Agenda item

1.      That a Change of Consortium Compostion to replace GKRL with another company from within the Places for People Group be agreed and authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration and the Director (Legal), in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration, to amend the Development Agreement as appropriate.

2.      That PfP-Igloo's proposal not to replace the GKRL bank guarantee be accepted.

3.      That it be agreed that an entity from the PfP-Igloo consortium can be a Guarantor for the Phase Delivery Stages subject to the Council being a party to performance bonds between that entity and any funder and contractor. 

4.      That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibiity for Central Winchester Regeneration, Director (Finance) and the Director (Legal) to agree the detailed contractual arrangements as part of the Phase Delivery Plan. 

5.      That a report be submitted to the March Cabinet setting out provisions for matters outside the existing Development Agreement that are required to strengthen the scheme, addressing CIL; potential land acqusitions and Compulsory Purchase Order resolutions; and potential off-site affordable housing provision.

Councillor Tod introduced the report which set out a proposed change to the composition of the development consortium, emphasising that other scheme elements such as the architects, project managers and delivery plan were not changing.  The focus remained to work towards delivery of the project, with construction on site proposed to start in 2027.

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

Councillor Lee

Councillor Lee emphasised the significance of the decision, including the wider impact on the district if the central regeneration programme failed.  He sought assurances as to why it would not be preferable to undertake a new procurement exercise to replace GKRL and expressed concern regarding the weakened financial security following their withdrawal. He questioned whether the revised ownership structure and the loss of bank guarantee would leave the council in a vulnerable position concerning delivery certainty and bargaining power and requested regular assurance reports on the financial standing of the remaining partner.

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Godfrey expressed scepticism about the stated optimistic view of proposed changes to the development consortium, arguing that the departure of a major financial partner presented increased risks rather than benefits and might also deter future investors.  He queried the financial standing of any replacement members, whether the council had sufficient mitigation in place to address the resulting increased risks and warned that the resulting management changes would likely place the project’s timescales under considerable pressure.

Councillor Horrill

Councillor Horrill expressed frustration over the lack of progress on the regeneration scheme since the 2018 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was approved. She queried why GKRL had withdrawn from the original consortium partnership and expressed concern regarding the delegation of authority for approving a new partner without Cabinet involvement. She also queried the proposed use of performance bonds and would ask further questions on this during the exempt session of the meeting.  Furthermore, she highlighted broader issues within the council's various regeneration projects, asking for an officer assessment as to why so many local projects currently appeared to be stalled.

Councillor Tod together with the Strategic Director and the Head of Programme: Regeneration responded to the comments made, including explaining the various reasons why it was not considered appropriate to undertake a re-procurement process.  Councillor Tod confirmed that the council had engaged financial and legal advisors regarding the proposed guarantees to mitigate the  risk and further information would be provided in the exempt session of the meeting as it related to commercially sensitive matters concerning a partner to the scheme.

Cabinet noted that the report had been considered at Scrutiny Committee on 19 January 2026 and the draft minutes of that meeting had been made available to all members attending Cabinet.  With regard to the request that a visual timeline of the project be provided for councillors and the public, the Head of Programme: Regeneration confirmed that officers would work with the Jigsaw team to update the timetable to be presented to a future Cabinet and subsequently update the relevant pages on the council’s website.

Cabinet considered the other comments and questions raised by Scrutiny Committee as summarised in the draft minute.

Cabinet moved into exempt session to consider the contents of the exempt appendix before returning to open session.

Cabinet requested that the first recommendation be amended to include consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for regeneration and this amendment was agreed as set out below.

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.       That a Change of Consortium Compostion to replace GKRL with another company from within the Places for People Group be agreed and authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Central Winchester Regeneration and the Director (Legal), in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Regeneration, to amend the Development Agreement as appropriate.

2.       That PfP-Igloo's proposal not to replace the GKRL bank guarantee be accepted.

3.       That it be agreed that an entity from the PfP-Igloo consortium can be a Guarantor for the Phase Delivery Stages subject to the Council being a party to performance bonds between that entity and any funder and contractor. 

4.       That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director with responsibiity for Central Winchester Regeneration, Director (Finance) and the Director (Legal) to agree the detailed contractual arrangements as part of the Phase Delivery Plan. 

5.       That a report be submitted to the March Cabinet setting out provisions for matters outside the existing Development Agreement that are required to strengthen the scheme, addressing CIL; potential land acqusitions and Compulsory Purchase Order resolutions; and potential off-site affordable housing provision.