The Cookham Plan - Transport and Traffic

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND


CONTENTS NEXT PAGE PREVIOUS PAGE

2   Introduction and Background

 

2.1   Background

Following the decision by Cookham Parish Council (CPC) in March 2008 that the Cookham Plan needed to be revisited, the CPC began the process of recruiting members of the Cookham community to undertake this work.  The CPC decided that the most urgent requirement was to revisit Traffic and Transport, and accordingly the Traffic and Transport Working Group (TTWG) was established first.

 

2.1.1             Recruitment

At and after the Pinder Hall meeting on February 12th, the CPC asked people to volunteer to revise the Cookham Plan.  By April, twenty-one residents had offered to be involved and the CPC decided that all those who volunteered should be entitled to participate.  Subsequently, three of the original 21 have withdrawn, and the remaining 18 are listed in Appendix A.

The volunteers comprise residents from Cookham Village, Cookham Rise and Cookham Dean and broadly reflect the population mix of the three Cookhams.

 

2.1.2             Remit

A remit was drafted by the group and submitted to the CPC for approval.  The CPC made some amendments and the revised version was issued to the TTWG in April.  This is attached as Appendix B.  The TTWG has followed this remit and has not sought any changes to it.

2.2   Strategic Overview

 

2.2.1       Time scale

The original Cookham Plan took 20 years as its time scale.  In the opinion of the TTWG, it is very difficult to look 20 years or even 10 years ahead.  The concerns about climate change, the escalation of fuel costs and new technologies relating to transport in general and cars in particular mean that transport in 20 years time could be radically different.

 

2.2.2             Key Assumptions

New housing is one of the key drivers to the growth of traffic.  Cookham Rise in particular has seen a substantial amount of additional housing over the last five to ten years.  The signals for the future are mixed – the RBWM is being tasked with identifying more sites for house building.  However a recent statement by Teresa May, MP for Maidenhead, supported greater autonomy at local level (see July 24th copy of Maidenhead Advertiser) so this policy might not survive a change of government.

In preparing this report, the Group has not adopted a specific target for traffic growth but it is assumed that traffic volumes are unlikely to grow substantially.

 

2.2.3             Key Issues

One of the important issues to be considered is climate change.  It is widely accepted that there should be a switch from private to public transport.  It is also widely accepted that climate change is likely to increase the likelihood of flooding.

 

2.3 The Scope of the Project

The TTWG reviewed the work of the Traffic and Transport section of the previous Cookham Plan (the Group includes one member from the earlier team).  As well as the subjects covered previously, the TTWG identified and researched other issues, which are also covered in this report.

2.3.1       Interfaces with other groups

The results from the previous working groups have been studied for interfaces and these have been taken into account as far as they can be.  However, the TTWG is the first group to report on the revisited Cookham Plan, so it will be the responsibility of the other working groups to liaise with members of the TTWG team as and when necessary.  It is possible that the TTWG report will need some revision after the other groups have reported. 

2.3.2             Evidence based approach

The TTWG approach has been to seek evidence and consult widely.  Appendix C contains a list of the people and organisations that provided input.  Having studied the evidence, the group studied the options and formed an opinion as to which of the options was the most attractive or least unattractive.  Where we were unable to reach a consensus, the opinions of the minority are also included and clearly identified. 

 

We have attempted, wherever possible, to reflect the concerns and wishes of the people of Cookham (as analysed in the market research study sent to all Cookham households) in the work and recommendations of the TTWG.  Without this, the work of this group would have no legitimacy. 

 

2.3.3             Topics covered

The issues covered by the TTWG are listed below and the report contains sections on:-

 

  • Road safety

  • Schools congestion

  • Parking (including the Parade)

  • Flooding (insofar as it affects roads and access)

  • Cycling

  • Public transport

  • The Pound

2.4    The Cookham Survey

 

2.4.1       Cookham Residents’ opinions and aspirations

A survey was carried out as part of the original Cookham Plan.  A questionnaire was mailed to all Cookham households.  The response rate was 23% (good for a postal survey) and the sample of 644 is sufficiently robust to give confidence that the results do reflect the opinions of Cookham residents.

 

In summary, the Group regards itself as working for the CPC on behalf of the residents of Cookham.

 

The full results of the survey are on the Cookham website.  An extract of the relevant results is as follows:-

 

General attitude to Cookham

 

Q4.  What do you like about living in the Cookhams

Count

% of all respondents

Pleasant rural environment

627

97.4%

Convenient geographical location

464

72.0%

Good transport links

297

46.1%

Facilities in nearby towns

286

44.4%

The village primary schools

148

23.0%

A caring community

299

46.4%

Local employment opportunities

30

4.7%

Plenty to do

173

26.9%

Other

94

14.6%

 

 

 

Total number of respondents

644

 

 

These results show that Cookham residents above all value the pleasant rural environment.  Its location and transport links are also major attributes that Cookham residents like.  With regard to future development, the following statements are relevant.

 

   Future development

 

The Cookhams should remain a semi-rural environment with a strictly limited increase in housing stock

 

 

In general, the undeveloped open areas should be protected from development

 

Q8A

%

 

Q8B

%

Strongly Agree

79%

 

Strongly Agree

81%

Agree

16%

 

Agree

14%

No opinion

1%

 

No opinion

1%

Disagree

1%

 

Disagree

0%

Strongly Disagree

0%

 

Strongly Disagree

0%

None

4%

 

None

3%

Total

100%

 

Total

100%

 

These results indicate that Cookham residents would like future housing development to be strictly limited and open spaces sustained.

 

This was reinforced by the responses to question 11 which asked:- “Do you think there are areas that should be protected from development?”.   This was an open-ended question which was completed by 466 respondents (72%), and the overwhelming majority of responses were concerned with protecting the green belt/green areas in general and Poundfield in particular.

It follows from the above, that solutions to traffic problems that would lead to or be likely to lead to housing and building on open areas would not be acceptable to Cookham residents, unless there were overwhelming benefits for the village. 

 

With regard to traffic and transport, the relevant results are:-

Q15     To what extent do the following affect you?

 

Traffic congestion

 

 

Safety (speeding, accident blackspots etc.)

 

 

Lack of parking

 

Q15A

%

 

Q15B

%

 

Q15C

%

Significant

24.70%

 

Significant

32.60%

 

Significant

20.20%

Some

44.30%

 

Some

40.20%

 

Some

37.30%

No/none

31.10%

 

No/none

27.10%

 

No/none

42.50%

Total

100%

 

Total

100%

 

Total

100%

 

Congestion affects 69% of respondents to a greater or lesser extent.  Safety was a greater issue, with 72.8% expressing concern.  Finally, 57.5% of residents were to some degree concerned about parking.  However, the questionnaire did not ask for the specific location of the problem areas.

CONTENTS NEXT PAGE PREVIOUS PAGE