Issue - meetings

1.      That views of council have been reviewed by Cabinet following the consideration of the submission ‘close enough to be local, big enough to stay strong’ at Full Council 24 September 2025.

2.      That the full proposal to government at Appendix 4 of report CAB3515 be approved, including the council’s primary support for Option 2 within the proposal, for submission to Government by the 26 September 2025 deadline

3.      That it be noted that a final version of the proposal is under preparation following external legal advice which details that Option 3 will be referred to as Option 1A which is Option 1 as the core option but this is wholly conditional upon a formal request to Government as part of the Council’s submission to undertake a modification to permit Option 1A as outlined in the proposal documents.

4.      That it be noted that council has agreed that in the event of minor changes being necessary to the proposal, if they are agreed by all 12 councils, that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive is authorised to agree such amendments on behalf of Winchester City Council.

Councillor Tod advised that the report had been debated at Council the previous evening and a copy of the draft notes of that meeting had been circulated to all councillors present at Cabinet.  In summary, he stated that no alternative proposals had been submitted, it was essential that a decision was made by the government deadline and there was a majority support for Option 2 as outlined in the report.  In addition, the public engagement response indicated a preference for Option 2.   At Council, concerns had been raised around the level of detail of the financial modelling, which would be explored further at this Cabinet meeting.  In addition, there were other matters raised that would be considered at a later stage of the process such as consideration of how we manage risk, how we factor the environment into future plans, how to address the challenge of a potential democratic deficit from reduced councilor numbers and larger authorities, and how to protect the mayoralty.

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillors Lee, Godfrey and Bolton addressed Cabinet as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee stated that he remained unconvinced by the proposal, believing the suggested new authority would not be local and would be too large. He proposed a compromise that the council submit Option 2 as its preferred "least worst” option but simultaneously request a pause in the process to allow for a more balanced assessment. He justified this by highlighting several concerns, including the lack of a mandated climate impact assessment, the absence of a risk register, the potential for a democratic deficit with oversized councils, and concerns regarding the timing and meaningfulness of the public consultation.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey expressed concern about the lack of detailed financial information provided to the cabinet relating to the projected savings of £63.9 million, whilst accepting assurances regarding the quality of work undertaken by the council’s Section 151 officer. He highlighted the significant difference between this figure and Hampshire County Council’s (HCC) forecast, which predicted nearly £95 million less in savings annually. He contended that without access to the detailed models, Cabinet could not determine if the new authority would be financially sustainable or express a clear preference for an option and generally advised a more cautious approach on predicted savings.  In addition, on behalf of Councillor Horrill who was unable to attend the meeting, he queried what would happen if option three (now Option 1A) was put forward by the government and Newlands parish did not want to be moved out of the mid-Hants authority?

Councillor Bolton

Councillor Bolton acknowledged that while residents welcomed the simplification of moving to a unitary system, they remained concerned about local identity and a potential democratic deficit. His primary concern was the lack of granularity of data and the high model risk associated with the financial projections. He cited the reorganisation in Cumbria as a cautionary tale of overestimated savings and underestimated costs, warning that poor financial outcomes can lead to service failures.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Full Council is asked to:

1.    Consider the Cabinet report of 25 September 2025 attached and make any comments for Cabinet to consider

2.    Note that Cabinet is asked to approve the full proposal to the Government of the proposals for local government reorganisation in Hampshire and Isle of Wight at their meeting on 25 September 2025 and in doing so, pending consideration of the views of council, indicates this councils support for Option 2 of the proposed new unitary authority geographies for Hampshire and Isle of Wight.

3.    Note that a final version of the proposal is under preparation following external legal advice which details that Option 3 will be referred to as Option 1A. Option 1A is Option 1 as the core option but this is wholly conditional upon a formal request to Government as part of the Council’s submission to undertake a modification to permit Option 1A as outlined in the proposal documents.

4.    Agree that in the event of minor changes being necessary to the submission, if they are agreed by all 12 councils, that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive is authorised to agree such amendments on behalf of Winchester City Council.

The Leader introduced the Report prior to Council hearing Questions submitted by Councillors (agenda item 5).

The Mayor invited questions from Council on Report CL176 and its appendices.

In summary, the following matters were raised, and each were responded to by the Leader:

1. A question was raised as to whether it would be appropriate to pause the process, given perceived gaps in the government's criteria and a number of external unknowns.
2. An explanation was sought for the significant difference between the savings forecast in the Council's proposal (£63.9m) and the loss forecast in Hampshire County Council's proposal (over £31m).
3. Clarification was requested on whether Cabinet members had seen the detailed financial modelling for disaggregation and implementation costs.
4. A question was asked as to whether there were any areas where the proposal was considered weaker when assessed against the government's six criteria.
5. Clarification was sought on how a decision on council groupings could be reached without Cabinet having seen detailed financial forecasts for the proposed new authorities.
6. A question was asked about the inherent risks within the financial model being used, particularly in light of its previous application in the Cumbria reorganisation.
7. An explanation was sought as to why a four-unitary model had not been modelled, as it might have been more cost-effective.
8. A question was asked regarding what backup plan was in place for parts of the Winchester district that were included in the proposals of other councils.
9. Clarification was sought on whether concerns raised by Hampshire County Council about alleged "incorrect statements" in the report would be addressed before its final submission.

Council the proceeded to debate the matters in the report. In summary, the following matters were raised:

1. It was stated that the choice was to either refuse to participate in the process or to act responsibly by submitting the preferred Option Two.
2. Option Two was supported as it would keep local government closer to communities, create a unitary of a viable size, and group similar rural areas together.
3. A request was made to ensure the historic mayoralty of Winchester was retained in any new structure.
4. Concern was expressed about the lack of access for all councillors to the detailed financial data underpinning the proposal, which was felt to be essential for making a fully informed decision.
5. The significant discrepancy between the financial forecasts of the Council’s proposal and the Hampshire County Council proposal was highlighted as a major concern.
6. It was argued that the process was not a choice but had been imposed by government, and the proposal represented the best collective effort of 12 councils to create a logical plan within that framework.
7. The need for councillors to place trust in the professional judgement of the twelve Section 151 officers who had produced the financial case was noted.
8. Concern was expressed regarding the Hampshire County Council proposal regards the creation of authorities that would be among the largest in the country by population, spread over vast geographical areas, and therefore not truly local.
9. The consultation process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6