*Item 1

16/03297/FULL

Guards House And Waterside Lodge And Thames Riveriera Hotel

162 Bridge Road

Maidenhead

Change of use and alterations of hotel building to create 15 apartments; demolition of annex and replacement with new residential building containing 11 apartments; alterations to Guardhouse building to provide 2 x 2 bed dwelling houses; and provision of associated car parking and landscaping.

Councillor Walters proposed a motion to REFUSE the application and this was seconded by Councillor Love. All Panel Members voted for Refusal except Councillor Smith, who voted against the proposal.

The reasons for the motion to REFUSE were:

·         Policies CA2, CA6, DG1 and N2  of the Adopted Local Plan, SP3 and SP4, HE1 and HE3 of the Borough Local Plan submission version and paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework for less than substantial harm to heritage assets versus public benefit.

·         The sequential test information requested had not been submitted and consequently the proposal did not meet the requirements of the NPPF

·         whether the scheme had achieved a level of viability to provide affordable homes had not yet been confirmed by the District Valuer, therefore to include a holding reason of H3 of the adopted Local Plan and HO3 of the BLP Submission Version and

·         DELEGATE to the Head of Planning to agree to remove reasons for refusal 2 and 3 should sufficient information be submitted in the event of a planning appeal.

The Panel VOTED to REFUSE the application.

(The Panel was addressed by Gurch Singh, Mick Jarvis, Ian Wallace, Pat Morrish and Harald Bodenhofer, Objectors and Matthew Pardoe, Applicants Agent).

Item 2

18/01392/FULL

48-52 St Marks Crescent

Maidenhead

Construction of 2 x 4-bed detached houses, 3 x 3-bed and 1 x 2-bed semi-detached houses with parking and

Access.

Councillor Stretton proposed to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Love.

The Panel UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to PERMIT the application as per the Officers recommendation.

Item 3

*18/01608/FULL

York Road Redevelopment Area

York Road

Maidenhead

Mixed use redevelopment of the site comprising of 5 no. buildings 4-8 storeys in height to provide 229 new

residential dwellings (Use Class C3), 1,930 sqm GEA of commercial and community/cultural floor space (Use

Class A1/A3/B1/D1), provision of a new civic square and public realm enhancements, along with car parking,

access, roads, landscaping and other associated works following demolition and clearance of all existing

structures.

Councillor Kellaway proposed a motion to DEFER AND DELEGATE the application, subject to section 11 in the report, referral to the Secretary of State, completion of S106 legal agreement and to secure a design condition in consultation with Thames Valley Police. This was seconded by Councillor Wilson. A named vote was carried out. Six Councillors (Bullock, Kellaway, Sharp, Smith, Walters and Wilson) voted for the motion. Councillor Stretton abstained from voting and Councillors Hunt and Love did not vote as they had declared an interest.

The Panel VOTED to DEFER AND DELEGATE the application as per the Officer recommendation and with an additional condition relating to Secure By Design requirements.

(The Panel was addressed by John Foster and Richard Davenport, Objectors and Malcolm Wood and Gurch Singh, For the Applicant and by Cllrs Love and Saunders who are not members of the Panel).

Item 4

18/01779/FULL

L’Leno

14 Market Street

Maidenhead

SL6 8AB

Extension to the second floor and construction of a three-storey extension to create 3 x 2 and 3 x 1 bedroom

flats.

Councillor Sharp proposed a motion to REFUSE the application as per Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Love.

The Panel VOTED UNANIMOUSLY to  REFUSE the Application as per the Officers recommendation.

(The Panel was addressed by Patricia Balfour, Tony Jacobs and Andrew Hartley, Objectors and Mumtaz Alam, Applicants Agent).

Item 5

18/01831/FULL

Braybrook House

River Gardens

Bray

Maidenhead

SL6 2BJ

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling.

Councillor Smith proposed the Officers recommendation to REFUSE the application. This was seconded by Councillor Walters. A named vote was carried out but this fell away on 3 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

Councillor Kellaway proposed to APPROVE the application, against the Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Hunt. The reasons for approval were set out as there would be no greater impact on openness of the Green Belt and that the replacement was not considerd to be materially larger than the one it replaces.  The proposal was considered to comply with paragraph 145 of the NPPF. A named vote was carried out. Five Members (Councillors Bullock, Hunt, Kellaway, Love and Sharp) voted for the motion and three councillors voted against the motion (Members Smith, Walters and Wilson). Councillor Stretton abstained from voting.

The Panel VOTED to APPROVE the application and to delegate conditions to the Head of Planning, the conditions should include the removal of permitted development rights.

(The Panel was addressed by Jake Collinge, the Applicants Agent)

Item 6

18/01984/REM

Land including Thames Auto Sales And The Amber Centre And Former Unit 5

Oldfield Road

Maidenhead

Reserved Matters (Landscaping) application pursuant to outline planning permission 17/02812/OUT for demolition of existing buildings, erection of a three storey building in the southern part of the site, erection of a

part two/part three/part four storey building in the northern part of the site to provide 67 residential dwellings and associated parking.

Councillor Walters proposed to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Wilson.

The Panel VOTED UNANIMOUSLY to PERMIT the application as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(The Panel was addressed by Mr Howells, The Applicants Agent)

Item 7

18/02075/FULL

Land Adjacent to Lee Cottage School

Cookham

Maidenhead

3 No. 4 bedroom detached dwellings with double carports.

Councillor Kellaway proposed to APPROVE the application contrary to the Officer recommendation.  This motion was on the basis that, in his opinion, the site was mistakenly in the Green Belt. However this was not seconded until after a second motion which was proposed and seconded. It was then seconded by Councillor Hunt.

Councillor Stretton proposed to REFUSE the application as per the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Smith. A named vote was carried out. Six Members (Councillors Bullock, Love, Smith, Stretton, Walters and Wilson) voted for the motion, Two Members (Councillors Hunt and Kellaway) voted against the application and Councillor Sharp abstained from voting.

The Panel VOTED to REFUSE the application as per the Officers recommendation.

(The Panel was addressed by Adrian Moorhouse, Dick Scarf (Cookham Society), Objectors and Susan Ground, Applicant.