Agenda item

1.     That it be agreed that the council, as landowner of the River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, to enter into an agreement for lease to enable the University of Southampton to progress options for the extension of the neighbouring Winchester School of Art campus on the River Park Leisure Centre site. 

2.     That the Heads of Terms be agreed as in appendix B of report CAB3324.  The Heads of Terms include a five year long ‘stop date’ during which time the University of Southampton will investigate and obtain planning consent for their proposed development.

3.     That the land known as The River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, as identified within the red line at Appendix A be disposed, to the University of Southampton on a 150 year ground lease subject wholly to obligations set out in the Agreement for Lease. 

4.     That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into an Agreement for Lease with the University of Southampton in accordance with the heads of terms. This delegation is subject to agreeing the land price with the University of Southampton in accordance with S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

5.     That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into a ground Lease with the University of Southampton for the disposal of the land (identified as outlined in red in appendix A of CAB3324), such lease to be in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreement for Lease. Disposal is subject to a 150 year Ground Lease to the university, and payment of a capital sum by the university to the council. The capital sum for the disposal is to be calculated having regard to S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

6.     That the completion of the Agreement for Lease and the ground Lease, and any relevant ancillary agreements as are necessary to implement the recommendations above be delegated to the Service Lead Legal. 

Councillor Learney introduced the report, highlighting that the future use of the site was limited by legal covenants, the ground conditions and the resources available to the council.  The proposed lease would not compromise the permeability of the park, all existing outdoor sporting facilities would be unaffected and the Indoor Bowls club could continue.

The proposal had been received from the University of Southampton and matched well with the council’s own aspirations.  She welcomed Richard Middleton (University of Southampton) and Professor Larry Lynch (Winchester School of Art) who were both present at the meeting and provided further details, including emphasising that further consultation would be undertaken with local residents and other interested parties and organisations.

Five representations were made during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Esme Holding

Spoke in opposition to the proposals as a member of the campaign group for a new Winchester lido and emphasised that the related petition was still live and had received over 3,000 signatures.  Expressed concern on a number of matters including the lack of consultation, whether new facilities would be open to the public and the impact of additional students on housing in Winchester.

Richard Lindley

Spoke in support of the University suggestion that the development might include a new auditorium which might be available for use by local musical groups, such as choirs and orchestras.  Believed that there would be considerable demand as there was a shortage of suitable alternative venues in the area.  Offered to be involved in future consultation on this possibility.

Kim Gottlieb

Was disappointed his request for the legal advice on procurement had been refused.  Expressed concern that the council was only dealing with one bidder and that the current proposal was at risk of future judicial review because of issues regarding the procurement and best consideration.  He believed that the five year exclusivity agreement gave the University too much power and was not necessary.  Believed that no meaningful public consultation had been undertaken.  Requested that the proposal be deferred.

Rose Burns

Emphasised the legal restricted covenant on the land and that before any lease could be agreed, the Council must appropriate the site and follow the relevant statutory procedures.  She considered that the proposal did not accord with the required statutory process, drew attention to report CAB3190 which had previously considered the future uses of the RPLC site and requested that the current proposal be halted.

Sam Feltham

Spoke as the author of a new online petition which called for the proposal to be paused to enable a six month public consultation to be undertaken.  Believed that the proposal was being rushed through and there was a moral duty to consult.  Suggested that after the six month consultation asking for alternative suggestions for the area (including the University proposal), residents could vote on their preferred scheme.

At the invitation of the Chairperson, Councillors Becker, Radcliffe and Godfrey addressed the meeting as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Becker

Speaking on behalf of the ward councillors for St Bartholomew believed that the proposal could offer significant benefits to the local community and wider district.  However, emphasised the importance of the area to local residents and highlighted concerns raised.  Expressed disappointment in the manner the proposal had been presented and particularly, the lack of consultation.  It was vital any new facility was open to all and not just university students and that the site was permeable. Requested that the existing skate park be retained and continue under council ownership.  Requested that “meanwhile uses” be considered for use of the site before any new development commenced.

Councillor Radcliffe

Considered that the proposal was of such significance to warrant consideration by the wider Council to allow proper scrutiny and cross-party debate.  Supported the vision set out by the University and proposals in general but had questions relating to the process, in particular why the need for haste and why offering to only one prospective buyer.  Suggested that it would be more appropriate to use procurement rules rather than classing as a land transaction.  Also queried the requirement for the five year exclusivity agreement.

Councillor Godfrey

Drew attention to the background to the current proposals and the public expectation that the site would be used for cultural and community uses.  Welcomed in principle the proposals outlined by the University and highlighted that proposals should implemented without undue delay.  Believed that the Heads of Terms did restrict the control the council had over the use of the site and requested firm assurances that the local community would have access to the facilities.  Considered that there had not been sufficient consultation on the proposals so far and decision-making to date had lacked openness and transparency.

Stephen Matthew (Browne Jacobson), acting as the council’s legal adviser, responded to the points raised regarding best consideration and procurement,  including confirming that the proposal should be classified as a land transaction and not a procurement exercise.  The Service Lead: Legal responded to points raised regarding the restrictive covenant, including advising that there was no immediate requirement for a decision to appropriate a portion of the site.

Councillor Learney responded to other comments made, including reiterating the various limitations regarding alternative uses for the site. 

Professor Lynch and Richard Middleton also responded to comments made, including confirming the importance in which they held the skate park facility.  They confirmed the university’s willingness to engage with the council and in an open and transparent manner, to provide a facility which was permeable and open to all, and to engage in a wider consultation process. 

Councillor Learney and Stephen Matthew responded to questions from Cabinet Members including the on the timing of the proposals and the purpose and effect of agreeing the heads of terms with the university.  The Corporate Head of Asset Management responded to questions about potential “meanwhile uses” emphasising that these would be required to pay the current rates burden.

Cabinet agreed there was no requirement to move into exempt session as they did not wish to ask any questions or have any debate on the exempt appendix.

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

RESOLVED:

1.            That it be agreed that the council, as landowner of the River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, to enter into an agreement for lease to enable the University of Southampton to progress options for the extension of the neighbouring Winchester School of Art campus on the River Park Leisure Centre site. 

2.            That the Heads of Terms be agreed as in appendix B of the report.  The Heads of Terms include a five year long ‘stop date’ during which time the University of Southampton will investigate and obtain planning consent for their proposed development.

3.            That the land known as The River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, as identified within the red line at Appendix A be disposed, to the University of Southampton on a 150 year ground lease subject wholly to obligations set out in the Agreement for Lease. 

4.            That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into an Agreement for Lease with the University of Southampton in accordance with the heads of terms. This delegation is subject to agreeing the land price with the University of Southampton in accordance with S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

5.            That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into a ground Lease with the University of Southampton for the disposal of the land (identified as outlined in red in appendix A of the report), such lease to be in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreement for Lease. Disposal is subject to a 150 year Ground Lease to the university, and payment of a capital sum by the university to the council. The capital sum for the disposal is to be calculated having regard to S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

6.            That the completion of the Agreement for Lease and the ground Lease, and any relevant ancillary agreements as are necessary to implement the recommendations above be delegated to the Service Lead Legal.