Councillors approved CALA's junction change four to nil on 9 September, after one member left the room saying the committee's make-up invited a legal challenge.

Maidenhead councillors granted CALA Homes its changes to the 1,500-home golf course permission on Wednesday 9 September, by four votes to nil with one abstention. One member of the committee left the room before the vote, saying he was not willing to take part in a decision reached that way.

The minutes were published on 17 September, eight days after the meeting, and they print his full statement.

We previewed this decision on 5 September and said we would report the outcome from the council’s own record rather than from another outlet’s account. This is that record.

What was approved

The application is 26/00885/VAR, a Section 73 application on the Maidenhead Golf Club site at Shoppenhangers Road. It does not re-open the principle of building on the golf course. The outline permission for up to 1,500 homes, 24/00091/OUT, was granted on 15 December 2025 and stands either way.

The main change is to the access. The principal access off Harvest Hill Road becomes a priority junction instead of a roundabout. Nine conditions were varied in total.

The motion was proposed by Councillor Devon Davies, to grant permission in line with the officer recommendation and the updated conditions in the committee update, and seconded by the Chair, Councillor Mark Howard.

How the committee voted

A named vote was taken.

  • Councillor Mark Howard (Chair): For
  • Councillor Devon Davies: For
  • Councillor Genevieve Gosling: Abstain
  • Councillor Neil Knowles: For
  • Councillor Mark Wilson: For

Councillor Jack Douglas had left the meeting at 6.23pm and did not vote. Apologies were received from Councillors Cross, Hill, Martin, G Singh and Taylor, and Councillors Davies, Gosling, Knowles and Wilson attended as substitutes.

Timeline of the Maidenhead Golf Club Section 73 application from the outline permission on 15 December 2025 to the committee approval on 9 September 2026, showing the July deferral, the road safety audit, the highways response, the new National Planning Policy Framework and the publication of the minutes
From deferral to approval in seven weeks. The register still had not recorded the decision ten days later.
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

Why a councillor left the room

Councillor Douglas asked the Chair to defer the meeting and reconvene it with what he called the original voting members. When the Chair declined, he said that as a matter of personal conscience he would withdraw, and left.

He asked for his statement to be reproduced in full in the minutes, and it was. His points, as recorded:

  • On 21 July the committee voted four to nil to defer the application, seeking highway safety evidence and an assessment of traffic impact across the whole of south-west Maidenhead.
  • He said the council has a rule that when a deferred application returns, the same councillors decide it, put in writing by Democratic Services in January 2025, recorded in the minutes of 23 January 2025 and again on 15 May 2025 with the Head of Legal Services present, and applied since at Bridge Clinic, Kimbers Lane, Nicholsons and Mount Farm.
  • He said the Monitoring Officer had called that practice “preferable” on the Monday, then said the January 2025 advice came from a stand-in legal officer and was wrong.
  • Two of the four councillors who voted to defer were left off the membership list circulated on 2 September, and he said neither had sent apologies at that point.
  • Full Council abolished private pre-committee briefings unanimously in November 2024, and he said a private briefing on this application was held the day before the meeting, with a barrister present.
  • The council owns the land and is the developer’s joint venture partner, and he said it has told Full Council that the money from the development is essential to its deal with government.
  • A written legal opinion he had obtained said there was “a properly arguable case” that the decision would not survive challenge.

He also asked for the 21 July minutes to be corrected, saying his motion had not requested a legal opinion and that officers had confirmed in writing that the minutes should be amended. Democratic Services accepted the correction could be made, but because he had left the room the amended minutes were held over to the next meeting for approval.

What the Chair and officers said

The Chair opened the meeting by reading a statement acknowledging that allegations had been made about the composition and impartiality of the committee, and that their nature “could affect the integrity of the decision made this evening”. He said the committee was properly constituted under the constitution and that members would decide on the evidence before them, not on party political grounds.

Having taken advice from the legal advisor and the planning officer, he concluded that the committee’s composition was lawful and that there is no constitutional requirement for the same members to determine a deferred application. He declined to defer, and said the technical briefing had been necessary to help members understand complex issues.

Councillor Douglas also clarified that he was not alleging any current member was predetermined, and apologised if that impression had been given. His concern, he said, was how the process might look to a reasonable and well-informed member of the public.

The three things July asked for, and what came back

The deferral in July asked for a Road Safety Audit, an assessment of wider traffic impact, and counsel’s advice. The officers’ update sheet sets out what happened to each.

  • A Road Safety Audit was submitted on 3 August. The Highways Development Control Team replied on 7 August that it was satisfied with the audit and maintained that the proposals are acceptable in highways terms, raising no objection.
  • On wider traffic impact, officers said the application does not change the quantum of development, which is already permitted under the outline consent, so the cumulative impact on the road network does not change. They described the fall-back of the existing permission as “overriding and compelling”, and said they could not seek more information because National Highways and the local highways authority had already assessed it.
  • Counsel’s advice was that where a decision-maker rejects expert evidence, the duty to give reasons is heightened, and that departing from it would reasonably require an alternative expert position. Counsel said the central charges likely to be laid against the council would be that a refusal was “arbitrary and/or irrational”, and put the risk at “relatively high”, to be treated as “a highly material risk”.

The update sheet also records that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. Officers assessed the relevant local plan policies against its national decision-making policies and concluded none were materially inconsistent, so all keep their weight.

The register still says “awaiting decision”

Ten days after the vote, the council’s own planning register has not caught up. We checked 26/00885/VAR on publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk on 19 September, and its status is still “Awaiting decision”. No decision notice has been issued.

That is not unusual here. The same gap appeared after the Horton Brook Quarry vote on 3 September, which the register did not record for well over a week. The committee resolution is the decision in substance; the notice is the paperwork that follows.

The three applications heard at the 17 September Maidenhead committee, including the former GSK and Haleon factory warehouses on Norreys Drive and the 62 flats at Costain House, are all also still showing “Awaiting decision”, and no minutes have been published. We previewed those on 15 September and will report the outcomes when the council publishes them.

Updated 29 September: the 17 September minutes are now published. The warehouses were approved 5-0 and the Costain House flats were refused. Read the outcomes.

Also in the minutes: a Terry’s Lane appeal

Under the appeals report, the Major Projects Team Leader told the committee that a non-determination appeal had been lodged over Terry’s Lane, after the applicant appealed before the council had finished assessing flood risk and access.

The council’s position, he said, was that insufficient information had been provided on flood risk and safe access and egress, and that this would likely have formed the basis for a refusal had the council determined the application itself. The committee noted the report.

Terry’s Lane in Cookham is separately closed round the clock until 5 October for gas mains replacement, which is unconnected.

What it means for you

  • If you live in south-west Maidenhead, the access arrangements for the 1,500-home scheme are now settled as a priority junction on Harvest Hill Road rather than a roundabout, subject to the decision notice being issued.
  • The principle of building on the golf course was not in play. That was decided in December 2025 and is not affected by this vote.
  • If you want to see the reasoning, the officer report, the appendices and the update sheet are all published on the council’s committee page, and the minutes now carry the full statement of the councillor who withdrew.
  • A legal challenge has not been brought. Nothing on the public record says anyone intends to bring one. The councillor who withdrew said a legal opinion he had obtained found a properly arguable case, not that a claim would be made.
  • Our Windsor planning news page tracks the applications going through the borough.

Sources

This report is taken from the council’s published minutes and committee papers. Councillor Douglas’s points are his account as recorded in those minutes, and the Chair’s and officers’ responses are recorded alongside them. If the council publishes a decision notice or any correction, we will update this page and say so.