Cabinet considered the report regarding the stakeholder masterplan documents for Spencer’s Farm.

Cllr Coppinger reported that he was a member of the Maidenhead Planning Committee and as there would be an application on this site he left the meeting during the consideration of this item and did not vote.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport informed Cabinet that the report explained the adopted Borough Local Plan requirement for the preparation of Stakeholder Masterplan Documents and summarised the process and outcomes specifically in relation to the Stakeholder Masterplan Document for Spencer’s Farm, Maidenhead.

The BLP Policy QP1 introduced a requirement for the preparation of stakeholder masterplans.  Consultation on the scheme proposals originally commenced in 2017 prior to the submission of the adopted BLP. Various meetings and exhibition events

took place in 2017/18 as detailed in the SMD document.

Further stakeholder and community engagement was carried out in 2021 in the form of webinars and workshops, with a three week public consultation taking place in August 2021.

Barton Willmore organised a four-week community consultation on the draft SMD in April 2022. A letter was sent to 1,002 local addresses around the Spencer’s Farm site.  51 completed sets of comments were received and were included within the report.  The site would be in line with our policies that included affordable housing, three entrances, tree planting, open space, a play area and walking and cycling provision and linkage.

The Chairman reminded Cabinet that this was a masterplan stake holder document and not a planning application.

The Cabinet Member for Digital Connectivity, Housing Opportunity, Sport and Leisure informed that this showed the importance of the BLP and that any development on the site would comply with the council’s policies.  There would be 142 affordable housing units with 59 being social housing.  He asked for clarification on what would be happening with regards to the football pitch.  The Cabinet Member informed that the football pitch was on a adjoining site but discussions were ongoing about improving the facility and maybe incorporating it with the school.

Mr Sharma addressed Cabinet and gave a history of his and the fellow ward councilors efforts to make sure that the site was not included for development in the BLP.  He was against development on the site and had managed to get it removed as a development site from the emerging BLP.  Following the 2019 local election he said that the new liberal democratic ward councilors did not continue to fight to get this site out of the BLP and this lack of foresight had resulted in the site being included in the adopted BLP and thus this report was before Cabinet.  He asked for it to be rejected.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport said that the BLP had been adopted and this site had been allocated for development.  The details of what development would be on the site would come via the planning process.

Mr Hill disagreed what Mr Sharma had said about the Liberal Democrat ward members.  He also said that paragraph 5.2 said that the applicant would be submitting a planning application once this report had been approved, but an application had already been submitted.  He also said that the report mentioned that the council’s officers still had outstanding issues that had not been resolved; he asked what they were.  Mr Hill also raised concern about flooding he mention that Cookham PC had concerns on this issue, that parts of the site were designated as flood plans and that there had been little mention of flood risk in this document.  He asked if there should have been more focus or if this would be addressed at the planning stage.

The Chairman mentioned that the Council had no control over when planning applications could be submitted. 

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport said that the application submitted was an outline planning regarding access and land use.  The points made about urban design and flooding would be dealt with during any planning application process.

Cllr Del Campo mentioned that Cllr McWilliams had made reference to the developer maintaining the council’s policies but she said a developer had not yet been appointed.  She also said that the report mentioned consultation with local residents but she had not met a single resident who had agreed with this.  With regards to flooding she was concerned that this had not been addressed as there were level 1, 2 and 3 flood zones on the site but they were told this would be dealt with during the planning process.  She questioned if this document was acceptable.  Cllr Del Campo also questioned access to the site where local residents had mentioned an emergency vehicle would have difficulty accessing the site and maneuvering within it.  She said that this document should be deferred for further consultation.

The Chairman said that Cabinet were not sitting as the planning authority and detailed planning applications would be dealt with via the planning committee.  The planning inspector as part of the BLP adoption had concluded that the site was sound.

Resolved unanimously:  that Cabinet notes the report and:

i) Approves the Spencer’s Farm Stakeholder Masterplan Document as

an important material consideration for Development Management

purposes.