Harm to 'pleasant narrow lane' near Maidenhead sees new homes appeal thrown out

A planning inspector has rejected a plan for new homes near Maidenhead and ruled that harm to the area’s character overrides an almost £1.5million infrastructure payment to the council.

Plans for 32 homes on land off Kimbers Lane, an area south of Maidenhead and earmarked for major development, were submitted by developer Staxlink Ltd in early 2024.

In a decision published on September 11, planning inspector Zoe Raygen said the ‘adverse impacts’ of the homes ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’.

Fields around Kimbers Lane lie in an area penned in for housebuilding.

Next to the appeal site is a 225-home construction site by developer Taylor Wimpey, which was approved in May.

It is also near the Harvest Hill and Maidenhead Golf Course developments, which between them will see hundreds of new homes constructed.

In the decision notice, Ms Raygen said: “Kimbers Lane forms a pleasant narrow lane which has an abundance of planting on either side creating a verdant country lane.”

She added: “With the extent of housebuilding proposed, this character will inevitably change.”

The 32 homes proposed by Staxlink Ltd included 20 three and four-bed properties, and 12 two-bedroom flats in four-storey blocks. Four houses and six flats were classed as affordable.

The council refused the application in August 2024.

A notice from RBWM assistant director of planning Adrien Waite listed 11 reasons for refusal, which included poor non-car transport options and the loss of ‘significant trees’ around the site.

But the developer, believing its plans were acceptable, appealed to the Planning Inspectorate in March 2025.

The inspectorate is a Government organisation responsible for resolving planning disputes.

A statement on behalf of Staxlink Ltd said selected building materials and landscaping of the site would ‘provide for a verdant, leafy and sylvan [wooded] character’.

It argued that ‘whilst the loss of trees on a site is always regrettable’, the plans did not constitute ‘significant and demonstrable harms’.

But Ms Raygen’s decision ruled that ‘the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on trees, failing to protect existing habitats for biodiversity’.

“Pressure would be placed on trees that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area and are not adequately compensated for,” she added.

A £1,472,569.35 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment for infrastructure improvements ‘in the immediate and wider area’ would have been made to RBWM if the plans were approved, appeal documents said.

“This is not insignificant and should weigh in favour of the appeal scheme,” Ms Raygen said.

She continued: “However, I have found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the trees on site.

“Furthermore, I cannot be sure that the effect on protected species would be effectively mitigated.

“Moreover, although CIL liable, the proposal would not secure contributions to infrastructure required by policy.

“These are considerable environmental and social harms.”

Ms Raygen said the ‘adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’.

Staxlink Ltd also lost a bid for the council to pay its appeal costs.