COUNCILLORS have decided to overturn a covenant on land in Kings Furlong which would have prevented its use as a homeless accommodation facility.

The recommendation was put to cabinet members this evening (March 9), to approve a “revision” of a covenant on 180 Culver Road, which states that the area be used for the purposes of the Children’s Act 1948 and for no other purpose.

The covenant was included as a condition of sale of the land to Hampshire County Council in 1965, but can legally be altered “where social, economic and environmental benefits can be achieved”.

Giving the covenant ‘NIL value’ will allow Basingstoke council to support ongoing plans, in collaboration with Two Saints homelessness charity and Hampshire County Council, to build a 23-bed temporary accommodation block at 180 Culver Road.

At the cabinet meeting, concerns were raised by a resident of Culver Road and opposition councillors, one of whom branded the decision ‘opportunist’.

Mr Orchard, who lives on the road, said: “I have read the council’s report and the Two Saints brochure. Both of them make everything sound perfect. But are the council aware that virtually all of those who live locally are opposed to this development?

“Nobody can deny that a hostel is necessary, but Culver Road is not the place.”

Mr Orchard outlined resident concerns, many of which have previously been voiced by his neighbours, including that Two Saints have only canvassed the 50 houses nearest the site, when the impact would be much more widespread; concerns for young children walking to school and the nearby playpark; and litter problems and noise at night reported at Two Saints nearby Newbury facility.

These resident worries were emphasised by Cllr Kim Taylor (Labour, Brighton Hill), who added: “This is a really difficult subject and area for a lot of people. Clearly we want to do a lot to help people who are homeless, particularly people who have been street homeless for a long time.

“However this seems very, in a sense, opportunist because unless this particular property had come up we wouldn’t have necessarily sought it out.”

She continued: “My main concern is about consultation with local residents. It is a job of us as councillors to hear residents and I have had some contact with residents in the area where they are raising a concern that their voices are not necessarily being heard. I have to say this is a big 18 page report and there is less than one paragraph on consultation with residents.

“There is a suggestion that our officers will be talking to residents more later on, but I’m just wondering whether we shouldn't be doing it now. This is a bit previous to be deciding on the covenant, to be rushing forward with this at this moment when what we should be doing is asking officers to provide a fuller report on the engagement with residents.

“At the moment they do not feel like they are being heard, that anyone is giving them a voice or at the moment that their current elected officials are representing them.”

Cllr Andy McCormick (Labour group leader) asked whether any alternative sites had been considered, as well as for details on management of the site.

He added: “As a member of the development control committee I am not supposed to have an opinion on this as it may come before committee at some point. But I think some of the concerns raised may be concerns for any councillor that casts their eye on it.

“What assurances can the residents have that there won't be issues with parking, anti-social behaviour, and drinks and drunks paraphernalia?”

In response Cllr Robinson, member for homes and families, said he “would question the use of opportunist”, stating that this was by no means the first scheme considered.

He added that he “completely refutes” any suggestion that ward councillors are not representing their residents, as he has worked with them, and other interested parties, on this issue “for more than a year” to “ ensure the voices of their residents are being heard”.

Encouraging members to support the altering of the covenant as the next step in the process, he continued: “Helping the most vulnerable people is a key priority. I think it's important that we remind ourselves of why we are doing this. We have a Housing and Homelessness strategy that was approved unanimously last year.

“It is unacceptable that the average age of a rough sleeper is more than 30 years younger than average for others. I am committed to not sweep these issues under the carpet and to find solutions, rather than reasons to delay.”

He said he “appreciated” resident concerns, and is working with Two Saints to encourage further public consultation.

Concluding the discussion, council leader Cllr Ken Rhatigan added: “I think it is very important that we do not keep shuffling people from pillar to post. This tonight is just about the covenant, there will be a planning process to go through.

“I have stressed that there is a need for Two Saints to interact more fully to make sure people don't just see it on a piece of paper, but I also appreciate that interaction and communication has not been as easy in the past few months.”

The recommendation to alter the covenant to allow Two Saints to progress to the application stage was then officially supported by the cabinet.