Residents are invited to make suggestions on agenda items for future forum meetings and ask any questions that may have.

Sue asked about the projected final cost for the road resurfacing outside Henry VIII Gate at Windsor Castle. Uncertain about the answer, the Chair suggested that the answer could be investigated.

Sue elaborated by wondering if the Council believed the project had been a worthwhile and justified expenditure. While it was a historic decision, Councillor A. Tisi believed that much of the costs had been paid for by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). She invited John Bowden, as a former RBWM Councillor, to explain as the project was decided under his watch.

As far as he was aware, John Bowden explained that the Local Enterprise Board, which was funded by central government, provided £1 million to the costs, with £300,000 added from the community investment levy (Section 106).

Sue then asked whether there was a particular justification for spending money for the block paving near the Henry VIII Gate. John Bowden replied that this part of a necessity for security outside Windsor Castle, in addition to the barriers at Park Road, Sheet Street, Thames Street and Victoria Street, for the changing of the guard and people congregating outside the Castle. He referred to the terror attacks in 2018 (e.g., Nice, France) which involved the assailant driving a vehicle into crowds. He highlighted that this was a national decision and that this was in a conservation area of national heritage.

While understanding of the barriers, Sue reiterated her query on the expenditure of road refurbishment in contrast to a less expensive solution, stating that the development had been going on for months and had caused disruption. She felt that this had been an “awful over-expenditure” of a development which could have been enhanced in a less expensive way.

John Bowden countered that he was informed by an infrastructure officer that the subsurface needed special attention whereby the drains, water works, and electricity cables were underneath. He added that senior individuals had made certain decisions which influenced the development, including a certain approach in securing the area as well as the Windsor Castle requesting that a certain material.

Sue then conveyed that it was “peculiar” that the road was laid with bricks, followed by three-to-four square feet being lifted out to install the barriers. She asked whether the barriers could have been installed first and then the bricks be laid. She also heard that the cost was £5 million and then asked where the addition money came from on top of the Borough’s original £1.3 million. The Chair suggested that the total costs could be investigated.*

*Post-meeting update: The whole project was £2.4 million, jointly funded between the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and RBWM with Castle Hill providing the bulk of this finance.

Nigel Griffin stated that there was a large area of Windsor which had been underutilised in terms of development for seven to eight years. He asked whether the inhabitations to development of this area was caused by planning or by developers. After receiving clarification from Nigel Griffin that the aforementioned area was the site off Alma Road, Councillor Wilson responded that there was a planning application which had been validated and that there was another application being prepared for (though not in pre-planning stage). He speculated that the developers rather than the Planning Department were the cause.

Nigel Griffin then asked if something could be done, such as place pressure on the developers. Councillor A. Tisi informed that there was a public session at the Old Court where the developers had new plans which they were seeking to submit for a very large development, including housing for over-65s. She believed that the original planning permission was granted on appeal due to its unpopularity amongst locals, but this then had fallen away and had likely expired as this took place before Covid (pre-2020). She added that, while it had been stalled, developers would develop when they had the money and the will to do so.

Ian Hague, a resident, commented that the current plan was approved on appeal and the work had begun, but there had been no major development in the last few years, stating that this slow process was appalling. He added that new developers had come forward with alternative plans which would either go through the Old Courts or the Planning process. He stated that they would include an extra floor which would obscure green spaces.

Councillor A. Tisi mentioned that applications could be found on the Planning Portal, and that residents could submit comments. Then the large developments would be put forward to the Windsor Development Management Committee (Planning) where parish councils, relevant bodies and residents could make comments and make representations.

John Bowden explained that the previous Imperial House had been demolished, which then left a vacant site that was then purchased by a freeholder, who then submitted a planning application in 2015 for three blocks of flats and a 7-900-foot office block. This was turned down by the Planning committee and then went to appeal. After around two years, he explained, permission was granted, in which 2017 was the year permission was granted and the developers had three years to do the development. He mentioned that a supplementary application for maintenance was added, extended the permission for an additional three years. Then the site was sold to another developer, who then notified at the Old Courts that they wished to develop several blocks of residential accommodation which was under the auspices of restrictions on whether any SIL money was being used to provide this because it was an age-related property.

John Bowden then informed that the site of the car park was seemingly purchased, and then an application was submitted for the development of four houses. Despite objections from local residents, it was approved. He then stated that barriers appeared between Vansittart Road and Alma Road which were then knocked down due to a mysterious developer buying the land. He speculated that it would probably be used as an access road.

Councillor Price raised awareness that there was a consultation on supported bus services on the RBWM website. She stated that there was a proposal that there would not be bus services in north-east and south-west of Dedworth and Vale Road. She recommended to spread the word and take part in the survey.

While appreciative of the response to the consultation being provided, Councillor W. Da Costa reiterated his request for an officer to attend the Forum to present and to then answer questions behind the context behind the response and how concerns from residents in regard to aircraft noise could be pushed forward.