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 that could be built on a brownfield site and in most cases the pricing was such that you could only go high and build flats or apartments.

 

b)  John Sewell of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

The council’s environment strategy states access to greenspace is vital for mental and physical wellbeing.  However - in response to the housing need for 712 new homes each year there are already hundreds of new flats in the town centre.   Surely it’s vital for our growing community to protect all the greenspace and amenity potential of the golf course?

 

Written response: It’s correct to say a large proportion of the new dwellings permitted in recent years have been flats in Maidenhead town centre. The Council has done everything it can to use brownfield sites first, and almost 70% of the housing allocations are on previously developed land. However, such sites are usually in other positive uses (such as providing employment), constrained and expensive to develop. The evidence shows that we need family houses with gardens as well as flats, affordable housing, and community infrastructure such as schools. To achieve this, it’s necessary to also build on a limited number of greenfield sites such as the golf course site. The new development will provide a central green area and strategic and local open spaces across the site, including a green spine running from north to south and these facilities will be accessible to all. Rushington Copse would be retained along with as many mature trees as possible, with biodiversity net gains secured.

 

The Mayor asked the following question on behalf of John Sewell who was not present:

 

Why on earth do we need to plan to build 16,000 homes if the demand is only 712 per year ?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that there was a requirement to meet a figure laid down by government. That figure could be seen in the report of the Inspector; she had confirmed the housing number being worked towards was exactly the right number.

c) Paul Strzelecki of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Clark, Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure, and Digital Connectivity:

 

The report finds BLP traffic impact at Cookham Bridge and the narrow Pound “would not be severe”. My detailed analysis, shared, with cabinet and relevant officers, shows a 540% increase in delay times to less than walking pace. RBWM presented 13%! No responses and refusals to meet on the topic. Will you state I was wrong and Cookham traffic sustainable?

 

Written response: The evidence for the Borough Local Plan was prepared in line with appropriate guidance, including in terms of assessing the impact of the proposed spatial strategy on transport and local infrastructure. The assessment considered a reasonable worst case for traffic generation which did not take make allowance for the additional investment in sustainable transport expected to come forward as a result of development and our wider transport strategies.

 

This matter and others related to the transport evidence base were discussed extensively at the examination hearings in late 2020 and given due consideration by the Inspector. The Inspector’s report, quite correctly, concludes that the approach is robust at a strategic level and that the impacts cannot be considered as severe.

 

The Development Management process will provide further opportunity for modelling and assessment of highways impacts and secure mitigation relating to more detailed proposals at the planning application stage.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Paul Strzelecki commented that his analysis of the traffic was radically different from the council’s.  He asked who was right? The response had commented on additional transport that was sustainable but none of the 19 mitigations were for Cookham. If there was a bike and a bus on the bridge it all ground to a halt. With 400% difference of Wycombe’s assessment of the bridge, the council’s addition of just 10 cars from all the BLP development, transit times impossible to hit, and 650 homes in Bourne End not considered, he questioned the plan being robust at the strategic level. However the Inspector also stated, despite misleading numbers by RBWM, that Cookham traffic would be undeniably frustrating for both commuters and residents. He asked for what reason was Councillor Clark supportive of hundreds of his villagers being frustrated and would he vote with a Cookham conscious for non-adoption?

 

Councillor Clark responded that Paul Strzelecki had robustly submitted his modelling at the examination stage, but it had not been accepted. The calculations undertaken by expert officers using industry standard software to predict changes in traffic flow did not say there would be a 540% increase; neither did the examiner. Councillor Clark stated that he took the effect on Cookham seriously however the examiner did say the impact of development could not be described as severe. The report on which he had to base his decision was clear.

 

d) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

Does the Council agree with the Inspector's final report (ID-34, 153-161) that under the NPPF the loss of the golf club “…will not result in an actual loss of open space useable by members of the public”, and what steps were taken within the BLP allocations to ensure compensatory leisure and sporting sites for this net loss?

Written response: The Council agrees with the Inspector that the loss of the golf course would not result in an “actual loss of open space useable by the general public”. Other than the public rights of way running across the site, Maidenhead Golf Course is not publicly accessible. In contrast, the many greenspaces created on AL13 will be accessible to everyone.

 

The Council addressed the issue of the loss of the Golf Course in paragraph 4.17.11 of its Matter 11 response, stating that “There is a significant demand for golf in the Borough and the level of golf provision is good with a mix of different types of courses. Maidenhead Golf Course...intend to use the surrender money to purchase and construct a new golf course within Maidenhead.”

 

The Council understands that the Golf Club are still looking to secure a replacement site with the lease surrender money. On 9 September 2021, the Golf Club voted to accept a revised offer for surrendering the lease and on 11 January, it is understood that members of the golf club agreed to use the funds that would be released to purchase land for a replacement site.

 

The Council maintains its view that Maidenhead is well served by golf courses and there is a realistic prospect that the Golf Club will obtain equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality. Sport England did not object to the Plan at the Proposed Change (or indeed the Main Modifications) stage.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Andrew Hill commented that Councillor Coppinger had said on 11 January the golf club voted to pursue a land replacement site such as Fifield but that was completely wrong; the vote went the other way. They were not buying the land so there was no compensatory sports facility. In fact there would be a loss of a facility contrary to the NPPF. The NPPF definition of open space encompassed visual openness as for mental wellbeing the spirit was lifted as animals and trees were seen far into the distance. The report stated bluntly that losing the golf club was ‘not an actual loss of open space’. Andre Hill asked if it was Councillor Coppinger’s personal view that it was not a loss of actual open space?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that in terms of open space available to all, it was not a loss because it was only used by a limited number of members with a single footpath crossing it.

e) Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

The Council's note to the Inspector (RBWM 074, para 29) says it is factually incorrect that the golf club renegotiation will delay delivery of houses in 2023/24.

Given the new contract when did RBWM advise the Inspector of changes to years 9-13 of the housing trajectory (RBWM note 073b), and what are the new numbers for that table?

Written response: At the time of producing RWBM074 in March 2021, the position was that there was an agreement in place for Maidenhead Golf Club to surrender its lease by 2023, with delivery expected to start at the Golf Club part of AL13 in 2024/25 (124 dwellings).

On 9 September 2021, the members of the Golf Club voted to accept a revised offer to vacate their existing site by the end of 2025.

On 20 January 2022, the Inspector asked the council to respond to some points made by Mr Hill in connection with the revised surrender agreement. On 21 January, the Council provided a response to the Inspector, including on the implications of this revised agreement on the housing trajectory. The implication is simply that the housing supply for Year 13 (2025/26) would fall from 1,820 dwellings to 1,696 dwellings and these homes would be provided in later years. It is noted that the Inspector’s Report includes a footnote on page 40 that demonstrates that the Inspector is aware of the renegotiation of the surrender agreement and that this would potentially extend the date by which the Club must vacate the golf course, from 2023 to 2025. The revised lease surrender agreement has now been signed by both parties.

 

To conclude, the housing trajectory is cautious in terms of delivery dates and there is sufficient flexibility within it to absorb a delay of 2 years on the golf course part of allocation AL13. The Inspector is fully aware of this matter and has also confirmed in the report her view that the availability of the land is not at significant risk.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Andrew Hill stated that at the council meeting on 28 September Councillor Coppinger had told Mr Adam Bermange that it would be ‘a good idea’ to formally inform the Inspector about the new golf club contract with its two-year delay clause, and yet this was not done in a timely fashion. The written response said that non-transparent, unpublished notes were being exchanged with the Inspector on 20 January, after Mr Hill had objected in the strongest terms. Councillor Coppinger had admitted that the housing numbers, in an allegedly fact-checked report were wrong. Why did he therefore go against his better instincts to keep the Inspector fully informed about the golf club negotiations and why did he not publish the January communications to ensure the BLP was factually correct. 

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he did not have all the answers required he would ask officers to respond on his behalf in writing.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: The Inspector runs the Examination and was not inviting unsolicited information from the Council or others at that time.  However, on 20 January 2022, the Inspector asked the council to respond to some comments made by Mr Hill (and Mr Bermange) in relation to the lease surrender agreement and also the impact on the housing trajectory. The Council provided its response to the Inspector on 21 January. The Council has not been asked by the Inspector to publish this correspondence. 

f) Ivan McCullough of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

Within the Borough Local Plan, allocation AL27 is designated as a "2.29-hectare pocket park" and the site specification stresses its role in flood attenuation, its importance for biodiversity and its educational and leisure potential.

 

Can the lead member give us more details of her plans to fulfil this vision?

 

Written response: Site allocation AL27 (Land South of Ray Mill Road East, Maidenhead) is allocated in the BLP for green infrastructure, including a pocket park, habitat area and flood attenuation. It is noted that a planning application for 80 dwellings and open space on this site (21/02866/FULL) was considered recently by the planning committee and that Members resolved to approve the proposed development subject to referral to the Head of Planning and the Secretary of State under the Call-in direction. The Council is currently awaiting a decision from the Secretary of State on whether to intervene.

 

Should the development for housing not proceed, then the Council considers that the site is a feasible location for a pocket park that would deliver biodiversity enhancements and a pond, with trees and grassland retained and enhanced. Pocket Parks can be created at relatively low cost, sometimes supported by grants; for example, in 2019/20 two ‘Pocket Parks’ were created on open spaces in Windsor, both of which were supported by grants of £25k-£30k under the Government’s ‘Pocket Park’ grants scheme.

 

In the event the proposed housing development is implemented, about 40% of the site would be retained as open space with works to this area funded by the development.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ivan McCullough commented that the entirety of AL27, all 2.29 hectares, were reserved in the BLP for a pocket park. The Inspectors Main Modifications had decided the whole of the site should eb dedicated as per the published proformas. Why was Councillor Stimson, as parks and countryside lead member, not defending this position?

 

Councillor Stimson responded that she believed the site had gone to the Secretary of State for confirmation and the outcome was awaited. It was a recommendation that the site be a pocket park and 40% would be reserved for habitat.

 

g) Phoebe Ibison of Riverside ward asked the following question of Councillor Stimson, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside:

 

There are thousands of mature trees on Maidenhead Golf Course, which have supported our local ecosystem for decades. How can the council justify cutting down so many trees when we face a Climate Emergency and we have the sixth mass extinction on our hands? The Environment Strategy states the importance of protecting our natural environment, so why aren’t you?

 

Written response: Achieving a sustainable plan for development involves carefully balancing social, economic, and environmental factors. Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be tree loss because of the proposed development, the proforma for the site in Appendix C of the Plan puts in place both safeguards and proposals for enhancement regarding trees and biodiversity.

 

It indicates that proposals should retain Rushington Copse, together with other mature trees and hedgerows where possible, including buffers zones where necessary, to protect trees from the impact of development. It also indicates that the tree and landscape buffers along the site boundary should be retained and reinforced.

 

The proforma also indicates that development should safeguard protected species and conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the area in addition to providing net biodiversity gain across the site and adjoining open spaces within the South West Maidenhead Strategic Area. The provision of a green spine running north to south through the site provides an opportunity to connect the biodiversity and green infrastructure networks across the site.

 

Whilst the character of the area will undoubtedly change, development will overall have to deliver a biodiversity net gain, helping to improve biodiversity across the Borough in line with the Environment and Climate Strategy. At the same time, the allocation will provide substantial social and economic benefits by providing much needed homes, schools, accessible open space, and other facilities near the town centre and transport links adding to the overall sustainability of the plan.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Phoebe Ibison stated that the development would decimate a large proportion of trees, not all the saplings would survive and it would be at least 20 years before they could provide meaningful habitats and carbon absorption. It was her future and that of other children and living organisms that were relying on the lead member to make an ethical decision and not cause more distress and anxiety to the community. She asked why the advice of experts was being refused and claims being based on unaffordable housing. She asked why the council was not using every pound available to protect the few natural green spaces in the borough for habitat preservation and carbon capture.

 

Councillor Stimson responded the BLP was about more than just sites; it was complex and included issues such as flooding and increasing biodiversity. She would do her utmost and this was why she had put herself on the CALA Board to ensure sustainability was built in from the start. There was a need for a BLP to stop irresponsible development across the borough.

 

h) Fiona Allen of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Climate change is already bringing us more heavy rainstorms and flood events. Building on the greenspace will make our community even more vulnerable to devastating flooding. Why aren't you taking steps to help protect our community by building on brownfield sites instead?

 

Written response: The Plan ensures the re-use of brownfield land wherever this has been feasible, but it is not possible to meet the Borough’s housing needs using only brownfield land. Almost 70% of the housing site allocations are brownfield sites and 45% of the housing arising from allocations is on this land.

 

Because the base date for the Plan is in 2013, a significant proportion of the nearly 16,000 homes provided for in the Plan is made up of homes built since 2013 and sites with current planning permissions. A high proportion of these are on brownfield sites or involve intensification of development within existing built-up areas, with only very limited amounts of greenfield development. In addition, in helping to meet the housing target, assumptions are made about further brownfield development coming forward in the future that we currently cannot identify – this is called a windfall allowance.

 

Whether the site is brownfield or greenfield, care has been taken to avoid development on areas of greatest flood risk and policies have been set out to ensure detailed consideration of flooding related matters at the planning application stage.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Fiona Allen commented that regardless of the flawed housing figures, she wanted to point out what the scientists at COP26 had said, that arguably all the flood models were already out of date and climate change was coming faster than predictions. Basic geography told you that the more you covered an area with concrete the less natural absorption could take place. The Thames Valley was already overdeveloped so she asked why building was taking place on green belt putting all at greater risk of flood damage and destroying natural habitats at the same time.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that the Inspector, who was not a Councillor or a council employee, had said the figures were correct. There was a need to provide for homes for families and young people, including affordable housing. It was not possible to build those on brownfield sites as the only thing that could be viably built were high rise flats and apartments. This was the only reason the proposal was to build on 1% of green belt.

 

i) Ceri Glen of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Houses in the Aldebury area, adjacent to site AL25, are in flood zone 3. Residents report significant flooding in February 1990, December 2000, 2012, January 2003, & from January to March 2014. What do you say to residents who fear things will get worse, when building on flood plains, despite prevention schemes, only leads to an increase in flooding?

 

Written response: Any planning application received proposing development on site AL25 (Spencer’s Farm, Maidenhead) will be subject to full assessment as per national and local flooding policy, including Policy NR1 – Managing Flood Risk and Waterways – of the BLP. Point 5(d) of Policy NR1 states specifically that, in all cases, development should not itself, or cumulatively with other development, materially cause new or exacerbate existing flooding problems, either on the proposal site or elsewhere. 

 

Document RBWM_086 (post-hearing action note re Exception Test for AL9 and AL25 allocations) describes how the latest flood data results in parts of AL25 falling within Flood Zone 3. As a result, the Council’s flooding consultant undertook Exception Test work. This work confirmed that the site can be developed in a manner which is safe for its lifetime and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

 

The allocation also specifically requires development and site-specific Flood Risk Assessment at the planning stage to ensure this remains the case with any detailed proposals and The Flood Risk Assessment would be expected to include an assessment of the flood risk from all sources of flooding for a proposed development, plus an allowance for climate change. Further information on the requirements for the Flood Risk Assessment on this site are detailed in Appendix D of the BLP.

 

The allocation also specifically requires development and site-specific Flood Risk Assessment at the planning stage to ensure this remains the case with any detailed proposals and The Flood Risk Assessment would be expected to include an assessment of the flood risk from all sources of flooding for a proposed development, plus an allowance for climate change. Further information on the requirements for the Flood Risk Assessment on this site are detailed in Appendix D of the BLP.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ceri Glen commented that councillors were elected representatives and should work for the residents not against them. He stated that he would like to know about the people who were described as ‘unable to access a safe and appropriate home within the borough, children and families who call the Borough home but cannot find a suitable home’. He asked Councillor Coppinger what he felt was a suitable price for a house for these people.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that the number would depend on the circumstances of the individual. He was not an estate agent and did not deal in house prices.

 

j) Ceri Glen of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Will the Council fund independent consultants to advise residents about our legal rights, planning law and environmental laws, to counter all the Council paid consultants and staff who do not represent residents or our well-being and who are working towards the councils’ objectives regardless of resident’s objections and wishes?     

 

Written response: Members of the Council are democratically elected to represent the residents of the Borough and the Council has adopted a Corporate Plan which sets out our priorities and objectives in meeting these needs. The staff and consultants employed by the Council work towards these objectives and seek to deliver the best overall outcomes for the Borough’s residents.

 

The Borough has 151,273 residents, every one of whom is unique and contributes to the community with a variety of actions, perspectives, beliefs, and opinions.

 

The Council will always engage with our community and seek to shape our plans around your diverse needs. This is what we have done in progressing the Council’s Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy. It is also what we have done throughout the preparation of the Borough Local Plan. It is recognised that no solution will meet the needs or wishes of every resident but the Council seeks to deliver the best outcomes it can.

 

Many residents would like to see no building on greenbelt land and we can see that view through the petition which has been submitted. But there are also many people who are unable to access a safe and appropriate home within the borough, children and families who call the Borough home but cannot find a suitable home, and people who would wish to contribute to our community but cannot.

 

The Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy commit the Council to providing adequate housing to ensure the well-being of our residents. The adoption of a Borough Local Plan which fully meets housing need is essential to doing so and delivering on those promises.

 

Whilst many residents would prefer these homes not to be provided, nevertheless others within our community desperately need them.

 

The Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy are well worth a read for any resident who wishes to better understand the situation some members of our community find themselves in and the reasons the Council must make hard choices. These

Documents are available at: Corporate Plan 2021-2026 | Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (rbwm.gov.uk) Housing strategy | Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (rbwm.gov.uk)

 

Of course, it goes without saying, that it would not be appropriate for the Council to provide public funds to those who wished to undermine the democratic decision of the Council should it choose to adopt the Borough Local Plan on Tuesday 8 February.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Ceri Glen commented that it was known that consultants always gave recommendations and the advice that their clients needed.  He highlighted how dangerous smart motorways had been found out to be recently, despite the previous and wrong advice of Department of Transport consultants. With that in mind he asked if Councillor Coppinger or the council would make a guarantee, in writing, for the residents of the Aldebury estate and future residents of the Spencer’s Farm site that their homes would be safe from flooding, insurable and resalable for the next 20 years, and would he guarantee market rate repurchase if they could note sell or cover the higher insurance premiums due to increased flooding caused by the council and its consultants approving and allowing development in an area already prone to flooding?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that given the complexity of the question, he would ask officers to reply in writing.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: It is unreasonable to expect the Council to make such a guarantee.  However, as stated in our original response, work undertaken by the Council’s flooding consultant confirmed that the site can be developed in a manner which is safe for its lifetime and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.Any planning application received on site AL25 (Spencer’s Farm) will need to be supported by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment.

 

k) Jean Sutherland of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

According to the September Cabinet report “Demand for School Places”, a surplus of school places of 5% in September 2021 could increase to 14% by September 2024. The only area of slight concern is in south-east Maidenhead. So why are you building a primary school in the north of Maidenhead where we already have three primary schools close by?

 

Written response: The Royal Borough has carried out extensive analysis of the likely impact of new housing on demand for new school places, as part of the analysis supporting the Borough Local Plan and the related Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This analysis looked at the longer-term impacts, so that the borough would still be able to meet demand for school places in fifteen- or twenty-years’ time.

 

This work concluded that, at times of high birth rates, the proposed new housing would lead to significant shortfalls of both primary and secondary school places.

 

The strategy for addressing this shortfall involves a mixture of further expansions at our existing schools and new schools, including a primary school within the 'Spencer’s Farm' development (AL25). The Borough Local Plan has identified the potential sites for new schools, giving us options to meet future demand over the longer term.

 

It’s correct that there is no current need for new primary school places in North East Maidenhead, due to low birth rates and reduced movement of new families into the borough. The Royal Borough will not, therefore, be looking to open a new school at Spencer’s Farm in the immediate future. We will continue to review demand for school places annually and will only bring forward proposals to open the school if a shortage of places locally is expected.

 

You can find out more about the school places analysis for the Borough Local Plan on the council’s website: https://www.rbwm.gov.uk/home/schools-and-education/school-organisation-places-and-planning/longer-term-needs-school-places.

 

The Mayor asked the following question on behalf of Jean Sutherland who was not present:

 

'How does your plan to build a school where it’s not needed fit in with the borough’s climate strategy?'

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he would ask officers to provide a written response.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: The Borough Local Plan has a plan period that extends to 2033.  At the time that the plan was submitted, educational forecasts indicated the need for a primary school in north east Maidenhead, but more recently projections show that a new primary school is not required in this area at present.  Nevertheless, we will continue to review demand for school places annually, reserve an area of land on the site and will bring forward proposals for the school if a shortage of places locally is expected later in the plan period. If it is decided that a new school needs to be built, then it would be designed to be as sustainable as possible. 

 

l) Paul Strzelecki of Bisham and Cookham ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

“Duty to cooperate” is a plan legal requirement. An agreed strategic issue in the MOU with Wycombe council of Feb 17 is traffic bottlenecks at Cookham Bridge. Do you believe during the plan making phase that there was sufficient and ongoing cooperation on this issue, what were the specific outcomes and why weren’t they included in examination evidence?

 

Written response: As stated in the Council’s examination note RBWM_076, on 13 February 2017, the Royal Borough and Wycombe District Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) covering a range of strategic plan-making issues including transport (PS/009). The two councils agreed to seek longer term strategic solutions to address (amongst other matters) congestion related to Cookham Bridge.

 

Potential solutions that have been explored since 2017 have included modal shift measures to encourage the use of public transport and walking, strategic route planning to direct traffic away from Cookham Bridge and potential changes to the signals to balance the queues of each side of the bridge. The two Councils have continued to engage constructively on plan-making, including making representations to each other’s emerging Local Plans.

 

In answer to the question, the Council is confident that there was sufficient and ongoing cooperation on this issue. The Inspector states, in paragraph 24 of her report that “the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan” and concludes that the duty to cooperate has been met.The MoU is part of the examination evidence, as is RBWM_076.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Paul Strzelecki commented that Mr Beard, RBEM legal, insisted at the October 2020 hearing, that the obligation ‘duty to cooperate’ ended at the January 2018 submission. The council agreed to cooperate in February 2017. If the council had not met and cooperated during that year the Inspector, by law, would have not been allowed to recommend the plan for adoption. The answer stated that the council cooperated on traffic solutions to take traffic away from Cookham Bridget including walking and public transport and confirmed that no minutes of any meetings existed. However the council was confident there was sufficient and ongoing cooperation on the issue. It was interesting that Buckinghamshire Council replied to a recent Freedom of Information request on the pre-submission issue of traffic that they did not hold regular meetings with RBWM. The Inspector could have asked for a re-hearing based on new evidence. Paul Strzelecki therefore asked how many meetings RBWM actually had on the strategic traffic priority of Cookham Bridge. He asked if it was 10, or 5 or was it zero and failing the duty to cooperate.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he did not have the information; the officers and legal officer would need to provide a response.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: Officers are not aware of any recent meetings held with Buckinghamshire Council specifically on local plan matters although we regularly communicate and have continued to engage constructively on plan-making.  However, the Inspector was satisfied that the Council engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan and concludes that the duty to cooperate was met.  Longer term strategic solutions to issues around traffic and Cookham Bridge will continue to be explored along with investing in alternatives to the car through our Bus Service Improvement Plan and Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.  Wycombe no longer exists as a council due to the Districts and County merging to form a unitary and therefore it will be Buckinghamshire Council that we will engage with as planning applications come forward.

 

 

m) Graham Owens of Pinkneys Green ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

The Plan incorporates our Climate and Environment Strategy. However, RBWM scored a very disappointing 48% in the 325 Councils assessed by the independent Climate Emergency UK, in marked contrast to Wokingham (79%) and Reading (74%). Now that Sustainability is one of three top priorities in our 2021/6 Corporate Plan, how and when will we align this Strategy with our priorities?

 

Written response: Clearly it is disappointing that the scorecard reflects a lower score than some of our neighbouring boroughs but there are also many of our other neighbours who are also scoring much lower. We are looking at the results to see how to improve our plans. Any scorecard-based approach cannot fully reflect the work of the Council and are dependent on the scoring methodology and the interpretation by the assessor.

 

In this case, the scorecard reflects the written plan rather than what has been delivered. The council has been working hard with communities to deliver many of the actions within the plan that will make a real difference in creating a more sustainable borough:

 

-               We have increased the size of the team to provide more resource to deliver the strategy and its actions.

-               We have committed to funding and setting up the Climate Partnership to involve more people in tackling the climate emergency

-               This winter we have already planted over 6000 of the 8000 trees we are planning to plant.

-               We are currently surveying 31 of our buildings to develop heat decarbonisation plans for them to enable the rapid decarbonisation of the council estate.

-               We are currently undertaking heat mapping of the Borough to understand where opportunities may lie to further decarbonise heat.

-               We are helping residents on low incomes to improve the energy efficiency of their homes through money secured from government

Due to the timing of the assessment, we also lost marks that will later be included in our score because of the work we have already done or is in progress. We lost a lot of marks on not including adaptation in our plan. We were clear that our strategy is focused on mitigation, and we would bring forward another plan to deal with adaptation. We have recently moved the Flooding function into our Sustainability and Climate team to better address this issue. Since the climate scorecards were assessed, we have made action on climate change a key pillar of our corporate plan, another area we were marked down.

 

On a positive note, we scored very highly in the community, engagement, and comms section. We recognise this is not an issue the council can tackle alone and communities across the Borough have a key role to play. Only 6 single-tier councils received 9/9 so to receive 8/9 puts us in the top 20 single-tier authorities on the criteria.

 

We are making strong progress and fully expect that in next year’s scorecard, which will mark progress, not just the plans themselves, we will score more highly.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Graham Owens commented that, as he read the written response, Councillor Coppinger agreed that much more needed to be done on environmental sustainability. Work was beginning, but very slowly. The Climate Change Leadership had been approved in September 2021. It set a milestone for establishing the Climate Partnership by 30 November 2021. This had not happened. He asked if any progress had been made and how would it get back on track?

 

Councillor Stimson responded that the Climate Partnership was in a phase of finding members for the board. This included looking at business, schools, civic society and the RBWM CEC to put together a partnership at board level to drive the change. Organisations including Legal and General, schools both public and private, Legoland and the RBWM CEC were involved. Funding of £250,000 would not become available until May 2022, until then any actions needed to be undertaken without funding. The interim sustainability statement was being used by developers therefore some money was coming in for schemes such as decarbonisation projects.  There had been a slow start as officers were busy dealing with both sustainability and flooding, however the staffing resource had now increased.

 

n) Thomas Wigley of Clewer East ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

What assurances can RBWM provide for its residents that it will objectively and properly assess Air Quality Impact reports submitted by Developers as part of their planning application submissions to RBWM.  Does it have enough qualified resources?

 

Written response: Policy EP2 in the Borough Local Plan requires that “Development proposals should show how they have considered air quality impacts at the earliest stage possible; where appropriate through an air quality impact assessment which should include the cumulative impacts”.

 

This may give rise to a need to implement development-specific mitigation to ensure that localised adverse air quality impacts do not occur in the short/medium term.

 

The Environmental Protection (EP) team are consulted on planning applications. The air quality assessment would need to consider the baseline conditions and the impact of the development proposals on air quality. The assessment may include mitigation measures where necessary and the EP officer can recommend planning conditions.

 

The Council can confirm that it has the necessary resources to ensure that this requirement can be met.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Thomas Wigley referred to a report recently published by Transport for New Homes that had found ‘new greenfield housing had become even more car based than before’. The BLP would commit the borough to a significant building programme that would therefore inevitably generate more road traffic pollution. Given that Maidenhead was one big Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), Mr Wigley asked if Councillor Coppinger agreed with him that everyone needed a Maidenhead Great Park to mitigate the aggregate effect arising from all the housing development in the town?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that the reason the council believed the golf club site was right for housing was because it was the closest site across the borough to a major train station and a town which was growing and changing with investment. He fully accepted the position of the AQMA. One proposal was a car free green spine to run north-south though the placemaking area to provide the opportunity to create a new public transport corridor, fast cycle links and safe pedestrian connections.

 

o) George Shaw of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

The Borough Local Plan being considered this evening cites a significant number of Supplementary Planning Documents, most of which are not yet adopted.

 

Please could the Lead Member give a progress update on each of these emerging SPDs, including anticipated adoption timetables, and comment on any risks to decision making whilst these are not in place?

 

Written response: As stated in para 3.8 of the report to Full Council, several new Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will be produced to help deliver the BLP. These will include the Sustainability and Climate Change SPD, Building Height and Tall Buildings SPD, and the South West Maidenhead Development Framework SPD as well as SPDs for Parking, Affordable Housing and the Ascot and Central Maidenhead Placemaking areas.

 

Detailed timetables for all these SPDs are not available at this stage. The delay in the Inspector finalising her Report has had a knock-on effect on the timescales for a number of these SPDs. Now that the Inspector’s report has been received and the plan can be adopted, timetables for the necessary SPDs can be produced.

 

Work has already commenced on several of the SPDs, including the Tall Buildings SPD and the South West Maidenhead SPD. It is likely that these will be published for consultation in Spring 2022. The Sustainability and Climate Change SPD is expected to be completed before the end of 2022.

 

Confidence should be taken from the fact that the purpose of SPDs is to build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan. The BLP, which has been found sound, contains all the detailed policies necessary to ensure appropriate decision making and high-quality outcomes until the SPDs are adopted.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Shaw commented that he could hardly believe that in all the time the BLP had been in development the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) were not ready yet, nor was a specific timetable agreed upon. The BLP stated that some of these documents were to be adopted no later than March. Now the council was saying that consultation on them would hopefully be in the spring. He respectfully disagreed that the BLP included all the necessary detail without these documents in place, otherwise they would not be needed in the first place. He expressed concern at what mistakes come be made as the documents had not been produced in a timely manner. Mr Shaw asked the council to commit the resources both financial and staffing to ensure the anticipated SPDs were available with the utmost urgency.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that yes he could provide that commitment; it was essential the documents were finished as soon as possible and they would be.

 

p) Sarah Bowden of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

 

In October 2019, you said the plan was not perfect for 2019 but once adopted, the council would seek to make amendments relating to biodiversity and sustainable development. Two years later, the clock is ticking. Has this time been spent wisely preparing the Climate and Environment SPD strengthening the Sustainability Position Statement and when will this be tabled for adoption?

 

Written response: The interim sustainability position statement has provided a temporary solution to some of the issues that will be included in the Climate and Environment SPD. This has delivered some success in terms of influencing applications to be more sustainable and reduce emissions and as a result we have secured commitments for over £900k in contributions that will be used to support delivery of the Environment and Climate Strategy with further contributions expected to be secured. There have been delays to the Borough Local Plan adoption and there is also uncertainty about what changes might be made to planning guidance in June when the new building regulations come into force. At this stage our target is to ensure that the SPD is adopted by the end of this year.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Sarah Bowden commented that she presumed the £900,000 mentioned (just £6 per resident) related to monies raised through S106 contributions to the Carbon Offset Fund. This compensated only for the emissions during operation of the properties in question which was on average only half of the total emissions associated with the building. In addition the developer would benefit from the decarbonisation of the grid without even having to lift a finger.  Offsetting should be the very last solution adopted, with the offset in this case resulting in at best 50% of the emissions being compensated for so there was still a net increase in emissions. Sarah Bowden asked if Councillor Johnson agreed that the Council needed to be driving for carbon-negative development and if so how would this be achieved

 

Councillor Johnson responded that he agreed the council needed to be more ambitious in delivering its carbon agenda and needed to push developers harder and further. He highlighted that the council was led by a large extent by government and needed to follow the emerging and changing policy being laid down. As a target he wished for the council to move towards carbon negativity, but that had to be done in a logical, structured, credible and deliverable way.

 

q) Dave Scarbrough of Belmont ward asked the following question of Councillor McWilliams Cabinet Member for Housing, Sport & Leisure, and Community Engagement:

 

The proposed plan results in a 22.5% increase in emissions and lacks details of mitigation measures; no areas are set aside for nature-based solutions or renewable energy provision. How are you going to ensure the housing planned doesn’t make net-zero by 2050 an impossible task and more importantly mitigate against the worst-case scenarios that will impact people across the globe?

 

Written response: Officers do not agree that the plan results in a 22.5% increase in emissions or lacks mitigation measures.

The 22.5% figure arises from the Sustainability Appraisal which was undertaken in 2019. The appraisal assesses a potential impact, stating that ‘The proposed development within the BLPSV-PC could potentially increase local carbon emissions by approximately 22.5%’, but then recognises that the ‘The contents of the BLPSV-PC would be likely to help reduce the adverse impacts of the Plan in relation climatic factors, with policies and site proformas focusing on the integration of green infrastructure.’  Hence, the estimated 22.5% increase is before mitigation considerations are factored in.

Within the Borough Local Plan (BLP) itself, policy SP2 was added to the proposed changes version of the plan to specifically address and mitigate against the issue of climate change. This requires proposals to address several key topics relating to both climate change and its effects. Further to this, whilst no areas are designated specifically for renewable energy provision policy, policy NR5 states that development proposals for the production of renewable energy and associated infrastructure will be supported, should they not cause adverse harm to the area.

 

The BLP also has three designated areas for green infrastructure within the Borough, involving AL15, AL27 and AL28. The site proformas for all three sites share several climate and nature-based requirements, from biodiversity improvements to the retention and enhancement of trees and wildlife areas on site. Almost all of the other site proformas also require tree planting and local biodiversity enhancements.

 

Other policies and initiatives which have arisen since would also serve to mitigate the impacts. These include, but are not limited to, the Council’s Environment and Climate Strategy adopted in December 2020, the Council’s Interim Sustainability Position Statement, the Government’s Net-Zero Strategy, the Government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy and revisions to part L & F of the Building Regulations.

 

Moving forward, the upcoming Sustainability/Climate Change SPD will provide further guidance on climate change issues expanding on the policies set out in the Borough Local Plan and dealing with more specific issues such as carbon emissions, waste recycling, transport, biodiversity and energy.

 

The Mayor asked the following question on behalf of Dave Scarborough who was not present:

 

On average, building a three-bedroom semi-detached home will result in 44 tonnes of CO2 emissions. And that's before someone moves in. How will the forthcoming SPD address embodied carbon? And how many houses will already have had planning approved before the SPD is published? We need net-zero homes now, we cannot afford to wait for trees to grow.

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that in terms of specific policy requirements he would ask officers to respond in writing. However he highlighted that the council would be bringing forward an SPD that would look to deliver policies to achieve what Mr Scarbrough had set out. The council had also adopted the climate change strategy which was taken into account when planning applications were brought forward.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: Embodied carbon refers to the emissions during the construction of a building rather than when it is in use.  The Council is considering how it might introduce a whole life carbon approach and consider embodied emissions within the forthcoming SPD, which will be informed through engagement and consultation.  In the interim we are nevertheless encouraging developers for larger sites to take this approach by highlighting the importance of the matter to the Council and its residents. We would encourage residents and groups to provide similar feedback when developers are undertaking early engagement on schemes.

 

r) Daniel Seris of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

The report commissioned to assess the risk of flooding, conclusions were based on flooding caused by the rain, not rising water from the ground. As flooding is coming from the ground in Spencer’s farm, how do you plan to fix this and make sure it doesn't affect future residents? Are further studies going to take place to assess this issue?

Written response: The Sequential and Exceptions test (BLPSV-PC-030) undertaken by the Council as part of the Examination into the Borough Local Plan provides information not only on flooding from rivers but also from other potential sources such surface water flood risk and susceptibility to groundwater flooding.

Any planning application received proposing development on site AL25 (Spencer’s Farm, Maidenhead) will be subject to full assessment as per national and local flooding policy, including Policy NR1 – Managing Flood Risk and Waterways – of the BLP. Clause 5(d) of Policy NR1 states specifically that, in all cases, development should not itself, or cumulatively with other development, materially cause new or exacerbate existing flooding problems, either on the proposal site or elsewhere.

 

Document RBWM_086 (post-hearing action note re Exception Test for AL25 allocations) describes how the latest flood data results in parts of AL25 falling within Flood Zone 3. As a result, the Council’s flooding consultant undertook Exception Test work. This work confirmed that the site can be developed in a manner which is safe for its lifetime and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

 

The allocation also specifically requires proposed development to provide a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment at the planning stage to ensure that this remains the case with any detailed proposals. Any Flood Risk Assessment would be expected to include an assessment of the flood risk from all sources of flooding for a proposed development, plus an allowance for climate change. Further information on the requirements for the Flood Risk Assessment on this site are detailed in Appendix D of the BLP.

 

In addition, the AL25 site proforma stipulates that any proposed development will need to address potential risks to groundwater and investigate an appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) for the proposals as part of the surface water drainage strategy. The use of infiltration as a potential option for surface water disposal would require a thorough site investigation and risk assessment to demonstrate that the use of infiltration SUDS would not mobilise contaminants which could then pollute groundwater.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Daniel Seris explained that there had been a workshop with the consultant in relation to Spencer’s Farm and when residents had told the consultant that the flooding was coming from the ground rather than the rain he was very surprised. Mr Seris commented that he was not against building as he had children himself and they would need housing. However he asked if everyone knew that the land flooded but this was ignored, how could he trust the council to enable his children to buy a house.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he was delighted that Mr Seris understood that his children would need housing and he would want them to but in the borough.  He understood the concerns in relation to flooding. The EA had a strategic overview of all sources of flooding and worked with the Met Office to provide flood forecasts and warnings. It was for the EA to assess how areas were designated. If the EA produced flood maps that amended the designation of AL25 then the site would need to be reassessed. It was essential that the council took full notice of EA advice and if they said a site was unsuitable for building then it would not be used.

 

 s) Daniel Seris of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

Spencer’s Farm currently has a lot of deer, foxes and other animals that usually eat and live there. Has the impact to those animals' habitats been considered? If so, how and by who?

Written response: The Borough Local Plan (BLP) acknowledges that planning has an important and positive role to play in protecting and enhancing the Borough’s biodiversity, including the conservation of protected species, and helping natural systems to adapt to the impact of climate change.

 

Policy NR2 (3) states that Development proposals shall also avoid the loss of biodiversity and the fragmentation of existing habitats, and enhance connectivity via green corridors, stepping stones and networks. Where opportunities exist to enhance designated sites or improve the nature conservation value of habitats, for example within Biodiversity opportunity Areas or a similar designated area, they should be designed into development proposals. Development proposals will demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity by quantifiable methods such as the use of a biodiversity metric.

 

Regarding Spencer's Farm, careful provision has been made within the BLP to protect the diverse local wildlife in and around the site.

 

Firstly, the site proforma for site AL25 states that any development of the site will be required to conserve and enhance local biodiversity, as well as retaining high/medium quality trees and planting of replacement trees.

 

Furthermore, AL28 to the immediate east of AL25 has been allocated as a green infrastructure site. Any development of the site will be required to deliver significant biodiversity improvements, including along the Greenway Corridor/Strand Water, which is a Local Wildlife Site. Development will also be required to retain the existing area of woodland to the north of the site.

 

Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out at all relevant stages of the plan making process and all have found that Policy NR2 (previously NR3) is anticipated to ensure the ecological value of AL25 is protected and enhanced.

 

Mr Seris confirmed he did not wish to ask a supplementary question.

t) Ian Lester of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

How confident are you that the already busy junction of Aldebury Road and Cookham Road can cope with additional traffic linked to 330 new homes and a primary school?

Written response: The evidence for the local plan was prepared in line with appropriate guidance and is considered appropriate for an assessment of a local plan and the impact of the proposed spatial strategy on transport and local infrastructure. The assessment considered a reasonable worst case for traffic generation which did not take make allowance for the additional investment in sustainable transport expected to come forward because of development and our wider transport strategies.

 

The strategic transport assessment identified a series of junctions that may require improvement because of the overall development coming forward in the plan. At this stage, no improvements were identified as being needed at the Aldebury Road/Cookham Road junction.

 

As part of the planning application process there will need to be a full transport assessment prepared which will consider the impacts of the proposed development on the transport network. This more detailed modelling will identify whether any site-specific improvement or mitigation is required, and this will be secured through an appropriate legal agreement

 

The site proforma requires the development to come forward with a robust travel plan for the residential development and school to reduce car trips from the site.

 

By way of a supplementary question Mr Lester asked, in relation to the transport assessment mentioned, what had changed since 2013 when the highways team expressed significant concern over the site.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that he would ask officers to respond in writing as he did not have the facts in front of him.

 

Written Response provided on 16/2/22: The BLP is supported by an extensive evidence base, including a Strategic Highways Assessment at the Proposed Changes stage (2019).  This indicated that no improvements were needed at the Aldebury Road/Cookham Road junction.   In paragraph 172 of her final Report, the Inspector states that “The oral evidence given at the hearing provided comfort that localised transport/access issues are capable of being addressed”. 

 

 

u) Ian Lester of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

As local residents we all enjoy watching the wildlife that roam Site AL25 - I especially like seeing the herd of deer. Should we build 330 homes on this land what will happen to the wildlife that live on this land? 

Written response: The Borough Local Plan (BLP) acknowledges that planning has an important and positive role to play in protecting and enhancing the Borough’s biodiversity, including the conservation of protected species, and helping natural systems to adapt to the impact of climate change.

 

Policy NR2 (3) states that Development proposals shall also avoid the loss of biodiversity and the fragmentation of existing habitats, and enhance connectivity via green corridors, stepping-stones and networks. Where opportunities exist to enhance designated sites or improve the nature conservation value of habitats, for example within Biodiversity Opportunity Areas or a similar designated area, they should be designed into development proposals. Development proposals will demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity by quantifiable methods such as the use of a biodiversity metric.

 

Regarding Spencer's Farm, careful provision has been made within the BLP to protect the diverse local wildlife in and around the site.

 

Firstly, the site proforma for site AL25 states that any development of the site will be required to conserve and enhance local biodiversity, as well as retaining high/medium quality trees and planting of replacement trees.

 

Furthermore, AL28 to the immediate East of AL25 has been allocated as a green infrastructure site. Any development of the site will be required to deliver significant biodiversity improvements, including along the Greenway Corridor/Strand Water, which is a Local Wildlife Site. Development will also be required to retain the existing area of woodland to the north of the site.

 

Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out at all relevant stages of the plan making process and all have found that Policy NR2 (previously NR3) is anticipated to ensure the ecological value of AL25 is protected and enhanced.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Lester commented that protecting wildlife meant leaving them be, not destroying their habitat, making it smaller or moving them on. The site east of AL25 was not great for wildlife at all. If climate change had taught people anything it was to respect the planet and all species that lived on it, not build on it.

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that it was not possible to guarantee specific types of wildlife would continue to be regularly seen on AL25 after the site was developed. However the measures included in the BLP to conserve and enhance local diversity on all AL25, including provision of a high-quality network of blue and green infrastructure across the site and the retention of the woodland features to the north of the site, were intended to ensure that a suitable habitat was retained for the existing wildlife in the area as far as possible.

v) Mark Smith of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

There are two areas of the field, outside of the river flood zone, that flood due to the rising of the ground water table and not "ponding" as was suggested at a previous meeting. What evidence is there that it possible to prevent flooding from Ground water rising on the site?

 

Written response: The Sequential and Exceptions test (BLPSV-PC-030) produced for the Borough Local Plan Examination provides information not only on flooding from rivers but also from other potential sources such surface water flood risk and susceptibility to groundwater flooding.

 

Any application received proposing development on site AL25 (Spencer’s Farm, Maidenhead) will be subject to full assessment as per national and local flooding policy, including Policy NR1 – Managing Flood Risk and Waterways – of the BLP. Point 5(d) of Policy NR1 states specifically that, in all cases, development should not itself, or cumulatively with other development, materially cause new or exacerbate existing flooding problems, either on the proposal site or elsewhere.

 

Document RBWM_086 (post-hearing action note re Exception Test for AL25 allocations) describes how the latest flood data results in parts of AL25 falling within Flood Zone 3. As a result, the Council’s flooding consultant undertook Exception Test work. This work confirmed that the site can be developed in a manner which is safe for its lifetime and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

 

The allocation also specifically requires a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment at the planning application stage to ensure that this remains the case with any detailed proposals. The Flood Risk Assessment would be expected to include an assessment of the flood risk from all sources of flooding for a proposed development, plus an allowance for climate change. Further information on the requirements for the Flood Risk Assessment on this site are detailed in Appendix D of the BLP.

 

In addition, the AL25 site proforma stipulates that any proposed development will need to address potential risks to groundwater and investigate an appropriate Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) for the proposals as part of the surface water drainage strategy. The use of infiltration as a potential option for surface water disposal would require a thorough site investigation and risk assessment to demonstrate that the use of infiltration SUDS would not mobilise contaminants which could then pollute groundwater.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Mark Smith referred to the flooding on Spencer’s Farm, which was a huge lake in the middle. If it was built on and those houses got flooded, affecting the neighbours currently there, he asked who should they come back to, to hold responsible?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that the site had been tested through the site selection process based on the information on flood risk contained in the WSP sequential and exception test. Further work had been carried out by WSP on AL25 specifically in response to the updated EA flood maps. A note to the Inspector on implications was contained in the report. Based on their study, WSP had provided a suite of recommendations to be included in the flood risk assessment that would be a necessary part of any planning application on site. The proforma for AL25 required the potential risks to groundwater to be addressed at the planning application stage, and the flood risk assessment would also need to demonstrate that the exception test could be passed. If it could not be passed, no building could take place.

 

w) Caroline Lester of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

Parking and transportation – how will the local area cope with the influx of vehicles from an additional 330 homes – not only resident vehicles, but deliveries – which have increased significantly with people working from home and shopping online, the train bridge already has a weight limit – how will we manage congestion around the Cookham road?

 

Written response: The evidence for the local plan was prepared in line with appropriate guidance, including in terms of assessing the impact of the proposed spatial strategy on transport and local infrastructure. The assessment considered a reasonable worst case for traffic generation which did not take make allowance for the additional investment in sustainable transport expected to come forward because of development and our wider transport strategies.

 

The strategic transport assessment identified a series of junctions that may require improvement as a result of the overall development coming forward in the plan. At this stage, no improvements were identified along Cookham Road. As the local transport authority, we will keep this under review to ensure changing transport trends such as online shopping and delivery are not affecting these conclusions. We will continue to assess the need for improvements across the transport network, in line with our corporate plan actions and targets.

 

This matter and other related to the transport evidence base were discussed extensively at the Examination hearings in late 2020 and given due consideration by the Inspector. The Inspector’s Report quite correctly concludes that the approach is robust at a strategic level and that the impacts cannot be considered as severe.

 

The Development Management process will provide further opportunity for modelling and assessment of highways impacts and secure mitigation relating to more detailed proposals at the planning application stage.

 

The site proforma requires the development to come forward with a robust travel plan for the residential development and school to reduce car trips from the site.

 

Caroline Lester expressed concern about the number of councillors involved in the Joint Venture which she felt was a conflict of interest. By way of a supplementary question she asked, in relation to local infrastructure how the borough would be able to cope with the vast amount of properties to be built, particularly given the ageing population. There was no emergency care in Maidenhead; for A&E residents needed to go to Slough and the walk-in centres were in Henley. She asked how would the borough cope with an influx of people.

 

Councillor Carroll responded that the NHS was responsible for all future plans for health services. In terms of their consideration of the BLP, they were already looking at future plans but to take these forward a BLP needed to be in place. Subject to the decision taken at the meeting, the NHS would come forward with plans to service the local population. The same would be the case for education which the local authority had a direct hand in. The council was therefore required to work with the Department for Education and Department for Health and Social Care to ensure necessary provision of services in line with population demand.

 

x) Caroline Lester of Furze Platt ward asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead:

 

What plans are in place to mitigate the effects on the local infrastructure – 330 additional homes (some 600-800 + residents) will put a huge strain on our local infrastructure – Doctors surgeries, dentistry etc which already have waiting lists.

 

Written response: As set out in our corporate plan, delivering quality infrastructure is a priority for the Council. As part of the Borough Local Plan process, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan was prepared which assesses the impact on local infrastructure because of the local plan growth to identify where additional capacity in the school, healthcare and other systems may be required. This allows us to plan future investment in partnership with teams across the council and the NHS to ensure this capacity is in place when it is needed.

 

This is a document that is kept under review and will be regularly updated over the life of the Borough Local Plan to ensure it represents the current infrastructure needs of the borough and its communities.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Caroline Lester commented that there was a vast amount of empty properties and commercial properties that were empty. She asked why they could not be invested in rather than building on the green belt?

 

Councillor Coppinger responded that there were many requirements when the borough was developed, one of which was employment. There were a number of sites that were not being fully utilised that were for commercial purposes. The borough needed to attract new companies to provide jobs. It was therefore not possible to take valuable employment space, even if currently empty, to be used for residential development. If houses were unoccupied he agreed the council needed to understand why this was the case. However this would still not meet the housing need going forward. There was no choice but to use the site in the BLP.

 

The meeting adjourned for five minutes; it restarted at 8.17pm.