To consider the Part I minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 19 and 27 June 2017.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2017 be approved, subject to the amendments to the following paragraphs, as requested by Councillor Majeed:

‘Councillor Majeed stated that he was very concerned that councillors had only been given five minutes to speak on one of the most discussed documents that had hit the RBWM. He said that he was representing the issues and concerns of the residents of Oldfield and also the constituents of the Royal Borough who had been let down by their councillors.

The BLP in its current form needed to be stopped because it would be thrown out by the Inspector and the council had the opportunity now to address the concerns and options before the plan was submitted. Residents were not against building or affordable housing; they just wanted a BLP that would complement the borough and keep the character of its towns and villages.  All were for a BLP resulting from a consultation with residents and neighbouring boroughs, had all options considered, was not a shot-gun BLP and had conferred with other boroughs further afield such as Hastings, Brighton, and Birmingham etc. The Regulation 18 consultation had come out over Christmas when people were focused on their families. The response was just 1% of residents; a large numberof responses were from developers in support of a ‘Developer’s Charter’.

He asked why Councillors who wished to vote against the BLP and could not make the meeting not be given a proxy vote due to again a busy holiday period? He stated that residents were concerned that consultations and meetings were being carried out over periods when there would be the least amount of input.

There were sections in Appendix F that referenced consultations that had not been carried out, for example highways modelling, so councillors were voting on something that they were not altogether clear about.

He understood that the plan had been changed earlier in the year, yet in its current state the people had not been able to hold it to account.He asked how it was possible to go from Regulation 18 to Regulation 19 with completely different documents? The plan in its current state would fail.He asked why had the council not reduced the housing targets set by the Objectively Assessed Need andwhether all options, including satellite villages had been considered? When one of the respected societies in Maidenhead had suggested that new settlements may be an answer, they were told these were not being considered. He asked had all options been considered? No, was the answer at the end of the previous week from one of the senior planning officers.

He felt that no plan was better than a bad plan.  The voices of residents had not been heard. The request to ask questions at the meeting had been denied and an e-petition with over 1600 signatures had been rejected. Members had now politicised officers and forced them to adopt a one-sided approach. The RBWM tweets had shown this; words like North Korean propaganda had been used. He said that he would not say who was being referred to as Kim Yong. He asked Members to vote against Regulation 19 and talk and listen to residents through a Regulation 18.’

ii)            The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017 be approved.