Members considered the output of an initial assessment of future parking demands and needs within the Royal Borough.

Cabinet was addressed by Patrick Griffin. Mr Griffin stated that he was pleased to see a paper tabled for the meeting regarding parking provision for the borough, recommending the commissioning of a draft parking plan costing nearly £10m. However, once again a borough paper illustrated why residents of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale were so concerned about infrastructure provision in the area. This plan was focused on Maidenhead and Windsor and the £10m budget seemed to be predominantly intended to cover the cost of the detailed feasibility assessments for the eight sites identified, none of which were in Ascot and the Sunnings. The only fleeting mention of Ascot, in one paragraph 2.25, referred to ‘options for improving parking provision in other parts of the borough are also being explored’ but no reference was made to what the ‘exploration’ was showing. Mr Griffin asked how much of the £10m budget would be allocated to assessing the parking needs of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale? He also asked if the Cabinet would make it clear that the brief for this draft parking plan must include a proportionate and appropriate focus on the parking needs of both Ascot and Sunningdale as the borough’s two district centres, and of Sunninghill local centre, all of which currently suffered from serious shortages of parking?

Cabinet was addressed by Diana Tombs, representing the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Delivery Group. Ms Tombs highlighted that the proposal stated in point 3 of the report summary and in paragraph 2.17 that the parking plan ‘confirms the overriding principle that parking needed to support new residential development will be provided as part of each of these developments’. Whilst the Delivery Group concurred with the principle, it did make it critical to ensure that borough parking standards were such that there was sufficient parking allowed for on these residential developments so that parking did not spill over onto streets, thereby exacerbating already acute traffic congestion. The current parking standards, which were recognised as very old, certainly did not; it was critical that new ones did.  The Delivery Group had just conducted a parking survey in the area, which got a 7% response rate. The group was willing to share the results with the borough, which showed for example that nearly 80% of households had two or more cars and only 35% parked them in a garage. 

The survey also showed that over 50% had friends visiting between once and several times a week, 40% had weekly or more frequent visits from cleaners, helpers, carers and gardeners and that around half received deliveries weekly or more frequently, all demonstrating the need for residential parking to include sufficient provision for parking for tradesmen and visitors as well as residents. Ms Tombs therefore asked why did the borough highways department consistently refuse to use NP policy NP/T1 requiring such parking when evaluating parking provision in planning applications?

She asked whether, prior to publishing new parking standards, the borough would conduct a full borough-wide survey among residents to find out what residential parking needs actually were and take them into account in the new standards?

The Lead Member explained that the report set out the council’s vision to address parking provision in the future, in particular whilst Maidenhead went through regeneration. The report was focussed on Maidenhead because of the immediate pressing need as regeneration gathered place. However, the rest of the borough was not being ignored.  The report set out a draft as it was not yet known how things would pan out. The council would need to liaise with a number of parties including the Joint Venture partner once appointed. In relation to River Street, any permanent solution would require consultation with Ward Councillors. The entire project would require communications as car parks came on line throughout the borough.

In response to Mr Griffin, the Lead Member explained that the capital sums detailed in the report were an estimate at this point for options to address parking demand and need in the borough, based on the work carried out so far. The work undertaken to date to review the parking provision in the other town centres and villages suggested that parking issues were not necessarily related to a lack of off street car park provision, but on street matters.  Officers would be undertaking a review of on-street arrangements in due course. As part of finalising the plan and investment case that would be considered by full Council in April, the council would be looking again at other areas in the Borough including  those Mr Griffin had highlighted.  His comments were noted and the issues would be incorporated within the review.

In response to Ms Tombs the Lead Member commented that the report dealt with public parking provision rather than development related parking, therefore he would ask the Lead Member for Planning to respond.

The Chairman highlighted that the Joint Venture areas in Maidenhead, combined with the Landing, totalled approximately 20 acres. Regeneration would require both public and residential parking. Phased solutions were required to keep the town vibrant during a period of significant change.

The Lead Member for Planning commented that parking provision regularly featured in response to the Borough Local Plan (BLP) consultation. A Supplementary Planning Document would be issued following submission of the BLP to the Inspector and would include standards for residential development. The planning department was currently utilising a document from 2004. He had highlighted to the highways department that it was not utilising the Neighbourhood Plan policy referred to by the speakers; he would raise this again.

The Deputy Lead Member for Ascot Regeneration assured both speakers that he and Councillor Bateson would continue to raise the issue of parking in the south of the borough. He expected that proper consideration would be included in the final paper. The report before Members was associated with the arrangements to enable Maidenhead to function during regeneration. Both speakers would be attending a stakeholder meeting the next day on rejuvenation of Ascot; no doubt parking would be high on the agenda.

The Principal Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead commented that regeneration was already underway, therefore the paper was critical. The report did not refer to the Nicholson’s car park; funding would be required as the council committed to build a new car park fit for the town. 700 spaces would be removed when this building took place therefore it was critical to think ahead as to where temporary spaces could be found. A fundamental principle of the Joint Venture site was that residential parking would be provided in accordance with policies and would also replace public parking provision currently on the sites.  Of the £9m, £5-£6m would be for temporary provision. The council would look for opportunities to through phasing to get better mitigation of temporary provision costs. The proposals should be looked at as an investment . Without the temporary provision, the town would not benefit from all the good aspects of the Joint Venture, including up to 1500 new dwellings of which 30% would be affordable. An Access and movement strategy to ensure traffic would be kept moving round the town would be presented to Cabinet later in the year.

The Principal Member for Neighbourhood Planning & Ascot and the Sunnings commented that it was critical to ensure enough parking spaces to support the retail sector in Maidenhead. She looked forward to working with the Lead Member on parking provision in the south of the borough.

The Lead Member for Economic Development and Property gave his support for an extra deck on River Street car park. He thanked the Lead Member for the offer of consultation with Ward Members and the recognition that the areas was sensitive. The Lead Member for Highways and Transport commented that Maidenhead could not afford to lose any footfall during the transformation. In his opinion, the way forward was underground parking as an acre of land was worth £5m. If the return on investment period was extended, spaces would pay back over time. He also supported the proposals for River Street car park.

The Chairman suggested that a report in April may not give sufficient time to discuss options with the Joint Venture partner, who would not be appointed until the end of March. It was therefore agreed that a report would come back to Cabinet in May, followed by full Council in June. 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the direction of thedraft future Parking Plan.

ii)         Authorises the completion of detailed feasibility assessments for the eight sites identifiedin Tables 1 and 2 for potential additional parking provision.

iii)       Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Corporate and Community Services in conjunction with the Lead Member for Environmental Services including Parking and the Principal Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead to finalise the Parking Plan and submit an investment case to Cabinet in May 2017 and full Council in June 2017 for approval.