Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council reject calls to set up flooding reserve fund

Flooding in Buckskin earlier this year

Flooding in Buckskin earlier this year

First published in News by , Reporter

CALLS for a flooding reserve fund to be set up by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council – after the local authority reported a £1.8million profit – have been rejected.

Councillor John Izett, cabinet member for property, finance and commissioning, told last week’s full council meeting that the borough had made a surplus of £1.8m between April 2013 and March 2014.

However, Cllr Izett said that the figure included money that hadn’t been spent during the previous year, which would be used during 2014-15, and additional income from services such as planning permission fees.

But Labour councillors David Potter and Jack Cousens called on Cllr Izett to set aside £322,000 in a reserve to help flood victims across the borough, and residents who may be affected by imminent cuts to Hampshire County Council’s Supporting People programme.

Cllr Potter, who represents Popley East, told the meeting: “I commend this amendment to you this evening, and it would show real intent and real concern by the council for its residents in the very special circumstances. If it is not needed in the end, there is no harm.”

Labour councillor for Buckskin Cllr Nigel Pierce added: “I have been down in Buckskin for many days. I have seen people beside themselves with hurt. They feel unloved, they feel unwanted, and they don’t understand why things are not happening.

“To debate this amendment and to say they cannot have a fund that provides them with support is simply ludicrous.”

But Cllr Izett rejected the calls, telling the meeting: “What this report demonstrates is that the running of finances at the borough is done prudently, and we have got the necessary reserves available to us to provide help to our residents when those problems have been identified.

“When we know what the situation is in relation to Supporting People, we can then take the right sort of analytical view on it.”

The Labour councillors’ motion was narrowly defeated with 28 councillors, including Independent member Onnalee Cubitt, voting against the proposals and 27 members, including Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors, voting in favour of the plan.

Five councillors – Tory members Steven Peach and Dan Putty, Labour councillor Vivien Washbourne, and Liberal Democrat members Keith Watts and Paula Baker – were absent from the meeting.

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:24pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Ambivalent says...

"When we know what the situation is in relationship to Supporting People, we can then take the right sort of analytical view on it"
Councillor Izett, thirty bed spaces for vulnerable people have already gone. Might I suggest by the time you know what the situation is, it will probably be too late. Whatever happened to planning ahead? You should be planning now, in the likely event that the funding will be cut, not taking an analytical view on things while people will are being made homeless or the elderly are losing their support. I suspect we all know where this will end, and that is with increased homelessness, and all that is associated with the loss of services. However, what is important is that by the time you start taking an analytical view on things, the elections will have taken place, so no need to worry perhaps?
"When we know what the situation is in relationship to Supporting People, we can then take the right sort of analytical view on it" Councillor Izett, thirty bed spaces for vulnerable people have already gone. Might I suggest by the time you know what the situation is, it will probably be too late. Whatever happened to planning ahead? You should be planning now, in the likely event that the funding will be cut, not taking an analytical view on things while people will are being made homeless or the elderly are losing their support. I suspect we all know where this will end, and that is with increased homelessness, and all that is associated with the loss of services. However, what is important is that by the time you start taking an analytical view on things, the elections will have taken place, so no need to worry perhaps? Ambivalent
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree