Agenda item

Public Questions

a)    Andrew Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Burbage:

 

Does the Council believe in the principle that as wide a range of people as possible are able to participate as School Governors - and if so what steps are taken to achieve this?

 

 

b)   Andrew Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Burbage:

 

What does the Council's company called "Two5Nine" Ltd do?

 

 

c)    Rachel Cook will ask the following question of Councillor Mrs Bateson:

 

As the council strives to be open and transparent then please explain why I have not been provided with the data (apart from resident’s names and addresses of course) from the latest RBWM survey which, over the summer,  asked residents to nominate local green spaces for protection in the Borough Plan?  I have already requested this in my voluntary capacity as a member of the working group on the Maidenhead and Cox Green local plan and so far I have been unable to obtain this data.  I think it is important that we have this evidence to demonstrate what residents consider are important local green spaces.

 

 

d)   Rachel Cook will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states that open space makes an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities.

 

Paragraph 74. Of the NPPF states that existing open space should not be built on unlessan assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the open space, to be surplus to requirements

 

Therefore can you publically provide the assessment (as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 74) that clearly shows why this council considers the public open space at Ray Mill Road East (Deerswood Meadow) surplus to requirements, allowing it to be sold off? 

 

 

e)    Craig McDermott will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Your ward at Riverside has been recognised as having a deficit of public open space both within the council's 2008 open space audit and the current Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2013 - 2030) and so how can you justify losing more of it, which will happen, if the council sells off the public open space at Ray Mill Road East?

 

Natalie Hillwill ask the following question of Councillor Dudley:

 

Your ward at Riverside has been recognised as having a deficit of public open space both within the council's 2008 open space audit and the current Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2013-2030) and so how can you justify losing more of it, which will happen, if the council sells the public open space at Ray Mill Road East?

 

Jan Stannard, will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley:

 

The latest council studies show that your ward has a deficit of open space, so I would like to ask what you think about the fact that building on this open space would make this deficit worse?”

 

Kate Jesseman will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

My question is simple when will Maidenhead Council stop the destruction of our heritage of enjoying small pieces of open wildlife space such as Deerswood Meadow, in the name of housing and development?

 

 

f)     Christine Gill will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson and Councillor Dudley:

 

Has the proposed development land at Ray Mill Road East been promised tor offered to any building company either verbally or in writing

 

 

g)   Tony Gale  will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Can the Council confirm that no final decision will be made about any plans for the publicly owned open space off Ray Mill Road East until all environmental and public access issues have been fully addressed and made publicly available ?

 

h)   Jan Stannard will ask the following question of Councillor D Wilson:

Why did the housing site assessment in the consultation to the Local Borough Plan state that there were “no known conservation issues relating to the public open space at Ray Mill Road East” when it is common knowledge (over the last 20 years at least) that there is an unusually high population of toads here and the common toad has been listed as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species deserving consideration and protection from adverse development?

 

Natalie Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Dudley

 

Why was the land at Ray Mill Road East considered to have "no known conservation issues" when the toad patrol has been there for about 20 years and there are toad warning road signs?

 

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

 

Minutes:

c) Rachel Cook asked the following question of Councillor Mrs Bateson:

 

As the council strives to be open and transparent then please explain why I have not been provided with the data (apart from resident’s names and addresses of course) from the latest RBWM survey which, over the summer, asked residents to nominate local green spaces for protection in the Borough Plan? I have already requested this in my voluntary capacity as a member of the working group on the Maidenhead and Cox Green local plan and so far I have been unable to obtain this data. I think it is important that we have this evidence to demonstrate what residents consider are important local green spaces.

 

Councillor Mrs Bateson responded that earlier in the year the Borough Council had run an online survey to obtain residents’ views on certain policy questions. This was to feed into the preparation of the new Borough Local Plan and the results from each question were only analysed at the point they were required for policy formulation.

 

One question asked residents if they wished to nominate any areas for Local Green Space designation. The results of that question had now been collated:

 

In summary, 263 suggestions were made with the most popular being:

 

  • Poundfield: 88 nominations
  • Ray Mill Road East / Deerswood Meadow: 55 nominations
  • Braywick Park: 11 nominations.
  •  

No other piece of land received more than 8 nominations with many only being mentioned once.

 

The Borough Council would consider whether the areas nominated passed the legal tests for designation and also whether any designations were planned in emerging neighbourhood plans. If the Borough Council nominated any areas as Local Green Space then this would be done through the Borough Local Plan

 

Ms Cook, by way of a supplementary question, asked what was the procedure residents would have to follow to nominate Deerswood as a Local Green space?

 

Councillor Mrs Bateson responded that this nomination had already been done in the summer. A motion later would deal with open space; the intention was to update the audit last undertaken in 2008.

 

 

d) Rachel Cook asked the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states that open space makes an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities. Paragraph 74. Of the NPPF states that existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the open space, to be surplus to requirements. Therefore can you publically provide the assessment (as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, section 74) that clearly shows why this council considers the public open space at Ray Mill Road East (Deerswood Meadow) surplus to requirements, allowing it to be sold off?

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that proposals for Ray Mill Road East would be the subject of a planning application in mid to late 2016 which would be submitted by the council’s development partner, yet to be procured. The application would need to make the case for development, including demonstrating that NPPF was complied with. Within the application proposal it would detail the second part of the question as to whether it complied with the NPPF 73 and 74.

 

Ms Cook, by way of a supplementary question, stated that council figures identified a deficit of open space of 62 hectares, compared to Windsor with 20 and Cookham with 7. Maidenhead had three times less open space available to the public than Windsor. The Conservative manifesto stated that the council would maintain and improve parks and open spaces – why was the council letting down the people of Maidenhead?

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that the council was not letting down the people of Maidenhead. A motion later in the meeting would deal with the subject of open space provision. On the 20 October 2015 the council had received its objectively assessed need figure for housing which equated to 712 dwellings per annum for the Plan period. The council would need to look at all scenarios for Borough Local Plan submission.

 

 

e) Craig McDermott asked the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Your ward at Riverside has been recognised as having a deficit of public open space both within the council's 2008 open space audit and the current Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2013 - 2030) and so how can you justify losing more of it, which will happen, if the council sells off the public open space at Ray Mill Road East?

 

Natalie Hill asked the following question of Councillor Dudley:

 

Your ward at Riverside has been recognised as having a deficit of public open space both within the council's 2008 open space audit and the current Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2013-2030) and so how can you justify losing more of it, which will happen, if the council sells the public open space at Ray Mill Road East?

 

Jan Stannard asked the following question of Councillor Dudley:

 

The latest council studies show that your ward has a deficit of open space, so I would like to ask what you think about the fact that building on this open space would make this deficit worse?

 

Kate Jesseman asked the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

My question is simple when will Maidenhead Council stop the destruction of our heritage of enjoying small pieces of open wildlife space such as Deerswood Meadow, in the name of housing and development?

 

 

On behalf of himself and Councillor Dudley, Councillor D. Wilson responded that

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that to meet the Borough’s assessed future housing growth requirements of providing 712 new homes per annum (between 2013-2030) the Council had examined the potential of accommodating new homes on a number of sites including the council owned land at Ray Mill Road East. 

 

The completed feasibility work reported to Cabinet had identified options for the development of the site.  Following positive feedback received from residents at a public consultation event held on 16 December 2014 on the preferred option, Cabinet on 26 March 2015 approved the proposal to market the western part of the site (measuring 1.52 hectares) as a potential residential development opportunity for 64 homes and retain the remaining land (measuring 0.94 hectares) to the east as green open space.

 

The preferred mixed tenure / housing type scheme comprises 64 residential units made up of 4 one bed apartments, 12 two bed apartments, 22 three bed houses and 26 four bed houses.  Out of the overall 64 units, 32 units (50%) would be developed for private sale, 12 units (20%) would be shared ownership homes and the remaining 20 units (30%) would be purchased (off plan) by the Council to add into its PRS property portfolio with the aim of offering these properties at market rent to key workers such as teachers.

 

In line with the executive approvals, the site would be offered to the market on a conditional basis to secure a suitable development partner who would bring forward and manage the delivery of the above scheme.  To comply with Policy R1 of the Borough Local Plan which recognised the importance of this designated “Urban Open Space” for recreation the retained open area (0.94 hectares) would be professionally landscaped and visually enhanced to provide an accessible high quality green public open space.

 

In response to a comment from Councillor Werner that the question had not been answered, Councillor Wilson stated that the council had a huge demand for increased housing throughout the Royal Borough. The figure of 712 dwellings per annum had been announced publically. As an administration the council wanted to protect the Green Belt and therefore had to look at previously developed sites.

 

Jan Stannard, by way of a supplementary question asked Councillors to see if any other brownfield sites could be looked at because the Deerswood site was a public open space.

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that because of the expected housing demand and Green Belt and floodplain constraints the council was limited was to where it could provide additional housing. The council was looking at increased town centre capacity and other sites around the borough. The land to the east of Ray Mill Road East was in the flood zone and would remain as a green open space.

 

Ms Jesseman, by way of a supplementary question asked when the council would stop destroying heritage and resident’s enjoyment of small pieces of open space in the name of housing development.

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that all aspects would be taken into account when a planning application was submitted. All residents could respond to the consultation.

 

f) Christine Gill asked the following question of Councillor D. Wilson and Councillor Dudley:

 

Has the proposed development land at Ray Mill Road East been promised or offered to any building company either verbally or in writing?

 

Councillor Dudley responded that he could confirm that the Council had not entered into dialogue or contract either verbally or in writing with any potential purchasers or parties for the proposed sale of land at Ray Mill Road East.

 

In line with Cabinet approval received on 26 March 2015, part of the site (measuring 1.52 hectares) would be offered to the unrestricted open market on a conditional basis to secure a suitable development partner who would bring forward and manage the delivery of a mix of 64 homes for outright private sale, affordable shared ownership and private rental and affordable rental.  The latter would be purchased by the Council to provide homes at market rent for key workers such as teachers, a manifesto commitment.  The remaining 0.94 hectares of the site would be retained by the Council, professionally landscaped and visually enhanced to provide an important functional green recreational and natural habitat for the benefit of Maidenhead Riverside.

 

Marketing of the site on a conditional basis by informal tender would commence in early 2016. Expressions of interest for the site from potential purchasers / developers would be invited by a specific closing date.  Due diligence would follow.  All bids received by the closing date would be assessed against selection criteria to ensure regeneration aims were being met.  The outcome of the tender process and recommendations would be reported to Cabinet in due course.  Approval would be sought from Cabinet to appoint the preferred bidder / development partner for the delivery of this residential scheme, which related to 55/60% of the site other than the flood plain area.

 

Ms Gill, by way of a supplementary question asked the Councillor could confirm that no particular bidder or developer had been spoken to or offered the site?

 

Councillor Dudley responded that there had been no prior contracting of any type.

 

 

g) Tony Gale of asked the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

 

Can the Council confirm that no final decision will be made about any plans for the publicly owned open space off Ray Mill Road East until all environmental and public access issues have been fully addressed and made publicly available ?

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that all technical and environmental assessments required would be undertaken and any issues identified (including public access issues) would be addressed prior to marketing and reported to the council’s Regeneration Sub Committee.

 

As recommended at the Cabinet Meeting on 26 March 2015, Cabinet would receive a further report following marketing of the site to request approval to appoint a preferred development partner for the delivery of the preferred scheme.

 

Proposals for Ray Mill Road East would be the subject of a planning application in mid to late 2016 by the council’s development partner, yet to be procured. This application would be carefully and objectively considered, and all environmental and public access issues would be taken into account.

 

Mr Gale, by way of a supplementary question quoted Councillor Wilson as reported in the Maidenhead Advertiser earlier in the year as saying ‘with the introduction of Crossrail we can expect it will make sense for people to move to the town as it would make sense for commuters’. Would the Councillor agree that this rather implied the houses were predicated for people moving to the town rather than people already in the town?

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that the town was in a unique position that should be embraced. Crossrail would bring lots of investment. Some grade A office accommodation in the town had already been taken up by companies wanting to move out of London as Maidenhead was seen as a good strategic hub for the Thames Valley. It was therefore not unreasonable to build houses to meet demand. The number of primary school children was set to increase therefore there was a need to build school to meet the needs of the next generation.

 

 

h) Jan Stannard asked the following question of Councillor D Wilson:

 

Why did the housing site assessment in the consultation to the Local Borough

Plan state that there were “no known conservation issues relating to the public

open space at Ray Mill Road East” when it is common knowledge (over the last 20 years at least) that there is an unusually high population of toads here and the common toad has been listed as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species deserving consideration and protection from adverse development?

 

Natalie Hill asked the following question of Councillor Dudley:

 

Why was the land at Ray Mill Road East considered to have "no known conservation issues" when the toad patrol has been there for about 20 years and there are toad warning road signs?

 

On behalf of himself and Councillor Dudley, Councillor D. Wilson responded that the site assessment that was undertaken to support the January 2014 Preferred Options document did not identify any nature conservation issues on the site itself, although the council was aware that toads inhabited the general vicinity. Consultants would deal with the ecology issues as part of the Borough Local Plan

 

Ms Stannard, by way of a supplementary question ,stated that there were at one time over 7000 toads; as the land was encroached upon this had reduced to 1500. The development as suggested would decimate the priority species. The manifesto stated the council would protect open spaces – was the council listening?

 

Councillor D. Wilson responded that a motion later in the meeting would deal with an open space audit, which was last undertaken in 2008. All areas of the borough would be looked at in the Borough Local Plan.

 

Councillor Bhatti arrived at 7.45pm.