Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To record the names of apologies given.

Apologies were received from Councillor Thompson as noted above.

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 disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of various items on the agenda due to their role 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). 

Three members of the public spoke regarding report CAB3484 and their comments are summarised under the relevant minute below.

RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 February 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

There were no announcements made.

1.    That the updated version of the Development Delivery Plan be approved in accordance with clause 5.2. of the Development Agreement (see paragraph 12 of report CAB3484).

2.    That the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the Public Realm Delivery Plan, the Phase Delivery Plan and the initial Financial Model be approved in accordance with clause 5.4 of the Development Agreement (see paragraph 12 of the report).

3.    That the ringfencing of £4.5m of CIL receipts be approved, comprising £4m from the District fund and £0.5m from the Transport and Active Travel fund, to be used for exemplary public realm and green/blue and bus/highway infrastructure works in the Central Winchester Area in line with the Development Delivery Plan.

4.    That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibility for CWR, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Asset Management, to approve amendments to the Development Delivery Plan as the design develops.

5.    That the submission of the Initial Financial Model be noted and that work will continue on this during the detailed design pursuant to a planning application.

Councillor Tod introduced the report and highlighted the importance of scheme in providing new homes, jobs and businesses together with enhanced public realm, green and blue infrastructure and bus and highway infrastructure.  He acknowledged the history of previous proposals in the area and the desire to progress as quickly as possible, but emphasised that it was essential that the right decisions were made at the appropriate time to ensure future success. 

Conrad Ford, Ian Tait and Simon Turpin spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Conrad Ford

Mr Ford expressed concern about the previous time spent considering proposals for the area and any further delays in the implementation of the regeneration.  He believed the council risked being too sensitive to the vocal views of a minority of residents.  He requested that the scheme be progressed as quickly as possible for the long term benefits of Winchester residents.

Ian Tait

Mr Tait concurred with comments made regarding the length of time taken to deliver the redevelopment and get back on track since the failure of the previous Silver Hill proposals.  He remained concerned regarding the indication that the scheme would have a negative land value and the ability to put forward a robust business case.  He also believed that the Friarsgate medical site area should have been developed for residential use pending the beginning of the main regeneration proposals.

Simon Turpin 

Mr Turpin spoke as Asset Manager for Yarrow Estates Ltd, the long leaseholder of The Brooks Shopping Centre since 2023.  He reported that he had a good relationship with Estates Team officers at the council and with the Winchester BID and believed the proposed regeneration was vital to secure the long term viability of Winchester.  He had met with the Jigsaw team and had faith in their ability to deliver the scheme.  He supported the proposed development of a sustainable high quality scheme as soon as possible.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee queried the potential impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.  He emphasised the importance of the green-blue infrastructure strategy.  He referenced the Manchester Ignition project and queried whether the council should consider a hybrid approach by its consideration alongside the Jigsaw Igloo approach.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey expressed concern about the apparent delays in the scheme progressing and queried what had been achieved and the costs to the council since Jigsaw had been appointed.  He queried when any return on the sums invested by council in acquiring land in the CWR area would be realised and highlighted that the council was losing income every year on vacant property within the scheme.  He asked whether there was an option to cancel the project for lack of action?

Councillor Bolton

Councillor Bolton suggested that economic viability should be specifically mentioned as an objective of the Development Delivery Plan (DDP) to ensure it was effectively monitored.  He expressed some concern regarding the viability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

1.    That an increase of £60,619 to the existing £700,000 budget for CIL funded Community Projects be approved, with the total budget to re-profiled to 2025/26.

2.    That a funding allocation of £760,619 from Winchester City Council CIL income receipts and the expenditure under Financial Procedure rule 7.4 for the following community-led projects be approved:

b)    Badger Farm Community Centre - £21,230

c)    Colden Common Parish Council - £80,000

d)    Curdridge Parish Council - £48,000

e)    Kings Worthy Parish Council - £17,835

f)      Wickham Community Centre - £31,589

g)    Allegra’s Ambition - £55,000

h)    Unit 12 - £28,465

i)      Hampshire County Council - £146,000

j)      Weeke Primary School - £32,500

k)    Kings School - £300,000

3.    That it be noted that three applications were refused.

4.    That it be noted that £300,000 was previously allocated to the Winchester Upper High Street contra-flow cycle route scheme, which is no longer going ahead, so can be released back to the fund for future allocation.

5.    That a funding allocation and capital budget and expenditure of £150,000 be approved in 2025/26 from the Winchester City Council CIL receipts ring-fenced to support transport and active travel projects, for the provision of a zebra crossing on Winchester Road in Waltham Chase and additional pedestrian measures for other locations in Waltham Chase.

6.    That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Economy and Community to approve grant payments (in instalments where appropriate) based on evidence of spend provided by the applicant.

7.    That authority be delegated to the Service Lead Legal to enter into the grant funding agreements in accordance with the council’s funding criteria.

8.    That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Economy and Community, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan, to make procedural improvements to the approved CIL funding process.

Councillor Porter introduced the report and highlighted that paragraph 2.4 of the report summarised how the CIL funding would be allocated.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the district approach and particularly the proposed allocation for the provision of a zebra crossing on Winchester Road in Waltham Chase and additional pedestrian measures for other locations in Waltham Chase.  He queried whether there would be a review to ensure inflation and increasing construction costs were taken into account.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill welcomed the cross section of projects and raised a number of detailed questions namely: the procedural improvements proposed; details of the applications refused; ensuring bidders secured the support of councillors; the membership of the CIL working group; how the CIL programme was monitored and the future impact of the CIL allocation for the CWR scheme.

Councillor Porter, the Service Lead – Community and the CIL Implementation Officer responded to the comments and questions raised. 

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

RESOLVED:

1.             That an increase of £60,619 to the existing £700,000 budget for CIL funded Community Projects be approved, with the total budget to re-profiled to 2025/26.

2.             That a funding allocation of £760,619 from Winchester City Council CIL income receipts and the expenditure under Financial Procedure rule 7.4 for the following community-led projects be approved:

a)    Badger Farm Community Centre - £21,230

b)    Colden Common Parish Council - £80,000

c)    Curdridge Parish Council - £48,000

d)    Kings Worthy Parish Council - £17,835

e)    Wickham Community Centre - £31,589

f)      Allegra’s Ambition - £55,000

g)    Unit 12 - £28,465

h)    Hampshire County Council - £146,000

i)      Weeke Primary School - £32,500

j)      Kings School - £300,000

3.             That it be noted that three applications were refused.

4.             That it be noted that £300,000 was previously allocated to the Winchester Upper High Street contra-flow cycle route scheme, which is no longer going ahead, so can be released back to the fund for future allocation.

5.             That a funding allocation and capital budget and expenditure of £150,000 be approved in 2025/26 from the Winchester City Council CIL receipts ring-fenced to support transport and active travel projects, for the provision of a zebra crossing on Winchester Road in Waltham Chase and additional pedestrian measures for other locations in Waltham Chase.

6.             That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Economy and Community to approve grant payments (in instalments where appropriate) based on evidence of spend provided by the applicant.

7.             That authority be delegated to the Service Lead Legal to enter into the grant funding agreements in accordance with the council’s funding criteria.

8.             That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Economy and Community, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan, to make procedural improvements to the approved CIL funding process.

1.       That the adoption of the proposed Air Quality Strategy 2025 – 2030 be approved as set out in Appendix 1 of report CAB3461.

2.       That the Corporate Head of Service – Regulatory, be given delegated powers to make minor amendments to the Air Quality Strategy 2025 – 2030 as necessary. 

Councillor Porter introduced the report which set out the background to the proposed adoption of the strategy and delivery plans over the next five years.

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

Councillor Bolton

Councillor Bolton welcomed his involvement as a member of the Air Quality Steering Group.  He expressed the need for some caution regarding actions where there was a lack of data and the importance of being proportionate in actions proposed.  For example, any limitations on wood burning for heating homes (particularly in the rural areas) should be carefully considered and any actions should be primarily focussed on improving education in this area.

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the new strategy and the consultation undertaken to date.  He emphasised the importance of expanding the data available through monitoring and suggested investigating a mobile monitoring option. He also suggested adopting a free air alert service designed to notify vulnerable individuals of elevated air pollution levels.  He also mentioned the benefits of improving air quality on minimising the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and the possibility of expanding the strategy to recognise the impact of pollution on nature more widely.

Councillor Porter and the Service Lead – Public Protection responded to the comments and questions raised including confirming that the strategy would require actions for delivery as appropriate and these would be the subject of future Cabinet approval.

In response to Cabinet Member questions, the Service Lead advised that the council was a member of the Clean Air South partnership group with the University of Southampton as part of an effort to influence pollution arising from wider regional sources outside of the district boundaries. 

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

RESOLVED:

1.       That the adoption of the proposed Air Quality Strategy 2025 – 2030 be approved as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

2.       That the Corporate Head of Service – Regulatory, be given delegated powers to make minor amendments to the Air Quality Strategy 2025 – 2030 as necessary. 

That the Risk Management Policy for 2025/26, the Risk Appetite Statement for 2025/26 and the current Corporate Risk Register be approved.

Councillor Cutler introduced the report which had been discussed at Audit and Governance Committee on 25 February and the comments made and suggested response had been outlined in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the report.

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

Councillor Lee asked a question regarding the council’s agreed moderate risk appetite in relation to the stated desire to “go greener faster”.  He also queried why the corporate risk register did not include responding to the nature emergency and the council's capacity to adapt to climate and nature risks.  In addition, he asked whether risk relating to air quality should also be included.

Councillor Cutler responded to the comments and questions and agreed to discuss with officers whether any change to the corporate risks were required.

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

RESOLVED:

That the Risk Management Policy for 2025/26, the Risk Appetite Statement for 2025/26 and the current Corporate Risk Register be approved.

That the progress achieved during Q3 of 2024/25 be noted and the contents of report CAB3493 be endorsed.

Councillor Cutler introduced the report and advised that it had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 5 March the minutes of which had been published on the council’s website in advance of the Cabinet meeting.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee noted that the report contained a review of the previous quarter but queried whether it would be possible to include an outline of potential challenges expected in the future in addressing the council’s carbon emissions.

Councillor Bolton

Councillor Bolton highlighted the request at Scrutiny Committee that the current KPIs be reviewed in relation to measuring economic vibrancy to reflect the new Council Plan.  He queried whether members could suggest other ideas for future review of KPIs and how this process would work.

Councillors Cutler and Tod responded to the comment and questions raised including emphasising that the report’s purpose was not to consider potential future risks and it was open to the chair of Scrutiny Committee to determine how the review of KPIs would take place. 

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

RESOLVED:

That the progress achieved during Q3 of 2024/25 be noted and the contents of report CAB3493 be endorsed.

That as recommended by Cabinet Committee: Housing, the updated financial business plan set out at exempt Appendices A and B of report CAB3482(H) be approved.

Councillor Westwood introduced the report and advised that it had been previously considered and the recommendations supported at Cabinet Committee: Housing on 3 February 2025, the minutes of which had been published as an Addendum to the report.  Since that meeting, all 41 flats in Winnall (Foxglove House) had now been let.

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

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill welcomed the news that all the Foxglove House flats had now been let and queried why it was not therefore possible to expand the remit of Venta Living Ltd?  She emphasised the work and effort that had gone into establishing the company.

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee noted the possibility that a business case could be made for future opportunities and asked whether there were further opportunities to access brownfield land grants and Homes England funds to deliver more affordable housing.

Councillor Westwood responded to the comments and questions raised including emphasising that Venta Living was established to provide “market rent” housing and the requirement currently was to provide affordable housing so that was the council’s focus at this time.

Cabinet moved into exempt session to consider the contents of the exempt appendix before returning to open session to consider the report’s recommendations as set out below.

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

RESOLVED:

That as recommended by Cabinet Committee: Housing, the updated financial business plan set out at exempt Appendices A and B of report CAB3482(H) be approved.

RESOLVED:

That the list of future items as set out in the Forward Plan for April 2025 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.

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

Councillor Bolton

Councillor Bolton asked whether Cabinet Members were comfortable with the assumptions made in the financial model and whether other realistic scenarios were available to provide a better understanding of the volatility.  He emphasised the importance of securing a return on the council’s investment and queried what measures were in place to incentivise Jigsaw to provide this.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill queried how the council would guarantee that the CIL monies allocated would be used for the purpose specified?

Councillor Tod and the Director of Regeneration responded to the comments made including emphasising that the Joint Project Board received monthly updates on progress and viability.  Furthermore a quarterly review mechanism was incorporated into the Development Agreement (DA). The Development Agreement allowed for further profits, beyond that included in the DA for Jigsaw, to be shared equally between Jigsaw and the Council by way of an overage agreement.    Councillor Tod offered to meet with Councillor Bolton and any other councillors to provide further reassurance.  Jigsaw would be required to follow the usual process in submitting an application for CIL funding and the Monitoring Officer would be involved in ensuring the agreement process was sufficiently robust in relation to the large sums involved.  The Director (Finance) also confirmed that the council had employed development finance consultants to assist with the analysis and monitoring of the financial model and this would continue as the scheme progressed through to Full Business Case. 

RESOLVED:

          That the contents of the exempt appendix be noted.

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

Councillor Horrill stated that one of the key purposes of Venta Living was to provide high quality housing as an alternative to the current offer and highlighted the potential impact of new legislation of a reduction of private rental accommodation.  She believed it was unclear what the constraints were on the company to operate in the future and whether it would be possible to use it again to provide future homes?

Councillor Westwood and the Strategic Director responded to the comments made including explaining that the Venta Living housing company model had been established to deal with a particular need but changing circumstances and increased risk for the council from the current funding model meant it was unlikely it would be used again.  It was emphasised that the purpose of the report was to consider and approve Venta Living Ltd’s business plan and wider discussion of potential future provision of different forms of housing was dealt with by other means, such as the Housing Strategy.

RESOLVED:

          That the contents of the exempt appendices be noted.