Cookham Discussion Board
June 19, 2018, 07:29:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
19 June 2018 - Medical Detection Dogs

19 June 2018 - Part 1 Speak Out

21 June 2018 - Baroque Ensemble Red Priest

21 June 2018 - Open Minds - The Teenagers Debating Group

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
  Print  
Author Topic: New Holy Trinity Parish Centre Community Project  (Read 45982 times)
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2011, 10:15:55 AM »

If you read to the bottom of the link http://www.holytrinitycookham.org.uk/buildingprojects.htm, you'll see that for seven days the plans were available for viewing at the Parish Centre; as were the project team, waiting to talk to people and answer questions. Two of the days were Saturdays, so no excuses about it being during the work week. Along with sending everyone in Cookham information about the proposal, I think to suggest that it isn't being done above board or that they are unwilling to meet with people is unfair.

Preservation cannot always be the keyword. They aren't proposing to tarmac the entire paddock nor tear down a historical church. They are taking the practical step of seeing how they can raise funds for the church (and also for Holy Trinity school). James, this isn't a developer planning this, this Holy Trinity Church planning this. I think taking the initiative to raise funds themselves rather than waiting for handouts is to be commended.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2288


« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2011, 04:33:20 PM »

Thanks for the routing to the plans and verbal accounting Showem. There are two facts that have to be taken into account:

1: The new proposed PCC hall and accommodation in the paddock is in a definite flood plain area. So that is out!

2. Request for more classrooms for Holy Trinity School, though the School population is large at this present time. The village is nearing, if it hasn’t already reached saturation point, and in ten years time you will have spare classroom space. Here I would suggest that to serve this what I would call a short-term student population rise, that the use of what is known in North America as “Porta-cabins,” or portable classrooms. When no longer required they are dismantled and go on to another school that can use them. From experience I know this system to work.
Logged
Mumofone
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2011, 06:47:40 PM »

The main reason for the proposed redevelopment of the parish centre is to fund the £400k plus essential restoration work to the Church. Alternative methods of funding and applications for grants have all been persued. The paddock may well remain safe, it is merely at proposal stage as far as I know and there may well be an historic protection, that is currently being investigated.

The bottom line is, the church needs huge restoration and if the money cannot be raised we could end up losing it after a thousand years of it's being. The suggestion that the church simply want revenue is an uninformed one and has no place in a sensible discussion. Nimbyism also has no place in this discussion, the church has stood for longer than any of the villagers. Simply put, does the village want Holy Trinity Church, or not?

And I trust that all those expressing a view are members of the congregation? As otherwise the paddock, parish centre and car parking areas are not places that would really concern anyone unless an immediate neighbour.
Logged
anon
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2011, 06:59:14 PM »

By the way guys, a church so ostensibly strapped for cash is able to spend £35,000 on pre-plan for this proposal!
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2288


« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2011, 07:55:39 PM »

It does not make sence Anon to spend that amount of money on preplanning when the Church is so strapped for cash as you pointed out.

Since the end of the Second World War to my recollection the church has had three major overhauls. That does not include the hanging of two treble bells just after the war as a village form of thanksgiving to make it an eight-bell tower, and more recently another two bells to make it a ten-bell tower.

The first major overhaul was the Church Roof appeal, and one village lady long since gone, started an appeal for a mile of pennies, which she succeeded in doing. Mind you I don't suppose many will remember that event.
Logged
Cookie
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2011, 09:01:16 PM »

Did someone really say that only the congregation and immediate neighbours are entitled to take an interest in the future of the paddock? Whoever it was, please sit down quietly and reflect on that statement.
In fact, it can be argued to the contrary, as the paddock is a de facto leisure amenity for the whole village and visitors. A building on it might make little difference to those arriving by car, and going straight into the church (apart from the possible benefit of better parking), but it would make a major difference to walkers.
Please let's not get into narrow minded arguments about who has an interest in this - we all do, and we're all entitled to express our opinions.
Logged
Archimedes
Full Member
***
Posts: 110


« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2011, 03:03:53 PM »

Surely if £35,000 has been spent on drawing up the plans, someone must have already checked that there will be no problems with building in the flood plain, Conservation area, area of Archeological Interest, View of the Thames plus traffic issues etc etc. I would have thought the Council planning department would have given advice for free to let them know if it were worth carrying on with the plans. No one in their right mind would spend £35,000 if there were no chance of getting planning permission. Looking at the website of the consultant he seems very knowledgable about planning rules. I also understand that our Dave is going to make life much easier as regards planning, although I did not really understand the implications.
Logged
concerned
Newbie
*
Posts: 10


« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2011, 09:23:07 PM »

Now I hear that Holy Trinity school children have been given consultation questionaires, being told that the school will get £75,000 if they are filled in.  Who dreamed that one up?  This whole project is getting really nasty, and with a bit more thought those behind the idea would have realised it.  NIMBY it may be, but those living around the church know about the conjestion, noise and traffic chaos.  Churchgoer or not, perhaps a bit more Christian attitude is missing from all this.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2011, 11:17:03 AM »

It's not often you'll catch me agreeing with James Hatch, but on this one I agree absolutely with the preservation sentiment; and with all those who have gone along the lines of 'when it's gone it's gone'.  Once there is a building on that paddock, it will never return to being a paddock and we will have lost a lovely tranquil open space.  I'm also astounded at the amounts of money being spent on this proposal, surely it could be put to far better use actually paying for the preservation of the church and churchyard.

As a family historian I also empathise with James on the subject of removal of headstones and memorials; albeit not with the same personal involvement.  These are a valuable source of information for present and future and should not just be removed without reference to anyone or at the very least the inscriptions and locations of the grave where they stood should be recorded for posterity.
Logged
turnip
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2011, 11:47:23 AM »

Is anyone asking why Holy Trinity Church is expected to pay towards the new classrooms? Surely the “generous” payments made by all the new Cookham developments which have increased the school attendance should be covering this.  How about a nice cheque Mr Shanly???

This is a typical result of development without consideration to infrastructure. Developers make a fortune and leave the locals to pick up the pieces……
Logged
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2011, 12:03:13 PM »

And I trust that all those expressing a view are members of the congregation? As otherwise the paddock, parish centre and car parking areas are not places that would really concern anyone unless an immediate neighbour.

Well, that's my sister well and truly told, I trust you have told her club of alternative venues to ring church bells now she is no longer welcome.
Logged
Ellie
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2011, 05:20:00 PM »

My parents told me that there was a legal agreement set up to the effect that the paddock could never be built on. It was part of the deal when the Vicarage Close houses were built. Can anyone throw any light on this?
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2288


« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2011, 05:52:19 PM »

Lets us get one thing straight! A great many villagers were not living in the village in 1947. On that occasion the meadow was flooded. Since that time a ruling has been made:"No more building on flood plain land." If the proposed building in the meadow is allowed to go ahead it will open up a whole can of worms when others apply for planning permission in a designated flood plain area.
Logged
number1china
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2011, 06:44:40 PM »

Showem, if the HTC are being above board and transparent, please would you direct me to where I  may find written clarity on the proposed traffic routes and level of traffic increase that areas such as Berries road and Vicarage Close will experience?
I visted two consultation days and was given different responses on each day, both with equal conviction.
Ironic.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2011, 12:27:48 PM »

Oh dear, James - I have to disagree on this one - the ruling may have been made back then, but in recent years there has been more and more building (stupidly) on flood plains - with the full blessing in many cases of the government when local planning committees have turned down applications.  As this proposal is for a parish centre, it will all too probably be permissable. 

To illustrate the point there are a few residential estates and office parks in our locality (well towards Reading) that have been built on flood plains and they got well and truly wet in the recent floods of 2000 and 2002.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!