Please treat this as a freedom of information request.
I refer to the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Demand and Supply Statement (July 2025) and specifically Table 2 – Suitable Planning Permissions that include Self-Build and/or Custom Build Housing.
For the permissions listed below, please answer the following questions. I have reviewed the relevant planning application forms and supporting documents on the Council’s planning portal. Where those documents indicate that the development is not self-build, I have cited them below.
1. 20/00647/FULL – Brocket Pupil Referral Unit, 15 Boyn Hill Avenue
o The application form describes the proposal as market housing and states it is a change of use with no alterations. As no changes are proposed to the building, the self-builder has no input into design. On what basis was this classified as self-build?
2. 20/01001/REM – Patterdale Farm, Blackbird Lane
o This is a Reserved Matters approval, which is not a grant of planning permission. How was this counted towards the self-build/custom-build duty?
3. 20/01950/FULL – Land at The Ridges, Sheepcote Lane
o The application form (para 5) states the proposal is for change of use with only “minor additions and alterations.” The legislation requires primary input into the design for a development to qualify as self-build. In the absence of such input, this cannot qualify. On what basis has this been counted as self-build?
4. 21/01077/FULL – Moor Cottage, High Street, Cookham
o The application form shows the applicant is an executor and Section 16 is ticked for market housing (not self-build). How was this counted as self-build?
5. 21/02380/FULL – Pallium, Quarry Wood Road, Marlow
o The submitted CIL form explicitly states the applicant did not wish to claim a self-build exemption. On what basis was this permission included in self-build supply?
6. 22/00934/OUT – Land Adjacent The Hatch, Water Oakley (4 plots)
o The permission allowed for reversion to market housing if plots were not taken up within 12 months. Were any CIL self-build exemptions claimed for these plots, confirming delivery as self-build?
o How did the self-builders have primary input into the design of their homes when the reserved matters application came forward with detailed designs at the same time as the market housing, with uniform housebuilder-style homes? On what evidence does the Council vouch that these plots meet the legal definition of self-build?
7. 22/01354/OUT – Land bounded by Willow Path, The Limes, Windsor Rd, Dedworth Rd & Oakley Green Rd (10 plots)
o Self-build is not referenced in the description; there is no evidence of a design code, marketing strategy or plot passports. Were any CIL self-build exemptions claimed for these 10 plots?
o How did the self-builders have primary input into the design of their homes when the reserved matters application came forward for detailed design alongside the market homes, with no differentiation and uniform housebuilder designs? On what evidence does the Council vouch that these plots meet the legal definition of self-build?
8. 22/01540/FULL – Land at Spencers Farm, Summerleaze Road (10 plots)
o This was a full planning permission with fixed designs, giving no scope for a self-builder to have primary input into design, the plots therefore cannot meet the legal definition of self-build.
Were any CIL self-build exemptions claimed for these plots? If not, how can they be counted as self-build?
9. 24/00091/OUT – Maidenhead Golf Club, Shoppenhangers Road (75 plots claimed / 52 proposed)
o The committee resolution was to approve 52 plots, yet the July 2025 Statement claims 75. On what basis is the figure of 75 used? Is this an error?
o Has the decision notice been issued given the S106 agreement was still pending? Is it correct to claim plots in supply prior to a decision notice being issued?
o The outline permission does not include a design code. On the recent Drift Road decision, the Council made clear that self-build delivery at outline stage must be confirmed with a design code. Is the Council intending to approve these self-build plots without a design code? If so, how is this reconciled with the approach taken at Drift Road? How can delivery be secured without a design code?
Finally, please confirm that RBWM will remove the permissions that do not qualify as self-build and update the reported numbers to DLUHC accordingly.
________________________________________
2) Additional questions on the Self-Build Register
• The current register has 189 entrants. However, 115 were removed in one review and a further 151 in another. There is nothing in legislation that allows a local authority to reduce its duty to permission sufficient plots by unilaterally removing people from the register. Is it RBWM’s intention to calculate its duty on the reduced numbers, and how is this reconciled with the statutory framework? Have the reduced figures or the true figures been reported to DLUHC?
• The register also serves a second purpose: S106 agreements often require that self-builders be on the Council’s register. If individuals have been removed from the register without their consent, how can they comply with S106 obligations?
o To rejoin, an applicant must declare that they are seeking a plot. But once a self-builder has secured and is building their plot, they are no longer “seeking a plot” and so cannot reapply. This creates a risk of technical breach of S106 requirements.
o How does RBWM propose to resolve this? What mechanism is in place to ensure self-builders are not placed at risk of breaching S106 obligations as a result of periodic register culls?