Agenda, decisions and minutes

To record the names of apologies given.

Apologies were received from Councillor Becker 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.  </AI3>

<AI4>

– 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 (see below for contact details and deadline). 

Ian Tait spoke regarding reports CAB3466 and CAB3489 and Lucy Taylor spoke regarding report CAB3466, as summarised under the relevant minutes below.

</AI4>

<AI5>

RESOLVED:

          That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 June 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

There were no announcements made.

1.       That the feedback from the resident engagement undertaken in June 2025 be noted.

2.       That the recommended approach to market the site for sale and find a new investor be agreed, including agreeing the evaluation criteria as set out in paragraph 11.8 of report CAB3466.

3.       That resident engagement events take place following the receipt of expressions of interest stage and final bid as part of the on-going and continued commitment to resident and stakeholder engagement.

4.       That a budget of £130,000 be approved, financed from the MIR reserve, to fund the costs of marketing the site.

5.       That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibility for the former Leisure Centre site project to market the site and invite bids.

6.       That a further report be brought back to Cabinet with recommendation to approve the sale of the site to the preferred bidder.

In Councillor Becker’s absence, Councillor Tod introduced the report which outlined the background to the current proposals and set out plans to market the site for sale with evaluation criteria at paragraph 11.8 of the report.  Initial public consultation on options for its future use had been undertaken with the results summarised in paragraph 6.4 of the report.  The proposed plan confirmed that at least two further rounds of consultation would take place.

Ian Tait and Lucy Taylor spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

          Ian Tait

Ian Tait reminded members that he had spoken in support of the previous proposal in 2022 to lease the site to Southampton University and would welcome the use of the site for arts or cultural purposes.  However, he believed there had been a lack of progress since and highlighted the negative impact on the area of the old leisure centre building in its current state.  He queried what were the results of the earlier consultation which took place in 2022 and believed the latest consultation was inadequate.  In general, he would support any new proposal that was deliverable in the area.

Lucy Taylor (Winchester Lido group)

Lucy Taylor highlighted that over 3,000 people had signed the recent petition supporting the provision of a Winchester lido and the council’s most recent consultation had indicated a lido was the most suggested option for the site.  Lidos were seeing a resurgence in popularity across the country with new lidos being developed in several areas.  She highlighted the many benefits for both physical and mental health and also in terms of economic benefits to the area.  In summary, she urged the council to work with partners to provide a Winchester lido.

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillors Cook, Laming, Lee, Tippett-Cooper and Godfrey addressed Cabinet as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Cook

Councillor Cook made reference to the previous decision by Cabinet on 4 March 2022 to grant a five year option period to Southampton University (SU).  She expressed concern about the fact there was no contract, no legal obligation for SU to apply for planning consent and queried whether SU had been seriously interested in progressing.  With regard to the current proposals, she believed the consultation was inadequate, expressed concern about the council entering into an agreement with only one partner again and about any proposal to dispose of existing public car parking spaces.

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed confirmation that the site was a district asset and asked that future consultations better reflect this by engaging with residents across the district.  He supported the use of a brownfield site to meet community requirements, but raised a number of queries and concerns, including the cost to the council of surveys and what options would be available if a viable investment proposal was not forthcoming.   He emphasised the sensitive nature of the site and believed that emerging Local Plan new policy NE17 should be regarded as a material consideration, particularly as it was in a flood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

1.    That the Corporate Head of Asset Management be authorised to dispose of the Corner House, North Walls, Winchester on the open market on a freehold or leasehold basis.

2.    That it be noted that the £1.8m Corner House scheme in the capital programme (CAB3490 refers) will be subsumed into the ‘Unallocated 1,000 Homes’ scheme to increase the investment in other affordable accommodation, subject to authority to spend.

Councillor Reach introduced the report which requested authorisation to dispose of the Corner House. He outlined the background to the proposal and the reasons for the changed approach, as summarised in the report.  He emphasised that, including the Corner House, the council had acquired 43 properties since 2020 and 42 of these had been made available for social or affordable housing. 

Ian Tait spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

        Ian Tait advised that he had spoken previously to raise his concerns about the council’s acquisition of the property and the subsequent delays.  He believed that there was no proper business case for the acquisition which had been taken quickly in order to prevent the loss of right to buy receipts but had resulted in costs to the council of over £800,000.  He highlighted that his understanding of the latest proposal was restricted because he was unable to see the contents of the exempt appendix.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee stated that Scrutiny Committee had requested further detail about the Corner House acquisition at its meeting on 1 February 2025 but this had not yet been forthcoming.  He requested confirmation that the correct procedures had been followed.  He also queried why a leasehold disposal option was being offered as he believed freehold would offer better value.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey expressed concern that the property had remained empty since its acquisition in 2020 at a cost to the council.   He also referred to other council owned properties which he considered remained empty for too long.  He urged for action to be taken as soon as possible.

Councillor Reach together with the Strategic Director responded to the comments made including confirming that financial viability appraisals had been undertaken prior to the property being acquired and prior to planning permission being applied for which both indicated the scheme would be viable.  Councillor Tod advised that he had responded to the queries raised by The Scrutiny Committee.

Cabinet members and invited councillors present confirmed that it was not necessary to go into exempt session to discuss the contents of the exempt appendix.

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report (including the exempt appendix) and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.           That the Corporate Head of Asset Management be authorised to dispose of the Corner House, North Walls, Winchester on the open market on a freehold or leasehold basis.

2.           That it be noted that the £1.8m Corner House scheme in the capital programme (CAB3490 refers) will be subsumed into the ‘Unallocated 1,000 Homes’ scheme to increase the investment in other affordable accommodation, subject to authority to spend.

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the exempt appendix be noted.