Agenda item

Broadway Car Park

To consider the above report

Minutes:

Members considered the investment case for the redevelopment of the car park and approval for an increase in the budget allocation from £8,150,000 to £35,313,163and delegated authority to progress a single stage procurement route.

 

Councillor Dudley commented that everyone could see the regeneration plans were picking up pace. An essential part of the plans was to ensure sufficient public parking in the town. Broadway car park (otherwise known as Nicholson’s) was a keystone for Maidenhead. The car park currently comprised 750 spaces and was at the end of its useful life. The new car park would comprise 1333 spaces over eight storeys, a vehicle management system and a fantastic exterior. Five percent of spaces would be active for electric vehicles, with a further five percent could be brought on in future. The new car park would include an enhanced entrance into the Nicholson’s shopping centre. Site enabling works were underway for the Vicus Way car park to ensure completion before the demolition of the Broadway car park began. The council was looking to work with local employers to move their business parking to Vicus Way to fee up spaces in the town centre for shopper parking. At no point during the regeneration would there be less spaces available than currently.

 

Councillor Hill made representations before withdrawing from the debate and vote on the item. He stated that a new car park was needed, however he had reservations. He was concerned that if the additional new spaces could not be filled it would not generate sufficient revenue to finance the project. He asked if the debt could be maintained based on the current scale. He was also concerned at the capital outlay which had begun at £8.1m but was now £35.3m. The capital programme for 2018/19 mentioned a sum of £2m but nothing was projected going forward. The only way to clear debt would be to sell major assets. With the Borough Local Plan on the rocks and the redevelopment of the golf course stalled, broken or failed he was worried whether Members should commit further funding.

 

Councillor Brimacombe thanked the administration for the public consultation held at the Nicholson’s Centre, which had been well attended and well supported by officers. Something as ambitious as the project proposed was bound to raise questions. It was a judgement call for the administration as they would be accountable. While affordable housing was mentioned he regretted the absence of a strategic affordable housing paper. He had, however, had a constructive exchange of views on this issue with Councillor Saunders. He hoped to hear more in response to the Member Question later in the agenda.

 

Councillor Da Costa expressed concern that the demolition could cause chaos in the town even if nothing went wrong. He was in favour of the rebuilding but felt there was not enough information. He needed assurances from various professionals on any aspect that was outside his skill set and also outside the skill set of many councillors. Councillor Da Costa felt Members needed to see the overall plan to know whether it was affordable in light of the massive amount of capital that had already been committed. He also needed to know how this was going to be affected by the problematic BLP. The report should have been made available six weeks prior for Member consideration. He needed to know how the extra borrowing would affect council tax and the money available for other services. The paper had not been presented to Cabinet first so the decision could not be called in. He felt Members were being rushed into a decision and therefore asked for the report to be withdrawn, discussed with the Opposition, then presented to Cabinet before Council.

 

Councillor E. Wilson commented that this was a different proposal to that which had been presented previously, including an extra 600 spaces in the middle of a town about to undergo one of the biggest regenerations projects in the country. Maidenhead councillors needed to wake up to what the residents were saying, get on with the regeneration and stop nit-picking.

 

Councillor D Evans stated that he fully endorsed the recommendations. When he had held the Maidenhead regeneration portfolio the one issue that always came up was the lack of parking. The new parking was a core component of the regeneration story. He had continually raised with officers the issue of occupancy, and been assured that there were a number of employers queuing up for parking places. Additionally, the number of rail passengers was set to almost double with Crossrail but no extra parking provision at the station was proposed by Network Rail. He assured Councillor Hill that detailed work had been done in terms of the economic costings of the project; the Part II appendix included information on the assumptions used in relation to usage levels and charging.

 

Councillor Werner commented that he was surprised at Councillor D Evans’ comments as at a previous Town Forum he had stated that the town did not need extra parking. Councillor Werner did not think there would be a problem filling the spaces. The increase in planning applications going through would result in a need for more contract parking. The demolition could cause chaos therefore assurances were needed from the Lead Member. He expressed concern about the linkages to the Nicholson’s centre as he felt the tunnels proposed did not link well with The Landing. More than 10% electric vehicle spaces would be needed for the future. Councillor Werner expressed concern about the level of debt the council was building up. The council did not have a good performance record with big capital schemes therefore he requested assurances that this project would not become overspent.

 

Councillor Dudley commented that the town had been waiting for regeneration for decades. The council would deliver a town worthy of its residents. Councillor Hill did not appear to understand his ward. The proposals gave a net addition of 600 spaces. Grove Road and Town Hall car parks were part of the York Road opportunity area therefore these spaces would be lost. The spaces in Hines Meadow had reduced to support the Colonnade development.  Therefore there was a reduction in spaces before any growth in demand. There was undoubtedly sufficient demand for the additional spaces. Regeneration planning was very important. A Developers Forum had been established to co-ordinate phasing. Undoubtedly there would be some disturbance during demolition and rebuilding, but this would be minimised. He would be happy to look at how the links with the Nicholson’s Centre could be improved. He agreed that increasing the percentage of electric vehicle spaces should be looked at further. The proposals before Council would create a real asset with a cash value and an attractive rate of return. There was a strong business case with Crossrail. The proposals would be funded with debt in the short term. The asset could be sold at any point in the future or it could be retained using capital receipts elsewhere. The BLP was going well; the Inspector had asked for dates for the next stage of the examination early next year.

 

Councillor Lenton highlighted that paragraph 2.7 could be read that if Council approved the business case the Pension Fund would fund it. This was not correct as the fund was independent and made its own decisions.

 

Councillor Saunders explained that every single capital project had attributed to it a potential financial cost, at public borrowing rates of 2.25%. It was for the council to assess the basis on whether a particular investment, when judged against future returns, represented a valid and sensible investment. The rate of return that had to be generated had to exceed that attributable to the interest rate. The actual interest rate accrued on every pound spent was a product of the overall cash management of the council. The monthly financial update showed that the only material debt was that inherited from the previous administration. The medium and long-term cash flow analysis showed that to promote the regeneration of Maidenhead the council was prepared to invest substantial amounts of money with the expectation that it would be recouped from capital receipts.

 

Councillor Bicknell commented that a lot of money was being invested and this was not for the faint-hearted. The plans were inspirational.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

 

RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and:

 

                  I.        Approve an additional capital budget of £27,163,163, making a total scheme cost of £35,313,163.

 

                 II.        Delegates authority to the Executive Director with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead to procure a design and build contract through a two stage tender.

 

(47 Councillors voted for the motion Councillor M. Airey, N. Airey, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Brimacombe, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, Dudley, D. Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Muir, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Richards, Saunders, Sharpe, Shelim, Story, Stretton, Targowska, Walters, Werner, D. Wilson, E Wilson and Yong.  1 Councillor abstained: Councillor Da Costa)

 

(Councillor Hill declared a prejudicial interest in the item, made representations, then withdrew from the debate and vote on the item)

Supporting documents: