Avoiding CPO could be a stay of execution

Dear Mr Ames,

You request a response to your article in the Advertiser this week as to why most Maidenhead Golf Club (MGC) members voted to accept the council offer to build houses on a superb piece of greenbelt which is effectively supplying the ‘lung’ of Maidenhead.

Clearly you are not aware of all the relevant facts, or you ignored them so you could purposely express depressing views, indeed as many journalists do, just to sell newspapers and ignore facts.

The vast majority of Maidenhead golfers wish to stay at this location permanently. However, the land is owned by the council and the council have been trying to remove us from this wonderful piece of land for nearly 10 years.

The options on the membership at the EGM last week dictated by the council were a) reject the latest council offer but with the warning the council will proceed to a Compulsory Purchase Order which could remove us from the land in perhaps two to three years or b) we accept the council offer and continue to use the golf course for a minimum of four years.

Some of the reasons for Maidenhead Golf Club being considered for conversion to housing, is the proximity to the railway station and town centre; and the council overspending these last few years, so they are now very short of money.

Building on MGC boosts the council’s revenue considerably at the same time ignoring the environmental impact and health of the overall community.

In addition, we are all conscious that working conditions, following this pandemic, have changed business and individual working practices considerably.

So, plans to build housing, set perhaps two to three years ago, will need to be reevaluated once future working practices have been studied thoroughly.

Perhaps the amount of train passengers

to/from London will reduce.

Perhaps the extensive building of flats in the town centre will become unnecessary. Therefore, part of the reason for the choice taken by the membership was a hope that circumstances will change in the years ahead when the council will realise its errors and we can extend our stay beyond four years or substantially longer.

Therefore, option a) with the threat of a Compulsory Purchase, meaning the closing of the golf club at the earliest opportunity was not an acceptable or sensible option, not only for the membership but the town of Maidenhead as well.

Accepting option b) holds the potential of changes in the years ahead and the monies offered enables us to look elsewhere, purchasing or cooperating with another venue, maintaining the legacy of Maidenhead GC which Lord Desborough initiated 125 years ago.

PETER O’HARA Sheephouse Road

Maidenhead