To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cox.

To receive any declarations of interest

None received

To consider the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017 be approved.

To consider the above report

Members considered the emerging Parking Plan for the Borough based on the further assessments and feasibility studies that had been carried out.

The Sub Committee was addressed by Peter Sands, on behalf of the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had concerns about parking provision in the borough, particularly in Maidenhead. The high level of car ownership was driven by a lack of public transport infrastructure, particularly north-south. There was already an under-provision of parking in the borough, up to 10%. Companies wanted to move to Maidenhead but required more parking than was available. The Chamber supported the improvements to the Broadway car park proposed. However, it had concerns about the number of spaces that that Ryger and the London Aberdeen Group were hoping to acquire because if it took 500 the increase in provision in the Broadway car park would not allow for the hoped for increase in economic activity in Maidenhead. Other developments such as West Street and York Road did not seem to allow for public provision. The Chamber did not believe the authority had given enough consideration to the impact of Crossrail and western rail access to Heathrow. The 500 long term spaces included in the Area Action Plan seemed to have disappeared off the radar. The overall projected figures were not much over 10% therefore would not provide enough for economic growth and regeneration.

The Chairman commented that the council shared the Chamber’s emphasis on parking being critically important, particularly in relation to the joint ventures. At the application stage specific on-site parking would be a matter of considerable planning focus. He had recently attended a meeting with the financial backers for the Landing and the new development manager to look at the nature of the scheme. Outline consent was already in place, any future application could have amended parking provision. Discussions were also underway about the National Rail car park on Shoppenhangers Road.

Councillor D. Evans commented that the plan was for the next few years, not forever. If Crossrail took off more than was currently thought the council would obviously look at putting more in; the council had options through its own land holdings. The contractual position with Ryger was 225 spaces. In the short term the council would have to weigh up the needs of provision for shoppers against what the Landing would look like. The Chairman commented that the council needed to assist with the viability of the site to ensure it came to fruition.

Members noted the proposals for Maidenhead, Windsor and Ascot as detailed in paragraph 2.5 of the report. Councillor Sharpe had raised concerns about provision in Sunninghill at the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Officers would be sharing the relevant data with Councillor Sharpe that had led to the conclusions in the report ,and discuss provision with ward members. Councillor Hilton suggested a temporary structure could be transferred after use in Maidenhead. However it was noted that this may impact the charging structure in the south  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To consider the above report

Members considered a proposed development brief for the redevelopment of the Broadway Car Park based on the feasibility study and financial modelling that had been carried out.

Members agreed that Appendix C, the Development Brief, should be moved into Part I on the borough website.

Councillor D. Evans explained that the next stage was the appointment of a professional team to get more detailed information, including costs, potential income streams and likely return on investment. A final investment decision would take place in November 2017.

Members were reminded that in October 2016 the Sub Committee had agreed the principle that the Council progresses the option of developing the car park itself, as owner using its own funds potentially with another investor such as the Berkshire Pension Fund, subject to approval of an investment case by Full Council.

The feasibility study, cost modelling and development brief showed that a range of key features should be deliverable including:

·         Increased capacity from the current circa 734 spaces to circa 1500 spaces (circa 1,435 in the new car park plus 100 in the adjoining Nicholson’s car park) of which 50% would include electric charging facilities. It was expected that between 225 and 500 of these spaces would be utilised to support the proposed Landing Development, as office spaces during the week. The 225 spaces would be free for general parking at the weekend.

·         Circa 11% disabled and parent and child spaces and new shopmobility facilities.

·         Generous bay sizes and column free parking.

·         Good circulation around the car park supported by electronic signage and safe pedestrian routes to improve user experience.

·         New disabled, drop off and retail delivery and service arrangements.

·         New circa 18,500 square foot of ground floor retail space to animate Broadway and link the shopping centre to The Landing and The Station.

·         A dynamic and visually interesting facade to the car park tailored to the setting which acts as a focal point building along Broadway

Councillor D. Evans had received correspondence form People to Places and would be meeting with them soon to discuss plans. The council was committed to providing improved Shopmobility facilities. He confirmed that that height of ten storeys was the maximum possible. Councillor Bicknell asked about underground parking but was advised there were concerns about groundwater and flooding. Councillor D. Evans confirmed that improved entry and exit facilities would be included in the new design.

It was noted that the façade would amount to 10% of the overall costs. Councillor D. Evans highlighted that the council would need to seek views on this aspect. The council had finite funds to put into the project but also wanted a high quality design. The charging regime would need to be competitive with neighbouring authorities; it was recognised that this was not necessarily going to be the same as the current scheme. The council intended to consult with stakeholders and the public on design options including costs and charges. This would take place during September and early October 2017.

Councillor D.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 7-10 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 7-10 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017

To consider the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report

To consider the appendices to the earlier Part I report

To consider the above report