Meeting documents

Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Thursday 5 August 2010



iii
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

5 AUGUST 2010


PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Howes (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Beer, Holness, Mrs Kemp and Stretton

In attendance: Councillor Burbage

Councillor Meadowcroft entered the meeting at approximately 7.30pm

Officers: Mr Hitchen and Mrs Hornby

part i

    18/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

    Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs Knight, Lead Member for Planning and Development.

    19/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    Councillor Burbage declared a personal interest due to being a member of PRoM.

    Councillor Mrs Howes declared a personal interest due to being a member of St Mary’s Church, of which her husband is a member of the PCC, and also due to being employed by a company who has premises at the base of Berkshire House.

    Councillor Mrs Hunt declared a personal interest due to owning a flat in Maidenhead town centre.

    20/10 MINUTES

    RESOLVED: That the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 14 June 2010 be approved.

    21/10 MINUTES

    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 12 July 2010 be approved.

    22/10 MAIDENHEAD TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN – SUBMISSION DRAFT

    Members considered the report being submitted to Cabinet on 26 August 2010 on the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan – Submission Draft and noted that they had considered the outcome on a consultation in March 2010. It was noted that further work had been carried out and the report before them incorporated changes PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL – 12.07.2010
    following the outcome of the earlier consultation. The report before the Members was a final draft for submission which would eventually go before Council, as a draft policy, for final ratification. A further 6 week consultation period would follow Council’s ratification and only if there were any major changes or comments following the consultation would it come back before this Panel. It was noted that endorsement was being sought from the Panel for delegated authority to be given to Head of Planning and Development and the Lead Member for Maidenhead to agree any further minor changes prior to Council for approval for the submission of the document to the Secretary of State in 2010. Members noted that following submission to the Secretary of State, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Development and Lead Member for Maidenhead, to approve any further proposed amendments which could arise during the Examination process.

    During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised –
      Ø There was no reference to the new Travelodge hotel that was presently under construction opposite the Maidenhead train station and noted that on that side of the road the area was self contained but that connections to the station and town centre were important, particularly as the hotel had no parking facility. Members noted that the hotel had been included in some of the drawings. Members also commented that further hotels should be encouraged to build in the town centre, particularly those with car parking facilities. Members commented that parking facilities were important as Maidenhead doesn’t benefit from an underground ‘tube’ network as London did. It was agreed that text referring to the Travelodge would be included.
      Ø Sufficient parking for residents would be required in the town centre due to the number of new apartments that were proposed to be built. Scope for car clubs was mentioned as a possible solution. Members also commented that room be made for larger apartments – in particular with 3 bedrooms and more family accommodation. It was noted that some town houses were proposed and the Panel commented that more in the centre would be appropriate.. However the Panel noted that the majority of apartments would be over retail units where larger family type accommodation would be inappropriate. The Panel noted that there had been a loss of residential accommodation in areas such as Queen Street, mainly due to landlords realising that it was more lucrative to rent to those who wished for office space than for residential space. Members commented that this could also be due to less work involved for landlords in the case of upkeep of properties.
      Ø It was noted that St Mary’s church had discussed this plan and had expressed a wish to be more accessible to the public, although not a thoroughfare due to child safety issues.
      Ø Panel members noted that in relation Crossrail, that when Crossrail was first announced, that not much investment was proposed in Maidenhead station and surrounding area. However, it was noted that this had now moved on and that some significant investment was now proposed although the design was still to be decided at this stage. The Panel commented that they wished for a more pedestrian-friendly concourse and noted that there was a possibility of raising the concourse to the first floor level and that the proposal would provide enhanced passenger facilities and links to an improved transport interchange and the town centre.
      Ø In relation to the link between Oldfield Road and Stafferton way, it was proposed that an extra arch under the train line be opened up for easier flow of traffic around the town centre.
      Ø That in relation to Page 18, point 3.22, the Library and Town Hall be listed as landmarks, particularly as the Library was noted as a Listed Building.
      Ø The Panel was concerned that there was minimum reference to people with disabilities in the Area Action Plan, particularly in reference to wheelchairs, which therefore also had a knock-on effect for people with buggies, pushchairs and prams.
      Ø The Panel noted that Officers were investigating the possibility of a Green walkway between Kidwells Park and the town centre, as Members expressed concern that people sometimes did not want to use the underpass or to walk to the Sainsbury’s crossing and use the overpass, particularly if they wished to be at the top end of the town. It was noted that this new link was included in the proposals for the West Street opportunity area.
      Ø In reference to MTC13 on page 13 the Panel recognised that the Plan did not wish to undermine the facilities at Norden Farm and Desborough Suite but that any new provision should complement those facilities.
      Ø In reference to 3.43 on page 22, the Panel expressed concern that the wording “Buildings should not be developed above the existing maximum building height of twelve (12) stories….” and requested that this maximum should be explicit to ensure that the paragraph was more robust and that no building in the centre of Maidenhead could exceed twelve stories. It was agreed that buildings at the Gateway sites could provide locations for taller buildings.
      Ø In relation to MTC7 on page 24 in particular reference to Maidenhead being the principal location for retail development, it was clarified that in light of studies being carried out people had drifted away from Maidenhead centre and shopped at other centres such as Reading, High Wycombe and Windsor. It was noted that once the regeneration had been completed, residents would be encouraged to return to Maidenhead town centre. The Panel noted that in relation to the Broadway opportunity area space for a department or anchor store was included and therefore encouraged. Members believed that this would encourage people to return to Maidenhead town centre to shop. Members also commented that the quality and size of shops available in Maidenhead be considered, although it was also noted that retailers can change their requirements from time to time.
      Ø Concern in relation to access from Nicholson’s Centre into the High Street was raised as at present there was no encouragement to public to venture into the High Street from the Centre. Members noted that Nicholson’s Centre would remain and that plans were in place to improve the facility but emphasised the need to reinforce the High Street and its retail presence.
      Ø In relation to MTC12 on page 34, that a third statement be inserted “or where alternative housing is made available”. It was noted that mixed use areas would be encouraged and that Officers would make it clearer. It was questioned whether 800 new homes be built in the town centre was now required in the light of the demise of the South East Plan and that this number could be reduced to enable larger apartments, e.g., 3-bedroomed apartments, to be provided instead. It was explained that the total had been reduced to provide more scope for a wider mix and type of housing. This was endorsed.

    The Panel wished to thank the members of PRoM for their hard work and dedication.

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised the Panel endorsed the report and that it should go forward.

    23/10 WORK PROGRAMME

    The following items are scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 13 September 2010 –
      Ø Service Monitoring Report
      Ø Parking Strategy - General
      Ø S106 SPD Projects Review
      Ø Dial-A-Ride and Shopmobility. Report on the process and outcome from the recent tender.
      Ø Planning for an Ageing Population – Supplementary Planning Document

    24/10 MEETING

    The meeting, which began at 6.35pm, concluded at 7.45pm


    CHAIRMAN: ………………………………………..
    DATE: …………………………………………