To receive an update on the Neighbourhood Plan from the Chair of the Neigbourhood Forum.

Andrew Ingram, Co-Chair of the Neighbourhood Forum, gave a presentation on the Maidenhead Neighbourhood Plan. He started off explaining that the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) put in place planning policies to guide future development. NPs set policies to guide developments, decide whether planning applications were approved and propose areas for development. He added that NPs affect development plans as developers looked at NP policy before making planning applications. Andrew Ingram added that an NP was not a talking shop, a complaints procedure, a way of challenging higher-level policy, a way to implement specific projects, or a way to stop development.

Andrew Ingram then explained how NP policies worked. He stated that if someone wanted to build something and it was not permitted development, there was the option of a pre-application discussion with RBWM Planning, then the individual would submit a planning application, and RBWM planning would review whether the application met national, RBWM and NP policies.

Andrew Ingram showed a map which illustrated that Maidenhead was the only area in the Borough which was neither a designated area or an area which had an adopted plan, and therefore it was the focus of development. Because of this, an NP was needed. An application for Maidenhead to be a designated area in 2019 was rejected.

With the refusal of the application, Andrew Ingram then informed that the Neighbourhood Forum had two main objectives: further dialogue with RBWM Planning to formulate an application; and engage with Maidenhead residents. He stated that RBWM Planning were concerned that Maidenhead was not a “logical or appropriate” area for a Neighbourhood Plan. He stated that he asked the Neighbourhood Forum’s 500+ social media followers whether a plan was appropriate for Maidenhead, to which an overwhelming majority said ‘yes’. After some time, Maidenhead was given designated status.

The Neighbourhood Forum then sought to obtain feedback from residents. One approach was through a public workshop in March 2023 to allow residents to convey ideas. From this, Climate Change and Biodiversity had become a primary area of concern, followed by housing and ‘getting about’ being strong areas of interest. Following the workshop, the Neighbourhood Forum collated the ideas and filtered them based on whether they were compatible with the National Policy Framework (NPF) and Borough Local Plan (BLP), and whether they were planning issues.

The topics from the public workshop were also categorised into 6 Topic groups: Biodiversity, Climate, Housing, Bult Heritage, Design and Getting Around. Each of these Topic groups had group leaders and a small number of people working on them.

On the status of the Plan, Andrew Ingram informed that the Neighbourhood Plan was currently developing proposals by making policy proposals and reviewing them. The next steps were to review a draft by publishing the draft policies, consult on them and review the feedback. This would be followed by the submission of a plan with a formal RBWM consultation process, an independent examination and any modifications. After this, a public referendum would take place; and if approved, it would become the Neighbourhood Plan and would affect future planning applications. It was hoped that this would be completed in the next couple of years.

Councillor Moriarty commented that it was not clear on what the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan in Maidenhead was, elaborating that the NP did not encompass certain areas which many would label as being in the Maidenhead area, such as Cox Green. He suggested that the project’s scope should be made clearer. Ian Rose, Co-Chair of the Neighbourhood Forum, informed that Cox Green was a civil parish while the other wards in Maidenhead were unparished, and it was prohibited to place these areas under the same Neighbourhood Plan. He also informed that Cox Green was developing its own Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Moriarty wondered if there was a further way to ensure residents were aware of the Plan’s remit and therefore whether it affected them or not. Andrew Ingram replied that one method was to continuously show the NP map to residents.

Councillor Baskerville speculated that Maidenhead may have missed out in having a true identity and being part of the process to deal with such matters. He contrasted this with civil parishes which he stated had their own identities and parish councils to speak up for them and deal with local matters; meanwhile, Maidenhead’s local matters were handled directly by the Borough authority. Councillor Baskerville commented that the Neighbourhood Plan would fill this gap and wondered if the Neighbourhood Forum Co-Chairs agreed with that the Plan was a good step forward. Ian Rose agreed with this.

Councillor Reynolds asked for advice on how he should explain the Neighbourhood Plan to residents as a Councillor, particularly as some residents may have critical views of the planning process. Andrew Ingram advised that that Councillors could focus on informing that there would be a third localised layer of policy to planning permission rather than focus on the Planning Department. Ian Rose stated that residents could have their say during the consultations and engagements on the formulation of the Plan.

Councillor Shaw asked whether there were any ideas which the Neighbourhood Forum were excited or passionate about. Ian Rose stated that he would be keen for a good, integrated cycling network and better disability access for wheelchair users. Andrew Ingram conveyed that he had an interest with Built Heritage: the preservation of historic buildings and areas. He hoped to compile a Local Heritage List to identify and further protect certain historic buildings and areas from being demolished.