Agenda and draft minutes

To record the names of apologies given and deputy members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed Members (where appropriate).

There were no apologies received.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members 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.

Councillor Porter declared an interest as a county councillor regarding items where the County Council's role was vital but stated that she did not have a financial or prejudicial interest. Councillor Ferguson and Councillor Warwick made similar statements regarding non-financial interest as county councillors.

Councillor Cramoysan announced that no County Council officers were available to attend for item 9, so it was proposed consideration of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) be picked up by Councillor Porter under item 10.

</AI3>

<AI4>

Matters arising not covered in agenda.

Councillor Cramoysan identified several matters arising from the previous minutes that requiring updates and asked that these be picked up at the appropriate point of the agenda discussions:

a)      the status of the Southern Temporary Junction Works under the S278 agreement, concerning efforts by the County’s traffic signals team to improve the junction's effectiveness during peak traffic times.

b)      Further clarification was requested from Cala concerning contact with Headbourne Worthy Parish Council (HWPC) and the Kings Barton Residents’ Association (KBRA) to promote the car club.

c)      A status update was requested from City Council officers concerning the long-term management of the ecological amenity space.

RESOLVED:

          That the minutes of the previous meeting held 26 June 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

Mike Slinn (Kings Barton Residents’ Association) addressed the meeting and referred to comments outlined in the KBRA report that had been circulated to Forum members.  He raised the following points:

a)    A concern was expressed that residents who were not within the Headbourne Worthy Parish Council area could not vote for Parish Councillors.

b)    A response was sought regarding the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) proposals for safer walking and cycling routes between the development and the city centre.

c)    A question was asked whether the KBRA could submit their view on the CGR formally.

Councillor Cramoysan advised that the first point would require a Community Governance Review (CGR) to address and the first round of consultation on CGR had commenced on 3 November (further information under item 8 below).  It was confirmed that key stakeholders such as the KBRA could submit their response via email to cgr@winchester.gov.uk

If required.

The Forum noted that an update from HWPC Kings Barton Committee had been circulated to Forum members.   Councillor Watters drew attention to the following points:

a)    A key concern was raised regarding the CGR and the possibility of a new Winchester Town Council subsuming the Barton Farm area currently within the Parish Council.

b)    HWPC wanted input into the CGR process.

c)    HWPC preference would be to retain Kings Barton and Headbourne Worthy together within its parish boundary to continue delivering community value and the good working relationship developed with Cala.

d)    HWPC were working closely with Cala on provision of the community building to ensure it would be fit for purpose.

In response to questions, Councillor Watters confirmed that HWPC had been involved in discussions with City Council officers regarding the CGR survey questions.  Councillor Watters also clarified that the HWPC Kings Barton Committee preference would be for Kings Barton to be incorporated within the existing parish council and that it was probably premature to consider the alternative of a stand-alone Kings Barton Parish Council at this stage of occupation of the development. 

Councillor Cramoysan provided clarification that the commuted sum paid by Cala to HWPC was ring-fenced to the Kings Barton development area and it would not be possible for any new Winchester Town Council to spend it elsewhere.

Relevant S106/S278 triggers. 

Ruth Beard provided an update highlighting that a report had been published prior to the meeting and available on the council’s website here.

a)    The latest council tax records showed that 695 units were now registered on the site, with approximately five currently unoccupied.

b)    The review of the car club scheme (triggered at 700 units) has been undertaken and the lack of demand for a second car (triggered at 750 units) is being formally agreed with Hampshire County Council (HCC).

c)    The approval of the Highways Implementation Programme by HCC (the 725 unit trigger) was agreed ahead of time in mid-October.

d)    The next trigger was a secondary education contribution of £3 million at 750 units.

Alison Thompson (Cala) confirmed that legal issues were still being addressed regarding the land transfer for the ecological amenity space to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust.

</AI7>

<AI8>

Steve Lincoln gave a presentation providing an update on the CGR process  and the presentation was subsequently made available on the council’s website here.

He advised that the consultation had been launched on 3 November 2025 and would run through until just before Christmas.  Online responses were preferred (via the online survey), but telephone or paper-based responses were available upon request.  Expert independent support was provided by Public Perspectives for question development and analysis.  Communications would include a press release, newsletters, social media posts, comprehensive FAQs, a newspaper advert, drop-in engagement events, posters, postcards, and video.  In addition, a leaflet would be distributed to every affected household, including those within Headbourne Worthy Parish.

Mr Lincoln confirmed that key stakeholders, such as parish councils and resident associations, could submit a formal response via email (cgr@winchester.gov.uk)

Mr Lincoln responded to questions from Forum Members as follows:

a)    Why the first phase of the consultation did not ask a specific question addressing the 60 homes in the unparished area which is immediately east of the Andover Rd, and between Stoney Lane in the south and the Ridgeway path in the north.    Mr Lincoln clarified that everybody would be asked the same questions and the finer details concerning the boundaries would be picked up at Stage Two of the consultation, starting in May 2026. He confirmed that residents in this unparished area would receive a separate letter explaining their specific position.

b)    Why was there a difference in wording between questions relating to Kings Barton and Harestock on whether residents could choose to remain within the existing parish councils of Headbourne Worthy or Harestock?  Mr Lincoln agreed to check the reasons for this difference in wording. 

Subsequent to the meeting, Mr Lincoln advisedthat the wording had been amended to make consistent.

c)    A request was made to add an explanatory note to Question 6 in the survey to clarify that choosing the Winchester Town Council option would imply that Kings Barton would no longer be part of HWPC. Mr Lincoln agreed to check whether this would be possible.

Subsequent to the meeting, Mr Lincoln advised that additional explanatory text had been added to the introduction to Question 6.

d)    A question was asked about whether an increase in the number of parish councillors for HWPC would be considered. Mr Lincoln confirmed that this issue could be considered as part of Stage Two of the consultation.

a)    Winchester Avenue – North Junction:

b)    Winchester Avenue – South Junction:

Linkage from Stoney Lane to Winchester Avenue

c)    Winchester Avenue – remedial works.

d)    Andover Road – North & South of Ridgeway – Access and active travel route

The Forum noted that an update had been provided by Cala and available on the meeting webpage here. Rupert Woodcock (Cala) gave an update presentation to the Forum as summarised below:

a)    The programme was developed with support from the Hampshire County Council (HCC) Highways team, and the full program included eight broad work packages.

b)    The final opening of the roads, including the landscaping that would replace the existing Andover Road, was projected for January 2029.

c)    The Northern Junction onsite works were expected to run from November 2025 to May 2026.

d)    There was a scheduled gap between completing Winchester Avenue works and opening the Northern Junction to allow for road safety audits and any necessary remediations. This process was robust to ensure the road was safe for diverted traffic.

Mr Woodcock responded to questions from Forum Members as summarised below:

a)    In relation to the completion of the spine road top surface and whether this meant that all construction traffic would cease by July 2026?  Mr Woodcock clarified that the road must be completed to adoption standards before it could be opened, and a long maintenance period was anticipated (potentially two years).

b)    In relation to adoption dates, Mr Woodcock stated that his understanding was that the spine road could be opened before formal adoption, provided safety audits were clear.

c)    It was confirmed that further road safety audits would be undertaken during the maintenance period to monitor performance and there would also be the opportunity for any residents’ concerns to be considered.

d)    It was queried whether the traffic impact on nearby surrounding roads would also be monitored (e.g. Bereweeke Road). Mr Woodcock clarified that monitoring of the wider road network was the responsibility of the HCC. The Forum noted that this was a matter for HCC to provide further details for a future meeting.

e)    A question was asked whether delays in reaching the 725 occupation trigger would delay construction timelines.  Lance Else confirmed that the sales rate on site would not influence the dates on the implementation plan, as Cala would strive to achieve these dates regardless.

Councillor Porter provided an update as had been provided by HCC to herself, Councillors Warwick and Tod as follows:

a)    The formal start date for the TRO consultation was confirmed as 7 November, running until 28 November.

b)    The consultation covered parking restrictions, road signage, speed limits, prohibition of driving, and road humps.

c)    The police, fire brigade, ambulance service, and bus operators would be consulted.

A point was noted by Councillor Porter that Manley Road was missing from the detailed TRO plans.

Rupert Woodcock stated that Cala was preparing a letter drop communication to 3,000 local residents and onsite residents. He noted Cala had expected the consultation to commence in December, and they would need to clarify with HCC the details of the public announcement.

NB: Subsequent to the meeting, the TROs were published on the HCC website and available via the links below –

https://www.hants.gov.uk/community/publicnotices/publicnoticedetails?id=20407

https://www.hants.gov.uk/community/publicnotices/publicnoticedetails?id=20472

a)    Community Building

b)    Neighbourhood Centre

c)    Recreation Ground & building

d)    Plan for full sized MUGA on the east side of the MDA

e)    Car Park – designed for the Park & Ride service

Allison Thompson provided updates on public infrastructure as follows:

Community Building (including Nursery):

a)    The planning application was pending determination with Winchester City Council, awaiting comments from the urban design officer (Ruth Beard confirmed she would follow up on this).

b)    Working drawings were being developed ahead of planning determination to reduce time on site.

c)    Regarding the nursery, Cala was going out to the market to test operator interest, especially since the school had extended its nursery provision.

Neighbourhood Centre Shops:

a)    The implementation programme had helped retailers gain certainty on the road diversion.

b)    Dialogue was underway with two retailers, with the hope of signing them up early next year.

Recreation Ground (Sports Pitches):

a)    Details regarding the specification, trim trail, and equipment for the pitches were submitted to WCC for discharge of conditions, pending validation.

b)    The target date was to complete the grass pitches by the summer of 2026.

c)    A 12-month bedding-in period was required before the pitches would open to the public in summer 2027.

MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area):

a)    Cala agreed in principle to commit to a full-size MUGA in Phase 4A (facing the railway line), subject to a separate planning application.

Car Park (Park and Ride):

a)    Details to re- discharge relevant planning conditions to reflect the latest plans have been submitted to WCC.

b)    As previously notified, Cala was amending the trigger date for delivery from 650 units to 1,000 units to align with the opening of the road.

It was requested that Cala apply the same approach used for the road implementation plan (i.e., target dates/schedules) to communications regarding other infrastructure items in future Forum updates. Alison Thompson confirmed this was possible and would liaise with Ruth Beard on a suitable structure.  In addition, it was suggested that a drone flyover showing the development status would be helpful for residents. Cala confirmed that they could arrange for drone footage along the avenue.

Car Club Promotion:

Cala confirmed that discussions had occurred with Mr Slinn (KBRA). Cala proposed to prepare a presentation pack for the KBRA AGM and ensure it was circulated to all adjoining parish councils, including Littleton and Harestock. The car club vehicle was intended to be moved to a more central location within the neighbourhood centre once open.

Cala position on road closures/schedule

Councillor Porter provided an update as follows:

a)    The average bus usage over the last six months was consistently around 579 trips per month.

b)    Efforts were underway to establish a more efficient and resistant route that would run straight through the development, rather than diverting through the site.

c)    HCC required 28 days’ notice for route variations.

d)    It was hoped that clarity on the new route would be available by Christmas or the New Year.

A question was asked regarding the most used destination for the service. Councillor Porter advised that most passengers were travelling straight into the town centre and confirmed she would request a more detailed analysis of destinations for the next Forum meeting.

To note date of next meeting - 2 March 2026 at 6.00pm

Councillor Porter thanked Cycle Winchester and the organisers of the bike buses for their efforts in supporting the Barton line resurfacing work. A commendation was offered for the pleasant appearance of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) during the summer and were also observed functioning effectively during rainfall.

It was noted that the next meeting would take place on 2 March 2026 at 6.00pm.