►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
This
morning,
good
evening,
members,
okay,
I'd
like
to
just
run
through
a
few
bits
to
start
off,
with
first
of
all
for
those
that
that
are
watching
in
my
name's
Council
Stuart
Frost
and
I'm,
the
chair
of
this
meeting
fire
evacuation
procedures
for
this
this
evening.
There
are
no
firearms
scheduled
for
this
evening.
Therefore,
if
the
fire
alarm
sounds,
please
evacuate
the
building
immediately.
The
fire
exit
is
located
at
the
rear
of
this
room,
go
downstairs
and
we'll
meet
in
the
War
Memorial
Park
members.
A
Please
note
this
meeting
is
being
webcast,
live
on
the
internet,
okay
and
please
either
switch
off
your
phones
or
turn
them
onto
silent,
okay,
right
just
to
make
sure
that
mine's
turned
off.
B
A
We
go
so
for
those
who
are
watching
okay,
the
people
to
my
immediate
front.
Okay,
both
left
and
right.
Okay,
are
the
members
of
the
committee
okay,
and
we
have
my
vice
chair
sitting,
one
away
from
me:
okay
and
then
officer
sitting
either
side
of
me.
There's
some
officers
to
the
the
to
my
my
left
or
to
members
right.
Okay,
I
have
to
keep
remembering
you
know,
left
and
right,
okay,
and
then
we
have
some
members
of
the
cabinet
Okay.
So
so
so
that's
that's
all
good
there.
A
So
we're
here
to
review
on
comment
on
the
the
vocal
Plan
update
paper
on
the
spatial
strategies
for
the
regular
regulation,
18
consultation.
A
We
have
an
extremely
full
agenda
tonight
so
to
give
all
the
members
an
opportunity
to
comment,
I
will
be
restricting
members
to
one
comment
or
question
perception,
or
spatial
policy
stroke
proposed
site.
If
members
have
asked
their
question
and
we
should
have
a
supplementary,
then
I
want
that.
Member
to
ask
me
as
chair.
If
there's
time
and
all
members
have
been
given
an
opportunity
to
comment,
I'll
then
ask
more
questions.
If
we
run
out
of
the
allocated
time
for
that
section,
I'll
stop
the
questions
and
move
on
to
the
next
section.
A
A
So
my
plan
is
section
two
guidance
strategy:
okay
to
to
spend
up
to
10
minutes.
A
Okay,
commenting
on
that
section,
section
three
again:
spending
up
to
10
minutes
on
that
section,
section
four
and
also
appendix
one,
because
that's
the
the
draft
spatial
strategy
is
I-
want
to
allow
up
to
50
minutes
section
five,
also
including
appendix
3:
okay,
which
is
meeting
housing,
needs
and
commenting
on
sites
again
up
to
50
minutes,
then
section
six,
the
approach
to
rural
areas
again,
I
want
to
spend
up
to
50
minutes
because
because
there
we
have
the
the
the
local
local
towns
and
Villages
okay
and
then
section
eight
okay,
I
think
we
can
spend
10
minutes
okay
on
there,
okay,
so
basically,
if
anyone's
I'm,
adding
up
to
maths.
A
Okay,
it's
just
over
three
hours,
ten
minutes.
If
all
the
time
is
used
right,
so
let's
crack
on
okay,
if
everyone
can
can
hold
on
because
it's
going
to
be
fast
and
furious
or
I'd
like
you
to
be
fast
and
furious.
Okay,
section
two
The
Proposal
regarding
the
strategy:
does
anybody
have
a
comment
on
Guiding
the
strategy.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
is
the
the
time
to
do
it,
but
I
think
the
overarching
concern
of
this
committee
and
this
Council
was
the
overall
number
of
houses
that
was
allocated
and
that
the
figure
of
17
800
was
too
high.
A
Thank
you,
cousin
Cormac
I'll
come
back
to
you
in
section
five,
okay,
where
we
discussed
that
the
housing
need,
because
there
is
a
specific
section
there
on
the
housing
number.
Okay,
so
I'll
welcome
back
to
you
councilor
Tomlin!
Please
thank.
D
You
chair
so
overall
that
strategy
there.
It
does
sound
pretty
logical,
but
my
one
question
is:
how
are
we
going
to
actually
prove
we
did
it
because
sustainable
locations?
We
are
going
to
be
probably
here
until
gone
midnight.
If
we
start
talking
about
that
on
every
site
and
suitable
growth,
the
wording
suitable
growth
in
rural
communities,
it's
all
too.
D
A
F
F
F
My
question
to
the
officers
will
be:
how
can
how
can
how
can
we
demonstrate
as
a
council,
that
we
have
taken
into
account
our
expert
evidence
and
demonstrate
to
our
residents
that
we're
not
just
playing
lip
service
to
this?
Thank
you.
G
In
relation
to
that
particular
bullet
point:
it's
more
than
just
water
quality,
it's
the
entire,
it's
the
entire
environment.
You
know
if
the
borough
and
obviously
climate
change
and
sustainability-
and
you
know
the
whole
the
whole
extent
of
it
and
I-
think
that
your
question
is
really
around.
G
In
my
view,
when
you
read
the
plan
as
a
whole
and
you
actually
see
where
allocations
are
in
the
policies
that
would
relate
to
those
allocations
and
the
potential
criterias
of
the
policies
for
those
allocations,
they
need
to
be
addressing
that,
which
is
the
reason
why
those
policies
go
through
an
integrated
appraisal
process
which
is
what's
been.
You
know
done
in
relation
to
those
allocations
at
the
the
end
of
this
agenda.
G
The
woods
work
it
doesn't
it's
not
a
problem
that
people
still
continue
to
question
that
I
think
that
that's
only
healthy
that
we're
continually
questioned
as
to
whether
our
policies
are
going
far
enough
or
deep
enough
to
address
the
issues
that
are
being
raised.
I'm
not
going
to
say
here
right
here
right
now
that
everything's
all
watertight
and
zipped
up,
because
that's
the
pro
that's
the
reason
for
the
process.
B
G
In
terms
of
the
stuff
that
you
have
here
before
you
tonight,
the
woods
assessment,
which
is
the
very
last
appendix
in
the
papers,
goes
to
some
extent
to
to
look
at
some
of
those
points,
as
well
as
obviously
the
full
site
appraisal,
but
in
terms
of
an
independent
people.
We're
already
starting
to
use
independent
people
to
check
that.
H
A
You
very
much
I
just
want
to
say
that
Council
Harbor
is
substituting
for
Council
James
and
Council.
Katechka
is
substituting
for
councilor
Peter,
okay,
just
to
get
them
every
Everything
correct
for
the
record
Council
Harvey,
please.
Thank
you.
Chair.
H
When
I
reread
this
coming
into
this
evening's
meeting,
one
of
the
things
that
strikes
me
about
the
language
is
that,
as
colleagues
have
said,
at
face
value
because
of
its
high
level.
There
isn't
necessarily
a
sense
of
well
I,
fundamentally
disagree
with
that
line
or
that
sentence,
but
if
you
set
it
against
the
context
of
the
housing
numbers
and
again
we're
back
into
the
same
debate,
the
context
changes
completely.
H
But
fundamentally,
you
come
back
to
that
same
point,
that
the
language
is
so
high
level
that
with
18
000
houses,
it
could
be
quite
damaging
to
large
parts
of
our
border.
In
the
context
of
the
debate,
we've
been
having
around
the
table
so
at
some
point
this
evening,
whenever
it's
appropriate
to
do
so,
I
just
feel
so
strongly
and
I'm
sure
others
do
of
saying
no
to
the
spatial
strategy
because
of
the
housing
numbers,
and
that
would
be
an
opinion
I
would
come
to.
H
But
I
want
to
hear
whatever
the
debate
is,
but
when
ready,
chair,
I'd
love
to
move
a
motion
that
rejected
the
spatial
strategy.
Because
of
that
position
on
the
housing
numbers,
I
can't
see
how
you
can
square
the
two.
You
can't
it's
a
bigger
mix
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
what
we're
into
I
think
the
fundamental
problem
is
the
numbers
and
once
that's
addressed,
the
rest
of
the
debate
goes
from
there
but
I
respect
where
office
isn't
coming
from.
I
know
what
you're
doing
I
get
it,
but
that
doesn't
change
how
we
feel
about
it.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
okay,
councilor
connection,
please
thank.
I
You
chair,
I,
was
going
to
save
my
question
to
section
five
but
I
think
given
the
the
conversations
we're
going
home
safely,
okay,
I
I
will
write
in
that
case.
Okay,.
A
A
No
okay!
Thank
you
very
much,
okay.
So,
let's
move
on
to
section
four
and
appendix
one:
okay,
which
both
can
both
contain
the
draft
spatial
strategies.
I'd
like
to
take
these
both
together,
because
I
think
that
it's
important
to
discuss
the
each
of
the
the
strategies-
okay,
one
at
a
time.
So
does
anybody
have
a
comment
on
one
of
the
spatial
strategies?
Please
cancel
recurators.
J
J
We
say
here:
it
is
recognized
that
the
Parish
councils
of
Headley,
high
clearance,
will
just
have
expressed
concerns
about
the
principle
of
the
new
settlement
policy
boundary
around
those
settlements.
However,
this
is
considered
to
be
a
suitable
and
consistent
approach,
reflecting
the
size
and
level
of
sustainability
of
those
settlements.
I
was
just
a
little
bit
concerned
reading
that
because
it
sounded
like
we'd
kind
of
overruled,
the
parish's
concerns
so
I
suppose
I
just
wanted
reassurance
from
officers
that
that
we
have
worked
with
our
parishes
and
taken
those
concerns
into
into
consideration.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
Council
Brothers.
Okay.
How
do
you
want
to
okay
Joe?
Would
you
like
to
provide
an
answer?
Thank
you
very
much.
I've.
K
Just
on
that
I
mean
this
committee
is
seeing
the
settlement
study
before
that
we've
done.
We've
talked
about
that
as
a
different
committee
and
following
the
methodology
that
was
in
that
that
included
these
settlements,
the
settlement
policy
boundaries,
so
that's
kind
of
where
that
comes
from
and
that's
that's
the
evidence
basis
it's
behind
it.
But
absolutely
we
keep
on
having
conversations
with
parishes.
We
very
much
know
their
concerns
and
we'll
continue
to
have
those
conversations
as
we
go
through
the
process.
A
C
To
be
a
bit
nitpicky
chair,
but
looking
at
ss1,
if
this
is
the
appropriate
time
to
discuss
it,
there's
four
asterisks
against
the
homes
number
of
homes
and
infrastructure
and
homes
from
Greenfield
site.
At
what
point
will
those
become
solid
numbers.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
will
try
and
make
this
succinct,
but
it's
actually
it's
a
subject.
That's
very
close
to
my
heart
and
my
residents
as
well
to
policy
ss5.
The
policy
sets
out
the
council's
support
for
neighborhood
planning.
No
I,
don't
think
this
local
plan
does
show
that
support
for
neighborhood
planning
and
I'll.
Tell
you
my
rationale:
why
strategic
gaps
so
there's
a
definition
on
page
96
of
the
Strategic
Gap.
F
The
gaps
have
not
been
defined
to
protect
the
countryside
or
landscape
they're,
essentially
a
planning
tool
to
prevent
the
coalescence
of
settlements
and
maintain
the
separate
identity
of
settlements,
and
that's
the
exact
same
wording
from
our
current
extract
local
plan,
which
is
on
page
104
of
that
this
Council
conducted
a
strategic
gaps
published
the
Strategic
gaps
topic
paper
back
in
October
2014.,
where
the
conclusion
was
that
strategic
gaps
will
contribute
to
the
achievement
of
sustainable
development
by
preventing
the
areas
in
the
borough,
where
there's
greatest
risk
of
coalescence
strategic
Gap
policies
can
help
Safeguard
local
distinctiveness.
F
There
are
rural
Villages.
The
character
of
those
rural
Villages
was
was
appreciated
by
a
motion
that
was
passed
by
this
Council
earlier.
This
year,
to
ensure
that
the
character
of
rural
communities,
in
particular
those
Villages
closest
to
business,
look,
is
not
materially
impacted
by
Housing
Development.
The
second
part
of
that
motion
was
to
ensure
that
Villages
closest
to
basenstock
are
afforded
stronger
protection
from
housing
development
through
policy
mechanisms
that
protect
the
character
and
integrity
of
The
Villages.
F
How
can
we
turn
around
to
those
parishes
and
say
we
Define
the
Strategic
Gap
in
2016,
and
here
we
are
now
in
2022,
we're
changing
that
strategic
Gap.
This
is
about
protecting
the
character
of
our
villagers.
We
should
set
that
in
stone
unless
there
is
clear
policy
reasons
for
us
to
change
that,
and
that's
something
I
feel
quite
strongly
about,
and
it's
most
probably
the
one
reason
why,
at
the
moment,
I
do
not
support
this
special
strategy
along
with
the
housing
numbers.
F
A
Thank
you
very
much
Council
McIntyre.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
comments
on
the
the
Strategic
gaps,
Council
Harvey.
H
On
the
Strategic
gaps,
I
do
agree,
I
think
there's
a
complete
contradiction.
Isn't
there
between
the
idea
of
having
a
policy
that
supports
or
treating
gaps
and
then
having
the
idea
of
Greater
basing
Stoke
that
eats
up
Parish
fields,
you're
in
that
position
of
well?
What's
real
about
that
other
than
the
fact
that
we
are
destroying
the
Strategic
gaps,
we're
having
a
policy
as
a
fig
Leaf,
so
either
we
have
to
have
a
policy
of
strategic
gaps.
H
We
stick
to
it
another
principle
that
is
actually
something
that
stands
up
scrutiny
or
we
say
doubt
and
stop
fooling
The
Villages,
because
I
don't
think
it's
fair
on
them
at
all.
In
that
respect,
I
think
the
other
issue
I
pick
up
on
in
terms
of
those
particular
sections,
4.12
and
4.13.
If
I
can
share
on
the
Town
Center
pits
again
it's
the
language
in
all
of
this.
H
That's
used
in
these
documents
and
look
to
see
what
changes,
but
if
I
go
to
the
left
on
policy
np2
on
page
91
of
104
or
page
145.,
typically
in
mid-rise
up
to
six
stories
in
height
with
the
potential
for
taller
buildings
near
the
station.
What
in
the
world
do
we
mean
by
that
for
our
town
center
or
typically
up
to
four
stories
in
height
I?
Have
the
office's
assurance
that
it's
what
they
say?
It
means
as
full
stories,
but
that's
not
what
that
sentence
says
typically
could
be
maybe
taller
buildings
near
the
station.
H
What
in
the
world
do
we
mean
by
taller
buildings,
never
station?
If
it's
anything
like
Skyline,
Plaza
or
Crown
Heights,
then
that's
a
different
context
of
four-story
buildings.
I,
don't
want
cramming
in
the
Town
Center
as
much
as
I.
Don't
want
the
rural
areas.
Overpowered
and
I
don't
want
to
see
large
settlements
that
cannot
be
sustainable
because
of
infrastructure
that
we
always
go
back
around
to
the
same
argument.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Council
Harvey,
okay,
I'll
come
on
to
discuss
or
to
invite
further
comments
on
policy
and
mp2,
and
also
mp1
later
and
I'd
like
to
just
try
and
bottom
out
all
the
comments
please
for
for
posse
em2.
Does
anybody
have
any
more
comments
on
em
to
councilor
Cuban?
Please.
E
Yes,
I
just
want
to
support
what
family
members
say,
but
I
would
also
like
to
flag
that
every
year
in
the
annual
monitoring
report,
we
report
breaches
to
our
strategic
gaps
and
we
build
every
year
houses
in
strategic
apps
that
are
not
supposed
to
be
built
on.
A
D
You
chair:
well,
it
is
to
back
up
what
everybody
says:
the
Strategic
gaps
in
my
experience
of
local
plan
and
local
plan
follow
on
I've
just
written
over.
So
there
is
no
security
in
strategic
gaps.
If
there's
no
security
in
them,
I
don't
even
know
why
we
have
the
policy
I
think
the
policy
should
be
there,
but
I
think
you
should
have.
It
should
be
something
that's
kind
of
endemic
to
us.
I've
seen
it
that's
accurate
right.
Thank
you.
I
mean
you're,
doing
very
well
on
my
dictionary.
D
Brilliant
now
keep
doing
it.
Yes,
absolute
sacrosanct!
Yes!
Indeed!
Yes,
don't
ask
me
to
spell
it,
but
anyway
so
yeah
it
it
I.
I
live
my
fence
where
I
live
is
a
strategic
Gap,
except
when
they're
going
to
build
houses
on
it,
because
it
was
seen
as
part
of
let's
build
housing
in
the
Strategic
Gap.
We
have
a
strategic
gap
between
Sheffield
and
Bramley,
which
is
strangely
the
mod
land.
D
C
It's
look
when
you
look
at
strategic
gaps,
I'm
looking
at
two
or
three
on
there,
where
I
think
the
current
local
plan
is
all
obliterating
strategic
gaps
and
the
ones
that
spring
to
mind
are
the
top
two
Oakley
and
shermanson
John
we're
looking
at
sites
in
shermanson
John
that
are
basically
Rooks
down
they're,
basically
going
to
be
joined
up
so
I'm,
not
sure
that
there
will
be
a
strategic
Gap
that
the
plan
might
say
it's
a
strategic
gap
for
the
public
perception
would
be
not
simply
basically
Oakley
after
many
down
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
Strategic
Gap
will
look
like
there,
I
mean
at
the
moment
as
you
come
out
of
working,
you
get
to
scraps
Hill
and
it
gets
rural.
C
It's
a
60
mile
per
hour
of
speed
limit.
You
go
over
scraps,
Hill
and
then
you're
in
a
40
mile
per
hour.
So
there's
where
we've
got
40
mile
per
hour,
speed
limits
along
much
of
our
sort
of
outer
reaches
of
rural
settlements.
I
can
see
a
time
when,
basically,
it's
never
going
to
be
60
miles
per
hour
anyway
between
between
Road
and
similarly
further
south,
and
if
it
went
down
south
there's,
proposals
for
substantial
builds
of
seven
and
a
half
thousand
houses
between
basinstoke
and
Oakley,
Bay,
Stoke
and
North
Waltham
and
I.
C
Don't
want
to
get
in
the
specifics
of
that
just
to
say
that
it
will
be
extremely
difficult
to
connect
those
to
the
Basingstoke
settlement,
irrespective
of
the
traffic
concerns
and
the
sewage
concerns.
The
water
supply
concerns
is
the
the
physical
location
of
them
and
how
they're
going
to
actually
connect
to
the
limited
number
of
roads
in
the
camp
shop
area.
C
So
I'm
not
sure
whether
the
Strategic
gaps
actually
do
what
they
say
on
the
tin.
In
this
local
plan.
B
A
Anybody
else
have
any
comments
on
em2,
okay,
Council,
Harvey,
I
think
you've
already
spoken
on.
There.
A
I
just
want
to
take
the
the
the
comments
yeah,
we'll
we'll
come
on
to
ss5
in
a
minute.
Okay,
so
I've
noticed
that
you
want
to
speak
on
on
that.
Okay
I
just
want
to
finish
off
em2,
first,
okay,
so
and
get
the
committee's
comments.
So
if
there's
no
more
comments
on
on
em2,
let's
move
over
to
ss5
from
councilor
Harvey,
please
thank.
H
You
Jay
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
link
that
we're
talking
about
strategic
gaps
and
we're
talking
about
where
Parish
boundaries
may
be
or
Community
boundaries
may
be,
and
those
communities
developing
neighborhood
planning
over
the
years
I've
heard
any
voices
against
neighborhood
planning
in
this
Council.
But
what
I've
heard
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
frustration
about
what
neighborhood
planning
can
achieve
and
what
it
can't
achieve
and
where
it
leads
communities
very
frustrated.
H
The
issue
now
is
that
say
in
the
parish
area:
we're
now
identifying
greater
Basics
token
we're
eating
into
those
strategic
gaps
and
we're
saying
that
Field's
going
to
have
200
houses
there,
but
that's
not
part
of
your
Parish
that
shouldn't
be
part
of
your
neighborhood
plan.
That's
part
of
Greater
Basingstoke,
that's
a
complete
it
just
is
so
it's
frustrating
there's
anything
out
of
you,
because
the
reality
is,
though
200
homes
are
in
the
Parish
of
X,
Y
and
Z,
and
they
are
of
course
going
to
have
an
impact
on
whatever
neighborhood
plan
is
created.
H
So
we're
just
going
to
have
some
honesty,
I
think
with
the
communities
that,
if
this
Council
votes
for
those
major
spatial
strategy
sites
in
those
parishes,
those
units
are
in
those
communities
and
we
shouldn't
lie
to
them
and
think
that
they're
going
to
have
a
sense
of
developing
a
neighborhood
plan.
That
hasn't
got
an
impact
on
that
because
it
will
so
I
just
think.
There's
some
truth
here.
That
needs
to
be
had
in
this
and
I'm,
not
sure
it's
there
at
the
moment.
A
D
You
yes,
neighborhood
planning,
I
mean
in
this
document.
It
also
refers
to
allocation
of
housing
to
be
provided
in
The
Villages
by
neighborhood
planning
that
this
one
fundamental
problem
is
that
that
these
neighborhood
plans
they
don't
own
land,
they
don't
have
the
right
to
develop,
they
could
say,
develop
five
houses
on
a
field,
and
this
field
is
in
a
developer,
it's
in
the
Sheila
and
it
could
have
600
houses
that
a
developer
wants
to
do.
So.
D
If
I
don't
see
that
mechanism
working
and
the
conversations
that
we've
had
with
parishes,
it
are
that,
if
you
don't
do
it
through
neighborhood
planning,
we,
the
borough
will
place
these
houses
for
you
now
slightly
Draconian
I
feel.
But
we
need
to
work
with
parishes
and
neighbor
planning
to
actually
address
this.
How
we
can
actually
do
it,
what
is
actually
possible
in
your
actual
Parish,
rather
than
go
away
and
sort
it
please
and
report
back
and
by
the
way,
keep
it
in
line
with
the
local
plan.
D
I,
don't
think
the
mechanism
works,
I
have
a
great
belief
in
neighborhood
planning
and
on
DC,
when
we
were
able
to
it
does
carry
a
lot
of
weight,
and
it
is
this.
This
is
localism
It's
a
chance
for
people
to
actually
tell
us
what's
important
what
endears
themselves,
what
what
views
are
important.
All
of
those
things
are
worthwhile,
but
placing
of
houses
on
land
you
haven't
got
is
very
difficult.
Thank
you.
C
A
Thank
you
Council
for
Cormac
yeah
yeah
tablet
is
actually
mentioned
in
the
approach
to
the
the
rural
areas.
Okay,
so
we
can
where
we
can.
We
can
cover
that
off
in
in
section
six.
Okay,
so
does
anybody
else
have
any
other
comments
on
the
spatial
strategies.
E
So
I'm
a
little
bit
confused,
Mr
chairman
as
to
the
order
you're
taking,
because
I
thought
we
were.
But
anyway,
councilor
Harvey
made
a
reference
to
the
Town
Center
strategy,
which
is
in
the
special
strategies
and
I
100
agree
with
him
that
the
residents
of
Basingstoke,
both
in
the
rural
and
in
the
center,
do
not
want
to
see
high-rise
blocks
of
flats
and
I.
E
100
agree
with
him
that
we
want
to
see
Basingstoke
remain
a
market
town
and
not
look
like
some
of
our
nearby
less
attractive
places,
and
so
I
would
like
the
special
strategy
to
undertake
to
build
no
higher
than
four
stories
in
apartment
blocks
in
Basingstoke
Center,
because
that
would
then
adhere
to
and
respect
the
statements
by
the
leader
that
he
wishes
Basingstoke
to
remain
the
market
town
that
it
always
was,
and
we
have
examples
of
four-story
apartment
blocks
being
built
extensively
in
Hook
at
the
moment,
and
we
can
learn
from
what
they're,
building
and
I
don't
think.
E
We
should
be
building
any
higher
than
four
stories
anywhere
and
in
the
event
that
we
do
build
full
stories.
I
wish
in
the
special
strategies
for
us
to
undertake
to
ensure
they
have
lifts
so
that
parents
with
children
and
Buggies
aren't
expected
to
carry
their
children
and
their
buggies
and
all
their
food
in
their
bags
up
four
flight
stairs.
A
Thank
you
very
much
that
was
in
mp2
if
I'm
currently
is
that
that
correct,
yeah
yeah
okay
does
anybody
else
have
any
more
whilst
we're
on
mp2
and
it's
been
open?
Does
anybody
have
any
more
recommendations
or
comments
to
make
on
mp2.
A
I
Thank
you
chair
what
a
question
really
on
mp1
as
we're
talking
about
the
Town
Center
at
the
moment,
top
of
page
88
in
the
green
box.
I
We
talk
about
enabling
new
decked
parking
Provisions
serving
the
Town
Center
to
be
developed
as
independent
structures,
rather
than
integrated
with
other
uses
in
larger
buildings
and
I
was
just
interested
in
what
the
rationale
behind
that
was
because,
in
my
non-expert
head,
that's
sort
of
going
back
to
the
potentially
back
to
the
the
1970s
horrible
concrete
blocks
that
we
used
to
have
that
we've
got
rid
of
over
the
past
few
decades
and
we've
replaced
them
with
more
of
these
mixed
use
combined
parking
sites,
it's
interesting
to
see
why
we're
deciding
to
go
back
to
Independent
structures.
A
Okay,
does
anybody
else
want
everyone,
mp1,
okay,
councilor,
Harvey,.
E
H
Thank
you,
chair
councilors,
were
privileged
to
have
a
a
workshop,
a
while
back
now,
but
we
all
had
the
presentation
from
the
various
Consultants
that
were
working
on
the
town
center
and
it
was
an
interesting
conversation
at
the
time
with
one
of
the
Consultants
who
happened
to
come
from
London,
which
is
a
perspective
on
this.
Where
the
argument
was
well,
we
don't
want
parking
in
the
Town
Center.
We
want
to
discourage
it.
H
H
And
so
when
policies
are
written
to
talk
about
reducing
the
overall
number
of
car
parking
spaces
or
we
talk
about
decks,
where
are
those
decks
going
to
be
because
I'd
certainly
don't
want
them
at
the
back
of
the
station?
Given
the
impact
that's
currently
having,
and
given
the
fact
that
Network
rail
can
grant
themselves
planning
permission,
that
is
quite
an
enticing
line
in
this
particular
policy.
H
So
I'm
just
confused
about
parking
policy
in
the
Town
Center,
not
only
from
the
fact
that
we're
halfway
through
the
town
center
strategy
being
developed,
but
we're
trying
to
write
a
policy
in
the
local
plan
for
that
end
and
I
realized
that
you're
already
going
out
for
what
potentially
would
be
consultation
on
a
policy.
But
I've
just
got
an
awful
lot
of
confusion
in
np1
here,
I
think
in
terms
of
what
we
want
to
achieve
and
what
we
might
set
free
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
see
at
all.
A
Thank
you,
Council
Harvey.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
comments
on
np1,
okay,
councilor,
McIntyre
and
then
councilor
Tomlin?
Please.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
it's
all
yeah,
yes,
I
I,
just
I
I
just
want
to
pass
on
my
comments
that
I'm
I'm
actually
happy
to
see
walking
and
cycling
and
infrastructure
as
one
of
our
key
policies
as
part
of
mp1
and
I
absolutely
agree
that
that
it's
imperative
that
we
put
this
infrastructure
in
place
and
it
actually
needs
to
be
safe.
F
What
I
would
like
to
recommend
to
Cabinet
is
that
we
actually
keep.
On
top
of
this,
though
I'm
aware
the
business
will
condemn
local
cycling
and
walking.
Infrastructure
plan
was
published
and
I
supported
my
residence
in
particular
to
to
pass
comment
to
this.
F
But
what
I
don't
want
to
see
is
that
LC
whip
just
fall
at
the
Wayside,
because
there's
absolutely
some
some
key
cycling
and
walking
infrastructure
that
needs
to
be
put
in
place
to
connect
our
outlying
rural
areas.
Thank
you.
E
E
Don't
think
Basingstoke
is
the
market
town
that
should
have
car
Parks
removed
and
I
I
I
I
agree
with
councilor
McIntyre
it's
great
to
have
the
walking
infrastructure
and
the
cycle
infrastructure,
but
to
get
rid
of
car
parks
in
order
to
facilitate
that
I
completely
disagree
with.
D
Right,
I,
wouldn't
wouldn't
have
your
job
so
anyway,
right.
D
Yeah
the
department
I've
got
actually
is
right
in
the
beginning,
in
the
sort
of
overarching
text
and
mp1
there
that
says,
be
highly
sustainable
resilient
to
climate
change
and
embracing
innovative
ways
to
improve
the
environment.
I'd
like
to
see
something
like
you
know:
we've
committed
to
Net
Zero
by
2030
kind
of
time's
running
out
and
we're
not
saying
anything
like
that
in
that
shape
or
form
it's
it's.
Let's
could
we
let
we
should?
Let's,
let's
try
it,
we
must.
We
must
do
it.
We've
got
a
time.
D
Time
is
not
time
is
not
going
backwards,
it's
going
forwards
and
then
just
as
a
comment,
I
haven't
been
to
the
capital
city
for
a
long
time
and
I
went
yesterday
and
I
went
on
the
train
to
Waterloo
and
if
we're
going
to
have
high-rise
buildings
and
build
Basingstoke
around
the
station,
like
they're
doing
on
the
entrance
to
Waterloo
God
help
us.
Thank
you.
A
C
Now,
just
to
Echo
Council
tomlin's,
point
of
the
stretch
that
he
refers
to
in
Battersea
has
changed
almost
beyond
recognition,
but
I
have
had
discussions
with
our
head
of
planning
on
this
in
one
of
the
ones
ones
that
was
offered
I.
Think
we've
reasonably
confident.
That's
not
going
to
be
the
case
in
Basingstoke,
however
I
suspect
other
members
might
want
to
see
something
in
there
about
how
we
might
limit
the
high-rise
development
in
is
around
the
station.
There
does
seem
to
be
a
national
Trend
in
the
Southeast,
at
least
for
cramming.
C
All
your
high
rise
near
Railway
stations,
East
croydon's,
another
example
there's
quite
a
few
going
up
in
reading,
wokings
and
other
examples,
so
I
think
we
are
vulnerable
to
having
developers
coming
along
and
wanting
to
build
higher
rise
near
the
railway
station.
C
A
A
A
A
Get
comments
on
the
spatial
strategies
that
are
most
important
to
to
members.
Okay,
so
we've
we've
discussed
a
lot
of
them.
What
about
policy
ss3?
Does
anybody
have
any
comments
on
that?
Okay,
councilor,
McIntyre?
Sorry,.
F
Mr,
chair
can
I
just
clarify.
Have
we
covered
policy
ss1,
because
policy
ss1's
talking
about
the
scale
and
distribution
and
at
part
A?
It
says
supporting
regeneration
and
line
with
policy
SS2.
So
this
is
Page
59
of
the
bottom
numbers,
so
it
does
make
reference
to
policy
SS2,
which
I
actually
can't
see.
A
Thank
you
very
much
Council
marketer.
We
did
actually
have
comments
on
on
ss1,
okay,
I'm,
further
firm
for
the
ease
of
members.
If
anybody
else
has
a
hold
on
councilor,
Watts
I've
got
you
there.
Okay.
If
anybody
wants
to
make
a
quick
comment
on
ss1,
okay,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
reopen
it,
but
the
whole
idea
is
to
try
and
take
the
spatial
strategies
which
are
important
to
members,
okay
and
and
give
feedback
and
comment
on
those.
So,
okay,
Council
McCormack,
sorry
counselor
McIntyre.
A
If
you've
got
comments
on
ss1
I'll,
take
them
and
we'll
whack
those
into
the
recommendations.
F
L
It's
going
to
SS2
regeneration
our
role
policy
actually
named
areas
if
I
remember
rightly,
the
new
policy
doesn't
actually
name
areas,
obviously
Northern
south
ham
and
I
think
winklebury
were
named,
but
in
this
updated
policy
it's
not
actually
named
those
areas.
So
I'd
like
to
see
some
more
detail
on
what
regeneration
we're
doing.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
not
sure
this
is
the
right
place,
but
I
will
say
in
case
I
missed
my
opportunity
to
say
it,
and
that
is
in
in
a
nutshell,
we
are
looking
in
the
rural
areas,
so
this
is
sort
of
still
within
the
scale
and
distribution,
I,
think
of
development,
and
we
have
the
policy.
The
fundamental
policy
of
make
big,
bigger
and
I
wish
to
say,
I
think
that
is
totally
wrong.
It's
a
good
starting
point,
but
it's
too
vague
and
we've
made
a
lot
of
our
strategy
and
our
issues
and
options.
D
It's
fitted
that
wish
and
I
don't
think.
We've
ever
debated
whether
that
is
the
right
thing
to
do
now.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
in
there,
because
I
can't
find
the
words,
but
that's
really
where
I
am
that
I,
don't
think
we
should
make
the
big
bigger.
We
should
look
at
the
actual
needs
of
any
particular
settlement
and
work
it
it's
hard,
but
we
have
to
do
it.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
okay
is
that
all
the
comments
for
ss1
Council
Harvey
can.
H
There
were
a
lot
of
concerns
about
SS2
when
members
wrote
into
officers
some
of
the
language
that
was
being
floated
around
at
the
time
in
debate
about
SS2
in
terms
of
densification
and
in
terms
of
what
we
understood
the
generation
to
mean
and
I
think
that
policy
needs
a
another
good
look
at,
because
the
concern
I
would
have
is
that
we
are
taking
as
Council
Watts
has
rally
identified
the
names
of
those
areas
out.
H
H
Make
sure
that
SS2
is
regeneration,
that
we
want
to
see,
and
we
understand
it
better
than
we
currently
do
and
again
I
realize
we'll
come
back
on
it
because
you're
taking
the
comments
on
board,
and
we
need
to
look
at
just
how
you
then
reinterpreted
the
policy
from
where
it
was,
but
just
to
put
it
on
record.
There
was
some
serious
concern
about
the
Regeneration
policy
and
the
way
it
was
written.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
so
does
anybody
else
have
any
more
comments
on
ss1?
No,
okay,
let's
move
to
ss3
then.
Does
anybody
have
any
comments
on
ss3,
counselor
katachuca?
Please.
M
M
Where
will
the
buildings
go?
Are
we
are
you
looking
at
expanding
that
side
of
off
town
again
many
down
and
some
fields
and
the
golf
course
and
further
Popham
Village?
That's
a
question
I
would
like
to
ask
because
it
I
feel
like
it's
we're
all
right,
jack
doesn't
matter
what
happens
to
you
guys
on
the
other
side.
That's
how
I'm
feeling
at
the
moment,
with
some
of
the
comments
made
and
that's.
Why
I
wanted
to
really
ask
about
my
fellow
counselors.
H
H
Many
members
sat
here
over
what
80
months
now
through
this
process
so
far,
but
let's
put
up
a
good
year,
and
one
of
the
things
that
was
commented
on
first
of
all
was
that
this
entire
debate
could
lead
to
an
absolute
pitting
sites
and
Villages
against
each
other,
and
that
was
the
very
last
thing.
I
think
any
member
any
of
the
54
of
us
want
to
sing,
and
if
we're
going
to
get
into
that
debate,
then
I
think
we
are
doing
our
residents
a
real
disservice.
H
H
Doesn't
it
because,
then
you
are,
if
you
take
a
different
number,
a
much
much
lower
number
than
the
very
debate
we're
having
around
this
table
on
this
committee
becomes
a
totally
different
conversation
and
at
the
moment
that
is
the
elephant
in
the
room.
Isn't
it
so
I
completely
agree
with
you
know:
cancer,
contextual
I.
We
shouldn't
be
putting
villages
in
town
against
each
other,
that's
fundamentally
self-defeating!
It's
the
borough
that
we've
got
and
it's
the
government
and
others
that
are
imposing
the
18
000
houses.
H
A
D
Thank
you
chair.
We're
at
the
angle
on
ss3
is
the
one
for
me
about
master
planning,
so
we
we
put
down
certain
places
that
must
be
master
planned,
but
are
we
missing
the
fact
that
we're
putting
more
sites
against
some
sites
than
the
previous
local
plan
that
haven't
come
forward
and
we've
got
no
master
plan
there,
or
are
we
going
to
put
Master
plans
that
actually
do
look
at
this?
D
Do
look
at
how
the
whole
area
is
being
affected,
as
opposed
to
you
can't
mask
man
just
the
one
site,
but
we
we've
kind
of
because
of
all
sorts
of
developer
games.
We
have
not
delivered
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
sites
now
coming
forward.
That
really
could
do
with
a
master
plan,
rather
than
the
few
that
we've
listed
so
I
think
we
should
look
at
spreading
more
and
even
retrospectively
doing
it
where
we
can.
Thank
you.
A
L
I
just
continued
the
debate
actually
I
mean
if
the
government
doesn't
change
the
figures,
I'm
afraid
we're
going
to
get
housing
all
the
way
up
to
North,
Waltham
and
Oakley.
So
that's
an
extension
of
Hanson
fields
and
the
golf
club,
so
that
is,
and
we're
going
to
have
development
in
raw
areas
and
we're
going
to
have
development
in
the
town
which
we
haven't
gone
into
a
lot
of
detail
and
we
talk
about
high
rises.
L
A
Thank
Council,
Watson
I.
Think
if
you
want
to
make
comments
on
the
affordability,
okay,
Factor,
okay,
that
will
be
in
with
their
the
housing
number.
Okay,
I
think
that'll
be
a
good
point
there.
Okay,
so
when
we
go
into
it,
we'll
come
back
to
you.
Okay
I've
got
comments
please
on
ss4,
okay,
Council
Cupid
and
then
councilor
McIntyre.
Please
sorry
about
your
bottom.
Three.
E
Chairman
I'm,
just
just
really
to
confirm
that
I
agree
with
all
the
other
members
comments
already
and
I
wish
for
the
ahead
of
planning
to
take
that
on
board
and
I
also
want
to
contextualize
it
that
if
we
proceed
and
persist
in
this
trajectory,
I
cannot
understand
how
on
Earth,
we
can
simultaneously
Ensure
that
we
undertake
to
enable
the
borough's
key
environmental
assets
are
protected
and
enhanced,
or
that
we
meet
the
climate
change
strategy.
The
two
are
are:
are
are
contradictory.
A
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
yeah
I,
just
want
to
reiterate
my
my
fellow
counselor's
comments
that
this
is
about
the
good
of
basing
stock
and
then
and
we
need
to
absolutely
get
this
right,
I
think.
As
a
council,
we
are
agreed
that
the
number's
too
high
and
I
just
want
to
pay
respect
to
the
portfolio
holder,
because
it's
almost
a
poison,
Childs
I.
Don't
pity
your
job
and
and
I
I
do
appreciate
you
coming
here
and
listening
to
us
and
I.
F
Take
note
of
your
comments
that
you
made
on
the
1st
of
September
that
that
you
are
listening
to
the
committee
on
the
comments
that
we're
making
about
about
numbers.
It's
it's.
It's
a
fact
that
we
cannot
stop
development.
The
population
is
growing
and
every
time
we
do
one
of
these
local
plan
updates.
Unfortunately,
the
previous
local
plan
will
have
taken
the
easy
sites,
so
I
think
it's
just
going
to
get
harder
and
harder.
F
F
However,
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
get
overview
of
that
IDP
and
the
the
infrastructure
that's
in
in
planning
for
for
many
of
them,
so
I
think.
So.
It
was
a
this
committee
where
we
had
comments
personal
comments
from
our
Hampshire
County
councilor
that
were
misconstrued
as
a
statement
of
position
from
Hampshire
County
Council
regarding
the
the
school,
so
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
get
that
ironed
out
right
now.
F
If
this
is
actually
how
we
are
planning
our
strategic
growth
for
our
our
Borough
I'm,
quite
lucky,
to
sit
on
the
many
down
overview
committee
as
well
and
I'm
I'm
councilor
Taylor.
Has
that
in
hand
to
get
that
that
statement
from
Hampshire
County
Council
working
with
our
officers
to
make
sure
that
the
correct
infrastructure
is
identified
and
is
planned
in
so
that
we
have
that
set
in
stone.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
councilman
connection.
Please.
B
M
Follow
up
I'll
follow
counselor
with
regard
to
many
down
south
I
think
sometimes
we
haven't
looked
at
the
other
infrastructure,
such
as
the
green
infrastructure,
as
well
as
other
infrastructures
such
as
schools,
Etc
he's
a
catch-22
situation:
we've
put
ourselves
in
there,
we're
talking
about
biodiversity,
Etc
and
of
environment,
and
the
next
minute
we're
building
high
levels
or
high
numbers,
I
should
say
of
houses.
We
need
to
come
out
with
a
balance,
especially
in
South
many
down
when
it
comes
to
number
of
houses.
A
F
Yes,
Mr,
chair,
I,
do
have
a
comment
on
this
one
and
I'll
it'll
allow
my
fellow
counselors
to
catch
up
and
running
through
the
paperwork,
so
this
is
about
ensuring
a
supply
of
deliverable
sites,
and
this
really
is
just
a
a
comment
to
the
portfolio
holder
and
and
to
officers.
F
Many
do
not.
Let's
learn
our
lessons
from
that,
as
we
plan
out
over
the
next
17
years
and
making
sure
that
we
don't
fulfill
of
that
five-year
land.
Supply
issue
again:
I
have
the
utmost
faith
in
our
officers.
My
my
conversations
with
them
they're
all
extremely
professional
there's,
there's
an
opportunity
to
understand
what
went
wrong
and
make
sure
it
doesn't
repeat
itself.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
Council
McIntyre,
Council
Harvey.
Please.
H
Thank
you
chair
again,
this
kind
of
exemplifies
the
The
Dilemma
in
the
sense
that
we
face
because
of
the
nature
of
sites,
I,
think
and
then
the
deliverability
of
them.
Because
of
our
experiences,
colleagues
are
just
quite
rightly
said,
and
all
right
brand
new.
Prime
minister,
let's
put
our
trust
in
what's
going
on,
but
boom.
H
That's
the
first
one
tonight,
but
in
all
seriousness,
if
the
fighting
how
that
Supply
is
going,
if
the
policy
ground
is
Shifting
and
we
don't
know
what
is
going
on
to
be
perfectly
honest,
I
mean,
for
goodness
sake,
is
it
going
to
be
Jacob
resp
or
is
it
going
to
be
Simon
Clark?
Who
winds
up
with
the
day?
Look
I
mean
God,
help
them
in
that
department.
H
To
be
perfectly
honest,
but
in
all
seriousness,
whatever
policy
is
handed
down,
larger
strategic
sites
will
take
significantly
more
time
to
come
through
the
system
than
smaller
sites
and
in
terms
of
land,
Supply
and
the
manner
in
which
we
balance
all
of
this
just
talking
positively
about
what
I
would
want.
Rather
than
being,
you
know
having
to
always
talk
about
numbers,
some
of
that
Master
planning
bit.
That
can
be
done
early
on
that
encourages
developers
to
get
their
sites
in
order
to
bring
them
forward
around
the
principles
that
we
want.
H
Work
and
those
sites
fall
further
behind
in
the
schedule
and
further
behind
in
the
schedule
and
our
land
Supply
gets
further
behind
so
on
I,
just
think
it
can
tie
up
well
and
now
our
officers
have
expressed
that
themselves.
We
just
need
to
see
the
policies
I
think
achieve
that
end
and
be
tighter
in
that
regard.
D
Thank
you
chair
a
very,
very
bold
statement
here
that
says
that
the
development
will
be
managed
to
ensure
a
five-year
supply
of
sites
can
be
maintained.
D
So,
okay,
we
know
we
have
no
control
over
the
developer
and
that's
a
bit
of
a
Groove,
that's
worn
on
a
record,
but
it's
true
so
am
I
reading
that
as
soon
as
we
sadly
possibly
lose
the
five-year
land
Supply
we
trigger
a
new
local
plan.
Could
someone
answer
that
for
me?
Please.
A
Joe,
if
you'd
like
to
Enlighten
us,
please.
K
A
Certainly
Carl's
Thomas
supplementary
question.
D
K
E
Thank
you
Mr
chairman.
Firstly,
I,
don't
understand
why
and
I'd
like
the
officers
to
explain
why
they've
removed
the
development
of
appropriate
Bradfield
sites,
because
that's
still
government
policy
as
far
as
I'm
aware
that
we're
supposed
to
consider
Brownfield
so
I
I
can't
understand
why
we
would
remove
that.
Secondly,
The
Five-Year
housing
Supply
is
government
policy,
but
might
not
be
and
therefore
I
think
it
would
be
prudent
for
us
not
to
mention
it
in
ss4
at
all.
E
And
thirdly,
I'm
I'm
not
happy
with
the
amendments
in
in
on
page
103,
section
three,
where
the
word
annual's
been
removed,
left
right
and
center
with
regards
to
the
environment
agency
and
the
local
water
quality
issues.
E
A
K
K
E
Facial
strategy
we've
had
a
problem
with
special
strategies
before
where
government
policy
has
changed,
but
because
we've
got
it
written
in
the
plan
we
weren't
allowed
to
refer
to
the
new
spatial
strategy.
What
I
don't
want
is
us
to
be
pregnant
with
an
undertaking
and
a
commitment
to
do
X
when
there's
a
new
statutory
policy
which
deviates
from
that
and
we're
made
to
adhere
to
the
earlier
position.
A
Thank
you
very
much
Carl's
cubit
Joe.
Would
you
like
to
come
back
on
that
or
no
okay.
E
I
I
would
like
her
to
do
to
see
whether
that
is
feasible.
We
don't
need
to
refer
to
the
five-year.
K
I
think
we'll
have
to
take
that
away
and
think
about
it.
I
mean
it
is
the
case
that
when
we
write
the
plan,
we
have
to
reflect
that
current
position
and
things
will
change
as
we
go
through
the
process
as
we're
quite
early
in
the
process,
things
will
change
and
we
can
change
policies
accordingly.
The
problems
we've
had
in
the
past
is
because
we've
been
towards
the
end
of
the
process,
has
already
gone
through
exam
or
it's
already
been
adopted,
and
then
you
can't
change
it
without
reviewing
the
plan.
K
A
Thank
you,
Joe.
Okay,
so
does
anybody
councilor
katechko.
M
It's
again
regarding
the
policy
em6
regards
to
the
quality
of
water.
It's
again
we're
going
to
catch
Trinity
situation
that
I
feel
what
implements
are
we
going
to
have
to
make
sure
the
quality
stays
at
a
certain
level,
and
we
don't
go
below
that
level
with
this
extra
housing
that
are
we
potentially
going
to
have,
because
at
the
moment
they
say
it's
going
to
the
quality
is
going
to
go
down?
Is
there
going
to
be
any
implementation
at
all
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
go
down?
Thank
you.
A
Or,
do
you
want
to
go
and
think
or
Ruth
could.
M
It's
on
policy
ss4
regarding
policy
e
M6,
regards
to
the
quality
of
water
and
the
monitoring
of
it
and
they're.
Saying
it's
going
to
go.
The
actual
Quality
is
going
to
go
down
over
the
wall
set
and
I
just
wanted
to
find
out
what
things
are
you
going
to
put
in
place
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
go
down
in
quality,
with
extra
housing
that
we
could
potentially
have.
A
Do
you
want
to
take
that
that
away,
okay,
so
I'll
take
that
away
and
provide
a
written
answer?
Thank
you
very
much
councilor.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
wants
to
make
a
comment
on
ss4,
no
Okay,
so
process
is
full.
Okay,
we've
made
comment
on
ss5.
What
about
ss7?
Please
anybody
got
a
comment
on
ss7.
L
The
areas
around
the
nuclear
facilities
do
have
housing
need,
and
it's
not
been
addressed
in
this
local
plan,
so
that
was
the
policy.
I
would
take
out,
I
mean
they
have.
They
have
needs
like
everywhere
else,
and
if
you
live
in
cuddly,
do
you
really
want
to
come
to
Basingstoke?
You
know
that
that
would
be
my
argument
and
there
should
be
some
development
in
these
particular
areas.
A
Thank
you
Council
Watts,
just
so
you
know
a
bit
further
on
the
report.
Okay,
in
the
rural
areas,
there
is
a
a
site
which
is
proposed
called
skates,
Lane,
okay,
on
the
south
of
Tavi.
Okay,
you
may
also
want
to
make
comments
on
that.
Okay,
when,
when
the
time's
there
Council
cubey,
please
yeah.
E
I
I
would
agree
with
Council
Watson
I
would
actually
add
to
that.
I
it'd
be
interesting
to
hear
someone
who's
an
expert,
maybe
Council
Carruthers
can
help
me
on
this,
but
I
was
told
that
if
there
was
an
incident
in
awe
Basingstoke
Town's
hit
within
30
seconds,
so
I
I
kind
of
find
it
really
bizarre
that
we're
not
allowed
to
build
entadly
but
there's
30
seconds
and
we're
all
wiped
out
in
Basingstoke.
E
J
Thank
you
chair.
Obviously,
this
is
something
that
people
in
tadley
have
been
dealing
with
for
a
long
time
now
and
it
it
is
a
frustration.
We
were
told
that
we
needed
900
houses,
obviously,
hopefully
once
900
houses
in
Hadley.
J
However
I
you
know
myself
and
other
councilors
from
tadley
at
the
time
all
said
we
didn't
think
reducing
it
to
zero
was
the
answer
and
that
we
do
absolutely
have
a
housing
need
lots
of
people
move
out
of
tadley
because
they
cannot
find
housing
in
tadley
people
who've
grown
up
there,
so
I
do
think
something
needs
to
be
done.
J
The
problem
is,
is
that
I
have
sat
in
meetings
with
representatives
from
the
emergency
planners
and
it's
very
hard
to
argue
with
their
reasoning,
and
we
are
not
scientists
and
going
by
what
they
tell
us
and
and
the
information
that
they
provide.
It
is
in
the
best
interest
of
our
residents,
so
it
is
a
really
difficult
one,
but
regardless
of
this
we
did.
We
have
built
89
homes
in
the
last
few
years
that
have
gone
in
a
little
bit
willy-nilly.
J
Things
do
manage
to
get
through,
but
it
does
seem
a
little
bit
like
there's,
not
a
lot
of
Rhyme
or
Reason
as
to
what
does
get
through,
and
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
would
like
to
see
a
little
bit
more
sort
of
planning
and
to
see
things
actually
in
our
local
plan
so
that
we
are
controlling
where
things
are
going
entadly.
J
As
a
councilor
Force
said
there
is
a
large
application
coming
up
entadly
later
on.
So
it's
it's
really
difficult.
There's
a
lot
of
people
entadly
that
quite
like
the
fact
that
tadley
can't
be
built
in
but
I,
don't
believe
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
our
residents.
I
do
we've
never
actually
done
our
own
Research
into
this
as
a
Borough,
we
go
on
what
we
are
told
by
the
emergency
planners
and
the
advice
of
West
Berkshire,
Council
and
I
I.
J
Do
think
that
perhaps
we
should
consider
doing
some
of
our
own
research
on
this
to
to
really
make
make
up
our
own
minds
a
little
bit
more
on
on
where
we
go
forward
with
this.
Thank
you.
E
Question
because
I
don't
profess
to
be
an
expert,
but
how
many
seconds
is
it
before
we
get
blown
up
in
Basingstoke?
A
It
is
a
very
serious
issue:
okay,
as
a
resident
of
tally,
okay
I'll
be
honest
with
you.
I
never
actually
took
any
notice
of
how
long
it
would
take
to
go
from
tally
to
Main
Street.
Bearing
in
mind
the
fact
that
I
was
probably
going
to
be,
you
know,
ashes
okay
right
at
the
very
beginning,
should
something
happen
but
Castle
Critters.
Can
you
clarify
anything
on
that
score?.
J
The
meetings
that
I've
sat
on
with
awe,
but
the
risks
are
not
that
they
they
tell
me
they
assure
me
that
the
risks
are
not
that
there's
going
to
be
a
big
explosion,
that
that
is
not
what
could
happen.
The
risks
are
actually
more
to
do
with
air
and
water
and
contamination
of
that
sort,
and
actually
the
advice
would
be
if
that
happened,
to
stay
where
you
are
and
to
shut
your
doors
and
windows
and
not
leave,
and
the
reason
that
tadley.
J
One
of
the
reasons
we
have
this
emergency
plan
is
because
they
actually
realize
that
people
wouldn't
do
that
and
what
people
would
do
if
they
were
told
that
there
was
an
emergency,
is
actually
getting
their
cars
and
go
so
they're
having
to
plan
for
how
people
would
behave
rather
than
what
the
risks
are,
but
from
what
I
understand
the
risk
of
an
actual
explosion.
Something
is
major
of
that
or
negligible
that
that
is
not
the
risk
that
we
are
preparing
ourselves
for.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Council
Cupid
I,
don't
have
an
answer
to
your
question.
Okay,
I
I
would
suggest
that
that
maybe
officers
go
away
and
have
a
chat
with
Wes,
Berkshire,
Council
and
partners
to
see
whether
we
can
get
an
answer
for
it
and
come
back
to
you.
Okay,.
A
Yeah
Tom.
B
So
I
am
have
been
involved.
Obviously,
in
the
local
plan,
emergency
planning
arrangements,
so
I've
got
some
familiarity.
Obviously,
the
points
that
councilor
Brothers
has
touched
on
are
correct
in
the
sense
that
there
is
technically
no
reason
that
there
would
ever
be
any
kind
of
incident
of
that
nature
at
awe
aldermaster
in
terms
of
a
explosion
that
you're
describing
yeah.
The
risk
is
much
more
around
the
release
of
particulate
radioactive
materials.
B
So
it's
about
that
how
that
would
be
blown
off
site
and
therefore
the
concentrations
that
local
residents
potentially
would
be
exposed
to
in
the
result
in
if
there's
a
fire
on
site
or
something
of
that
nature.
So
there
is
a
requirements,
obviously
through
the
emergency
plan,
potentially
to
evacuate
people
depending
on
what
the
circumstances
are,
and
those
are
the
factors
that
get
sort
of
looked
at
in
close
detail
in
terms
of
how
they
would
respond.
H
Please,
okay,
just
in
some
way
support
what
council
cupid
is
saying
because
it
it
there
is
no
invisible
force
field
that
goes
around
a
perfect
circle
around
tadley
that
suddenly
The,
Fallout
or
whatever
particulates
will
appear
will
stop
dead.
They
won't
the
very
nature
of
a
plume.
Is
that
it's
a
plume?
That's
the
very
nature
of
it,
and
so
this
is,
it
is
arbitrary.
That's
the
point!
It's
it's
a
simple
planning,
arbitrary
thing,
but
it
has
major
impacts
for
communities
and
I.
H
Don't
think
it's
wrong
of
us
to
question
the
impact
that
that
has
on
those
communities
from
affordable
housing
entadly
compared
to
some
arbitrary
force
field.
That
is
not
going
to
stop
particulates
affecting
King's,
clear
shipments
and
John
and
other
communities
because
we're
there
to
be
an
incident.
Of
course
it
would
so
it's
just
that.
The
actual
the
methodology
being
used
here
is
very
arbitrary.
A
Thank
you,
Council
Harvey,
Council
Watts,
please
sorry,
councilor,
McIntyre,
sorry,
McCormack
and
Peggy.
Pardon.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
well,
I,
have
to
say,
I
can't
believe
the
nature
of
the
ill-informed
comments
by
councilors
Harvey
in
Cuba.
If
you
want
to
understand
the
risks
associated
with
all
the
master
read
up
on
it.
First,
the
only
scenario
I
can
see
where
all
the
Marsden
explodes
is
in
the
event
of
nuclear
war,
and
that
would
be
something
that
would
affect
all
of
us
and
that's
not
something
we
can
plan
for
the
idea
that
a
reactor
would
explode
to
novel
style.
You
would
need
to
have
evidence
based
on
the
design
of
acting.
M
C
Completely
irrelevant
counciloris
is
Right,
we've
had
Tom,
also
mention
the
risks
associated
with
a
nuclear
incident
are
Fallout,
either
water-based
or
air-based.
There's
a
limited
degree
to
which
we
can
mitigate
against
that
I'll.
Also
say
he
councilor
Harvey's
point:
oh,
it
might
go
as
far
as
King's
key
or
whatever
well,
we
might
also
get
nuclear
fallout
blowing
over
from
Normandy
in
the
nuclear
power
stations
there,
but
that's
not
a
reason
to
not
build
anything
in
a
local
plan.
C
C
A
You
very
much
okay,
I
I
would
I.
First
of
all
would
like
members
to
treat
each
other
with
respect
and
courtesy.
Please,
okay,
that
also
that's!
That's
everybody.
Okay,
so
I
think
comments
saying
that
people
are
uninformed.
Okay
on
a
foolish
and
uneducated
are
not
are
not
helpful.
Okay,
so
I
would
like
you
know
to
to
move
on
please,
okay,
so
if
no
one's
got
any
more
questions,
okay
on
that's
right,
councilor
McIntyre,
please.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
to
clarify
some
comments
that
councilors
had
made
previously.
F
My
understanding
is
that
it's
not,
we
can't
build
with
entadly
we
we
can
propose
developments
within
tadly
as
long
as
it
meets
the
depsy
and
in
consultation
with
the
onr,
so
I
think
we
definitely
shouldn't
be
excluding
say
allocation
for
tadley
going
forward,
but
we
should
consider
obviously,
the
constraints
that
are
imposed
in
that,
but
still
continue
to
try
and
put
forward
some
smaller
developments
within
the
settlement
policy
boundary
to
address
the
those
those
requirements
for
affordable
housing
as
an
example
that
that
my
fellow
Council
I
gave.
A
You
councilor
McIntyre,
okay,
I've
got
one
more
policy
that
we
we
haven't
had
any
comments
on,
which
is
ss9.
A
L
K
H
Say
that
that
policy
was
very
important
in
shaping
the
form
and
shape
of
what
the
lecture
part
was
going
to
be
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
it
drop,
because
that
policy
in
effect,
has
an
effect
on
what
the
Leisure
Park
is
and
given
what
was
proheublessly
proposed
for
the
lecture
Park,
which
was
nothing
to
do
with
leisure.
H
That
policy
was
incredibly
useful
and
Incredibly
powerful,
so
I
don't
want
to
see
it
dropped
at
all.
It
was
a
good
policy
and
we
might
will
be
coming
up
with
a
master
plan
and
we
might
will
be
coming
well.
That's
for
somebody
else
to
come
up
with,
but
I'd,
like
our
local
plan,
to
keep
his
position
on
ss9.
A
E
Yeah
I,
like
they
had
a
planning
to
explain
to
us
how
the
mechanisms
work.
If
we
have
a
reg
18
and
it
goes
to
cabinet
and
it
doesn't
have
a
policy
in
it
and
we're
told
all
the
way
through
everything's
iterative.
Can
we
introduce
new
policies
of
reg
19
that
haven't
gone
through
the
reg
18
phase.
L
Echo
those
points,
the
the
current
policy
says
it
should
be
a
prime
Leisure
location
destination
and
the
Town
Center
should
be
the
Town
Center
for
shopping
and
I
would
like
that
policy
to
to
stay
the
same
I,
don't
see
why
we
should
change
and
why
we
can't
go
out
to
Reg
18
and
say
this
is
our
policy,
because
it's
it's
in
line
with
the
policy
we
have
at
the
moment.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
Council
Watts,
okay,
what
an
accident
now
is
is
hand
over
to
council
canesco
because
he's
been
scribbling
frantically,
okay,
comments
and
recommendations;
okay,
just
to
sum
up
for
me.
Thank
you.
How.
I
Do
you
sum
that
up
I'll
do
my
best?
I
If,
if
anyone
does
disagree
vehemently
with
what
I
say,
but
please
do,
let
me
know
in
terms
of
General
comments
has
been
further
pushed
back
on
the
housing
number
and
we
need
to
need
to
continue
to
push
central
government
about
that.
There
has
been
the
challenge.
Is
the
the
make
big
bigger
the
right
approach
for
us,
and
should
we
be
looking
Instead
at
the
the
individual
needs
of
the
individual
settlements
going
then
through
the
policies
in
terms
of
the
order
we
tackled
them?
Em2
there
was
the
suggestion.
I
We
should
be
strengthening
the
Strategic
Gap
policy
to
make
sure
that
we
do
not
inadvertently
give
permission
for
these
gaps
to
be
breached
in
the
future
ss5.
I
How
do
we
make
sure
that
the
neighborhood
plans
work
in
practice
and
that
local
communities
have
a
genuine
say
and,
and
that
they're
listened
to
and
and
that
is
it
happens
on
an
ongoing
basis?
We
then
spoke
about
MP,
the
two
Town
Center
policies,
mp2
mp1,
with
mp2
concerns,
were
raised
about
the
the
high-rise
blocks
and
making
sure
that
though
we
we
strengthen
the
wording
to
make
sure
that
there's
nothing
higher
than
four
stories.
We
don't
want
to
become
like
nine
Elms
in
London
we're
a
market
town
with
mp1.
I
I
We
need
to
encourage
alternative
uses,
but
not
necessarily
at
the
expense
of
reducing
parking
provision
in
the
town
stick
with
a
carrot
rather
than
the
stick,
and
it
was
also
a
request
to
strengthen
the
info.
Sorry,
the
intro.
Rather
so
we're
we're
talking
about
the
climate
emergency
and
and
that
yeah
we.
This
is
something
we
must
do,
not
not
something
that
we
would
like
to
do.
I
Moving
on
to
SS2,
we
want
to
add
back
in
the
names
of
the
areas
that
are
prioritized
for
a
generation,
and
there
was
also
concerns
about
densification
by
accident.
So
that's
an
area
that
we
need
to
review
with
ss3
we're
looking
to
expand
the
master
planning
to
more
sites,
potentially
sites
that
have
retrospect
from
these
sites
that
are
already
in
the
process.
Ss4.
I
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
learn
the
lessons
from
the
lack
of
a
house,
a
five-year
housing
land
Supply
question:
should
we
remove
the
reference
to
the
five-year
housing
land
Supply
from
the
document
to
make
sure
that
we're
sort
of
future
proof
in
case
government
policy
around
that
changes?
And
there
was
a
request
as
well
to
reinstate
the
annual
review
of
the
monitoring
of
the
water
body.
I
Qualities
ss7
wants
to
look
at
the
feasibility
of
building
new
homes
in
tadley
and
undertaking
a
review
as
well
to
find
out
what
the
what
the
restrictions
actually
are
and
then
finally
ss9.
We
spoke
about
the
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
policy
at
some
point
on
the
Leisure
Park
before
the
local
plan
is
adopted
and
I
think
that's
that's
the
highlights.
A
Councilor
kaneshko,
okay,
yeah
yeah.
That's
probably
a
tease
made
in
there
as
well,
somewhere,
okay.
So
what
yeah?
Absolutely
what
I'd
like
to
do
now
is
move
on
to
section
five:
okay,
which
is
meeting
housing,
needs
and
I'd
like
to
look
at
first
of
all,
the
overall
housing
number,
which
seems
to
be
the
elephant
in
the
room.
Okay,
so
does
anybody
have
any
comments
on
the
housing
number
Council
McCormack.
C
Well,
I
think
that
the
will
of
the
council
and
this
committee
is
well
known
on
this,
and
I
would
move
that.
We
reject
the
17
800
figure
and
asked
the
cabinet
re-engage
with
the
new
government
with
a
view
to
understanding
why
that
figure
has
been
put
to
us
and
what
scope
we
have
for
having
a
lower
figure,
especially
taking
into
account
the
new
Census
Data.
That's
available,
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
implications
are
for
that
in
the
plan.
C
H
Can
I
agree
with
councilor,
McCormick
and
second
his
motion?
If
he's
putting
that
as
a
motion
to
the
floor
of
the
committee,
because
I
think
he's
right,
I
just
think
you're
right
is
the
elephant
in
the
room
when
we
round
the
houses
on
this
for
nearly
a
year,
it's
coloring,
absolutely
everything
in
what
we
debate
discuss
full
stop.
Unless
this
thing
changes,
then
we
are
going
to
be
forced
into
a
position
that
realistically
we're
going
to
have
to
choose
between
our
residents
and
doing
something
that
we
are
told
is
potentially
unlawful.
H
Well,
I,
don't
think
it
is
if
you're
standing
up
for
your
residence
and
turns
that
actually
for
bases
don't
contain
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
and
it's
a
very
difficult
choice,
but
it's
one
that
I
feel
very
comfortable
making
because
I
know
what
my
loyalty
is
lying.
They
lie
to
my
residence
into
the
borough
and
I
know
all
you'll
do
too
and
I'm.
Conscious
of
that,
we
all
share
that
priority
I'm,
just
conscious
as
well
of
the
link
into
the
spatial
strategy
itself.
It's
that
notion.
H
Isn't
it
to
have
a
debate
about
where
you
want
development
to
go
based
on
80
000
houses
is
often
choice.
You
just
don't
want
to
have
that
debate,
because
actually
you
don't
want
to
destroy
the
green
fields.
We
don't
want
to
destroy
the
Town
Center.
We
don't
destroy
our
villages,
we
want
to
have
a
proper
debate,
so
where
should
the
housing
go?
Because
we
know
we
need
housing,
we
do
need
affordable,
housing
and
I
mean
affordable.
We
do
need
to
see
some
development
in
our
Borough
to
support
local
need.
H
That's
given
I
just
think
the
quality
of
the
debate
around
18
000
houses.
We
can't
have
that
debate
easily
or
in
any
sense
of
reason.
So
unless
that
gets
changed,
I
think
actually
we're
going
to
be
going
around
a
circle
so
cabinet.
Please
help
us
here.
I,
don't
mean
to
be
disrespectful
but
find
the
spine
to
join
us
in
that
regard,
as
we
do
and
let's
try
and
push
back
against
the
government
in
the
way
we
should
do-
and
you
know
fingers
crossed.
Let's
say
what
the
new
prime
minister
does.
H
Is
she
going
to
honor
what
she
said
to
the
Tory
party
members
that
she's
going
to
do
away
with
the
300
000
figure
that
it
will
be
based
upon
local
need
and
a
local
assessment,
and
that
it
can
be
a
proper
debate
that
we
can
have
a
basis
tokens
in
about
the
proper
number
of
houses
that
we
genuinely
need
to
grow
properly?
I,
don't
think
the
debate
about
growth
and
expansion
is
a
bad
way
of
splitting
it
either.
Expansion
I
think,
is
a
word
used
by
others.
That
was
very
bad
and
I.
H
Think
growth
could
be
something
quite
positive
if
we
choose
to
make
it
so
so
yeah
the
housing
numbers
is
important.
Our
second
Council
of
McCormick's
motion
and
I
will
go
so
far
to
say
what
I
said
originally,
when
I
wanted
to
move
something
to
reject
the
actual
spatial
strategy
based
on
those
numbers.
F
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
chair
I,
just
wish
to
add
my
voice
and
support
of
councilman
McCormick
and
councilor
Harvey
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
councilor
Harvey
has
been
paying
attention
to
our
future.
Prime
Minister
and
I
hope
that
we
can
have
your
vote
in
an
election.
If
there's
a
general
election
coming
up,
she's
had
some
very
good
policies
that
are
there,
but
no
getting
back
to
the
get
getting
back
to
the
matter
at
hand.
I
mean
in
all
seriousness.
This
committee
has
has
implored
cabinet
to
reject.
F
The
number
of
this
Council
has
implored
cabinet
to
reject
this
number.
I
have
faith
that
are.
Our
cabinet
will
listen
to
us,
we're
not
seeing
no
development,
we're
seeing
sustainable
development,
making
sure
that
the
infrastructure
is
there
in
place
and
that
we
meet
our
local
housing
need
and
not
a
nationally
imposed
Target,
but
I'm
I'm.
Very
glad
that
this
is
a
cross-party
coming
across
and
hopefully
cabinet,
listens
to
the
message
and
takes
that
forward.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
H
A
A
That
is
the
one
rejecting
the
spatial
strategy
is
that
correct
and
based
upon
the
housing
number
okay.
So
let's
take
a
a
vote
on
the
first
motion,
which
was
councilman
cormax
motion
seconded
by
councilor
Harvey,
which
is
to
reject
the
housing
number.
A
Or
those
saying,
I,
okay,
it
is
unanimous,
I,
okay,
okay,
so
that
motion
is,
is
passed:
okay,
I'm.
Moving
on
to
the
second
motion,
which
is
for
as
to
reject
or
we're
recommending
that
we
reject
the
the
spatial
strategy
strategies
currently
based
on
the
current
housing
number.
Is
that
correct?
Okay,
all
those
for
it?
A
What
so,
sorry,
please
keep
your
hand
up
one.
Two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
okay,
those
against
councilor,
can
I
ask
which
were
you
voting
for
was
that
for
it
for
it?
Okay,
so
that's
eight!
Okay,
those
voting
against
it.
A
Okay,
one
two!
Okay,
is
there
any
extent?
Abstentions,
no
okay,
so
that
motion
is
is
agreed
as
well.
Okay,
the
time
is,
eight
o'clock
I'm,
proposing
a
quick,
five
minute
break
okay
and
then
we'll
get
back
to
it.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.