Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To record the names of apologies given.

Apologies were received from Councillors Reach and Thompson as noted above.

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 reports CAB3553, CAB3556, CAB3532 and CAB3550 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.

The Leader reported that he had confirmed the names of the Cabinet Members and that their responsibilities had remained unchanged for 2026/27 (previously announced at Annual Council on 20 May 2026).

RESOLVED:

          That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 12 and 18 March 2026 be agreed as correct records.

</AI5>

<AI6>

There were no announcements made.

1.    That the publication of the required notice under Section 123 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 be approved.   

2.    That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Healthy Communities, to finalise and publish the statutory notice.  

3.    That  a further report  be brought back following the expiry of the notice period to consider any representations received and to consider the disposal of the site to the preferred bidder. 

Councillor Becker introduced the report which set out the next steps in determining the future of the former site.  Since the decision to re-market the site was taken in July 2025, a number of formal bids had been submitted which were currently being assessed and a further report would come to a future Cabinet, including a full evaluation of bids and any public representations before a final decision was made.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the progress towards reuse of the former leisure centre site and praised the commitment to continued community engagement, noting the considerable public interest surrounding the future of the location.  The selection of a partner scheme capable of delivering genuine community benefit should proceed as soon as possible.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey welcomed the progress on the vacant city centre site but criticised the report for failing to clarify its future use or explain why local government reorganisation (LGR) was referenced as a project risk. He suggested that the move to give notice of disposal before formal bids were fully evaluated implied a predetermined outcome and questioned whether the potential reduction in market value represented a reasonable use of public funds. Finally, he queried the apparent rush to approve the disposal, suggesting that the accelerated timeline might be an attempt to bypass external scrutiny from future unitary authorities or the Government.

Councillor Becker responded to the comments made including emphasising the aim for the decision to be taken by the council with its local knowledge and connections prior to any restrictions imposed by the LGR process.

The Director (Legal) also responded to questions regarding the legal advice sought relating to the designation of the land as public open space and the recommended steps necessary to facilitate its future disposal.

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

RESOLVED:

1.              That the publication of the required notice under Section 123 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 be approved.   

2.              That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Healthy Communities, to finalise and publish the statutory notice.  

3.              That a further report be brought back to Cabinet following the expiry of the notice period to consider any representations received and to consider the disposal of the site to the preferred bidder. 

1.    That a supplementary estimate of £250,000 for works to the Buttercross be approved, funded from the Council’s Property Reserve.

2.    That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, to enter into revised contract arrangements with the appointed specialist contractor, Stonewest Ltd.

3.    That the Scheduled Monument Emergency Works Notice issued by Historic England and the requirement to undertake the works without delay be noted.

Councillor Tod introduced the report, explaining that the additional expenditure required only became apparent when closer inspection of the historic monument became possible when scaffolding had been erected.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee supported the preservation of the medieval monument but expressed concern regarding the substantial project cost increase. He questioned why structural defects were not identified during routine inspections and sought assurance that revised cost estimates had been independently validated to ensure value for money. Highlighting the impact of prolonged scaffolding on local businesses and tourism, he requested clarification on the legal requirements of the works and the potential for uninsured liability. Finally, he suggested that the council should adopt proactive maintenance reviews for all heritage assets to avoid reactive and costly future liabilities.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill welcomed the restoration progress of the Buttercross as an important district asset but expressed concern regarding the project management process. She questioned how initial estimates could be so inaccurate and sought an explanation for why preliminary studies failed to identify the structural failures discovered once scaffolding was erected. While supporting the necessity of the investment, she called for more accurate advance information regarding project risks and potential scope to ensure better financial oversight in the future.

Councillor Tod and the Corporate Head of Asset Management responded to the comments made including confirming that full records of the repairs undertaken would be maintained which should assist with estimating any future repairs or maintenance required.

It was suggested that some of the photographs provided in the report be displayed around the site boarding and the Corporate Head agreed to investigate the feasibility of this suggestion further.

Cabinet also thanked the Winchester Town Forum Heritage Group for their work with council officers and Historic England in promoting the restoration required.

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

RESOLVED:

1.       That a supplementary estimate of £250,000 for works to the Buttercross be approved, funded from the Council’s Property Reserve.

2.       That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, to enter into revised contract arrangements with the appointed specialist contractor, Stonewest Ltd.

3.       That the Scheduled Monument Emergency Works Notice issued by Historic England and the requirement to undertake the works without delay be noted.

1.      That the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration be authorised to complete the acquisition of the former St Clement’s Surgery for the amount of £2.75m plus SDLT (£127,000) and fees (£20,000).

2.      That a supplementary capital estimate of £267,000 be approved, funded by prudential borrowing (£140,000) and capital receipts (£127,000), bringing the total approved budget to £2,877,000.

3.      That capital expenditure of £2,877,000 be approved for the acquisition of the former St Clement’s Surgery.

4.      That an ongoing revenue budget of £53,200 be approved for security, business rates, maintenance, and utilities until such time a lease to Jigsaw is in place.

5.      That the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration and Director Finance be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of an option agreement for the former St Clement’s Surgery with Jigsaw.

6.      That the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration be authorised to explore meanwhile uses of the former St Clements Surgery with Jigsaw and to agree an approach that best mitigates the holding costs.

Councillor Tod introduced the report, stating that the proposal offered an opportunity to acquire an important site in relation to the CWR scheme but emphasising that the acquisition was not essential to the scheme progressing.  He advised that the report had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 26 May 2026, the draft minutes of which had been circulated to all members present. 

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee referenced useful discussions at Scrutiny Committee and asked whether if the former St Clements Surgery site was acquired, the council was achieving best value for taxpayers given the total acquisition and holding costs.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill emphasised her long-standing support for CWR but raised serious concerns about why the council was assuming acquisition risks rather than Jigsaw. She questioned the decision to proceed without a full building condition assessment or a detailed plan for meanwhile use to cover short-term financing and holding costs. Finally, she sought evidence that public funds were not effectively subsidising Jigsaw and called for absolute clarity to ensure decisions on the scheme remained transparent and deliverable for residents.

Councillor Wallace (Chair of Scrutiny Committee)

Councillor Wallace reported that the Scrutiny Committee recognised the strategic opportunity to enhance the CWR scheme’s design flexibility and coherence by acquiring the former St Clement’s Surgery site. He noted that while the acquisition was not essential for delivery, it would prevent a poor-quality building from remaining at the heart of the development. However, he raised serious concerns regarding the council’s potential financial exposure, specifically the risk of holding a non-performing asset and the impact of borrowing on the wider capital programme. Finally, he urged Cabinet to weigh these risks carefully and ensure that the decision-making process remained transparent and beyond reproach.

Councillor Tod, the Strategic Director and the Director of Regeneration responded to the points raised including confirming that the option agreement obliged Jigsaw to buy the site and they were confident meanwhile uses could be achieved.

The Director (Finance) emphasised that there remained some unknowns in relation to the option agreement including the length of time prior to the put option and the number of residential units and amount of commercial floor space.  She also highlighted the potential risks to the council if the market value of the site was to decrease, or if Jigsaw were to become insolvent.  She stated it was a decision for Cabinet to weigh up the risks against the benefits to the overall CWR scheme of the proposed acquisition.

The Strategic Director highlighted that paragraph 11.12 set out the main elements to be included within the option agreement and that whilst this had not been finalised yet, a minimum number of residential units and commercial floor space would be included. 

Cabinet discussed the content of the report in detail, with particular reference to the financial risks involved and the potential wider benefits of the acquisition.

Cabinet and invited councillors present  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

1.      That a conditional freehold sale contract (subject to planning) with Places for People Developments Ltd be approved on the terms set out in the exempt Heads of Terms at Appendix 6 of the report.  

2.      That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director to agree final details of the contract of sale within the parameters set out in Appendix 6.

Councillor Tod introduced the report which recommended disposal of the former depot site and advised that it had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 26 May 2026, the draft minutes of which had been circulated to all members present. 

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the reuse of the brownfield site to meet housing and community needs but queried whether the number of affordable housing units could be increased, for example by adjusting height constraints in the design framework.   He highlighted the importance of providing units at social rather than affordable rents if possible. 

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey welcomed the proposals, particularly after the withdrawal of the previous purchaser.  He noted that while his initial preference was for the council to develop its own housing, he commended officers for attracting a preferred bidder committed to providing 82 high-density affordable homes and retail space.

Councillor Wallace (Chair of Scrutiny Committee)

Councillor Wallace reported that the Scrutiny Committee had been supportive of the project’s focus on affordable housing, acknowledging the council's decision to accept a reduced financial return to secure 82 homes and a community facility.  Members had sought reassurances regarding the preferred bidder’s track record, site contamination, and the availability of Homes England funding. He also highlighted the importance of establishing safeguards should planning approvals be delayed or not achieved. Finally, he confirmed the committee felt comfortably reassured and reiterated the necessity of maintaining delivery confidence to ensure the agreed housing outcomes were met.

Councillor Tod, the Corporate Head of Asset Management and the Director (Legal) responded to the comments made including confirming the proposal was for an open market disposal of the site which did not place restrictions on tenure mix or design of scheme.  However, these matters would be dealt with by the council’s current planning policies through the planning application process.

Cabinet and invited councillors present confirmed they did not wish 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 and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.          That a conditional freehold sale contract (subject to planning) with Places for People Developments Ltd be approved on the terms set out in the exempt Heads of Terms at Appendix 6 of the report.  

2.          That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director to agree final details of the contract of sale within the parameters set out in exempt Appendix 6.

That the progress achieved during Q4 of 2025/26 be noted and the contents of the report be endorsed.

Councillor Cutler introduced the report and advised that it had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 26 May 2026, the draft minutes of which had been circulated to all members present.  Councillor Cutler provided a response to the questions raised by the committee where it had not been possible to provide answers during the meeting.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee highlighted a significant "delivery gap" regarding the decarbonisation of corporate assets and expressed concern that unmanaged AI growth could create hidden scope 3 emissions. He questioned the exclusion of councillors from the staff travel survey and sought clarity on how network mergers might impact future EV charging tariffs and investment. Finally, he raised concerns regarding telecom resilience in energy metering and queried the strategic risks posed by the government’s challenging timetable for the upcoming Local Plan.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill suggested that the new chair of Scrutiny Committee consider how future meetings could be utilised more effectively to address meaningful issues and scrutinise reported outcomes more efficiently. Regarding the joint Movement Strategy, she urged the council to leverage available funds to address unmet priorities. Finally, she sought clarification on the RAG status concerning proposed land acquisitions for the Central Winchester Regeneration (CWR) scheme.

Councillor Wallace (Chair of Scrutiny Committee)

Councillor Wallace agreed that further consideration would be given to the best methods for scrutinising performance reports.  He expressed significant concern regarding climate delivery, noting that both corporate and district carbon reduction measures had been rated amber for an extended period. He questioned at what point these ratings would trigger a formal recovery approach and raised further queries regarding the clarity of reporting for the local area energy plan. Finally, he highlighted delivery challenges within the housing sector, specifically focusing on the progress of the new homes programme, retrofitting, and damp and mould issues.

Councillors Cutler, Learney and Tod responded to the comments made including suggesting that Scrutiny Committee consider focussing on a particular topic in relation to performance monitoring at its meetings to ensure the appropriate Cabinet Member, Director and supporting officer could be in attendance.

The Chief Executive highlighted that the performance reports offered a snapshot in time and any “amber” or “red” ratings would be monitored regularly by the Cabinet Member and senior officer team.

In relation to the clarification sought by Councillor Horrill, Cabinet agreed a correction to the wording of the CWR section of the performance report as follows:

“A paper will be taken to May Cabinet seeking approval for the proposed land acquisition required to support the delivery of the scheme.”

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

RESOLVED:

That the progress achieved during Q4 of 2025/26 be noted and the contents of the report be endorsed.

Councillor Tod introduced the report and drew Cabinet’s attention to the group nominations that had been circulated prior to the meeting.

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

RESOLVED:

1.                  That the following appointments to Cabinet Committees, informal group and fora be made for the 2026/27 Municipal Year:

(a)  Cabinet Committee: Housing*

Cabinet Member for Good Homes (Councillor Reach) (Chairperson), Councillors Becker and Cutler

Non-voting invited councillors: Councillors Power, Clear, Horrill and White

(b)  Cabinet Committee: Local Plan*

Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan (Councillor Porter) (Chairperson), Councillors Learney and Tod

Non-voting invited councillors: Councillors Brophy, Williams, Rutter, Warwick and Lee

(c)  Cabinet Committee: Regeneration*

Leader and Cabinet Member for Regeneration (Councillor Tod) (Chairperson), Councillors Cutler, Learney and Thompson

Non-voting invited councillors: Councillors Aron, Laming, Godfrey and Lee

*Note – it was agreed that deputies for the non-voting invited councillors at Cabinet Committees be appointed from any group at the Chairperson’s discretion.

(d)  TACT Board

Councillors Reach and Horrill

(e)  Carbon Neutrality Open Forum

Councillors Learney (Chairperson)

(f)    Equality, Diversion and Inclusion Forum

Councillors Becker (Chairperson), Bennett, Clear, Langford-Smith and Cook

(g)  Winchester Sports and Leisure Park Advisory Board –

Councillors Becker (Chairperson), Aron, Murphy and Cook

(h)  Central Winchester Regeneration (CWR) Project Board –

Councillors Tod and Cutler

(i)    Strategic Asset Purchase Scheme Board

Councillors Tod, Cutler, Becker and Thompson

(j)    Treasury Investment Group

Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance (Councillor Cutler) and Councillor Tod, Councillor Morris (Chair of Audit & Governance Committee), Councillors Chamberlain and Wallace

(k)  Local Government Reorganisation Board

Deputy Leader (Councillor Cutler) (Chairperson) and Councillors Tod, Morris, Lee and Horrill

(l)    Kings Barton Forum

Councillors: Cramoysan (Chairperson), Batho, Eve, Morris, Porter, Godfrey and Warwick (Deputies: Learney, Rutter and Horrill)

(m)West of Waterlooville Forum –

Councillors: Cutler  (Chairperson), Chamberlain, Bennett and Langford-Smith (Deputies: Clear)

2.                That Councillor Bennett be appointed as Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Member Champion.

3.                That Councillor Tippett-Cooper be appointed as “Sanctuary Champion”

4.                That Councillor Laming be appointed as “Armed Forces Champion”

Councillor Tod introduced the report and drew Cabinet’s attention to the group nominations that had been circulated prior to the meeting.  He noted that appointed members be reminded of their responsibilities which should include an annual reporting back on the work of the external organisation.

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

Councillor Horrill suggested it would be preferable for the various group leaders and managers to meet prior to the Cabinet meeting to informally discuss the proposed appointments.  She also welcomed any proposal to ensure members reported back on their roles.

Cabinet agreed that the most appropriate method of reporting back on the work of the external organisations be considered further by the Monitoring Officer as set out in the new resolution 4 below.

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

RESOLVED:

1.              That the following appointments to external bodies be made for the 2026/27 Municipal Year (unless stated otherwise):

(i)                Central Hampshire Road Safety Council – Councillor Westwood

(ii)                Hampshire & Isle of Wight Local Government Association (HIOWLGA) – Leader and Deputy Leader (Councillors Tod and Cutler)

(iii)              Hampshire County Council Annual Meeting with Parish & District Councils regarding public transport issues – Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport (Councillor Learney)

(iv)             Hampshire Cultural Trust – Cabinet Member with responsibility for Culture (Councillor Thompson) (Trustee) and Councillor Rutter (Observer)

(v)               Hampshire Homechoice Board – Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing (Councillor Reach)

(vi)             Hampshire Rural Forum – Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Economy (Councillor Thompson)

(vii)            Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Planning Advisory Board – Cabinet Member with responsibility for planning (Councillor Porter)

(viii)           Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code – Member responsible for complaints – Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing (Councillor Reach)

(ix)             Local Government Association – Leader and Deputy Leader (Councillors Tod and Cutler)

(x)               Mid-Hampshire Unitary Authority voluntary and full joint committee arrangements – Leader (Councillor Tod) and Deputy Leader as deputy (Councillor Cutler)

(xi)             Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH) Joint Committee – Leader (Councillor Tod) and Deputy Leader as deputy (Councillor Cutler)

(xii)            PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication Joint Committee – Cabinet Member with responsibility for transport/parking – Councillor Learney

(xiii)           Police and Crime Panel (until May 2029, confirmed annually) – Councillor Murphy (Councillor Laming)

(xiv)          Project Integra Management Board – Cabinet Member with responsibility for waste (Councillor Cramoysan) plus Councillor Learney (deputy)

(xv)            River Hamble Harbour Management Committee (until May 2029, confirmed annually) – Councillor Power and Councillor Wallace (deputy)

(xvi)          South East England Councils (SEEC) – Leader (Councillor Tod) and Deputy Leader as deputy (Councillor Cutler)

(xvii)         South East Employers – Chair of Audit & Governance Committee (Councillor Morris)

(xviii)        South-East Hampshire voluntary and full joint committee – Deputy Leader (Councillor Cutler) and Councillor Tod (deputy)

(xix)          Southampton International Airport Consultative Committee – Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport (Councillor Learney) and Councillor Bennett (deputies Councillors Aron and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

          That the contents of the exempt appendix be noted.

RESOLVED:

          That the contents of the exempt appendices be noted.