Agenda item - Public Questions

Public Questions

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 21 February 2017 7.30 pm (Item 115.)

a) Stephen Smart of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property the following question:

The Council has said it will only consider offers for the land adjacent to Boulter's Lock Car Park only if the proposal is for a community use. Why did it impose that condition?

b) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

At the Windsor public meeting you stated that all land in the local plan had been checked for availability and deliverability. However two residents have contacted RBWM saying their land was included without their knowledge. Why does the council choose to check availability and deliverability with only speculative proposers of such sites rather than with the actual land owners themselves?

c) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Leader of the Council the following question:

At the Windsor public meeting you announced that the Council was exploring using Community Land Trusts to give young and (provably) local people truly affordable housing with long-term price rise capping. A great idea. Will you therefore support the placing of ALL Borough owned local plan sites into CLT's to permanently solve our town's housing crisis?

d) Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

On September 7th Councillor Rankin wrote to Riverside residents advising his department had concluded that using the land adjacent to Boulters Lock car park for additional parking was uneconomic. On October 25th in an email to a resident Councillor Rankin admitted the existing economic analysis was inadequate:

“I accept that this is hardly a rigorous parking study.”

Can Councillor Rankin now confirm that the economic analysis on which Council is being asked to decide the use of the land in question for the next 125 years is fit for purpose, is capable of withstanding robust challenge and based on realistic assumptions providing Council with a sound basis for making a decision?

e) Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside ward will ask the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

Boulters Riverside CIC submitted a bid for the land adjacent to the Boulters Lock car park on October 20th 2016 as required by Councillor Rankin’s department. On that date a competing bid from the Hindu Society of Maidenhead of £73,000 was in place but the Hindu Society had the right to increase their bid.

Was the Hindu Society bid increased, was any such increased bid made contemporaneously with and on the same terms and conditions as the bid from Boulters Riverside CIC and if not on what date was any bid in excess of £73,000 made by the Hindu Society?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Minutes:

a) Stephen Smart of Maidenhead Riverside asked the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property the following question:

The Council has said it will only consider offers for the land adjacent to Boulter's Lock Car Park only if the proposal is for a community use. Why did it impose that condition?

Councillor Rankin responded that he welcomed the opportunity to discuss and debate the land at the rear of Boulters Lock Car Park. For some time the Royal Borough had been in discussion with the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to help identify a site where they could realise their ambition to build a community centre. The Borough was in discussion with the Hindu Society,_/ culminating last year for the site in question. When the potential lease started to move into the stage for Member input, it became clear in August 2016 that the lease did not have unanimous support amongst all residents.

The process had therefore been opened up in September 2016 so other interested community groups could have an opportunity to bid. The decision was taken to allow groups to bid on the same basis so the council would have comparable bids following the conclusion of the process. Residents wrote in who preferred that the land was not developed in any way or preferred expanding car park provision. As such and to aid transparency, today Members would consider all options that had been put to the council.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Smart asked, if the council had said it was not considering any other options, why it was intending to sell land that was adjacent to Boyn Grove Community Centre to three neighbouring home owners? Why was the option of the land adjoining, opposite the car park, on a conditional basis which would potentially offer the best return for the least effort and impact, not part of the debate this evening?

Councillor Rankin responded that he was not aware of the details of the site being referred to and would write to Mr Smart with an answer.

b) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he could confirm that the sites allocated in the Regulation 18 Local Plan were based on evidence of availability collected through what was called a ‘call for sites’ process. This was when the planning authority asked for landowners, developers and agents to put their sites forward if they were interested in making them available for development, it was done once a year. Between the call for sites and consultation it was not unusual for changes in site availability. One of the reasons for a major consultation was to identify which sites were still available. In Windsor certain sites were now not available and they would need to be removed from the next draft. The local planning authority had been contacting land owners to re-confirm that their land remained available for development.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill said that at the same meeting Councillor D. Wilson had stated that the Planning Inspector in 2007 had rejected the original Local Plan in part for want of a green belt review and on 3 November the Planning Inspector had advised the council to meet its entire need within its boundaries. In the House of Commons greenbelt briefing the Planning Minister Nick Bowles MP was quoted as saying to the Planning Inspectorate ‘emphasise that it was for the local authority to choose to review its green belt land and it should not be for the Planning Inspector to recommend at examination stage; it was always transparently clear that it should be the local authority itself that had chosen the path’. Had the borough freely chosen the path of the green belt review or was this forced on the council by the Planning Inspectorate?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that in 2007 the Examiner had made it clear that green belt boundaries needed to be reviewed to accommodate growth. The council had taken this on board. There were always changes to legislation, it was a continually evolving process. On 3 November 2016 at a meeting with DCLG and the Planning Inspector it was made quite clear that the council had to meet its objectively assessed need within its boundaries and their recommendation was to meet it 100%.

c) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

Councillor Dudley responded that CLTs could take many forms, for example putting land into a trust only available for people with a significant connection to the borough. In addition the price would be at a significant discount to the current open market price. The ratio of median salary to house prices in the borough was 12.5 times compared to 8 times in the south east. If a property was purchased as part of a CLT, it could only be sold at a price increased by the equivalent growth in median wages. The idea was something the borough would look at post the adoption of the Borough Local Plan when it would bring forward a new Affordable Housing Policy. The idea of a CLT for land on the golf course would be looked into. The borough had received a £100,000 grant from central government to explore the establishment of a CLT; a report would be presented to the next meeting of the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee. In answer to the question, the council would not be placing all land in a CLT because this constrained the value realisation, but the idea would be explored.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill referred to an article in The Independent on Sunday that stated a number of councils felt obliged to set up private trading companies, as had the borough. The article also said that the government white paper included in the small print extending the Right to Buy into private companies. He asked if this would be a problem. Additionally, would the fact that properties could only be sold or developed in a manner which befits the local community cause any problems?

Councillor Dudley responded that from a policy perspective the council was supportive of the Right to Buy. It would want to replenish the housing stock from Housing Associations which were subject to the Right to Buy; this would affect the borough’s property company. He highlighted that no Member was a Director of either trading company, to avoid any perception of conflict. The CLT concept was exciting. If legislation affected the Right to Buy into the borough’s property company, that was a good thing.

d) Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside asked the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

“I accept that this is hardly a rigorous parking study.”

Councillor Rankin responded that in September 2016 some residents requested that the land adjacent to Boulters Lock car park be developed to extend the car park. As such he asked that a piece of work be done to investigate the economic basis for doing so and the Property team approached the parking team for a high level piece of work.

The NPV analysis assumed a £240,000 capital cost to construct and then showed an ongoing net income of around £5,000 per year rising with inflation. The £240,000 figure came from the parking team based on their experience and the £5,000 per year assumed fee charging as was and that current occupancy levels were maintained in percentage terms. The discount rate was 4.12%. On that basis the net present value of extending the car park was minus £140,000.

The assumptions were challenged by some residents who fairly raised a belief that occupancy rates would increase with the opening of the bridge and the new development on the other side of the river. Whilst he agreed that this was a factor going forward, the council had no quantitative measure of this and his comment was accepting that the analysis was, as ever, only as good as the inputs; the analysis did not pretend to address changing utilisation rates.

Nevertheless today, transparently and in public, Council could decide to develop a car park from an amenity point of view, but it remained true that developing the land as car park was uneconomic. If Council took the view that occupancy may increase in the future it could choose to hold the land, retaining the ability to convert to car parking in the future.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Jarvis commented that Riverside residents were confused. The parking analysis was exactly the same in detail to the one widely criticised and had been described by the Lead Member as ‘hardly rigorous’. Mr Jarvis asked what had changed since September 2016 to make the Lead Member now believe it was valid?

Councillor Rankin responded that he had presented the analysis as a product of the assumptions made, including fees and utilisation rates. The challenge from some residents was that they believed utilisation rates would increase in future. This may be true but the council did not have a quantitative measure for this. The Council needed to take into account if occupancy rates were likely to rise but in his view it could not develop a car park today based on the current figures.

e) Mick Jarvis of Maidenhead Riverside asked the following question of the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property:

Councillor Rankin responded that the first paragraph in Mr Jarvis’ question was correct. The Hindu Society did not increase their bid on or before 20 October 2016 which was the deadline which applied equally to all groups. He had received a phone call afterwards from the Hindu Society to say they would financially match any competing bids. This would not be considered because it did not comply with the timetable. The paper showed the bid at £73,000.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Jarvis commented that the CIC understood the council had not committed to accept the highest bid but the difference between 73,000 and £101,000 was considerable. The borough website said ‘the disposal of surplus assets is a major source of income for the borough and vital for achieving its strategic aims and objectives’. As Lead Member for Economic Development and Property he would presumably endorse this view. If so, given there were now two community bids both proposing community use could the CIC expect him to support acceptance of the higher bid, which was the only bid offering an important lease back option for the council. Would he agree that the offer from the resident’s CIC would give the people of Maidenhead the best deal?

Councillor Rankin responded that he would not be taking a view; the details were in the report. Finance was one of the metrics Council could use in making its decision.