Cabinet considered the report regarding the development of a new Multi-Storey Car Park at Vicus Way.

The Leader of the Council and Chairman of Cabinet, Business, Economic Development and Property informed Cabinet that the report was for the approval for the development of a new multi-storey car park at Vicus Way.   Permission had been given on 28^th June 2018 and Council approval the capital budget on 19th July 2018. The initial budget of £13,207,249 was approved from which £350,000 was vired to fund additional car parking provision at Braywick Park in June 2020.

Cabinet were informed that the construction of the new car park was formally tendered via the OJEU procurement process and Buckingham Group were selected as the main contractor and the contract was due to be entered into March 2020.  As a result of Covid19 lockdown it was necessary  to postpone entering into the contract whilst the impact of Covid19 was assessed and better understood both in terms of site management and delivery, the potential impact on demand for spaces and the Council’s review of its car parking strategy.

Mr Hill addressed Cabinet and said that he welcomed the transparency and the honest comments he mentioned how Cllr Hunt had undertaken scrutiny on this by reviewing many of the earlier court documents.  He asked about the £2.2 million of savings that will go into the revenue budget.  If this is not approve is there a contingency savings or does this mean approval is required.  The report also mentioned the Royal London Asset Management expressing an interest in car parking spaces depending on their planning application.  Should you not wait until planning has been determined and if I fails is there any underwriting into the plans.  What happens if they decide they do not want the 200 spaces. 

Mr Hill also informed that the report talked about Stafferton Way being in the BLP for residential use, however why not just rebuild a new car park on this site as you were doing with Broadway.   The proposed plans on Vicus Way were very unpopular and it is a strange time to commit £12 million of public money especially when parking income is not being achieved and the way we work is changing. 

The Chairman replied that in terms of the mention £2.2 million this was a capital cost to date due to general design project management, planning fees and professional fees.  If we proceed theses capital costs would have to be transferred to revenue costs.  This was not a driver in bring this forward, the business plan had been reviewed and he believed that this was a robust case for approving the plans.  This also provided an holistic solution working in conjunction with other plans for development in Maidenhead.  With regards to the London Assey Management application he was right that planning had not yet been determined, however even if this did not go ahead intelligence suggested that there was still sufficient demand for parking. 

The Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead said that the future of Maidenhead depended on projects such as this as we were very much at the beginning of the rebirth of the town.  There were a number of projects happening at he same time.  There was the Broadway and reduction in spaces, Stafferton Way coming to its end of life and the possible redevelopment of Braywick Gate and Statesman’s House.  There was a need to move long term parking spaces out of town that would also have appositive impact on pollution. 

Cllr Taylor mentioned that as ward member her objection to this was well known.  She was speaking tonight on behalf of her residents she represented and as a member of the council.   She had concerns about the business plan, we were also not out of the woods with regards to the pandemic and its long term effects were not known.  There were unknowns such as the future use of office space and the Elizabeth Line.  She also mentioned that planning was held on 16th January but the report stated 8th March.  She also questioned why it was felt that having long term parking away from the town centre would reduce traffic movements and pollution as having more short term parking would increase traffic movements.  With regards to the London application she question why they would request 200 spaces when their application said there were 197 on site.   She also mentioned that it was along walk from the proposed site to the town centre, why would people move season tickets from the town centre to this site.  Cllr Taylor asked that by bringing this to Cabinet today had anything to do with the planning application saying work had to begin within three years. 

The Chairman said that he would invite the Managing Director of the RBWM Property Company to speak but he just wanted to say that the Elizabeth line between Reading and Paddington was in operation so communing to London would continue.  Also overall there would not be an increase in car parking spaces for Maidenhead.

The Managing Director of the RBWM Property Company informed that they had spoken those who leased parking spaces at Nicholson’s and 90% of those questions did not have a problem moving to the new car park.  Even if we discounted the spaces that Royal London had indicated they wanted there was still 700 long term spaces in Heinz Meadow cat park that would be used for short term parking.  We will be engaging with these 700 about moving.  It was appreciated that the pandemic had impacted parking need but when we went back to the norm it was felt that there was sufficient demand and given the level of development demand would be high.

The Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside Informed that the reduction of car parking spaces was with the climate change strategy and that short term spaces would be more expensive than the long term offer out of town.  

Cllr Haseler clarified the dates from the planning application, he said that the planning meeting was held as reported but the decision notice was not issued until March. 

Cllr Hill said that he endorsed everything that Cllr Taylor and Mr Hill had said.   He said that this was one of the most controversial planning applications that he had seen with so many community groups coming together.  There had been two high level legal cases around this application,  it also went against council policy for where long term parking should be placed.   If this is built it would be an intrusive ugly building with light and noise pollution.  So why given the level of objection is this proposed to go ahead.

Cllr Hill also said that Maidenhead now had a gigabit telephone exchange.  As more people get this broadband  over the next few years there would be less demand for office space and more virtual offices.  Would it be better to have commercial space and residential on the site.   Why increase our debt when this could provide a capital receipt. 

The Chairman responded that a valid planning application had been granted so we were dealing with a proposal that had full planning consent.  This was concerning the proposed delivery of the project.  He understood that there had been considerable opposition to this prior to him becoming a councillor.  But since this had been proposed he had had limited contact about opposition to the project.  He said he was not ignoring previous concerns but this had been transparent.  The Chairman agreed that working patterns would change but there would still be a demand for office space, even if it was shared, and a demand for parking.  He also expected that there would be firms looking to move out of London. 

The Managing Director of the RBWM Property Company said that when looking at the site we did not just consider current demand but also the future economic development of the area.  There was a substantial amount of development in the pipeline and a demand for long term parking.  The site could be sold for a one off capital receipt, but the market was recessed and this site would help replace the old dilapidated site, meet demand and bring in revenue.

Cllr Taylor said that if this was to be approved then could she ask for a commitment on three things.  One could a residents group be set up to work in collaboration with the construction company, two to make the outside of the building as attractive as possible such as green planting and finally that the car parking management plan agreed at planning be enforced and that consideration be given to allowing local residents using the car park in the evening.   The Chairman agreed with these points and discussions already held with Cllr Taylor apart from the final one regarding free parking for local residents as he could not commit to this but he would look into it.

Resolved unanimously:  that Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the entering into a construction contract with the selected main contractor to build the new car park.

ii)         Approve the leasing of the car parking spaces to long term users of the car park on commercial terms.

iii)        Delegates authority to the Managing Director, in consultation with the Lead Member for Business, Economic Development & Property to conclude the appropriate construction and leasing contracts.