Agenda item

1.    That having considered the objections received as a result of the public notice under s123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, approval is given to enter into an agreement to dispose of the land known as River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, as identified by the red line on the plan at Appendix A (“the Site”) of CAB3342, to the University of Southampton on a 150 year lease. 

2.    That the Heads of Terms are agreed as set out in Appendix B of CAB3342, subject to an amendment in order to ensure that the skatepark is leased back to the council.  The Heads of Terms include a five year ‘longstop date’ during which period the University of Southampton will investigate and apply for planning consent, with the usual public notices, for their proposed development. 

3.    That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into an Agreement for Lease with the University of Southampton in keeping with the Heads of Terms and the above amendment in respect of the skate park, including authority to agree the purchase price with The University of Southampton on terms that satisfy S123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.

4.    That subject to further decisions by the council as to the grant of planning permission for the University of Southampton’s proposed campus scheme and as to the appropriation of those parts of the Site required for the scheme, authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into a lease of the Site with The University of Southampton in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreement for Lease.

5.    That authority be delegated to the Service Lead Legal the drafting of the Agreement for Lease and the lease, and any relevant ancillary agreements as are necessary to implement the recommendations above. 

 

The Leader welcomed to the meeting Professor Larry Lynch and Mr Jon Walsh from the University of Southampton and also Mr Matthew Hutchings QC who was advising the council.

 

Councillor Learney introduced the report and in summary, raised the following points:

·         confirmed that its contents took account of the objections received in response to the advertisement for the disposal of open space. 

·         highlighted a correction to the report to clarify that parking at North Walls car park was chargeable. 

·         Proposals for the North Walls park area were agreed at the Winchester Town Forum on 10 November 2021 (report WTF303 refers) and the proposal in this report did not impact on the public aspirations for the park area. 

·         There was no statutory requirement on the council to consult on the disposal of a leasehold and nor has the council made a clear commitment to formal public consultation prior to any disposal of the Site

·         A considerable amount of related consultation had been undertaken by the council over previous years (for example, in relation to the Vision for Winchester and the Local Plan) and the current proposal supported many of the outcomes of previous consultations.

·         Future consultation would be undertaken by the university both in developing their master plan for the campus and as part of the planning application process.

·         The public will not lose a large proportion of the recreation ground

·         The proposal was that the site be used for tertiary education for 35 years which had no bearing on the accessibility of the site.

 

At the invitation of Councillor Learney, Mr Hutchings QC confirmed that contrary to statements made by the Friends of River Park group (FoRP) in their objections to the notice, the advertisements were legally correct (paragraph 4.5 of the report refers).  In addition, even if the notices were defective, any defect would be cured by further advertisements prior to a decision to appropriate (paragraph 4.6 refers).  Mr Hutchings QC also responded to an observation document submitted by FoRP and advised that FoRP were incorrect in their statement that the University of Southampton will have an absolute right to a lease when they obtain planning permission.  The council has committed to appropriation as a condition and he referred members to paragraphs 4.14 and 4.16 of the report.

 

At the invitation of Councillor Learney, Professor Lynch confirmed that the university was a charity registered with the Charity Commission and as such is a public research university sealed by Royal Charter.  The university is not a commercial entity, although it operated some commercial activities to fund its charitable purposes.

 

Councillor Learney summarised that the objections had been carefully considered and included in an appendix of the report.  Taking all objections into account Cabinet needed to consider if this is the right thing to do for the city and district.    She summed up the opportunity to replace the leisure centre building with a high quality and accessible building.  Taking all representations into account Councillor Learney recommended that Cabinet progress with this decision. 

 

One representation was made during public participation as summarised briefly below.

 

Ian Tait

Generally supported the proposal as offering an excellent opportunity to improve the cultural and creative offering in Winchester and congratulated Southampton University on an excellent offer.  Highlighted successful community arts events that had been held by the Winchester School of Art in previous years and reflected the position of the Colour Factory and Winchester School of Art.  Commented that there is a shortage of exhibition and event space.  Expressed concern that the opportunity offered by the university’s proposals might be lost because of a lack of effective public consultation by the council.  Considered that a short delay might be appropriate in order that the benefits of the opportunity could be properly communicated.

 

In response, the Leader welcomed Mr Tait’s support but explained that it was not appropriate to delay the decision, emphasising the future extensive consultation that would be undertaken by the university.

 

 

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillors Ferguson, Horrill and Cook addressed the meeting as summarised briefly below.

 

Councillor Ferguson

Spoke as a ward councillor for St Bartholomew on behalf of all three ward councillors.  They had met with interest groups and local residents, some of whom were supportive of the proposals.  However, it was apparent that a number of significant concerns remained, including over the removal of the covenant and the perceived risk that large areas of the park would be lost.  Would have welcomed more consultation with local residents and believed this would have resulted in greater consensus.  Welcomed the proposed changes to the heads of terms regarding the skate park and requested that these be made public as soon as possible.  If the report was agreed, ward councillors would press the university to undertake the consultation it promised and also to provide the wider community benefits.

 

 

Councillor Horrill

Believed that the cabinet had not learned lessons from previous proposals for the central Winchester regeneration area regarding the importance of adequate and effective public consultation.  Acknowledged that there was no statutory duty to consult but believed there was a moral duty.  Was not opposed to the university’s proposals regarding the area but considered that the process adopted by Cabinet was wrong.  Drew attention to the comments and concerns raised by Scrutiny Committee.  Requested that formal public consultation be undertaken before progressing the proposals any further.

 

Councillor Cook

Raised various questions regarding the impact of the covenant on the land, as she had previously raised at Scrutiny Committee, but remained concerned.  Requested that the decision be delayed by six months to enable proper public consultation to explore possible alternatives for the site.  Believed that otherwise the council risked the expense and potential delays caused by a legal challenge of the decision.

 

 

The Leader drew members’ attention to the draft resolution from The Scrutiny Committee regarding this report which had been published on the meeting webpage prior to the Cabinet meeting.  As there was insufficient time to amend the report before the Cabinet meeting the further clarification/information requested by Scrutiny Committee was provided by the Strategic Director by way of a verbal update to the meeting and set out in full below.

 

A)    That the report provides further clarification of the sequencing of key milestones, particularly referring to pages 55 and 71 of the report pack

The sequencing was clarified as follows:

(i)    Feasibility – this would be commenced Spring/Summer 2022. 

(ii)   Development of proposals – this will involve deeper community engagement.

(iii)  Formal planning – The University would apply for planning permission which is decided by the Council acting as Local Planning Authority.

(iv)  Appropriation – should planning permission be granted, the case for appropriation would be considered by Cabinet (on behalf of the Council as landowner).  This would happen after the planning decision.  This involves applying a comparative test considering whether there is a greater public need for development for the proposed new use than the current use.

In addition, there was discussion at Scrutiny Committee about the extent to which members of the public and stakeholders would be able to put forward proposals under which the Council could retain the current use of the site for public recreation, both as part of the planning process and leading up to an appropriation decision by Cabinet. 

(i)      In relation to the planning process, Policy CP7 in the Local Plan states that there will be a presumption against the loss of any open space, sports or recreation facility (including built facilities), except where it can be demonstrated that:-

·         alternative facilities will be provided and are at least as accessible to current and potential new users, and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality; or

·         the benefit of the development to the community outweighs the harm caused by the loss of the facility.

 

(ii)     Before the Council made the appropriation decision, there would be further advertisements in local newspapers inviting objections, as required by section 122(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. Furthermore, officers have clarified that the advertisement will carry a plan showing all parts of the Site that were proposed to be appropriated to a new relevant use as part of the University’s development (including the closed leisure centre), regardless of whether or not they are currently used as open space.

 

(iii)    As stated above, appropriation requires a decision on whether there is a greater public need for development for the proposed new use than the current use. It would be open to members of the public or stakeholders to argue that the current use for public recreation should continue.

 

B)    That paragraph 4.5 of the report be amended to reflect that the car park is not a free car park for people visiting local shops and businesses

As stated by Councillor Learney above, an amendment to section 4.5 of the report was proposed to delete the word ‘free’ from line 8.

 

C)    That the report be amended to provide a clearer, single summary of finances

The prospective Income can be summarised as:

Capital in respect of the site

Cost of demolition	C£2M (included in capital programme)
Capital receipt for lease	In remit of Appendix C

 

Revenue costs in respect of the site

item	Years 0-Lease sign[1] (funded from existing budgets)	Years Lease sign+
Car Park income	£85,000	£55,000
Maintenance, utilities and repair or RPLC building	(£80,000)	Nil
Skate Park maintenance	(£15,000)	(£15,000)
Business Rates	(£155,000*)	Nil
NNDR	(£16,000)	(£9,000)
TOTAL	(£181,000) or (£26,000) after BR delisted	£31,000

 

Annual revenue impact of capital receipt

Nil

Capital price/£M x £40,000 pa

 

*this cost would end on de-listing, budgeting for end of cost 22/23, however implementing a meanwhile use would reinstate this cost.

 

 

D)    That discussions are held with the University of Southampton regarding their plans for proactive engagement with residents of the district

The University have confirmed that they have engaged an external organisation to work in their project team.  As stated in paragraph 15.1 of the report, a joint steering group consisting of the University of Southampton and the Council would be established.  The terms of reference for this group would include overseeing public consultation and engagement through the informal early stages as the University’s proposal is developed and into more formal consultation.

 

E)    That the committee wanted to ensure that the University’s plans achieve net zero carbon.

Carbon neutrality is not a criterion of the offer being considered today, however the University have a published Sustainability Strategy.   This strategy seeks for the University to achieve net zero emissions for their direct and indirect impacts by 2030.  The Council can therefore expect any development proposals to contribute towards this target.

  

F)    That the committee wished to draw to the attention of Cabinet that this was a significant decision to take whilst some elements were unknown

There was a range of matters discussed at The Scrutiny Committee.  These responses given today cover them.  The only one not specifically covered is that the site is subject to an existing restriction imposed by the conveyance to the Council’s predecessor in 1902, which prohibits building housing on the Site. The Council has no intention of seeking to remove that restriction. The market value of the site will therefore be assessed subject to this existing restriction.

 

G)   That Cabinet consider all of the committee’s comments raised during discussion of the item

The Strategic Director stated that most of the Cabinet Members were at The Scrutiny Committee on 3 March 2022 and those not there had been briefed on 7 March.  She understood that Cabinet will all take the comments from Scrutiny raised during discussion into consideration.

 

Cabinet members asked a number of detailed questions regarding appropriation and the status of any covenant on the site which were responded to by Mr Hutchings QC.  In particular, it was noted that the protections would remain on the wider River Park area and appropriation, if agreed, would only relate to the minimum area of land required and, that the land was conveyed to the council’s predecessor for the purpose of public recreation. The Indenture does not say the council’s predecessor covenants that the land will only be used for that purpose and there is a distinction (as indicated in appendix A to the report).

 

The Strategic Directors also responded to Cabinet members’ questions regarding the valuation and duty to obtain best consideration, the equality impact of the transaction, future policies regarding student housing in Winchester and a proposed new open space strategy.

 

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillor Horrill confirmed she did not wish to make any representations on the exempt appendix.  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 having considered the objections received as a result of the public notice under s123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, approval is given to enter into an agreement to dispose of the land known as River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, as identified by the red line on the plan at Appendix A (“the Site”) of CAB3342, to the University of Southampton on a 150 year lease. 

 

2.            That the Heads of Terms are agreed as set out in Appendix B of CAB3342, subject to an amendment in order to ensure that the skate park is leased back to the council.  The Heads of Terms include a five year ‘longstop date’ during which period the University of Southampton will investigate and apply for planning consent, with the usual public notices, for their proposed development. 

 

3.            That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into an Agreement for Lease with the University of Southampton in keeping with the Heads of Terms and the above amendment in respect of the skate park, including authority to agree the purchase price with The University of Southampton on terms that satisfy S123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

4.            That subject to further decisions by the council as to the granting of planning permission for the University of Southampton’s proposed campus scheme and as to the appropriation of those parts of the Site required for the scheme, authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into a lease of the Site with The University of Southampton in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreement for Lease.

 

5.            That authority be delegated to the Service Lead Legal the drafting of the Agreement for Lease and the lease, and any relevant ancillary agreements as are necessary to implement the recommendations above.