Agenda item

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

·       Expressed his long-standing involvement with the city, noting that he first attended a council meeting in the building 60 years ago.

·       He raised concerns that the current proposals could potentially make the situation for the city much worse.

·       Mr Davies stated that the reimposition of two-tier government was a "grave error," as he believed the city functioned best without such a system.

·       He expressed the hope that any new unitary authority would be based within the city and highlighted a requirement in new legislation for proper neighbourhood governance to be instituted by the new unitary authority, which he noted was not mentioned in the meeting papers.

·       He described the proposed parish council as "expensive" and "pointless," arguing it would have limited powers no greater than a village parish council.

·       He contended that calling the new body a "city" would be a "grave insult" to the history of Winchester.

·       He criticised the public consultation results, noting that only 337 responses were received from 19,860 leafletted households, representing less than 1% of the town area.

·       Mr Davies argued that the proposal was unnecessary and confusing, and that it was a "nonsense" to suggest it would be welcomed by the public.

·       He expressed concerns regarding the financial cost, specifically the expense of hiring a new chief officer and additional staff.

·       In conclusion, Mr Davies suggested that the council should not proceed as recommended and should instead allow a new unitary authority to establish proper governance for the city.

The Strategic Director gave a presentation regarding the Community Governance Review and the draft budget for the proposed Winchester Town Council. The key points of the presentation were highlighted as follows:

(i)         Meeting purpose and timeline: The Forum was convened to consider   the draft list of assets for transfer to the new town council. It was    noted that the Licensing and Regulation Committee would also     consider the draft list at its meeting on 12 August 2026. While full           Council was originally intended to consider the final order on 20      August, the Monitoring Officer had recently advised that this decision       had been rescheduled for 7 October 2026.

(ii)        Opportunity for review: Due to the revised timeline for the full Council   decision, the recommendations made at the current stage were not      final, allowing an opportunity to revisit the work regarding asset     transfers.

(iii)     Principles of asset transfer: The primary principle was that "assets        follow services". The starting position for transfer includes assets for     which services are currently, or have historically been, provided and        funded by the Winchester Town Forum budget.

(iv)     Transfer of assets not currently funded by the Forum

(v)       Service transfer (The Market)

(vi)     Assets proposed for retention by the District/Unitary Council

(vii)         Financial impact of retained assets

(viii)       New Town Council operational costs

(ix)     Budget Savings and Ground Maintenance

(x)       Future considerations: It was recognised that the new town council       would need to establish a reserve equivalent to at least three months    of expenditure. Additionally, costs related to the Mayoralty were not      currently included in the draft budget and would represent a net   increase in cost if transferred in the future.

The forum proceeded to ask questions and comment on the following matters which were responded to by the Strategic Director, as summarised below.

(a)           A question was asked regarding the mayoralty and the reasons for its exclusion from the current community governance review process.         It was explained that the Council meeting to consider the matter was moved to 7 October 2026 to allow for ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Clarification was being sought from the government on the process to transfer city status and the mayoralty from the district to a new entity. The council was unambiguous in its intention to protect these statuses and was determined to get the process right.

(b)           Further clarification was sought on the process for the review and the timeline for upcoming decisions. It was stated that the forum would provide views on asset transfers which would then be considered by the licensing and regulation committee. The full council meeting on 7 October was identified as the point when the town council would be established and asset transfers agreed. It was noted that the updated timeline allowed more time for the licensing and regulation committee and the forum to consider the identified assets.

(c)           A question was asked regarding the indicative budget figures and the timing for confirming responsibilities for each element. It was clarified that the process would follow the standard budget-setting timetable for the Winchester Town Forum, with the budget typically considered in November, but not formally agreed until February of the municipal year.

Debate on this item was taken at the time of the consideration of Item 9, and the matters raised were as set out in that item below.

          RESOLVED:

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