To record the names of apologies given.

Apologies were received from Councillors Humby and Ashton (Standing Deputy)

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.

There were no disclosures of interests.

Note: Councillors wishing to speak about a particular agenda item are requested to advise the Democratic Services Officer before the meeting.  Councillors will normally be invited by the Chairman to speak immediately prior to the appropriate item.

Councillor Hutchison addressed the Committee.

In summary, Councillor Hutchison commented that the collaboration of members on the Central Winchester Regeneration Informal Policy Group had been good and that a spirit of cooperation and wide discussion would be welcomed going forward.  The consideration of the way ahead (including the urban delivery report and options) had not been shared with members of the (former) Informal Policy Group. 

The development of the site would be piecemeal and there should be an overall design statement to establish a co-ordinated approach to achieve the outcomes desired by the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The meanwhile uses were welcomed but the lack of (an overarching) design was a concern that needed to be addressed (by means of a proper plan).  Examples were given of the works that had been carried out in Middle Brook Street, where there was no public seating, and the proposals for the Broadway needed to be properly designed so that they fitted in with the area.

The Chairman responded that the delivery options would be considered by the Committee in September 2018 and that there would be Advisory Panels set up relating to meanwhile uses, including the Broadway.  There would be discussions on the way forward.  Experts and interest groups with knowledge and skills would be engaged with when appropriate, with the Strategic Director: Place providing coordination and having overall control.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2017 be approved and adopted.

to receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on issues relating to the responsibility of this Committee (see note overleaf).

Mr Gould stated that he was pleased that progress was being made on the project.  He enquired how the regeneration project fitted in with the other major projects that the Council was pursuing and the process of engagement.  He also enquired about the redevelopment of Coitbury House and how this might be linked with the St Clement Street Surgery.  He also commented that he was looking forward to the opening of the waterways and asked if the drawings for the Broadway had the approval of Hampshire County Council.  It was also asked whether the City Council could act as developer as it owned 80% of the site.

In response, the Chairman provided detail on the staff resources available to the Council to deliver its projects and its collaborative working with Hampshire County Council on matters such as the reshaping of the Broadway and the future of the bus station.  The longer term vision for the regeneration area would be run in parallel with short term improvements by implementing meanwhile uses.  The Sports and Leisure park contract was uppermost for delivery and the Council’s other projects were behind this, but would come forward.  The City Council could possibly act as developer for parts of the site where it was certain that the works would reflect public desire (and finance and resources would be required) and this was a matter that the Strategic Director: Place would take into consideration.

Mr Davies enquired about the St Clement Street Surgery’s proposed move from its present site.  He noted that the Upper Brook Street Car Park site had planning permission for a doctor’s surgery.

The Chairman stated that Cabinet was supportive towards the move of the surgery, and that confirmation for a move from the doctor’s practice was required.  If the doctors decided to remain in their present location at St Clement Street, the site would not be disturbed as the value of the surgery to the community was recognised.

The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project.  Councillor Horrill emphasised that she was looking for the process to be collaborative across the political groups, to involve residents and to engage with interested parties.  Advisory Panels would also be established to extend the process of engagement.

The Head of Programme outlined the report to the Committee, covering items including an archaeology, meanwhile uses, the improvements to the existing estate and public realm, movement strategy, key partnerships and stakeholders, delivery options and viability and governance and engagement going forward.

In summary, the following matters were raised by Members and the Chairman responded as set out below:

How the outputs from the Archaeology Advisory Panel would be fed into the plans going forward.

The Panel would be meeting with those that had raised concerns, would be holding public sessions and there would be the opportunity for members of the Committee to talk informally with members of the Panel.

Would the Advisory Panel for the refurbishment of Coitbury House take into consideration the requirements of prospective tenants.

The Advisory Panel would assist the Council in terms of design and presentation of the building.  Consideration could then be given to finding the most appropriate user and to make decisions as to whether it required light refurbishment or something more fundamental.  It was envisaged that this project would take 6-12 months to complete.

The membership of the Advisory Panels and their consultative role.

Local experts could act as advisors if they did not have a commercial or other prejudicial interest in future contracts or the area.  The experience of other projects would also be taken into consideration.   Advisory Panels would also be consultative and be supported by expert advice as necessary, for example in ensuring a good design.  The Advisory Panel’s membership would include Councillors.  All advice flowing from the Panels would be considered by the Strategic Director: Place, project team and this Committee.

The proposals for paving and surfacing, including the Broadway, should be well designed and be coherent.

The designs would be taken forward in consultation with Hampshire County Council (who had been involved in good schemes elsewhere).  The brief would include on-going maintenance following installation.

The Winchester Movement Strategy

All councillors would have the opportunity to participate and comment on the emerging Movement Strategy.

The Urban Delivery Report

Information in this background report would be considered in developing the approach to project delivery, which would form the subject of a report to this Committee in September 2018.

The Design Programme should be divided into different parcels which were manageable and coherent.

The Strategic Director: Place replied that there was now a coherent vision, articulated in the SPD, which was shared and widely supported. The priority now was for that vision to be delivered through short term improvements and a longer term delivery approach. 

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report. 

RESOLVED:

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.