Agenda and draft minutes

RESOLVED:

          That the minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Council held on 9 July 2025 be approved and adopted.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Councillors or Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs), other registerable interests (ORIs) and non-registerable interests (NRIs) in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Councillors Porter, Tod, Wallace and Williams each declared disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of agenda items due to their role as Hampshire County Councillors. However, as there was no material conflict of interest, they remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Audit and Governance Committee to participate and vote in all matters which might have a County Council involvement.

Councillor Pett declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of agenda items due to his role as Council’s representative on the South Downs National Park Authority. However, as there was no material conflict of interest, he remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Audit and Governance Committee to participate and vote in all matters which might have a South Downs National Park Authority involvement.

The Mayor referred to recent engagements and then announced his forthcoming charities events.

The Leader then announced that the Independent Planning Inspector for the Winchester District Local Plan had recently published her initial findings following the recent examination hearings.  The Inspector has indicated that the Plan is likely to be capable of satisfying the necessary steps before adoption, subject to some modifications. The Inspector had highlighted that the council’s approach to un-met housing need and duty to cooperate, was sound. Local energy efficiency standards had been included in the Plan, that went beyond current Building Regulations and had been accepted.  The Leader reported that this was all very positive news for the district as an adopted Local Plan would help control unplanned development on greenfield sites achieved via planning appeals, and the additional environmental protections would help the council’s priorities in this area.  He commended the Strategic Planning Manager and his team, and all officers involved, for their achievements.  The Council then reciprocated with applause.

The Chief Executive announced apologies for the meeting.

To receive and answer and questions from the public.

(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services – democracy@winchester.gov.uk – no later than 10am on Wednesday 17 September 2025).

There were no Questions before Council.

The total time for questions and the answer and supplementaries thereto shall not exceed 40 minutes.

With the leave of the Mayor, the Leader firstly introduced Report CL176.

The Leader explained that the process of Local Government reorganisation began on 5 February 2025 with a statutory invitation from the Minister and required a submission to Government by Friday 26 September.  It was acknowledged that the process, criteria, and timeline were imposed by the government, but that a response from the Council was required.

The Leader outlined the next steps as follows:

The government would review submissions and undertake public consultation on all those that meet the specified criteria, likely between November and January 26. A final decision would be made by the Minister by March 2026. He stressed that a failure to submit a proposal would mean the Council's preferred option would not be considered. He stated that that Hampshire County Council intended to submit its own proposal to merge Winchester with Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, Rushmoor, and East Hampshire, and this would proceed regardless of this council’s decision.

The decision before the Council was whether to submit its own proposal, referred to as "Option Two" in the submission document prepared by twelve councils across Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Option Two proposed a new unitary council for incorporating the districts of Winchester, Test Valley, and East Hampshire, had been supported by residents during the engagement process.  The Leader stated his belief that this proposal met all government criteria. It was the result of a collaborative effort involving other councils and external experts, was underpinned by robust financial methodology, and was informed by extensive public engagement.

The Leader set out the submission was a positive plan that created a logical set of four mainland authorities while treating the Isle of Wight as a special case and proposed that it remained a single island unitary. Its aim was not only to protect essential services during the transition but to use unitarisation to deliver better long-term outcomes for residents. The choice presented to council was to either agreeing this submission and supporting this preferred option or, by doing nothing, accepting the imposition of other, less desirable, outcomes.

Council then turned to the 8 questions which had been received, which were all heard at the meeting along with associated supplementary questions.  The questions received and their response were subsequently set out on the council’s website.  

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.

To receive any resignations from committees and to make any necessary re-appointments.

There were no changes to committee memberships for Council to note.