A MAJOR regeneration of Winklebury has been given the go-ahead, despite councillors and residents arguing that there was a lack of ‘positive engagement’ and claiming that it broke several of the borough council’s policies.

On Wednesday, November 8, members of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s development control committee approved Vivid housing association’s plan to build 203 new homes, 4.5 acres of public open green space, a new pre-school, a community centre, a medical centre and pharmacy, public play area, and a new retail hub with parking.

During the meeting committee members heard from ward councillors and residents criticising the scheme, but it was eventually approved by eight votes to two.

READ MORE: 203 homes, pre-school and medical centre approved to regenerate part of Basingstoke

Basingstoke Gazette: Mark Peters, chairman of the Winklebury and Manydown Action Group, claimed the application breached 17 borough council policies and that it has not been “subject of positive engagement with the local community”.

He continued: “There is a massive underprovision of parking on the Winklebury Centre site, the proposed new and much higher buildings on the Winklebury Centre will be built closer to the properties on Warwick Road, the proposed medical centre is named as a benefit of the plans yet the number of caveats in the Integrated Care Board letter casts doubt on whether it can be taken on by them. 

“This proposal will only repeat the mistakes of the past, other regenerations in Basingstoke are resident-led, this one has been to quote Vivid ‘unashamedly housing-led’.”

Mr Peters and residents were given the backing of ward councillors.

SEE ALSO: Concerns raised over 'unsafe' derelict Basingstoke pub after child electrocuted

Cllr Abigail Compton-Burnett said: “They (Vivid) fail to demonstrate that the medical centre can be provided and phased to support the requirements of the proposed development. This failure is demonstrated by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board's response to these proposals, which states that the business case, leasing structure, funding structure and build schedule for the medical centre have not been agreed."

The councillor continued: “The proposed community centre on the ground floor of the Winklebury is not equivalent to or better than the Play Council facility and Fort Hill Community Centre which will be lost permanently. The proposals also fail to take advantage of the opportunity to co-locate the community centre with open space on Fort Hill.”

She added: “It doesn't even come close to replacing the facilities that we are losing.”

A petition was started in 2022 and signed by 840 residents calling for Vivid to start working with them and stakeholders.

READ ALSO: 'These plans represent what Vivid wants, not what Winklebury needs' - panel submits scathing report

Cllr Angie Freeman said during the meeting: "Although all Winklebury councillors and residents agree that there is a desperate need for regeneration these plans fall far short of the needs and wants of the existing community. Winklebury deserves a regeneration scheme akin to Oakridge and the Popley schemes which were both community-led from the outset.”

She added: "Winklebury deserves a regeneration, but it deserves better than this."

Cllr Andy McCormick added: “If Winklebury Centre doesn't get regenerated it will die but we only get one shot of this, the needs of the community must be born in mind, if Vivid get planning permission will they just stop where they are and not address the shortcoming?”

Cllr Alex Lee also expressed concerns about the removal of the open space at Carisbrooke Close and that residents will need to travel further to open space than the council’s standards allow for, along with issues around crime and a lack of parking.

Committee member Cllr Colin Phillimore recommended the plan be approved, saying: “Whilst objectors, borough councillors and Hampshire County councillors would have preferred a better version of a planning application, we are dealing with what's in front of us, and for those reasons only I can't see any reasons for refusal.”

Basingstoke Gazette: This was seconded by Cllr Ronald Hussey, who said: “I've listened carefully this evening and there are a lot of negatives that people have mentioned, some of them are not relevant to this application and others contradict the advice of officers and consultees. 

“I then had to look at what this scheme will bring to the area in terms of regeneration of facilities and the provision of affordable housing and on balance I must support the officer's recommendation [for approval] because I think this scheme brings far more than some of the negatives that have been mentioned. It's not a perfect scheme, maybe we could do better, but that's not for us to decide.”

Cllr Ken Rhatigan urged Vivid to not take the council’s approval as a “rubber stamp of what might happen but they try to improve it as the process goes on”.

However, Cllr Diane Taylor called for the application to be rejected, saying: “I'm sitting here thinking that it doesn't sound like we are talking about a regeneration project at all. You would expect an element of enthusiasm for it, but I don't see any at all.

"Local people and councillors have been expressing their hopes, their fears and their expectations and ideas from the very start and I can't find good enough evidence that they have been heeded at all. It's basically a development project with one or two extras added in.”