Resident ‘baffled’ as councillors raise no questions over Nicholsons job losses

A Maidenhead resident who combed through the papers on the Nicholsons centre scheme says he is ‘baffled’ by crucial questions left unasked by the councillors who voted it through last week.

Andrew Hill was at the planning meeting which approved the sweeping scheme, set to change the face of Maidenhead town centre for good.

He took the opportunity to ask questions as a member of the public — but feels his questions, ranging from job losses to ‘major harm’ to GP services, were ‘ruthlessly ignored’.

Mr Hill said developer Areli has been ‘up front and honest’ about the impact of its development, making it all the more confusing why such matters were not properly discussed at the meeting.

Documents say 755 jobs would be generated by the Nicholsons redevelopment. However, they also acknowledge there will be a ‘best-case scenario’ net loss of 233 jobs.

The reasonable worst-case scenario is much larger — a loss of 524 jobs.

Mr Hill says that despite the high number, this fact fetched little response from councillors and officers at the meeting.

“There was nothing whatsoever about unemployment. I’m really baffled,” he said.

“I can’t understand why no councillors had any questions about job losses. That just seems morally wrong.”

He also questioned why the officer’s report — which recommended approval — only mentioned the lower end of the job loss range. Mr Hill felt this reflected a pattern of key issues not being scrutinised at the meeting.

“You would expect an officer would impartially and neutrally set out the pros and cons but they were very selective,” he said.

Mr Hill also has concerns about the impact on GP services.

According to the documents, the pressure on local GP services is expected to increase significantly because of the new homes.

At the moment, there is roughly one GP for every 2,392 patients in the area, already higher than the level recommended by the NHS.

With the extra residents, this would rise to about one GP for every 2,465 patients.

This extra demand would have a ‘direct and permanent’ negative impact, which Areli’s consultants, Trium, described as ‘significant’.

Mr Hill said it was ‘very, very worrying,’ these ‘knock-on consequences’ of the development were not explored by councillors at the meeting.

“At a minimum, people should know about the job losses,” he said. “There could be 524 job losses without a single question being asked.”

The Royal Borough has been approached for comment.