Viewpoint: Mattel House and the loss of employment space

Email Viewpoint letters to jamesp@baylismedia.co.uk or write to Viewpoint, Newspaper House, 48 Bell Street, Maidenhead, SL61HX.

Job security was not high on council agenda

As you have been reporting over the last few weeks, the Planning Inspectorate held a public inquiry to decide if Mattel House on Vanwall Park could be demolished and replaced by 91 flats.

This week RBWM lost that appeal – and the implications of this for employment land in the borough are profound.

In January 2022 the very same Planning Inspectorate informed residents that Vanwall Park was a ‘Protected Employment Site’ and Business Area, with a policy requirement for ‘nil net loss’ of commercial floorspace if any dual residential use were being considered.

Without this net-nil-loss protection, the BLP Inspector concluded that the BLP would be ‘unsound’.

It is a little hard to understand why one Government Inspector would say it was vital to protect the land for employment, while another inspector shortly afterwards approves its removal from the Borough’s employment stock.

Moreover, it’s hard to see how business parks and industrial sites make ideal spaces to bring up families.

However, once I trawled back through dozens of planning documents over the last four years, a bigger picture emerged.

Once again RBWM had misled the BLP Inspector, and failed to do what it told her it was going to do to protect the employment space. The problem was that the BLP by itself was never enough to formally protect the land.

The government changed the law in the last decade to allow companies to convert their offices into flats under ‘Permitted Development Rights’ (PDR).

For this reason, a large number of councils around the UK in place what is known as an ‘Article 4’ direction to protect their scarce employment land against PDR.

But RBWM did not do this for most of the BLP allocation sites.

For example, in 2019 RBWM commissioned an ‘Employment Topic Paper’ report from Peter Brett Associates.

The council informed the consultants that RBWM was ‘in the process of implementing Article 4 directions’ to protect office space across the Borough.

But they do not appear to have really been ‘in the process’ of doing this at all.

Another clear warning of this came in the BLP Inspector’s final report (January 2022).

The BLP report includes a clear statement from RBWM that “…a cautious approach is still justified… the scale of future permitted development rights is unknown and could rapidly erode any remaining flexibility in the [employment land] market. The Council intends to apply selective Article 4 directions in our town centres and major office sites, but these will take time to implement.”

Yet again, RBWM officers said they ‘intended’ to act, but they again did nothing throughout 2022.

So Mattel House (and other employment sites) could have been protected for future employment needs, but currently aren’t.

Clearly, long-term job security for residents and the availability of space for future business entrepreneurs was not high on RBWM’s agenda.

Senior officers may wish to explain to newly elected councillors why RBWM sat on its hands since 2019 and deliberately chose not to protect employment land under article 4. Councillors need, in my view, to take Article 4 action immediately to defend all our future employment needs and retain the scarce employment land we will need for entrepreneurial business opportunities.

ANDREW HILL

Rutland Gate

Maidenhead

Call for a border at sandwiched site

We are all aware of the need, nationally, for more houses and we accept that the Royal Borough has to take its fair share of this requirement.

But what is happening on the edge of Windsor is a scene of destruction for a part of our community. These are the houses of The Willows, which are sandwiched between two development sites.

On one side, 30 houses on the former Squires Garden Centre site (referred to as AL22) nearing completion, and on the other side the open fields of what was greenbelt land (referred to as AL21 North of the A308) where a further 135 houses are proposed.

The Willows Estate has enormous heritage value and is classified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA).

The impact of the Squires site development on the Willows houses that back directly onto them is devastating to existing residents.

New houses are built as closely as is legally possible, they tower above existing properties and represent a level of intrusion that is unimaginable.

Some residents have already moved out. And the same is planned to happen on the other (field) side (on AL21 N).

As part of the consultation on the AL21 N development, the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan Delivery group have commented that:

“…at the former Squires Garden Centre where there is an overwhelming sense of density and height which is incongruous with the setting. We don’t want to see that mistake repeated here.”

Sadly, this is exactly what developers (Crest Nicholson) have in store – to repeat the ‘mistake’ on the AL21 side.

A quote from their supporting documentation: “6.31 …..would reflect a form of development similar to that approved adjacent to the Willows on the former Squires Garden Centre site.”

So for AL21 N, 12 houses are proposed to back directly onto the boundary wall of the three houses of the Willows which face the open field, almost as close as is legally possible.

The small back gardens on either side of the boundary would result in lack of privacy and intrusive noise for both, as on the Squires site (AL22).

In recognition of the heritage importance of the Willows Estate, the Borough have set a number of conditions to safeguard the area, including the protection and monitoring the condition of the heritage boundary wall between the Willows and AL21. But the only grudging concession that developers have made has been to allow a one metre inspection border alongside the wall – 1 metre in a site of 13.4 acres (5.4 Hectares)!

To properly preserve the Willows Estate identity residents have asked for a border of just a few metres. Not a lot to ask in such a large development.

Developers consistently refuse to allow this, even though Willows residents have had tremendous support from the community for this proposal.

A consultation on proposals is underway.

Residents who have campaigned for more than two years for proper recognition of this part of Windsor’s heritage will continue the fight.

Details of the application can be found on the RBWM planning website 23/00582.

If anyone wishes to comment, write to planning@rbwm.org.uk quoting 23/00582. Closing date for comments is June 20.

ON BEHALF OF WILLOWS RESIDENTS

Financial investment continues regardless

The regular Brexit doom mongers and naysayers who sometimes inhabit these pages would do well to swallow a dose of reality.

In The Sunday Times earlier this month was an article entitled ‘UK defies Brexit fears to top Europe for finance investing’.

It went on to say that Britain kept its place last year as the top European destination for investment in financial services, defying fears that a post-Brexit City of London would lose business to rivals.

The ability for the UK to shake off the EU shackles and control its future was amply demonstrated during the COVID epidemic when Ursula Van Der Leiden proved what a pig’s ear they had made of providing vaccines for its citizens. She then had the gall to try to hijack the supplies that the UK had the foresight to secure.

Had UK remained in the EU, the City of London would be under the thumb of Frankfurt.

Our supply of military aid to Ukraine would likewise be subject to controls by Brussels.

The 52 per cent of the population who voted for Brexit have ensured our continued sovereignty, and done the nations a great service.

The remoaners can continue their dog-in-a-manger tactics, but that’s their problem – there’s no going back.

SAL PINTO

Pinkneys Road

Maidenhead

Percentages, fractions and various factions

Fred Veevers, in his letter last week, perpetuates the myth that there was clear and unequivocal support for Brexit….’52 per cent of the population’.

He should be reminded, as I have said before in these columns, that of the 46.5million registered voters at the time of the 2016 referendum, only 37.5 per cent voted to leave the EU.

62.5 per cent either voted decisively to remain or couldn’t care enough about the issue to vote at all. It was certainly NOT 52 per cent of the population.

When there is a referendum involving dramatic change to the status quo it would be prudent to require a significant majority of the electorate, rather than ‘first past the post’.

Switzerland and Ireland are not regarded as having undemocratic constitutions.

Yet in 2019 Switzerland’s Supreme Court overturned a narrow vote on tax reform because of incomplete detail and lack of transparency. In 2008 ROI (Republic of Ireland) voters rejected the Lisbon treaty on EU reform.

Negotiations ensued resulting in continued EU membership and GDP doubling from 2009 to 2022.

No surprise then that in the UK Brexit vote the people of Northern Ireland wanted to continue their previously unfettered trade with ROI.

The redoubtable Dr Cooper will have a view but let me remind him that just 27.7 per cent of the NI electorate voted for Brexit.

Were it not for the religious and historical dimensions I have no doubt there would be calls for the unification of Ireland.

I wonder what would happen if a referendum on that was won with 52 per cent of the votes?

ROBIN WILLIAMS

Chiltern Road

Bray

Here’s another quote from Nigel Farage

Your correspondents have been quoting a crude remark by Nigel Farage regarding Brexit as if it makes their point (Viewpoint, June 2 and 9).

He was a prime mover in the Brexit debate, and deplores the failure of our leaders to realise the benefits which a ‘good Brexit should be providing.

His latest article in The Sunday Telegraph (12/6/23) makes his views clear: “There is an establishment plot to reverse Brexit.

“I can only express disappointment and anger at how things have turned out.”

“A big part of the problem has been that so many influential individuals and groups never accepted the referendum result.”

“Those who believe in Brexit, free markets, and a small state, have been routed.

“...It will only be a matter of time... our country, along with the rest of the EU would be condemned to decline.”

It is tragic that the opportunity created by the referendum has been lost.

Failure to make Brexit work shows a disturbing weakness in our democratic system. As Mr Farage says, we will all sink within a failing (as the figures will tell you) EU. It need not have been so.

MAX LIPMAN

Taplow