To consider the above report

Members considered a site proposal for York Road.

Councillor Rankin introduced the report by explaining that the proposals would set the standard for regeneration in Maidenhead, bringing the heritage heart to this site as envisaged in the Area Action Plan, bringing new restaurants and bars into the town centre by the riverside, the improvement of the public realm around the town hall as the new open space was integrated, as well as 261 new homes, 78 of which will be affordable. Of the 78, 36 would be shared ownership, 20 would be affordable rent, 14 would be rent to buy. Eight social rent units would also be included.

The council was making small but significant steps to fulfilling one of its strategic ambitions of delivering affordable housing. The plans had been presented at a well-attended public consultation the week before last, and the message Councillor Rankin had taken away from Maidonians was one of positivity and excitement that the rejuvenation of Maidenhead was underway.

If approved, the planning application would be submitted shortly and construction was hoped to start in December, with the first homes occupied in early 2020. As the council owned the site, it was ultimately the master of the destiny of what happened on the site. The council could  decide the density, the level of parking provision, the numbers and composition of affordable housing, the amount of space allocated to public space and heritage, but all these decisions effected the size of the capital receipt that the council could receive.

In the supplementary report Members could see the decisions that the JV Partnership Board had made and the value decisions that these would drive.

The Area Action Plan identified the site as a heritage hub and the council had committed to delivery. Members could see the investment in the Heritage Centre and Desborough suite investments of £1.7m. The council had made the commitment to build a borough for everyone and had made the choice to invest £1.1m in delivering social rent.

At the first public consultation, residents had made it clear that they were concerned about the level of on-site parking provision. The council had invested £2.6m. There were some who had suggest the council was operating as a developer seeking to maximise profit. The investments in heritage and culture, in parking, and in affordable including social rent, showed that this was not the case. Politics was about decisions and there were those who would have the council go further still. Councillor Rankin cautioned against this approach. At the public consultations, most public concern was about wider infrastructure: school places, public parking in the town centre, and leisure provision. The proposed strategy of developing the council’s land holdings would enable the council to deliver the required infrastructure. The long term capital cashflows that demonstrated how the council could meaningfully deliver on the requirements.

Councillor Dudley stated that he had lived in Maidenhead for 25 years and had watched its sad decline. The town was now on the cusp of change through investment, including £1bn from the golf club site and the provision of 30% affordable housing.

Councillor Werner stated that he felt the proposals were a wasted opportunity. The council had land holdings yet only 8 social rented units would be available. He had only seen criticism of the proposals in relation to a lack of ambition, a lack of parking and insufficient affordable housing. The council needed to try harder, particularly with the golf club site.

Councillor Beer commented that as a Member of the Local Plans Working Group he generally approved of the proposals, however he had two concerns. Paragraph 2.7 referred to 30% affordable housing. The SHLAA had stated that 61% affordable housing was required and the majority in the rented sector. He had raised the issue before. The table of financial adjustments gave figures that were rounded to crude millions and one decimal point; therefore items 17 and 18 were not accurate in the supplement.

Councillor D. Wilson stated that he fully endorsed the long overdue proposals. It was an ideal opportunity to achieve 30% affordable housing made up of different types of tenure.

Councillor E. Wilson had previously commented that a strong Maidenhead was good for the whole borough and the proposals needed to be acted upon as soon as possible. He asked how the mix of tenures had been decided upon and also what the proposals were for the refurbishment of the Desborough Suite.

Councillor McWilliams highlighted that 54% of the homes the council was building were in or around the affordable rented elements. The borough  had a number of large capital commitments. In terms of a long-term plan to prevent people becoming homeless, the homelessness strategy launched in 2017 worked alongside the Borough Local Plan and a Supplementary Planning Document. The joint venture was another important aspect. The proposals set out the number of different tenures needed to have a borough that worked for everyone. If only social housing was built it would not be possible to also build the infrastructure required.

Councillor D. Evans commented that Councillor Werner had shown he was a master of the political game but did not say how many affordable homes he would propose or what the trade-off would be for more social housing. If only social housing were provided, this would take £10m out of the £18.7m and would therefore not be available for school expansion, car parks or the leisure centre. The proposals before Members was the start of something Maidenhead had been crying out for 30 years. If approved, building works would start by the end of the year. It would be one of the first developments in the town centre to include affordable housing as a key component and would set a precedent for other developments. The proposals had been consulted upon. Members had spent time listening and talking to residents, who were overall in favour. Some raised the issue of parking but Members were able to explain the cost impact of extra parking and the choices that had to be made. In relation to the affordable element the decision had been taken to set the rate at the local housing allowance rate of 70%.

Councillor Jones applauded the redevelopment of Maidenhead but she was not convinced about the parking issue. The report compared Maidenhead to Reading, which she felt was a very different conurbation.  She could not find information in the report in relation to access and traffic flows and how this would fit into the bigger picture. She would prefer more than 8 social rented units but understood the need for a balance. The report was very large to fully understand in just seven days. She suggested for future reports of a similar size that Members be provided with a briefing. At this point she felt unable to make a decision on the recommendations and would therefore likely abstain.

Councillor S. Rayner stated that she wholeheartedly supported the proposals. It was not a wasted opportunity but an exciting one. When her husband had been Mayor in 2012/13 they had both talked to many residents, many of whom said they were embarrassed by Maidenhead. The proposals were exciting from a culture and heritage perspective. The proposals for the Desborough Suite included an investment of £650,000. Consultation had been undertaken with several partners including users, all who wanted to see the Suite remain but with upgrades and a new entrance distinct from the Town Hall.

Councillor M. Airey commented that the proposals were part of a joined up vision for Maidenhead, looking at housing and other infrastructure provision. He looked forward to seeing how the future stages developed.

Councillor Rankin commented that the affordable housing provision was just the tip of the iceberg of the council’s aspirations. Sites at Reform Road, West Street and the golf club were all in the pipeline. The proposals were indicative of the mix of tenures but would be subject to conversations with the council as the Planning Authority. The overall strategy was to revert capital receipts to the taxpayer by investing in infrastructure. He took on board the comments about ensuring Members were fully informed and would ensure informal briefings were provided, potentially via the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and approves the recommendations of Cabinet Regeneration Sub-committee to:

i)     Approve the emerging site proposal for York Road.

ii)  Approve the appropriation of the site in the red line plan at Appendix A1.

iii)   Delegate authority to the Executive Director and the Cabinet Members for Economic Development and Property and Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead to enter into a development agreement with Countryside Properties (UK) Limited.

(40 Councillors voted for the motion: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Bullock, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, Dudley, D. Evans, L. Evans, Gilmore,  Grey, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, Rankin, S. Rayner, Richards, Sharma, Sharpe, Smith, Story, Targowska, Walters, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong. 1 Councillor voted against the motion: Councillor Werner. 3 Councillors abstained: Councillors Beer, Da Costa and Jones.)

Councillor Coppinger announced that the Borough Local Plan had been  submitted. He thanked officers and Councillor D. Wilson for their efforts in this respect.

Councillors Luxton, Bowden and Yong left the meeting.