Plans for hundreds of flats on Magnet site approved despite 'prison block' fears

The former Magnet Leisure Centre site in Maidenhead will be redeveloped into hundreds of new homes – despite a councillor likening the proposals to a ‘prison village'. 

Members of the planning panel met last night (Wednesday) to discuss the plans put forward by developer Countryside, which wants to construct five buildings - containing 434 homes - at the location of the old centre in Saint-Cloud Way. mostly made up of one and two-bedroom flats.

Planning officers had recommended that councillors authorise the Royal Borough's head of planning to approve the proposals, with a series of conditions attached.

Some of the conditions that will need to be met include £263,872 towards improvements to community facilities and £833,000 towards a new pedestrian crossing on the A4.

Despite a revolt from four councillors - all of which were opposition members - this recommendation narrowly passed as the five Conservative panel members sided with officers.

As well as the one and two-bedroom flats, there will be 17 three-bedroom apartments, with town houses forming a terraced street along a part of the scheme known as 'Block B'. 

A lengthy debate at Maidenhead Town Hall had ensued over Countryside's plans, with the cross-party ward councillors for the Magnet site - Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem) and Cllr Donna Stimson (Con) - speaking out against the proposals via public speeches.

Plans for the Holmanleaze site have been in the pipeline for some time but have not been short on controversy, facing opposition from nearby organisations, most notably Maidenhead Mosque.

Sajid Khan, secretary of the religious group, was present at the meeting and alliterated his long-standing concerns about the development. 

He said: "The Islamic Trust is not objecting to the development of the new homes, which provide opportunities for our future generations to work, rest and enjoy this beautiful town on the River Thames.

"However, we do have several key concerns that need to be addressed.

"Firstly, traffic in Holmanleaze. [This] area is heavily used by its residents and community groups, such as for Friday prayers and evening education classes.

"Imagine pick-up and drop-off of 350 to 300 children between the hours of 4pm and 7pm, down a narrow road, with the addition of other residents who will reside in the new development.

"We ask the developer to consider routing traffic to other areas, such as the A4, so the bulk of the traffic is moving off Holmanleaze."

The Magnet Leisure Centre (above) has shut down and been replaced by the Braywick Leisure Centre

The development would be served by two new accesses off Kennet Road and Holmanleaze, as well as the existing entry access from Saint-Cloud Way and the egress only access on to Cookham Road.

Mr Khan's other concerns centred around potential parking issues arising for community groups and people with mobility issues, as well as the height of the proposed development's storeys and its distance in relation to the mosque. 

"The development should be stepped back at the same distance as the current Magnet building, to be more respectful to its neighbours," he said.

"We appreciate Countryside updating the plans to reduce [Block C] from eight storeys to seven storeys, however we strongly believe that this is still overpowering."

Speaking in favour of the proposals, applicant Malcolm Wood - representing Countryside - said that the developers had been on a long engagement journey to gather the thoughts of residents during the planning process.

He said: "We have listened and their comments have really helped to shape these proposals, and given rise to some important changes, such as introducing affordable homes, reducing height, particularly close to the mosque, facilitating a new pedestrian crossing and improvements to the subway. 

"We appreciate we cannot please everyone. The provision of 434 homes in a highly sustainable town centre location making best use of this allocated brownfield site reduces the pressure away from greenbelt land."

Ward councillor Singh - who was involved in a petition against the proposals in the spring - told councillors that the development resembled an 'uncomfortable ghetto'.

He also raised concerns over the amount of affordable housing proposed (20 per cent) - which is 10 per cent short of the Royal Borough's policy. 

"This is a piecemeal, poorly-designed development without consideration for any adjacent neighbouring properties," he said.

"This is public land within the council's control, however it fails to provide the pledged 30 per cent affordable housing."

Cllr Singh lambasted the developers for not including any space for 'struggling' community organisations such as Maidenhead Foodshare and other charities.

Fellow ward councillor Stimson was next to make a speech, and joined her former party colleague in objecting to the proposals.

She said that as lead member for climate change, she was 'upset' that the flats are proposed to include gas boilers, adding her residents were worried about 'overdevelopment' and 'lack of parking'.

Cllr Stimson also claimed the buildings could be 'softened' in design, adding they looked 'out of place'.

Panel members were next to debate, with the main issues from those opposing the plans centred around affordable housing, the height of the apartment blocks and the visual look of the buildings.

Concerns were also raised over the level of sunlight within the new apartments - with 20 per cent not receiving the required standard of sunlight.

Cllr Geoff Hill (TBF, Oldfield) said he was 'pretty torn' on the plans, claiming there were 'a lot of good things' in the application.

But he added: "I worry about the design and appearance. Looking out of our window [in the Town Hall] we have got a scheme similar in nature [Countryside's Watermark development], and is being referred to as the 'prison blocks'.

"If I look at this scheme, the design is virtually identical. My wife said they are the same. It looks a bit like a prison village."

Cllr Hill said that with 'a little bit more money spent on the buildings', they 'could be quite attractive'.

"This development comes close, but not close enough," he added.

Cllr Joshua Reynolds (Lib Dem, Furze Platt) took issue with the affordable housing quota and claimed that the Royal Borough should be pushing for 100 per cent of this because it owns the land.

"We should be building a development that works for Maidenhead, and not for a developer," he said. "We want it to be 100 per cent affordable housing and we could be doing that because it is our site.

"We have got the opportunity to make this a prime affordable housing site."

Cllr Mandy Brar (Lib Dem, Bisham and Cookham) echoed Cllr Hill's concerns regarding the look of the plans, but used slightly different terminology to describe them as 'prison blocks'.

This was picked up on by planning officer Adrian Waite, who told members that he 'struggled' hearing people describing the plans in such a way.

"In my view, it looks nothing like a prison block. I have every confidence that it will look quite attractive when built," he said.

Cllr John Baldwin (Lib Dem, Belmont) raised concerns over the development's height, which does not conform with the council's Tall Buildings policy.

Officers had said this was a 'moderate' issue but Cllr Baldwin claimed that this should be 'significant'. 

A motion to go against officer recommendations and refuse the application was put forward by Cllr Baldwin and seconded by Cllr Hill, but this fell with four votes in favour and five against.

A second motion to side with officers was brought by Cllr John Bowden (Con, Eton and Castle), who received a seconder in the form of Cllr Greg Jones (Con, Riverside).

This vote passed 5-4, leading to remarks of 'disgraceful' from the public gallery as the meeting concluded.