Cookham Discussion Board
June 20, 2018, 11:40:49 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 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
Author Topic: Development of Land North of Station Hill  (Read 27665 times)
cfarnsbarn
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


« Reply #60 on: August 01, 2014, 10:15:18 AM »

   There is a triangle of land just to the Northwest of the old gas holder site.I believe this could be built on,but is in a developer's landbank.
Logged
tudorrose
Full Member
***
Posts: 102


« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2014, 04:22:41 PM »

The pony field is not ugly scrubland - it is a place of unspoilt open land which almost certainly contains much diverse flora and fauna. It should not be developed, it should be left as it is. As for making it into developed green space, the traffic is too noisy to sit there in peace! Yes, I agree, develop the gasworks, not the pony field!
Logged
Nick1
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2014, 12:37:58 AM »

I agree that the pony field should be left completely alone. As well as holding hidden gems of nature there, it looks as any natural, open area in a village should - not manicured, weeded and tidied up like a town park.

How sad it is that people nowadays have become so used to titivated urbanisation, they simply can't see that this unique survival is a wonderful example of what makes Cookham the village Spencer loved and painted.
Logged
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 69


« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2014, 10:52:43 AM »

In my earlier posts I wasn't suggesting that a park is better than the unspoilt meadow. It would be nice to watch this space progress through the natural changes any unkept area does. Grass, weeds, shrubs, fast growing trees and eventually mature woodland.

Unfortunately the owner would never let that happen and there will be continued applications for development until the right combination of planning officer and councilor sis achieved. It may be 20 years from now but most devs are in it for the long haul anyway.

What I was suggesting is incentivising a developer to bring this space into public use and thereby ensuring its protection (anything can be planted in a park). If it was still used as the pony field by local riding clubs it would be a different matter or if RBWM could purchase the land for the designated purpose as a wildlife zone.

I am being cynical and i wish us all luck in preserving the area for the next 50-100yrs but I just don't see it happening. We have to motivated, organised and a bit lucky every time a proposal is drafted and a developer only has to be lucky once.

I hope I'm proved wrong but watching all the other green areas turn to brick and Tarmac has made me doubtful.

EDIT:
Just found this article which seems to indicate public perception of unkept areas. It made me think of the post on here about keeping areas uncut for bees and other wildlife.

http://www.twyford-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Twyford/Grass-cutting-in-the-borough-discussed-after-petition-31072014.htm
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:57:35 AM by Cervantes » Logged
tudorrose
Full Member
***
Posts: 102


« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2014, 12:35:08 PM »

Unfortunately there is no money in it for the developers in making and landscaping parks - not as much as in building lots of houses....!
Logged
Pongo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 347


« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2014, 03:36:26 PM »

I suppose you could have lots and lots of people buying a square inch each, which can protect areas if the owners want to sell the land. I am not sure of the figures to do this though.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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!