Cookham Discussion Board
March 20, 2018, 07:15:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
20 March 2018 - Cookham Surgery Closed for GP Training (12.30pm onward)

21 March 2018 - Talk and Walk - National Gardens Scheme

25 March 2018 - Lead Us into Holy Week at Holy Trinity

27 March 2018 - The Media Hub - Simon Mole - Rapper and Poet

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 [2]
Author Topic: SAVE POUNDFIELD  (Read 5772 times)
Sr. Member
Posts: 259

« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2016, 04:44:08 PM »

Cookham is supposed to be a village... if new houses are required to be built , then why not look at alternatives and 'in-fill' the odd one of two houses elsewhere...  and before I get shouted at here that we need more 'affordable' housing... then why was Woodlands Farm approved for 3 houses... and not forced to build smaller 'affordable houses' up in the Dean... after all.. its our Cllrs that approved this... either by voting or abstaining from voting on that night.

We all need to pay attention to the detailing of these 'other' planning applications... because the said 'mumble jumble' of planning policy's are manipulated and misinterpreted, and opening up the flood gates for land like the Pound Filed to be built on.

In answer to Ralph's query (highlighted/underlined above) let me ask you these two very pertinent questions: ....
Q 1. Where exactly do the 3 RBWM councillors who represent the Cookham Ward live?
Q 2. Do you think they'd want their "neighbours"  demanding their scalps by voting for affordable homes in Cookham Dean?

(Answers -  1. Cookham Dean and  2. No)

One (the Chairman (no less) of the meeting) voted IN FAVOUR OF the planning application whist the other two abstained
(despite BOTH of them speaking against the Planning Application at the meeting).

If BOTH had voted against (in accordance with their views and statements criticizing the Planning Application) the motion to
approve said Planning application would have been rejected.
Woodlands Farm's Application would have had to go back to the drawing board.

Now read into that scenario what you will.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 04:46:34 PM by Watchman » Logged
Full Member
Posts: 101

« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2016, 04:52:31 PM »

Signed it ages ago  Grin

Hi Ralph

I think that's the green space petition you are referring to? The Save Poundfield website is urging people to submit objections to the first planning app for the pony field (Oakford) as the green space consultation is not likely to be until about September so the developers are trying to get in first. If you register your support on they will email you more details.
Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

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