Minutes:
The Director (Legal) advised that the final decision on the reorganisation order, originally scheduled for Council on 20 August, had been deferred until 7 October 2026. He explained that this delay was necessary to obtain definitive confirmation from the government that Winchester’s city status and historic mayoralty would be preserved alongside the proposed new parish council for the unparished Winchester town area. He asked that reference to the Council date within the report's text should now be read as the revised October meeting date.
In introducing the report, the Director reported that the Stage 2 consultation resulted in 72% of respondents supporting a new parish council for the unparished Winchester town area. For the Kings Barton area, he highlighted that 53% of residents were in favour of a new parish council and it was also recommended to increase the number of councillors to twelve. He further noted that as a result of the consultation feedback, the proposed boundaries for Kings Barton would be extended to include the Barton Meadows open space and Wellhouse Mews to better reflect community identity. Finally, he summarised the next steps if the recommendations were approved by Council, including the establishment of shadow councils in January 2027 and a formal vesting day of 1 April 2027.
Jerry Adamson and Patrick Davies spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.
Jerry Adamson
Mr Adamson expressed concern that the proposed decision was undemocratic, highlighting that the respondents to the second round of consultation represented only 0.5% of the registered electorate. He argued that the review had failed the efficiency test as the level of support was significantly lower than the statutory requirements for a public petition. He concluded by asking that the committee refuse the proposed recommendations in favour of organising a local referendum.
Patrick Davies
Mr Davies spoke in opposition to the proposed parish council for the unparished area of the Winchester town, arguing that a single unitary authority would better serve the city by eliminating expensive duplication and providing clearer accountability for residents. He expressed concern that prospective members of the new parish council were being misled regarding their limited powers and criticised the lack of transparency surrounding private discussions on asset transfers and the mayoralty. He concluded by urging the committee to reconsider the current proposals in favour of a governance structure where councillors hold real power through a unitary system.
At the invitation of the chairperson, Councillor Westwood (Winchester Town Forum chairperson) addressed the meeting as summarised briefly below.
Councillor Westwood welcomed the proposal to establish a new town council for Winchester believing that it would protect local democracy and provide a dedicated voice for the district’s largest unparished area. The proposals had also been fully supported by the Winchester Town Forum at its meeting the previous evening. He highlighted the consistent public support for stronger local representation and argued that a parish council was vital for protecting Winchester’s civic identity and traditions ahead of local government reorganisation. He further stressed that the new authority must be granted a stable financial foundation through the transfer of necessary assets, adhering to the principle that resources should follow the services being delivered. In conclusion, he urged the committee to approve the recommendations to ensure the new council begins its operation with a robust and sustainable model.
The Committee noted the comments made by members of the public and Councillor Westwood in their consideration of the report.
The Director also responded to members’ questions on the report including confirming that of the list of proposed assets to be transferred, the only asset included in Appendix 2 to the report that was not currently funded from the Winchester Town Account, was Abbey Gardens. In addition, if the transfer was agreed, it was proposed that an area around Abbey House be excluded from the transfer. He confirmed that further discussions would be held on the proposed asset transfer prior to consideration at Council on 7 October 2026.
The Director also responded to comments on the consultation response rates, highlighting that the response was considered to be good compared with other consultations undertaken by other local authorities.
RESOLVED:
That the responses received during the Stage 2 public consultation set out in this report and within the accompanying appendix 1 be noted.
RECOMMENDED (TO COUNCIL):
1. To establish a new parish council for the Winchester Town area (to be initially named Winchester Parish Council[1]) as set out in paragraph 13 of this report and shown within the maps at Appendix 3 of the report.
2. To establish a separate, unwarded parish council for Kings Barton (Kings Barton Parish Council) as set out in paragraphs 14 of this report and shown within the maps at Appendix 3 of the report.
3. To approve the consequential boundary alterations to adjust the Headbourne Worthy Parish Council boundary as set out in paragraph 14 of the report.
4. To make two Reorganisation of Community Governance Orders to implement these changes, with a Vesting Day of 1st April 2027.
5. To approve the transfer of the assets (current draft listed in Appendix 2 to this report) from Winchester City Council to Winchester Parish Council subject to completion of an appropriate service level agreement to be agreed by the Director (Legal) in consultation with the Cabinet Member to address future maintenance requirements.
6. To establish a Shadow Council for each new Council from 1 January 2027 for the purposes of recruiting respective Clerks and to deal with any other matters requiring resolution prior to implementation with the membership being as set out in paragraph 16 to the report.
[1] The name of the new council is to be determined, but for legal reasons it is expected to initially be called Winchester Parish Council until after it is established but would then be able to change its name by member resolution.
Supporting documents: