*Item 1

17/02409/FULL

Queensgate House

14 - 18 Cookham Road

Maidenhead

Change of use from B1 (Offices) to C3 (Residential) at No.18 Queensgate House to provide a single townhouse and a new mansard roof forming part of the townhouse, 1 x 1 bed flat and 1 x 2 bed flat at No.14-18 Queensgate House.

Councillor Kellaway put forward a motion to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Hunt.

The PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

*Item 2

17/02230/FULL

Lowbrook Academy  The Fairway Maidenhead

SL6 3AS

Proposed two storey detached building to accommodate 4 additional classrooms and sports hall.

Councillor Sharp put forward a motion to defer and delegate the application. This was seconded by Councillor Kellaway. This was subject to the changes in the Panel Update and to secure a satisfactory travel plan prior to the application being approved.

The PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Item 3

17/02224/FULL

Land Adjacent

24 South Road Maidenhead

Construction of 6 x 1bedroom apartments and alterations to road layout (approved under 16/00552).

Councillor Smith put forward a motion to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Sharp. This was subject to a condition be added to use obscure glazing minimum level three.

The PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

*Item 4

17/02124/FULL

Colonnade

High Street Maidenhead

SL6 1QL

Demolition of The Colonnade.

Councillor Wilson put forward a motion to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Kellaway.

The PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(Speakers: The Panel was addressed by Kevin Scott, Agent.)

*Item 5

17/01726/FULL

Land West of Crown Lane Including Part Hines Meadow Car Park And La Roche And The Colonade High Street Maidenhead

Demolition of the Colonnade and redevelopment of land to the north of Chapel Arches to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 182 apartments, 605qm commercial space, 1030sqm retail and restaurant use (classes A1 and A3), the creation of basement car parking; the erection of a new footbridge over the York Stream and the replacement of the existing vehicular bridge to the existing car park: the creation of new pedestrian links, landscaping and alterations to waterways to create new public realm.

Councillor Kellaway put forward a motion to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Smith.

The PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY that the application be APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(Speakers: The Panel was addressed by Kevin Scott, Agent.)

Item 6

17/00619/FULL

Hardings Farm

Hills Lane

Cookham

Maidenhead

Three detached dwellings following demolition of existing stables and equestrian storage buildings.

Councillor Hunt put forward a motion to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Beer.

A named vote was carried out. Five councillors voted in favour for the refusal (Beer, Bullock, Hunt, Kellaway and Mills). Three councillors voted against (Sharp, Smith and Wilson).

The Panel voted that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed change in levels and introduction of 3 buildings all over 6m in height would visually have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing single storey development on site. As such the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In the absence of any VSC which would clearly outweigh this harm to the Green Belt and the harm identified in reason 2, as detailed below, the proposal is contrary to Paragraph 87 and 89 of the NPPF.      

2.    The proposed form of development including changes to the levels of the site and loss of trees and vegetation would result in the development appearing unduly prominent when viewed from the east. Furthermore the associated residential paraphernalia including lighting would result in the site appearing incongruous to the detriment of the characteristic rural landscape. As such the proposal is contrary to LP policies H10 and DG1(points 11) and core principle 5 of the NPPF.

(Speakers: The Panel was addressed by Mike Smith, Objector, Dick Scarff, Cookham Society and Matt Taylor, Agent.)