Application:
 February 2010 – 10/00057
Title:
Pipeline Crossing, west side of Green Lane Bridge.
We commented previously on this scheme (09/01154) in July 2009. We believe that this submission is an improvement in that the new design is less conspicuous and closer to the road bridge. However, we remain concerned at the routing of the overall project. We have received a communication from South East Water (27 Jan 2010) listing the disadvantages of using the bed of the flood relief channel, as we propose. These reasons are listed as follows:
  • Increased flood risk during construction and maintenance
  • Adverse effect on ecology
  • Risk of contamination through pipe wall damage
  • Potential for movement and subsequent failure of the pipe.
  • Disruption to boating on the river during construction.
We are far from convinced by these arguments and the potential boating disruption is almost risible, compared with the traffic disruption that will be experienced – especially on the A4, Bridge Road.  We still believe an alternative route should be sought, especially north of the railway line – for example Reform Road, rather than Oldfield Road.  For the Borough to maintain that traffic disruption will be “minimal” (Maidenhead Advertiser 4th Feb 2010) is patently ill–judged and/or untrue.
We earnestly seek a review of the route if there is not to be significant negative impact on the commerce of Maidenhead town centre during this major construction scheme.
Application:
February 2010 – 09/02743
Title:
Alfresco, Ray Lea Road.  Removal of conditions 2 and 3 relating to external materials and details of front boundary wall relating to previous planning permission.
As a matter of principle we believe that the conditions applied to the permitted application 08/02478 should be enforced.  Development should not proceed in the hope that conditions can be disregarded subsequently and/or retrospectively.  Conditions should be an inherent aspect of any granted planning permission.
Application:
February 2010 – 09/02729
Title:

Thornton, 66 Lower Cookham Road. Construction of 7 x 3 bed dwellings (1 detached and 3 pairs of semis) with associated parking and access, following demolition of existing.
The existing single dwelling on an overlarge plot of 0.21 hectares is suitable for re-development, but not on the scale proposed. The streetscape of Lower Cookham Road and Battlemead Close is predominantly of detached houses in substantial plots. This proposal is to squeeze in 7 dwellings of which 6 are pairs of uncharacteristic semis, and represents a cramped over-development of the site. The resultant density and mass with little amenity/garden space is out of character with the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the designs and elevations are uninspiring.
Continued