A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 18 April 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a Full Council meeting (Report to follow)

The petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reconsider its decision to impose parking charges on Sundays in Maidenhead Town Centre.

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

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

a) The Mayor may invite the relevant officer to set out the background to the petition issue.

b) The Lead Petitioner to address the meeting on the petition (5 minutes maximum)

c) The Mayor to invite any relevant Ward Councillors present to address the meeting. (Maximum time of 3 minutes each for this purpose)

d) The Mayor to invite the relevant officer to provide any further comment.

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

A petition containing over 1000 signatories was submitted to the Council on 18 April 2016. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be debated at a Full Council meeting.

The petition read as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reconsider its decision to impose parking charges on Sundays in Maidenhead Town Centre.

The petition was introduced by the Strategic Director of Operations and Customer Services.  The Strategic Director thanked Marc Jones of the Maidenhead and District Chamber of Commerce for presenting the petition of nearly 3,000 signatures to Council. He explained that a report had been prepared for Council which set out the background to the issue and recommended that Council debated and resolved a way forward. In order to provide some context to the debate, he highlighted that the proposed parking fees were agreed as part of the overall budget setting for 2016/17 and sought to offer parity with other towns where Sunday charges were in place.  

However, it was acknowledged that the quality, availability and charging levels in car parks were important to the overall offer of the town and were linked to its attractiveness and competitiveness. This was relevant in Maidenhead where there was significant change and exciting regeneration activity underway. The new Sunday charges were not introduced on the planned date of 4 April 2016 to enable wider engagement and consultation. Therefore, the petition was very welcome

Marc Jones, Lead Petitioner, raised a number of questions:

·         Why were the parking fees being introduced at this time?

·         Why were residents and stakeholders not consulted?

·         Why was the council jeopardising the fragile signs of recovery in the town?

Mr Jones understood that the council believed the charges would generate £40,000 of revenue but he submitted that proper due diligence had not been undertaken and did not take into account the impact on the town centre. Mr Jones highlighted that this was one of the largest petitions ever submitted to the council, with more signatures received after the deadline. Empirical evidence suggested that charges would affect the High Street. The signs by parking machines were already impacting on businesses; he understood that Sainsbury’s had already experienced a reduction in trade. Maidenhead had an inferior retail offering in comparison to High  Wycombe and Windsor, and lower footfall and more empty premises.  These towns charged for parking on a Sunday but there was no comparison. The Bishops Centre offered free parking on a Sunday; this had impacted the town centre, which the council had underestimated.

Residents used the town centre because it was convenient for shopping and leisure activities on a Sunday. Charges would be an obstacle to this. Most machines did not give change which was another inconvenience.  Mr Jones was of the view that the proposed  charges were a levy on residents and they would go elsewhere. It was not necessarily the cost that would drive people away but the inconvenience of having to pay. The impact on businesses would include forcing some to close. Maidenhead could become a ghost town on Sundays. The council could not guarantee that the charges would not be detrimental; it was gambling with the town centre. If the petition was rejected residents would be acutely aware they would have to pay for parking but Councillors who voted for the charges would continue to enjoy free parking.

Councillor Rayner, as Lead Member for Highways and Transport, commented that parking had always been charged for at the Magnet Leisure Centre on a Sunday. He was always able find a free on-street space on a Sunday in the town.  He thanked Marc Jones of the Maidenhead and District Chamber of Commerce for presenting the petition of nearly 3,000 signatures to Council. Councillor Rayner commented that this level of support demonstrated significant interest and he was very pleased to invite Council to consider the petition and the report to resolve a way forward, The new Sunday charges were not introduced on the planned date of 4 April 2016 to enable wider engagement and consultation.  The new system in the Nicholson Centre gave change, which had been a repeated request by the Chamber of Commerce, along with the ability to pay by credit card and Advantage Card and pay on exit. Since the introduction of these facilities, footfall had increased.

Councillor Rayner recommended to Council that the introduction of new Sunday charges in Maidenhead be deferred until at least 2017/18. If these proposals were revisited at an appropriate time in the future they would be subject to proper consultation, including the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce.  Councillor Rayner commented that if the charges were not implemented money would have to come out of a budget elsewhere; therefore the council had a tough decision. The council did meet with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the budget proposals before they were agreed.  The new charges were advertised in February 2016. However, he recognised that the council had not got the consultation right and would do so now.

Councillor Dudley thanked the Lead Petitioner, the Maidenhead Advertiser and all the retailers. The administration was pro-business, yet it had not consulted properly. It was clear that there was enormous strength of feeling on the issue amongst retailers and residents. On the other side of the argument was fairness. Parking was charged for in Windsor on a Sunday. At the same time millions of pounds was being spent on the regeneration of Maidenhead. He agreed that another year should be allowed whilst the regeneration programme moved forward; when there were more retailers in the town centre, it would not need extra support.

Councillor Love commented that introduction of charges at this time would have a detrimental effect. The town would experience a lot of disruption in the next few years, although this was part of a much-needed programme. It would be important to keep residents and visitors on side during the works.  The Maidenhead Town Partnership Board was committed to making Maidenhead the best it could be and to work with the council on initiatives to improve the town. It was a mistake that the Partnership Board had not been consulted. A recent vintage fair event on the high street had attracted 24% more visitors than on the same Sunday the previous year. The marketing for the event included promotion of free parking. Further events were planned for the summer, which would help footfall. The vacancy rate was double that of Windsor and the footfall rate was lower. Windsor was also a tourist destination bringing in £459m to the economy. The regeneration programme would include an estimated £1bn in investment over the next 15 years. The Waterways project would create a waterside culture for shopping and eating at the heart of the town. Parking charges were not appropriate at this time.

Councillor Kellaway commented that he had raised the issue at the budget meeting and was glad to see it was under review. There were critical differences between Windsor and Maidenhead. The Town Partnership was trying to get people to see Maidenhead as a destination with events and activities. It was just too soon for charges to be introduced.

Councillor Werner was disappointed that the deferral suggested was for just one year; he felt the deferral should be into the foreseeable future. Each town was different and could not therefore be treated equally. The towns should work together; he did not think that the residents of Windsor would begrudge free parking in Maidenhead as the retail offer was not as good.

Councillor Rankin commented that this was one borough, but with many communities. For the borough to work properly it was important to respect each other, each of the communities, and be fair and equitable to all residents. He highlighted that in the budget that proposed the parking charges, at the same time the council had continued the borough’s strong agenda of investment  in regeneration and development. All understood that as one community, part of the give and take and the equitability of one borough meant that the special case of Sunday parking in Maidenhead should be ended. There were seven car parks in his ward and other than the small library car park all charged on a Sunday. In five of the car parks the charges were the same on Sunday as other days of the week. At River Street the cost for 2.5 hours would cost £8, at Victoria Street £4, and at York House £3. If the special treatment for Maidenhead continued, he questioned whether this would be equitable for Windsor and Sunningdale?

Councillor Jones commented that she had raised concerns at the budget council meeting about charges being increased across the borough. For example for those working in the shops in Windsor the cost of four hour parking had risen by 20%. She supported the motion and suggested that if the footfall in Maidenhead had not increased in a year’s time parking should continue to be free on a Sunday.

Councillor Bathurst commented that residents in the south of the borough were also feeding in concerns about parking charges. The Windsor and Ascot Chamber of Commerce should also be consulted.

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted that the proposal was to defer for one year then review the situation. He was pleased the consultation would widen to include Ascot.

Councillor Beer commented that town centres were at a tremendous disadvantage to out of town shopping centres and needed some privileges. Maidenhead needed to be supported through a time of change. A Freedom of Information request two years previously showed that parking income was £6.7m yielding a profit of £3.55m. Should the council be scraping the barrel to get money from people shopping and undertaking recreational activities on a Sunday? He thought not.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that the key issue was fairness and parity. The Lead Petitioner had asked to be given some more time; he saw some favour with this request. However he suggested that factual data was needed on the potential affect of any charge, to enable a decision to be made in future. It was unfair to ask those who already paid to continue to subsidies indefinitely.

Councillor Grey commented that not implementing the charges would mean the council would lose money and this would need to be found over time. He questioned why Maidenhead should have special treatment as all other major centres charged. More facts about footfall were needed.

Councillor Saunders expressed sympathy about the lack of consultation and the issue of fairness.  In relation to the complex multi-use and multi-site regeneration development, the council needed to make very careful judgements in terms of funding to ensure high impact contributions, whilst also expecting the private sector to be the dominant driver. The £100,000 associated with this item may have the potential for a significant adverse impact. Free parking on a Sunday would be likely to rank high on a list of those investments offering  a high rate of return. When the issue was looked at again in a year it would be important to address the issue of ensuring the investment as an overall package achieved the best return for residents.

Councillor Bicknell as Lead Member with responsibility for Windsor, commented that this was a difficult decision, whether taken now or in a year’s time. The key issue was not the number of visitors but the dwell time spent in the town; this was a problem in Windsor.  He highlighted that at Christmas Maidenhead got free parking for a number of weekends.

Councillor Dudley commented that the transitional grant funding the council was due to receive would mean there would be no cost to other areas if the motion were approved.

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

RESOLVED: That the introduction of new Sunday charges in Maidenhead be deferred until at least 2017/18. If these proposals are revisited at an appropriate time in the future they will be subject to proper consultation, including the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce.

(37 councillors voted in favour of the motion – Councillors Christine Bateson, George Bathurst, Malcolm Beer, Hashim Bhatti, Paul Brimacombe, Clive Bullock, Stuart Carroll, Gerald Clark, David Coppinger, Carwyn Cox, Judith Diment, David Evans, Dr Lilly Evans, Marius Gilmore, Geoffrey Hill, Maureen Hunt, Mohammed Ilyas, Lynne Jones, Richard Kellaway, John Lenton, Paul Lion, Philip Love, Sayonara Luxton, Asghar Majeed, Ross McWilliams, Marion Mills, Colin Rayner, MJ Saunders, Hari Sharma, Derek Sharp, John Story, Claire Stretton, Lisa Targowska, Leo Walters, Simon Werner, Derek Wilson and Lynda Yong. 12 Councillors voted against the motion - Councillors Malcolm Alexander, Phillip Bicknell, John Bowden, John Collins, Jesse Grey, Gary Muir, Nicola Pryer, Jack Rankin, Samantha Rayner, Wesley Richards, Shamsul Shelim and E Wilson. 3 Councillors abstained - Councillors David Burbage, Simon Dudley and Eileen Quick.)