Cookham Discussion Board
April 23, 2018, 04:21:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
22 April 2018 - Odney Club - Open Garden

24 April 2018 - Give Blood at the Pinder Hall

26 April 2018 - Buckinghamshire in the Civil Wars 1640-1660

1 May 2018 -  The Wonderful World of Whisky

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]
  Print  
Author Topic: New Infill House In Berries Road (Application 18/00554/FULL)  (Read 1010 times)
David Cuin
Newbie
*
Posts: 38


« on: March 28, 2018, 03:37:35 PM »

Afternoon!

A Planning Application has been submitted for a brand new 7 bedroom house in Berries Road, Cookham Village, to be built in the gardens of an old noble Victorian property. Here's the link: http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=P4M2Q2NII4O00

And here's a picture:



Please make your comments known to the Council if, like me, you think that the development is disproportionate and have reservations over something of this size being constructed in a flood plain. (The flood defences are there for defence, not to allow developers to attack!) Perhaps there are too many properties of this type going up in the Cookhams, and the character of the area is being eroded?

« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 03:52:37 PM by David Cuin » Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 266


« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2018, 04:09:37 PM »

Look at the size of that house ... shoe-horned into the garden of a noble Victorian property!
The mind absolutely boggles at the thought.

Not yet another huge development in the heart of this tiny village.
Where the hell will all these building works stop?

For heavens sake, why do people invest in a property and then ruin it by proposing to build in its grounds.

Answer :  Greed .... It's as simple as that.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2262


« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2018, 11:46:44 PM »

When ignorance is bliss, especially when you buy vacant property. I have mentioned this before that one should survey the property not only above ground, but below as well. Cookham village is situated on one giant gravel bed, and even in a dry summer there is water flowing six feet below the surface. Just after the war the council laid a fresh sewer system in Berries Road, and to get the trunk pipe line deep enough, they had to install several pumping stand pipes to keep the water out of the excavated trench. On such ground a building of the one pictured, will be subject to subsidence over time. It has happened before and it will happen again. Yes, it is in a flood zone. Over the past 120 odd years the site has been subject to very severe flooding, and flood walls do not stop water that rises from below.
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 266


« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2018, 09:57:47 AM »

An excellent observation, James - and one I would hope the developer of this monstrosity would look into.

It is a fact that during the 2014 floods Marsh Meadow was under 2 to 3 feet of water, stopped only by the
bunds and the flood walls from flooding Cookham Village itself, including Berries Road, the most vulnerable spot .
Perhaps the developers of this proposed pile of bricks are not aware of this fact, seeing as they have only been
part of this village for under a year!

Friends who lived in Berries road during the floods had water up to a foot deep in their basements, which presumably were only
6 feet under the surface, whilst houses at the far end of the road had their back gardens flooded with standing water,
8 feet away from the flood wall located behind their fence line.

As you state - it is not surface water that can damage, but also water that seeps up from under the soil.

Would concrete and steel pylons driven deep into the earth below the underground waterline be needed to support
such a huge structure?  Subsidence can, as we are all aware, be fatal to the future value of any property, especially one
within the flood plane.

This is a reckless and absurd proposal IMO, and let's hope the Planning Department take the same view.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 10:00:29 AM by Watchman » Logged
CLIPPER
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2018, 11:57:36 AM »

Come on Councillors - get your act together! and none of this abstaining rubbish when you go to vote / determine the application.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2262


« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2018, 02:26:45 PM »

Bunds are only useful when built in conjunction with a heavy clay subsoil. When built on a gravel, it is worse than useless, except to walk on, and then that is not always safe either, due to the power of hydraulics. I grew up with an old saying singing in my head. "Fire and Water, are good servants, but poor masters!"
Logged
Cecily
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2018, 10:50:10 PM »

I walk down Berries Road most days, it must be one of the most beautiful areas Cookham village, immortalised in a number of Stanley Spencer paintings. This 7 bedroom mansion will destroy the character and feel of the road, why on earth would anyone want to build such an inappropriate house. You are right Watchman, greed. Although I cant help wonder whether anyone would buy a home looking like that!
Logged
Cecily
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2018, 03:44:47 PM »

For anyone that was thinking of objecting to this proposal please do so in writing to the Maidenhead planning office before Tuesday
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 266


« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2018, 10:38:47 PM »

18/00554FULL - Chestnuts garden

Reading through the Planning application documents for this proposed "in-fill" development,
I note that there is not one single letter in favour of this proposal whilst the objections flow in like the tide!

Some of the "gems" that have been taken from the proposer's Statement/Planning application are marked with an asterisk thus * :

The garden upon which the 7 bedroom house is proposed to be built on has been described as * "derelict land" !!
It is a garden for heavens sake, and has been a garden since the late 19th century!

* "Berries Road should not form part of the Conservation area"
It is designated as in a Conservation area - the proposers wish to have this distinction removed !
Why  I wonder?! To facilitate their intention to build, of course!

* "Berries Road is a modern development and offers limited contribution to the main historic core of the Conservation"
A walk down Berries Road will indicate the various ages of architecture (Chestnuts ITSELF was built c. 1897!), building materials and character.
Enough said!

A catalogue of misleading statements and assumptions, the "documents" (for want of a better word) make for light and fictitious reading!
Tuesday, tomorrow, is the last day on which objections to RBWM are registered.
If you feel, as the majority do, that this proposal is wrong, then do please write/email your objection to The Planning Officer at RBWM.


« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 10:40:18 PM by Watchman » Logged
Old Cookhamite
Newbie
*
Posts: 10


« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2018, 06:13:10 PM »


The application contradicts numerous aspects of the Cookham VDS. It is inappropriate and intrusive over-infilling of the garden of an attractive period property in the village Conservation Area.

As I understand it, the area long known as The Bury, which suggests Anglo-Saxon origins, was sold as individual building plots in 1891, becoming known as Berries Road. The houses were built in the attractive style of that period soon afterwards. With its high quality of architecture, Berries Road is historically important to Cookham and as such should retain its original layout and spacing between properties that is fitting to the style.

The site is archaeologically significant in that it may also once have been on an extension of the church burial ground. It is recorded that two skeletons were unearthed on a closely adjacent site when the vicarage orchard was developed in 1971, becoming Vicarage Close.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  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!