Cookham Discussion Board
June 18, 2018, 10:18:49 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 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Development of Land North of Station Hill  (Read 27596 times)
Gazzetta
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 286


« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 10:19:53 AM »

Non stop building and over population are major contributing factors to the recent flooding we've had recently (that and the rain and poor waterways management)
We don't need more houses in Cookham, just less people.
The traffic is horrendous as it is, most weekends Cookham is like a giant slow moving car park.

The overcrowding is bad for people's mental and physical health as well.

I have previously said above we need more housing but I quite frankly I did fail to consider the alternatives.   So lets plan a cull on the humans to reduce the population.   Anybody got a spare gun ?


Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 347


« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2014, 02:50:37 PM »

As Fiona Quoted: And my parting shot is,– The Gas Works – come on…..why not there? This is the obvious site. Someone give me a valid argument……PLEASE!!!
Because it is classed as a "BROWN Site." Builders don't like these as there is too much preparation cost involved. So come on RBWM planners, why not give the builders a break and encourage them to use old Industrial sites with a nice big fat tax break.
Logged
JB
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2014, 02:51:53 PM »

"I have previously said above we need more housing but I quite frankly I did fail to consider the alternatives.   So lets plan a cull on the humans to reduce the population.   Anybody got a spare gun ? "

Yep that's constructive, not really sure where genocide was mentioned in my post?
But my point still stands, if population keeps increasing at some point we will run out of land and resources.

Aside from living in massively overcrowded urban areas devoid of countryside and space,   what are your constructive suggestions?
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2014, 05:34:46 PM »

Well said Fiona.  We should start with brownfield sites before we start on the greenfields.  The gasworks is an abomination, there's loads of room for houses there if only someone would be prepared to remediate the site, but that dents profits so no-one wants to do that. 

As to affordable housing, wasn't it decided somewhere that there wasn't a need in Cookham a while back?

Besides which, as someone else has already said, the infrastructure of Cookham just can't cope with any more building.  3 - 4 weeks to see a Dr, sewage bursting out of manholes after heavy rain, congested roads that resemble a car park, schools full to bursting, what more examples do you want of why we need to stop building?

The field would be much better tidied up and turned into a community amenity, OK we have the Alfred Major, but wouldn't it be nice to have a little wildlife haven separating the Rise and the Village, rather than another lot of brick boxes?
Logged
monty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696


« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2014, 05:46:59 PM »

Oh Paris I so agree with you it would be dreadful to have little house boxes in there, Cookham cannot cope with much more house building it is full to bursting  Cry
Logged
simonstendell
Guest
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2014, 06:46:27 PM »

A couple of comments:

Gas works site would be a good option for housing. And does it matter if the properties are brick boxes if they fill a need?

Strande Park is certainly affordable and I considered it when I moved back to this area (I now live at a park home site t'other side of the river), but not ideal as the site rules do not allow dogs - not even if you are visiting. I know, as I once tried to walk mine round there to deliver letters for Elizabeth House and was firmly told off by maintenance man.
Logged
Aries
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 81


« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 09:00:10 PM »

I don't know how many Cookhamites were able to get to see the exhibition on Tuesday but I popped round for a viewing.  So, for those who were unable to go the the exhibition and have an interest in these proposals, I have attached a snapshot I took of one of the posters on display (the main one).  The architect was present at the session and a planning consultant.  I am not commenting on the proposals here but just to let you know some of the details.

The proposals are "Round #1" of the process and could be subject to change before any planning application is formally made.



Click to see larger image.

The layout (clockwise on the photo) is for:

       A pair of smaller semis ("retirement homes")- they are depicted in the lower RHS frame as Plots 7 & 8
       A pair of more substantial detached properties (e.g. 4 bedrooms) at the north end
       A single detached property
       A pair of substantial semis with integral double garages, one of which is depicted in the lower LHS frame as Plot 1

I am a bit puzzled about the plot numbering (1-8) but I can only see 7 dwellings - perhaps the plans were changed at some time.

They have included a small plot of open green space on the Station Hill roadside boundary.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 09:07:26 PM by Aries » Logged
JK
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2014, 12:45:51 AM »

I suspect that space will be saved in order to have access to build on the fields above, this is so obvious.

Regarding the upkeep of the field now, you should have seen the state that they left it in after the diggers came and ripped up all the old fencing, leaving debris and "private property, keep out" signs. Local children were in tears as they love that field, a bit on the wild side as it may be, which makes it all the more charming.

Shame on those people wanting to concrete over that field, there are plenty of more suitable locations to build bog standard houses on. I settled in Cookham as I love it as it is, with pockets of open spaces not filled in with mini housing estates that cannot possibly solve the national housing shortage.
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 67


« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2014, 01:51:54 AM »

I'm a bit suspicious as to why Poundfield Lane is included in this plan, as it is not required for this development.

However, it seems to have been re-surfaced and widened, but then suddenly comes to a stop at the beginning of Englefield.

Wonder what that could be all about?
Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 347


« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2014, 03:24:46 AM »

There is a lot more than meets the in this one. Once again you know who, is trying  his old thin end of the wedge trick. It is a repeat of what he tried on Pound Field once before. So the clamps have to be applied once again.
Logged
Merlin
Guest
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2014, 12:24:38 PM »

Well said FionaBeaumont.

To repeat..... the Cookhams are what they are because they have not been
exposed to over-building in the area..... so, build without consideration - and
the Cookhams appeal will have been lost.
It will become yet another "over-housed" village with limited character and appeal.

And just what is wrong with trying to protect open areas and green fingers of land
around the Cookhams. And what is wrong with the idea of building elsewhere around the
area - and pray tell, why the hell has building GOT TO BE IN THE COOKHAMS ?

I detect a certain farmer's hand in all this ( as if he doesn't already have enough money )
and the perpetual seeking of "doing his bit" whilst actually creating more wealth for himself.

Callously insensitive ....

« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 12:31:59 PM by Merlin » Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 347


« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2014, 03:03:40 PM »

We are determined that this area is not to be built on, so let’s come back with what the village residents would like to have for a change as a counter proposal. My thoughts are that this area should be turned into a Park, with trees, flower beds, benches and maybe a small pond. It seems that the RBWM has always got a little extra in their budget. Also I have a couple of names for such a project. It could be called either “Spencer Park.”, or “Spencer Gardens.” This way we could bring a little peace and tranquility back into Cookham.
Logged
monty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696


« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2014, 07:42:44 PM »

Great idea Dragonman just a lovely space to sit and watch the world go by. Great for kids to run around in as long as it is safe for them  Cool

Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2014, 10:05:45 AM »

Dragonman that is just what I had in mind.  A facility that we can all benefit from, a little haven of peace, tranquility and a place to watch wildlife in the middle of the village.  Much more preferable to a load of brick rabbit hutches.
Logged
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 69


« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2014, 10:42:01 AM »

Looking at the proposal I'm not necessarily against it but I think there is a compromise to be had. If the developer wants to build the two houses at the north whilst creating a public park/garden to the south it could please everyone.

Entering the village you wouldn't see the houses and be greeted by the park front, cookham gets to say it's making effort to meet housing targets and it provides incentive for the developer to spend the money preserving the green spaces. It's not a new idea and I think we need to see more of it.

If a landowner or developer wants to place houses or offices in a green space they should repay the council by providing access to the area (new footpaths, parks etc...) or create something standout beautiful that is worth the sacrifice of the land. Less red brick and glass/steel and more traditional designs. In developer terms capitalising the existing charm of the area. Once parks etc... Are built that green space is effectively preserved forever whereas someone can always try to build on a private patch of unkept grassland.

(Think I might take cover now as well  Smiley )
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  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!