48 apartments at Site of Highway House, Norreys Drive, Maidenhead
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Windsor And Maidenhead Maidenhead Development Management Committee on 21 Jul 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed two five-storey buildings containing 48 two-bedroom apartments, parking, cycle storage, landscaping and amenity space.
“This application (26/00780/FULL) seeks planning permission for the erection of two five-storey buildings (Block A and Block B) which would be 15.235 metres high. The proposed development would provide 48 x 2-bedroom apartments with 24 apartments in each of the two buildings and 44 car parking spaces located at ground level, parking for resident and visitor bicycles and a service area, together with landscaping and amenity space.”
“The existing access point off Norreys Drive would be retained and revised internally to provide a 5.5 metres wide road into the site.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site is a former office site and current car park within a business area, beside commercial buildings and near residential buildings.
“The application site comprises an L-shaped parcel of land which is the site of the former Highway House, located on the south side of Norreys Drive, Maidenhead. The site has an area of approximately 0.2 hectares and is currently in use as a car park in association with the adjoining office building following the demolition of Highway House in 2011.”
“The key site designations and constraints are listed below: • The site lies within the settlement of Maidenhead. • Norreys Drive, Maidenhead Business Area (Concord Business Park). • The site lies wholly in Flood Zone 1, and it is considered to be at low risk of fluvial flooding.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement, finding no significant or demonstrable adverse impacts outweighing the scheme’s benefits.
“Any identified shortcomings within the proposed development have been finely balanced against the abovementioned benefits of the development which are not considered to be outweighed Officers do not consider any shortcomings significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Indeed, the benefits of this proposal, subject to recommended conditions and the signing of the legal agreement.”
“The proposal is compliant with the NPPF. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the recommended conditions and Section 106 Agreement.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
No letters or other-party comments were received, while consultees generally raised no objections subject to conditions, agreements or further confirmation.
“Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, subject to a surface water condition. Section 10 RBWM Highways DC Team Awaiting confirmation from the RBWM Highways DC Team that they have no objection, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to secure the off-site highway works.”
“Section 10 RBWM Sustainability Officer No objection subject to condition and the proposal complying with Policy CL-1 of the Maidenhead Neighbourhood Plan. Section 10 RBWM Ecology Officer No objections subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to secure monitoring costs and ensure delivery of the biodiversity enhancements. Section 10”
Officer report
What local people said
Nine occupiers were notified and the application was advertised, but no letters of comment were received.
“No letters of comment were received in relation to the application.”
Officer report
The committee debate
A councillor proposed granting permission in line with the officer recommendation, adding an internal air-conditioning condition and a highways informative.
“Councillor Singh proposed a motion to grant planning permission in line with Officer’s Recommendations, and with the additional condition surrounding internal air conditioning (PM2.5), and an informative note surrounding highways decisions.”
“This motion was seconded by Councillor Martin.”
Minutes
The vote and decision
A named vote carried the grant-permission motion, and the committee authorised permission subject to completing a Section 106 Agreement within six months.
“AGREED: The Maidenhead Development Management Committee authorised that the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission on the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement, within 6 months of the Committee’s Resolution.”
“Motion to defer the application (Motion) Councillor Mark Howard For Councillor Mandy Brar For Councillor Gurch Singh For Councillor Jack Douglas For Carried Grant Planning Permission (Motion) Councillor Mark Howard For Councillor Siân Martin For Councillor Mandy Brar For Councillor Gurch Singh For Councillor Jack Douglas Against Carried…”
Minutes
Sources
- Windsor And Maidenhead Maidenhead Development Management Committee minutes, 21 July 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Windsor And Maidenhead's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Windsor And Maidenhead
- Date
- Tuesday 21 July 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Windsor And Maidenhead committee decisions →
This committee's year
12 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.