Agenda item

The Leader welcomed Matt Woolgar of Jigsaw to the meeting, who provided feedback following recent engagement that had taken place on the Central Winchester Regeneration project (CWR).

The Head of Programme: Regeneration and Matt Woolgar gave a detailed presentation which provided a progress update on Central Winchester Regeneration (CWR), the former River Park Leisure Centre (RPLC) and the Bar End depot site, also setting out their respective timelines. The presentation was available on the council’s website here.

The Strategic Director, Head of Programme: Regeneration and Matt Woolgar responded to Members’ questions on the CWR update presentation, in relation to the following:

(a)       Further clarification was sought on whether traditional bus stops would be removed in favour of distributed street stops and if this failed to         future- proof the site for a mobility hub. A concern was raised regarding         whether elderly or disabled residents would find distributed stops less         accessible than a single focal point.

(b)       An enquiry was made regarding the impact of the new government        carbon handbook on project ambition.

(c)       A question was asked whether the £4.5 million in Community        Infrastructure Levy funds was being used for the acquisition of the          Marks and Spencer car park.

(d)       Further clarification was sought regarding the absence of green walls        or roofs in the artistic impressions and the impact of this on air quality.

(e)       A request was made for a review of bus routes in specific wards where    services were deemed illogical.

(f)         A question was raised regarding whether proposed bus routes through    Silver Hill and Tanner Street would hinder accessibility and if the area     should be pedestrianised.

(g)       Further clarification was sought on whether the size of the proposed      Woolstaplers Square was in keeping with the character of Winchester    and why people would visit the location.

(h)       An enquiry was made regarding potential disruption to businesses on    Middlebrook Street during construction. A further question was asked     about the future of the Middlebrook Street car park.

(i)         A question was asked regarding how the regeneration area would be    named and marketed. Further clarification was sought on the timeline      for firmer proposals.

(j)         A question was asked regarding the factors leading to the decision to    retain the King’s Walk building.   An enquiry was made about the extent   of the refurbishment. A final question was raised regarding the funding      of current design and environmental work.

The Strategic Director and Head of Programme: Regeneration responded to Members’ questions on the former RPLC update presentation, in relation to the following:

(a)       A question was asked regarding how formal bids would be reconciled     with the 1902 indenture, which mandated recreational use, given that     some expressions of interest did not meet this requirement.

(b)       Further clarification was sought on whether the council possessed the    discretion to veto bids that sat outside planning policy, such as          "industrial housing".

(c)       A question was raised concerning the flood risk of the site and the        problems this posed for future development.

(d)       An enquiry was made regarding the different weightings applied to the     five assessment criteria.

(e)       Further clarification was sought on whether the assessment would        result in a single numerical score or individual evaluations for each           criterion. It was clarified that separate evaluations would be provided to      feed into the final decision to ensure the process remained objective       and transparent.

(f)         A question was asked whether public preference was a legally      justifiable reason to accept a lower financial bid.

(g)       An enquiry was made as to who was responsible for setting the          assessment criteria and whether these processes were transparent to          the bidders.

(h)       A question was asked regarding whether environmental considerations    would receive stronger weight given the proximity of the site to a chalk stream.

The Strategic Director and Head of Programme: Regeneration responded to Members’ questions on the Bar End depot update presentation, in relation to the following:

(a)       Further clarification was sought as to whether housing was included      within the local plan following the debate regarding major modifications.

In conclusion, the Leader thanked the Strategic Director, Head of Programme: Regeneration, and Matt Woolgar from Jigsaw for their informative updates.

          RESOLVED:

                     That the contents of the presentation and the comments raised     by the committee, as summarised above, be noted.