Winchester City Council to consider appealing Silver Hill ruling which said it acted unlawfully

Winchester City Council's new cabinet will consider spending almost £100,000 appealing Mrs Justice Lang’s ruling that the council unlawfully kept the £165 million scheme from commercial tender.

New leader Cllr Frank Pearson hopes to name the head of an independent review into Guildhall handling of the scheme this week.

The two candidates, recommended by the Local Government Association, have government experience but have not worked in Winchester or Hampshire councils, Cllr Pearson said.

Appealing the court ruling, made last month after a judicial review, could cost taxpayers as much as £95,000, or double that if the council loses.

It comes on top of hundreds of thousands of pounds set aside to deal with other legal costs, lost income and the review itself.

Cllr Frank Pearson

The new leader said investigations could stretch back as far as 1995, when the council first discussed regenerating Silver Hill, but added that he wanted to give “as little guidance ... as possible” to avoid accusations of interference.

But the report could be kept secret, with a decision on whether to publish set to be made when it is completed.

Cllr Pearson said he is looking for “lessons to move forward” rather than holding people or groups to account.

“There seems to be a loss of focus in the need for development for finding someone to blame,” he said.

“We musn’t lose the situation that we want that site to be developed. Recriminations of what happened in the past won’t much help in that aim.

“I don’t want any finger of blame pointed at somebody because of decisions made in the past at that moment in time.”

The report to Tuesday’s cabinet reveals legal advice given last June that assessing the weight of controversial changes to the scheme might not be possible because it was never put out to tender in the first place.

Paul Nicholls QC, lead counsel, said dropping a bus station and 100 affordable flats constituted “material” changes but added that the wording of the original Development Agreement meant retendering was unnecessary.

A fresh Compulsory Purchase Order could be required if the scheme is not developed soon, the report warns. The current CPO, which took three years and an expensive public inquiry to complete, expires in March 2016.

“The clock is ticking,” Cllr Pearson said. “We can’t escape that fact, but the judgement regarding the CPO is only one of a number of factors that’s ticking away.”

Local government secretary Eric Pickles has frozen development until he decides whether to call-in the scheme, meaning planning permission cannot be issued.

A way forward for Silver Hill will be discussed with a new report to cabinet on Wednesday, March 18.