Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the committee scrutinise and comment on the proposals within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3447 which is to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 15 October 2024.

NOTE

This report contains exempt appendices (appendix 3, 4 and 5), if members wish to discuss any part of these exempt papers, then the procedure under agenda item 6a applies.

Councillor Martin Tod, Leader and Cabinet Member for Asset Management introduced the report, ref CAB3447 which set out proposals for the Bar End Depot, Bar End Road, Winchester - Disposal, (available here). The introduction included the following points.

1.    The site had been listed for disposal for some time to enable its redevelopment and after a thorough and rigorous process, the Council now had a preferred bidder.

2.    The report outlined the planning, policy, public engagement, marketing, and bidder selection process undertaken.

3.    Moving the project to the next stage would deliver real benefits for the immediate area and the wider district. The redevelopment would end the blight of the depot site. It would bring new housing, including new affordable housing, a much-wanted convenience store, better pedestrian routes, and a new state-of-the-art care home.

4.    The Highcliffe Community Plan had indicated that having a shopping facility was the highest priority out of a list of 22 factors that would most improve the area.

5.    Councillor Tod was joined by Simon Hendy, Strategic Director, and Geoff Coe, Corporate Head of Asset Management, to take questions and answer any queries about the proposals.

Janet Berry on behalf of Highcliffe Community Forum for Action addressed the committee. She emphasised that she felt that the depot proposal did not fully respond to the Highcliffe Community Plan, which prioritised a community-run hub, shop, and activities for residents. She requested the publication of the full results from the depot consultations and inquired about the planned review of the Design Framework in 2023.

Emma Back addressed the committee, and provided the historic context to the depot redevelopment. She highlighted that initial plans included community facilities complementing the sport and leisure park, but these had been lost in the current development which focused on residential healthcare and a shop. She urged the committee to consider how the development would serve the wider neighbourhood and manage access and parking, particularly for the convenience store and leisure centre users.

The committee was asked to scrutinise and comment on the proposals within the attached cabinet report, ref CAB3447, which was to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 15th October 2024.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report and after agreeing to move into private session (in accordance with the procedure set out on the agenda under item 6a) also considered the content of the exempt appendices contained under agenda item 6a. A number of questions were asked including the following:

1.          A question was asked whether the proposed development aligned with the Regulation 19 allocation for the site.

2.          Further clarification was sought on whether the proposal was considered mixed-use, given that it included senior living units, a care home, affordable housing apartments, and a convenience store, but lacked other facilities.

3.          Clarification was requested on the safeguards in place to prevent developers from altering the agreed terms due to viability concerns, particularly in relation to room sizes and building heights.

4.          A question was raised about the size of the proposed convenience store and the minimum acceptable size to major retailers and whether there was potential to make it larger to better serve the area.

5.          Questions were asked about why the site had remained unused for seven years, and whether this was normal for such a development opportunity.

6.          Clarification was sought on the assumption that the development would liberate family homes as older people moved into the new units, and whether there were any contractual obligations to ensure residents would be from the local district area.

7.          A question was raised about the enforceability and likelihood of the long-stop date in the contract being effective in ensuring the development proceeded as planned.

8.          Further clarification was sought on why the Council chose to take a capital receipt rather than renting out the land for recurring income, and whether this decision provided greater value to the Council.

9.          A question was raised about why residents felt the King George V Pavilion was not meeting community needs for events.

10.       Clarification was requested on whether the results of the 2022 consultations could be published, and whether they had been communicated back to residents.

11.       A question was asked about how the climate emergency commitments would be implemented in the development, given that the Council could not enforce building standards beyond planning requirements, and whether the wording in the report should be adjusted to reflect this limitation.

12.       Further clarification was sought regarding further consideration of community hub facilities for the Highcliffe area. 

13.       A question was raised about the access and parking for the convenience store, particularly how deliveries would be managed without impacting residential areas, given that access from Milland Road was limited.

14.       Clarification was sought on whether GP practices had been consulted regarding the capacity to support a new care home.

15.       A question was raised about whether a care home qualified as a healthcare facility, and how the proposal included essential healthcare provision as stated in the report.

16.       Queries were raised about the potential impact on the hydrotherapy pool's capacity at the leisure centre, and whether the development would affect its usage or require expansion.

17.       A question was asked about the unfinanced capital expenditure for the Winchester Sports and Leisure Park, and whether the capital receipt from the land disposal would benefit the wider district or be used solely for the leisure centre.

18.       A question was raised about biodiversity considerations in the development, specifically whether a corridor for biodiversity linking with the South Downs Way, and if this was something that should be included.

During the exempt session a number of questions were asked regarding: access to the development, affordable housing, land contamination, biodiversity corridor, phosphate credits, and the treatment of VAT on purchase.

These points were responded to by Councillor Tod, Leader and Cabinet Member for Asset Management, Simon Hendey,Strategic Director, Geoff Coe, Corporate Head of Asset Management, Laura Taylor, Chief Executive, Councillor Cutler, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance accordingly.

The committee moved back into open session to agree the following.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed the following comments and recommended to cabinet:

1.      That the results of the 2022 consultation be made available.

2.      That further consideration be given to the parking access and provision related to the convenience store and potential of impact on nearby residents.

3.      To review the climate section to ensure statements made relate to what the council is able to influence.

4.       To review the wording of item 6 within the purpose statement, particularly the statement that the proposal will include essential healthcare provision for residents.