DEVELOPERS have revealed why they withdrew their contentious 80-homes plan at a disastrous planning committee.
At a Maidenhead development management panel in August, councillors and a room of eager residents were keen to speak and hear the controversial plans to build new houses on open space land on Ray Mill Road East.
The plans, which were recommended for refusal by planning officers, involved a mix of detached, semi-detached, and terrace houses, as well as 32 flats comprising one and two bedrooms.
However, applicant T Bingham, who submitted a planning application on behalf of Cala Homes, withdrew the scheme at the last minute, leaving many disappointed – with one speaker saying she came home early from a holiday.
READ MORE: Maidenhead planning panel descends into chaos
The Local Democracy Reporting Service asked Cala Homes why the scheme was pulled at the committee meeting. A “no comment at this time” was given.
But now the application has been resubmitted to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for determination.
The agent, Douglas Bond, revealed they made a request for it to be withdrawn from the committee agenda as they considered the plans would not be determined in a “fair manner”.
He also said it wouldn’t be “quorate”, meaning there were not enough councillors there to make an official decision by voting.
Maidenhead Development Management Panel
On the night of the meeting, the council had to scramble some last-minute panel member replacements after a couple of Maidenhead councillors were absent.
Council leader Andrew Johnson and cabinet Cllr Donna Stimson were called in as substitutes with Cllr Gerry Clark, who is a panel member, arriving late.
Opposition Cllrs Geoff Hill and John Baldwin believed all three members didn’t read the planning documents in time, fearing they can’t give a fair and impartial decision.
READ MORE: 80 homes near Maidenhead town centre recommended for refusal
Cllr Hill asked the “poorly briefed” Cllrs to leave but the chairman of the planning committee, Cllr Phil Haseler, said the monitoring officer approved the panel to continue as is, which it did.
After the meeting got on track, the clerk revealed the application was withdrawn.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel