URGENT - AL37 Planning Application, Lower Mount Farm, Cookham
Bellway Homes have updated their planning application for the site at Lower Mount Farm, Cannondown Road, Cookham. This is being presented as a response to the many objections from the public, the Cookham Society, the Parish Council and RBWM’s own Highways Department.
Members will recall that following the public outcry, Bellway Homes withdrew their original application.
Bellway Home’s latest application has not addressed our, the Parish Council’s and the public’s objections.
There is very little publicity about the update and there are now so many documents to compare to the original application, that there is a risk that this huge development could slip through without a full response from the local community.
We have noted the following:
The revised scheme is almost identical to the original with the only visible changes being a height reduction in a few cases, from 2.5 storeys to two, cosmetic tinkering with porches and roofing materials, plus a couple of additional cycle and pedestrian routes. There has been a slight enlargement of gardens to the minimum required size and confirmed bin access. Public open space has been reduced, as the large grassed open space has now been replaced with a swale. However, Bellway Homes are planning to build exactly the same number of houses, so the site will be even more congested.
Parking problems do not seem to have been addressed and this plan still features parking with up to three cars parked in lines between houses. There remains just one exit and entry point to Cannondown Road.
Objections to overall Layout and Design, Site Access, Parking, Foul Drainage, Surface water Drainage, Tenure, Bus Service, Speed Limits, Sustainability, Food Production and Cookham Area Traffic Overload have all been ignored.
Cookham Deserves Better.
You can find the applications for this 200 home development on the RBWM planning website using the following link and reference numbers. Please note that for some reason, Bellway have split the development in two, so your objection should reference both, as they are similar designs.
