Agenda item

A)   Pause the River Park Leisure Centre proposal from the University of Southampton and conduct a six-month public consultation for other ideas.

We the undersigned petition the council to pause the River Park Leisure Centre proposal from the University of Southampton and conduct a six-month public consultation for other ideas.

Winchester City Council have decided to give the University of Southampton five-years to conduct a public consultation to explore what they should do with the River Park Leisure Centre site but never gave local residents the opportunity to formally submit our ideas.

With this in mind, we urge the city council to pause the proposal from the university and first conduct a well advertised six-month public consultation to gather other ideas from the community. After that, a short list of proposals (including the University of Southampton one) could be created based on positive social and economic impact. Local residents could then vote on which proposal would be best for Winchester.

This democratic decision process would ensure strong local support for whichever proposal was chosen as well as creating long-lasting trust between the community and city council.

On reaching 10 signatures Ordinary Petition

This ePetition ran from 19/11/2021 to 11/02/2022 and has now finished.

207 people signed this ePetition.

B)   In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16, a petition was submitted by ‘Save Our Skatepark in Winchester River Park’ with 2, 265 signatures to Council on 23 February 2022.  At that Council meeting, it was agreed that the petition be referred to the Cabinet meeting where the decision in respect of the land disposal was being decided.  The decision being made is an executive decision.

(a)         a petition was submitted by Mr Sam Feltham regarding ‘pause the River Park Leisure Centre proposal ’ which received 207 signatures.  The details of the petition are set out on the agenda.

Mr Feltham introduced his petition and in summary, raised the following matters:

·         The importance of proper consultation with local residents, which he considered had not taken place with this proposal.

·         Suggested an alternative use of the area as a “campus for the citizens of Winchester” which could include a lido.

·         The Environment Agency’s flood risk classification rated use of land for water based activities as lower risk than for educational purposes.

·         Believed that a lido could be an economically viable alternative.

·         Reiterated the request that the proposal be paused for six months to allow all options to be properly explored.

The Leader responded to the matters in the petition and in Mr Feltham’s presentation and in summary, raised the following points:

·         Cabinet would consider the contents of the petition in consideration of report CAB3342 which was the next item on the agenda.

·         There would be future opportunities for public consultation on the proposal both in response to the proposed appropriation of the site and any future planning application by the university.

·         There was no statutory duty on the council to consult before taking a decision to dispose of a leasehold.

·         Emphasised the importance of taking into consideration the wider economic and social benefits of the proposal for Winchester.

RESOLVED:

            That the petitioner be thanked for bringing the matter forward and that the contents of the petition be considered further as part of Cabinet’s consideration of report CAB3342, elsewhere on the agenda.

(b)         a petition was submitted by Mr Steven Kan regarding ‘save the skate park’ which received 2265 signatures.  The details of the petition are set out on the agenda and had previously been considered at meeting of full Council in 23 February 2022 where it was agreed that the petition be referred to Cabinet. 

Mr Kan introduced his petition and in summary, raised the following matters:

·         In principle, welcomed the proposal in report CAB3342 to amend the heads of terms to ensure that the skate park was leased back to the council but had some concern about the lack of detail.

·         Requested further details about whether this meant that the skate park would be retained in its current form and location.

·         Suggested that lessons be learned about the need to consult with residents even where there was no statutory duty to do so and particularly with younger people, in the future.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Asset Management responded to Mr Kan and in summary raised the following points:

·         Thanked Mr Kan for his petition and the support for the skate park.

·         Confirmed that although the skate park was never at risk, the proposed changes to the heads of terms demonstrated both the council and the university’s commitment to its retention further.

·         The leaseback would ensure that the council had full control of the skate park’s future and maintenance over the full term of the lease.

RESOLVED:

            That the petitioner be thanked for bringing the matter forward and the recommendation proposed in CAB3342 elsewhere on the agenda, together with the commitment and assurances of the Cabinet Member for Housing and Asset Management regarding the skate park’s future and its maintenance over the full term of the lease, be noted.