Maidenhead 225 homes given green light despite absences, split vote and 'serious' public allegations

Big plans for 225 new homes in Kimber’s Lane have finally been approved – in a meeting beset with absences, a mid-meeting change of chair and ‘serious allegations’ from a public speaker.

The decision by Maidenhead Development Management Panel yesterday (May 15) came after being delayed several times. The voting panel was reduced to just four members, where it previously would have expected nine.

It was deferred in April after councillors sought more information on the impact to trees, at the behest of Cllr Jack Douglas (Lib Dem, St Mary’s).

But even with this information, he remained sceptical of the scheme. Cllr Douglas was concerned by the ‘stark and unappealing’ building design.

Meanwhile, members of the public continued to be concerned over ecological matters.

The meeting took a turn when member of the public Eric Ramon questioned the legality of the session, raising allegations of withheld documents.

He accused RBWM officers of deliberately missing deadlines on Freedom of Information and similar requests.

Mr Ramon added that he and other interested parties had been ‘ignored’ and had not received any of the documents they asked for.

“This is missing information which potentially could be very damning,” he said. “Legally this meeting should not be going ahead.”

RBWM legal officer Catriona Herbert stepped in to remind the panel that the meeting is ‘not a tribunal’ and was not the place to deliberate such matters.

She said the speaker had made ‘serious allegations’ about officers’ intentions and there would need to be robust evidence for any claims of fraud or dishonesty.

Ms Herbert did acknowledge that there were some public information requests still outstanding and this was ‘regrettable’.

However, this was not grounds to delay the application decision any longer, she said.

Such an act could be challenged by the developer, potentially dragging RBWM through a costly appeal process.

Mr Ramon had also raised concerns over the absence of particular council officers at the meeting who might have held answers to key questions.

There was also a significant shortage in voting members of the panel, with just four left by the time of the vote – one above the minimum number needed to continue the meeting.

A change in constitution last month took the panel size from nine members down to seven, with Cllrs Gary Reeves and Mandy Brar no longer on it.

In addition, Cllrs Geoff Hill and Helen Taylor were unable to sit this week, due to laws and best practice surrounding local authority voting panel processes.

On top of this, committee chair Cllr Siân Martin had to leave mid-meeting due to illness.

These absences affected discussions about a small but controversial sewage treatment site sandwiched in the middle of the wider scheme.

Cllr Leo Walters (Con, Bray) repeated his impression that there had been a lack of transparency over it.

“It just seems [there was] a reluctance to admit that there was a sewage works here,” he said. “One feels as though there’s something not quite right with some of this.”

A site visit to the sewage farm on May 1 concluded that there were ‘no notable smells’ coming off it, but Cllr Walters was unable to attend, which caused him further disquiet.

“Half of the [councillors that went] are not here and the officers aren’t either,” said Cllr Walters. “To the outside world [this] isn’t a particularly good group of people to decide this thing.”

He said it was ‘very difficult to know what to do’, but ultimately, despite his qualms, voted in favour of approving the proposals, alongside Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary’s).

Cllr Douglas proposed to refuse the application, with Cllr Kashmir Singh (Riverside, Ind) backing this.

As the panel was split two-two, it fell to replacement chair Cllr Gurch Singh to cast the deciding vote – hence, the 225-home scheme was voted through.

Speaking earlier in the meeting, he said: "This is a very difficult application. We've got a lot of responsibility on our shoulders this evening. The Borough is in desperate need of housing.

There's an oversupply of [one-bedroom flats]... People who moved into one-bedroom flats five or 10 years ago, they've had children and they desperately need to buy a house or move into larger property."

He also stressed the Borough's responsibility to decide this in a timely manner, given all the delays already.

To help the panel weigh up the risks versus benefits, Louise Reid, RBWM's deputy head of planning, reminded them that if the proposals are rejected by RBWM and then approved on appeal, the borough could end up with a scheme of worse quality, with fewer of the council's preferred conditions attached.