Housing development access changes at Maidenhead Golf Club, Maidenhead

The site and surroundings

The site is a 54.18-hectare golf course with existing accesses, a public right of way, trees and housing around its boundaries.

“The site as existing comprises land which only members of the Golf Club, and their visiting guests, have access to and there is no implied or given public access around the site, save for the extent limited to the existing PROWs only. The site therefore does not comprise designated public open space.”

“In addition to the Ancient Woodland at Rushington Copse, and to the north of the Golf Club House, there are a considerable number of trees across the site including along the boundaries. There are several clusters across the site as part of the landscaped golf course environment.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the changes acceptable because they retained the approved development principles, improved pedestrian and cyclist movement, and caused no significant demonstrable harm.

“A full assessment in terms of highways considerations are set out in the subsequent sections of this report; however, no objection has been received from either the Local Highways Authority and National Highways and the development would result in improved sustainability benefits for users of Harvest Hill Road.”

“The previously approved arrangements which permitted a basic T junction arrangement, struggled to deliver these wider pedestrian and cyclist first aspirations. Since the grant of planning approval 24/00091/OUT further developmental works have been undertaken by the Project Centre which has now provided more certainty over the wider extent of the works.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Five letters objected, while consultees raised no objection or supported the access changes, subject to detailed highway design and safety controls.

“ATE are supportive of proposed changes to each access junction. It is considered that the updated designs would better prioritise safe and convenient movements by pedestrians and cyclists, and positively impact driver behaviour around each access to the site. Section 10 Environment al Protection I refer to the above-mentioned planning application and would confirm that, Environmental Protection have no objections.”

“The final design shall be secured through a Section 278 and Section 38 Agreement, as appropriate ● The detailed design must demonstrate safe and efficient operation of the accesses, including vehicle tracking (notably for a 12m bus, or alternative service vehicles as may be required by the operator), interaction with the proposed crossing, and the impact on Harvest Hill Road ● The scheme shall be subject to an independent Road Safety Audit in accordance with GG119, with…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Residents raised concerns about overlooking, building heights, trees, biodiversity, traffic, noise, infrastructure and the loss of green space.

“No trees have been retained, only “Open Space”. This will have a clear impact on our privacy as we will be significantly overlooked by the development properties at the higher elevation (we only have a few meters of garden to the border). This has not been considered in the current planning. In original communications the tree line was to be retained. Please consider retaining the trees along the border as a requirement for the development planning approval.”

“Officer Response: The proposed building heights would comprise an upper parameter against which subsequently development would need to be considered. This would be subject to consideration under the specific latter Reserved Matters applications. The development would result in the loss of significant green space, mature trees, and wildlife habitat, causing lasting harm to the landscape and environmental quality of the area.”

Officer report

Public speakers

The Committee heard from an objector and the applicant.

The committee vote

Councillor Devon Davies proposed granting permission, the Chair seconded the motion, and the named vote carried with one abstention.

“Councillor D Davies proposed a motion to grant planning permission, in line with officer recommendations, for the reasons listed in section 14 of the main report and the updated conditions within the committee update. This was seconded by the Chair.”

“APPROVED: To grant planning permission, in line with officer recommendations, for the reasons listed in section 14 of the main report and the updated conditions within the committee update.”

Minutes