IT’S that time of the week where we reveal the five most interesting planning applications determined or submitted to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough Borough Council.

This edition includes strong objections to an affordable family home, deferred plans for eight apartments, and a refused scheme to add a house on disused land.

Construction of one flat with undercroft to provide parking following demolition of garages at land adjacent to 191 Maidenhead Road, Windsor (20/02299/FULL).

An application submitted to the Royal Borough seeks to demolish garages 10-15 to make way for a replacement garage block with a one-bedroom flat on the first floor.

Six out of 12 garages will be demolished where the flat will be accessed by the courtyard space.

READ MORE: New grand Slough hotel and apartments ahead of schedule

Slough Observer:

The applicant argued the garages are in need of repair with their roofs needing to be replaced and their position is quite tight in terms of motorists being able to manoeuvre comfortably.

They also said this scheme will not only have a ‘fresh approach to the garaging needs’, it also makes best use of the land by adding residential accommodation.

However, one objection was received protesting the designs are overbearing, out of keeping of the area – which has Victorian cottages – and the proposed staircase will cause obstruction to vehicles entering and exiting the garage.

They said: “The single width access lane already causes problems with vehicles entering and exiting at the same time necessitating cars to reverse into the traffic on the busy main road. Regular traffic from another residential property will exacerbate this.”

One new house with parking, following demolition of existing single storey side extension to 26 Winchester Drive. Land At 26 Winchester Drive, Maidenhead (20/01319/FULL).

A new detached home was proposed to be erected on land adjacent to the existing three-bedroom dwelling following demolition of its single storey side extension of 46 sqm.

The proposed new home – which sits on the corner of the street – would’ve been 112 sqm with three-bedroom where the existing detached garage was planned to be removed.

‘Incongruous bulk and mass of development’ on the street’s corner, out of keeping of the area, reduced amenity space, and impact of the areas character are some of the objections raised by not only neighbours, but Cox Green Parish Council as well.

READ MORE: Demolition works for Maidenhead flats given go ahead

Slough Observer:

One resident said: “When we moved here in 1979, we understood that the front gardens had to be kept open plan with no paving, walls or fences to be erected around them. If this proposed application was approved, it would set a precedent for other properties to follow suit.”

Following the objections, Royal Borough planning officers refused the plans due to it having a ‘irregular shaped’ and small rear garden, ‘cramped’ open frontage, the design will impact the street’s character, and not providing cycle or bin storage.

Construction of semi-detached house following demolition of existing single storey rear element at land to the rear of 96 to 97 High Street, Eton, Windsor (20/02344/FULL).

An application has been submitted to the Royal Borough for a two-storey one-bedroom home with a single garage.

It also has a study, en-suite cloakroom, private garden, cycle and bin storage, and dining room in addition with the kitchen.

The site is already subject to construction of a block of three garages to the rear.

The applicant said this plan, if approved, will not clash with the development that’s due to happen.

They also said the proposal will contribute to the borough’s housing stock with its large garage and courtyard garden being ‘wholly appropriate’ to its town centre location.

READ MORE: Massive Slough Canal Basin plan adds more homes

Slough Observer:

Construction of one three-storey house with parking and garden at 36 Rodney Way, Colnbrook, Slough (P/19023/000).

Planning officers at Slough Borough Council decided to refuse this application following neighbours’ strong objections to the proposal.

The plans proposed to build an affordable single family home on land adjacent to the existing three-storey terrace houses.

This infill was to ‘make better use of redundant land adjacent properties’ with two new parking spaces, private garden, and cycle and bin storage.

The applicant added the designs are in keeping with the area and some of the green space would be been replaced by dense one metre high hedging.

‘Extremely upset’ residents wrote in objecting to the plans saying the loss of trees will impact a once ‘beautiful area’, parking will obstruct their view, traffic congestion, and noise disturbance.

Slough Observer:

Construction of eight apartments at Zaman House, Church Road, Maidenhead (20/00313/FULL).

This application compromising of one, two, and three-bedroom flats – was called in to be debated at the Royal Borough Development Management Panel on September 16 (Wednesday) by councillor Geoffrey Hill (The Borough First: Oldfield).

The existing Zaman House would be demolished for the flats and for 15 car parking spaces, an amenity area, and cycle and refuse storage.

The scheme was amended following previous refusal by reducing the buildings size, redesigning the building to match the area more, and setting the flats further back from Church Road for more space to allow tree planting and landscaping.

READ MORE: Windsor and Maidenhead still resolving waste collection fiasco

Worried residents and a ward councillor spoke at the meeting objecting to the plans that the designs are still out of keeping with the area, overdevelopment with a density greater than the neighbouring estate, the road being too narrow for additional vehicles, no affordable housing, and the building sits in a high flood risk area where no escape route is included with the plans.

The site isn’t near any trees with a protection order – but the council’s tree officer didn’t respond to the plans which concerned some councillors.

Slough Observer:

During the meeting, a motion of refusal was proposed – but planning officers were concerned on the clarity on the reason for refusal so they can take it back to the drawing board and make the amendments needed.

Instead of the application being refused, panel members unanimously agreed to defer it to the next meeting for more information from the tree officer on what damage this may cause to nearby trees as well as more details on the townscape assessment – which sets out key characteristics of the area.