Agenda and draft minutes

To note the names of apologies given and deputy members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed members.

There were no apologies received at this meeting.

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.

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Lee made a personal statement that he was Trustee of WinACC should any discussion arise in this respect during the consideration of items.

Councillor Pett declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 8 (Nature Improvement Plan) due to being a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. However, as there was no material conflict of interest regarding this, he stated that he had a dispensation granted by the Monitoring Officer that enabled him to speak and vote on these matters.

RESOLVED:

                     That, Councillor Brophy be appointed Vice-Chairperson for the 2025/26 municipal year.

There were no announcements made at this meeting.

·       18 September 2025 at 6.30pm

·       2 December 2025 at 6.30pm

·       25 February 2026 at 6.30pm

          RESOLVED:

                    That the dates and times of meetings for 2025/26 be agreed, as          set out on the agenda.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 February 2025.

          RESOLVED:

                     That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 February 2025 be approved and adopted.

To receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on matters which fall within the remit of the Committee.

NB members of the public are required to register with Democratic Services
three clear working days before the meeting

(contact: democracy@winchester.gov.uk  or 01962 848 264).

Ian Tait spoke during public participation and a summary of his comments are set out below.

In addition, Andrew McMurtrie spoke during Item 8 (Nature Improvement Plan) and a summary of his comments are set out under the relevant minute below.

Ian Tait 

·       Expressed concerns regarding the Council's Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Strategy and the lack of support for taxi drivers, drawing on the council's commitment to reducing carbon emissions for the district by 2030.

·       Reference was made to the committee’s terms of reference to maintain a strategic overview of progress towards relevant priorities in the council's plan, including greener faster, working with and enabling businesses, organisations, and residents to reduce carbon emissions and achieve the council's net zero carbon commitment for the district by 2030.

·       Stated that he previously addressed this committee on 19th September 2024, questioning the relevance of the council's EV charging strategy, particularly as it had been quoted as part of the reason to refuse the three-made super EV charging hub. In response to his previous points, the then Chairperson had suggested that these issues be raised at a future meeting of the licensing and regulation committee, but this committee deals with council's licensing functions and not policy.

·       With only two fully electric taxis registered through the Winchester Licensing Department, Mr Tait questioned the value of the council's priorities if there was no tangible support for businesses to go greener.

·       He considered that the council's now "out of date" EV charging strategy was intended to map out how the council could support taxi drivers, with specific mention to switching to all-electric vehicles, but the strategy had regrettably failed.

·       It was recognised that it was a significant financial commitment (approximately £60,000) for self-employed taxi drivers to take on a green taxi. He urged the committee to support the city's taxi drivers in going greener faster.

·       In conclusion, he stated that the super hub was not a solution for taxi drivers who needed a super charging point in central Winchester, as set out in the current strategy.

In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that the EV charging strategy was out of date and was being reviewed. Hampshire County Council had received government funding to expand EV charging, and the council was awaiting their direction prior to making commitments. It was emphasised that the installation of super rapid chargers was expensive and required significant infrastructure. Charger locations relied on the upgrading of electrical infrastructure that required significant investment.

It was noted that although the Instavolt charging hub was impressive, developers had to fund a substantial electricity cable into the site and invested heavily in solar panels and battery storage which would be difficult for the council to achieve in the heart of an historic city. It was suggested that officers be consulted on whether this matter could come to the committee within the municipal year.

Andrew McMurtrie addressed the Committee on this item. He stated that he was encouraged by the Nature Improvement Plan and asked if the council would commit to cutting grass and hedges less often and less comprehensively to provide more habitat and food for animals and insects. He acknowledged that areas adjacent to pathways and play areas needed to be kept under control but felt that contractors often cut back further than necessary.

In response, Councillor Learney acknowledged the conflicting priorities in managing hedgerows and advised that the council was reviewing its requirements with contractors to allow for more flexibility. Rick Smith, Service Lead: Sustainability and Natural Environment added that this review was ongoing and aimed to balance biodiversity benefits with operational practicalities.

A supplementary agenda containing a revision to Table 2 – Condition of SSSIs within the Winchester District in 2025 of the draft plan was circulated prior to the meeting.  A copy of this can be viewed on the councils website here.

Councillor Learney, Cabinet Member for the Climate and Nature Emergency introduced the report and outlined the following points:

1.       The Nature Improvement Plan was a draft document, and the          committee’s comments were sought, particularly on the five pathways, principles, and measures.

2.       The plan would supersede the current Biodiversity Action Plan (2021-        2026), reflecting significant changes in the national context, including   the 2021 Environment Act and the new Local Nature Recovery     Strategy.

3.       The council had declared a nature emergency, and this plan represented a move from an activity-based model to one with clear    aims, objectives, and targets to restore nature and reduce pollution.

In addition, Zoe Goldsmith, Principal Ecologist/Biodiversity Officer, emphasised the following matters:

1.         The plan set out a strategic approach to nature improvement across          the entire district, building on the existing Biodiversity Action Plan.

2.         The aim was to achieve nature improvement through five key          pathways: protecting and managing land for nature; creating new       spaces for nature; delivering nature-based solutions; preventing     pollution; and connecting people to nature.

3.         Numerical measures had been developed for the five-year period to          track progress on both council-owned land and across the wider       district, supported by annual action plans.

4.         A set of key principles was also included to provide clarity on the     council's standards where numerical targets were not applicable, for    example, on the use of chemicals.

The Policy Committee was asked to note and comment on the Draft Nature Improvement Plan 2025-2030, specifically in relation to the proposed:

a)       Five Pathways
b)       Principles
c)       Measures

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

(i)         A question was asked whether using only Sites of Special Scientific           Interest (SSSIs) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation   (SINCs) as a proxy for land managed for nature was sufficient for the    district-wide target, given other large-scale private nature recovery schemes existed.

(ii)        Clarification was sought on how the plan aligned with the South Downs     National Park’s own partnership management plan.

(iii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Power stated that following discussions at previous meetings regarding nutrient neutrality, a scoping document had been produced and circulated to the committee. Subsequently, it had been determined that there were insufficient resources to proceed with the document's recommendations, as it would have necessitated several meetings involving officers. She questioned whether there was merit in councillors forming their own working party to engage with individuals both external and internal to the council to share findings.

The Chairperson advised that he had recently taken part in discussions with the Chairpersons of the Scrutiny and Policy Committees. The three chairs had been offered the opportunity by the Chief Executive to conduct one task and finish group each on a single issue with a 90-minute allocation of senior officer time. 

The committee raised two specific topics that could be taken forward as proposals for further consideration as follows:

(i)             Nutrient Neutrality (specifically, how the council could better facilitate the generation of phosphate credits in order to not only improve water quality in the rivers across the district, but allow the delivery of housing numbers)

(ii)            Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy

In response, the Corporate Head of Economy and Community clarified her understanding that the issue of nutrients had already been referred to the scrutiny committee, and a members' briefing was anticipated for the summer, which was intended as the forum for that conversation and scrutiny, suggesting it was not for a task and finish group by the committee.

Furthermore, the Corporate Head of Economy and Community emphasised that topics would need to be investigated further to ensure no conflict with other ongoing work and that the constitutional position regarding the formation of a sub-group by members, as discussed during the meeting, would need to be confirmed.

In conclusion, the Chairperson stated he would take the comments and suggestions of the committee to the next meeting for discussion with the other two scrutiny committee chairpersons and would advise members of the outcome in due course.

RESOLVED:

                    That the work programme for 2025/26 be noted.