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.

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