Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
23
Meetings (2026):
68
Meetings (2025):
75
Meeting
Development Control Committee - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 12th August 2026
6:30 PM
Wednesday, 12th August 2026
6:30 PM
End:
Wednesday, 12th August 2026
9:30 PM
Wednesday, 12th August 2026
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
12 Aug 2026
12 Aug 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Reserve
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Reserve
Leader of the Conservative Group
Officer
Assistant Planning Manager
Katherine Fitzherbert-Green
Expected
Vice-Chair
Chair of the Resident Services & Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Reform UK Group
Reserve
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Councillor Colin Phillimore
Basingstoke & Deane Independent Group
Present, as substitute
View Profile
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence and substitutions
Minutes
Councillor McCormick sent his apologies.
Councillor Grassi was replaced by Councillor Phillimore.
Councillor Grassi was replaced by Councillor Phillimore.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest received.
3
Urgent matters
To consider any items of business, other than those shown on this agenda and which, by reason of special circumstances to be stated at the meeting, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency
Minutes
There were no urgent matters.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on the 8th July 2026
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of the meeting held on the 8th July 2026 03 Aug 2026
Minutes
The Chair confirmed that the minutes of the meeting held on the 8th July 2026 were confirmed by the Committee as a correct record.
5
Applications for planning permission and public participation thereon
This report details the planning applications to the Committee for consideration and decision.
Contact Officer: Planning and Development Manager
Wards Affected: Whitchurch, Overton & Laverstoke
Contact Officer: Planning and Development Manager
Wards Affected: Whitchurch, Overton & Laverstoke
Attachments:
- Document Report 03 Aug 2026
- Document Index 03 Aug 2026
- Document Applications 03 Aug 2026
- Document DCC Update Paper Front Sheet 03 Aug 2026
- Document DCC Update Paper- 12 Aug 2026 03 Aug 2026
Minutes
The following Public Participation took place:
Interest
Name
Item no./Topic
Parish Council
Ms Webb
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Support
Ms Jackson
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Councillor
K Watts
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Application 1 - 26/00633/PIP: Construction of a minimum of 2 and maximum of 4 Residential dwellings (C3 use). Site: Land East Of Court Drove Overton Hampshire
The Committee considered the report set out on pages 43 to 78 of the agenda together with the further material set out on the addendum sheet and other matters discussed at the meeting.
The Committee discussed the proposed application and referred to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), noting that development should only be refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
The proposed development, by reason of its location, would introduce an additional access in close proximity to a primary school on a narrow section of carriageway. Members considered that, when taking account of existing school-related pedestrian and vehicle movements, together with the cumulative impact from the expansion of school and approved development within Overton, the proposal would result in an unacceptable highway safety risk to all users, particularly children and pedestrians. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Councillor K Watts stood down from the committee and spoke as a Ward Councillor.
RESOLVED that: the application be REFUSED for the following reason:
Reason for Refusal
1 The proposed development by reason of its location would create and additional access in close proximity to a primary school, along a narrow section of a carriageway. It is considered that in this location, the land use and amount of development would have a detrimental impact on the highway safety to all users. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Informative(s):-
1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:
validating and dealing with this application in a prompt manner
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.
Interest
Name
Item no./Topic
Parish Council
Ms Webb
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Support
Ms Jackson
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Councillor
K Watts
Item 1 - 26/00633/PIP
Application 1 - 26/00633/PIP: Construction of a minimum of 2 and maximum of 4 Residential dwellings (C3 use). Site: Land East Of Court Drove Overton Hampshire
The Committee considered the report set out on pages 43 to 78 of the agenda together with the further material set out on the addendum sheet and other matters discussed at the meeting.
The Committee discussed the proposed application and referred to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), noting that development should only be refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
The proposed development, by reason of its location, would introduce an additional access in close proximity to a primary school on a narrow section of carriageway. Members considered that, when taking account of existing school-related pedestrian and vehicle movements, together with the cumulative impact from the expansion of school and approved development within Overton, the proposal would result in an unacceptable highway safety risk to all users, particularly children and pedestrians. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Councillor K Watts stood down from the committee and spoke as a Ward Councillor.
RESOLVED that: the application be REFUSED for the following reason:
Reason for Refusal
1 The proposed development by reason of its location would create and additional access in close proximity to a primary school, along a narrow section of a carriageway. It is considered that in this location, the land use and amount of development would have a detrimental impact on the highway safety to all users. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Informative(s):-
1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:
validating and dealing with this application in a prompt manner
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.
6
Request to consider the expediency for enforcement action – Hurstwood 2A Andover Road Oakley Basingstoke Hampshire (Enforcement no EC/25/00129/BOC3)
The report considers whether it would be expedient in the public interest to pursue formal enforcement action against this breach in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) and the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and any other material planning considerations.
Contact Officer: Planning and Development Manager
Contact Officer: Planning and Development Manager
Attachments:
- Document Enforcment Hurstwood 2A Andover Road Oakley Report 03 Aug 2026
Minutes
The following Public Participation took place:
Interest
Name
Topic
Objector
Ms Lambert
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Support
Mr Smith
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Councillor
Connor
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Councillor
Rowley
EC/25/00129/BOC3
The Assistant Planning Manager introduced the report which addressed land in association with Hurstwood, 2A Andover Road, Oakley. The breach related to Condition 2 of BDB/17136. The application granted permission for the erection of 2no two-bedroom bungalows at appeal on 25 July 1985. Condition 2 of that appeal decision required an existing screen hedge along the east and west boundaries of the site to be retained and maintained at a height of not less than 2.5m. The breach related to the loss of circa 20 metre in length of the hedge to the eastern boundary which was subject to that Condition.
The recommendation of the report was that it was not expedient to take enforcement action with the file to be closed and no further action taken.
Members debated whether the removal of the hedge, which constituted a breach of condition, justified enforcement action.
Members noted that the Planning Inspector had previously referred to the hedge as providing a degree of privacy and preventing significant overlooking. It was argued that the replacement fence now fulfilled those functions and provided privacy, safety and security for the occupiers. While it was acknowledged that the loss of the hedge had resulted in some localised harm to the character and appearance of the area, Members supporting the recommendation considered that, on balance, formal enforcement action was not expedient. It was further argued that requiring removal of the fence could result in a lengthy period before any replacement planting reached an equivalent level of screening.
Other Members expressed concern that the removal of the hedge represented a clear breach of planning condition. They emphasised that the condition had been imposed not only to protect residential amenity but also the character of the wider area and argued that planning conditions should be upheld and enforced where breaches occur.
It was noted that the site was not in a rural setting and that fencing already existed along parts of the adjoining boundary.
RESOLVED that: it is not expedient to take enforcement action with the file to be closed and no further action taken.
Interest
Name
Topic
Objector
Ms Lambert
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Support
Mr Smith
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Councillor
Connor
EC/25/00129/BOC3
Councillor
Rowley
EC/25/00129/BOC3
The Assistant Planning Manager introduced the report which addressed land in association with Hurstwood, 2A Andover Road, Oakley. The breach related to Condition 2 of BDB/17136. The application granted permission for the erection of 2no two-bedroom bungalows at appeal on 25 July 1985. Condition 2 of that appeal decision required an existing screen hedge along the east and west boundaries of the site to be retained and maintained at a height of not less than 2.5m. The breach related to the loss of circa 20 metre in length of the hedge to the eastern boundary which was subject to that Condition.
The recommendation of the report was that it was not expedient to take enforcement action with the file to be closed and no further action taken.
Members debated whether the removal of the hedge, which constituted a breach of condition, justified enforcement action.
Members noted that the Planning Inspector had previously referred to the hedge as providing a degree of privacy and preventing significant overlooking. It was argued that the replacement fence now fulfilled those functions and provided privacy, safety and security for the occupiers. While it was acknowledged that the loss of the hedge had resulted in some localised harm to the character and appearance of the area, Members supporting the recommendation considered that, on balance, formal enforcement action was not expedient. It was further argued that requiring removal of the fence could result in a lengthy period before any replacement planting reached an equivalent level of screening.
Other Members expressed concern that the removal of the hedge represented a clear breach of planning condition. They emphasised that the condition had been imposed not only to protect residential amenity but also the character of the wider area and argued that planning conditions should be upheld and enforced where breaches occur.
It was noted that the site was not in a rural setting and that fencing already existed along parts of the adjoining boundary.
RESOLVED that: it is not expedient to take enforcement action with the file to be closed and no further action taken.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in