This petition was debated at Full Council as per the petition scheme – the petition organiser is not satisfied with the Councils response hence has requested that it be brought before the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Panel. 

Attached is the full debate (Full Council) on this petition and below is a link to the petition itself:

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

The Chairman welcomed the lead petitioner, Rachel Cook, to the meeting and explained that she had been allocated three minutes to address the Panel.  It was explained that following the lead petitioners three minutes, Ward Councillors would then be invited to address the Panel then the Panel would debate the item.

The lead petitioner addressed the Panel by explaining that inaccurate information had been given to the Full Council meeting on the 15 December 2015 and that it was therefore unfair to the petitioners. 

Rachel Cook explained that unfair representation of public opinion had been given that had completely ignored results of the First Preferred Options Consultation that had taken place borough wide in March 2014.  It was noted that the land at Ray Mill Road East had been specifically mentioned under question 19 – it had been requested that this land be removed from the housing allocation.  Rachel Cook explained that the Civic Society had stated that this land could easily have been included in the Green Belt.  It was questioned why the Council was wasting the residents time when the results of the public consultation had been ignored.  It was noted that Rachel Cooks FOI request was outstanding.

It was noted that officers had stated that key worker accommodation was listed as a reason to allow housing development on the land in question – Rachel Cook felt this to be incorrect as the Cabinet decision allowed 20% as share ownership, 50% to be developed for private sale housing and 30% to be retained by the Council as private rented units.  Rachel Cook asked the Panel to clarify the Councils exact position. 

One of the questions never answered was that if the site is to be sold off how will the Council stop the toads from dying off further – what are the plans to help them survive? 

Rachel Cook concluded by explaining that she felt she had demonstrated that inaccurate information had been given to the Full Council meeting and therefore requested that these matters be addressed again given to the high number of people objecting to this land being built on. 

The Chairman thanked Rachel Cook for addressing the Panel.

It was noted that the three Ward Councillors were now able to make further comments and that an email had been received from Councillor Adam Smith on the subject of the petition.  The Chairman read out Councillor Smith’s comments which were that in his opinion wildlife and open space would be given proper consideration in any future planning application. Indeed, December Council resolved ‘The Council notes the opportunity for representations to be made to any subsequent planning application.’

The Chairman explained that the Panel needed to debate whether there had been any inadequacies in the way that the petition had been dealt.  It was noted that an e-petition containing 1392 signatures had been submitted on the 8 October 2015 all in accordance with the provisions of the Councils Constitution.  It had been requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported and debated at a Full Council meeting which it had been on the 15 December 2015 at the Magnet Leisure Centre.

The petition read as follows:

‘We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to retain all the land at Ray Mill Road East, Maidenhead, currently designated as public open space, under council ownership and ensure that the majority of the land remains so designated and incorporates nature as an integral feature for the benefit of future generations’

 It was noted that at the Full Council meeting in December 2015 a short video had been produced and shown to Members.  The Chairman explained that there had been 48 Councillors present at the Full Council meeting in December 2015 of which 45 had voted in favour of the following motion whilst 3 had voted against the motion:

i)              The Council notes the petition and acknowledges the concerns raised.

ii)             The Council notes the extant Royal Borough Cabinet decision from 26

March 2015 to develop part of the land.

iii)            The Council notes the opportunity for representations to be made to

any subsequent planning application.

iv)           The Council notes the motion relating to Public Open Space on

tonight’s agenda.

In the ensuing debate the following points were noted:

Ø  Councillor Hilton requested a definition of open space / status of the land from the Legal Officer as the lead petition had stated it to be a ‘public open space’.  Councillor Hilton stated that the land in question was listed as management land an as such was defined as an asset that would, at some time, be used.   The Legal Officer referred the question to the Director of Planning, Development & Regeneration (Chris Hilton) / Borough Planning Manager (Jenifer Jackson) to answer.  The Borough Planning Manager explained that this was not straight forward to answer but that it could be classed as land in private ownership that the public could access and use. 

Ø  The Director of Planning, Development & Regeneration added that in his view it was important to differentiate between the Council as land owner and it making planning decisions.  It was noted that when the Council was classed as the land owner with sites it wanted to develop it had to go through the planning process by submitting planning applications. 

Ø  The Director of Planning, Development & Regeneration also added that the Borough Local Plan was still being progressed and that a public enquiry would ideally be held this time next year. 

Ø  It was noted that whilst a number of comments had been received by the Council which had been considered the Council was bringing this site forward for development not as the Council but as the land owner. 

Ø  Councillor Gerry Clark stated that he felt the process had been fair and proper and that it was clear to him that any legitimate concerns would be fully addressed on receipt of a planning application if it this were to proceed.

The Chairman summarised by stating that the public consultation had gone out to the whole of the Royal Borough and was still ongoing.  It was noted that an initial consultation had also taken place with 40 of the local neighbours and a meeting had been held on the 16 December 2015 to which 8 neighbours had attended. 

The Chairman went onto explain that the 20% as share ownership, 50% to be developed for private sale housing and 30% to be retained by the Council as private rented units had simply been a proposal that had been put forward at Full Council in December.  It was confirmed that this would be addressed at the planning stage.

The Chairman stated that the question asked at the Full Council meeting in December about what plans the Council had to help the toads survive would also be addressed at the planning stage.

RESOLVED: That it was felt that the Council had dealt with the petition ‘looking to retain all the land at Ray Mill Road East, Maidenhead, currently designated as public open space, under council ownership and ensure that the majority of the land remained so designated and incorporated nature as an integral feature for the benefit of future generations’ in a fair and adequate manner.

(6 Councillors voted in favour (Councillor Walters, Councillor Alexander, Councillor Clark, Councillor D Evans, Councillor Hilton & Councillor S Rayner) and Councillor Beer abstained).