Maidenhead Golf Course plan voted through after four-hour discussion

The looming decision on Maidenhead Golf Course finally arrived last night – voted through unanimously amid laments from the panel and cries of outrage from members of the public in attendance.

Plans by CALA Homes are for 1,500 houses and flats, a primary and a secondary school and a local centre with retail and commercial uses.

Last night's four-hour meeting was unusual in that most of the normal members of the panel were not there and had to be replaced by substitute councillors.

In total, eight members of the panel sent their apologies, including the chair – with a new one needing to be swiftly voted in at the start of the meeting.

Instead, several of the regular panel members opted to attend the meeting as public speakers, so they could say their piece.

They explained that they could not in good conscience (nor according to the rules) sit on a panel if their view is ‘pre-determined’ – ie, if they already have very strong views on Maidenhead Golf Course.

Among these was Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary’s). Speaking as a guest, he began by stressing that the golf course site ‘should never have been in the BLP at all.’

“Building up to 1,500 homes here is a disaster waiting to happen,” he said. “Our roads, public transport, GPs and local services are already at breaking point.

“Adding thousands more residents without guaranteed infrastructure upgrades is reckless. Traffic will grind to a halt. Healthcare wait [times] will soar, public services will suffer.”

Agreeing with these points, Cllr Geoff Hill (Ind, Oldfield), also normally a panel member, expressed his strongest concerns over traffic impacts.

“In terms of car movements, they’ll probably be something in the region of 3,000 a day. The roads simply can’t stand it,” he said.

“Harvest Hill is too small – there’ll be seven junctions on Harvest Hill, which is an outrage.”

Tina Quadrino, member of the Maidenhead Great Park campaign group, spoke on the environmental damage of the application, especially loss of ancient woodland.

“[National policy] states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplicable habitats such as ancient woodland should be refused,” she said.

According to the Woodland Trust, development of this scale should have a buffer zone of at least 50m to prevent pollution and disturbance to the ancient woodlands, she added.

Cllr Gary Reeves (Lib Dem, Cox Green) – also normally a panel member – shared these concerns. He said the recommended 50m barrier is not stated in the planning documents, but should be.

“We shouldn’t leave it obscure and not have a defined barrier to that woodland – it will be too late when they start building,” he said.

Cllr Reeves also raised questions over Thames Water’s reliability to provide a sustainable wastewater removal from this site, given its financial situation and reputation.

He had further concerns regarding plans for five and six storey buildings in an area of predominantly two- and three-storey ones.

From the outset of the meeting, council officers made it clear that the ‘tilted balance’ was in play – a tip of the scale in favour of any plan to build housing anywhere.  

This is because RBWM cannot demonstrate the required five-year housing land supply, as required by central Government.

In other words, there is a presumption in favour of homes development unless it is clear that ‘significant and demonstrable harm’ will result.

Officers drew the conclusion that no such high threshold had been reached.

But Maidonian Andrew Hill, speaking out against the application, strongly disagreed, citing in particular the impact of making changes to local roads.

“Our independent expert warns you that if you approve this, you’re also approving changes to five junctions … at our financial risk,” said Mr Hill.

“[Policy] says this panel must ensure these junctions are cost-effective mitigations – but you haven’t been given the costs. There’s a £40.7million funding gap in the infrastructure plan.

“So you do not need to be remembered tonight as ‘the Cala councillors’… the harm [does] significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

Before the panel debate opened, councillors were reminded of their legal duty to take an evidence-led approach – no matter their personal strength of feeling about the golf course.

Moreover, their decision had to be based only on the outline application in front of them. An outline application is an initial proposal, which considers only whether the principle of development is acceptable, plus one or two other specific matters.

In this case, matters in the outline application only looked at the three accesses to the site via Shoppenhangers Road and Harvest Hill Road.

Other important aspects like landscaping, appearance and scale of the homes scheme are all to be considered in ‘reserved matters’ applications later down the line.

To help navigate the choppy waters of the golf course discussion, RBWM brought in external expert James Cross, a chartered town planner.

After a series of back-and-forths discussing some of the many unknowns about the future of the development – including when supporting infrastructure would be built – he said:

“I appreciate the concerns about what we don’t know. But that’s why we have to make decisions about what is before us.”

This included all the information submitted from the applicant and experts on flooding and traffic impacts, already scrutinised by officers of the RBWM planning team.

With that in mind, the panel reached the uneasy conclusion that it would have to grant permission to the golf club development.

Cllr Devon Davies (Lib Dem, Eton and Castle) said it was ‘a shame’ the site was ever in the BLP but that since this was out of its control now, RBWM must focus on putting firm conditions in place to mitigate the damage.

“We have really looked – but the evidence tells us there’s no demonstrable and significant harm,” he said.

Councillors thrashed out the conditions they wanted to impose on developer Cala Homes in advance of any development.

It was anticipated before the meeting that such conditions would be necessary to manage what will eventually happen on the site.

Earlier in the meeting, Cllr Siân Martin (Lib Dem, Belmont) – normally the chair of the panel – commented on this, saying:

“If an application has a host of conditions attached to it, it makes you wonder if it’s really fit for purpose. It’s trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.”

A key condition eventually agreed was for all reserved matters applications to come back to the panel for separate consideration, and for each to be accompanied by a transport statement.

This would allow the councillors to scrutinise road impacts of each proposal within this 1,500-home scheme.

Other key conditions include requirements to detail the management of the woodlands, and for details of a 25m buffer zone around Rushington Copse for its protection.

Thus, the decision to approve the golf course development, with these conditions attached, was voted through unanimously, if grudgingly.

After the decision was made and the meeting closed, members of the public heckled the panel, lambasting the decision – believing its impact on wildlife to be unmitigable.