September 17, 2020

Regarding: 19/01110/OUT and 19/02889/OUT

 

Dear Councillors,

We write to you in our capacity as the local newspaper representing the town of Basingstoke in relation to your role on the development control committee. 

Ahead of next week’s meeting, we urge you to vote against plans to build on the Camrose football ground for the following reasons:

  • The application goes against the intended purpose for the land to remain as a sports facility until 2053. The Gazette has provided evidence that fans who had shares in the club were pressured into selling them, believing they held no value, before the freehold was purchased. It is our view that councillors must call for further legal guidance into whether this practice is acceptable.  
  • Losing a sports facility of this scale will have a negative impact on the town. The council acknowledges in its own local plan that it must provide more green space for residents. This runs counter to that.
  • Building a new road to service this development in connection with Hampshire County Council runs against the council’s objectives to be a green authority and carbon neutral by 2025.
  • This development adds little value to the residents of Basingstoke. Residents in Mansfield Road say it is not in keeping with the area. There is already a high number of housing developments and projects in development in the town. There is no justified need for more housing in this already built-up part of town.
  • The planning officer Sue Tarvit who recommended the application for approval has not outlined any provisions for a like-for-like replacement stadium. Upgrading Winklebury is not adequate compensation. We note Sport England has appeared to have changed its position after “working with council officers”. This does not change our view that simply upgrading Winklebury short-changes the public.

Councillors, you are each in the privileged position to hold elected office. The people of Basingstoke have put their faith in you when they elected you to represent them. While the turn-out for local elections is low and you may have even been co-opted in, this does not detract from the sole purpose of a borough councillor which.

Someone once said people stand for office for one of four reasons: money, ego, power or public duty. What motivated you? We trust it is the latter.

More than 2,500 residents have signed petitions against this while this application has attracted 66 letters in opposition. We ask that you listen to the public at next week’s meeting and listen to your constituents, above the local government officers advising you.

The council has the power and the funds to take ownership of the Camrose and bring it back into the hands of the community. If the authority has been able to invest £10million in developing a fantastic new hotel, questions will rightly be asked about why it cannot invest capital in retaining a community asset.

To draw our letter to a close, we ask you to reflect on the original purpose for the Camrose ground. It was gifted to the people of the town by landowner Lord Camrose in 1953. He signed a covenant to protect the land from development until 2053.

It is our view that the council has not investigated to the best of its ability the implications of the covenant. Approving any application without an audited investigation sends the message that covenants in the borough of Basingstoke aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

Please be advised we will shortly be requesting all communications on this matter between the council, Basron, Sport England, Hampshire Highways and other associated parties under the Freedom of Information Act 2005.   

We believe this issue is a text-book example of a council putting wealthy individuals and developers above the needs of the community and we will pursue an agenda to enforce transparency that the people of Basingstoke deserve. Please note this letter will published online today and in next week’s paper.

Basingstoke Gazette