To comment on the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee report.  

The Managing Director of RBWM Property Company Ltd introduced the item and reminded Members that it had been agreed by the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee to progress the redevelopment of the site as the owner using its own funds, or potentially with another investor. An extension to the car park had been deemed not viable. The Managing Director of RBWM Property Company Ltd stated that due to the links with the neighbouring site, The Landings, it was fundamental to the regeneration and redevelopment of the town that a joined-up approach to the redevelopment of both sites was necessary. A development brief for the project was agreed in July 2017.

Members were informed that in November development management firm London and Aberdeen presented a draft investment case to the Council. A full review of this was carried out to ensure the works scheme was financially viable, and could be delivered within budget and to a good quality standard. The review and subsequent discussions led to three alternative options to be considered for the Broadway Car Park, which were set out in detail to Members in Part II of the report. The Managing Director of RBWM Property Company Ltd informed Members that the retail function of Option 1 had been removed but the requirement for office space had been retained, while Option 2 had no retail or office. Members were informed that Option 3 was considered most conducive to development of the town centre, but it could not be discussed in Part I as it was commercially sensitive due to third party involvement.

Bill Higgins, on behalf of London and Aberdeen, informed Members that the firm had employed planning and development teams to ensure delivery of the Stage 2 design, which included 1,533 car parking spaces compared to the 750 that already existed. He stated that this design was within the costs and had met the objectives that had been set, and stated his belief that L&A had exceeded the targets that they had been set. Mr Higgins stated that the possibility of moving Shopmobility down to the ground had been identified if retail and/or office space was included in the design. Members were informed that discussions between the owners of The Landings and the shopping centre were ongoing, as access to Central House would be crucial as it had been identified as a focal point to the project.

Mr Higgins stated his belief that Option 1 was the optimum scheme that should be considered, and stated his belief that Option 2 would result in a worse experience for customers. The Managing Director of RBWM Property Company Ltd reminded Members that the specification and design principles of all three options was the same and had been taken from the work undertaken by Allies and Morrison Architects. Cllr David Evans informed Members that he would not be asking for approval of the Capital Budget when the report went to the Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee.

Mr Higgins stated his disappointment that, as he understood it, the progress of the two options being considered required the involvement of another partner or development manager.

It was:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel considered the Cabinet Regeneration Sub-Committee report and approved the following recommendations:

a.    Approves that further work be undertaken to conclude Option 3 set out in the Part 2 report

b.    Delegate authority to the Executive Director in liaison with the Cabinet Member for Maidenhead Regeneration and Maidenhead and in conjunction with the Lead Member for Finance to negotiate and implement an agreement for Option 3

c.    If Option 3 proves through negotiation to not be deliverable, to progress Option 2 through a procurement process to be agreed

d.    Finalise a capital budget recommendation for the approval of Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee and Full Council

e.    Asks Full Council to approve these recommendations, or to bring back to the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel for further discussion.

(The motion was proposed by Cllr Dr Evans and seconded by Cllr Jones.)