Agenda item

Patrick Davies addressed the Forum on this item. His comments are summarised below:

·         He expressed that the proposals presented were expensive, confusing and at the wrong time. He considered the costs outlined in the presentation slides to be "potentially devastating” for people living in the Winchester town area. If established, a town council precept charge could significantly increase to potentially £400 per annum from £90 per annum (for a Band D property).

·         He suggested a new level of bureaucracy, involving paid staff and offices for the new setup would bring confusion, which would contradict the stated purpose of local government reform, meant to "clarify and streamline local government services".

·         The reform aims to achieve this clarification and streamlining with one unitary authority in place of the current county and district councils. The timing of this particular exercise he deemed "absurd".

·         Mr Davies stated that although the January meeting initiated the current exercise, there had been silence for five months. The report claimed that the full council had decided to accept the forum's request, but he stated that this had never been to full council.

·         He considered that there was a need for clarity on how local government services in a new unitary authority covering Winchester would be settled, which was currently unclear.

·         He stated that the forward plan going to the next week's Cabinet indicated that the council's "first and final submission" would go to their meeting on 25th September. However, there was nothing until then apart from a brief oral update from the Leader at the last Cabinet meeting.

·         Mr Davies believed it was premature to proceed in the way suggested in the report until the shape and size of the new unitary council was known and that this should be the council’s priority.

·         In conclusion, Mr Davies considered that proceeding as recommended would cause hopeless confusion amongst the public and at significant expense.

Councillor Horrill addressed the Forum on this item. In summary, Councillor Horrill made reference to the following points:

·         Councillor Horrill questioned why the current presentation suggested a governance review beyond the scope of the forum's earlier request and noted the same matter on the agenda at the Licensing and Regulation Committee next week, specifically referencing item 11.2 in the papers.

·         She expressed concern that the devolution and local government reform process, as indicated in the papers, could create a divergence in local governance within the Winchester district.

·         She stated that such inconsistency could lead to disparities in service delivery, the level of community representation, and the overall sense of local identity between parished and unparished parts of the district.

·         Councillor Horrill acknowledged the message that those not currently parished wished to become parished and ultimately form a town council, but stated that it was not clear what benefits an extended geography for the town council would bring to new residents or the parished areas intended for inclusion.

·         She cited examples from other authorities where similar processes had led to significant increases in resident precepts.

·         She questioned if the proposal was "a land grab for a larger town area” or politically motivated to ensure the city's voice was still heard in a larger unitary authority

·         Councillor Horrill stated that if it was a genuine concern for the residents of the district, the papers needed to be enhanced significantly, and it was hoped that the officer team would ensure a level playing field as the process continued.

·         She believed that those being asked to consider joining the extended Winchester area were not being given anything of meaning to assess that offer and questioned if they even wanted to consider it.

·         In conclusion, Councillor Horrill stated that there was a lack of understanding at parish council’s of what the changes would mean on top of devolution and local government reform.

In response to the points raised by Patrick Davies and Councillor Horrill, Councillor Becker (Cabinet Member for Healthy Communities) reminded the forum that this was the beginning of a process to decide if a new town council should be established. She clarified the significant range of precepts within the district which varied greatly and set out the Community Governance Review process; the timing of which had been determined by the Government, with the town forum impacted by local government reorganisation.

Councillor Becker introduced the report emphasising that the review process was consultative and provided the opportunity for residents to express how they wished to be governed; it was not a land grab, nor political. The process would engage with communities regarding the historic boundaries of the town to determine if they wished to join a new town council or remain within their current parish area, such as Kings Barton.

Furthermore, Councillor Becker stated that the review would comprise of many detailed engagement opportunities with residents and parishes to enable involvement in the process, including the draft and final terms of reference, as well as various committee meetings and parish briefings.

The Director (Legal) gave a presentation following the request of the forum at its last meeting on 23 January 2025, to consider a Community Governance Review (CGR) with a view to establishing a town council for central Winchester. The presentation highlighted key areas including, governance arrangements and the areas under review, consultation and engagement, finances, funding and assets, the Winchester City status, mayoralty and coat of arms, the initial next steps and proposed action plan.

In addition, the report set out the framework to steer the CGR process noting that within the constitution, the duties and functions relating to CGR’s under the Local Government Public Health Act 2007, are the responsibility of the Licensing and Regulation Committee, with the exception of the making of the final order which would be subject to Full Council decision. At its meeting on 16 June 2025, the Licensing and Regulation Committee would initially be asked to acknowledge the potential for a CGR and establish a cross-party member working group to oversee the process, with additional committee meetings to be scheduled as the process progressed.

The forum proceeded to ask questions and comment on the following matters which were responded to by the Cabinet Member, Director (Legal) and relevant officers, as summarised below.

(a)       The pathway for the forum’s continued engagement in the Community        Governance Review (CGR) process.

            It was noted the forum would appoint members to the working group           that was to be established by the Licensing and Regulation     Committee. In addition, it was within the remit of the forum to         establish its own informal group to discuss issues pertinent to the     process.

(b)       It was suggested that CGR could become a standing item on the     agenda for future meetings to receive progress updates. It was    agreed that the method for this engagement needed to be discussed        further to ensure an appropriate process was in place.

(c)        The potential relationship between a future town council and the      Winchester BID (Business Improvement District) and its potential was raised, considering that the BID was funded through business rates       and not expected to be part of the town council’s funding.

            It was reported that the BID process would not necessarily be           affected by the creation of a town council, as it was not funded via          the      precept. No changes or implications from this process were            envisaged. The BID would have the opportunity to participate in CGR         to ensure its voice was heard as part of the consideration.

(d)       Could any recommendation or outcome reached by this council       through the established process for the CGR be overturned or     "unpicked" by government intervention?

            In response, it was noted that the government could ultimately          create legislation to prevent the formation of any new parish or         town councils, as this was within their authority, although this outcome was considered unlikely.

(e)       If a town council for Winchester were not established, would all         services, otherwise handled by a town council, then become            the      responsibility of a new unitary council, potentially with          councillors who        lived outside of Winchester with limited knowledge of the area?

            It was confirmed that the default position would be that everything   would transfer to the new unitary authority. This situation would still           necessitate resolving issues related to the mayoralty and city status,         possibly through a charter trustee position, which was described as a             holding arrangement for the heraldic assets of the city.

            It was highlighted that residents of the city's unparished areas would           face a democratic deficit with no local representation comparable to         parished areas.

(f)        Members recognised the fundamental purpose of the CGR was to   ensure that residents living in the    five unparished parts of the city of            Winchester received the same level of representation as all other residents in the district and considered that this needed to be             addressed.

During debate, the forum made reference to a number of points including:

(i)         Precept charges – these would be dependent on the services a town          council would choose to deliver.

(ii)        Special expense charges that would apply should a town council not           be established.

(iii)       The opportunity to review boundary anomalies.

(iv)       The need to expedite matters with the risk that the decision-making             powers of the council may end prior to the completion of the CGR     process.

(v)        The scope of public consultation, respecting the views of residents and      the importance of including existing parished areas in          the consultation       process.

(vi)       The principle of devolution.

(vii)      The right to equal representation

(viii)     The preservation of the Mayoralty and City Status.

            RESOLVED:

1.          That the report, specifically the agreement to undertake the   requested Community Governance Review (CGR) for the     central Winchester area, be noted.

2.          That the governance arrangements established for the initial stages of the review, including the role of the Licensing and          Regulation Committee and the formation of the Members Task         and Finish Group, incorporating Town Forum representation,       be noted; and

3.          That the presentation be received, and the comments raised             by        the committee, as summarised above, be noted.