THE borough council should have a better understanding of “real housing need” rather than a “generalised calculation dictated by the government", a councillor has said.

As previously reported, on September 5 councillors again agreed that the number of new homes planned for Basingstoke and Deane should be rejected.

Government calculations suggest as many as 17,820 new homes need to be built in the borough by the end of 2039.

Borough council documents reveal that the authority needs to build 7,703 houses more than it currently has in the pipeline.

It's part of the update process of a document called the local plan, which sets the rules surrounding the development of the borough and can be used by developers as a blueprint on where and how to build houses.

SEE ALSO: Councillors say no to plans that would see more than 17,000 houses built in Basingstoke and Deane

This was the second time the committee has made the decision, in September 2021, councillors unanimously voted in favour of rejecting the number of new homes, which is set under the government’s standard methodology procedure.

During a full council meeting, held on Thursday, October 20, Cllr Chris Tomblin put forward a motion calling on the council to collect new data, describing the pause as the perfect time to do so.

He said: “This motion seeks a commitment to deliver a local plan that is derived from the wishes and the needs of the existing residents in the borough and develop the borough's overall needs.

“This council should have a better understanding of our real housing need rather than a generalised calculation dedicated by our government."

He continued: “A community-led approach is required, now as we are paused that is time to engage with communities, the wards, the parish, and the neighbourhood plans teams to establish the needs across the borough.

“Let us identify the true needs and let us learn what it is like living today in our communities and drive the housing number with on-the-ground research.”

He said the pause is the time to gather “quality information” to fill the missing gaps.

The idea received support from many councillors in the room including the leader of the Labour group Cllr Andrew McCormick

He added: “I am all in favour of local determination. There is a difference between doing decisions locally which I am all in favour of and making decisions that will stand up to legal scrutiny when a developer decides to send them to appeal. Sadly, we are in a bit of a difficult position as we are with our five-year housing supply.

“What we don’t speak about is the people who can’t speak for themselves, who are waiting for housing, how do we address that as a borough and how can we make sure we can build houses for our residents? I would give this motion a cautious welcome.”

Cllr Onnalee Cubitt agreed, she said: “As councillors as well I think the stated objectives are absolutely the essence of why we bother to stand for election.

“I don’t think that we should be in any doubt as conservatives that we are blameless and neither is Dame Maria Miller who has failed to do anything about the number of houses imposed on us and only now has come out and said she has a problem. It is a complex situation.”

READ MORE: 'Dominant and intrusive' plans for retail park refused after raft of objections

Meanwhile, Cllr David McIntyre took a controversial approach.

He said: “This motion struck a chord with me, not because of the subject but because the wording sounds so familiar and it was familiar. Having only been elected in May I have tried to familiarise myself with the history behind our house number.

“I realised that in 2006 Cllr Paul Harvey proposed something similar to this motion.”

He said he believes the local plan process is “being used a football” by some councillors. He said that Cllr Harvey had previously pushed the town into the front of the queue and “much like an oil tanker once it is set it takes time to deviate.”

In response, Cllr Harvey said it is important that the council make the most of the pause on the local plan, he agreed with the motion and putting “silly party politics aside".

The motion was passed.