Cookham Discussion Board
December 14, 2018, 02:04:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
10 December 2018 - The Media Hub - Tim Brooke-Taylor OBE

11 December 2018 - Cookham Surgery Closed for Training 12.30pm onwards

13 December 2018 -  WilldCookham Christmas Catch Up - FREE

13 December 2018 - Cookham Book Club

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 32035 times)
JB
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2014, 11:19:09 AM »

A park would be a great idea!

Also looking at the pic of the plot plans posted above, it looks like a recipe for traffic chaos,
with the entrance to the houses  just past the roundabout.

Currently with cars parked outside the nursery school area, traffic is generally approaching the roundabout in the middle of the road,
throw in a junction to the houses, the roundabout, the school and the volume of traffic we now have
it will be mayhem and effectively a blind junction for those exiting the the proposed housing.
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2014, 06:19:55 PM »

Cervantes, don't need to take cover. I think that is an excellent suggestion.
As long as the south/road side is deep enough so that the houses are shielded from sight from the road and the focus is on the green space.

I don't think for one minute we can have the pony field back, but at least something that suggests the open/green space still is welcome.

I am still suspicious that this may lead to a plan to develop Poundfield though.
Logged
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2014, 09:53:17 PM »

Green belt is a different matter but I can see development plans for nearly all green spaces at some point in the future. The council just needs to be active in gaining something in return. Most developers would take the quick if reduced profits from cooperating with the residents rather than a lengthy battle to squeeze a few more houses/m2. From a council point of view it has to be about securing useful green areas rather than preserving empty fields.

To be clear I am not talking about green belt farm land which is far easier to justify keeping open. I'm referring to small unkept areas which are quite numerous once you start to look for them.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #48 on: July 29, 2014, 11:37:17 AM »

But before starting on those 'small unkempt areas' they should start with the brownfield sites.  Yes, they cost money to remediate, but we can't keep on starting on fresh ground.
Logged
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


« Reply #49 on: July 29, 2014, 02:43:29 PM »

I guess you're referring to the gas works as the main one. Despite the extra development cost it must be profitable to put some houses and small greens on there. Maybe I just under estimate the clean up work required. Seems hard to imagine a dev holding onto it if it will never make money.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #50 on: July 29, 2014, 02:51:14 PM »

Yep, the gasworks is what I was getting at.  It would be possible to get quite a few 'affordable' homes on that site, and road access would also be better than with the current proposal. 
Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 348


« Reply #51 on: July 29, 2014, 02:56:26 PM »

No I think Paris and I are on the same wavelength. The councils and I mean all of them should listen to the village resident’s request. A compulsory purchase order is placed on this land and it be landscaped into a park or garden. It would be somewhere not only for the young to enjoy, but for the elderly to meet on fine afternoons the year round. I know someone will say, “But they meet already at Elizabeth House.” Are, but a little fresh air in pleasant surroundings would be very beneficial.
Logged
lizzyk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 355


« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2014, 03:47:33 PM »

About fifteen or more years ago (when the gas holders were still there) I got Transco to plant forty indigenous trees on the gas holder site to replace the row of trees they had chopped down. The trees are still there around the edges and it would be really sad to cut them down. I am not sure how many people know about this little arboretum.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2014, 04:33:24 PM »

But the trees wouldn't have to be chopped down.  Houses could be built around them, I'm sure the new residents would enjoy them.  The field needs to be saved, a community facility in the heart of the village would be lovely, for all residents, not just the young and old, it could become a real focal point.
Logged
lizzyk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 355


« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2014, 07:41:04 PM »

I would like to believe that a developer would not chop the trees down Paris, but I would not hold my breath. I talked to someone the Royal Borough and they seemed to think the trees would not stand a chance, as they were not in a conservation area.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #55 on: July 30, 2014, 10:20:29 AM »

LizzyK I understand what you are saying, but saving 40 relatively new trees should not be a reason for leaving the old gasworks as they are now when land is (so they say) needed for homes.  It would be far better to utilise that land, which has potentially better access than to start off what could lead to the whole of Poundfield being built on, and cause more road havoc in an already congested part of the village.
Logged
lizzyk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 355


« Reply #56 on: July 30, 2014, 11:30:20 AM »

I am afraid building on the gas holder area will not stop them wanting to build on Poundfield, there is a great deal more free land there. It may even encourage them. It also will not need to be decontaminated like the gas site, which puts developers off.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2014, 02:22:10 PM »

I'm well aware that the gasworks site needs remediation before it could be built on. 

However, pressure should be applied to make sure that the 'dirty' sites are re-used before building on fresh ground.  If we give in and just 'go with the flow' then Cookham will pretty soon become a connurbation of Maidenhead, lose it's village identity and just become a housing estate with a few shops and a station in the middle.  Green space is one of the things that makes our village special and we need to preserve it.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2333


« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2014, 02:29:49 PM »

Yes the old gas holders are gone and from space one can see two bases. One of the reasons that this site will never be built on is due to the fact that the site is still the distribution hub for gas to the whole village area. If you take a close look at Google Earth you can see two areas with a network of pipes above ground. These I suspect are pressure regulators to reduce the pressure from the main line. Then I think you will find that there is a further regulator in each neighbourhood, to reduce the gas further to 3 pounds per square inch before it enters your home.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2014, 04:55:04 PM »

Funny thing is James, a couple of years ago (possibly more) there was a proposal to build there, I can't remember why it didn't happen, I think it may have been something to do with traffic.  At the same time the garages at the rear of Windmill Road were also under discussion as to being demolished and built upon to make the site a little bit bigger.
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!