The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the procedure shall be as follows:

a) The Mayor to invite the Lead Petitioner to address the meeting (5 minutes maximum)

b) The Mayor to invite the relevant Cabinet Member to speak, including proposing any recommendation in the report (5 minutes maximum)

c) The Mayor to ask for the motion to be seconded

d) Motions without Notice (other than those detailed in Part 2 C13 of the constitution) will not be allowed.

e) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors to speak (5 minutes maximum each)

f) The Mayor will invite all Members to debate the matter (Rules of Debate as per the Constitution apply)

Members debated the following petition:

We the undersigned petition RBWM to retain the world famous Maidenhead Town Hall, to use it as its primary civic building, and waste no further council tax on plans to sell or relocate the civic and community heart of Maidenhead

Melanie Hill, lead petitioner, addressed the meeting. She explained that she was both a resident and a performer and therefore wanted to save the Town Hall and keep it within the public domain. The Town Hall was both historic and at the heart of the town; it had been used as a vaccination centre for over a year. The report said that there was no evidence of the building being special or unique that the council was aware of. On the contrary, from a performer’s point of view the theatre was a great asset to the community and beyond. It was hired by many local theatrical groups, dance schools and more as it was the perfect space. It could accommodate the many performers and audience members that other spaces could not. A lot of these events raised funds for local charities and the wellbeing of the local community was important post-pandemic. It was vital that the local theatre remained central and accessible by all. Norden Farm had professional events that would affect a week-long booking. Braywick had sporting and other events. In any case the space was just a sports hall not a theatre and therefore had many flaws. Schools had other events which limited availability.

For over 25 years the Desborough Theatre had been the home of the real Maidenhead pantomime. The building had been opened by the Queen in 1962. It was last refurbished in 2014 so if the refurbishment was not good enough to last a decade Melanie Hill suggested the council seek compensation from whoever undertook the work at the time. She also questioned why more taxpayer money should be spent on consultants and consultations. The report stated that the Town Hall required an additional £377,000 spend on the fabric of the building over the next five years. She felt that was surely enough to secure its future versus spending millions on a new building.

The fireworks at the Christmas lights switch on were talked about across the counties. The lantern parade and Remembrance service had the Town Hall as their central backdrop. 1500 residents who valued the Town Hall and all it enshrined had signed the petition. It was unfair that those living outside the borough who used the Town Hall could not have their say in whether it should survive another day because they were unable to sign the petition.

Melanie Hill highlighted that the meeting was taking place in the theatre space. Upstairs was a magnificent Council Chamber perfect for that use. She referenced recent social media statements by Councillor McWilliams that residents wanted to see the heritage of the borough protected. Heritage included the local thriving film industry. For the community wellbeing, the heart of Maidenhead should remain in the iconic Town Hall.

Councillor Johnson highlighted that at Cabinet on 29 April 2021 it had been made clear that there were no plans to sell off or demolish the Town Hall. However it was sensible to explore the future investment requirements to enable the council to continue its corporate functions at the Town Hall and decide if that represented a fair deal for the taxpayer. The office space needed to reflect the impact of the pandemic. Investment was needed to meet climate change objectives and to reflect emerging national policy that had not been in place at the time of the last refurbishment in relation to energy performance and sustainability. The third element was the likely level of resource needed and the ability to fund from a capital perspective.

At the Cabinet meeting it had been explained that all options would be explored before significant amounts of taxpayer money would be invested. A report would follow in dure course on the proposed strategy. The report before Members reflected the current position. The building clearly had a great attachment for may residents which was recognised but it was also not appropriate to write blank cheques without due regard for the impact on the delivery of services and the taxpayer. The plan was clear, to continue the work to ascertain the long-term cost to meet the energy efficiency requirements and the other climate change objectives set by the council. It was also important to deliver a high-quality working environment for the hard working and much valued staff.

Councillor Johnson thanked the lead petitioner and reassured her that no final decision had been taken. Work would continue to ascertain costs and then Members would be presented with a range of options and a suggested way forward. Doing nothing would not be in line with the council’s statutory responsibility to deliver value for money and the legal requirements relating to energy efficiency, nor would it align with the council’s own climate change objectives.

Councillor Stimson highlighted the need for careful consideration of what to do with council buildings in line with requirements relating to energy efficiency. The Town Hall had lots of embedded carbon in it therefore there was a need to assess the situation.  She made a plea for collaboration and careful consideration before any decisions were made and to be creative in plans, for example the use of green architects. The Town Hall was something personal to residents and should not be used as apolitical football.

Councillor Singh thanked the lead petitioner Melanie Hill, who like many residents was passionate about saving what was left of the town’s heritage. This included the iconic Town Hall and the attached Desborough Suite which hosted many arts and community functions, like the annual pantomime which had been going strong for over 40 years, but also more formal events such as the naturalisation ceremonies, registry office for births and marriages, Mayor’s parlour, meetings in the council chamber, offices for council staff, and a café which had previously been housed on the ground floor. It was also used for the day to day running of the borough activities. The building was custom built for its purpose only 60 years previously and to the latest specification at the time, however, had been modernised and fully fitted out a few years ago with open plan offices and a complete roof of solar panels.

The petition arose after the issue was picked up by the local and national media, with headlines of 'all options open' over the building's future. A figure of nearly £14m to modernise the building was suggested; concerningly no money had ever been allocated or budgeted for the works. Residents in St Marys were very concerned about the issue, many of whom had chosen to live and work within proximity to the Town Hall, including officers and council staff who were looking for certainty. So were investors and partner organisations as the borough had sold off offices, car parks and public land surrounding the Town Hall which had been redeveloped and were currently being marketed for sale or phased-in to be built-out. People needed to know what the concrete plans were as it had been nearly a year since the news story initially broke and 8 months since Cabinet met in June to discuss the Asset Management Strategy for the borough's properties, including the Town Hall. Councillor Singh asked, since June what further detail could be provided to Members and what further asset plans had been drawn up for the Town Hall and its future maintenance. He also asked what cost had been incurred for the review to date. Members and the public had not had sight of the work undertaken thus far and Councillor Singh felt that deals were being done in the back rooms away from the public eye. The conversations should be in public or at least with all Members involved.

There was also concern of the location of where a new civic building would be and why this had not been planned for when the masterplan was recently drawn showing the area as being the civic quarter. Judging by the desire to build flats on every parcel of available land within the ring road the concern was where the location of a new Town Hall would be, for example would it be in the town centre in Maidenhead, or Windsor or even Slough. Councillor Singh asked if all options were still open or could certainty be provided to residents.

Councillor Singh proposed the following amendments to the motion:

ii) Asserts that the Cabinet resolution of 29th April 2021 relating to the Town Hall, the recognition both that the Town Hall cannot meet the Council's Climate Strategy and that it would not be economically viable to adapt it to meet future operational requirements was premature

iii) Further authorises the Chief Executive, in exercising the authority delegated to him by the aforementioned Cabinet resolution to also appraise options that include retaining the current Town Hall as a civic building

The Monitoring Officer advised that neither amendment was valid. The first sought to negate the original motion and the second was not within the power of full Council.

Councillor Singh proposed an alternative amendment:

ii) Requests that Cabinet reconsiders the authority delegated to the Chief Executive by the aforementioned resolution and recommends that this authority is expanded to require the Chief Executive also to undertake an alternative detailed review and business plan for retention of the Town Hall as a civic building.

The Monitoring Officer considered the additional wording ’the Chief Executive also to undertake an alternative detailed review and business plan for retention of the Town Hall as a civic building’ to be a valid amendment.

Councillors Johnson and Hilton did not accept the amendment to their motion. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Werner and Members began debating the amendment.

Councillor Werner commented that 20 years ago he had been in the same place, opposite the then Leader of the Council who had stated there were no plans to knock down the Town Hall. Within weeks, detailed plans were produced to show that he had the intention to knock down the Town Hall, he had just not had plans written down in detail to do so. Councillor Werner was concerned that as Councillor Johnson had used the phrase ‘there were no plans’, there may be no detailed architectural plans or a planning application but the intention to knock it down or sell it on was there, although invisible to others. The amendment asked for Councillor Johnson to do what he had said in his speech. He said he had no plans to do it so presumably this meant no intention to do it, which would allow the Chief Executive to put forward a study of retaining the Town Hall as a civic building.  The arguments in relation to climate change seemed a misnomer as the Borough local Plan was still going through the system which would build houses that were not carbon neutral. Councillor Werner highlighted that previous Masterplans had included the Town Hall remaining in a civic centre.

Councillor Bhangra commented that the amendment was not clear and he was disappointed it had not been explained properly. The report was clear that the Town Hall would not be knocked down.

Councillor Larcombe commented that he had been around 20 years ago therefore felt a sense of déjà vu. The Town Hall was a symbol of authority and should be looked after for the community. It would be important to look at all the opportunities rather than demolishing the Town Hall.

Councillor Walters commented that he too had been around 20 years ago. He assured Councillor Werner that there were no parallels with the current situation. He agreed that it was important to retain historical buildings. The Leader had made a genuine attempt to explain the situation in the changing circumstances such as climate change.

Councillor Hill commented that in relation to the EPC ratings being brought forward by the government the report had it the wrong way round. The intention of the government was to upgrade existing buildings and make them more energy efficient. The logic to demolish the Town Hall and repurpose it elsewhere, sell the land and build some more ‘prison blocks’, was fatally flawed. It was not the intention of the government otherwise all public buildings of some age would be at risk such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. If the logic was pursued across the country it would generate more carbon and the job would never end. The amendment was perfectly in order to upgrade the Town Hall which is what the government wanted to happen.

Councillor Davey commented that if the borough wanted to be a world-famous movie making location then paragraph 2.5 of the report seemed to push the Desborough Suite right out the door. In the considerations of the future of the building, he suggested offering the theatre to the community at a peppercorn rent as had been done previously for Norden Farm and the Fire Station. He suggested revisions to CIL could provide the funding.

Councillor Johnson stated that he could not support the amendment because the premise was included within the body of the report. He felt that not all Members had read the report which made it clear that work would continue to investigate all options and report back to Members with a recommendation which by default included the potential cost for investing in the building. That figure would need to be benchmarked against other options that would give greater value for the taxpayer. The council’s climate change and carbon obligations in relation to its own corporate buildings seemed to have been swept aside by the Opposition. He also commented that buildings such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were exempt from the new government regulations as they were considered historic buildings.

Councillor Singh commented that it seemed all options were open other than saving the Town Hall. He asked the Leader to calm residents’ and officers’ concerns.

The amendment was voted on by a show of hands. 15 Councillors voted for the amendment; 21 Councillors voted against the amendment. The amendment therefore fell and Members returned to debating the substantive motion.

Councillor Baldwin commented that the Town Hall was a totemistic building. In ways he did not necessarily understand there was an enormous emotional attachment to it for residents in Maidenhead and across the borough. The report was full of speculation and contestable figures. When the time came the assertions and figures would be tested. One thing that would not change would be the residents’ affection for the building. There would come a time when that could no be longer be ignored and the obsession with town centre development and concreting over the cultural heritage of Maidenhead and the Royal Borough would no longer be acceptable.

Councillor Bhangra stated there would be no sale or demolition of the Town Hall but it would also be important to see how to achieve sustainability and value for money.

Councillor Del Campo referred to the Extraordinary full Council meeting held in January 2018 where Councillors had voted on the York Road development plans includingthe Heritage Centre being moved to a purpose-built venue and a heritage hub. Now it seemed all the town’s cultural assets were being pushed out and open spaces replaced by tower blocks. Residents were right to be worried about the Town Hall and to ask what had happened to the York Road vision.

Councillor Hilton commented that the report presented by Councillor Johnson made it very clear that there were no firm plans for the Town Hall, certainly no plans for demolition. However, rather than dealing with maintenance issues as they arose, a planned maintenance programme was being developed. It was already known that over the next five years the fabric of the building required an investment approaching £400,000 and anticipated that a full electrical and mechanical survey would add considerably to that.

The paper explained what was already known, that the building was inflexible and there would be significant remodelling costs for it to support modern office working and further costs if the building was to meet energy performance standards and remain an office location for the next 25 years. There were other issues as Covid had changed the council’s working practices. It was likely that less space would be required so it would need to be decided how to manage spare capacity, and ensure that staff were based in suitable accommodation that worked well for them.  The Desborough Suite was part of the Town Hall and also required considerable investment but would be competing with the new purpose-built Baylis Theatre at the Braywick Leisure Centre.

Against this backdrop the council was not about to stop work considering the future of the Town Hall, it would continue work to create an evidence base that would allow a conclusion on the Town Hall’s future. This would be complex and require substantial investments.

The report helpfully set out a high-level timeline so the council had a plan with key milestones giving some certainty over what would happen when.

Councillor Hilton concluded that the outcome must result in a sustainable low or no carbon civic centre and operational base for the council for at least the next twenty-five years. The preferred option must be fit for purpose, affordable and importantly represent long term value for the taxpayer. The petition told the council to stop spending money on considering the future of the Town Hall. The programme outlined in the paper could lead to the Town Hall being made fit for purpose whereas anyone supporting the petition would be asking for work to stop and condemned the Town Hall to longer term decline.

Councillor Johnson concluded that the report and recommendation was self-explanatory. He had been shocked to hear the council’s climate change obligations being so easily dismissed by those who not so long ago had been urging the council to go hard and further on those targets. The Town Hall was one of the largest buildings in the council’s portfolio therefore needed a greater focus. There would be no fire sale of the Town Hall or any other asset although understandably there would be developers circling as ever. There were no plans to relocate staff to Slough which he felt was a ludicrous suggestion. He questioned the assertion that groups have been pushed out to the fringes. The Maidenhead Community Centre had a good location in the heart of the town at Marlow Road. The proposal was about explaining the options for investment in the building so a decision could be taken that delivered value for money whilst also meeting the corporate responsibilities of delivering services.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Hilton, and:

RESOLVED: That full Council notes the Petition and:

i) Agrees to continue to investigate the situation and report back to Members when appropriate for decision

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 27 councillors voted for the motion; 1 councillor voted against the motion.