Elmshott Lane Development Proposals - Government Review October 2019

Just over 12 months have passed since the proposals for development on the Co-Op site at Elmshott Lane were defeated at council planning committee, after a lot of hard work by residents around the area.

However - since then the developer has applied to the Government for review by the Planning Inspectorate in the hope that the initial decision to refuse permission might be overturned.

Residents who made objections to Slough Borough Council will have received a letter in the post this week (document link at the bottom of this page) outlining the process for those who object to the development proposals to write in to the Planning Inspectorate.

For us at Slough West Conservatives, nothing has changed in 12 months that warrants the government overturning the original decision, and you can see in the document link at the bottom of this page the response we have made to both the Secretary of State and Ministers, and the Planning Inspectorate. In this we set out the case made by residents for the original objections. Below you can also view the original objections that Cllr. Anna Wright made to Slough Borough Council to help you form your own response. You can also find in this link the documentation relevant to the original application.

Anyone wishing to object needs to make a representation by Monday 21st October, and I would urge residents to do so as soon as possible. You can do this in one of three ways...

  1. Online Directly to the Planning Inspectorate - you can visit their website by clicking here  and entering 3224244 in the Search for a case box on the right hand side. In the following page there is a 'Make Representations' box at the top of the page, which will lead you to a form you can fill in to submit your response.
  2. By Post Directly to the Planning Inspectorate - you can send in three copies of your objection to the following address; Adam Hill, The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/10, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.
  3. By Email Directly to us - we are offering residents the option of emailing their objection letters to our email address at office@sloughconservatives.org.uk, and we will ensure that your objection is sent off in the post. Ensure that in your email you state your Full Name, Full Address and Postcode and your Contact Number, just in case we or the Planning Inspectorate need to contact you.

Our team and I will be out on the door-steps in the area over the next couple of weeks to raise awareness of this, so we hope to meet and talk with many of you in due course.

Only by putting in another big shift to ensure the Planning Inspectorate receive as many letters of objection as possible will we be able to try and keep this development proposal at bay - I urge you to help by spreading the word, send the link to this page on to friends, neighbours and relatives and ask them to submit their objections as soon as possible.

If you want to talk more about anything please do get in touch with me or Charlie.

Lee Pettman - Chair, Slough Conservative Association

Charlie Olsen - Cippenham Conservatives


Original Objection response to SBC by Cllr Anna Wright - Sunday 22nd July 2018

Objections to the planning application P/04670/013

As a resident of Cippenham Green and SBC councillor I strongly object to the above planning application.

The Localism Act 2011 makes the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective. It gives more power to residents and communities to influence the future of the place they live, what development are desirable and needed. The Act introduces a requirement for developers to consult communities before submitting applications.

In this case, the developer and SBC have breached Part 6, Chapter 4 of the Localism Act  by not carrying out pre-application consultation. Therefore the application should be withdrawn with the immediate effect.   By not doing this, SBC will be seen as deliberately concealing new development and as such it will abuse and breach the Localism Act.

Furthermore, the application has no regard to the community's values,  nor does it provide the community infrastructure levy to support new infrastructure such roads and new  schools, doctors surgeries for the new development.

SBC has a duty to work with residents on planning issues in the interest of local residents.

I will be citing residents comments in regard to this application which my colleague and I gathered through a survey we have launched. the survey can be shown if needed.

Additionally to the breach and abuse of the Localism Act other objections are as follows:

1. No provision for residential parking for the proposed dwellings on the site

2. Dwellings are all one / two bedroom flats which does not support local resident demand for family homes

3.The building proposed does not fit in with the existing built-environment of the local area in Cippenham Green

Explanatory notes:

1. No provision for residential parking for the proposed dwellings on the site

The argument of the applicant not to provide residential car parking is a total disgrace and a jump on the wagon to build more unsuitable flats and remove current parking facilities that serve the community.  To say : "This is in recognition of the nil parking requirement for sites located within a Shopping Centre area as designated in the SBC Local Plan" is laughable. This site may have shops but it is highly populated with residents and this redevelopment will bring even more people with cars (potentially 200 or more cars). This is not a "Shopping Area" and common sense should have applied here. The applicant should have proposed at least 1-1 parking space. yes, this application proposes 110 parking spaces for the retail need and 35 spaces for visitors to the flats but NIL for residents. 119 cycle parks is nice but in a real term should be as an additional benefit for residents of those flats,  not instead, and will it be used?

To also say: "This site is also in a highly accessible location, well served by local amenities with EXTENSIVE public transport links to employment and education destinations... As such, the development can be considered "car free" proves that there is no intention to make any provision to improve the transport eg, buses and amenities that are already working to capacity.

I cannot stress more that is very naive and convenient for the applicant that people will not have cars. People have cars. People might travel to work or school by train or bus or bike but they still have cars that are being used. This application cannot go ahead without provision of residential car parking.  A road  right opposite to the development -Washington Drive -will see the impact of it and it is already over flowing. The whole area due to schools cannot take more. 

This development  will have a huge impact on residents of Cippenham Green and Haymill &Lynch Hill when the traffic will be going through  Bath Rd, Huntercombe roundabout,  Station Rd/Burnham Lane especially with new 60 flats coming on Station Rd ( on Station Rd at least there is a provision for parking).

In reality it will create additional parking problems that SBC will have to deal with and spend money on improvements.  The developer can easily add additional parking on or below a basement level to accommodate the need. At this moment the developer is saving money and putting the burden on Slough taxpayers in the immediate future.

I am asking, where would all those new people park?

Local schools are full, those new resident will travel by cars to drop and pick kids up .

It is up to SBC planning department to make suitable requirements. It is just a commons sense to stop an unsuitable development.

2. Dwellings are all one / two bedroom flats which does not support local resident demand for family homes

In principle, this proposal is giving some accommodation but Slough needs more family homes. The Leader of the Council  James Swindlehurst a  few months ago at NCS scrutiny panel  admitted that SBC built too many wrong type of houses  (1/2 bedroom) and this has to change. Slough needs at least 3/4 bedrooms to meet the demand.

3. The building proposed does not fit in with the existing built-environment of the local area in Cippenham Green

This application proposes 4 levels. That means this building will be the highest in the area which will exceed the existing built-environment. This will also have an impact on people's lives as that flats will be intrusively overlooking people's gardens.

As I mentioned before I am citing some residents views on this development. Please  take note that there are only few of what we have gathered in a very short time period, which proves that if there was a pre-application consultation that proposal will not go ahead in a current shape.

I am asking the planning department to reconsider its position and/or withdraw  its recommendation or add conditions to the application for residential parking spaces, the community levy and lower the fourth level.

Cllr. Anna Wright - Ward Resident & Councillor for Haymill & Lynch Hill


Attachment Size
Letter from SBC regarding Elmshott Review - 16/09/2019 684.14 KB
SCA Letter to Local Government Ministers regarding Elmshott Lane Application Review - 30.09.19 636.63 KB