Proposals for Development around Holyport Green will be shown here.
1. There is a proposal to Convert An Existing Structure to a Residential Dwelling, with associated works. This proposal has been rejected by Bray Parish Council and the RBWM, and as of 11th April 2014 is the subject of an appeal to the Government's Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol.
Should you have already commented, your comments will be seen by the Inspector. Should you wish to comment the process is explained below.
The RBWM notice of this appeal has the following text;
Please reply to: Susan Sharman
Direct line: 01628 685320
Email: susan.sharman@rbwm.gov.uk
Our ref.: 14/00120/FULL
Plns Case Ref.: APP/T0355/A/14/2216665
11 April 2014
Dear Owner/Occupier
Appeal By: Mr Burgess c/o Agent: Mr Hunt - Pike Smith And Kemp Rural And Commercial Ltd The Granary Hyde Farm Marlow Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 6PQ
Site Address: Land East of Holyport Lodge And To The Rear of Melville To Morris Cottages Holyport Street Holyport Maidenhead
Proposal: Conversion of existing structure to residential dwelling, and associated works
I write to advise you of the above appeal against the Council's decision.
This appeal will be decided by an exchange of written statements to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the Council and the appellant(s), together with a site visit by the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
If you have already made comments on the planning application, these will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant(s). These will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal. Should you wish to make additional comments, or modify/withdraw your previous representation, you can do so on the Planning Portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs or by emailing: teamp16@pins.gsi.gov.uk If you do not have access to the internet, you can send 3 copies to the 3/10B Kite Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN quoting the above Plns Case Ref. Please ensure any comments are received by the Planning Inspectorate no later than 14 May 2014. Representations received after this deadline will not normally be seen by the Inspector and will be returned to you. The Planning Inspectorate does not acknowledge representations.
Please note that any representations you submit to the Planning Inspectorate will be copied to the appellant(s) and this local planning authority and will be considered by the Inspector when determining this appeal. You can read a 'Guide to Taking Part in Planning Appeals"Guide to Taking Part in Planning Appeals' through the publications on the Planning Portal website (www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs) or a free copy can be obtained by contacting us.
The planning application, the Council's decision and the appeal information may be inspected at the Council's Customer Contact Centre Town Hall St Ives Road Maidenhead and York House Sheet Street Windsor between the hours of 8.45am and 5.15pm Monday to Thursday and between 8.45am and 4.45pm on Fridays, or on our website at www.rbwm.gov.uk/environment.planning.htm and by selecting Planning Applications Online. Please contact the Customer Contact Centre on 01628 683810 to arrange an appointment.
You can track the progress of this appeal on the internet at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs and use the Plns Case Ref. at the top of this letter to retrieve details. The decision will be published on the Planning Portal.
When decided, the decision will be published on the Planning Portal. Alternatively, the formal decision will be available for inspection at the Council's Customer Contact Centres or on our website.
Yours faithfully
Susan Sharman
Senior Planning Officer
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Should you have already commented, your comments will be seen by the Inspector. Should you wish to comment the process is explained below.
The RBWM notice of this appeal has the following text;
Please reply to: Susan Sharman
Direct line: 01628 685320
Email: susan.sharman@rbwm.gov.uk
Our ref.: 14/00120/FULL
Plns Case Ref.: APP/T0355/A/14/2216665
11 April 2014
Dear Owner/Occupier
Appeal By: Mr Burgess c/o Agent: Mr Hunt - Pike Smith And Kemp Rural And Commercial Ltd The Granary Hyde Farm Marlow Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 6PQ
Site Address: Land East of Holyport Lodge And To The Rear of Melville To Morris Cottages Holyport Street Holyport Maidenhead
Proposal: Conversion of existing structure to residential dwelling, and associated works
I write to advise you of the above appeal against the Council's decision.
This appeal will be decided by an exchange of written statements to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the Council and the appellant(s), together with a site visit by the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
If you have already made comments on the planning application, these will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant(s). These will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal. Should you wish to make additional comments, or modify/withdraw your previous representation, you can do so on the Planning Portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs or by emailing: teamp16@pins.gsi.gov.uk If you do not have access to the internet, you can send 3 copies to the 3/10B Kite Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN quoting the above Plns Case Ref. Please ensure any comments are received by the Planning Inspectorate no later than 14 May 2014. Representations received after this deadline will not normally be seen by the Inspector and will be returned to you. The Planning Inspectorate does not acknowledge representations.
Please note that any representations you submit to the Planning Inspectorate will be copied to the appellant(s) and this local planning authority and will be considered by the Inspector when determining this appeal. You can read a 'Guide to Taking Part in Planning Appeals"Guide to Taking Part in Planning Appeals' through the publications on the Planning Portal website (www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs) or a free copy can be obtained by contacting us.
The planning application, the Council's decision and the appeal information may be inspected at the Council's Customer Contact Centre Town Hall St Ives Road Maidenhead and York House Sheet Street Windsor between the hours of 8.45am and 5.15pm Monday to Thursday and between 8.45am and 4.45pm on Fridays, or on our website at www.rbwm.gov.uk/environment.planning.htm and by selecting Planning Applications Online. Please contact the Customer Contact Centre on 01628 683810 to arrange an appointment.
You can track the progress of this appeal on the internet at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs and use the Plns Case Ref. at the top of this letter to retrieve details. The decision will be published on the Planning Portal.
When decided, the decision will be published on the Planning Portal. Alternatively, the formal decision will be available for inspection at the Council's Customer Contact Centres or on our website.
Yours faithfully
Susan Sharman
Senior Planning Officer
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Further to the above, it is disappointing to note that the Bristol Planning Inspectorate have on 14th July 2014 allowed the appeal.
The letter can be downloaded from the button below.
The letter can be downloaded from the button below.
See page 3 of the Inspectorate's letter, paragraphs 12 and 13. A photo of it and photos of the ruined building as of 2011 are shown below.
It is clear from these that the penultimate sentence of paragraph 12 is correct and the last sentence of paragraph 12 is incorrect.
The second sentence of paragraph 13 is clearly incorrect.
The concerns expressed in the home page on this website are relevant to decisions of this sort, where it seems clear that the Planning Inspectorate's remit is to give planning permission wherever remotely possible.
It is clear from these that the penultimate sentence of paragraph 12 is correct and the last sentence of paragraph 12 is incorrect.
The second sentence of paragraph 13 is clearly incorrect.
The concerns expressed in the home page on this website are relevant to decisions of this sort, where it seems clear that the Planning Inspectorate's remit is to give planning permission wherever remotely possible.
2. There is a proposal for "Replacement of brick gate piers and widening of gateway and access track, following demolition of existing brick gate."
Further to Item 1 above, as of 9th October 2014 a new planning application has been made in connection with this area of land.
Readers will recall (as shown above) that earlier this year planning permission was refused but later granted on appeal to the owner of the formerly ruined building known as an “Apple Store” situated in the land between The Tennis Club and Holyport Street. The application was to convert the building, which had been greatly restored without any planning permission having been requested, to residential accommodation.
Some of us had said that permission for this work could lead to further developments being requested.
Now we have the first sign of this. An application has been made to widen the driveway for the Tennis Club, from which derives the only access for that area of land.
The link to the application on the RBWM website is given below:-
http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/planning_application_search.jsp?appnum=14%2F03143%2FFULL
The Application Number is 14/03143/FULL
The proposal being “Replacement of brick gate piers and widening of gateway and access track, following demolition of existing brick gate.
The work however is not quite as straightforward as the proposal description states.
The plan and work description shows that parts of the gardens of the two cottages on either side of the gateway are owned by the applicant, and these areas of garden are to be used as part of the development, to enable easier access.
It could be that this access widening is required to facilitate future building work in this area of land.
My reading of the existing Local Plan is that this area is Green Belt.
As the results of the HRA survey in connection with the RBWM new Local Plan showed earlier this year most of the local population who responded are against building on Green Belt. The HRA is also against any alterations to Green Belt, so we encourage members and friends to object to this application.
The application will be discussed at the Bray Parish Council's Planning Meeting on Monday 3rd November 2014.
Public may attend. Anyone wishing to speak must advise the Parish Council Clerk at clerk@brayparishcouncil.gov.uk or http://www.brayparishcouncil.gov.uk/index.php/contact-us/ or telephone 01628 777997.
The HRA objection to the widening of the gateway that leads to Lodge Farm land of which Area 7A is part is shown below.
HRA Objection to Planning Application 14/03143/FULL
I write as Chairman of the Holyport Residents Association (HRA) to object on behalf of residents of the Holyport area to Planning Application No 14/03143/FULL.
The HRA must object to this application because the majority of residents who responded to the HRA consultation held in 2014 for the purpose of assessing residents’ opinions for the RBWM New Local Plan consultation were against any development of Green Belt Land. Of 513 respondents, (Approximately 18.1% of the Holyport Area population), 497 (96.9%) wanted no development on the Area 7A Green Belt land (Lodge Farm).
We consider that if the width of the subject access were to be increased so that it can allow two-way traffic it would not be only for the purpose stated in the application. Rather it is more likely to be for the purpose of making the Green Belt Land to which it leads more marketable, more likely to receive future planning permission, and more easily developed.
Even although most of that land is not owned by the applicant, being “Lodge Farm Holyport” see http://www.lodgefarmholyport.co.uk , it is entirely conceivable that should this application be approved it could assist the owner of Lodge Farm Holyport either in his development plans as shown on the aforementioned web-site, or in making Lodge Farm Holyport more marketable for future development.
We submit the following for RBWM consideration;
1. The gateway is poorly identified as being at Holyport Real Tennis Club, as the Tennis Club has not asked for this alteration and has no part in the matter. This mention of the Tennis Club has already led to a newspaper report on 23rd October 2014, subsequently corrected by the newspaper on their online version and in the 30th October 2014 issue, where the application was attributed to the Tennis Club.
2. Referring to the applicant’s “Design and Access Planning Statement”;
2.1. Paragraph 2.1 states that the site is the access, gateway and track leading to the Real Tennis Club. However, the proposed resurfacing of the track is for only the first 5 metres of the track. This does not much assist the Tennis Club. We point out that the track also leads first to the boundary of Lodge Farm, to an existing gateway on the right that leads into that land. In paragraph 6.2 the applicant states; "The Real Tennis Club have indicated their support for this application as it will provide significant benefits to their members, as well as providing a more prestigious access to the club." However, on 27th October 2014, a Tennis Club spokesperson is reported by the Maidenhead Advertiser to have said, “We do not know where that came from, to be honest. We have not formally done that, we do not know why that's in that document. We have not done anything formal to support it.”
2.2. Paragraph 2.2 states that the site falls within the Holyport Conservation Area, however the boundary of the Holyport Conservation Area excludes the land to which the gateway gives access. Thus that land is Green Belt and does not benefit from the indication in the Local Plan (Environment 2.1.4 and sub-paragraph 4) that some parts of Conservation Areas could perhaps be developed.
2.3. Paragraph 2.3 states that one gateway pier is in a poor state of repair and will soon require to be repaired for safety reasons. This being the case, the only necessary work is to repair it and perhaps remove the gates as proposed in paragraph 3.4 of the applicant’s statement.
2.4. Paragraph 2.4 states that the access is used predominantly by the Real Tennis Club, existing residential properties and the former apple store that recently achieved planning permission for conversion to a residential dwelling contrary to the RBWM planning department’s wishes. However, it is most likely that the main reason for this current application is to provide a service to the owner of Lodge Farm Holyport to ease his development plans as shown on the aforementioned web-site, or to assist in making Lodge Farm Holyport more marketable for future development.
2.5. The relevant part of Policy GB1 of the currently existing Local Plan states that within the Green Belt, approval will only be given for Engineering and other operations and the making of material changes in the use of land which maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt.
2.6. The proposed increased width of this gateway would provide two-way traffic access to the boundary of Lodge Farm Holyport. Lodge Farm is Green Belt Land currently under consideration in RBWM’s Edge of Settlement Analysis for the New Local Plan and is identified as Area 7A. As Area 7A is a gap between settlements, the HRA have stated in comment on the Edge of Settlement Analysis that it must be maintained as Green Belt land. The Engineering or other operation for provision of this widened access would make it more likely that Lodge Farm could be developed.
2.7. As the purpose of including land in the Green Belt is to ensure that it will not be developed, a change such as this, that would make development more likely, would conflict with the purpose of including land in the Green Belt and must not be approved.
2.8. The applicant’s proposed change of use of approximately half of the front garden of Rose Cottage and more than a third of the front garden of Morris Cottage, together with all of the side garden of Morris Cottage from garden to roadway or parking space is counter to the concept expressed in the Local Plan that gardens should not be converted to parking spaces, the main reason for this being that increased paved areas reduces drainage and increases flood risk. Holyport Street has been flooded as recently as the winter of 2013/14.
2.9. It is considered that this proposed change would be unjustifiable tort on the occupants of Rose and Morris Cottages.
3. Policy CA2 of the currently existing Local Plan is contravened in the following ways;
3.1. Contrary to CA2 (1), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages will not enhance and would not preserve the character and appearance of the area.
3.2. Contrary to CA2 (2), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages would detrimentally alter the distinctive character of this area.
3.3. Contrary to CA2 (3), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages would not be sympathetic to the character of the area.
3.4. Contrary to CA2 (5), the widening of the access could lead in due course to further development of the accessed land, and this would lead to an undesirable intensification of activities in the area.
3.5. Contrary to CA2 (6), although the area of land to which this gateway provides access is outside the boundary of the conservation area, it is an important open space of green belt land located within the general envelope of the conservation area, whose openness forms part of the essential character of this conservation area. As there is no need to provide widened access to this land, permission to widen it should not be given as the widened access would make it more likely that a future owner would consider that development of the land might be possible.
3.6. Contrary to CA2 (7), the fences and hedges that would be altered are significant and should be retained as they now are.
4. Policy CA6 of the currently existing Local Plan does not permit the conversion of “front” gardens into parking spaces. One reason for this is so that land providing drainage is not paved over, and the effect of such paving is the same whether the garden is a side, front or back garden.
4.1. Contrary to CA6 (2), the applicant’s Design and Access Planning Statement indicates in paragraph 3.2 that this work would provide off-street parking at the side of Morris Cottage. Although the parking would be on land formerly at the side of Morris Cottage, the fact that Morris Cottage is on a corner means that for the purposes of the Local Plan both the front and the side front onto a roadway, so could be considered as “front”, and thus unacceptable for conversion to parking.
4.2. Although the applicant states in his 4.1.7 that the application does not propose any new parking provisions, his 3.2 states the contrary. Further, his 4.1.7 is ambiguous in stating to the effect that the front gardens are not converted to parking, but that the so-called improved visibility splays referred to in his paragraph 1.1 would allow parked cars to pull further off the road “without the need to convert front gardens to car parking”. But in effect this would constitute a conversion of the front gardens into parking facilities, including the paving over aspect that the currently existing Local Plan seeks to avoid. In the applicant’s 4.2.2 he further compounds the ambiguity by referring to the access falling below the minimum standards of the RBWM Highways Design Guide. The only part of that guide that could be reasonably considered to apply in this respect would be that concerning visibility splays, and the parked cars which the applicant envisages would pull further off the road into the visibility splays would obviate the visibility aspect required by the RBWM Highways Design Guide.
5. Considering the applicant’s “5. Justification”
5.1. The applicant refers to a traffic survey that had indicated 589 traffic movements per day, and suggests that many of these movements must be related to the Tennis Club. We suggest that RBWM should ask the Tennis Club for a statement of vehicle movements to and from the club. The applicant infers that as, apart from this driveway and the pub, the rest of Holyport Street is residential and a no through road, the traffic movement figure could be wrong. No consideration has been mentioned of vehicle movements from delivery vans associated with the delivery of groceries, post office vans etc. and the daily movement of residents’ own vehicles, which may well achieve the 589 traffic movements.
5.2. The applicant refers in paragraph 5.9 to drivers in cars emerging from the widened driveway having a better view of cars moving in Holyport Street, this being due to the visibility splays. But we have already seen that the applicant envisages that cars will park in the visibility splays, so blocking the enhanced visibility to which the applicant refers.
5.3. In paragraph 5.10, the applicant states that the improvements will provide space for cars to pull in (to the visibility splays). However, as we have already seen, the applicant offers these visibility splays for parking.
5.4. Also in paragraph 5.10, the applicant reconfirms that the proposal provides parking behind the rebuilt brick pier, at the side of Morris Cottage fronting onto the driveway.
5.5. The reference in paragraph 6.1 to discussions with the RBWM Highways Department where the latter indicated they would be pleased to see any improvement to the access has been denied by RBWM.
5.6. In paragraph 6.2 the applicant states that the Real Tennis Club has indicated their support, but the Tennis Club has told the Maidenhead Advertiser the opposite.
We consider that the application must be denied.
HRA Objection to Planning Application 14/03143/FULL
I write as Chairman of the Holyport Residents Association (HRA) to object on behalf of residents of the Holyport area to Planning Application No 14/03143/FULL.
The HRA must object to this application because the majority of residents who responded to the HRA consultation held in 2014 for the purpose of assessing residents’ opinions for the RBWM New Local Plan consultation were against any development of Green Belt Land. Of 513 respondents, (Approximately 18.1% of the Holyport Area population), 497 (96.9%) wanted no development on the Area 7A Green Belt land (Lodge Farm).
We consider that if the width of the subject access were to be increased so that it can allow two-way traffic it would not be only for the purpose stated in the application. Rather it is more likely to be for the purpose of making the Green Belt Land to which it leads more marketable, more likely to receive future planning permission, and more easily developed.
Even although most of that land is not owned by the applicant, being “Lodge Farm Holyport” see http://www.lodgefarmholyport.co.uk , it is entirely conceivable that should this application be approved it could assist the owner of Lodge Farm Holyport either in his development plans as shown on the aforementioned web-site, or in making Lodge Farm Holyport more marketable for future development.
We submit the following for RBWM consideration;
1. The gateway is poorly identified as being at Holyport Real Tennis Club, as the Tennis Club has not asked for this alteration and has no part in the matter. This mention of the Tennis Club has already led to a newspaper report on 23rd October 2014, subsequently corrected by the newspaper on their online version and in the 30th October 2014 issue, where the application was attributed to the Tennis Club.
2. Referring to the applicant’s “Design and Access Planning Statement”;
2.1. Paragraph 2.1 states that the site is the access, gateway and track leading to the Real Tennis Club. However, the proposed resurfacing of the track is for only the first 5 metres of the track. This does not much assist the Tennis Club. We point out that the track also leads first to the boundary of Lodge Farm, to an existing gateway on the right that leads into that land. In paragraph 6.2 the applicant states; "The Real Tennis Club have indicated their support for this application as it will provide significant benefits to their members, as well as providing a more prestigious access to the club." However, on 27th October 2014, a Tennis Club spokesperson is reported by the Maidenhead Advertiser to have said, “We do not know where that came from, to be honest. We have not formally done that, we do not know why that's in that document. We have not done anything formal to support it.”
2.2. Paragraph 2.2 states that the site falls within the Holyport Conservation Area, however the boundary of the Holyport Conservation Area excludes the land to which the gateway gives access. Thus that land is Green Belt and does not benefit from the indication in the Local Plan (Environment 2.1.4 and sub-paragraph 4) that some parts of Conservation Areas could perhaps be developed.
2.3. Paragraph 2.3 states that one gateway pier is in a poor state of repair and will soon require to be repaired for safety reasons. This being the case, the only necessary work is to repair it and perhaps remove the gates as proposed in paragraph 3.4 of the applicant’s statement.
2.4. Paragraph 2.4 states that the access is used predominantly by the Real Tennis Club, existing residential properties and the former apple store that recently achieved planning permission for conversion to a residential dwelling contrary to the RBWM planning department’s wishes. However, it is most likely that the main reason for this current application is to provide a service to the owner of Lodge Farm Holyport to ease his development plans as shown on the aforementioned web-site, or to assist in making Lodge Farm Holyport more marketable for future development.
2.5. The relevant part of Policy GB1 of the currently existing Local Plan states that within the Green Belt, approval will only be given for Engineering and other operations and the making of material changes in the use of land which maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt.
2.6. The proposed increased width of this gateway would provide two-way traffic access to the boundary of Lodge Farm Holyport. Lodge Farm is Green Belt Land currently under consideration in RBWM’s Edge of Settlement Analysis for the New Local Plan and is identified as Area 7A. As Area 7A is a gap between settlements, the HRA have stated in comment on the Edge of Settlement Analysis that it must be maintained as Green Belt land. The Engineering or other operation for provision of this widened access would make it more likely that Lodge Farm could be developed.
2.7. As the purpose of including land in the Green Belt is to ensure that it will not be developed, a change such as this, that would make development more likely, would conflict with the purpose of including land in the Green Belt and must not be approved.
2.8. The applicant’s proposed change of use of approximately half of the front garden of Rose Cottage and more than a third of the front garden of Morris Cottage, together with all of the side garden of Morris Cottage from garden to roadway or parking space is counter to the concept expressed in the Local Plan that gardens should not be converted to parking spaces, the main reason for this being that increased paved areas reduces drainage and increases flood risk. Holyport Street has been flooded as recently as the winter of 2013/14.
2.9. It is considered that this proposed change would be unjustifiable tort on the occupants of Rose and Morris Cottages.
3. Policy CA2 of the currently existing Local Plan is contravened in the following ways;
3.1. Contrary to CA2 (1), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages will not enhance and would not preserve the character and appearance of the area.
3.2. Contrary to CA2 (2), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages would detrimentally alter the distinctive character of this area.
3.3. Contrary to CA2 (3), the removal of part of the gardens of Rose and Morris cottages would not be sympathetic to the character of the area.
3.4. Contrary to CA2 (5), the widening of the access could lead in due course to further development of the accessed land, and this would lead to an undesirable intensification of activities in the area.
3.5. Contrary to CA2 (6), although the area of land to which this gateway provides access is outside the boundary of the conservation area, it is an important open space of green belt land located within the general envelope of the conservation area, whose openness forms part of the essential character of this conservation area. As there is no need to provide widened access to this land, permission to widen it should not be given as the widened access would make it more likely that a future owner would consider that development of the land might be possible.
3.6. Contrary to CA2 (7), the fences and hedges that would be altered are significant and should be retained as they now are.
4. Policy CA6 of the currently existing Local Plan does not permit the conversion of “front” gardens into parking spaces. One reason for this is so that land providing drainage is not paved over, and the effect of such paving is the same whether the garden is a side, front or back garden.
4.1. Contrary to CA6 (2), the applicant’s Design and Access Planning Statement indicates in paragraph 3.2 that this work would provide off-street parking at the side of Morris Cottage. Although the parking would be on land formerly at the side of Morris Cottage, the fact that Morris Cottage is on a corner means that for the purposes of the Local Plan both the front and the side front onto a roadway, so could be considered as “front”, and thus unacceptable for conversion to parking.
4.2. Although the applicant states in his 4.1.7 that the application does not propose any new parking provisions, his 3.2 states the contrary. Further, his 4.1.7 is ambiguous in stating to the effect that the front gardens are not converted to parking, but that the so-called improved visibility splays referred to in his paragraph 1.1 would allow parked cars to pull further off the road “without the need to convert front gardens to car parking”. But in effect this would constitute a conversion of the front gardens into parking facilities, including the paving over aspect that the currently existing Local Plan seeks to avoid. In the applicant’s 4.2.2 he further compounds the ambiguity by referring to the access falling below the minimum standards of the RBWM Highways Design Guide. The only part of that guide that could be reasonably considered to apply in this respect would be that concerning visibility splays, and the parked cars which the applicant envisages would pull further off the road into the visibility splays would obviate the visibility aspect required by the RBWM Highways Design Guide.
5. Considering the applicant’s “5. Justification”
5.1. The applicant refers to a traffic survey that had indicated 589 traffic movements per day, and suggests that many of these movements must be related to the Tennis Club. We suggest that RBWM should ask the Tennis Club for a statement of vehicle movements to and from the club. The applicant infers that as, apart from this driveway and the pub, the rest of Holyport Street is residential and a no through road, the traffic movement figure could be wrong. No consideration has been mentioned of vehicle movements from delivery vans associated with the delivery of groceries, post office vans etc. and the daily movement of residents’ own vehicles, which may well achieve the 589 traffic movements.
5.2. The applicant refers in paragraph 5.9 to drivers in cars emerging from the widened driveway having a better view of cars moving in Holyport Street, this being due to the visibility splays. But we have already seen that the applicant envisages that cars will park in the visibility splays, so blocking the enhanced visibility to which the applicant refers.
5.3. In paragraph 5.10, the applicant states that the improvements will provide space for cars to pull in (to the visibility splays). However, as we have already seen, the applicant offers these visibility splays for parking.
5.4. Also in paragraph 5.10, the applicant reconfirms that the proposal provides parking behind the rebuilt brick pier, at the side of Morris Cottage fronting onto the driveway.
5.5. The reference in paragraph 6.1 to discussions with the RBWM Highways Department where the latter indicated they would be pleased to see any improvement to the access has been denied by RBWM.
5.6. In paragraph 6.2 the applicant states that the Real Tennis Club has indicated their support, but the Tennis Club has told the Maidenhead Advertiser the opposite.
We consider that the application must be denied.
The application was refused. The following two buttons will show the RBWM Officer's Report and the letter of refusal.