To receive any apologies for absence

None received

To receive any declarations of interest

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that for all Members present at the meeting, any home property already disclosed on their register of interests was taken as having been declared as a personal interest on item 4, Adoption of the Borough Local Plan.

The following interests were also declared in relation to item 4, Adoption of the Borough Local Plan.

Councillor Price declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as she was a member of the Maidenhead Golf Club.

Councillor Hill stated he owned property around the Nicholson’s site in Maidenhead and in Market Street and West Street, outside the development zone. He came to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Hilton stated he was on the Board of the council’s Joint Venture with CALA homes and Countryside.

Councillor Johnson stated he was on the Board of the council’s Joint Venture with CALA homes, Countryside and the golf course site in his role as Cabinet Member for Property. He also stated that his wife was a Director of Little Red Hen Nursery on Grove Business Park, as tenant of Sorbonne estates. The allocation had been superseded by planning consent granted in late 2020.

Councillor Hunt stated she owned property in Maidenhead.

Councillor Stimson stated she was on the Board of the council’s Joint Venture with CALA homes, in her role as Cabinet Member for Sustainability.

Councillor Tisi stated that before she had become a councillor she had campaigned against development on both AL22 and Al21. She approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Clark stated he was a member of the Countryside Development Board and also had property interests around Maidenhead, although not adjacent to ant site in the borough Local Plan.

Councillor Rayner stated she was on the Board of the council’s Joint Venture with CALA homes and Countryside.

Councillor McWilliams stated, in respect of an interest on his register relating to his personal employment, that since his employers’ role was limited to communications consultancy and neither he nor his employer owned any of the sites in the plan nor would receive any financial benefit from the adoption, the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest on his register did not relate to the item under discussion. Since his employment had been a matter of recent public interest he had declared the interest. His employer did not permit him to work within the Royal Borough and the Monitoring Officer had had sight of his employment contract which limited his involvement.

Councillor Baldwin stated that he had a part interest in a property adjacent to the golf club but not within the development site.

Councillor Bond stated that he was a member of the committee at the Quaker Meeting House in West Street, Maidenhead which was in site AL5. It was a charity owned property.

Councillor Brar stated that before she had become a councillor she had campaigned against three sites.

Councillor Carroll stated that as the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health, Mental Health he was a Director of Optalis Ltd; Optalis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

The deadline for public questions (directly related to an item on the agenda) is 5pm on Wednesday 2 February. For information contact karen.shepherd@rbwm.gov.uk or 07766 778286

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a)  Mark Loader of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

A recent Environment Agency document states we live in an area of serious water stress. The council are planning large housing developments. The population growth will result in more demand for water as will the impacts of climate change. In a drought will we have enough water in the Borough without the need for extreme measures?

Written response: The Council has engaged with the Environment Agency throughout the plan making process as well as other relevant organisations such as Thames Water. The Council has committed to working with the Environment Agency and partners that provide water and sewerage services across the Borough over the plan period to identify infrastructure needs and to ensure that adequate water supply and sewerage capacity is provided in a timely manner to meet planned demand.

A Statement of Common Ground was agreed with Thames Water in June 2018 (RBWM_015) and this was updated in October 2020 (PS/057). Thames Water confirmed that they believe the BLP (Borough Local Plan) meets the test of soundness in relation to water supply and is supported by an appropriate evidence base covering infrastructure requirement relating to water resources and supply. The Council and Thames Water have committed to continuous and proactive joint working throughout the rest of the plan period on water supply (and sewerage infrastructure) matters, including the provision of key infrastructure.

Policy IF7 of the BLP states that, development proposals must demonstrate that adequate water supply infrastructure capacity exists both on and off site to serve the development and that the development would not lead to problems for existing users.

Developers must liaise with Thames Water at the planning application stage to identify and respond to any necessary infrastructure upgrades. The BLP Inspector is content that IF7 is, as amended, sound.

By way of a supplementary question, Mark Loader commented that his question had been about traffic and population growth and the increased demand for water in an area with serious water stress. There were also concerns about increased traffic and the impact on air quality and the health of the young, elderly and those with poor health. He asked if there was still a climate emergency in the Royal Borough and if there was, did it make sense to build on green belt land with the loss of trees, woodland and habitats which would affect the ability to adapt to the effects of climate change.

Councillor Coppinger responded that yes there was still a climate emergency and this would continue until a conclusion was reached. It was essential that if houses and affordable houses for the growing population and new people coming in were to be provided, a limited amount of green belt would need to be used. The proposal would reduce the amount of green belt from 83% to 82% which was a very small amount. There was a limit to the amount of houses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To consider the above report

Members considered adoption of the Borough Local Plan.

Tina Quadrino, lead petitioner, addressed the meeting in relation to the following petition:

We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead to stop all plans to build on Maidenhead Golf Course, by rejecting the Borough Local Plan when it comes to Full Council for adoption.

Tina Quadrino explained that the petition asked the elected representatives of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reject the Borough Local Plan because, mainly, it included the biggest jewel in Maidenhead’s crown, the golf course. 

She wondered how many councillors had ever visited the golf course. If they had visited it, she did not know how they could possibly vote to destroy the wonderful space. The advantages of keeping the space green were outlined at the last petition. The rationale for not developing it had only become stronger in the intervening period and many voices had been telling the council about it time and time again.

A year ago all of the Conservative councillors present at the Extraordinary Council meeting voted against keeping it as green space. Therefore she asked Councillors Andrew Johnson, David Coppinger, Ross McWilliams, Phil Haseler, Donna Stimpson, Maureen Hunt, Greg Jones, Chris Targowski, Leo Walters, Gurpreet Bhangra, Stuart Carroll, Gerry Clark, Sayonara Luxton, Gary Muir, Julian Sharpe, Shamsul Shelim, John Story, Christine Bateson, John Bowden, David Cannon and David Hilton whether this would be a repeat performance. She could only assume that they had all been charged by their political leaders to vote to adopt the Borough Local Plan. Ms. Quadrino wanted to remind all councillors, no matter what their political persuasion, that they were the representatives of the residents of the borough. Maidenhead had said ‘No’ to the wanton destruction of the green lung, the execution of the wildlife that would become roadkill, further annihilation of biodiversity, the disruption, the noise and the horror that would be the situation for many years if the current plan was adopted, the planned flats and apartment blocks that were so dense that they would make the ‘Prison Block’ look like child’s Lego, the increased pollution and the further deterioration of air quality and the additional traffic that adding this amount of development would inevitably bring.

The land was purchased by the council in 1953 to protect the open space for the people of Maidenhead. The council had no right or mandate from the residents to do anything else. Others had talked about all the many other areas of the plan that were simply not fit for purpose. The development was only sustainable to developers’ wallets and not to the environment. They had pointed out all the flaws in the plan and how due process had not been followed by the administration.

Tina Quadrino stated that it was probably the most important decision the councillors would make for the community. It was about what would be left for future generations and it was much bigger than any other single issue. Looking at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.