Comments on Application 24/02717 – Land at Spencers Farm, Summerleaze Rd.

Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale pursuant to outline permission 22/01537 for up to 330 dwellings and land for a primary school with associated landscaping, open space, car parking, drainage and associated works.

 

Although outline permission for this development has been granted on appeal, there are several aspects of this proposal which give cause for objection. It is clear from the supporting documentation that amongst several locations where previous landfill has taken place, there are two landfill sites within the boundaries of this site. The refuse content of these earlier dump sites appears to be unknown. There is a risk of methane gas emission, leeching of groundwater or land instability when the site is developed. Whilst significant effort appears to have been taken to address identified flood related concerns, there will be a need for investigation of potential contamination issues with an agreed remediation scheme.

The access layout at the junction of Cookham Road appears to have been previously agreed. We remain concerned that there is only one access to the site, and there continues to be a need for a secondary access. The location of the site on the application continues to be referred to as Summerleaze Road, which is clearly a misnomer – it should be Cookham Road.

Although the issues relating to access and parking for the primary school are not covered by this application, there are two issues relating to residential parking which gives cause for concern. The flatted dwellings have 0.5 spaces per dwelling – which is not in accrd with RBWM policy. for a site away from the town centre. Many of the houses are shown with two parking spaces – but in tandem. Such tandem parking arrangements are not acceptable within a newly designed development. There appears to be no provision of occasional parking for deliveries, visitors, tradesmen etc. Traffic movement, access and parking issues will of course be exacerbated when the primary school element of the site is delivered.

We welcome the provision of affordable homes within the site although we believe the proposed tenure mix of “shared ownership” should be revised downwards to reflect current trends. We also are pleased to see the maximum height of three storeys for the apartment blocks, and that the tenure of affordable homes and open market homes is mixed throughout the site. The proportion of 1 bed flats should be reviewed downwards and this is reflected in the recently adopted Affordable Homes SPD.

Whilst there is a need for flats in the affordable sector the inclusion of open market flats in developments away from the town centre is questionable. RBWM have evidence that there is an oversupply of 1 bed flats within Maidenhead Housing stock. Furthermore, this is supported by the fact that all three pending applications for apartment developments on West Street indicate a reduction in the proportion of 1 bed flats. The total number of dwelling units is less important than the correct mix of property size, especially the provision of family accommodation.

There are concerns about the impact of the development on the established footpath from the Cookham Road to Green Way West which forms part of the Millennium Walk and the Boundary Walk, both waymarked. The route of the footpath is not indicated on the submitted plans despite leaflets showing the route of the Millennium Walk being distributed at the public enquiry. We think the new access road to the development will decrease the safety of walkers using the route and believe that pedestrian warning signs should be provided as necessary. An additional pedestrian access / footpath link should be sought by negotiating with Network Rail for a controlled pedestrian level crossing in the northwest corner of the site. It is noted that the application does not include a plan for the Educational Area. From West Mead to Green Way West there is an existing permitted path along the southern boundary of the site which will now be in the Educational Area. This must be retained. These footpath issues were raised at the planning appeal hearings and should be resolved before further planning permission is granted.

To summarise, we object to this application as it stands for the following reasons:

• Previous landfill activity on the site will require remediation to prevent potential methane emission, groundwater contamination or subsidence.
• A secondary access should be sought to reduce traffic volumes and risk at the proposed Cookham Road junction.
• There is inadequate overall parking provision and unsatisfactory parking arrangements for some plots.
• There is too high a proportion of shared ownership within proposals for affordable homes.
• The proportion of 1 bed affordable flats should be reduced in favour of 3 bed affordable family dwellings, which have the greatest demand on waiting lists.
• The total number of flats should be reduced by removing open market flats from the proposed mix of dwellings and substituting high density houses.
• Assurances are required that the existing permitted footpaths such as the Millenium Walk and Boundary Walk are not impacted by the proposed development.

As an established stakeholder Maidenhead Civic Society makes these comments in the belief that such developments should reflect current planning concerns  and attempt to deliver the maximum potential satisfaction for the new residents and the wider community.

 

 

  Back To Listing