The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead asked local people to comment on their plans to develop the area of Maidenhead that includes Maidenhead Golf Course. The deadline for comments was 17 August 2023.
We thought it would be interesting to our followers to see our responses.
If you have any questions, please do email us at maidenheadgreatpark@gmail.com
Document No.1: Draft South West Maidenhead Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Section 3.4 Other Relevant RBWM Plans and Strategies
This section mentions several policies, both adopted and draft that cannot be implemented if this SPD is developed as written. These documents should not be mentioned if you are not going to follow them. For example:
The Environment and Climate strategy states that the borough (not just the council buildings!) will be carbon net zero by 2050. The Borough’s pathway to net Zero states that emssions will be reduced by 50% by 2025 (page 21).
On page 8 of the strategy it states “The role of the natural environment in creating great places is critical to the success of the borough economy and to our residents’ health and wellbeing, therefore it is important we take steps to protect it. In addition to their intrinsic value, wildlife and ecosystems provide essential services on which we all depend; clean air and water, crop production through soil formation and pollination services, pest control, essential human health services and climate regulation.”
With this level of development on greenbelt land, especially on the publicly owned golf course land which has over 10,000 trees, you will undo any emission reduction work that may have done by that time and goes completely against the stated role of the natural environment.
The still draft Biodiversity Action Plan states categorically that there is a need for action because “many human activities have directly affected species and habitats; altered ecosystems and in many cases led to extinctions both on a local and global scale.”
The ecological impact of destroying the woodland and grassland of the publicly owned golf course land is in complete opposition to the strategic approach on the Biodiversity Action Plan which states” to reverse the decline in our natural environment and through better data, partnerships and direct action to increase biodiversity across the borough.”
Section 3.4.1 states that a Position Statement on Sustainability and Energy Efficient Design “requires that all development shall be net-zero carbon unless this would not be feasible.” This very phrase underlines the fact that there is no real requirement for developments to be carbon net zero which then renders the other policies completely inoperable and as such a complete waste of public time and money.
Section 3.4.1
…. The Position Statement sets out the requirements which will be sought on new developments in order to deliver on the requirements set out in the NPPF, national and local commitments towards climate change and the Council’s Environment and Climate Strategy. Amongst other things, it requires that all development shall be net-zero carbon.
3.4.2 Other relevant RBWM corporate strategies include:
• Biodiversity Action Plan (still draft)
Document No. 2: Draft South West Maidenhead Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Section 1
1.1.3 This draft DFSPD has been prepared having regard to national and local planning policy, local infrastructure and environmental considerations and community concerns and aspirations. It has been produced by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”) in collaboration with the principal landowners and developers within the South West Maidenhead Strategic Placemaking Area, and in consultation with the community and other stakeholders
This plan has not taken into consideration all of the above highlighted elements. Local Infrastructure cannot cope with this level of development with traffic, water supply, sewerage and air quality all set to be irrevocably stressed. The consultation with the community is a total falsehood with the majority of the current residents of Maidenhead vehemently opposed to this level of development and in particular, any development on the publicly owned golf course land.
Section 3 has been commented on separately.
Section 4 Area Analysis
4.1.2 – This statement is out of date because since then we have declared a climate emergency, endured a global pandemic, adopted an environment and climate strategy and endured prolonged heat waves, increased pollution and water shortages. If anything has changed in the proposed plan to accommodate these then they simply do not go far enough. As per section 4.1.3 The only way to meet these is to evolve these plans in such a way as to remove the publicly owned golf course land from this development.
4.2.2 “with Braywick Park and Ockwells Park forming two separate, significant green open spaces to the east and south-west of the SWMSPA respectively.”. The new leisure centre, car park and school at Braywick park in addition to the plan to relocate the football ground there further reducing its open space means that this statement is inaccurate.
4.3 Landscape Character and Views
This section states “Maidenhead is renowned for being a green town with leafy approaches” and with “historic designed landscapes with mature parkland trees and rural lanes with grass verges, ditches, and hedgerows, along with vernacular building forms with red brick, timber frames and weatherboard details with brick boundary walls of manor estates and numerous footpaths and bridleways.”
The very character of Maidenhead will be irrevocably changed by the scale of this proposed development. In addition, the consultations that have already taken place have confirmed that almost all the mature parkland trees, that are on the publicly owned golf course land, will be felled. There is absolutely no protection for any of the trees, including the ancient woodland in this development.
4.4.4 “Biodiversity mitigation measures will be required and assessed through the planning applications process.”
You need to add more detail in here in relation to this to provide more reassurance. What will be required and how will the planning process make sure that mitigation stays in Maidenhead and indeed within the borough. With so much green space being destroyed it’s very hard to understand how this can mitigation happen.
4.5 Trees and Hedgerows
4.5.2 There are also several large mature groups of trees between the fairways on Maidenhead Golf Course, including the ancient woodland of Rushington Copse. There is some broadleaved woodland along the eastern edge of the AL13 site. There is also a tree copse on the Triangle site, which is a potential ancient woodland, a matter that will be investigated further. In addition, there are tree belts along the motorways in this area.
But there are no TPOs on the publicly owned golf course land which has have thousands of mature trees not several! Why are you not protecting our Biodiversity? I want to have a time line please for when these trees will be protected.
4.6 Conservation and Heritage
There is no mention here of the fact that the publicly owned golf course land was purchased by the council as public open space. The then seller of the land, had views that were in line with a previous owner of the land, Lord Desborough who had leased this land to create Maidenhead Golf Club 125 years ago and who would be appalled at these plans.
4.7 Access, Transport and Movement
4.7.2 The northern part of the SWMSPA adjoins the Maidenhead Town Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and, as development in such proximity to the AQMA may worsen emissions in the area, mitigation measures such as designing for greater walking and cycling and enhanced public transport should be maximised to reduce negative impacts on air quality
There is no question that this development will worsen emissions, not just from the development itself but by the very fact that the woodland that is currently keeping the pollution levels in check are going to be felled.
The SPD states that mitigation measures should be maximised but what is the actual framework that developers need to adhere to in order to do this? Where are the calculations, the analysis, the strategies? It is ludicrous that you would fell thousands of trees that combat pollution with absolutely no plan as to how to mitigate this. If there is no plan get one before finalising this document!
4.8 Flood Risk
4.8.1 states that “The development passes the Sequential Test for allocation for residential and educational facilities use as no sites at lower risk are reasonably available.”
We would like to see all the calculations of the Sequential Test and also understand what you mean by “no sites at lower risk are reasonably available”.
Most of this allocation is greenbelt land and it therefore stands to reason that once concreted over, there will be additional flood risk, especially in the densest areas near to the town centre.
4.11 Utilities
There is no mention here about the provision of clean water for this development. Given that the national press has reported that several developments have been halted or prolonged due to water supply issues. Indeed, the development locally at the Hollands Farm in Bourne End has had to reduce the number of units built each year due to water shortage issues. Water supply is not mentioned, and I would like to know whether this is covered in the “Statement of Common Ground in 2020” signed by the Council and Thames Water and indeed whether this has been revisited in light of more recent projections for sustained water shortages in this area?
4.12 Noise, Vibration and Air Quality
It is ridiculous to state that such a level of development right next to an AQMA “may exacerbate emissions in the area” and that “the promotion of non-car travel would help to reduce transport related emissions”
In the first instance, air monitoring is not currently available anywhere near the development sites and secondly, the air pollution monitoring that is in place only monitors two of the 13 different pollutants that are required in the National Air quality Objectives. Therefore, this section of the SPD needs to be corrected to reflect accurate data and full and proper research needs to be undertaken to ensure the health and wellbeing of current residents of the borough as well as for those that may choose to live here in the future.
The promotion of non-car travel with absolutely no plan for this, is nowhere near enough of a reassurance that our air quality will not be impacted by this development!
4.13 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
The map of this area is not representation of the fact that Braywick Park has already been developed with a leisure centre and a school and has plans for a football stadium. This is a deliberately misleading representation of the status of this site and should be properly recorded in this section.
4.13.2 Again the “SWM Placemaking Study (2019)” is now out of date considering the fact that many things have changed since it was undertaken. Not least the importance of green space, the threats of Flooding, biodiversity loss, increased pollution and most of all climate change and the urban heat island effect from over development of our towns.
The weakness that you have identified for accessibility for pedestrians also applies to all the wildlife that are currently located on this site, in particular, those that are located on the publicly owned golf course land. This development not only condemns thousands of trees but also many many species of wildlife and habitats that support wildlife as documented in our own independently commissioned ecological survey.
The only opportunity for this site is for it to continue as green open space to help us all adapt to the impact of climate change: “We’re locked in,” says Hannah Cloke, a professor of hydrology at the University of Reading. “It won’t get better; we’re at that point now where we have warmed the planet.
“There’s nothing we can do about that at this point – our choice is how bad that gets,” she adds. “This is the reality now.”
Section 4.13.6 states, “Finally, turning to threats, the size and capacity of the area will likely require higher densities, with pressure on green space, trees and environmental impacts that will need to be mitigated.”
How exactly will these threats be mitigated? This development plans to destroy 200 acres of greenbelt land including 132 acres of public open space that currently houses 10,000 mature trees. The impact to wildlife will be immediate, as soon as the first digger moves in and by the time the development is finished 10 or 15 years later any biodiversity there will have all been either killed or displaced.
5 Vision
The vision states: “New and existing communities alike will live a greener existence among a flourishing network of green streets and spaces which will accommodate biodiversity and people harmoniously.”
“In 2019 the Council committed the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to become carbon neutral by 2050. This challenging commitment will require a proactive approach by many parties, including the residents of Maidenhead.”
“As new communities become established, more sustainable patterns of living will become enshrined to enable new residents to instinctively choose to reduce their environmental impact.”
The vision that you have set out would all be very noble were it not to the detriment of 132 acres of publicly owned greenbelt land with many areas of dense woodland containing thousands of mature trees. This plan decimates biodiversity that has been established for hundreds of years.
6 Design and Delivery Principles and Requirements
6.1.2 The overarching design principle below is just ludicrous when this plan is set to destroy 200 acres of green belt land including the 132 acres of the golf course land.
“Ensure that development is designed to incorporate measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change, including the delivery of net zero carbon development on site where this is feasible.”
6.3.8 “the central green spine as the main focus of movement, activity and recreation”
The central green spine, created by felling dense, mature woodland is a complete misnomer – this is just a spine!
6.3.10 “South west Maidenhead offers a sustainable location for housing and the provision of a mix of building typologies, heights, and living accommodation arranged over multi-storeys contributes to this sustainability”
The definition of sustainability in this plan is inaccurate and outdated. Sustainabiliy no longer relates to the ‘affordability of a project, but in common parlance it relates to the protection of the environment for future generations. The illustrative framework plan shows that a development that destroys established habitat and biodiversity, including mature woodland habitat, creating environmental and climate problems for future generations is really not sustainable as per most definitions – see below for a couple:
“the quality of causing littleorno damage tothe environment and therefore able to continue for a long time” – Cambridge dictionary 2022
“Sustainability consists of fulfilling the needs of current generations without compromising the needs of future generations, while ensuring a balance between economic growth, environmental care and social well-being”. Santander 2022
6.3.19 describes tree planting. Planting a few new trees to create “tree lined” main routes will do nothing to mitigate the loss of mature trees from this site.
Incorporating Green Infrastructure & Open Space
6.3.22 “A high-quality framework of green space and landscape can become the centrepiece of the place” – This plan aims to decimate the high quality green space and replace it with a space that by the very nature of it being “multifunctional” cannot be high quality.
6.3.26 “The green spine serves an important opportunity to ensure ecological capital and connectivity becomes an everyday part of people’s lives and integrating this into a multi-functional corridor is important.”
How exactly will this green spine ensure “ecological capital”. Please define this further! There is nothing in this document that truly addresses ecology except in the context of making a place ‘look’ green. Certainly, any wildlife that is currently located on the site will have disappeared by the time the development is complete!
Open Space
6.5.19 “The open space standards in the Borough Local Plan provide important guidelines in relation to types of open space, quantity, accessibility (walking distance) and quality.”
This development is far too dense to have any meaningful open space, in particular there will be a net loss of public open space considering that all 132 acres of the golf course land is currently public open space even though it is currently leased by the Golf Club.
6.7 Sustainability and Environment
“Sustainable Building – Net Zero Carbon
Deliver net zero carbon development (operational) in developments across the area, and consider approaches that take account of the ‘whole life carbon’ emissions of development. In achieving net zero carbon, to contribute towards meeting the Royal Borough’s renewable energy targets through on site renewable provision.”
6.7.1 “In 2019 the Council declared a climate emergency and then adopted an Environment and Climate Strategy the following year”…
A recent case by the Good Law Project proved that the Government’s Net Zero Strategy is unlawful. In a detailed judgment and order published on 18 July 2022 – amid the first ever red alert for extreme heat – the High Court held that the proposals for achieving Net Zero approved by the Secretary of State were too vague to enable him to be satisfied that the statutory targets would be met. It is therefore critical that this plan and indeed RBWM demonstrate that they are able to meet the targets set out in the environment and climate strategy. This would require major modification of this SPD to remove the loss of mature woodland and to minimise, if not cease, all development on green open space but certainly it must remove the publicly owned golf course land from this development to have any hope of meeting the legal commitments made on the back of the climate emergency and environment and climate strategy.
6.7.10 “…development proposals will demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity by quantifiable methods such as the use of a biodiversity metric”
It is simply not possible to achieve 10% net gain biodiversity by destroying and / or endangering around 10,000 mature trees that are currently located on the publicly owned land leased by the golf course. In fact the ONLY way for the other developments in this allocation to achieve this is for them to use the golf course land for their biodiversity net gain.
6.7.15 “It is recognised that to accommodate the level of growth planned for the areas, some loss of trees will be required.”
As per the response by the Woodland Trust, “Rather than removing trees, the development brief should identify opportunities to increase tree canopy cover. The Committee on Climate Change has advised that UK woodland canopy cover needs to increase from an average of 13% to a minimum of 18%.”
It is also imperative that the SPD be further modified to protect the ancient woodland of Rushington Copse with a 100 metre planted buffer as per the advice of the Woodland Trust. They also advise, as we have already done, that a detailed tree survey is undertaken and that veteran trees are protected.
Section 4 Area Analysis
4.1.2 – Change to the analysis was undertaken in 2019 before we have a pandemic, before the council declared a climate emergency and before the environment and climate strategy was adopted.
4.2.2 Remove Braywick Park from this statement and / or change to the following:
…with Braywick Park and Ockwells Park forming two separate, green open spaces to the east and south-west of the SWMSPA respectively. Braywick Park can now be considered a pocket park and both areas have already been enhanced in terms of biodiversity as much as possible.
4.3 Landscape Character and Views
This section needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the vision section will set out how this development will irrevocably change the current landscape, character and views of Maidenhead to one that is much less green and leafy with new built up and congested roads, leading to increased pollution and worse health outcomes for all its residents.
4.4.4 “Biodiversity mitigation measures will be required and assessed through the planning applications process.”
You need to add more detail in here in relation to this to provide more reassurance. What will be required and how will the planning process make sure that mitigation stays in Maidenhead and indeed within the borough. With so much green space being destroyed it’s very hard to understand how this can mitigation happen.
4.5.2 There are also several large mature groups of trees, which in total add up to thousands of mature trees, between the fairways on Maidenhead Golf Course, including the ancient woodland of Rushington Copse. None of these trees currently have TPOs, even those that are around 100 years old; three trees are registered on the Ancient Tree Inventory. There is some broadleaved woodland along the eastern edge of the AL13 site. There is also a tree copse on the Triangle site, which is a potential ancient woodland, a matter that will be investigated further. In addition, there are tree belts along the motorways in this area.
4.7.2 The northern part of the SWMSPA adjoins the Maidenhead Town Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and, as development in such proximity to the AQMA will worsen emissions in the area, mitigation measures such as designing for greater walking and cycling and enhanced public transport should be maximised to reduce negative impacts on air quality. The detailed plans for these mitigation measures will be produced before this SPD is finalised and will be sent to the public for further scrutiny.
4.13.1 Figure 3 – needs to correctly represent the current and planned status of Braywick Park.
4.13.6 Demonstrate exactly how you will mitigate the threats to this plan.
6.2.2 The Illustrative Framework Plan (Figure 4) is incorrect and deliberately misleading. It needs to be replaced with a version that demonstrates the buildings that have since been developed on Braywick Park and the planned move of the football stadium to this location.
Document No. 3: Strategic Environmental Assessment of the South West Maidenhead Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Page 3 of this document states “Lepus Consulting Ltd (Lepus) has prepared this report for the use of Buckinghamshire Council.”
If this is factually correct then why is RBWM using it and if this is an error then it begs the question, how many other fundamental errors have been made in this document? Please can you confirm whether this report was indeed prepared for Buckinghamshire Council?
Page 11 – N16. “The SPD would be anticipated to result in a range of positive effects including the opportunity to provide new homes, community facilities and pedestrian routes for the enjoyment of current and future residents, as well as having the potential to deliver enhanced multi-functional GI and biodiversity net gain.”
I expect that this document will further explain how the destruction of green belt land with more than 10,000 trees will deliver enhanced “multifunctional GI” and biodiversity net gain.
Page 8 – N8 & Page 10 – N14 Assessment of Significant Effects
Both state:
“An SEA screening exercise conducted by Lepus2 concluded that the plan would be likely to lead to significant environmental effects on the topics of air quality, biodiversity, climate change, cultural heritage, landscape, material assets and soil.”
&
“The assessment of the preferred option found that likely significant effects are attributed to the following SEA topics: air quality; biodiversity, flora and fauna; climate change; cultural heritage; landscape; material assets and soil; and water resources.”
Page 11 – N18.
In light of the above effects I find that the mitigation measures in this section talk about policies that seek to do this and seek to do that.
This is a strategic environmental assessment and as such I expect it to provide real measures that have to be implemented in order to meet the current regulations and to ensure that the borough can meet its targets in relation to the environment and climate strategy and the biodiversity action plan.
Page 19 – N19. “Following consideration of mitigation measures and other evidence base documents, a residual adverse effect on air quality, biodiversity, cultural heritage and water has been ruled out”
Please can you explain how this development will rule out residual adverse effects in relation to biodiversity when the consultations that have taken place have confirmed that almost all of the trees on the publicly owned golf course land will be felled as part of this development?
There is absolutely no way that this development and even deliver biodiversity equity let along net gain is such a site!
Please can you explain how this development will rule out residual adverse effects in relation to air quality by “seeking to promote sustainable travel, including active transport, and ensure that developments do not affect residents in or adjacent to an AQMA”, when the consultations that have taken place have confirmed that almost all of the trees on the publicly owned golf course land will be felled as part of this development?
Please can you confirm what qualifications Lepus Consulting has in relation to providing this report if you think the destruction of this amount of woodland with a development of this size can possibly have no residual impact on air quality? Let alone where the site is adjacent to an AQMA!
Please can you explain how this development will rule out residual adverse effects in relation to water with policies that simply “seek to ensure that water usage is minimised within development”!
Is it that water will be minimised during the construction phase? Or will households have to limit their water consumption once the homes are built? Is it both? How will this be enforced? What are the guarantees that there is enough water at all for all these homes including 2000 on the publicly owned golf course land when other developments are being paused or stopped due to the scarcity of water?
Page 14 – 1.2.4 “Where an SPD could have significant environmental effects, it may fall within the scope of the SEA Regulations and so would require an SEA. One of the basic conditions that will be tested by the independent examiner is whether the making of the SPD is compatible with European obligations”
Please confirm whether the independent examiner recommends a plan based on the outcome of the ER and therefore the approval of the BLP is dependent on it or whether the independent examiner can recommend a BLP simply by stating that an ER must be done, with no regard for the outcome?
Page 24 – 2 SEA Screening
2.2.2 “The HRA concluded that there would be no adverse effects on any Natura 2000 site as a result of the BLP.”
Maidenhead Great Park CIC commissioned its own ecology survey to assess the ecology of the site who also recommended that a HRA was commissioned. We are very surprised that the conclusion of the assessment was that there would be no adverse effects.
Please provide copies of the HRA assessment.
Page 28 – Table 3.1: Summary table of statutory consultee comments regarding the SEA Scoping Report for the SWMDFSPD
Environment Agency:
We note with concern that the EA states the following: “This area is particularly known to be an area of water stress. It is not clear how the development will access water or use water for everyday needs. Also it is not clear how the issue of waste water discharge/disposal has been addressed for this large scale development.” &
“we consider that the introduction of an extra 2,600 dwellings and a large employment site to the area through the development of the SWMSPA is likely to put additional stress on the water supply and use issue in this area”
We also want to understand how this issue will be mitigated.
Table 4.4: Assumptions for the SEA Objectives
Page 35 – “2. Biodiversity: Protect, enhance, restore and manage the flora, fauna biodiversity and geodiversity assets of the areas affected by the development of the SWMSPA.”
“Where development proposals coincide with a Habitats site, ….ancient woodland, …., it is assumed that development would have a permanent impact on these nationally important biodiversity and geodiversity assets, and a major negative impact would be expected.”
The SEA states that “It is assumed that mature trees and hedgerows will be retained where possible” but we already know that thousands of trees are scheduled to be destroyed on the publicly owned golf course land against the advice of this assessment and the Woodland Trust.
Page 36 – 3. Climate change: Mitigate and Reduce the SWMSPA’s contribution towards climate change.
In relation to climate change and Green House Gas emissions the SAE states: “It is assumed that development on previously undeveloped or greenfield land would result in an increase in GHG emissions… increase in GHG emissions caused by new developments…..This impact is considered to be permanent and non-reversible.”
This council declared a climate emergency and has an environment and climate strategy that sets out a pathway for net zero emissions by 2050 which will be impossible if this development goes ahead at such scale.
Page 39 – 7. Water resources: Conserve, manage, restore and enhance water quality and supply.
“Thames Water, which is the covers the town of Maidenhead, is classed to be in an area of serious water stress51.”
As per the above assessment by the environment agency, the scale of this development cannot cope with the amount of water available in this area.
Page 40 – 4.8 Limitations
This assessment has been carried out without a visit to the area in question. It is preposterous that an assessment of a development of this scale can take place that will irrevocably impact the lives of everyone already living in Maidenhead has been done via desk top research.
Page 41 – 5.2 Identifying reasonable alternatives
The reasonable alternatives do not mitigate the negative impact on biodiversity, climate change, air quality or on water stress.
The only feasible reasonable alternative to this plan is to remove the development of the publicly owned golf course land from this allocation immediately so that mitigation for the above impacts in relation to the remaining development can be accommodated in this location.
Page 68 – 6.4 Residual effects and recommendations:
Table 6.3: Sets out the impact of the SPD on various objectives and we can only conclude that, given that this was a desk-based exercise that they are not accurate.
How can the loss of open green space with thousands of trees present a negligible effect?
Similarly, how can this loss represent only a minor adverse effect in relation to climate change?
Page 69 – Table 6.4 Recommendations
We welcome these recommendations but strongly suggest that they do not go far enough to minimise the negative impact from the scale of this development. Biodiversity, climate change, air quality and water stress will all be irrevocably harmed by this development, and we object to this SPD on that basis.
Page 72 – 7 Monitoring
We welcome the proposed monitoring and request that this “responsible authority” provides details of all monitoring that has been undertaken as part of its environment and climate strategy that was adopted in Dec 2020 and by this point should be well on its way to 50% reduction in emissions.
Document No.4: South West Maidenhead Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Statement
Your Representations: Please set out your comments here
1. Introduction
The introduction does not set out the fact that this SPD and the consultations around it have been funded by landowners / developers. It is essential that this is clarified as per the recent FOI that ensured that this information was indeed available to the public.
2 SPD preparation and early stakeholder and community engagement
It is disingenuous to state that this was community engagement given that this was simply telling the community what has already been done. There has been no indication at any of the events that anything would be amended based on community opinion.
Page 7 – Trees – “the SPD reiterates the requirements of the Local Plan in relation to trees, seeking to maximise retention of trees within the context of the scale of development proposed…”
The consultations all stipulated that the majority of trees on the publicly owned golf course land would be felled to accommodate this development. The above statement is misleading at best.
Page 7 – Climate Change and Net Zero Carbon – “…the SPD sets out a strong expectation that development in the area is net zero carbon…”
A strong expectation is not going to ensure that we meet our emissions targets as set out in the environment and climate strategy!
Page 8 – Air Pollution – “the SPD highlights the issues around pollution and environmental protection”
There is over reliance on the use of public transport and active travel to mitigate the dreadful impact on air pollution by this development. There is no evidence that people will start using this more in the borough and indeed there is no actual plan to improve accessibility to these modes of transport.
It is noteworthy that there has been great concern over this development, and it is really not popular amongst most residents of Maidenhead. In 2021, a petition signed by 4448 residents asked that the publicly owned golf course land was not developed because this is public open space and keeping it green will enable us to improve biodiversity, adapt to the impact of climate change, continue to keep air pollution levels down in the town, particularly in this area that is adjacent to an AQMA and to minimise further water stress.
1. Introduction
Include information around who has funded this SPD and the consultation process and by how much.
2 SPD preparation and early stakeholder and community engagement
Clarify the fact that this was an information sharing exercise and NOT a consultation as nothing will change in the SPD in relation to community concerns.
Page 7 – Trees
Make it clearer that most of the trees on the publicly owned golf course land will in fact be felled as a consequence of this SPD and development.
Page 7 – Climate Change and Net Zero Carbon
Make it clear that this development will set the environment and climate strategy targets back and mean that it will not be possible to meet the target of carbon net zero across the borough by 2050.
Page 8 – Air Pollution
Make it clear that there is no plan to ensure that public transport and active travel will be improved before this development starts.