Agenda item

3.              

Central Winchester Regeneration PROGRESS UPDATE

(Report CAB3142 (CWR) refers)

The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project and the meetings of the Advisory Panels.

Councillor Horrill made reference to the procedure for appointment of a Strategic Placemaking Consultancy Service.  The Head of Programme stated that tenders had now been received and interviews and presentations from those shortlisted would now be arranged.  The Strategic Director: Place explained that the term Strategic Placemaker was widely understood by potential bidders rather than Strategic Advisor.  The outcome of the appointment of a Strategic Placemaker would be reported to this Committee.

Councillor Horrill continued that planning permission had been obtained on 14 March 2019 for the installation of hoardings to surround the former Friarsgate Surgery. This would keep the site secure; provide safety for the public and allow protection during demolition. Images and wording from the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would be illustrated on the hoardings.

Each of the Chairs of the Advisory Panels updated the Committee on progress.

Lower section of the High Street and Broadway

Councillor Ashton, Chairman of the Lower section of the High Street and Broadway Advisory Panel, referred to appendix G of the Report and the meeting of the Advisory Panel held on 5 March 2019.

In summary, he stated that a good dialogue had taken place with the Hampshire County Council team providing consultancy advice on engineering and design and that Simon Taylor from Hampshire County Council was present at this meeting.

The subjects considered at the 5 March 2019 meeting included public realm, the Winchester Movement Strategy, re-surfacing, waterways, constraints of utilities, history, hostile vehicle measures and harmonisation with the High Street.

Councillor Ashton had been pleased with the County Council’s representative’s technical knowledge and with the examples of works that had been carried out elsewhere, including Romsey.

The use of materials had been discussed and also the priority of pedestrians over vehicular access within the scheme. Finances had also been considered and the next step was an in depth workshop with the Advisory Panel.

Other members of the Advisory Panel that were present at the meeting commented on the good progress that was being made and Mr Tim Fell clarified that comments attributed to himself in the notes of the meeting were in fact being reported on behalf of the Panel.

Meanwhile Uses – Feasibility Study

Councillor Brook, Chair of the Meanwhile Uses Advisory Panel, stated that that the winning bidders for the brief for the feasibility study were Worthwhile Works and Carl Turner Architects.  It was intended to receive the options and recommendations arising out of the feasibility study by early summer.

Reference was also made to the cultural feedback session held on the 18 December 2018 and some of the suggestions that were made regarding business start-ups, community uses and the potential for day and night time activities.

In answer to a Member’s question, Councillor Brook stated that consideration would be given to the use of the area between 6.00pm to 9.00pm to be attractive to local families and tourists visiting Winchester.

Coitbury House refurbishment

Councillor Horrill, Chairman of the Coitbury House Refurbishment Advisory Panel explained that progress was being made by Henley Halebrown, the architects appointed for the refurbishment of Coitbury House.

Simon Henley from Henley Halebrown was present at the meeting and gave a presentation on the brief for the site and how it fitted in with the Supplementary Planning Guidance.  In summary Mr Henley highlighted the following:

·         The present building had limitations that required upgrading – it dated from the early 1960s and was solid with a concrete interior and Flemish bond exterior brickwork and UPVC windows.

·         The refurbished building would be larger in area (a 50% increase) and would be more useful as a lettable space.

·         The design would pick out design features from the historic city including narrow buildings and gables, small towers and gateway buildings.

·         The building’s orientation would be rotated so that its public interface did not face on to the road at Friarsgate as was the case at present.  It would now address the pedestrian area of the proposed Friarsgate Passage with shops provided on the ground floor and offices above.  A new octagonal staircase and balconies would bring the facade forward towards the pedestrian passageway.

·         A further storey would be added and the roof shape changed; there would be a new tower to contain the staircase and buttresses would be incorporated to solve structural issues.

·         Significant consideration would be given to the materials to be used to enrich the building’s detail and to give a good impression of a civic building.

·         There would be a new entrance to face onto Friarsgate Passage and a new staircase (two staircases in total) would be incorporated.  There would also be a lift and the building would be Disability Discrimination Act 2005 compliant

In answer to Members’ questions, Mr Henley stated that the building would be suitable for a variety of users.  The building would be flexible in order that a separate tenant could occupy each of the floors or a single tenant could occupy the whole building.

The refurbished building would be more sustainable through the use of insulation in the roof, the installation of mechanical and heat recovery ventilation and the use of air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps.

It was confirmed that there would be no car parking proposed in the re-development.  Public car parking was located nearby.

In answer to questions from members of the public, Mr Henley gave details of the proposed height of the tower; that trees may be incorporated in the new public realm of Friarsgate Passage and that the proposal would provide 11,500 square feet of lettable space.

In conclusion, the Committee welcomed the proposal and it was commented how the design had been influenced by the SPD.

Archaeology next steps

Councillor Horrill reported that the approach to archaeology was very thorough and that this could be time consuming.

In order to move more quickly the Project Team had identified that additional consultancy would be beneficial to provide assistance for complicated and involved work.  It was therefore proposed that an additional recommendation be approved to appoint an additional external resource.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Head of Programme stated that if the Council commissioned the additional archaeological work from an external resource, this could possibly be sold or passed on at cost to developers in the future.

Naming of the area

The Chairman reported that it had been agreed that Saxon Gate would be the name for the scheme.  In addition, names that were popular could be used for some of the new streets, public spaces and waterways across the site.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

RESOLVED: