higher mandatory BNG requirement through the Local Plan process.
This Council believes that:
1. The statutory 10% BNG should be treated as a minimum, not the limit of local ambition. Where justified, higher BNG can better protect and enhance the natural environment.
2. The emerging Local Plan is the appropriate mechanism to set an evidence?based BNG policy reflecting the borough’s environmental assets, including chalk stream catchments, while balancing ambition with viability and national policy.
3. Sustainable development should deliver measurable, lasting improvements for nature by creating, restoring and connecting habitats alongside new homes, employment and infrastructure.
4. Before a higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirement can be successfully adopted and defended at Local Plan examination, the Council should assemble the necessary viability, policy and benchmarking evidence to demonstrate that any enhanced requirement is justified, deliverable and consistent with national planning policy.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to develop a locally specific policy for the emerging Local Plan and consults on an evidence?based policy to increase BNG above the statutory 10%, with a target of up to 20% for qualifying developments where supported by ecological evidence, viability assessments and national policy.
2. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare the ecological evidence, viability assessment and draft policy options required to support an enhanced Biodiversity Net Gain policy through the Local Plan process, working with Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Natural Basingstoke and other relevant stakeholders.
3. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare a work programme identifying the evidence required to support Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above 10%, including viability testing, development economics assessment, benchmarking against authorities that have proposed or adopted higher BNG requirements, and policy evidence suitable for Local Plan examination. This work should inform both Regulation 19 Local Plan policies and future Biodiversity Net Gain guidance for developers.
4. Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supporting greater flexibility for local planning authorities to adopt Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum where justified by local evidence, and requesting continued support for ambitious, locally led nature recovery through the planning system.
In presenting the motion, it was noted that the Council had previously declared climate and ecological emergencies and had since adopted strategies relating to climate change, air quality, net zero and biodiversity. The motion sought to build upon those commitments by requesting further evidence gathering and consultation on whether higher biodiversity net gain requirements, potentially up to 20%, could be justified, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as chalk stream catchments.
During debate, support was expressed for the principle of enhancing biodiversity and protecting the borough’s natural environment. Members highlighted the importance of chalk streams, priority habitats and ecological networks and recognised the need to reverse biodiversity decline. It was noted that biodiversity net gain requirements introduced through national legislation were intended to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state following development.
Members also acknowledged that work relating to biodiversity net gain was already underway through the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, associated action plans and the local plan making process. Reference was made to existing evidence, biodiversity monitoring results, the establishment of a biodiversity task and finish group, and ongoing work with partner organisations to explore habitat creation and habitat banking within the borough.
A number of members emphasised that any increase above the statutory minimum would need to be supported by a robust evidence base and viability assessments to ensure that any policy could be justified and withstand examination. Concerns were raised regarding proposed changes to national planning policy and the extent to which local authorities might retain the ability to set biodiversity net gain requirements above the national minimum.
The debate also included discussion regarding wider environmental challenges, particularly water supply, sewage infrastructure and pressure on chalk aquifers. Members noted the potential tension between accommodating future development and protecting the natural systems that support biodiversity. Concerns were expressed that unresolved water infrastructure issues could undermine environmental objectives and present challenges for future housing growth.
In summing up, it was reiterated that the motion did not seek to impose a blanket biodiversity net gain requirement above 10% or predetermine the outcome of the Local Plan process. Rather, it sought to ensure that the necessary evidence, viability assessments and stakeholder engagement were undertaken so that an informed decision could be made through the Local Plan process. It was further noted that, should the evidence support higher requirements in specific locations, the Council should have the opportunity to consider them.
The motion was put to a recorded vote with 35 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 5 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
Nature is declining nationally and locally, increasing pressure on wildlife, water quality and ecosystem resilience. As Basingstoke and Deane prepare its new Local Plan, the Council can ensure future development leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state. Although the Environment Act 2021 introduced a mandatory minimum Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement of 10%, planning guidance recognises that local planning authorities may set higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirements through Local Plans where supported by robust evidence and viability assessments. There is growing evidence that higher biodiversity gains may be appropriate in environmentally sensitive areas, including North Hampshire's internationally important chalk stream catchments.
This Council notes that:
1. The Environment Act 2021 requires a minimum 10% BNG, but local planning authorities may set higher levels through Local Plans where supported by evidence, viability testing and national policy.
2. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has advocated that local planning authorities should consider Biodiversity Net Gain requirements of 15–20%, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Basingstoke and Deane contain internationally important chalk stream catchments, priority habitats and ecological networks that would benefit from enhanced biodiversity protection.
3. Higher BNG would support nature recovery, climate resilience, water quality, habitat connectivity and the Council’s wider environmental ambitions.
4. The Council's commissioned Biodiversity Audit and Assessment (2024) was undertaken in part to explore the potential for Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum and concluded that there is a strong ecological case for greater ambition, including consideration of 20% BNG for larger developments. However, the audit did not include the viability assessments, develop economics testing, benchmarking against other authorities or policy examination evidence that would normally be required to justify a higher mandatory BNG requirement through the Local Plan process.
This Council believes that:
1. The statutory 10% BNG should be treated as a minimum, not the limit of local ambition. Where justified, higher BNG can better protect and enhance the natural environment.
2. The emerging Local Plan is the appropriate mechanism to set an evidence?based BNG policy reflecting the borough’s environmental assets, including chalk stream catchments, while balancing ambition with viability and national policy.
3. Sustainable development should deliver measurable, lasting improvements for nature by creating, restoring and connecting habitats alongside new homes, employment and infrastructure.
4. Before a higher Biodiversity Net Gain requirement can be successfully adopted and defended at Local Plan examination, the Council should assemble the necessary viability, policy and benchmarking evidence to demonstrate that any enhanced requirement is justified, deliverable and consistent with national planning policy.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to develop a locally specific policy for the emerging Local Plan and consults on an evidence?based policy to increase BNG above the statutory 10%, with a target of up to 20% for qualifying developments where supported by ecological evidence, viability assessments and national policy.
2. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare the ecological evidence, viability assessment and draft policy options required to support an enhanced Biodiversity Net Gain policy through the Local Plan process, working with Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Natural Basingstoke and other relevant stakeholders.
3. Request the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure requests officers to prepare a work programme identifying the evidence required to support Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above 10%, including viability testing, development economics assessment, benchmarking against authorities that have proposed or adopted higher BNG requirements, and policy evidence suitable for Local Plan examination. This work should inform both Regulation 19 Local Plan policies and future Biodiversity Net Gain guidance for developers.
4. Write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supporting greater flexibility for local planning authorities to adopt Biodiversity Net Gain requirements above the statutory minimum where justified by local evidence, and requesting continued support for ambitious, locally led nature recovery through the planning system.
In presenting the motion, it was noted that the Council had previously declared climate and ecological emergencies and had since adopted strategies relating to climate change, air quality, net zero and biodiversity. The motion sought to build upon those commitments by requesting further evidence gathering and consultation on whether higher biodiversity net gain requirements, potentially up to 20%, could be justified, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as chalk stream catchments.
During debate, support was expressed for the principle of enhancing biodiversity and protecting the borough’s natural environment. Members highlighted the importance of chalk streams, priority habitats and ecological networks and recognised the need to reverse biodiversity decline. It was noted that biodiversity net gain requirements introduced through national legislation were intended to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state following development.
Members also acknowledged that work relating to biodiversity net gain was already underway through the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, associated action plans and the local plan making process. Reference was made to existing evidence, biodiversity monitoring results, the establishment of a biodiversity task and finish group, and ongoing work with partner organisations to explore habitat creation and habitat banking within the borough.
A number of members emphasised that any increase above the statutory minimum would need to be supported by a robust evidence base and viability assessments to ensure that any policy could be justified and withstand examination. Concerns were raised regarding proposed changes to national planning policy and the extent to which local authorities might retain the ability to set biodiversity net gain requirements above the national minimum.
The debate also included discussion regarding wider environmental challenges, particularly water supply, sewage infrastructure and pressure on chalk aquifers. Members noted the potential tension between accommodating future development and protecting the natural systems that support biodiversity. Concerns were expressed that unresolved water infrastructure issues could undermine environmental objectives and present challenges for future housing growth.
In summing up, it was reiterated that the motion did not seek to impose a blanket biodiversity net gain requirement above 10% or predetermine the outcome of the Local Plan process. Rather, it sought to ensure that the necessary evidence, viability assessments and stakeholder engagement were undertaken so that an informed decision could be made through the Local Plan process. It was further noted that, should the evidence support higher requirements in specific locations, the Council should have the opportunity to consider them.
The motion was put to a recorded vote with 35 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 5 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
18
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
Question 1
From: Councillor S Dillow
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Following the installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and new parking restrictions at KFC on Basingstoke Leisure Park, despite the council confirming publicly that it had not been informed of their installation in advance, can the Cabinet Member confirm:
Whether the council, as the freehold owner and landlord of Basingstoke Leisure Park, has since engaged with KFC and/or the parking operator to establish why permission was not sought before these cameras and restrictions were introduced; and
Whether any action has been taken, or is being considered, by the council in response to the unauthorised installation and the concerns raised by residents, customers and delivery drivers who have been wrongly issued parking charge notices?
Answer
We weren’t informed by KFC. We are the freeholders. They lease the land and the car park around it from us. There's nothing in the lease that prevents them putting in the camera system and controlling the car park in the way they do. Obviously as soon as residents contact us to make complaints or raise queries, we do, in order to support local business, go off and talk to them. We’ve encouraged them to improve the signage and make it as clear for everyone as possible. And we’ll continue to inform them when we get bad feedback about it. We're pretty much powerless to do anything else because it's not an environment health issue. It's not a planning issue. It's not in breach of a lease. So, we can keep working with them. Obviously, customers can vote with their feet if they feel necessary. I'd certainly park over the road if you're using KFC. That little bit of 50 yards walk is actually really good for you.
Supplementary Question
Just very very quickly. I’m just wondering whether the Cabinet Member or the Council, is it possible that we can possibly guarantee that no further parking enforcement camera schemes will be permitted elsewhere at our Leisure Park?
Answer
We can only confirm in the land we control that we have no plans or intentions to do that. Although we may have to deal with antisocial behaviour within that car park in some form or fashion. We wouldn’t want to catch abusers rather than leisure visitors. But in private car parks it’s very difficult to have any control of what people do in their own car park or own driveway, it’s really a matter for them. So, I can’t say we can promise that.
Question 2
From: Councillor G Watts
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
At the Council AGM in February, you committed to providing me with an update on the ownership status of the former Westside Community Centre. Unfortunately, no update has been provided to date.
As a result, I have requested that this matter be included on the agenda for the next South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview Committee meeting in November.
In the meantime, could you please provide an update on:
• The current ownership status of the former Westside Community Centre;
• Any ongoing discussions regarding its future;
• The expected timescales for resolving any outstanding issues; and
• When local residents can expect a definitive decision on the future use of the site?
Given the importance of this community asset to residents, I would appreciate a full and detailed response.
Answer
First of all, can I apologise to Councillor Watts. In the February budget meeting, we went back, checked the webcast and you did indeed raise a question in the general debate around the Westside Community Centre. So, I’ll give you an update. On the 11 of May 2025, Cabinet did agree to acquire the library from Hampshire County Council, dispose of the whole site, along with the Community Centre to Sovereign Network Group who are going to undertake demolition and then obviously give us back the land once their master plans develop so we could build a new community centre in a place that was more appropriate for it. Unfortunately, it's taken longer than expected as all these things do. It was not helped by the fact that Hampshire County Council own the library. We own the community centre. SNG were going to take the land and look after demolition conveyancing. And more surveys were done on the site revealing that the demolition would be and the disposal of the asbestos would be more complex and cost more money and that leads to rounds of renegotiation in terms of dealing with it. Parties are working together. We’re close to agreement. We’re expecting it to be included in this financial year. So as of today, in answer to the question, we still own Westside Community Centre site. I think Hampshire County Council still own the library site. And we’re trying to get that all bought together. So, it will all be sorted hopefully by the end of the year but it has been more complex. Obviously, the important bit is the master plan that will identify the new site and that’s what we really want is a new community centre for South Ham.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Madam Mayor, thank you Co-Leader. Extremely disappointing there’s been no movement in the last 18 months since this paper went to the Cabinet. Can you make sure that there’s a decision made by November for our South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee. Because it’s a very important issue for the South Ham residents, and this building has been derelict for nearly 3 years now.
Answer
Yeah, certainly we’ll have a quick update prepared for the November meeting of that committee and all subsequent meetings if requested. So, we’re hoping that it will be progressing but we’ll keep you informed of any progress as and when it’s made.
Question 3
From: Councillor S Minas-Bound
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council).
At South View, the Borough’s largest allotment site, around 20 of the 135 plots appear to have been abandoned and are not currently being cultivated, despite continued interest from residents wanting an allotment. Can the Cabinet Member tell Council:
• how many allotment plots across the Borough are currently vacant or abandoned,
• how many residents are on waiting lists,
• and what action is being taken to ensure unused plots are brought back into productive use as quickly as possible?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. There is some irony actually in Councillor Minas-Bound referring to South View with the question and this is before your time Simon, but 20 years ago, the Conservative administration had plans to sell off these very allotments to build houses on them. We fought them, and we saved them. So let’s be absolutely clear, this administration is committed to allotments. The Council manages 1,164 allotment plots across 42 sites and as of June, 72 plots were vacant and 58 of those are already under offer. There are 2,103 on the waiting list but our comprehensive review of the register suggests that numbers on that waiting list will reduce dramatically because of the review. We have recently finished a thorough review of the allotment service, resulting in 43 recommendations agreed with area allotment representatives. These include streamlining the application process, introducing an annual waiting list audit, improving inspection management, and upgrading our database and speeding up plot allocations. We’re creating additional plots, we’re improving the site infrastructure including new toilet facilities, replacement water troughs, and fencing across a number of sites where there are £300,000 committed in this last year’s budget. Laura meets every six weeks with the chair of the allotment association and attends, area rep, site rep and AGM meetings, and she is in the process of visiting all of our allotment sites. I can assure you that there is no greater champion in this chamber than Laura James for our allotments and don’t we know it. Taken together, these improvements represent the most significant review and investment in the allotment service for many years. So our focus isn’t simply on managing the vacancies, as important as that is, but is also on modernising the service, investing in the infrastructure that our tenants rely on, and creating the opportunities for residents who wish to enjoy the benefits of allotment gardening.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Madam Mayor. The level of dissatisfaction in the allotment holders Facebook group is huge around the number of uncultivated and abandoned allotments. Allotment holders have of course noticed an increased presence since I submitted the question. I’m hopeful that is a coincidence. The question that I want to ask and I believe the answer will be affirmative is clearly the portfolio holder and the leader recognise that there is some improvement required?
Answer
Sometimes it makes me smile Simon when you particularly reference Facebook and in particular don’t believe everything you read on Facebook. Let’s talk about the allotments because actually it’s not just a result of your question and that’s actually quite unfair because Councillor James has been dealing with this issue since she’s become a portfolio holder and tackling some of those issues are quite difficult because of the nature of the allotment sites that we have. But that review and that work that our officer team has been undertaking for more than a year has resulted in those 43 recommendations. And I’d like to thank the allotment area reps and I’d like to thank the chair of the allotment association who have participated in the development of those actions and particularly the agreed areas that we are going to be concentrating on. That investment made in the budget last year didn’t just happen by chance and it didn’t just happen because of a question in this chamber. It happened because we have put the support of our allotment holders, the investment in those allotments, and the importance they hold to us at the centre of what we do. And we absolutely support allotments and like we said last year in particular from colleagues in South Ham and Buckskin, those allotments are just as important to us as any other allotments and they are sacrosanct and we will not be seeing them developed, I can assure you. Allotments are important, they make such a difference to so many residents and so the way we manage them and the way we deliver the service is absolutely critical.
Question 4
From: Councillor J Ganesh
To: Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure
Since the Government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework was published after the completion of our Regulation 18 consultation, can the Cabinet Member explain what assessment has been made of its impact on our emerging Local Plan, including our housing requirement, site allocations, policies and the anticipated timetable for reaching Regulation 19?
Answer
Thank you very much for the question. As mentioned earlier, we’re expecting yet another National Planning Policy Framework at some point this summer.? This will be the fourth NPPF that we’ll be working with since we’ve been in administration. So, we’ve become quite adept, with officer help, in terms of adapting our approach and our policies in response to the regular changes that are imposed on us by Whitehall. The latest draft of the NPPF doesn’t make any material changes to the Standard Method calculation but as I mentioned earlier, the most significant impact that the new NPPF is likely to have relates to the introduction of these nationally mandated decision-making policies. These are going to mean that we lose yet more scope to shape our Local Plan and we become more reliant than ever on government produced national templates. This is clearly incredibly frustrating and further undermines local democracy in my view. However, there is potentially some good news. The likely new Prime Minister is certainly giving us all the impression that he believes in devolution more than the current government. And I'm sure all of us in this Chamber hope that that translates into meaningful action particularly in relation to planning policy.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Councillor Konieczko. I’m as frustrated as you are in what’s happening with some of the proposals in the draft NPPF. So the residents took the time to engage with the Regulation 18 consultation in good faith. If the governments changes now mean more work, more delay, and an increased risk of speculative planning application, will the Cabinet Member commit to bringing a full public report to the committee setting out exactly what has changed, how much delay is now expected and what steps the council will take to protect communities while the Local Plan is being updated?
Answer
So, in short yes, we have the scrutiny committee. We’ve been engaging with E&I and its predecessor EPH throughout the whole process. We plan to continue to do so. So yeah, we welcome the scrutiny. We don’t have anything to hide, and we want to get your input and get residents views on the process and make it as strong as possible.
Question 5
From: Councillor K Rand
To: Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council)
The council has spent many months promoting the introduction of food waste collections, yet within the next few months every household will also move to alternate weekly collections for general waste and recycling.
Can the cabinet member explain why there has not been an equally prominent communication preparing residents for this significant change to their waste collection and when residents can expect that information to be published?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Rand, it’s appreciated. We started communications in May 2025 for the new food waste service which was introduced in October 2025. We started communications in May 2026 for the change in the bin service due in October this year, 2026. We have seen extensive coverage in the local press. A printed recycling leaflet has been delivered to 82,000 homes and a quarter of a million hits has been reached on our Facebook page. We’re now ramping up communications as we get closer to October. All members will have had a briefing pack issued on the 26 June outlining all of what I’m saying tonight and more, and one of which was followed through our regular councillor briefings which you will have attended or be offered to attend. We set all of these milestones out in terms of the actions that we're following through on. You’ll have seen front pages in the Gazette and insight pages in the Gazette, coverage on their website and on social media and there are further press releases and briefings planned with the media. We run regular weekly social media posts specifically focused on our waste collection service. We outline a weekly new residents e-newsletter and that reaches over 6,000 people. In August, bin hangers will be distributed to all homes with information on the changes to the waste collection service. In September,?all households will be sent?a?leaflet with a calendar detailing their collection dates, and information on how to recycle more and reduce what they waste. Now there are dedicated pages on our website with information on the changes and support to help residents to maximise what they can recycle, reduce and reuse. Your Place magazine will have stories, and it will be distributed to all homes in the borough in November. So as you can see, there is an extensive communications campaign underway that was reported to the Resident Services Committee of which you are a member and you were at that Committee when that was reported to you, and I do encourage all members to look at the briefing note you were sent on the 26 June which sets all of this out.
Supplementary Question
Thanks for that comprehensive reply. What I'd like to know is how much of the communication is not what is happening, but why is it happening? Are we making it clear to residents that the fact that they're losing part of their service is for a good reason, that we want to reduce waste overall? And if we are looking to reduce waste overall and generate less food waste, are we using enough of the County Council scheme of Kitchen Heroes?
Answer
I'll get you a proper written answer, but I can assure you that all the schemes that are available to this council, we are using, and we are also introducing schemes beyond that. So, the idea is to open up our bring bank sites to enable people to recycle pots, tubs, trays and cartons that they at the moment can't because the County Council doesn't offer that service is an important step forward. The offer to offer a WEEE recycling service is again an additional service to that we offer because again we see the people's encouragement, people's desire to recycle more. And on top of all of that, I think it's important just to reflect, we have been clear that the previous government's Environment Act passed in 2021, which brings in all the rules around the tonnages and all the rules around what we have to do and also the penalties if we do not, is an important driver for why we're doing this. We've also explained clearly in committee, as has been presented to committee, as has been presented to councillors in briefings, that the reason why we're doing this is because to reduce the waste tonnage is absolutely critical. And that's the only way to actually get our recycling rate up and we remain one of the lowest recycling rates in the South East and that is something we want to change.
Question 6
From: Councillor A Mummalaneni
To: Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council)
Given the council's recent report indicating that approximately 45% of households are not using the food waste collection service, can the council provide details of the streets with the lowest food waste collection participation rates across the borough, and what targeted actions or engagement campaigns are planned to increase uptake in these locations and improve overall recycling performance?
Answer
Thank you, Arun, and I’ll answer the question that’s asked on the order paper. As you know, as you will know Madam Mayor and so will the councillor, the question was answered in full at the committee that you both attended. The Waste Resources and Action Programme guidance suggests that participation for Basingstoke and Deane?should be between 45% and 55% based on?the?current?weekly?collection?of food waste.?At 55%?we’re achieving?an excellent?participation rate. One thousand households?were?monitored?across twenty six roads and over that three year period the total average was 55%. So, in a very short time we have already achieved an exceptional rate compared to other councils. The guidance from the?Waste and Resources Action Programme suggests that?councils?operating?a fortnightly waste collection?can expect to see a participation rate?of?between 60% and 70% of food waste. The second phase of monitoring is currently taking place. A targeted communications campaign took place between the first and the second phase where waste crews issued stickers on waste bins where no food waste caddy was presented for collection and you'll know how successful this trial was when the second round of data monitoring comes through and it's reviewed, and then we will consider if a stickering exercise should be repeated or we do something different. But we are focused on increasing participation, and you know this because it was presented to the Committee at which you attended. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Unfortunately, you didn’t answer the question that is there. The question categorically says provide the details of the streets with the lowest food waste according to the method of collecting the data. The street names are available in the data and I’m asking for those street names. Madam Mayor, thank you.
Answer
And as the council knows, a commitment was given to the Resident Services Committee that when the review of the work is being done, as the second monitoring phase is currently taking place, that will be brought back to the Committee, and the Committee will continue its debate on food waste just as it did at the committee you attended.
Question 7
From: Councillor A Mummalaneni
To: Leader of the Council
Given that the cladding remediation works at Crown Heights have continued beyond the original completion date, resulting in prolonged disruption for residents through ongoing scaffolding, restricted ventilation, noise and other impacts—including significant discomfort during recent periods of hot weather—could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the revised completion timetable, the reasons for the delays, the measures being taken to mitigate the impact on residents (particularly vulnerable residents and children), and how the council and its partners are ensuring residents are kept informed while balancing the delivery of these essential safety works with the wellbeing of those continuing to live in the building?
Answer
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Arun, can I just check that you have raised these concerns with Barratt, our old contractors? You do know don’t you that they are responsible for the recladding of Crown Heights, and not the Borough Council? I'm happy to help you here and I'm happy to do your case work for you on this occasion and I’ll ask you the question. I’ll ask your questions; I’ll take them to Barratts for you and come back to you and your residents telling them what the answers are. Of course, you could have picked up the phone to Barratts and asked them directly as you are the ward councillor. But let me set it out. We've met with the developer and the project managers from the very start of the process to ensure that the residents views have been thoroughly represented throughout.Ward members have been invited to be briefed and so they could have been made aware of the key milestones. Residents have been kept updated on progress through monthly newsletters, monthly drop-in coffee mornings, as well as being able to contact the project management and the team at any time by phone or email. There have been no reports to our environmental health team relating to potentially unsafe property conditions as a result of the cladding works. The housing team have not received any contact from residents to request rehousing as a result of the cladding works, but both teams remain available to residents to direct any concerns too should there be any. There has been no increase to the completion time scales with a final completion date still estimated to be April 2027. However, the developer has told us that they are currently assessing whether there is an opportunity to bring that date forward. We've also made contact with the project manager, and on the basis of what you’ve asked Arun, requested that those monthly newsletters are also sent to you as the ward councillor so that you can see the communications going on directly between them and the residents.
Supplementary Question
So, I just want to remind the Leader in the Chamber on 20 July 2023, one of the first meetings, one of the first motions is the Crown Heights motion. If you remember very well that motion was passed overwhelmingly with 49 people approving it. Subsequently, Cabinet also approved it. What exactly does the motion say? It appoints a single point of contact for the actions to be addressed, and the second one is fortnightly, the members needs to be informed about the actions that are taken. But that didn’t happen. Why it has taken 3 years to action that item to this Chamber?
Answer
I’m slightly confused, Arun. So I’m going to come back to you with a written response but just to bear in mind, you and the other ward councillors have been offered meetings on a regular basis by the developer, I’m led to believe, and on that basis I’m very happy to go back to them and arrange whatever communication you would like to receive as ward councillors. It is for them to communicate with you directly and we will arrange and support that. And to be fair to them, they've been actually talking directly with the residents because they are the ones that are the most important in all of this equation.
From: Councillor S Dillow
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Following the installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and new parking restrictions at KFC on Basingstoke Leisure Park, despite the council confirming publicly that it had not been informed of their installation in advance, can the Cabinet Member confirm:
Whether the council, as the freehold owner and landlord of Basingstoke Leisure Park, has since engaged with KFC and/or the parking operator to establish why permission was not sought before these cameras and restrictions were introduced; and
Whether any action has been taken, or is being considered, by the council in response to the unauthorised installation and the concerns raised by residents, customers and delivery drivers who have been wrongly issued parking charge notices?
Answer
We weren’t informed by KFC. We are the freeholders. They lease the land and the car park around it from us. There's nothing in the lease that prevents them putting in the camera system and controlling the car park in the way they do. Obviously as soon as residents contact us to make complaints or raise queries, we do, in order to support local business, go off and talk to them. We’ve encouraged them to improve the signage and make it as clear for everyone as possible. And we’ll continue to inform them when we get bad feedback about it. We're pretty much powerless to do anything else because it's not an environment health issue. It's not a planning issue. It's not in breach of a lease. So, we can keep working with them. Obviously, customers can vote with their feet if they feel necessary. I'd certainly park over the road if you're using KFC. That little bit of 50 yards walk is actually really good for you.
Supplementary Question
Just very very quickly. I’m just wondering whether the Cabinet Member or the Council, is it possible that we can possibly guarantee that no further parking enforcement camera schemes will be permitted elsewhere at our Leisure Park?
Answer
We can only confirm in the land we control that we have no plans or intentions to do that. Although we may have to deal with antisocial behaviour within that car park in some form or fashion. We wouldn’t want to catch abusers rather than leisure visitors. But in private car parks it’s very difficult to have any control of what people do in their own car park or own driveway, it’s really a matter for them. So, I can’t say we can promise that.
Question 2
From: Councillor G Watts
To: Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
At the Council AGM in February, you committed to providing me with an update on the ownership status of the former Westside Community Centre. Unfortunately, no update has been provided to date.
As a result, I have requested that this matter be included on the agenda for the next South Ham and Buckskin Regeneration Overview Committee meeting in November.
In the meantime, could you please provide an update on:
• The current ownership status of the former Westside Community Centre;
• Any ongoing discussions regarding its future;
• The expected timescales for resolving any outstanding issues; and
• When local residents can expect a definitive decision on the future use of the site?
Given the importance of this community asset to residents, I would appreciate a full and detailed response.
Answer
First of all, can I apologise to Councillor Watts. In the February budget meeting, we went back, checked the webcast and you did indeed raise a question in the general debate around the Westside Community Centre. So, I’ll give you an update. On the 11 of May 2025, Cabinet did agree to acquire the library from Hampshire County Council, dispose of the whole site, along with the Community Centre to Sovereign Network Group who are going to undertake demolition and then obviously give us back the land once their master plans develop so we could build a new community centre in a place that was more appropriate for it. Unfortunately, it's taken longer than expected as all these things do. It was not helped by the fact that Hampshire County Council own the library. We own the community centre. SNG were going to take the land and look after demolition conveyancing. And more surveys were done on the site revealing that the demolition would be and the disposal of the asbestos would be more complex and cost more money and that leads to rounds of renegotiation in terms of dealing with it. Parties are working together. We’re close to agreement. We’re expecting it to be included in this financial year. So as of today, in answer to the question, we still own Westside Community Centre site. I think Hampshire County Council still own the library site. And we’re trying to get that all bought together. So, it will all be sorted hopefully by the end of the year but it has been more complex. Obviously, the important bit is the master plan that will identify the new site and that’s what we really want is a new community centre for South Ham.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Madam Mayor, thank you Co-Leader. Extremely disappointing there’s been no movement in the last 18 months since this paper went to the Cabinet. Can you make sure that there’s a decision made by November for our South Ham and Buckskin Overview Committee. Because it’s a very important issue for the South Ham residents, and this building has been derelict for nearly 3 years now.
Answer
Yeah, certainly we’ll have a quick update prepared for the November meeting of that committee and all subsequent meetings if requested. So, we’re hoping that it will be progressing but we’ll keep you informed of any progress as and when it’s made.
Question 3
From: Councillor S Minas-Bound
To: Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council).
At South View, the Borough’s largest allotment site, around 20 of the 135 plots appear to have been abandoned and are not currently being cultivated, despite continued interest from residents wanting an allotment. Can the Cabinet Member tell Council:
• how many allotment plots across the Borough are currently vacant or abandoned,
• how many residents are on waiting lists,
• and what action is being taken to ensure unused plots are brought back into productive use as quickly as possible?
Answer
Thank you, Simon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. There is some irony actually in Councillor Minas-Bound referring to South View with the question and this is before your time Simon, but 20 years ago, the Conservative administration had plans to sell off these very allotments to build houses on them. We fought them, and we saved them. So let’s be absolutely clear, this administration is committed to allotments. The Council manages 1,164 allotment plots across 42 sites and as of June, 72 plots were vacant and 58 of those are already under offer. There are 2,103 on the waiting list but our comprehensive review of the register suggests that numbers on that waiting list will reduce dramatically because of the review. We have recently finished a thorough review of the allotment service, resulting in 43 recommendations agreed with area allotment representatives. These include streamlining the application process, introducing an annual waiting list audit, improving inspection management, and upgrading our database and speeding up plot allocations. We’re creating additional plots, we’re improving the site infrastructure including new toilet facilities, replacement water troughs, and fencing across a number of sites where there are £300,000 committed in this last year’s budget. Laura meets every six weeks with the chair of the allotment association and attends, area rep, site rep and AGM meetings, and she is in the process of visiting all of our allotment sites. I can assure you that there is no greater champion in this chamber than Laura James for our allotments and don’t we know it. Taken together, these improvements represent the most significant review and investment in the allotment service for many years. So our focus isn’t simply on managing the vacancies, as important as that is, but is also on modernising the service, investing in the infrastructure that our tenants rely on, and creating the opportunities for residents who wish to enjoy the benefits of allotment gardening.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Madam Mayor. The level of dissatisfaction in the allotment holders Facebook group is huge around the number of uncultivated and abandoned allotments. Allotment holders have of course noticed an increased presence since I submitted the question. I’m hopeful that is a coincidence. The question that I want to ask and I believe the answer will be affirmative is clearly the portfolio holder and the leader recognise that there is some improvement required?
Answer
Sometimes it makes me smile Simon when you particularly reference Facebook and in particular don’t believe everything you read on Facebook. Let’s talk about the allotments because actually it’s not just a result of your question and that’s actually quite unfair because Councillor James has been dealing with this issue since she’s become a portfolio holder and tackling some of those issues are quite difficult because of the nature of the allotment sites that we have. But that review and that work that our officer team has been undertaking for more than a year has resulted in those 43 recommendations. And I’d like to thank the allotment area reps and I’d like to thank the chair of the allotment association who have participated in the development of those actions and particularly the agreed areas that we are going to be concentrating on. That investment made in the budget last year didn’t just happen by chance and it didn’t just happen because of a question in this chamber. It happened because we have put the support of our allotment holders, the investment in those allotments, and the importance they hold to us at the centre of what we do. And we absolutely support allotments and like we said last year in particular from colleagues in South Ham and Buckskin, those allotments are just as important to us as any other allotments and they are sacrosanct and we will not be seeing them developed, I can assure you. Allotments are important, they make such a difference to so many residents and so the way we manage them and the way we deliver the service is absolutely critical.
Question 4
From: Councillor J Ganesh
To: Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure
Since the Government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework was published after the completion of our Regulation 18 consultation, can the Cabinet Member explain what assessment has been made of its impact on our emerging Local Plan, including our housing requirement, site allocations, policies and the anticipated timetable for reaching Regulation 19?
Answer
Thank you very much for the question. As mentioned earlier, we’re expecting yet another National Planning Policy Framework at some point this summer.? This will be the fourth NPPF that we’ll be working with since we’ve been in administration. So, we’ve become quite adept, with officer help, in terms of adapting our approach and our policies in response to the regular changes that are imposed on us by Whitehall. The latest draft of the NPPF doesn’t make any material changes to the Standard Method calculation but as I mentioned earlier, the most significant impact that the new NPPF is likely to have relates to the introduction of these nationally mandated decision-making policies. These are going to mean that we lose yet more scope to shape our Local Plan and we become more reliant than ever on government produced national templates. This is clearly incredibly frustrating and further undermines local democracy in my view. However, there is potentially some good news. The likely new Prime Minister is certainly giving us all the impression that he believes in devolution more than the current government. And I'm sure all of us in this Chamber hope that that translates into meaningful action particularly in relation to planning policy.
Supplementary Question
Thank you, Councillor Konieczko. I’m as frustrated as you are in what’s happening with some of the proposals in the draft NPPF. So the residents took the time to engage with the Regulation 18 consultation in good faith. If the governments changes now mean more work, more delay, and an increased risk of speculative planning application, will the Cabinet Member commit to bringing a full public report to the committee setting out exactly what has changed, how much delay is now expected and what steps the council will take to protect communities while the Local Plan is being updated?
Answer
So, in short yes, we have the scrutiny committee. We’ve been engaging with E&I and its predecessor EPH throughout the whole process. We plan to continue to do so. So yeah, we welcome the scrutiny. We don’t have anything to hide, and we want to get your input and get residents views on the process and make it as strong as possible.
Question 5
From: Councillor K Rand
To: Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council)
The council has spent many months promoting the introduction of food waste collections, yet within the next few months every household will also move to alternate weekly collections for general waste and recycling.
Can the cabinet member explain why there has not been an equally prominent communication preparing residents for this significant change to their waste collection and when residents can expect that information to be published?
Answer
Thank you, Councillor Rand, it’s appreciated. We started communications in May 2025 for the new food waste service which was introduced in October 2025. We started communications in May 2026 for the change in the bin service due in October this year, 2026. We have seen extensive coverage in the local press. A printed recycling leaflet has been delivered to 82,000 homes and a quarter of a million hits has been reached on our Facebook page. We’re now ramping up communications as we get closer to October. All members will have had a briefing pack issued on the 26 June outlining all of what I’m saying tonight and more, and one of which was followed through our regular councillor briefings which you will have attended or be offered to attend. We set all of these milestones out in terms of the actions that we're following through on. You’ll have seen front pages in the Gazette and insight pages in the Gazette, coverage on their website and on social media and there are further press releases and briefings planned with the media. We run regular weekly social media posts specifically focused on our waste collection service. We outline a weekly new residents e-newsletter and that reaches over 6,000 people. In August, bin hangers will be distributed to all homes with information on the changes to the waste collection service. In September,?all households will be sent?a?leaflet with a calendar detailing their collection dates, and information on how to recycle more and reduce what they waste. Now there are dedicated pages on our website with information on the changes and support to help residents to maximise what they can recycle, reduce and reuse. Your Place magazine will have stories, and it will be distributed to all homes in the borough in November. So as you can see, there is an extensive communications campaign underway that was reported to the Resident Services Committee of which you are a member and you were at that Committee when that was reported to you, and I do encourage all members to look at the briefing note you were sent on the 26 June which sets all of this out.
Supplementary Question
Thanks for that comprehensive reply. What I'd like to know is how much of the communication is not what is happening, but why is it happening? Are we making it clear to residents that the fact that they're losing part of their service is for a good reason, that we want to reduce waste overall? And if we are looking to reduce waste overall and generate less food waste, are we using enough of the County Council scheme of Kitchen Heroes?
Answer
I'll get you a proper written answer, but I can assure you that all the schemes that are available to this council, we are using, and we are also introducing schemes beyond that. So, the idea is to open up our bring bank sites to enable people to recycle pots, tubs, trays and cartons that they at the moment can't because the County Council doesn't offer that service is an important step forward. The offer to offer a WEEE recycling service is again an additional service to that we offer because again we see the people's encouragement, people's desire to recycle more. And on top of all of that, I think it's important just to reflect, we have been clear that the previous government's Environment Act passed in 2021, which brings in all the rules around the tonnages and all the rules around what we have to do and also the penalties if we do not, is an important driver for why we're doing this. We've also explained clearly in committee, as has been presented to committee, as has been presented to councillors in briefings, that the reason why we're doing this is because to reduce the waste tonnage is absolutely critical. And that's the only way to actually get our recycling rate up and we remain one of the lowest recycling rates in the South East and that is something we want to change.
Question 6
From: Councillor A Mummalaneni
To: Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Housing (Answered by the Leader of the Council)
Given the council's recent report indicating that approximately 45% of households are not using the food waste collection service, can the council provide details of the streets with the lowest food waste collection participation rates across the borough, and what targeted actions or engagement campaigns are planned to increase uptake in these locations and improve overall recycling performance?
Answer
Thank you, Arun, and I’ll answer the question that’s asked on the order paper. As you know, as you will know Madam Mayor and so will the councillor, the question was answered in full at the committee that you both attended. The Waste Resources and Action Programme guidance suggests that participation for Basingstoke and Deane?should be between 45% and 55% based on?the?current?weekly?collection?of food waste.?At 55%?we’re achieving?an excellent?participation rate. One thousand households?were?monitored?across twenty six roads and over that three year period the total average was 55%. So, in a very short time we have already achieved an exceptional rate compared to other councils. The guidance from the?Waste and Resources Action Programme suggests that?councils?operating?a fortnightly waste collection?can expect to see a participation rate?of?between 60% and 70% of food waste. The second phase of monitoring is currently taking place. A targeted communications campaign took place between the first and the second phase where waste crews issued stickers on waste bins where no food waste caddy was presented for collection and you'll know how successful this trial was when the second round of data monitoring comes through and it's reviewed, and then we will consider if a stickering exercise should be repeated or we do something different. But we are focused on increasing participation, and you know this because it was presented to the Committee at which you attended. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Unfortunately, you didn’t answer the question that is there. The question categorically says provide the details of the streets with the lowest food waste according to the method of collecting the data. The street names are available in the data and I’m asking for those street names. Madam Mayor, thank you.
Answer
And as the council knows, a commitment was given to the Resident Services Committee that when the review of the work is being done, as the second monitoring phase is currently taking place, that will be brought back to the Committee, and the Committee will continue its debate on food waste just as it did at the committee you attended.
Question 7
From: Councillor A Mummalaneni
To: Leader of the Council
Given that the cladding remediation works at Crown Heights have continued beyond the original completion date, resulting in prolonged disruption for residents through ongoing scaffolding, restricted ventilation, noise and other impacts—including significant discomfort during recent periods of hot weather—could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the revised completion timetable, the reasons for the delays, the measures being taken to mitigate the impact on residents (particularly vulnerable residents and children), and how the council and its partners are ensuring residents are kept informed while balancing the delivery of these essential safety works with the wellbeing of those continuing to live in the building?
Answer
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Arun, can I just check that you have raised these concerns with Barratt, our old contractors? You do know don’t you that they are responsible for the recladding of Crown Heights, and not the Borough Council? I'm happy to help you here and I'm happy to do your case work for you on this occasion and I’ll ask you the question. I’ll ask your questions; I’ll take them to Barratts for you and come back to you and your residents telling them what the answers are. Of course, you could have picked up the phone to Barratts and asked them directly as you are the ward councillor. But let me set it out. We've met with the developer and the project managers from the very start of the process to ensure that the residents views have been thoroughly represented throughout.Ward members have been invited to be briefed and so they could have been made aware of the key milestones. Residents have been kept updated on progress through monthly newsletters, monthly drop-in coffee mornings, as well as being able to contact the project management and the team at any time by phone or email. There have been no reports to our environmental health team relating to potentially unsafe property conditions as a result of the cladding works. The housing team have not received any contact from residents to request rehousing as a result of the cladding works, but both teams remain available to residents to direct any concerns too should there be any. There has been no increase to the completion time scales with a final completion date still estimated to be April 2027. However, the developer has told us that they are currently assessing whether there is an opportunity to bring that date forward. We've also made contact with the project manager, and on the basis of what you’ve asked Arun, requested that those monthly newsletters are also sent to you as the ward councillor so that you can see the communications going on directly between them and the residents.
Supplementary Question
So, I just want to remind the Leader in the Chamber on 20 July 2023, one of the first meetings, one of the first motions is the Crown Heights motion. If you remember very well that motion was passed overwhelmingly with 49 people approving it. Subsequently, Cabinet also approved it. What exactly does the motion say? It appoints a single point of contact for the actions to be addressed, and the second one is fortnightly, the members needs to be informed about the actions that are taken. But that didn’t happen. Why it has taken 3 years to action that item to this Chamber?
Answer
I’m slightly confused, Arun. So I’m going to come back to you with a written response but just to bear in mind, you and the other ward councillors have been offered meetings on a regular basis by the developer, I’m led to believe, and on that basis I’m very happy to go back to them and arrange whatever communication you would like to receive as ward councillors. It is for them to communicate with you directly and we will arrange and support that. And to be fair to them, they've been actually talking directly with the residents because they are the ones that are the most important in all of this equation.
19
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
Council
14 May 2026
Development Control
20 May 2026
Council
21 May 2026
Cabinet
9 June 2026
Development Control
10 June 2026
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
11 June 2026
Licensing
15 June 2026
Resident Services O&S
17 June 2026
Council
18 June 2026
Committee
Meeting Date
Council
14 May 2026
Development Control
20 May 2026
Council
21 May 2026
Cabinet
9 June 2026
Development Control
10 June 2026
Environment and Infrastructure O&S
11 June 2026
Licensing
15 June 2026
Resident Services O&S
17 June 2026
Council
18 June 2026
Minutes
There were no questions.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in