To consider the above report

Members considered the emerging Parking Plan for the Borough based on the further assessments and feasibility studies that had been carried out.

The Sub Committee was addressed by Peter Sands, on behalf of the Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had concerns about parking provision in the borough, particularly in Maidenhead. The high level of car ownership was driven by a lack of public transport infrastructure, particularly north-south. There was already an under-provision of parking in the borough, up to 10%. Companies wanted to move to Maidenhead but required more parking than was available. The Chamber supported the improvements to the Broadway car park proposed. However, it had concerns about the number of spaces that that Ryger and the London Aberdeen Group were hoping to acquire because if it took 500 the increase in provision in the Broadway car park would not allow for the hoped for increase in economic activity in Maidenhead. Other developments such as West Street and York Road did not seem to allow for public provision. The Chamber did not believe the authority had given enough consideration to the impact of Crossrail and western rail access to Heathrow. The 500 long term spaces included in the Area Action Plan seemed to have disappeared off the radar. The overall projected figures were not much over 10% therefore would not provide enough for economic growth and regeneration.

The Chairman commented that the council shared the Chamber’s emphasis on parking being critically important, particularly in relation to the joint ventures. At the application stage specific on-site parking would be a matter of considerable planning focus. He had recently attended a meeting with the financial backers for the Landing and the new development manager to look at the nature of the scheme. Outline consent was already in place, any future application could have amended parking provision. Discussions were also underway about the National Rail car park on Shoppenhangers Road.

Councillor D. Evans commented that the plan was for the next few years, not forever. If Crossrail took off more than was currently thought the council would obviously look at putting more in; the council had options through its own land holdings. The contractual position with Ryger was 225 spaces. In the short term the council would have to weigh up the needs of provision for shoppers against what the Landing would look like. The Chairman commented that the council needed to assist with the viability of the site to ensure it came to fruition.

Members noted the proposals for Maidenhead, Windsor and Ascot as detailed in paragraph 2.5 of the report. Councillor Sharpe had raised concerns about provision in Sunninghill at the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Officers would be sharing the relevant data with Councillor Sharpe that had led to the conclusions in the report ,and discuss provision with ward members. Councillor Hilton suggested a temporary structure could be transferred after use in Maidenhead. However it was noted that this may impact the charging structure in the south of the borough.

Councillor D. Evans explained that if the Broadway car park was to be demolished, there was a need to ensure there was sufficient interim parking available in Maidenhead. Council staff parking would be displaced from Hines Meadow to Reform Road. A consultation with staff would take place. The council was the freeholder of the tenpin bowling site and could exercise notice to vacate the site for use as temporary parking prior to the entire site being brought forward with Countryside.

Members noted that the opening balance of spaces was 3447; by 2021 this would be 3874, a net increase of 427. This was based on the maximum of 500 at the Landing and did not take into account the underground parking at St Clouds Way, so the increase would more likely be 600-800 plus additional private sector provision. The approximate cost of the temporary parking was £6m; the resale price did not present a good return. The Chairman asked if the temporary parking could be accelerated. A shuttle bus between the temporary parking at Braywick and the town centre was being considered. Councillor D. Wilson suggested a temporary footbridge be installed to reduce the walking time between Reform Road and the Town Hall. The bridge could remain in place afterwards, revitalising the area with residential development. Members noted that the temporary parking could be brought forward, but there was a 52 week lead in time.

Councillor Saunders commented that, subject to the views of stakeholders, it would be good to get temporary parking behaviours bedded in well before the lead up to the Christmas retail period of 2018. The budget report earlier in the year had made clear the likely flightpath of expenditure on both the Broadway car park and temporary provision. He accepted the figures were signposts rather than approvals. Councillor D. Evans confirmed that proposals for the temporary provision could be brought forward to September 2017.

The Executive Director explained that there were technical and planning challenges with the extra deck at River Street car park that meant a timetable had yet to be confirmed. It would be possible to look at the Windsor proposal at the same time as the temporary provision in September 2017.

Councillor S. Rayner highlighted that with the Town Hall, Grove Road and West Street, the council should continue to look to provide more spaces in the town centre.

It was noted that an appeal had been lodged for the Nene Overland site but there was a backlog of 3-6 months before it would come before a court.

It was confirmed that Stafferton Way currently had 576 spaces, one extra deck was proposed alongside a general refurbishment.

Councillor Bicknell stated that he did not accept that underground parking could not be considered at sites another than St Clouds Way. The Executive Director commented that there were technical challenges but he would look into the possibility.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet Regeneration Sub-Committee notes the report and:

i)     Approves the emerging Parking Plan and next steps.