Hundreds of objections to Cala Homes’ outline planning application to build 1,500 new homes on Maidenhead Golf Course have been submitted. One of these objections analyses the impact of the development on flood risk.
There can be no doubt that climate change is already dramatically altering our weather patterns. We’ve just experienced the wettest 18 months since records began in 1836*. As a result, local and national governments, and their agencies, must seek to maximise the greenspace in urban areas to help mitigate flood risk and protect people from flooding. By building on the golf course, Cala Homes will be doing the opposite.
The objection reviews the ‘Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy’ (FRA) submitted by Stantec UK Ltd on behalf of the developer CALA in January 2024.
Here are some the key points highlighted:
- The analysis is hypothetical – Stantec’s flood risk assessment is not a detailed assessment of attenuation of surface water runoff and impact of flooding on surrounding areas, as this has yet to be developed. Instead it is merely a hypothetical analysis.
- Unsubstantiated statements are made – Despite the flood risk impact assessment being hypothetical, there are sweeping unsubstantiated statements in the Conclusions Section, including: “There will be no detrimental impacts on the floodplain storage strategy and flood flow routes” and “the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere.”
- It doesn’t acknowledge that the site is on a hill – the FRA acknowledges that rainfall on the existing site infiltrates “naturally into the ground”, but fails to acknowledge the elevated position of this site and that as a “greenfield site”, the golf course is currently acting as an extensive natural soakaway. Once the site is developed, even with the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) interventions, including green roofs, permeable pavements, ponds and rain gardens, there’s no escaping the fact that by replacing a significant proportion of green space with concrete, surface water drainage will be detrimentally impacted and potentially cascade downhill onto Maidenhead’s roads and houses.
- Thames Water’s concerns are alarming – the objection also highlights some of the concerns raised by Thames Water, including: “Your foul water proposals …may not have sufficient capacity to meet your requirements”. We can all agree that the amount of pollution already entering our rivers as a result of over-development in the Thames Valley, increased rainfall and the lack of investment in our sewage systems, is already dangerously out of control.
- It fails to mention recent sink holes – there’s been an increase of reported incidences of sink holes in the area immediately adjacent to Maidenhead golf course, including a major incident on Shoppenhangers Road in 2020. Sinkholes can be attributed to heavy rain or surface water resulting in the collapse of normally stable cavities. Yet there is no mention anywhere in the FRA of the recent sink holes in the vicinity of the golf course.
- It doesn’t acknowledge incidents of local flooding – there’s a stream that crosses the golf course, which is not recognised in CALA’s plans. In 2005 this stream flooded No.42 Rushington Avenue and in early 2024 flooded Braywick Road next to Meadowbank Care Home on numerous occasions. Worringly, the flooding impact of the development on the areas immediately adjacent to and the surrounding areas is not included in the FRA.
Please do take the time to object to these environmentally damaging development plans. We’ve added guidance on how to do it here: https://maidenheadgreatpark.co.uk/environmentally-damaging-planning-application-submitted-to-develop-maidenhead-golf-course
*Financial Times15 March 2024