Agenda and minutes

To note the names of apologies given and Deputy Members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed Members.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note:  Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.      

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

(i) Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee (with East Hampshire District Council) – to appoint representatives for this external body (three member and three deputy representatives)

The Committee were asked to make a scrutiny related appointment onto the Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee (with East Hampshire District Council - EHDC) for 2018/19, as set out below.

RESOLVED:

1. That the following appointments be made to external body listed below:

i. Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee (with EHDC): Councillors Burns, Weston and Bell (deputies: Councillors McLean, Read and Clear).

In response to Members questions, the Chief Executive advised that the Environmental Services Contract Decision Making report due for consideration at this meeting, had been withdrawn order to move forward at the same timetable as East Hampshire District Council.  It was anticipated that this report would be brought forward shortly for consideration. 

The Chief Executive reported on the following changes to the Scrutiny Work Programme:

(i)         Station Approach – Outline Business Case; RIBA stage 2 concept design             & design of processing to RIBA stage 3, be amended to Station Approach           Update Report.

(ii)        Air Quality Action Plan Report was proposed to be delivered through a presentation setting out the current status, trends and outline proposals for      its development.

(iii)       Performance Monitoring – Portfolio Holder Plans: This report had been      deleted due to enhanced performance management and the inclusion of    Portfolio Holder Plans within service plans going forward, for consideration  on a quarterly basis.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the amendments above, the Scrutiny Work Programme for 2018/19 and Forward Plan for July 2018, be noted.

To note that the following report is due for consideration by Cabinet. In line with financial procedure rules, opportunity must be given to the Committee to consider the matter, if required.

·         CAB3048 – Bishops Waltham Depot Site – Proposals for Redevelopment Appraisal

The Chief Executive reported that CAB3048 - Bishops Waltham Depot Site –       Proposals for Redevelopment Appraisal had been brought forward to the   Committee, in line with financial procedure rules, as the cost estimate for the             proposal had increased in excess of £250k. Prior to its consideration by Cabinet   on 20 June 2018 and Council on 27 June 2018, the Committee were given the      opportunity to make any comments on this report accordingly.         

                        RESOLVED:

That no comments be made to Cabinet on the matter outlined  above.

To receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on matters which fall within the remit of the Committee.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Nicki Elks, Patrick Davies, Terry Gould and Tim Fell addressed the Committee with regard to agenda item 9, Central Winchester Regeneration – Adoption of Supplementary Planning Document (Report OS197 refers).  Their comments are summarised under the relevant agenda item below.

Councillor Bell also addressed the Committee with regard to agenda item 11, Environmental Services Contract Decision Making, which was due to be considered at the meeting but had since been withdrawn.  In summary, she made reference to the proposed timetable for the contract and the need for the Council to exercise its one year emergency extension as a result of the delay.

In response, the Chief Executive indicated that at this stage the council did not anticpate  exercising the one year extension and that the decision making timetable was now expected shortly.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Jon Hunt, Project Manager for MACE. He highlighted the main points contained in the procurement process, as set out in the report to Cabinet and detailed the various stages of the RIBA development and design process, the construction cost plan assumptions and exclusions, client funded items  the value engineering of RIBA 2 and RIBA 3, an operator procurement update, gateways and the programme for the project.  

A copy of the presentation would be made available on the Council’s website as a supplementary document and is also included as an appendix to the minutes.

It was noted that following completion of RIBA 3, the scheme was currently being progressed heading towards the planning stage, with an exhibition of the planning submission  made available in the Guildhall.  Consideration of the full business case was expected early next year. This would incorporate the outcome of procurement for an operator and construction costs. Subject to consideration of the business case, construction was scheduled for in Spring 2019.

During questions and debate, Members raised a number of questions which were responded to accordingly, as summarised below:

(i)            In relation to the suggested review of cycling and pedestrian access in Highcliffe, it was noted that the submitted planning application would include a full transport assessment and details of the  roundabout access and wider connections. The wider Winchester Movement Strategy will also be considering such issues throughout Winchester.

(ii)          In respect of the anticipated cost plan, budget and capital costs, the Head of Programme reported that these remained as set out in the outline business case, working within the £38m budget.

(iii)         To address issuess regarding the specification of the building raised by local sports clubs, it was noted that discussions were taking place with national sport governing bodies with feedback reviewed  and ongoing engagement planned throughout the process. 

The Head of Programme confirmed that any changes to the internal design would probably not affect the planning application process but would require a change to the design internally to be signed off at each stage by Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee.

(iv)         In relation to the proposed roundabout and layout, it was reported that all highway works would be carried out as part of the Leisure Centre development. Dialogue was ongoing with Hampshire County Council, in conjunction with the wider Movement Strategy and the traffic impact assessment and the technical agreement in advance of the highway works, which forms part of the planning process.

(v)          The Head of Programme clarified that investment would be provided to ensure there were accessible bus stops nearby and that a review of the Council’s park and ride service would be carried out to align with the Leisure Centre. This approach would continue to be considered at the Sustainability Advisory Panel, as part of the wider programme for the City.

(vi)         In relation to public consultation, the Head of Programme highlighted that consultation had been carried out across the wider District where exhibitions had taken place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Mrs Nicki Elks queried the risk of legal challenge with the delivery of the document following the use of  ‘less prescriptive’ wording changes made to the updated draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), as set out in Appendix A to the report and considered that these changes gave the developer space to change the vision going forward. Mrs Elks suggested that this also applied to areas of the Councils ownershipas well where the proposed changes increased the risk of failing to deliver the intent with the SPD produced by the Council In conclusion, she suggested that, if the Council was minded to adopt the proposed changes, reassurance be provided to ensure the vision would not be altered.

Mr Patrick Davies queried the content of paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the report and stated that the public Informal Policy Group (IPG) meeting on 14 May 2018 had not been publicised on the Council’s website. Mr Davies queried that at the public IPG meeting, a handout was provided that did not reflect the challenge or changes to the SPD that the Council were now proposing. He questioned why the Council had not gone public in detail about the changes and why the IPG had met in private with the public not being advised about the legal challenge.

In response to Mr Davies concerns, the Leader advised that the minutes of the IPG were open to the public to view on the Council’s website when they became available.

Mr Terry Gould stated that the development of this area of the City was important to the entire District. Mr Gould made reference to the provision of bus stops and raised alternative approaches that should be investigated particularly around consideration of the bus hub at Friarsgate. In addition, he also made reference to the access to the café in Kings Walk and suggested an alternative arrangement, Mr Gould reiterated the concerns previously expressed and considered that the original wording of the SPD should remain, as set out therein.

Mr Tim Fell suggested that as the Committee was required to scrutinise the lengthy content of the SPD, both this Committee, and Cabinet, should consider postponing its decision to ensure there was adequate time to address all the matters raised.

Councillor Horrill introduced the Report and its appendices on behalf of the IPG.  The SPD set out the 18 months of work and represented  the clear vision and objectives for the site that had been the aspirations of the City and District, following the response of 2,500 residents, partners and businesses during a three and a half month consultation period.

Councillor Horrill reported that the changes reflected in the updated draft SPD had been thoroughly reviewed  to ensure they did not conflict with the Local Plan and were tethered to the Council’s Planning Policies to ensure the document was robust; the Council was the majority landowner with over 80% of the land in its ownership. Furthermore, it was reported that the updated draft SPD had been considered and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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.

  Item                                                                          Para No. of Schedule        12a to the Act giving description of

exempt information giving rise

to the exclusion of the public

          Environment Services Contract Decision Making

          Report (Exempt Report)                                                                  5

Please note this item has now been withdrawn from the agenda.