Agenda item

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

·       He raised several concerns regarding the proposed asset transfer and the Community Governance Review (CGR) process and stated that the matter only reached public notice when the agenda for the current meeting was published.

·       He criticised the use of CGR working groups that meet in private, arguing that a major issue such as this should have had public involvement from the outset.

·       He described the lack of public transparency in the exercise as scandalous, asserting that open local government requires such meetings to be held in public.

·       Mr Davies highlighted perceived irregularities in the handling of the Town Forum, noting that the chair was only re-elected in mid-August despite the municipal year beginning in May.

·       He claimed that the process had been handled privately and secretly within a single party group.

·       Mr Davies suggested the process had been "bungled from start to finish," citing the officer's update that the decision would no longer be going to Council the following week.

·       He argued that the current trajectory would result in a "complete muddle" for Winchester residents rather than a clear-cut unitary authority.

·       He characterised the proposed new body as a "glorified parish council" that would take significant resources from the public without a good reason and maintained that the functions of the proposed council should be carried out by the unitary authority, as intended by legislation.

·       Mr Davies referenced extensive personal knowledge of existing parishes in the district, describing most as "glorified talking shops" that struggle to attract members.

·       He pointed to the lack of contested seats and the high number of vacancies (24 seats) in recent local parish elections as evidence of low public interest and stated that there is no public demand for "tin pot parishes" in the city of Winchester.

·       In conclusion, Mr Davies suggested that Winchester town should have a governance setup where local matters were managed by a committee of the unitary authority.

The Strategic Director drew members attention to the draft list of assets for potential transfer to Winchester Town Council, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report. 

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 potential impact on residents if         cemeteries were moved to unitary control and whether residents would   notice any difference in service. It was noted that residents currently          received discounted burial rates at Magdalen Hill Cemetery, and there        was a possibility that these discounts would not continue under unitary control, although the availability of cemeteries would remain        unchanged.

(b)       Further clarification was sought regarding the future management of cemetery costs. It was stated that the cost of cemeteries would be           determined by the district and eventually the unitary council, rather than by the Town Forum. In addition, it was also noted that the          principal cemetery was located outside the town boundary.

(c)       A question was asked to confirm whether the transfer of North Walls        Recreation Ground and River Park included the new pavilion at River     Park. It was confirmed that the new pavilion at River Park was included    in the list of assets for potential transfer.

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

(i)             Local Service Provision:  The importance of providing local services at a local level was highlighted as a primary aim of devolution and a benefit of parished areas.

(ii)            Protection of Assets: Concerns were raised that a unitary authority might reduce local services, such as closing public toilets or neglecting open spaces, to cover other costs. A town council was viewed as a way to protect these assets for Winchester.

(iii)          A Voice for the City: It was argued that Winchester required its own voice to compete with other towns within a large unitary authority of approximately 450,000 people.

(iv)          Historical Continuity: Reference was made to Winchester’s history of local governance spanning over 900 years, and the necessity of continuing a body dedicated to the city's growth and success was emphasised.

(v)           The Human Element: The debate included the point that local councillors could provide more detailed attention to the needs of individuals and groups than councillors representing a much larger unitary area.

(vi)          Consultation Support: It was noted that a significant majority of people consulted supported the creation of a town council for stronger representation and to safeguard the city’s identity and mayoralty.

(vii)         Financial and Operational Viability: The transfer of a meaningful set of assets, such as those listed in the draft list including allotments, public conveniences, and sports facilities, was described as essential for the viability and success of the new town council.

(viii)       Local Responsiveness: It was stated that a town council would be a more responsive custodian for cherished local spaces like wildflower meadows and sports provisions compared to a large regional authority.

(ix)          Community Engagement: A town council was described as a vehicle for community groups to connect with, which could generate energy and improve local areas while saving costs.

(x)           Wider Roles: Suggestions were made that the town council could take on responsibilities for twinning relationships and "city of sanctuary" aims.

(xi)          Election Candidates: Confidence was expressed that there would be sufficient interest from a diverse range of candidates to fill positions on a future town council.

(xii)         Localisation: The creation of the council was seen as an opportunity for localisation, allowing elected members to decide what that meant based on the views of their residents.

          RESOLVED:

                    1.       That the report, including the draft list of assets for      potential transfer to Winchester Town Council, as set out in Appendix 1, be received, and the comments raised by the forum, as summarised       above, be noted.