Cookham Discussion Board
March 24, 2019, 08:13:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
27 March 2019 - Cookham WI Annual Bridge Drive

27 March 2019 - The Importance of Cancer Screening at the Medical Centre

27 March 2019 - Hedgehogs, Bats and Butterflies

28 March 2019 - Cookham Nursery School Quiz Night

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Author Topic: Move Over Sara Beeny/George Clark.. The Farmers Are Coming!(Woodlands Farm)  (Read 64296 times)
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2016, 07:49:09 PM »

Well Dragonman, I think those in the Dean, should watch their neighbour's closely.

And . . .

We should all be watching these land owners 'Corroding' the cookhams . . with their 20 year building plans . . !

If these Cllrs vote such changes in . . then it's time to vote those Cllrs OUT!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 08:44:08 PM by Ralph » Logged
« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2016, 12:27:27 PM »

Good grief, this is all getting too confusing for words - presumably that is the name of the game though, get the councillors (who probably aren't planning specialists) thoroughly confused, and then by the time the dratted houses have been built and money has changed hands it will be far too late for anything other than a demolition order that won't get passed because there is nothing viable left to replace the houses with. 

I think you are right Ralph and Dragonman, we do indeed need to start talking account of 20 year plans, and dare I say it taking a closer look at relationships as well when voting time comes around again.
« Reply #77 on: March 06, 2016, 09:38:22 PM »

Heard that the 'Ockwells' livery yard (Ockwells Park, Maidenhead)is closing.

Assuming another development? . . .

« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2016, 11:51:08 AM »

OMG - I know people there as well, one only moved there recently as the grazing in Cookham was lost.  Soon there will be nowhere left for anyone to go, it's heartbreaking that the leisure pursuits of so many people are being affected by all this (no doubt) Crossrail induced greed.  There are bound to be people at their absolute wits end over all of these yards closing, I fully expect there will be horses and ponies losing their lives too, or being passed from pillar to post at the sales because their owners could be forced into giving up.  Not only that, and this is one of my main objections to the Woodlands proposition - everyone wants to build and move here not because of need but because it seems a nice pleasant green place with horses and dogs and (dare I say it) good cycling on and off road and yet when all the houses have been built there will be none of the things that so attracted people left.
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2016, 01:48:50 PM »

So . . I hear it goes to panel 16th March, and the planning officer is recommending it for approval. So, has the officer misinterpreted the NPP paragraph 89?

This just opens the flood gates now for all farmers (cough), developers!

Reading the officers report, it begs belief. .  .so many questions spring to mind!

1). Is Woodlands truly considered equestrian or is there an element of agricultural?
2). The planning officer is proposing to restrict the height of the houses, but what about the width and length of the replacement buildings?
3). What about the main old barn? Could this not be a non-designated heritage asset? this has not even been assessed!
4). It seems very odd, that affordable housing has not been mentioned to be built on this site, as I understood according to planning policy, every site has to make provisions to include 'affordable housing' . .how is it, that this site is exempt . .and a donation of £190k really enough of a donation? . . when these are million pound properties. How can this development be allowed to pay such a small amount, when it should be including affordable properties on site.
5). Looking at the plans . . It looks as though the levels of the land has been raised, surly if this is the case, does this not have impact on the openness' of the landscape . .rather intrusive looking up to woodlands from other locations.

Problem is with the planning officers is that they don't take into consideration of the views from elsewhere. Defiantly an encroachment into the countryside.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 08:04:13 PM by Ralph » Logged
Posts: 29

« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2016, 08:41:46 PM »

Planning officers have been overruled in the past .... fingers crossed!
Sr. Member
Posts: 348

« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2016, 09:10:00 PM »

The thing that bothers me is, how did Centric Systems Ltd get permission to open up without planning permission! Who are lining their pockets? I am sure one of our eagle-eyed posters would have heard of this.
« Reply #82 on: March 09, 2016, 08:03:52 AM »

Hi Dragonman, is Centric Systems Ltd not just another small 'start up company' ?

I remember reading in the Cookham Parish Council Magazine (2015) that the Simmonds Partnership was proud to support these small start up companies, by providing 'start up premises' at this farm in Cookham.

Having bumped into a worker from one of the offices based at Woodlands - they said that they guessed something was up when a bat survey was being conducted in 2014.. its like everything in the Cookhams... no-one does anything for nothing... there is always a plan behind the scenes = /
Sr. Member
Posts: 297

« Reply #83 on: March 09, 2016, 11:54:05 AM »

This would be a perfect site for either 15 affordable homes or about 30 affordable flats.

With the RBWM councillors so very keen on building affordable homes/flats in and around the Borough,
I find it surprising that no councillor (whether Tory or ... errrrrr Tory) has come up with the idea.

Or could it be that they consider Cookham Dean not to be an area within which to build affordable homes?
Probably because 3 RBWM councillors live in close proximity ........ do you think?!
« Reply #84 on: March 09, 2016, 01:05:53 PM »

Exactly my thoughts Watchmen.

Why is it, that now RBWM believe the site can be allocated to be developed (as they consider it, according to the 'planning officers report'), that this is 'previously developed land...ignoring the NPPF Paragraph 89... and opening up the gates for all farmers (cough, choke) developers to build!!

If this is now being approved for housing, then the site is large enough for AFFORDABLE HOUSING... so how can this site, only be asked to make a SMALL donation of 190K.... towards affordable housing?Huh (not even an 'affordable house' is affordable at 190K).

Questions, questions, questions !!!!!

I'm not voting these Cllrs back in.... and as to RBWM..... the Officers Report is missing out on answering questions.... it's like they have written it to just get it 'off their desk'... does no-one sign these things off? I guess not, by the amount of hideous extensions and redevelopments that is and has been allowed in the Cookhams!

I thought the planners job was to enhance the area we live in, not tear it apart!

Well, lets see what happens at the next meeting.... and if approved... I think a few 'Boo's ' need to be shouted out to the approving CLLRs!

Posts: 12

« Reply #85 on: March 10, 2016, 11:50:19 AM »

We should all be concerned about this development.
It will set a precedent for much more development everywhere.
All one needs to do is make out that your building is old and run down and you can build houses.
No account has been taken of the historic importance of some of these farm buildings to Cookham.
We are in danger of destroying too many of our historic buildings.
The rural nature of our village will change for ever. Do we all want to live in suburbia?
« Reply #86 on: March 10, 2016, 01:20:59 PM »

Lets hope the Cllrs are worth the extra income they are paid annually (someone said 24K per year?Huh) for being voted in, to represent the community.

Lets hope they don't 'play at' pretending to care by objecting and letting the application go to 'Appeal'  for an inspector to make a decision. But lets hope the Cllrs have the balls to make a firm decision and actually earn their money and their votes - to make the right decision and squash the application once and for all.

It would be great to know which Cllrs support the application - then I know who not to vote for in the future!

Looking back to 'Bridle Way 19'.... I'm not voting those Cllrs back in!

Remember - Livery Owners and Office Personal's hands are tied... they can not object, for fear of being evicted for opposition to the application.

« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 01:26:06 PM by Ralph » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 297

« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2016, 01:51:44 PM »

Sadly Snippet, it seems perfectly clear, that no one is interested in the finer things in life such as historic or rural or countryside
or beautiful views or rustic settings.
This is very apparent where the RBWM councillors are concerned (refer their approval of 'Cookham Formal Hire' on Copas land
in one of his ex. barns).
The comments expressed by Snippet above ought to be embossed on a plaque and handed to Ms Susan Sharman, the RBWM's
"Planning" Officer, the person who has wholeheartedly (it appears) approved the plans as submitted by Simmonds.
She is clearly governed by strict adherence to what is "right and proper" (regardless of circumstance), viz.,  
"as this is a privately owned site, none of the community exceptions are applicable." (her words, not mine) -
rather than any interest in anything historic or rural.

If that is the case, why not impose upon the developer an incentive to build affordable homes for all the 'not so wealthy' in the area.
I'm sure they too would love the views, and let's face it, 30 houses on a site which has submitted plans for THREE would go some way
towards alleviating the problem of housing in this borough. A penny for the Cookham Councillors thoughts!

At the risk of assuming too much, I would suggest that the finer things in life have perhaps passed the RBWM Planning Officer by....
by about 2 miles over her head.  I would further suggest that the lady does not live in these environs ... and that 'suburbia' is
perhaps a sweeter word (in her dictionary) than the word 'rural'. I would love to know her full explanation on why she approved the
plans when the Cookham Parish Council negated them unanimously as they felt the plans did not conform with NPPF.

I digress.

The sooner RBWM councillors are made to realise that Cookham IS being torn apart by the developers (farmers, if you will) the better.
The only way I think they could be persuaded is by us mortals voting with our feet and voting them out at the next election.

The Riverside by-election today offers a good chance to change things around, but rest assured, it will be yet another Tory capture.

Wake up Councillors and smell the roses ... stop giving way to 'sweeteners and sweet talk' and do something about the Cookhams,
because if you don't, generations to come will only have copies of Spencers paintings to remind them of the past beauty of this parish,
suburbia will have taken over and Cookham will become one massive segment of a renamed Maidenhead - Cookhead or Maidenham.

Take your pick.
« Reply #88 on: March 10, 2016, 03:20:57 PM »

Thank you Watchman , excellent comments!

Thinking back to the 'Bridle Way 19' episode . . It was highlighted that Cllrs were seen having 'drinks' - half way down the track with the farmer! . .

Wonder if the same situation will occur with this application?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 03:29:37 PM by Ralph » Logged
« Reply #89 on: March 16, 2016, 09:44:51 PM »

« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 09:48:57 PM by Ralph » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Jump to:  

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