Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that scrutiny committee comment on the proposals within the attached, draft cabinet report, ref CAB3484 which is to be considered by cabinet at its meeting on the 13 March 2025.

NOTE

This report contains an exempt appendix (F), if members wish to discuss any part of this exempt appendix, then the procedure under agenda item 7a (below) applies.

Councillor Martin Tod, Leader and Cabinet Member for Asset Management introduced the report CAB3484 which outlined proposals for the Development Delivery Plans - Central Winchester Regeneration (available here). The introduction encompassed the following points:

1. The Central Winchester Regeneration project was a vital opportunity to revitalise the city centre.
2. The project would deliver new homes, including affordable housing, alongside new employment and business opportunities.
3. Despite prevailing national financial constraints impacting similar regeneration schemes, the council had confidence in the viability of this project.
4. Jigsaw had been confirmed as the development partner, having been appointed in March 2023 and formalising the agreement in April 2024.
5. The cabinet would be requested to approve the development delivery plan, infrastructure delivery plan, public realm delivery plan, phase delivery plan, and the initial financial model.
6. The project aimed to establish the highest standards for the public realm, green and blue infrastructure, and transport infrastructure.
7. The footprint process would be implemented to comprehensively assess sustainability and social value throughout the planning process.
8. The report marked the next stage of the project, with a master plan anticipated later in the year, followed by a planning application expected in late 2026 or early 2027.

Councillor Danny Lee addressed the committee and welcomed the engagement in shaping the development brief. He acknowledged the development delivery plan's purpose in outlining the project's logistics. His concerns focused on the sustainability and long-term viability of the Central Winchester Regeneration project, particularly the need for a robust foundation to inform future planning. Councillor Lee welcomed the green-blue infrastructure strategy, highlighting its critical role given the environmental risks and Winchester's river setting. He asked about the strategy's completion timeline and its influence on the master plan. He also expressed surprise at the omission of the Manchester Ignition project, which offered innovative green financing solutions.

Councillor Caroline Horrill addressed the committee, raising questions for officers and the development team. Councillor Horrill asked about the developer's extended viability check and questioned the project's financial assumptions, including the land values. She also asked about bridging the funding gap from lost rental income and the success of the Kings Walk renovation. Councillor Horrill questioned the allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding, the commitment to the supplementary planning document, and the lengthy design and application timelines. She also inquired about the interim bus hub, the micro-consolidation site, and the inclusion of council homes. Finally, She queried if the council had adequately maximised the potential benefits from the land and properties under its stewardship.

The committee was asked to provide feedback on the proposals outlined in the draft cabinet report CAB3484, scheduled for consideration by the cabinet on 13 March 2025.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and in summary, the following matters were raised:

1. An indication was sought regarding the anticipated commencement of physical development.
2. A request was made for project headlines to be published on the Council website.
3. Clarification was sought regarding the project's anticipated contribution to economic vibrancy.
4. A question was asked regarding the economic self-sufficiency of the proposed development.
5. The ownership of the development site was questioned, specifically in the event of Jigsaw withdrawing from the project, a further question was raised what would happen if it was decided the project was not viable.
6. Further information was sought regarding the Kings Walk development.
7. Several questions were asked regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), including its use within the project, its allocation in rural areas, and the potential for increasing the overall CIL Budget.
8. A question was asked regarding the inclusion of council homes within the proposed development.
9. Further information was sought regarding the Bus Station Redevelopment, bus routes more generally, and National Express bus services.
10. A question was asked regarding Local Government Re-organisation and the opportunities and potential risks it might present for the project.
11. Further information was sought regarding the dynamics of footfall.
12. A question was asked regarding the Ignition Project in Manchester and whether there were lessons learned that could be of assistance.
13. Further information was sought regarding the Movement Strategy.

These points were addressed by Councillor Tod, Leader and Cabinet Member for Assets, Dawn Adey, Strategic Director, Ken Baikie, Director of Regeneration, Emma Taylor, Head of Programme: Regeneration, and Matt Woolgar, Jigsaw.

The committee agreed to move into an exempt session to consider the exempt appendix, during which further questions were raised regarding land values, project assumptions, and risks. The committee returned to the open session to debate the report further and to agree the following:

RESOLVED:

The committee noted the report and agreed that:

1.    Officers consider providing a member briefing on the contents of the development agreement.

2.    Officers to provide an update on the Council website following the public briefing, including key events and timescales.

3.    The Cabinet Member consider the points made regarding increasing the wider City Council CIL budget.

4.    The Cabinet Member discusses with Hampshire County Council potential avenues for enhancing highways investment relating to the project.

5.    The Cabinet Member consider the committee’s comments raised during the discussion of the item.