Agenda, decisions and minutes

To record the names of apologies given.

There were no apologies received.

To give consideration to the approval of alternative arrangements for appointments to bodies set up by Cabinet or external bodies, or the making or terminating of such appointments.

There were no changes to be made.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Councillors or Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs), other registerable interests (ORIs) and non-registerable interests (NRIs) in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Councillors Tod and Porter declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of various items on the agenda due to their roles as Hampshire County Councillors.  However, as there was no material conflict of interest, they remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Audit and Governance Committee to participate and vote in all matters which might have a County Council involvement.  

– to note the names of members of the public wishing to speak on general matters affecting the District or on agenda items (in the case of the latter, representations will normally be received at the time of the agenda item, after the Cabinet Member’s introduction and any questions from Cabinet Members).

NB members of the public are required to register with Democratic Services three clear working days before the meeting (contact: democracy@winchester.gov.uk or 01962 848 264). 

There were no members of the public present.

RESOLVED:

          That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 November 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

Councillor Cramoysan announced that court proceedings had been brought against four cases of fly tipping, heard on the same day and were all successful.

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.

1.      Subject to Full Council approval of the Budget and Capital Investment Strategy, approve expenditure of £1.676m for the car park major works programme 2026/27 as outlined in Appendix A of report CAB3533.

2.      Delegate to the Head of Service – Place, in consultation with the Corporate Head of Asset Management and Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency, authority to adjust the programme to meet maintenance and operational needs of the car park service throughout the year, as required, and procure works as set out in the report.

Councillor Learney introduced the report highlighting the significant investment and works that had been undertaken in the previous year, in addition to those planned for 2026/27.  To achieve these objectives, the report included a proposal to employ a fixed term project officer to work on parking projects.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the proposed improvements to customer safety and facilities. He expressed concern regarding the lack of firm commitments for expanded electric vehicle charging provision and queried why the charging strategy and financial assessments had not informed the programme prior to its approval. He also questioned whether the distribution of investment was equitable across the district and whether it reflected both the parking strategy and Winchester Movement and Access Plan.  He raised potential risks regarding the transfer of car park assets under local government reorganisation.  Finally, he urged the Cabinet to explicitly integrate land use and environmental and nature recovery considerations into future capital decisions.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey raised queries regarding the funding for northern park and ride provision at St John Moore Barracks and the future operation of a park and ride at Kings Barton. While welcoming the refurbishment of toilets, he noted that the current schemes were focused on the town area and asked when funding would be allocated to improve facilities within market towns.  He welcomed the inclusion of the cycle path proposals and sought assurances these would link to villages to the north of Winchester.  He also requested an explanation for the separate handling of air handling works at the Brooks Centre relative to the planned enlargement of the parking spaces

Councillor Learney and the Corporate Head of Service: Place responded to the comments made, including confirming that a number of sources of funding were under examination regarding the proposed North Park and Ride and the budget included provision for future operation.  The Corporate Head of Service: Place also referenced a previous report to Cabinet which included provision for refurbishing toilets at car parks across the district (CAB3411 refers).

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.              That subject to Full Council approval of the Budget and Capital Investment Strategy, expenditure of £1.676m for the car park major works programme 2026/27be approved, as outlined in Appendix A of report CAB3533.

2.              That authority be delegated to the Head of Service – Place, in consultation with the Corporate Head of Asset Management and Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency, to adjust the programme to meet maintenance and operational needs of the car park service throughout the year, as required, and procure works as set out in the report.

RESOLVED:

That the list of future items as set out in the Forward Plan for February 2026 be noted.

To consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(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.

RESOLVED:

1.       That in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

2.       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 100I and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Cabinet considered the contents of the exempt appendix which set out the financial standing test for one of the PfP-Igloo entities (further detail in exempt minute).

RESOLVED:

          That the contents of the exempt appendix be noted.