Comments on Application 26/00983/REM Reserved matters application (scale, layout, appearance and landscaping) of the Green Spine pursuant to condition 4 of outline application 24/00091/OUT, including the provision of a route for cyclists, pedestrians and buses with associated infrastructure including: SuDs, landscaping, bus infrastructure including bus gate drainage service corridors and pumping station. | Maidenhead Golf Club Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead SL6 2PZ

The first thing to establish is what exactly is “the green spine”. The South West Maidenhead SPD states “(pp28/29) that it must be no less than 4m wide for a combined pedestrian cycle route (2.5m cycle + 1.5m pedestrian), with different parts including different modes of transport. It must include “a variety of formal open spaces along its length”. The northern neighbourhood is to be “landmarked along its length by building frontage and public realm features” and is to include “a variety of open spaces along its length”. Vehicular access is routed along the spine in this area. These reserved matters in the application do not mention vehicular access, so it is not certain whether this is provided along the spine or whether alternative means of access are to be provided for residents, visitors, shoppers, school pickups and drop-offs, delivery and refuse vehicles. Landscape Statement section 1 of the application states on p15 that the Green Spine will “deliver a pedestrian and cycle only route” and the application description only mentions cyclists, pedestrians, and buses.

The covering letter in the application states that a Phasing plan is included (as required by outline planning condition 8). It is not apparent where this plan is located amongst the submitted documents. Application 24/00091/OUT does have a parcel plan, but the grey areas are not allocated unless they are in a phase called “Rushington Copse”. Section 3.4 of the Construction Management Plan states that “the Green Spine will be built out in phases, in line with the residential phases that will be built out”. The timing of these phases is not identified. This would imply that the Green Spine is not completed until the last phase is built (phase 8, possibly in 15 years?). The Green Spine serves a bus route and must surely be completed much before then. It must also be constructed in a manner that enables both the foul and surface water drainage to function at all times throughout the development. It may also serve as a utility corridor.

Figure 13 and sections 6.3.47,48 and 49 of SW Maidenhead SDP explain that individual developments should be linked to a site-wide masterplan. It clearly states that this is required to illustrate conformity and give confidence that a comprehensive approach to the SWM allocation site has been appropriately considered and incorporated in the design thinking. Figures 9 and 10 in the SPD indicate that the Green Spine is not the main access to the site and that the Green Spine should emerge from Harvest Hill Road directly opposite to the point where it continues southwards. Is this the case?

No lighting scheme is shown for this route. At the very least, bollard lighting should be provided for safety and security. Attenuation ponds lie next to the footpath in some locations, and no safety measures are indicated to prevent young children from drowning. Lighting is especially important in such locations and next to water-filled swales where they are immediately adjacent to paths. Energy and Sustainability Statement sections 4.5.2 and 7.2.4 recommend solar-powered street lighting, but nowhere is it stated that this will be provided, or to what extent.

Maintenance of the spine, which includes the SuDS drainage, is required regularly, and a maintenance plan is required. Section 3 of part 1 of the document titled “Condition 10 surface water drainage” states that details are in Appendix K, which is not readily traceable. It is not clear how a Management Company manages this and charges tenants as the development unfolds, and how RBWM will ensure that this is carried out to an appropriate standard. Attenuation basin 4 on Engineering Layout 4 of 9 indicates a 1.5m deep, potentially water-filled pit immediately adjacent to footpaths in Harvest Hill Road and the Green Spine entry, with no apparent protection. The SuDS plans show trees outlined in grey. It is unclear as to whether these are existing trees to be retained or removed. The landscape drawings show trees/bushes planted in the drainage swales. Planting must not impede access for cleaning or mowing the swale. The roots of these trees should not be close to any drainage runs to avoid damage to pipes. Section 8.7 of the surface water drainage strategy in application 24/00091/OUT outlines the drainage strategy and the need for permeable paving.

The Construction Traffic Management Plan is a generic plan for all activity going to the site, but does not mention if the Green Spine will be used for construction traffic or show the on-site route for construction vehicles as phases are built out, including the Green Spine itself. Temporary signage is shown, and RBWM must retain a deposit to ensure that such signage is removed promptly as soon as it is no longer required. All too often, temporary signage is left in place.

The SuDS outlet from attenuation basin 3 appears to coincide with the PROW. The Landscape GA sheet 2 of 5 should show the PROW and how this will be kept open and incorporated into the final design in a safe manner. It is unclear whether the footpath will have a gravel or paved surface and be maintained in a usable condition in adverse weather. This footpath will be the primary access route for residents visiting the many facilities at Braywick Park and the nature centre, being an essential part of actively encouraging residents to walk where possible. Engineering layout sheet 6 of 9 shows an “adoptable foul water pumping station”. No plan shows the appearance of this pumping station. Presumably, it is adopted by Thames Water, but has this been confirmed?

The SuDS scheme needs to be incorporated into the SuDs schemes for all the adjacent phases to show an integrated system. It is somewhat meaningless to design a scheme purely for one of the roads that cross the site without understanding the entire integrated scheme. There does not appear to be any attempt at rainwater harvesting, which would provide irrigation for green spaces in the predicted hot, dry summers of the future (see Sustainability SPD).

The drawing numbering is inconsistent. For instance, 26_00983_REM-OVERVIEW_OF_FUTURE_MASTERPLAN CONTEXT is listed on the document list as 10062_003. Some of the appendices are within other documents, and it is impossible to quickly identify where any particular appendix is located. It is difficult for any newcomer who has not been involved in discussions with the developer, such as a planning officer, to find specific documents and relate them to each other. The listed documents have been produced by various consultants, some of which apply to the entire development and others to specific aspects, with little attempt to link them together.

The way the golf course site is divided into phases does not seem to relate to the Green Spine, and significant green areas, such as parks and play areas, do not appear to be allocated to any phase. The landscaping shown in Figure 10 of the SW Maidenhead SPD may be in the green spine application, but if not, where does it sit? Is it intended that these form part of the Green Spine application and if not, which phase are they in? (See the parcel plan within the landscape statement). In the introduction, diagram no. 3 of this statement is labeled, “an enhanced public right of way forms an east-west travel route”. Where are the details of this enhancement? The attenuation basins are at the edge of Rushington Park, but no details and phasing plans are provided for this green space or for the other green spaces and play areas that do not lie within one of the outlined phasing zones.

The transport statement states: “These proposals are for the Green Spine infrastructure only and do not involve any development that will generate vehicle trips, i.e. residential dwellings, local centre, schools”. It does not refer to where a statement that includes these can be found. It clearly implies that the Green Spine does not serve residential dwellings, the local centre or schools.

In short, the submission is confusing, with some general statements, many applicable to the entire SW Maidenhead area, others just to the Elizabeth Quarter, with selected details for a Green Spine which may or may not carry traffic. The landscape submission waxes lyrical about this spine and how instrumental it is in connecting the different phases. However, it would appear that the leisure routes (footpaths) are the principal means to achieve this interconnectivity and connect the residents with nature, and no details are provided for these paths. How do residents access their houses with a car, and how are vehicle deliveries made, dustbins emptied, etc.? How do residents and those from further afield access the surgery, a local shop, schools, etc.? A road system providing access to about 1500 homes, two schools, a shop, and a surgery cannot be traffic-free, and it is likely to be very busy at certain times of the day. If there is a different road system providing this access, in which application or applications do they reside?

The planning system in England is designed to be transparent and understandable, allowing local communities and third parties to effectively scrutinize proposals and offer meaningful feedback on potential impacts. This application is neither transparent nor understandable. The issues raised must be addressed, and the application resubmitted so that it can be properly scrutinized.

  Back To Listing