Issue - meetings

1.      That a Change of Consortium Compostion to replace GKRL with another company from within the Places for People Group be agreed and authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration and the Director (Legal), in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration, to amend the Development Agreement as appropriate.

2.      That PfP-Igloo's proposal not to replace the GKRL bank guarantee be accepted.

3.      That it be agreed that an entity from the PfP-Igloo consortium can be a Guarantor for the Phase Delivery Stages subject to the Council being a party to performance bonds between that entity and any funder and contractor. 

4.      That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibiity for Central Winchester Regeneration, Director (Finance) and the Director (Legal) to agree the detailed contractual arrangements as part of the Phase Delivery Plan. 

5.      That a report be submitted to the March Cabinet setting out provisions for matters outside the existing Development Agreement that are required to strengthen the scheme, addressing CIL; potential land acqusitions and Compulsory Purchase Order resolutions; and potential off-site affordable housing provision.

Councillor Tod introduced the report which set out a proposed change to the composition of the development consortium, emphasising that other scheme elements such as the architects, project managers and delivery plan were not changing.  The focus remained to work towards delivery of the project, with construction on site proposed to start in 2027.

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillors Lee, Godfrey and Horrill addressed Cabinet as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee emphasised the significance of the decision, including the wider impact on the district if the central regeneration programme failed.  He sought assurances as to why it would not be preferable to undertake a new procurement exercise to replace GKRL and expressed concern regarding the weakened financial security following their withdrawal. He questioned whether the revised ownership structure and the loss of bank guarantee would leave the council in a vulnerable position concerning delivery certainty and bargaining power and requested regular assurance reports on the financial standing of the remaining partner.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey expressed scepticism about the stated optimistic view of proposed changes to the development consortium, arguing that the departure of a major financial partner presented increased risks rather than benefits and might also deter future investors.  He queried the financial standing of any replacement members, whether the council had sufficient mitigation in place to address the resulting increased risks and warned that the resulting management changes would likely place the project’s timescales under considerable pressure.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill expressed frustration over the lack of progress on the regeneration scheme since the 2018 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was approved. She queried why GKRL had withdrawn from the original consortium partnership and expressed concern regarding the delegation of authority for approving a new partner without Cabinet involvement. She also queried the proposed use of performance bonds and would ask further questions on this during the exempt session of the meeting.  Furthermore, she highlighted broader issues within the council's various regeneration projects, asking for an officer assessment as to why so many local projects currently appeared to be stalled.

Councillor Tod together with the Strategic Director and the Head of Programme: Regeneration responded to the comments made, including explaining the various reasons why it was not considered appropriate to undertake a re-procurement process.  Councillor Tod confirmed that the council had engaged financial and legal advisors regarding the proposed guarantees to mitigate the  risk and further information would be provided in the exempt session of the meeting as it related to commercially sensitive matters concerning a partner to the scheme.

Cabinet noted that the report had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 19 January 2026 and the draft minutes of that meeting had been made available to all members attending Cabinet.  With regard to the request that a visual timeline of the project be provided for councillors and the public, the Head of Programme: Regeneration confirmed that officers would work with the Jigsaw team to update the timetable to be presented to a future Cabinet  ...  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 CAB3536 which is to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 21 January 2026.

NOTE

This report contains an exempt appendix (Appendix A), if members wish to discuss any part of this exempt appendix, then the procedure under agenda item 6a (below) applies.

Councillor Martin Tod, Leader and Cabinet Member for Regeneration introduced the report, ref CAB3536 which set out proposals for the Central Winchester Regeneration Scheme Update, (available here). The introduction included the following points.

1. The report detailed a change to the consortium partner, specifically that GKRL intended to withdraw and PFP Igloo, by replacing GKRL with another company in the PfP group, had agreed to assume 100% of the consortium responsibilities.
2. It was emphasised that while the consortium makeup was changing, the architects, urban designers, project managers, and the overall vision for the scheme remained unchanged.
3. The change in partnership structure was permitted under the existing development agreement with the Council’s consent which should not be unreasonably withheld.
4. The project remained focused on moving towards a planning application later in the year, with a target to start on site in 2027.

Councillor Stephen Godfrey addressed the committee. He expressed disappointment regarding the progress of major projects and questioned the viability of the scheme given the withdrawal of one of the consortium partners. He raised concerns regarding the risks associated with changing the partnership structure, specifically regarding the replacement of skills, potential delays to the planning application, and financial implications. He also noted that the exempt paper provided limited detail on the way forward and asked the committee to ensure sufficient safeguards were in place.

Ian Tait addressed the committee. He requested clarification on the financial benefits of the proposals and the timeline for receiving them, drawing a comparison to the income generated by the Brooks Centre. He noted that the council website had not been updated regarding the changes to the consortium and felt that the public were not being fully informed about the status of the development partner.

The committee was recommended to comment on the proposals within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3536 which was to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on 21 January 2026. The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

1. A question was asked regarding the skills and capacity of the remaining partner, and whether the council was satisfied that this change would not increase risk. Following this question, further clarification was sought on how any risks had shifted or been mitigated.
2. A question was raised regarding paragraph 11.2, asking if the withdrawal of one partner could be viewed as a positive move and a de-risking of the project.
3. Clarification was requested as to whether the parent company of Igloo had considered taking on the share of the project themselves.
4. A question was asked to identify what specific contributions GKRL brought to the consortium and whether the revised arrangements would fill those gaps.
5. Clarification was sought regarding an explanation for GKRL's withdrawal.
6. A question was asked whether there were likely to be any delays to the project as a result of the changes.
7. Information was requested on whether there were lessons to be learned to strengthen the consortium going forward.
8. A question was raised regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7