Issue - meetings

1.      That issues raised by the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 27 February 2023 be noted.

2.      That it be noted that the procurement process was conducted in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, leading to the recommended selection of a Development Partner, as set out in section 12 and 13 of report CAB3371.

3.      That the recommended Development Partner’s response to the Central Winchester Regeneration Development Brief, which is summarised in section 14 of report CAB3371 and set out in more detail in Appendix B of the report be noted.

4.      That the Business Case for proceeding with the appointment of the recommended Development Partner, which is summarised in section 15 of the report CAB3371 and set out in more detail in Appendix C of the report be noted, in addition to the following:

                i.      Appendix Ci - Selection Questionnaire Evaluation Questions and Scoring Criteria

               ii.      Appendix Cii - Final Tender Evaluation Questions and Scoring Criteria

              iii.      Exempt Appendix Ciii - Moderated Scoring from Selection Questionnaire

             iv.      Exempt Appendix Civ - Moderated Scoring from Final Tender

5.      That the Development Agreement Summary, referred to in section 16 of report CAB3371 and set out in more detail in Appendix D and Exempt Appendix Di - recommended Development Partner’s commercial position, be noted.

6.      That the Equalities Impact Assessment set out in Appendix E and the Risk Register in Appendix F of the report be both noted and had regard to.

7.      That the redacted draft Development Agreement in Appendix G and the unredacted draft Development Agreement in Exempt Appendix H of the report be noted.

8.      That being satisfied about the matters set out in points (1) to (7) above, the appointment of Bidder E as the recommended Development Partner for the Central Winchester Regeneration Project be approved, on the basis that they were the highest scoring tenderer following conclusion of the competitive dialogue process and final tender evaluation.

9.      That the Strategic Director with responsibility for the Central Winchester Regeneration project be authorised, in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Asset Management and the Service Lead – Legal, to incorporate the recommended Development Partner’s tender submission into the Development Agreement, finalise the content of the Development Agreement and any necessary ancillary documents, and arrange for the Development Agreement and any necessary ancillary documents to be entered into on behalf of the council in accordance with Part 2, Article 14, of the council’s constitution.

Councillor Tod introduced the report which proposed the appointment of a development partner following careful consideration of various matters contained in the report and appendices (as set out in recommendations 1 to 7).  In addition, the report had been considered at the Scrutiny Committee on 27 February 2023 and points raised there would be responded to at this meeting.

In addition to officers from the council’s management and project team, Councillor Tod welcomed the following external advisors to the meeting – Jennifer Newsham (JLL), Stephen Matthew (Browne Jacobson) and Nick Walford (31 Ten).

The Head of Programme gave a presentation outlining the following areas CWR vision, the journey so far and project milestones, the procurement process and bidder scores, quality evaluation and the development agreement.  The presentation is available on the council’s website here.

Ian Tait spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Mr Tait expressed frustration about the delays in regenerating the central Winchester area and asked for firm commitments about when development would commence.  He believed although a great deal of useful detail was contained in the presentation, it did not contain any new information. 

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillor Horrill addressed Cabinet as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Horrill welcomed the opportunity given at Scrutiny Committee on 27 February 2023 for thorough consideration of the report.  She also commended the process undertaken by the council in selecting a development partner. She advocated the principle of developing the area without unnecessary delay, highlighting the significant land acquisitions that had taken place to enable this. However, she remained concerned that the council had not learned lessons from previous development projects. In particular, she had significant concerns regarding thedeal structure being proposed in the development agreement, the proposed finance model and the financial risk to the council.

In response to comments made during public participation, the Head of Programme provided further details regarding anticipated timings, emphasising that a delivery plan would have to be agreed within six months of appointment of the development partner which would include a future timetable of key dates.  This included a requirement that a planning application was submitted within 24 months of the delivery plan agreement.

Nick Walford responded to comments relating to the process for calculating land values.  He explained the use of the residual land value methodology and how, for CWR, this would reflect  the aspirations set out in the supplementary planning document (SPD) and therefore  land values achieved would reflect the mix of uses and the quality of design and public realm.  Jennifer Newsham provided further details regarding the recommended development partner’s proposals regarding retaining a long term interest in the site, through business partnering; resulted in the preferred bidder’s income generation ideas being the strongest.  The Head of Programme confirmed that it would not be possible to secure both maximum capital receipt for the council’s assets  and an ongoing revenue stream; that a mixture of the two was likely.  The Corporate Head of Finance confirmed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that scrutiny committee comment on the proposals within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3371 which is to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 6 March 2023.

NOTE.

This report contains four exempt appendices which have been published to committee members separately to this agenda pack. If members wish to discuss any part of these exempt papers, then the following applies:

(i)                  To pass a resolution that the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100 (I) and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 by virtue of paragraph 3 which is information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (which includes the authority holding that information).

Councillor Martin Tod, Leader, and Cabinet Member for Asset Management; introduced the report, ref CAB3371 which set out proposals concerning “Central Winchester Regeneration Appointment of Development Partner and Next Steps”, (available here).

Veryan Lyons, Head of Programme: Central Winchester Regeneration and Jennifer Newsham, (Jones Lang LaSalle) provided the committee with a presentation which included the following points; the journey to date, the process adopted, the evaluation criteria, the scoring process and scores achieved, the quality evaluation undertaken, the final tender submission summary, the recommended development partners approach to; engagement, sustainability and meanwhile uses, the proposed planning strategy, the development agreement, and the next steps.

The committee was supported by council officers and representatives from Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), Browne Jacobson and 31Ten. The committee was recommended to comment on the proposals within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3371 which was to be considered by the cabinet at its meeting on 6 March 2023.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report in detail. During the meeting, the committee agreed to move into an exempt session to consider the exempt appendices to the report before returning to the open session to debate the report further.

In summary, the following matters were raised.

1. Had the development agreement previously been reviewed by the scrutiny committee?
2. Had the 13 expressions of interest received been above or below officer expectations?
3. Further information was sought regarding the priority or focus on providing homes for young people, whilst maintaining flexibility for older persons' housing and multi-generational living.
4. Clarification was sought regarding the council’s approach regarding the potential for any income loss and associated mitigations and whether it was possible to map out the details of any loss of revenue in the next six months?
5. Further information was sought on whether there was any difference in the approach being taken between the group of properties referred to in section 2 and those previously purchased properties.
6. Further information was sought regarding the mitigation and management of risk, especially concerning the statement that this project's risk appetite was higher than moderate. 
7. Further information was sought regarding how the recommended development partner's “strong track record” was evidenced and examples of their prior developments and experience.
8. A question was asked regarding paragraph 7.3 and the reference to “opening up culverted waterways to provide riverside walks” and whether mitigations could be considered to help prevent future flooding incidents. Also, the opportunity for the installation of small hydro-generating stations to be installed was suggested.
9. Clarification was sought regarding the expertise of the individuals who had been involved in the bid-scoring process.
10. Clarification was sought regarding the role and makeup of the Central Winchester Regeneration reference group.
11. Further information was sought regarding how the different bidder's offers concerning income versus capital had been assessed and compared.
12. Further information was sought regarding the implementation of meanwhile uses in the first 6 months and who would oversee their implementation. This included the approach to be taken regarding consultation on the implementation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6