To consider the above report

Councillor D. Evans left the meeting.

Members considered the options for a piece of council owned land, to the rear of Boulters Lock car park, Maidenhead.

Councillor Rankin  explained that whilst the decision sat within his delegated power, he  believed that due to the high level of interest and in the interests of transparency, it was undoubtedly in the public interest that it be debated, discussed and decided at Full Council. He would not be advocating any decision and had produced a paper which laid out only the facts and options that councillors may choose to make.

For sometime, the borough had been in discussion with the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to help them realise their ambition to build a community facility in the town of Maidenhead. From colleagues he understood many sites had been considered over time. By 17 March 2016, officers had negotiated, subject to contract and planning, a 125 year ground lease on a peppercorn rent for the sum of £73,000 for the Hindu Society of Maidenhead to build a community centre on the piece of land in question. This had yet to go to Members for approval.

Councillor Rankin explained that in August he had started to receive correspondence from some residents who objected to the proposal. Despite no decision having been made, it was clear that some residents believed that this was a 'done deal' and had been decided in secret. As such in September 2016 he chose to invite other interested residents groups to come forward with proposals. The Hindu Society transaction was put on hold and they were invited to bid on the same basis. One further proposal was received, by the Boulters Riverside CIC, who offered £101,000, with a plan to turn the site into allotments. The Hindu Society did not vary their proposal. The option to turn the site into a car park extension was also laid out in the report, for Members to consider,

Maidenhead Riverside was a cultural attraction in the borough so Council could determine that the car park should be developed to increase the amenity of the area. Or it could determine that the land should be held in the medium term, and developed later if utilisation rates did increase.

Councillor Rankin proposed that standing order C14.1 be suspended to enable Members to debate all four options without a motion being put forward and seconded. The Monitoring Officer explained to all present that the suspension of standing orders for the duration of the item was to allow all four options in the recommendation to be considered and debated, without the requirement for an individual motion to be proposed and seconded before the debate. A named vote would be taken at the end of the debate, with Members able to indicate they were voting for option i, ii, iii, iv or abstaining, to identify the preferred option from the Council as a whole.

It was proposed by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Smith, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That standing order C14.1 be suspended for the duration of the item to enable Members to debate all four options without a motion being put forwarded and seconded.

Councillor Sharma highlighted that it was a long held desire of the Hindu Community to have a community building. The proposed centre would be a hub and focal point of the local community. He understood the need for increased parking in the area but analysis showed this was not financially viable. The Hindu Society had written to the Property department to state they would be willing to match any bid from a third party. The proposed facility could be used for numerous activities including as a polling station and for elderly local residents to meet. This would help to mitigate some of the anti-social behaviour issues in the car park. The Society had already altered the plans including reducing the size and amending opening times. There would be no extra pressure on parking as many users would car-share, use public transport or cycle. Diversity was a gift to the borough rather than a threat, and was a strength of the country. Cultural diversity played an important role in social cohesion, financial prosperity and driving improvements. He asked the council to accept the bid from the Hindu Society.

Councillor Sharma left the meeting at 9.18pm

Councillor Smith explained that there was once a house called Pennywise on the Lower Cookham Road owned by a Mr Maus. The house was long gone, replaced by a residential development, Horsham Reach. In 1966 Mr Maus sold the bottom of his large garden to the council. No-one knew why the council bought this area of about 1,350 sq yds. There had been substantial objection to a community centre, mostly on parking grounds, which was a planning matter. This was the third site considered for a community centre which he was aware of, and he understood there were one or two others.

Finding a site was less than half the battle. What was more important was that it needed to succeed, to be used fully and to grow. He found the Hindu Society's arguments of light and occasional use disingenuous, or if reliable, incompatible with any sensible level of utilisation. However this was not the main issue. The fatal problem with the Riverside site was that it was defined not by its potential but by its limitations in size, space, activities and the hours it may be used. The fact that a second smaller planning application was in the works meant it was already compromised. It could not grow, so its future would be impaired from day one, so it was therefore the wrong use of public resources. Both parties to the proposed lease would be creating a load of intractable problems for themselves for years to come.

In relation to the allotment proposal, he commented that 50 years passed before this idea occurred to anyone. The real purpose was to remove blight: a problem so grave to the neighbours they were apparently prepared to spend upwards of £100,000 to solve it. Allotments would certainly do the trick, as it was virtually impossible then to use the land for anything else: a change of use actually required a statutory instrument. He did not think allotments were the right choice, but the council should note well why residents had felt driven to this desperate measure.

Doing nothing had worked fine for 50 years, but no longer. First, it was a waste of public assets. Second, by letting the genie out of the bottle, the council had alarmed and angered residents by the prospect of blight. The council must accept some blame for this. It may be perfectly normal for councils to negotiate commercial leases in private and ahead of planning, and this is quite unexceptionable when it is dealing with shops or warehouses, and quite normal not to tell ward councillors that negotiations were in hand. In hindsight, and as Councillor Rankin quickly grasped when handed this case, the situation required more sensitivity. If the council resolved to do nothing, he would therefore wish this to be accompanied by some commitment to explore other options, for example, social housing or private sale.

Councillor Smith commented that he had been promised the paper would contain no recommendations, but it did. It recommended not extending the car park. Had he seen the draft paper, he would have asked for these words to be removed. Their presence had encouraged Riverside residents to feel the debate was not open, but a predetermined ambush. In his opinion this was the obvious choice. On the demand side: more people in the ward and on Taplow Riverside, a regenerated town centre within walking distance, an aging population more leisure time, more facilities (notably the footbridge, and the second new zebra crossing to go in near Maidenhead Bridge). On the supply side: many new parking restrictions and plenty more to come, including on the access road to Ray Mill Island. Councillors had seen only a perfunctory cost/benefit analysis on expanding the car park. The benefit assumed no change in occupancy rate. This was insufficient: there were accelerants in the demand he had just described. The cost of £239,000 was unexplained and questionable. He would support option iii.

Councillor Diment commented that she had sympathy for the Hindu society and their need for a centre. The council should do everything it could to secure the group a site but she did not believe the Boulters Lock site was suitable because it was very small and there would only be 12 parking spaces. However, parking was a planning issue. Lack of parking in riverside was the biggest concern of residents and was an important consideration in increasing tourism in the area. The new pedestrian bridge would attract more visitors because both sides of the river would be open. The only parking available was Boulters Lock car park. The future of the two hotels in the ward was also in question and their loss would further reduce parking availability. A proper assessment of parking in Riverside was required. She suggested the site be used as a green car park. Allotments were not a viable option a only six would be provided and the land would be lost to the borough in perpetuity. In recent years Ray Mill Road West allotments had been extended. She supported the option of extended parking.

Councillor Love commented that most other faiths had a meeting place in the town. The nearest Hindu centre was in Slough 9 miles away. Therefore the society was forced to hire school facilities to fulfil their social, cultural and religious needs. The council had offered the site as a potential solution and granted a lease in May 2016. The society had spent £30,000 on consultants and architects. A community centre would benefit the whole community and could be used for a wide range of activities. He was particularly interested in the sessions it could offer for the elderly, as loneliness was increasingly seen as a social issue and was a council priority. He urged fellow councillors to accept the Hindu society proposal.

Councillor Hollingsworth stated that doing nothing was not an option. He had an affection for allotments as he had grown up during the war. However there were already numerous allotments in Riverside and his ward. He had visited the site and was aware of the concerns about size and the impact on traffic. The Hindu Society case was valid and social cohesion was important, but it was not appropriate on this site.

Councillor Brimacombe commented there was no argument against the pressing need for the Hindu Society to have a permanent home. However this was not an appropriate piece of land, particularly because Riverside would increasingly be used as a leisure attraction. A long term decision of 125 years was a discrepancy. The allotment proposal was a reaction rather than an initiative. He therefore supported the ‘do nothing’ option but he was sensitive to the ward councillors’ comments that parking may be appropriate.

Councillor Ilyas commented that the council should consider the most effective use of its assets. Leaving the situation as is would not allow utilisation of the space, particularly as land was at a premium. There was no indication in the report that parking in the area was currently insufficient. Allotments were an excellent idea but only brought pleasure to a small minority. It was in the best interest to provide a facility for the greatest number of people and to promote community values of tolerance and respect.

Councillor Dudley stated that it was a very difficult decision. Discussions about the site started in 2012, but since then there had been a number of significant changes including the residential development across the river, the footbridge and the developing Borough Local Plan. The most important aspect for him was to future proof the parking. However this was a planning matter and would be assessed by the experts; it was not a matter for conjecture. It was also not for the council to consider whether a community facility worked for those who established it. It would not be possible to build a borough for all if car parks and residential developments squeezed out every ounce of community formation. Money did not always talk in these situations. This was an opportunity to create something for the community that was long-cherished. The Hindu society proposal would be right for all residents if it worked in a planning perspective.

Councillor Saunders stated that there could be no doubt the council had a difficult choice because the decision could not satisfy everyone. He had first become involved some years back with the desire to create a community centre, run by the Hindu community and available for multiple and varied use by the public. As the then Cabinet Member for Property and Planning, officers had identified a redundant council site in Pinkneys Green and a planning application was proposed.  Amidst local objections, some of which were reviewed for redaction to remove racially offensive attacks, the planning application did not secure consent. The second site identified by officers on Town Moor was not pursued for similar reasons. He was not surprised when the Hindu community lost hope that the borough would be able to handle objections, some of which had racial overtones. When the site in Riverside was proposed to him there seemed a real and deliverable opportunity which he had been pleased to sponsor with the Hindu community. This had been nurtured by others after he had left the Cabinet.

The council still had the opportunity to create a community centre run by the Hindu community and available for multiple and varied use by the public.  Indeed, this offered a facility in an important location in need of such a facility at no public cost.  The two conditions remained: the proposed building would be subject to a full planning application with full public consultation, and the amount realised for the site needed to be demonstrably appropriate as evidenced previously by an independent valuation and now by a reference price offered by another party. The council had due processes and an obligation to follow them in good faith, otherwise the council’s word and trust was at risk of being devalued.

It was fundamental that the planning application would be subject to full consultation and the opportunity for most of the issues referenced to be properly and duly addressed: parking, use conditions, impact on adjacent properties, etc. However none of these were relevant to determining the property decision, which needed to be allowed to complete. When the Pinkneys Green site was being considered, the property decision was duly and properly made within the powers available, falling as it did well below the limit for Cabinet or Council debate in public.  This left the public debate where it belonged - in the planning application process. The same should then apply and the Hindu community proposal should proceed.

Councillor Grey highlighted that the Hindu community was a registered charity and did good work in the community. It had to hire school premises to fulfil the social, cultural and religious needs of the community. It was not a question of money but a question of ethics. The council was duty bound to look at the needs of all residents. He urged Members to support option i.

Councillor Bullock stated he would abstain as he was likely to sit on the Maidenhead Development Management Panel.

Councillor Quick commented that the council had a duty to make the best use of resources. The site lying fallow for 50 years was not the best use. The council had a duty to all parts of the community. The Hindu Society had waited very patiently. Their offer was very generous and the facility could be used by all in the community. With regeneration the possibility of finding the perfect site was disappearing. The proposed site may not be perfect but planning issues would be dealt with in the planning process. She suggested undercroft parking could be an option. She would support option i.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that the borough was multi-cultural and all other faiths had accommodation. To build a borough for all it was right and proper to give due consideration to the property aspect. Details would be discussed in the planning process. He endorsed option i.

Councillor Clark commented that given the history of the Hindu Society’s search for a home, it was quite right that appropriate land should be found. It was sad that a valuable piece of land had been unused for so long. A community centre was a great idea but the parking issues were likely to increase and Maidenhead would increase as a visitor attraction given the scale of development.  Before the council agreed to a community centre, it should be sure that the piece of land was not required for alternative use, he felt somewhat backed into a corner when the best use of the land needed proper consideration. He preferred the ‘do nothing’ option.

A named vote was taken with Members able to indicate they were voting for option i, ii, iii, iv or abstaining, and it was:

RESOLVED: That Full Councilconsiders the report and:

i)       Accept the Hindu Society proposal

(30 Councillors voted for option i: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Burbage, Carroll, Coppinger, Cox, Dudley, Dr L. Evans, Gilmore, Grey, Hill, Ilyas, Lenton, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, S. Rayner, Richards, Saunders, Sharp, Story, Werner, D. Wilson and Yong. 0 Councillors voted for option ii. 7 Councillors voted for option iii: Councillors Alexander, Diment, Hollingsworth, Hunt, C. Rayner, Smith and E. Wilson. 2 Councillors voted for option iv: Councillors Brimacombe and Sharpe. 6 Councillors abstained: Councillors Bowden, Bullock, Clark, Hilton, Jones and Rankin.)

(Councillors D. Evans and Sharma had declared interests and had left the room)

Councillor Sharma and D. Evans re-joined the meeting.

Councillor McWilliams left the meeting at 10.10pm.