To comment on the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee report.

The Executive Director introduced the item and informed Members that the report set out the site proposals for York Road. Members were informed that the initial business plan for the site had been agreed by the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee. Cllr David Evans highlighted that the figure in paragraph 2.7 of the report relating to social rent housing in the affordable tenure mix had been changed following consultations, and it was hoped that this would be a new benchmark for other sites across the Royal Borough.

Cllr Stretton informed Members that, following discussions with the Head of Law and Governance, it had been agreed that Paragraph 3.4.4 in the Part II report could be discussed in the public part of the meeting, as figures mentioned in the report had already been disclosed in public. Cllr Stretton reminded Members that it had been stated £650,000 was due to be spent on rejuvenating the Desborough Suite, following a meeting with arts groups in Maidenhead. However Cllr Stretton stated her belief that Paragraph 3.4.4 of the Part II report was not an accurate reflection of the meeting, which she had attended. Cllr Stretton circulated a report from Fourth Street about cultural and entertainment facilities in the Maidenhead area, along with her own report of the meeting, to Members.

Cllr Stretton said that the report from Fourth Street had been commissioned as part of the background study into the York Road opportunity area, but only one aspect of it had been included in the main report. Cllr Stretton said the conclusion from Fourth Street that a redesigned Desborough Suite could form the central focus point of a cultural quarter, with The Broadway being pedestrianised, had not been addressed in the main report. Cllr Stretton said this suggestion should have been put forward for discussion.

Regarding the figure of £650,000 which had been identified for a modest refurbishment of the Desborough Suite, Cllr Stretton stated there had been no analysis on what the money would be spent on. She also said that describing one of the options that meeting attendees were invited to vote on as ‘a more modest level of investment’ to improve the ‘cosmetic appearance’ of the Desborough Suite was inaccurate.

The Executive Director stated that the Fourth Street report had been taken into consideration when compiling the main report, in spite of it not being included as an appendix. Cllr Mrs Rayner stated that officers reporting back to her had come to the conclusion that a modest improvement of the Desborough Suite would be acceptable, and this was what the Council was looking to do. Cllr David Evans stated that the creation of a separate entrance onto the road, creation of a permanent bar/café facility and refurbishment of the stage area and dressing rooms had been proposed; Cllr Jones contended that this did not constitute a ‘cosmetic’ improvement. Cllr Saunders stated that it had been identified that enhancing the York Road area should revolve around an upgrade of the Desborough Suite, and that any work done to it should be meaningful rather than cosmetic. A figure of no more than £1.5million had been identified, which would afford the Desborough Suite greater flexibility in terms of which groups could use it and allow for it to become a separately contained unit from the Town Hall.

Cllr Stretton stated her belief that the report did not reflect the proposal that the regeneration of York Road amounted to the creation of a ‘Cultural Quarter’, and suggested that the paper should also have been considered by the Culture and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

The Chairman asked how the issue of design creep would be avoided. The Executive Director reminded Members that the Council was the landowner of the site in question so retained a large amount of control over what happened to it. Furthermore, the Council was also the Planning Authority.

Responding to a question from Cllr Jones regarding the social rent aspect of the development, Cllr Saunders said the figure in the report provided the best balance to ensure delivery of the Area Action Plan. He stated the ratio was a meaningful one but not the full amount that was potentially available. Cllr Quick stated that the figures in the table at paragraph 2.7 of the report were sensible, but asked if the Council was doing its best to work with developers to encourage them to provide more affordable housing.

It was:

RESOLVED: that the Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel considered the Cabinet Regeneration Sub-Committee report and approved the recommendations, subject to Full Council approval. 

(Cllr Jones abstained from voting. The motion was proposed by Cllr Quick and seconded by Cllr Dr Evans.)