A site near junction 7 of the M3 could be set to get just one new warehouse instead of four after council officers urged councillors to approve a quarter of the controversial scheme.

Two separate planning applications for the Basingstoke Gateway warehouse development, which could be the future home of Amazon, are set to be decided next week.

Councillors are being urged to refuse outline plans for four warehouses, but approve plans for a 630,000 square foot distribution hub, in a special meeting of the council's development control committee on April 7.

Planning officer Sue Tarvit has said that the full plans would be "detrimental" to the landscape, but that the single warehouse would "deliver employment opportunities".

The controversial proposed development has divided opinions since it was first revealed by The Gazette last summer.

Politicians, including the mayor of Basingstoke and six of Hampshire's MPs have joined hundreds of residents in objecting to the scheme.

But the boss of one of Basingstoke's biggest colleges gave his backing to the plans in announcing a training deal last week.

It is thought that the scheme could bring £150 million of investment to the borough and create around 1,500 new jobs.

Here, we explain everything we know about the scheme and how the decision may go.

What is planned for the site?

Newlands Property Developments have submitted two separate planning applications for the site.

The first of these is an outline planning application for four warehouse units.

A second, full, application was submitted just months later for the largest of these units.

It's understood that Amazon will be the future occupier of this largest unit.

What does the council think of the plans?

There has been various political debates around the scheme and whether it is suitable for the site, especially considering it is directly opposite the presumed new hospital site.

But the decision to approve or refuse the applications cannot be determined by a political decision, and must be cited in planning law, using the National Planning Policy Framework and BDBC's local plan.

The council's planning team, who will advise councillors whether the plans are acceptable or not, have returned different verdicts on the two applications, recommending one for approval and one for refusal.

Sue Tarvit has said that the application for the four warehouses should be refused.

In her recommendation, she says that it would be "detrimental to the character and visual amenity of the landscape", and fail to mitigate those impacts.

She adds that because of its size, it fails to conserve biodiversity assets and does not prevent harm from skylarks, a key species on Oakdown Farm.

But, Ms Tarvit and the planning team have a different opinion on the full application for the single warehouse.

They recommend that councillors approve the application, subject to a legal agreement between the developer and council being reached.

Ms Tarvit's decision says that the scheme would provide "inward investment and a storage and distribution site of a size and location, being well related to the strategic road network and easily accessible to HGVs".

But in contrast to the decision for the full scheme, it is said that due to the extent of mitigation, "it is considered that the impact [on the landscape] can be accepted when balanced against the benefits", which include the creation of jobs.

The report adds that the scheme would not result in an "undue loss" of privacy or other disturbances to other neighbouring properties, whilst it would not have an impact on road safety.

Finally, it adds that the proposal would "conserve" biodiversity, once mitigation is taken into account.

Who will decide the scheme?

The decision will be taken by 12 councillors who sit on BDBC's development control committee, in a virtual meeting on April 7.

They are: Paul Miller (Chair, CON), Nick Robinson (Vice Chair, CON), Dave George (CON), David Leeks (CON), Sven Godesen (CON), Jane Frankum (LAB), Stephanie Grant (LAB), Paul Harvey (IND), Andy McCormick (LAB), Michael Bound (LDM), David Potter (IND), Chris Tomblin (IND).

However, the decision taken must be applied to planning law and cannot be solely political.

Will it be approved or refused?

Because the planning team has recommended decisions for both applications, the councillors can simply agree to follow these.

However, they will hear from both the developers, speaking in favour of the scheme, and residents who wish to speak against it.

Additionally, they will likely be addressed by councillors in the Oakley and North Waltham ward, which is where the proposed development sits.

In order for a decision going against the planning team's recommendation, a councillor must propose a motion during the meeting, cite the planning policy reasons behind their decision, and it must be seconded by a fellow committee member.

Then, a vote will be taken, with a simple majority needed for it to pass.

It is not uncommon for a decision that goes against the recommendation of the planning team. Most famously, the team had recommended that planning applications for a housing estate and care home on the Camrose ground be approved, when councillors unanimously decided to reject them.