Plans to replace 'dilapidated' Cookham house with self-build property approved

Councillors unanimously voted in favour of a 'contentious development' plan to demolish a house in Cookham and rebuild it.

The property in Briar Glen has been the subject of a number of redevelopment plans in recent years and fresh proposals were submitted to the Royal Borough in June.

The applicants are looking to demolish the existing Holmwood house and to self-build a replacement family home.

At a Maidenhead Development Management Committee meeting on Thursday, October 16, councillors recognised the long planning history for the site but decided this current application was ‘more sensible’.

Previous plans have either been refused or withdrawn over the years after concerns over surface water drainage, limited road accessibility and overlooking onto neighbouring properties.

Speaking at Thursday’s development management committee meeting, Cookham parish councillor Jacqui Edwards said that one house for the site was 'more suitable' compared to the ongoing 'saga' of previous proposals, but she still raised concerns.

Cllr Edwards said the height of the proposed redevelopment is larger than the existing house, with further concerns around the limited access to the narrow Briar Glen road during the construction period.

Addressing the Royal Borough councillors on the committee, she called for additional planning conditions to be added, such as no changes being made to the existing levels of the home in the future and removing permitted development rights.

Permitted development rights (PDRs) allow applicants to make certain alterations to their properties, such as elevations, without needing a full planning permission from their local authority.

Royal Borough councillor Mark Howard (Lib Dem, Bisham and Cookham), who also sits on Cookham Parish Council, welcomed the plans but said extra conditions should be enforced.

Addressing the committee as a public speaker, he said: “There has been so much distrust, so many applications, so many arguments. It’s reasonable to want this [current application] to happen but not to be the basis for future evolution and unreasonable adaptations.”

The council’s assistant director of planning, Adrien Waite, said permitted development rights can be removed through a planning condition but there has to be a legitimate reason for this.

Mr Waite said: “To be honest, it is very difficult to see that there would be [a reason to remove the rights] here.”

Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary's), a member of the planning committee, supported the current plans and said that various ‘contentious’ proposals have been going back and forth for the site.

Cllr Singh said: “The application we’ve got before us today is a bit more sensible. The [current] house is quite dilapidated, it’s covered in asbestos, it’s not very safe and this [proposed] building will be a good sustainable property.”

But he asked if a construction management plan could be requested from the applicant as a condition.

Mr Waite said that conditions have to be ‘enforceable and necessary’ and should not duplicate other legislation.

“In general, [construction management plans] are completely unenforceable,” Mr Waite said.

He added that for this proposal specifically, what would be included in a construction management plan is already covered by other legislation.

Cllr Helen Taylor (Ind, Oldfield) understood this, but she did back Cllr Singh and asked that an ‘informative’ line is still added about ‘considerate construction practices’ and encouraging the applicant to communicate with neighbours during the redevelopment.

Ultimately, councillors unanimously voted in favour of the proposals for one self-build home to replace the existing house on the site.