To consider the above report

Members considered the emerging masterplan options for the site, the procurement route and approval of a capital budget for the acquisition of residential or commercial properties that would benefit future access to the site.

 

Councillor Brimacombe had declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item therefore he made representations before the main debate. Councillor Brimacombe commented that the Leader of the Council had spoken proudly of the ambition of the Administration and at 2,000 dwellings the enterprise must surely earn the right to be called ambitious. Ambition was not a neutral concept, success was judged in hindsight and could be widely praised for its vision and achievement. Equally failure could be criticised as recklessness, over-reaching and ill-considered judgement. Members should certainly be inspired by ambition but not seduced by ambition. He advised Members to proceed with extreme caution and be aware that failure would rightly be condemned. It was also important to avoid believing that complex problems could ever be solved by simple solutions. This was very much a real-life issue that would touch the lives of many of the residents of the borough. It was not just a cash-cow with a few inconvenient details.

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted a number of questions which he believed Members should be satisfied of with answers: What was actually driving the level of housing need? Whose housing needs would be satisfied when it was built? It was important to be clear what 30% affordable housing actually meant. Would an 18 year old Janet or John in Maidenhead today truly be able to live near their parents in ten years’ time in their affordable house? Would any of the properties be able to be purchased with a household income of even say £50,000 per year? If so would the capital element be given away to the first buyers such that the next generation lost out as they did with the sale of council houses? In short was this a renewable asset that reached down to include the hard­working young of subsequent generations or was this a one-time give-away? Who was it, specifically, that would be able to afford the affordable?

Councillor Brimacombe continued that it had been his experience on the council that when he had been asked to support a general principle or a ‘direction of travel’, and then subsequently the detail disclosed went to a place that he did not agree with, the answer he had been given was that he had voted for the issue. Councillors often found themselves in a ratchet mechanism, doors were locked and bolted behind them at each decision stage, there were no exits or escape routes. This was not his commercial experience where the level of commitment was generally commensurate with the detail offered and there were real go and no-go decisions at various stages. He cautioned Members to be comfortable with what they voted for, as they did not yet know the detail and may not be able to say no at a later point.

 

Councillor Brimacombe concluded by referring to the guidance of Nelson Mandela:

 

·         Practice Listening Leadership

·         Keep a proper distance from moneyed interests

·         Don’t surround yourself with acolytes that merely confirm your own opinions and bias

·         Don’t let loyalty blind you to taking the right and necessary action at the right time.

 

Councillor Rankin introduced the item by explaining that when he had been knocking on doors standing for election to the council, he was often met by surprised, bemused and bewildered residents, who, when faced with a 22 year old young man on their doorsteps, could not help but wonder why he wanted to be a councillor. People found it difficult to understand why such a young person would have any interest in local politics, never mind want to stand. The reason was, despite agreeing that for the most part local representatives should be long-standing residents with a wealth of experience in their lives and communities, it was essential that there were varied voices and perspectives in decision making, and his generation’s voice was one that was often sadly missing, especially in the Conservative and Unionist Party.

 

His generation’s perspective was the need for homes. In the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the average house price was twelve times the median income. The housing crisis, and the inter-generational injustices that it drove, was a national problem, but it was particularly acute in the local community. In the Council Plan, which was unanimously approved by Full Council earlier in the year, the council stated its vision was:

 

“Building a borough for everyone – where residents and businesses grow, with opportunities for all”

 

One of the six priorities stemming from the vision was ‘Growing Economy, Affordable Housing’. At 132 acres, Maidenhead Golf Club was large enough to accommodate 2,000 new homes including 600 affordable homes, with the supporting infrastructure. The proposals formed a critical part of the delivery of the Maidenhead Area Action Plan and would bring a new vibrancy to Maidenhead’s economy and town centre, as part of the wider proposals to rejuvenate and regenerate Maidenhead.

 

The Royal Borough was the owner of the freehold of the golf club and had agreed to purchase the leasehold of the golf course somewhere between September 2019 and September 2023. In June 2017, the Council took the decision to design and procure a process to develop the golf club. The report before Members was the result of the initial work undertaken by the consultant Savills. To ensure an appropriate level of transparency the council had put as much information as possible into the public domain. He had been delighted that the Mayor had agreed to take public questions, to extend the deadline for submission and to increase the amount of time usually available for public questions.

 

The proposals were transformational for both Maidenhead and the wider Borough and the council was committed to releasing as much information into the public domain as possible, as proactively as possible and engaging with residents. The first appendix to the paper laid out the compelling Vision for Maidenhead Golf Club. It set out the sustainability and deliverability of the proposal in planning terms and painted a picture of a welcoming and sensitively designed place, with a strong sense of identity where mature woodland formed an integral part of the development. The second appendix documented the emerging Masterplan Options. The council had released as much detail as it was able to of the preferred option into the public domain. It was not proposed to develop the entirety of the site, leaving 40% of the golf club undeveloped with significant open space and the deciduous woodland remaining. The masterplan also showed plans for future educational provision for the borough in the form of a Reception through to Year 13 school for 2,500 pupils. The school would by far be the largest in the borough. The third appendix detailed the procurement options. The recommended option was for a contractual joint venture structure where the council would maintain complete control over the development.

 

To help Members and residents understand that process, the borough would procure a partner, not a scheme. The partner would be selected through a formal scoring mechanism in an OJEU compliant process. It was envisioned that that process would be complete by the end of July 2018. The council would then work with the partner to develop proposals and as had been done with the proposals at York Road and West Street within the Town Centre Joint Venture, full consultation on the plans with all stakeholders, including all adjoining residents, would occur. The plans in the agenda were emerging high-level masterplans and Members and residents would have significant engagement before any planning applications were launched.

 

There was a further proposal of a capital budget of £20m to purchase residential and commercial properties to provide highways access. The funding was being requested at this stage to give as much flexibility as possible and allow the council to conduct purchases in a negotiated and opportunistic way. This would be far preferable than the council having to use powers at the last minute. The highway capacity was of great concern to many residents and the report made it clear that the council would put in significant capital investment to ensure this was adequately addressed. The concern was raised at scrutiny with regards to the oversight of the budget before the adoption of the Borough Local Plan. The recommendations from scrutiny had been adopted in full in the revised recommendation.

 

The council was committed to:

 

·         building a borough for everyone

·         providing a growing economy and to deliver affordable homes

·         delivering the Maidenhead Area Action Plan in a way that was value for money for taxpayers

·         the successful regeneration of Maidenhead.

 

The report showed how the council was making progress on all the commitments.

 

Councillor Stretton explained that she had been approached by the Directors of the Maidenhead Golf Club because they had concerns about the statements made in council meetings and to the Maidenhead Advertiser that were in direct conflict with the contract with golf club.  Representatives of the golf club had submitted questions for the meeting to seek assurances the contract would be adhered to; these questions had been rejected on the grounds of exempt information. The contract had no clause relating to confidentiality and the only confidentiality document they had signed related to discussions prior to the contract. She asked why the Leader could make public statements that undermined the contract, but the golf club was unable to ask questions or receive reassurance that the very same contract would be honoured.

 

Councillor Stretton quoted from an article in the Maidenhead Advertiser from the previous week:

 

‘The contract does state that the availability of Maidenhead Golf Club development was dependent on both the golf course and the land at Harvest Hill being adopted within the BLP. The BLP would be considered by the Inspector in early 2018. If the plan is not approved or one or other of the site is rejected, the contract becomes null and void and there was no contractual obligation for the golf course to give up the lease prior to the end of their current lease in 2039.  If the Plan is approved, then the contract would come into force’.

 

She had been told that the golf club would then bring to its Members the decision to decide how long they should remain on the site. The contract stated that the earliest date  would be 2019, the latest 2023.  The golf club continued to plan for the future in accordance with the contract and were seeking an alternative site. If it agreed to move to a new location, the earliest time playing could start would be spring 2022 therefore this was the earliest the borough could begin site preparation. The golf club was requesting assurance the contract would be kept to in full, therefore she called for a commitment from Councillor Rankin to meet with the golf club and give the assurances they requested.

 

Councillor Rankin confirmed that he would be very happy to attend such a meeting.

 

Councillor Hill stated that he was disappointed with the way the supplementary questions had been dealt with. The first he had heard about the report had been angry calls from residents pointing him to an article on the Maidenhead Advertiser website. The borough was proposing to spend £20m of council taxpayer money to demolish residents’ houses, build roads on residents’ land and the developer would walk away with the profit. Residents felt that there had not been any open or transparent consultation. The report was in his opinion, years too early. Buying properties at this point represented outrageous and unnecessary property speculation. At a meeting earlier that day with members, it had been made clear that they wanted the BLP process reinstated and full consultation with all agencies, Lead Members, Ward Members and anyone planning to develop the site. They wanted an independent inspector to review the Borough Local Plan at an appropriate time in the process for the golf club. To do anything else would set a dangerous precedent. He urged Members to vote down the proposal for the sake of good governance.

 

Councillor Majeed commented that he was disappointed that elected Members had not been able to answer any of the supplementary questions. He wished for Members to vote against the proposal and full consultation to take place before it was presented again. The council was opening itself up to serious legal challenge  in a number of ways. He did not see any mention of the neighbours’ concerns about density or TPOs. There was also no reference to the Chairman of the golf club’s concerns about the contract being subject to the BLP being approved and the issues of both sites on either side of Harvest Hill Road. This was a question to Councillor Dudley. If these questions could not be answered, he asked Members to vote against the proposal.

 

Councillor Majeed explained that on the borough website under reasons restricted it stated that information was not exempt if it related to proposed developments if the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission. Was the Lead Member for Planning happy that everything that should have been in Part I was in Part I? The council could be legally challenged on this.

 

Councillor Majeed asked Councillor Targowska if there were any restrictions on the gifting of the golf course to Royal Borough residents? To Councillor Rankin he asked if all options for accessing the golf course been considered, for example off the A308, which would save £20m. To Councillor Saunders, he asked how would council tax increase if the council were to service the £20m debt on the assumption the rental income would not cover the cost. He also asked what would the potential loss be if the houses had to be re-sold?

 

Councillor Majeed asked Members to vote the proposal down until the BLP had been adopted, until any misunderstandings with the golf club had been confirmed and not to commit council taxpayer cash unnecessarily. The vote was meant to be a free vote. He urged councillors to use this and prove that all Members would consider voting for the residents and not be ‘nodding dogs’. He urged councillors to vote with their conscience to delay the proposals until the council knew where it was with the BLP, the legal interpretation of the contract with the golf course and the clarification of restricted information.

 

Councillor D. Wilson commented that he was in a difficult position as Ward Member for Oldfield and the former Lead Member for Planning. The BLP was the only process to review Green Belt boundaries, therefore the due process would be the examination in public. Regulation 18 was carried out over a six week period and Regulation 19 over a longer period as an additional month was given. The responses were currently being analysed and submission was likely in January 2018 with an examination 10 weeks later. Once this occurred, there would be ample opportunity for developers, landowners and residents to put forward representations in the public domain.

 

Councillor D. Wilson thought that the report was a little premature and had caused angst for local residents especially those that backed onto the golf course. The recommendation was to spend £20m to purchase properties but no-one knew which properties had been identified. This effectively blighted properties in the area. A joint venture partner was likely to be appointed in July 2018, which would well be after the examination. This would mean consultation at the end of 2018. As a major planning application, it would be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, requiring a 16 week consultation. The application would then go to the Borough-wide Development Management Panel and would need very special circumstances to proceed to the next stage,  potential referral to the Secretary of State and a likely public enquiry.

 

Councillor Walters commented that he did not dislike the scheme but he had spent all his working life undertaking such financial appraisals and it was a shame that he had not been involved as his experience may have been of use. He was nervous that this was a hasty procedure.

 

Councillor Werner agreed that there was a desperate need for affordable housing. However there was no evidence that any of the proposed development would be truly affordable. He asked what definition of affordable was being used? An 80/20 split had been suggested, which would be completely unaffordable to most young people. His first home had been bought at four times salary – would any of the homes on this site be available at four times average salary? The report was lacking in detail and supplementary questions had not been answered.  There was no evidence of traffic modelling in the report. There was a need for schools and three options were listed but there was no evidence for the type to choose. The report was not clear on the issue of biodiversity. On this basis he felt that the proposal should wait until the BLP had been approved. The council was not communicating well to residents, who should have been spoken to in the run up to the council making the decision, not afterwards.

 

Councillor Hunt explained that the Neighbourhood Plan in her area included rural exception housing that was only available to local people and was held in perpetuity for the local community. One quarter of houses would be built for private sale to cover the cost of the rural exception houses. The golf club site would have only 30% affordable housing and it was not clear where it would go in the next generation. She understood the concerns of the younger generation but they could not afford the houses being built. She therefore asked the question, for whom were the houses being built? There was a huge waiting list for social housing and this was a concern.  She felt the report had been brought to Members a little too soon.

 

Councillor Hilton understood the concerns of residents as there were a number of unknowns however he wondered if people in Maidenhead knew that the Ascot area was facing the same level of development, with an increase of approximately 25% new homes being built. This included the regeneration of Ascot High Street and removal of land in the Green Belt. A public consultation in 2016 by the landowner had been a disaster with little information provided. However a follow up questionnaire showed the majority responded that houses should be smaller and more affordable, which would increase the density. Many were against the proposals but just as many recognised the need for housing and remained silent. Many councillors at the meeting were speaking on behalf of this silent majority.

 

Councillor Da Costa stated that the report was premature and should be re-presented. Councillors were not being given sufficient information to ensure that they made good, optimal decisions for the benefit of residents. £20m was proposed but there was no evidence as to why. What were the parameters and assurances for its use? Would the council give the housing purchased for social use as well? Where was the money coming from? This was more speculative borrowing, at a time when interest rates were set to rise. There was little or no information on the masterplan. Three options for schooling were given but there was no justification compared to needs. There was no assurance of housing that locals could actually afford or benchmarking with best practice of any kind. There was no assessment of the cash flows, risks, funding requirements, or borrowing costs which would affect council tax. There was no explanation of the money spent on professionals, legal advisers or consultants and he requested a plan and budget. Councillor Da Costa also asked for a road map to control the process for the Golf Club development, to ensure it stayed on track.  Councillors were promised to be shown the big picture financial plans for Maidenhead Regeneration including the golf club, the cash flows and the risks so Members could understand how each project presented fitted into the overall plan, how it affected the risk and returns for residents. Councillors had yet to be presented with this information. He asked why Councillors had been asked to attend yet another Extraordinary meeting at short notice and why had this not been included in a forward plan or included in this years or next year’s budget.

He also asked why the Leader of the Opposition had been consulted about the dates, to help ensure good scrutiny. Councillor Da Costa felt it would be better to re-present this report with a complete package of information, planned in advance.

 

Councillor E. Wilson stated that the paper was an enabling one and was not a planning application. The report intended to bring information into the public domain. It had been sent to Full Council when it could have gone to the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee only, so that the facts could be shared as early as possible. He agreed with one of the public speakers, Mr Holden, that a timeline would be helpful to explain the purpose of the £20m and demonstrate to affected residents that they would not be out of pocket. Liaison with ward councillors would be important. The council was looking for a partner not a scheme; the schemes would come later. He asked when ‘later’ would be? He would support the paper but requested reassurances on timing.

 

Councillor N. Airey commented that the council needed to build houses to provide aspirations for young people to stay in the area. In November 2017,  Cabinet would receive a report detailing school place need over a 20 year period. Planning and Education would work together on the various options. Regular monitoring and reporting to Cabinet and Council would take place. 

 

Councillor Smith stated that he had no problem supporting the scheme as future generations needed houses and schools more than a golf course. Members had heard that the council would wish to proceed with the scheme with or without the BLP and without knowing how green belt status would be affected by that. The concerned properties were already blighted therefore it was incumbent on the council to un-blight them at the earliest possible opportunity. If the Council gave a positive vote, this should not be at the detriment of residents by increasing the blight. He therefore requested a positive undertaking by the Executive that un-blighting properties would be at the top of their list when further plans were known.

 

Councillor Grey commented that the extremes of emotion were not unusual but people were missing the main objective of building much needed houses. Most people in attendance at the meeting were mature and settled. He was also in this position. However he highlighted that many of those present would have children and grandchildren who had little chance of being able to afford a property in the area as the average price was 12 times the average salary.  He had confidence in officers and councillors to make the borough the best place in the country to live in. It would benefit residents to secure the future of their children.

 

Councillor D. Evans commented that he moved out of London many years previously to live in the area. Ward councillors were rightly reflecting the views of residents. The role of councillor was however not to just fight for individual  residents on one particular issues but to undertake a duty to the whole of the borough. If the Council said no to the proposal, the houses would still be built as the site fitted into the regeneration programme which would be of benefit to all residents, including the silent majority not present at the meeting. He fully understood the concerns about property blight. By moving to the next stage clarity would be brought to the process. He would act on his conscience and take a balanced judgement. The proposal was a reasonable and practical approach to the difficult situation of delivering houses. 

 

Councillor Beer reported that Councillor Jones had been unable to attend due to a prior arrangement, fixed six months previously. He commented that the BLP had not been approved unanimously earlier in the year, a number of councillors had voted against the proposal. He questioned why, if approved, the masterplan and procurement option would begin on  3 November 2017 as this was only a week away. So many things had yet to be resolved.  There was no provision of on-site plans or anywhere for car parking. The report was far too premature. He had been the Opposition representative on the Local Plans Working Group before it had ceased to meet. He was still supportive of the principle but the council needed to get its ducks in a row first. Matters still to be resolved should be referred to the Planning and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel. It was not necessary for it to consider Council items but there was nothing to say this should not happen. Affordable housing figures related to those on average salary. He questioned what happened to those below this threshold?

 

Councillor McWilliams referred to the council’s Homelessness Strategy which included a simple diagram to demonstrate the different types of affordable housing including social housing, affordable rent, intermediate products such as rent to buy and shared ownership. It was important to avoid what happened in the 1980s with a large sell off of affordable property. Affordable rent products would be protected. Shared ownership would take a very long time to staircase up to the full 100% therefore often people used it as a first step on the ladder and sold their share back to the market. Therefore affordable housing would not last in perpetuity but for a very long time. Products such as Community Land Trusts meant certain areas of land were protected in perpetuity. The council was looking at all options.

 

Councillor Dudley stated that he recognised this was an emotive issue. The council wanted to work with the community. He congratulated the Oldfield councillors for representing their ward. The purpose of the paper was to remove any property blight as quickly as possible. The development would go ahead with or without the BLP. By starting the OJEU process now, proposals could be developed with the joint venture partner from July 2018. It was simply wrong to believe you bring down the BLP and the golf course development would not happens. The council would honour its contract with the golf club but it was wrong to presume that the development was dependent on the BLP. It was also wrong to believe there was a covenant on the land. The site was viable and because of this it would include affordable housing. This would be all through the salary spectrum if possible, including social housing and affordable rent. In relation to the financial risk, during the period properties were held they would be subject to being leased out. The yield on renting residential property was greater than the costs to service the debt. All spending had been approved through the usual budgetary process.  The reason for an Extraordinary Council meeting was that the decision could have been taken at a Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee but the council wanted to be as visible and transparent as possible on the issue.

 

Councillor Rankin concluded the debate. He respectfully rejected the assertion that the report was premature. In June 2017 he had been given delegated authority to design and procure a process to develop the golf course. From that work the emerging masterplan had been on his desk. It would be wrong for him to have sat on them any longer and he stood behind the decision to bring them to Full Council. The landholdings were worth a significant amount to the borough and Members had given assurances that all potential receipts would be invested in infrastructure. In relation to financial risk the longer the time period the council had access to the budget, the more options were available in terms of highways access. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel had requested amendments to the recommendations and these had been accepted. In relation to a timeline, he explained that a development partner would be appointed in July 2018 and would then take the work undertaken by the consultant to do further work on the masterplan and develop options. They would be put in front of Members and the public by the end of 2018.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and:

 

a.      Approves a capital budget of £20,000,000 be included in the Capital Programme for the acquisition of residential or commercial properties that will benefit future access to the Golf Course development site.

 

b.     Approves the emerging masterplan (Option 1) for the redevelopment of Maidenhead Golf Course

 

c.      Approves the proposed procurement route (Option 7, Contractual Joint Venture Partnership)

 

d.     Endorses the decisions of Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee to:

 

·       Delegate authority to the Executive Director with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Property to acquire residential or commercial properties that will benefit future access to the Golf Course development site.

 

·       That the Lead Member for Economic Development and Property and Lead Member for Finance seek the support of Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel with regards to the acquisition of properties before the successful adoption of the Borough Local Plan.

 

·        Agrees that in the interim period, any residential properties acquired can be utilised by RBWM Property Company for rental purposes for local residents or key workers.

 

·       Agrees to consult at appropriate times as detailed proposals are brought forward by the development partner, the terms of such developments with local residents and ward councillors.

 

(41 Councillors voted for the motion: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Dudley, D. Evans, L. Evans, Grey, Hilton, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Muir, Pryer, Quick, Rankin, C. Rayner, S. Rayner, Richards, Sharma, Sharpe, Shelim, Smith, Story, Targowska, E. Wilson and Yong. 6 councillors voted against the proposal: Councillors Beer, Da Costa, Hill, Majeed, Stretton and Werner. Two Councillors abstained: Councillors Walters and D. Wilson. Councillors Diment and Brimacombe did not take part in the debate or vote).