CITY bosses have the chance to ditch the Silver Hill scheme’s controversial developer in 11 days’ time after they agreed not to extend their deal with TIAA Henderson Real Estate.

Winchester City Council rejected the offer from Henderson amid questions over their financial figures and threats of a second legal challenge from Cllr Kim Gottlieb, who is battling the multi-million pound development.

A pair of meetings on Thursday heard how Henderson has submitted files it hopes will set in motion a version of the scheme approved in 2009: a £150 million regeneration including shops, homes, car parking, a bus station and 100 affordable flats.

The Development Agreement tying Henderson to the council is set to expire on June 1, allowing both parties to walk away should they wish.

Cabinet snubbed Henderson’s offer to extend this to October 31 as Cllr Gottlieb threatened to repeat a successful legal challenge brought against the council in January.

There is no indication that the council is set to abandon the firm altogether.

It came amid indications of a change of heart from bus operator Stagecoach over its willingness to run a new Silver Hill bus station. Kevin Warren, the council's head of estates, said he had seen a draft letter from the firm which said it was “happy” to do so.

During more than six hours of debate at the Guildhall, further questions were asked of Henderson’s claim that the 2009 plans, which it wanted to replace on the basis that it wouldn’t make enough profit, were now viable.

Those claims must be accepted by civic chiefs – and two sets of newly-hired advisors – before the scheme can go ahead.

But the council vouched that the 2009 scheme was unviable in a High Court hearing earlier this year, councillors were told at the first meeting of the new cabinet.

Former Labour councillor Patrick Davies said: “It seems to me frankly beyond belief that it could be argued that what is now viable was not viable a matter of a few weeks ago.

“There’s no proof in any of the public papers I’ve seen, and I believe we’re in real danger of being taken for a ride again on this.”

Mr Warren cited changing market conditions as a possible explanation.

“I’ve never actually seen a viability appraisal of the 2009 scheme that says it isn’t viable,” he said.

“I suspect that the question of viability is not turning on the 10 per cent [required profit] issue – it’s turning on whether anybody’s prepared to invest money in it.

“At the time it appears that the types of party who would invest in the scheme were very thin on the ground.”

Thursday’s decision means the scheme could go ahead well before September, when Claer Lloyd-Jones is expected to report on the council’s unlawful handling of the project.

This comes despite a motion from council last month to avoid changing the Development Agreement before the inquiry was finished.

Henderson, meanwhile, is set to fight the judicial review decision which quashed their preferred 2014 scheme at a hearing in November.

Howard Bone, the council's legal chief, said on Thursday that Henderson could try again to change the scheme should it win an appeal.

The council has hired two unnamed advisors, referred to as internationally respected companies, to analyse Henderson’s viability figures. Once civic chiefs have received the data they want, they have 15 working days to reject the numbers or accept them and set the scheme in motion.

Cabinet agreed that the Guildhall had the right procedures in place.

Cllr Gottlieb welcomed the councillors’ decision to keep the June 1 contract expiry date and urged them to abandon Henderson.

After the committee meeting, he said: “More and more councillors are realising that the process is flawed, that the scheme is flawed and we have a wonderful opportunity to start afresh in the interests of the city.”

The press and public were excluded from some discussions at Thursday’s meetings on the basis that they would reveal sensitive legal advice and commercial information.