Updated housing predictions could make it harder for RBWM to turn down new homes and flats

The council’s controversial local plan is under the spotlight again now that it transpires that it gives rise to a ‘tilted balance’ in favour of developers wishing to build in the borough.

An appeal over Mattel House for 91 flats has thrown up figures which show that the Borough Local Plan (BLP)’s predicted housing numbers haven’t panned out quickly enough.

A local plan includes forming a ‘five-year housing land supply’ – in other words, how many homes can be delivered in the next five years (from the date the plan is adopted).

Windsor and Maidenhead needed 5,551 dwellings to be deliverable for 2022/23 to 2026/27.

But an interim update from the council shows the supply is short by 348 – only meeting the Royal Borough’s needs for the next 4.69 years.

The council has noted that this brings into play a ‘tilted balance’ in favour of developers.

The idea was that the BLP would help protect against overdevelopment by showing that the Borough earmarked enough homes to meet the needs of the area.

If a local plan’s five-year supply is considered ‘out of date’, this changes matters.

The BLP’s figures were built on 2012 national policy guidelines rather than the 2021 update. The 2021 one has a ‘tighter’ definition of what makes for a ‘deliverable’ site.

The borough says ‘a significant number of sites’ have been excluded from the five-year supply on this basis.

Examples include the stalled Nicholsons Centre development, which has fallen from a 500-home allocation down to zero.

Officers write that because the compulsory purchase order was dismissed, it ‘casts doubt’ on its delivery within the five years.

Stafferton Way (Al10) is also ‘not deliverable at this point in time’.

Strande Park and Spencer’s Farm are also showing zero homes expected within five years.

The mammoth CALA Homes Maidenhead Golf Course development – set for 1,800 homes – at the moment is set for just 33 within the five-year period.

Normally, planning permission is ‘usually withheld’ if harms outweigh benefits. But if the balance is tilted, those harms have to ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh benefits.

It then falls on the Borough to fight back to show why new homes definitely shouldn’t be built.

The council acknowledged the tilted balance in the Mattel House appeal papers – which has caused concerns for watchful Maidonian
Andrew Hill about how long the borough has known about this.

This appeal statement was published on the borough’s planning portal on March 8, while an attempted legal challenge against the BLP wrapped up in November last year.

Mr Hill questions if
officers at the time knew there were problems.

“The borough was arguing that they had this robust five-year housing supply,” he said. “Then it falls apart within months.

“When did they know there was a problem, and why didn’t they warn councillors – when was Phil Haseler [former cabinet member for planning] informed?”

A Royal Borough spokesperson said its position ‘only became apparent’ at the beginning of March as the council’s case to the appeal was finalised.

They said: “Inevitably, information about the future delivery of housing in the borough changes over time because ultimately we are reliant on the timing of when developers bring
forward their schemes.

“Whilst the so called ‘tilted balance’ is triggered by this position, the small scale of the shortfall is also an important consideration in determining planning applications.

“At the end of last year the Government announced that it intended to change the rules … so that authorities like the Royal Borough with an up-to-date local plan would not need to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply,” the spokesperson added.

“We await confirmation of this proposal.”