PRESENT: Councillors Love (Chairman), Ms C Stretton (Vice-Chairman), Hendry (sub for Sharma), Hollingsworth, Mrs Mills (sub for Jenner) and Wilson.

Also Present: Margaret Bowdery (Ramblers Association), Mark Brown (ING), Jez Power (ING) and Richard Davenport (Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group).

Officers: Anne Dackombe and Tanya Leftwich.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jenner and Sharma. Apologies were also received from Bob Dulson and Martin McNamee.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman declared a personal interest in the agenda as he was a member of the Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and the Maidenhead Development Control Panel.

Councillor Wilson declared a personal interest in the agenda as he was the Chairman of the Maidenhead Development Control Panel.

Councillor Hendry declared a personal interest in the agenda as he was a member of the Maidenhead Development Control Panel.

MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 29 March 2011 be approved.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that the meeting had been postponed to allow Members to analyse and discuss the results of the ‘Participatory Budget Analysis Report’ and make recommendations to the Participatory Budget Sub-Committee on the 21 July 2011.

The Chairman explained that Maidenhead Town Centre did not currently match the needs and expectations of residents. It was noted that the Maidenhead Area Action Plan (AAP) was a plan that would be used as the basis for rejuvenating the Town Centre and a wider area over the period leading up to 2026. The Chairman explained that this included not only the shopping area but also the surrounding leisure facilities, offices and main roads, helping to ensure the Town Centre was considered comprehensively.

ING KING’S TRIANGLE PROPOSALS

The Chairman informed Members that the Council’s objective was to “Promote higher quality built form” by ensuring that new development achieved high standards of design and sustainability, and by promoting landmark buildings at key strategic and gateway locations.

The Chairman welcomed Mark Brown, Partner at Local Dialogue and Jez Power, Architect at Urban Edge, who had been appointed to undertake communications on behalf of ING in relation to the Kings Triangle proposals and invited them to address the Forum. Members were informed that a copy of the presentation was available from the clerk on request.

Mr Brown explained that ING was moving towards submitting an outline planning application in the next few weeks and that a preview would be provided to Members in the presentation today.

Mr Brown went on to inform Members that there would continue to be extensive public consultations and that to date 8,000 leaflets had been delivered to homes, businesses, community groups and public buildings such as the Library and Leisure Centre. It was noted that there was a special consultation hotline in place and the consultations had been advertised in local newpapers, on the radio and via blogs. Mr Brown explained that consultation stalls had been set up at the produce market and at Maidenhead Carnival and that there was an ongoing web presence and social media campaign taking place.

Members were informed that over 150 people had responded to the consultations through methods such as letter, phone, email, retail survey, Twitter and comments on Facebook. It was noted that the vast majority of feedback had been positive and the key issues were felt to be that residents wanted a good anchor store, space to attract big name brands, the location of the anchor store and the amount of parking that would be available. Mr Brown informed the Forum that further meetings would take place with key Town Centre stakeholders and that there would be ongoing web and social media updates.

Mr Power informed the Forum that they would continue to work with Borough planning officers to ensure the scale and density of the project was appropriate for Maidenhead. It was noted that Broadway would be closed to through traffic and would therefore become more pedestrian friendly. Mr Power went on to explain that the main aim of this scheme was to get footfall back into the Town Centre and for new and existing businesses to benefit from the increased footfall. It was noted that possible constraints could be the street furniture that currently cluttered Broadway and King Street. Mr Power explained that this project gave Maidenhead the opportunity to have an outward facing development and a gateway building on the South side which could be accessed by road and rail. It was noted that there was currently no public spaces which were provided for open space, events, dwellings, cafes and pedestrian movement.

Mr Power informed Members that there would be multi-level parking and that the anchor building would give the development the commercial edge. It was noted that residential units, predominantly one and two bed units, would be located above the retail units and would be considered to be long-term lifestyle homes. Members were informed that ING were in discussions with major retailers and that the aim was to have one major retail store and two large retail stores at each of the ‘points’ of the triangle. It was noted that effort would be made to make the space active during the day and into the evening, where King Street would be the restaurant and café area.

Mr Power informed the Forum that ING wanted to continue to work in Partnership with the Royal Borough in order to make this development a huge success.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised:

v Shops and businesses on Broadway would be serviced by vans and lorries ‘out of hours’, via service corridors to minimise disruption in the town. It was noted that the anchor stores would have their own service areas which would be shown clearly in the planning documents.
v Councillor Wilson informed Members that he had spoken to the Highway Officers and had requested a right turn be made available at the bottom of Shoppenhangers Road which he believed would benefit both residents and the Town Centre as a whole by diverting right turn traffic away from the twon centre.
v Members informed Mr Brown and Mr Power that they believed it was important that visitors could see the anchor stores from the rail line in order to attract people into Maidenhead to which Mr Power confirmed that one of the key views of the development would be from Platform 1.
v Councillor Wilson suggested creating a unique selling point in Maidenhead through the arts and creating links with local celebrities.
v It was hoped that following the submission of the outline planning application in the next couple of weeks, the scheme would take four years to complete.

The Chairman thanked Mark Brown and Jez Power for their informative presentation and suggested that Members attended the private members’ viewing of the exhibition which was to be held between 12 and 2pm on the 22^nd July in the High Street Methodist Church.

UPDATE ON THE MAIDENHEAD WATERWAYS PROPOSAL

The Chairman informed Members that the Council’s objective was to “Enhance and introduce the use of water” by strengthening the Town Centre’s links to the River Thames and by enhancing the quality and setting of the Town Centre’s waterways.

The Chairman informed the Forum that with regard to policy the 20 Year Action Plan for Maidenhead Town Centre included the Waterways which had become a key part of the Council’s plans for the rejuvenation of Maidenhead Town Centre. It was noted that the waterways groups agreed priority was to focus on restoring the southern stretch of the waterway up to and including the Town Centre ‘Ring’. The Chairman went on to explain that this section posed the fewest challenges technically and would bring the greatest immediate benefit to Maidenhead Town Centre at the lowest cost and would bring small boats into the heart of the town.

The Chairman welcomed Richard Davenport, the Chairman of the Trustees from the Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group (MRWG) to the meeting and invited him to address the Forum. Members were informed that a copy of the presentation was available from the clerk on request.

The Forum noted that the project focussed on the waterways beginning at Cliveden and flowing through Maidenhead Town Centre. The planning application would include an outline of proposals including:

Ø Enlarging York Stream and increasing flow
Ø A weir, lock and boat roller
Ø Water levels raised and stabilised
Ø Protection and extension of the footpath
Ø Moor Cut being permanently filled
Ø Boating by small craft to be a reality.

It was noted that the waterways offered a public right of navigation but limited use was possible in its current state. Mr Davenport confirmed that no bridges would need to be raised for the initial plans to be implemented. In the long term, new structures to suit larger craft up to narrowboat size could require changes to road bridges.

Members were informed that the waterways policy in the AAP had been endorsed by the Planning Inspector and that a full Equality Impact Assessment had been carried out. It had been confirmed that the proposals would not cause any increase in the flood risk level and that an increased channel capacity could actually reduce flood risk in the area.

Members noted the benefits of the proposals:

Ø A community led, partnership project
Ø An eyesore would be turned into an amenity
Ø Improved accessibility for the public
Ø Economic spin-offs for land values and trade.

Members viewed photographs of various sections of the waterways, showing proposed changes including the widening of channels and increased water depths.

In terms of ecology, it was noted that:

Ø Existing habitats were degraded, yet wildlife flourished
Ø Stable water levels would improve the situation
Ø SSSIs and Braywick Park were not affected
Ø Birds, bats and fish would be protected during construction
Ø Some tree loss was inevitable but a replacement and landscaping programme was proposed.

The proposals took a flexible approach and would take place as funding allowed and the lock would only be built when craft numbers were high enough.

Members were informed that the MWRG website included details of the consultation and visitors to the site could view a video detailing the proposals. Mr Davenport explained that planning permission would need to be approved before the group could apply for grant funding for the project and that this was hoped to be submitted by the end of July. It was noted that MWRG had held three events in June on the specific planning applications. It was anticipated that the entire project, including the weir, lock, channel widening and raising or removal of footbridges would cost £5m.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised:

· With regard to the Moor Cut (South) which was prone to fly tipping Mr Davenport confirmed that this was Council owned land up to the centre of the canal.
· The Chairman believed this scheme would attract people into Maidenhead as it would act as a ‘magnet’.
· Councillor Wilson suggested that Mr Davenport should contact the Community Safety Manager to see if it would be possible to get young offenders to help clear the ditch from Fotherby Court to Stafferton Way. Mr Davenport responded that whilst he had been using the services of young offenders to clear the main stream he felt it would not be appropriate at present to clear the area Councillor Wilson had specified.

The Chairman thanked Richard Davenport for his interesting presentation.

DISCUSSION ON THE DECISION HEADLINES OF THE RBWM “YOUR LOCAL BUDGET” QUESTIONNAIRE

The Chairman explained to the Forum that the aim of the Your local Budget (Participatory Budget) survey was to ask residents how they wanted to spend £250,000 of their Council Tax on projects in their borough and in their local town or village in 2011. The Chairman went onto explain that as far as the survey was concerned, residents’ participation was up by 20% with approximately two-thirds responding on paper and approximately one-third responding on-line.

Members were informed that the £250,000 was money from the Council’s Capital Budget which meant it could be used for one-off projects and was divided into £125,000 for borough-wide schemes and £50,000 for schemes in Maidenhead, £50,000 for Windsor and £25,000 for Ascot and Sunnings. It was noted that in the borough wide consultation residents had been asked to rank ten schemes in order of the importance they attached to them.

The Chairman informed Members that 53% of those who responded had chosen to vote for schemes in Maidenhead whilst 21% of these had indicated that they did not want the money spent at all. It was noted that the highest proportion of residents had selected ‘reversion to pay-on-foot’ in Broadway Car Park (31%) as their top priority scheme, with 25% selecting the Thames Path as their top priority. It was noted that the Maidenhead Advertiser had joined with the Chamber of Commerce earlier in the year to run a campaign called ‘Park and Thrive’ in support of a pay-on-foot system for the Broadway Car Park. It was believed that this payment system would help enhance footfall in the Town Centre and boost local trade. The Chairman went on to explain that the ‘Park and Thrive’ campaign had run for a number of weeks through the newspaper and in local shops and had attracted more than 1,800 responses in support from residents, shoppers and businesses. It was noted that the forms had been presented to the Council with a request that they be considered as part of the Participatory Budget exercise.

The Chairman informed the Forum that traditional pay-on-foot systems required the user to stop at the barrier on entry and take a ticket prior to entering. It was noted that the user then had to visit a pay-on-foot machine at the end of their stay and pay for the time they had spent in the car park. The validated ticket would then be fed into an exit barrier which would allow the user to exit the car park. The Chairman informed Members that the Highways Team was currently reviewing a new system which did not require a ticket or barriers and therefore did not cause delays. It was noted that the vehicle was photographed on entry and the user then had the option to either pay for a certain length of time or pay at the end of stay. Members were informed that the vehicle registration number was photographed on entry and drivers could pay by mobile phone, on-line, using a season ticket or permit. It was noted that this new system would eliminate the need for entry/exit barriers which often caused congestion and were known to break down. It was noted that other benefits included no need to return to the car to display a ticket and no more running out of time.

The Chairman informed Members that the second priority was a contribution to the Thames Path and that in 2009 a petition had been submitted which related to the remaining 33 meters of the footpath needed to provide a traffic-free route along the riverside from Boulter’s Lock to Maidenhead Bridge which had been signed by approximately 1,000 residents. As the Thames Path project came a close second the Chairman requested that the Forum strongly recommend to the Participatory Budget Sub-Committee that they consider a contribution to this scheme outside Cabinet Participatory Budget funding which would potentially launch a major fund-raising campaign.

The Chairman explained that the conclusions from this meeting with regard to this item would be presented to the Participatory Budget Sub-Committee on the 21^st July 2011.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised:

v Councillor Hollingsworth informed the Forum that he believed the reversion to pay-on-foot in Broadway Car Park scheme should be recommended to the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub-Committee.
v Councillor Wilson informed the Forum that he believed both priorities, the reversion to pay-on-foot in Broadway Car Park and the Thames Path scheme, were viewed equally important to residents. It was noted that Councillor Wilson believed the pay-on-foot parking in Broadway Car Park scheme would help alleviate problems until it was removed as part of the ING proposal.
v Councillor Mrs Mills informed the Forum that the pay-on-foot parking in Broadway Car Park scheme was a hot topic of conversation when she was canvassing before the last local elections and was raised more often than the Thames Path scheme.
v Councillor Ms Stretton informed the Forum that she believed the reversion to pay-on-foot in Broadway Car Park scheme would impact a larger number of residents than the Thames Path scheme.

RESOLVED: That;
· The Maidenhead Town Forum unanimously agreed to recommend that the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub-Committee put the full £50,000 towards a pay-on-foot system for the Broadway Car Park.

· The Maidenhead Town Forum strongly recommends that the Cabinet Participatory Budget Sub-Committee consider a separate contribution be put towards the Thames Path project (4 in favour and Councillor Hollingsworth and Councillor Ms Stretton against).

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Members noted that the date of the next meeting was Tuesday 25 October 2011 at 7pm and would be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Maidenhead.

The Chairman requested that agenda item suggestions be emailed to the Clerk of the Forum.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, ended at 8.55pm.