To consider the above report

Members considered approval for additional funding to be added to the council’s capital programme to complete the current phase of the waterways project, build the weir and progress associated contractual processes.

Councillor D. Evans explained that the Waterways was a critical artery in Maidenhead. Over the years the council had approved funding for various plans including £6.7m for Phase 1. However a further £1.5m was now required to complete the scheme. Detailed reasons were provided in the Part II appendix as the council was looking at all avenues as to how the situation had arisen. If the scheme was stopped at this point, there would just be a muddy channel. If the scheme were finished, it would enhance the centre of Maidenhead.  The development of the York Road site was dependent on the waterside frontage. The scheme had already been embraced by residents and a number of companies had held team building events to help clear the channel.  The Rotary Club had planted 5000 crocuses in front of the amphitheatre.

Councillor Love commented that the scheme was widely accepted as a catalyst for investment in Maidenhead and the development of the AAP. The scheme would generate a waterside culture with the immediate effect of an attractive ambience. The scheme had widespread public support.

Councillor Werner stated that the Waterways project was an amazing scheme. When he had been Deputy Leader he had been approached by Richard Davenport and £1m of Section 106 funding had been allocated to the scheme. The scheme had been complex and taken longer than originally anticipated. It was obvious that the additional funding had to be approved to finish the scheme, however he questioned why extra funding was now needed. It worried him when extra money was needed at the last minute.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that although all were supportive,  there had been a lapse of time, a number of incremental contributions and a lack of continuity of officer oversight. He requested confirmation of who presently had the legal management of the project, which previously had been the Waterways Board. Who was responsible for the receipt and spend of funds?

Councillor D. Evans explained that he took over as responsible Lead Member the previous summer. Legally this was a council project under the Executive Director, with input from the Waterways team.

Councillor D. Wilson highlighted that the waterways would bring life back into Maidenhead and be a catalyst for regeneration.

Councillor Da Costa highlighted that this was a report with substantial expenditure and some key control risks which had not been subject to an Overview and Scrutiny Panel. He understood that there was a Part II appendix but today there was a very expensive ditch and an unscrutinised report that asked for an extra £1.5m, massively more than it has cost already, to fill the ditch with water. He called for an independent investigation into what went wrong and why the council was being asked to approve an extra £1.5m, money that could have gone to expand Lowbrook and other schools in the borough. There was no discussion of how this would be funded and what effect this could have on spending in other areas. He requested that the lead Member for Finance provide the relevant information to Members to enable them to make knowledgeable decisions.

Councillor E. Wilson stated that the strong proposal for Maidenhead would be good for the whole borough. A number of complex issues had been discussed already at the meeting, each one had a different risk profile and different outcomes for residents. Dividends from the investment would come back to the borough therefore he was supportive of the proposal.

Councillor Dudley commented that he felt some councillors were being cynical and highlighted that to increase the ratio of parking spaces from 0.5 to 0.75 would cost the same as one York Stream. The gross development value of the four sites, three of which were adjacent to the Waterways, was £600m.

Councillor Saunders commented that foresight was always a challenging and rough path for the courageous, while hindsight was a smooth and dubious road for commentators; ‘even a fool may be wise after the event’. The foresight required for such a hugely challenging engineering and construction project was beyond all reasonable expectations. The dedicated and determined team had had the drive to bring this to life at a time when the multiple uncertainties could too easily have buried it. The council had got on the back of bucking bronco and had tethered it into submission. It was he council’s project management skills which had kept tight to the reins.  

Councillor da Costa stated that he was not being cynical and he supported the proposal.

Councillor Beer stated that he had spent his working life as a Quantity Surveyor involved in the preparation of contract documents and working with engineers. As he had to conclude the final accounts, he had to be very certain about the contract including all likely risks. He felt that the contract in question had been let without the risks being assessed.

Councillor Bicknell commented that when the proposal had first come forward to enhance the waterways in the town, it had been said that Windsor had a castle and what Maidenhead needed was a Waterway to act as it’s crown. It was nearing this point.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councilnotes the report and:

i)     Agrees to add to the Council’s Capital Programme £1,000,000 in 2017/18 and £575,000 in 2018/19

(Alison Alexander left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item)

Councillor Gilmore left the meeting at 9.12pm.