No desperate housing need in fresh data

Cllr Coppinger made several inaccurate or misleading statements in the Advertiser of 16 December, which need to be corrected.

He has stated in the past that opposition to development of Maidenhead Golf Course (MGC) is fairly recent, which is blatantly untrue.

Braywick Action Group (BAG) was founded on March 31, 2017, with the primary purpose of opposing this development, which it has been actively doing since that time.

The content of the local plan did not therefore come as a surprise at all, which he is implying it did.

Cllr Coppinger claims that ‘the redevelopment of MGC is a crucial part of the next phase of Maidenhead’s regeneration’.

How does he possibly reconcile that with RBWM’s own environment and climate strategy which states: ‘The role of the natural environment in creating great places is critical to the success of the borough economy and to our residents’ health and wellbeing, therefore it is important we take steps to protect it’?

Perhaps this statement applies to any green space in the borough apart from MGC?

Two thousand new homes are not ‘desperately needed’.

In 2012 the Government’s assessment of housing need in our borough was for 12,691 new homes.

In 2018, using updated data, this figure was halved to 6,382 new homes.

Of these, 6,000 homes have already been built, or have planning permission granted.

Using the 2018 assessment, only 382 more new homes need to be built by 2033, which can easily be accommodated using existing brownfield sites in Maidenhead.

Why, then, is our council so desperate to build 2,000 homes on MGC, and a further 600 on the adjacent golf practice ground?

The answer is the massive debt that the council are in, which is expected to reach £250million by the end of the year.

If it were to go ahead, the development would result in payments to the council from their development partner, CALA Homes, of £225million, effectively clearing the

council’s debt.

If it were allowed to go ahead, this would be a short term fix of the council’s financial incompetence and mismanagement, but it would also be the long-term destruction of a very valuable asset for the health and wellbeing of all future generations to come in Maidenhead.

JOHN HUDSON Rushington Avenue

Maidenhead