An e-petition containing 1249 signatories was submitted to the Council on 9 February 2019. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

The petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to Place a Blanket Tree Preservation Order on the Maidenhead Golf Club development site.

http://petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/MheadGolfClub/

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

Members debated the following petition:

‘We the undersigned petition the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to place a blanket Tree Preservation order on the Maidenhead Golf Club development site.’

Jenifer Jackson, Head of Planning, explained that the council was the landowner for the majority of the site. It was not usual practice for the council to make a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in respect of trees on its own land; as the council had control as landowner the risk was likely to be low. The council was committed to protecting trees, especially significant trees. The site was identified as a development site in the Borough Local Plan Submission Version, which was currently at examination. There was no reason to believe the trees on the site were currently at risk.

Equally it would not be good practice to impose a blanket order on the site with a view to preventing future development. The appropriate way forward would to be to work with the developer to ensure the protection of trees with amenity value through planning conditions. A blanket order would never protect every tree on site being removed through development or redevelopment of that site, due to the relevant considerations of amenity as set out in the report. The Head of Planning therefore advised a blanket TPO was not a valid mechanism to use to prevent development on a site, particularly when a site had been identified through a local statutory process as being potentially suitable for development. TPOs could be made on individual trees, on roots of trees, or on woodlands. The report set out details of relevant legislation and guidance.

Councillor Hill spoke as lead petitioner. He highlighted that the petition had gathered 1249 signatures. He thanked his fellow ward councillor, the residents who had gathered signatures and all those who had signed the petition. The local Desborough family had allowed the borough to acquire the land for use as open recreational land. Many walkers and dog walkers used the land which contained ancient woodland and wildlife. If the land was not a golf course it should be used for other recreational purposes. To do anything other than keep it intact was wilful destruction of the environment. If the development went ahead it would be against stated government policy. He quoted from the Daily Mail online 7 October 2018 in relation to the newspaper’s campaign to stop councils selling off land. The campaign had been supported by Secretary of state James Brokenshire. A recent report from UK Active had found that a quarter of boys and a fifth of girls did not complete 60 minutes of regular exercise per day. The health benefits of parks helped save the NHS £101m per year. The charity Fields Trust said that parks provided £34bn of health and social benefits.

Councillor Hill proposed the following motion:

i)             This Council places a blanket TPO on the whole of Maidenhead Golf club site that can’t be overruled by a planning condition.

ii)            This Council agrees that if Maidenhead Golf Club were to leave then this piece of land should once again become a public park or public open space.

Councillor Majeed seconded the motion and stated that this was what residents wanted, especially those in Oldfield.

Councillor D. Wilson spoke as ward councillor. He commented that blanket TPOs were a thing of the past. When National Rail had been cutting down trees along the railway, the council had served a TPO to get them to come to a meeting. Since then planning legislation had changed. Trees had to be individually assessed to clarify their protection status because it was far better to identify those trees and protect individual species than to just serve a blanket order. The Rushington Copse was an area about which local residents were particularly concerned. This was ancient woodland with planning protected status and as such did not necessarily need a blanket TPO. The NPPF paragraph 175c in 2018 and the more recent 2019 update indicated that protected species would continue to be protected. It was important to look at the details in the report. Planning would not be stopped by the serving of a TPO; it would only ensure identified species were protected where they were most vulnerable. He therefore supported the recommendation in the report from the Lead Member included in the agenda.

Jenifer Jackson, Head of Planning, commented on Councillor Hill’s first motion to recommend a blanket TPO be made that could not be overturned by a later planning application. She suggested that this would in fact be not lawful. A blanket TPO could not be used to invoke the determination of an application not yet submitted. Equally the motion asked for Council to consider returning the golf course to public open space. That was not a matter specifically covered in the petition but her advice would be that the Borough Local Plan had been submitted on the back of a resolution by the Council in June 2017 and that this was not the way to alter a process that had already been agreed.

The Monitoring Officer read out the motion proposed by Councillor Hill:

i)             This Council places a blanket TPO on the whole of Maidenhead Golf club site that can’t be overruled by a planning condition.

ii)            This Council agrees that if Maidenhead Golf Club were to leave then this piece of land should once again become a public park or public open space.

Jenifer Jackson, Head of Planning, stated that she wished to clarify the first point she had made in relation to the motion. It was not possible to restrict future development of a site by placing a TPO on it, whatever that TPO might be. If an application was made which proposed removal of some of those trees then they would have to be assessed through the planning application process as to whether the trees were of sufficient amenity value to allow planning policy to support their removal, or otherwise. Her suggestion would be that it would not be lawful to control development on a site in this way. She had addressed the second point by referring to the Borough Local Plan examination. The Council had agreed that it would seek to designate the site for development. Councillor Hill’s motion was contrary to that resolution.

Councillor Coppinger commented that the petition was not about trees, it was an attempt to stop the Borough Local Plan and the decision the council had already made. The report highlighted that as the landowner the council had stated that only 60% of land would be developed. The council had agreed that the ancient coppice would be retained for all to enjoy. The requirements listed included the retention of the Rushington Copse and other mature trees, and a sensitive design in terms of biodiversity and wildlife. The proposals by Councillor Hill would not protect what everybody wanted to protect. The council had a history of protecting green spaces. He therefore proposed the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Sharma commented that trees protected an area from erosion, improved people’s health and reduced stress. A blanket ban was more appropriate because when you removed one tree it affected all other trees.

Councillor S Rayner stated that the council was passionate about open green spaces and trees. Since she had been Lead Member the council had bought 87 acres at Thriftwood, 10 acres at Battlemead Common and 13 acres at Shurlock Row, along with some land at Eton Wick.  The budget for 2019/20 included £300,000 for tree planting and maintenance and £180,000 for highway trees. Hundreds of volunteers helped plant trees in the borough on a regular basis.

Councillor Dudley thanked all residents who had signed the petition, there was clearly strength of feeling. He had earlier that day met with Wild Maidenhead and other groups to discuss Battlemead Common. It had been agreed to establish a Friends of Battlemead Common Group and to delay the opening to allow for further research. It was not right to say that golf courses were a safe place for people to walk as there were golf balls flying around; it could be a dangerous environment. The sympathetic redevelopment of the site would create a safe environment far in excess of the 50 acres currently available. Councillor Dudley gave his personal assurance that, whilst he was a director of the development company, the development would be done in a sympathetic way to protect and enhance the environment, and where possible all significant trees would be preserved including the ancient copse. He had sympathy with the residents who had signed the petition as what they wanted was what the council wanted, but there was also a need to provide homes for residents too.

Councillor Hill stated that he was disappointed in the response from the administration. He saw the future destruction of a valuable green space and wildlife, something 1249 residents did not want. It was a disgrace that they would be ignored. The golf course was just being sold for a massive receipt.

Members voted on the motion by Councillor Hill:

i)             This Council places a blanket TPO on the whole of Maidenhead Golf club site that can’t be overruled by a planning condition.

ii)            This Council agrees that if Maidenhead Golf Club were to leave then this piece of land should once again become a public park or public open space.

The motion fell as: 5 councillors voted for the motion (Councillors Da Costa, Hill, Majeed, Sharma and Werner); 37 Councillors voted against the motion (Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Bullock, Cannon, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Dudley, Gilmore, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, Mills, Muir, Quick, S. Rayner, Saunders, Sharp, Sharpe, Shelim, Story, Stretton, Walters, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong). 3 Councillors abstained (Councillors Burbage, Jones and C. Rayner).

Members then voted on the recommendations included in the report in the agenda.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Dudley, and:

RESOLVED: That Full Councilnotes the report and:

i)          Reiterates its firm commitment to maintain and enhancing the borough’s trees and woodlands as a vital part of the environment of the borough.

ii)         Acknowledges the petition and approves funding of £40,000 from revenue in the financial year 2019/20 to the Head of Planning to commission a consultant to conduct a detailed Arboricultural survey of the Maidenhead Golf Course site.

(40 councillors voted for the motion: Councillors M. Airey, N. Airey, Alexander, Bateson, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden, Bullock, Cannon, Carroll, Clark, Coppinger, Da Costa, Dudley, Gilmore, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Jones, Lenton, Lion, Love, Luxton, Majeed, Mills, Muir, Quick, S. Rayner, Saunders, Sharp, Sharpe, Shelim, Story, Stretton, Walters, Werner, D. Wilson, E. Wilson and Yong). 5 councillors abstained: Councillors Beer, Burbage, Hill, C. Rayner and Sharma)

Councillor Diment left the room for the duration of the debate and voting on the item.