Comments on Application 26/00143/FULL  The demolition of the existing pair of semi-detached houses (33 and 35 Forlease Rd) and their replacement with a new two to three storey residential building of 12 flats of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms.

 We approve of the proposal to include 3-bedroom flats as part of the development, as these are in short supply. However, the flat roof is not sympathetic with the pitched roofs of other buildings opposite and to the south. Whilst such an apartment block does not look totally out of place in the proposed location, this should not be taken to infer that such an application would be acceptable if built among a row of semi-detached houses and not at the end of a row.

A particular concern is the allocation of only 0.5 parking spaces per apartment (6 in total). A similar development opposite (13/01958/FULL) has 1 space per apartment allocated. If any reduction is proposed, the applicant would need to demonstrate that there are surplus parking spaces that are unused in this complex (a good time to check this would be in the evenings). Although the draft Parking SPD has not yet been finalised, following this would require 14 spaces as it lies in zone 2a (4 for the 2no. 3-bedroom apartments, 1 for each of the other 10). However, the current parking standard would require 12 spaces. The emerging Neighbourhood Plan is expected to be endorsed by a referendum on 19th March 2026, having already been cleared by an inspector and approved by the Council. If this development is considered to be in the town centre, this would require 12 parking spaces, and if outside, 14 spaces. However, policy GA-2 also states, “All apartment blocks should, in addition, have sufficient additional unallocated spaces for visitors, servicing or specialist needs such as mobility scooters”. To achieve this would require another two spaces in addition to those in the previous calculations.

The roof garden details are misleading. 3D drawing D.PR.0.1.2 shows a roof garden but omits the access for stairs. As a result, the view in the top left corner is totally inaccurate. The seating area and planters leave little room to do anything except sit. The amenity areas are insufficient, especially given that 3-bedroom apartments may have young children. Policy DE-3: Liveable buildings in the Neighbourhood Plan defines the requirements for balcony sizes and amenity space. This proposal is non-compliant.

A developer's guide (issued by RBWM in December 2005) states in para 4.6.5. In addition to the quantitative standard, the Council has adopted an accessibility standard of 400 metres. This is considered to be a realistic distance that people will be prepared to walk to informal open spaces and is based on the standard set by the National Playing Field Association (NPFA). Since then, no new SPD replaces this, so unless there are subsequent guidelines that take precedence, the recommendations are still deemed to be valid. There are no suitable play areas in this application, nor in the many other new nearby apartments in, or close to, Moorbridge Road, which have been approved in the last year or two. The nearest play area is in Kidwells Park, Registered Charity No. 272102 approximately 600m or more away, which requires multiple road crossings and navigating the town centre in order to reach it. The play area here is likely to be insufficient for the many new apartments recently constructed in the area. Section 106 contributions must provide for a new, more local play area, possibly to be situated in Maidenhead Town Moor, close to the subway from Moorbridge Road under the A4 (Bridge Road).

The BLP and Sustainability SPD require an improvement in biodiversity, but this has not been achieved. The proposed development will produce an increase in surface water run-off, which needs to be attenuated (see flood report section 5.10). Rainwater planters have been proposed as a SuDS measure, which, if situated where indicated and as shown on the drawings, are unlikely to have any effect. No space has been allocated for rainwater storage and emptying such storage into sewers (e.g., rainwater butts, connected to drains with valves). The proposal fails the existing BLP policy NR2 bullet point 3 and 2024 NPPF paragraphs 187 and 193. It would also fail the Neighbourhood Plan policy BI-3. Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the RBWM Sustainability SPD nor with the Neighbourhood Plan policy CL-1 regarding net zero development.

The existing pavement (footpath) along the east side of Forlease Road is very narrow, and two people (one carrying shopping bags) are unable to pass without stepping out into the road. Any new developments should enable the footpath frontage to be 2m wide. Manual for Streets (Dept for Transport) and local authority standards require a minimum width of 2m to allow two wheelchairs to pass. NPPF section 136 states, “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined”. As much of this section of Forlease Road is ripe for redevelopment, unless this guidance is followed early on, this opportunity will be lost when future development takes place.

A separate issue has been raised by RBWM regarding the lack of access for waste collection.

NPPF section 129 d) states “the desirability of maintaining an area's prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change”. All the other neighbouring residential properties bar one are set back some distance from the road with gardens or driveways, whereas the proposed development is totally out of character, without sufficient space for a reasonably sized bush, let alone a tree, between the frontage and the road. Unfortunately, an office block next door, Acadia House, built in 1989 under different guidelines, has set an example which should not be repeated.

It is quite apparent that the applicant has tried to squeeze more apartments into the available space than can realistically be accommodated. This does not lead to an improvement in many respects; it does not meet the sustainability, parking, and sense of place benefits (QP1) that the BLP, related SPDs, and the Neighbourhood Plan seek to address. A more modest proposal, such as 8 apartments, might be able to achieve the stipulated requirements for this site. Somewhat suspect financial viability calculations should not be the primary criterion for this crucial site, which will establish the blueprint for future development along Forlease Road.

  Back To Listing