a)    Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Oldfield Ward housing growth is set to spiral from 5,500 to 9,500 dwellings, a 72% increase in 15 years under the Borough Local Plan, more than any other ward.  What special provision will be made for Maidenhead Town Centre from the recently published infrastructure analysis funds to avoid gridlock, parking chaos, lack of schooling and doctors etc?

b)     Councillor Hill will ask the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

When Oldfield School was proposed on Braywick Park a roundabout was deemed necessary at the entrance on Braywick Road.  Looking at the popular times of use of the existing Leisure Centre it is clear that they coincide with morning and particularly evening traffic peaks. Why is no roundabout being proposed?

(The Member responding has up to 5 minutes to address Council. The Member asking the question has up to 1 minute to submit a supplementary question. The Member responding then has a further 2 minutes to respond.)

a)    Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning and Health:

Oldfield Ward housing growth is set to spiral from 5,500 to 9,500 dwellings, a 72% increase in 15 years under the Borough Local Plan, more than any other ward.  What special provision will be made for Maidenhead Town Centre from the recently published infrastructure analysis funds to avoid gridlock, parking chaos, lack of schooling and doctors etc?

Councillor Coppinger responded that he wished to clarify some points. The question referred to growth ‘spiralling’. By Councillor Coppinger’s calculations the growth was 4.4% over the period, which included the 2000 dwellings on the golf course. Secondly the question stated that the growth was in Oldfield. Following the report of the Electoral Commission a new ward structure would come in to place, therefore Oldfield would not be growing. Councillor Coppinger questioned whether Councillor Hill’s calculations included the dwellings he had recently approved by overturning the officer’s recommendation that a site be kept for employment.

The Council had planned growth through the Borough Local Plan process and was required to demonstrate what the infrastructure capacity was currently and then calculate what may be required for the future to 2033.  This was all set out in the infrastructure delivery plan (IDP)which was first produced in 2016 and had now been updated twice, most recently at the end of 2017.  It was available on the borough website.  The IDP had been produced working with colleagues in highways, education, health and social care and that work continued, it was a live document to be updated continually.  Sat alongside was evidence which underpinned the plan and the IDP including the recent transport modelling.

In Maidenhead the Council was also proposing 251 temporary parking places whilst redevelopment takes place which would ensure no net loss.  After that development around 1,300 permanent new public parking spaces for use by residents, retail, local businesses and the Elizabeth Line would be provided with further private car parking to support individual development schemes, subject to planning permission.  Further detailed transport modelling work was currently underway to ensure that the pinch points and local junction improvement works already committed, along with the missing links project for the station, were not in conflict with future development proposals from the private sector.

Councillor Coppinger stated that this was not about special provision. The development expected was planned development and the IDP responded to it; the planned development would not be able to happen if there was not supporting infrastructure; you could not have one without the other.  The Council would continue to pursue funding sources to assist in bringing forward infrastructure in line with development and the capital programme in future years would align to the IDP through an infrastructure investment strategy

Councillor Hill confirmed he did not have  supplementary question.

b)     Councillor Hill asked the following question of Councillor Bicknell, Lead Member for Highways and Transport:

When Oldfield School was proposed on Braywick Park a roundabout was deemed necessary at the entrance on Braywick Road.  Looking at the popular times of use of the existing Leisure Centre it is clear that they coincide with morning and particularly evening traffic peaks. Why is no roundabout being proposed?

Councillor Bicknell referred to the answer he had already given in writing, detailed on page 25 of the agenda.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hill stated that he had read the answer but had found it to be inadequate because there was a clear peak of traffic to the leisure centre between 4.30pm-7.00pm each day, which would coincide with the rush hour. With this volume of traffic it was an accident waiting to happen. The answer was not thorough enough or analysed the traffic enough. He was asking for a second opinion and for that to be published to all Members.

Councillor Bicknell responded that each planning application was considered on its own merits. The Borough Local Plan was supported by the IDP which assessed the road network and identified improvements to be delivered to support the development.