Councillors have signed off on a programme to divvy out £7million to projects across the borough, after warnings that if it was unspent the funds would be returned to property developers.

It was revealed at a full council meeting last month that Basingstoke council has a ‘large amount’ of unspent Section 106 money, with documents showing this totals £10.35M.

S106 funds are developer contributions given to the council by property developers as part of an agreement to build a development.

It is intended to be spent on community facilities, in way of mitigation for any inconvenience or loss to residents in the area being developed.

However, if unspent within a specified period, it is returned to the developer.

Cllr Tristan Robinson, member for homes and families, said he had made it “abundantly clear that that is not acceptable”, adding: “We need to spend that money on improving the lives and life chances of people in our borough.”

In November 2020, the Gazette reported that the council had £10.35M in unspent developer contributions.

Four months on, the same amount remains, leading to pressure on the council to invest in much-needed community facilities.

However, councillors have now signed off on projects which will use £7.69 million of this in the next five years, leaving £2.63M unallocated.

This includes £3.256M to be spent in the 2021/22 financial year - up from just £1.44M in 2020/21.

The earmarked money is set to go towards projects including: homelesseness and affordable housing; play area improvements; improvements to Whitchurch Town Hall; and improvements to outdoor spaces in Sherfield-on-Loddon, Brookvale and Kings Furlong.

£90,000 in developer contributions has also been set outside to bring two council-owned derelict houses back to lettable standard, which the council has been accused of wasting public money on by allowing them to reach a state of disrepair.

The council has also come under fire for not setting aside any money for two major community facilities in need of it - Basingstoke ice rink, and the Camrose football ground.

With such a large amount of unspent funds, both feel strongly that investment in their facility would be of considerable value to the area.

Sally Casham, chair of the Basingstoke ice users forum, said: “I think some of it should be put towards the ice rink, it's beneficial to the whole of Hampshire, never mind Basingstoke.

“With the May elections coming up, now is the time for the people of Basingstoke to let them know what they want from their council. It’s time for the people who use the ice rink to make their feelings known.”

Meanwhile, Kevin White, chair of Basingstoke Town Community Football Club, told the Gazette that millions in unspent developer money was “ridiculous”, given the need for contributions for community projects, such as the club’s campaign to return to the Camrose football ground.

He said: “I would suggest that’s an outstanding amount of unused money, particularly as it’s supposed to be given back into the community on the basis that they’ve lost something.”

Council leader, Cllr Ken Rhatigan, said: “In a week’s time, we are not allowed to spend money, so we cannot commit money at this time. But after May, we will do everything in our power to find what the money is most needed for and use it accordingly. We will scope it out with the councillors for the areas that have been affected by development.”

When asked whether the council would consider spending some of the money on the Camrose football ground or the ice rink, Cllr Rhatigan added: “There has not been big development close to the ice rink. Places like Norden that are in desperate need of upgrades to their facilities will be first in line.”

He added: “The person that shouts the loudest should not just get the money. Obviously, if money has been taken from developers it should be spent, but if you put it all into projects in the middle of town, you have to remember that this is a rural as well as an urban borough and the people in the rural areas start to feel like they are not getting a fair share.”

In response, Kevin said: “I understand that if there is a ward that loses a facility, it should probably be spent back in that ward. But Basingstoke is not big enough that people won’t travel to use community facilities, so I say use [the money] sensibly, and where it should be.

“With the Camrose, we are putting together a business plan for a community hub, and the whole point of it is to be inclusive of the whole community, not just the people of South Ham or Brighton Hill.

“[Cllr Rhatigan] has already proven it can be done, because the money to improve Winklebury, I believe, was taken from the development at Sherborne fields.”

Addressing the question of whether the council risks losing the funds, Cllr Rhatigan said: “I do not believe there is a risk of any monies going back to developers on the basis that we have not spent it. I am absolutely convinced of that.”