To consider the above report

Members considered the council’s parking plan for the borough which would provide new permanent and temporary parking provision with an investment of over £12 million.

Councillor D. Evans introduced the report and advised Members of an amendment to the recommendation to refer to the figure £12,344,600 in the first recommendation. He explained that the report looked at parking across the borough. Councillor Sharpe had raised the particular problem of parking in Sunninghill at a recent Overview and Scrutiny Panel; officers would be working with the Ward Councillors to see how the situation could be improved. The report also detailed additional capital expenditure at the River Street car park in Windsor to provide a further 100 spaces.

In relation to Maidenhead, the council had spent time consulting with residents including at a Countryside joint venture presentation in the Nicholson’s Centre. The overriding message was generally positive. The report would begin to address any resident concerns. It was anticipated that a further report would be presented in November 2017 in relation to investment in the Broadway car park to provide up to 1500 additional spaces. To enable this to happen the old car park would have to be pulled down therefore temporary parking was required. In addition, the first phase of the York Road scheme was due to commence on 2018. Temporary provision would include extra space at Hines Meadow, as council officer parking would be moved to Reform Road. In excess of 500 temporary spaces would be provided at St Cloud Way. Appendix C demonstrated that by 2021, there would be a net increase of 657 spaces in the town centre.

Councillor Dudley highlighted that 718 residents had attended the three day consultation event with Countryside. The findings were imminently due and would be placed on the regeneration website and detailed in a press release. It was clear that parking was the pre-eminent issue for residents. The proposals did not deal with parking for residential schemes as these would be brought forward as part of the individual planning applications. At a Board meeting earlier in the day the importance of ensuring vibrancy in the town during the regeneration had been discussed at length. He thanked officers for all their work on the scheme.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that it was key to get the number of temporary spaces right. Appendix C detailed the two key variables of location and capacity and a broad timescale. The devil was in the detail, in particular in relation to proximity and day to day timing. He had been pleased to see that Parking Matters Ltd had been appointed as consultant. He encouraged Lead Members to ensure that demand, parking flow and past and future trends, compared to proximity and timescale, be factored in.

Councillor Hill raised concerns as Ward Councillor. The Countryside development proposed 0.5 spaces per new dwelling, which was inadequate. Great care needed to be taken in the town centre. He urged more spaces to be built so that Maidenhead did not become congested. It was wrong to assume most people commuted into London to work.

Councillor Da Costa commented that the report requested expenditure of £12m but had not been reviewed by Overview and Scrutiny. Members had had just five days to review a report which he believed to be incomplete in content. There were some serious questions which had not been addressed:

·         Why was the cost of parking schemes not foreseen in the financial planning of Maidenhead’s regeneration?

·      What consideration had been given to air quality? The borough had five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA). Increasing town centre parking capacity would increase road traffic and reduce air quality.  He felt that some of the £12m capital budget would be better spent on improving public transport and park and ride schemes

·         Where was the evidence to substantiate the parking demand in Windsor used as justification for the additional River Street parking capacity?

·         Point 2.13 proposed an extra deck on River Street car park in Windsor. He questioned the proposal for a multi-story car park beside the picturesque River Thames in historic Windsor.

Councillor Da Costa stated that there had been no discussion of how the scheme would be funded and what effect this could have on spending in other areas. He requested confirmation that the council would be borrowing money to fund these temporary car parks. To ensure wise, educated, planned decisions were taken, therefore he requested that all regeneration reports include an explanation of how the proposal fitted in to the big picture; how much the council was paying, how much would be borrowed and when, and when would money come back from the sale of other assets. He called for the report to be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel and then represented to Council.

Councillor Bowden commented that the proposals for Windsor seemed minuscule compared to the proposals for Maidenhead. He cautioned against mirroring the situation in Croydon where parking had taken over. It would be important to avoid having empty parking spaces in Maidenhead; he felt the numbers predicted for Maidenhead were oversized.

Councillor Dudley reiterated that the report did not deal with resident parking, which would be dealt with by individual planning applications. The issue of viability for affordable housing would need to be balanced with parking requirements.  The profile of borrowing and return would be released into the public domain by the Lead Member for Finance.  There was a clear payback profile and significant financial receipts from the regeneration scheme.

Councillor Sharpe commented that parking on the street was not just an issue in Maidenhead. Unless thought was put into the mix of parking and affordable housing the borough would end up with parking on all roads, leading to congestion.

Councillor Werner highlighted the importance of getting parking right as if not, the town centre would cease to exist. People would still want cars in the future, even if they were electric. The council had kept the buses going but had not expanded the service. He felt the report was not detailed enough and questions remained unanswered. More work was needed on resident parking spaces. Without being able to see the analysis previously referred to by Councillor Dudley, he could not know if the numbers were correct. It had been stated that the financial information would be revealed in the future. Councillor Werner questioned how Members could make a decision without all the facts. An Overview and Scrutiny Panel would have been able to get into the detail of the issue, he did not feel there was sufficient information in the report.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed to Members that as the report was being presented to Full Council, all Members were able to debate and discuss the recommendations therefore there was no requirement for the report to go via an Overview and Scrutiny Panel.  

Councillor Beer requested provision be made for CCTV as car parks were a big problem.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that he fully supported and endorsed the paper. Parking provision for residential developments would be dealt with through the planning application process.

Councillor Dudley commented that the council had invested heavily in CCTV. The results of the consultation would be released as quickly as possible once they had been put together by Countryside.

Councillor D. Evans highlighted that there was substantial detail in Part II in relation to costings. The overarching policy and scheme had been scrutinised as part of the general direction of travel when a similar paper went to the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee. Councillor C. Rayner had made the point about proposals for River Street car park being sympathetic to the location when the report had been scrutinised.

Councillor Dr L Evans commented that this was the first time she had seen infrastructure preceding development. She requested that a location map be included in future reports. Parking spaces were static but it was also important to understand the flow of traffic, capacity at different times, and how this would change over time.

Councillor Saunders commented that the regeneration of Maidenhead was emerging with confidence from the aspirations of the Area Action Plan into a period of substantial and exciting delivery.  This presented a major challenge for the council and a number of papers and proposals on the agenda demonstrated the enthusiasm to meet the challenge.

The developers with whom the council had partnered had a substantial responsibility and the council had an equally important obligation to deliver the rejuvenation of Maidenhead with clarity and confidence.  This required the council to be clear about the infrastructure needs and to be confident in investing for the future.  It was difficult to imagine a more high profile issue than parking capacity and convenience.  The recommendations demonstrated how the council was not hesitating to be front and centre on delivering the parking capacity needed through the development programme.  This was critical to enable others to have the confidence and commitment to all play their part in the programme, including the need for developer partners to provide parking which met future needs for new and existing residents and those working, visiting and shopping in the town centre.

The interplay of the temporary and additional permanent capacity was critical alongside a series of sites undergoing significant change and construction.  The proposal was a key piece of a bigger jigsaw, including the need for enhanced public transport facilities, pedestrian and cyclist friendly urban realm and the environmental needs of a more vibrant town centre.

The confidence in the council’s ability to deliver the dream of the Area Action Plan was buttressed by proposals such as for parking, forming a suite of critical measures included in the capital and cash forecast presented by in February 2017.  In November 2017 Councillor Saunders anticipated updating the forecasts which extended over 10 years into the future, demonstrating how the council’s investments would be fully covered through the reliable cash flows arising from the regeneration. This would be available for detailed scrutiny ahead of presenting the capital and revenue proposals in the budget in February 2018.

Councillor Bicknell, as Lead Member for Highways, commented that a commercial route in the borough cost £250,000. A 3-6% reduction year on year in passenger numbers meant some routes became commercially unviable, therefore the council had put in an extra £200,000 to keep services running.

It was proposed by Councillor D. Evans, seconded by Councillor Cox and:

RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and:

i)     Approves a capital budget of up to £12,344,600 for the construction of new temporary and permanent parking provision across the Borough.

ii)    Delegates authority to the Executive Director in consultation with the Lead Member for Environmental Services (including parking) and the Lead Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead to finalise the Parking Plan and complete a procurement process for the supply of temporary and permanent parking provision. 

(44 Councillors voted for the motion: Alexander, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Brimacombe, Carroll, Clark, Cox, Diment, Dudley, D Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore, Grey, Hill, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Muir, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S Rayner, Richards, Saunders, Sharma, Sharp, Sharpe, Smith, Story, Targowska, Walters, Werner, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. 1 Councillor voted against the motion: Councillor Da Costa. 1 Councillor abstained: Councillor Bowden)