Issue - meetings

That the reasons for the project overspend are noted, along with the points that Cabinet was asked to consider by the Scrutiny Committee, and that procurement and management of future projects seeks to learn from this pilot scheme.

Councillor Reach introduced the report which had been brought to Cabinet as required by the Council’s constitution and also offered the opportunity for lessons to be learned.  The report had been considered at The Scrutiny Committee on 13 November 2025 and the minutes of that meeting had been circulated to all those present at Cabinet.  Specifically, Cabinet had been asked to consider the following points:

a)      That future projects should include a clear assessment of the council's risk appetite to determine the most appropriate method of delivery and form of contract.

b)      That upon completion of the Woodman Close project, the effectiveness of the lessons learned from Hobbs View should be evaluated.

c)      That the lessons learned should include the views of residents, the Parish Council, and ward members.

d)      That future lessons learned reports provide a broader evaluation of the entire project, including all objectives, risks, and stakeholder engagement, rather than solely focusing on the constitutional requirement related to budget overspend.

e)      That a comparison of the ongoing running costs for Hobbs View and Woodman Close properties be undertaken.

Councillor Reach confirmed that since The Scrutiny Committee, the views of the parish council had been sought (but not yet received) so they could be incorporated into the lessons learned.  

Ian Tait spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

He expressed concern about the high cost of the scheme overall, making comparisons with a nearby housing scheme developed by the Winchester Housing Trust in 2012.  He queried whether lessons had been learned highlighting the recent decision to proceed with a new homes development at Woodman Close, Sparsholt which was also anticipated to have high costs.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee welcomed the Passivhaus Plus pilot at Hobbs View as directly supporting the council's "Greener Faster" priority, the nature emergency declaration, and the carbon neutrality action plan, whilst also offering benefits for tenants in terms of comfort and lower running costs.  He acknowledged the project's significant cost overrun but noted the employment of a Clerk of Works had been a positive step and that the council had gained valuable experience for future Passivhaus projects. He objected to any consideration of removing the Passivhaus certification for future schemes, emphasising that it helped future-proof the housing stock against the impact of the climate and nature emergencies.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill supported the conducting of project reviews to ensure lessons were learned, but believed that the report lacked full facts, specifically relating to experience of the Parish Council.  She highlighted the challenges caused by the limited availability of compliant Passivhaus components and the rigorous certification process, which resulted in significant time delays and necessitated rectification work that led to a loss of accommodation for tenants and loss of rental income. She stressed the importance of identifying suppliers and appropriate contractors if the council pursues high-specification projects in future. Finally, she urged the council to utilise land which landowners  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

It is recommended that the committee scrutinise and comment on the content within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3492, particularly the identified “lessons learned” which will be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 19 November 2025.

Councillor Mark Reach, Cabinet Member for Good Homes introduced the report which provided the lessons learned from the construction of six flats at Southbrook Cottages, Micheldever. The introduction included the following points.

1. The project, which began in 2020, had an overspend of approximately 27% on total costs therefore a report to Scrutiny and Cabinet was required.
2. The properties were built to Passivhaus Plus standard as a pilot development in support of the council’s Carbon Neutrality Action Plan objectives. The report detailed the reasons for the cost overrun and proposed actions to be considered for future projects.

Councillor Caroline Horrill addressed the committee and raised several points for the committee to consider which could be summarised as follows. She stated that while she was in favour of project reviews, she felt the report lacked the full history of the project. She felt that the decision to build to Passivhaus standard meant that the scheme was over-specified. Councillor Horrill highlighted that the report failed to include the loss of revenue to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) during rectification works and made no reference to issues experienced by the Parish Council with the contractor. She concluded that the report was a lost opportunity as it had not sought input from ward councillors or the Parish Council.

Councillor Danny Lee addressed the committee and raised several points for the committee to consider which could be summarised as follows. He congratulated the housing team on delivering the project, which supported the council’s greener faster priorities. He acknowledged the cost overrun but noted it was a pilot project with a steep learning curve. He argued strongly that full Passivhaus certification was vital for future schemes as it provided quality assurance and eliminated the performance gap between a building’s design and actual energy efficiency. He stated that choosing not to certify future Passivhaus projects would be a poor decision and suggested a future comparative analysis could be undertaken against Modern Methods of Construction (MMC).

Ian Tait addressed the committee and raised several points for the committee to consider which could be summarised as follows. He wished tohighlight that the final project cost represented a 137% increase against the initial appraisal in 2020. He stated that the figures could not be justified, noting that the cost per square metre was more than double that of a commercial developer. Mr Tait advised the committee that the expenditure was from the HRA, funded by council tenants’ rent, and that he felt that tenants wanted more decent homes rather than expensive schemes such as this.

The committee was asked to scrutinise and comment on the content within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3492, particularly the identified “lessons learned” which would be considered by cabinet at its meeting on 19 November 2025. The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

1. A question was asked about the contract and why remedial works were not included within its original scope.
2. Clarification was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8