All Categories

Members and Friends of HRA Email Addresses

18/3/2014

As a consequence of our Survey of Holyport Area residents, we gained many new members and friends.

However, some of the email addresses given to us do not work, so some of you might expect to hear from me but have not.

I show below the first few letters of each of the emails that do not work.

If you have not heard from me and your email address fits with those part emails shown below please contact me - I think you can respond to this blog.

math, jack, aga-, emm, glori, jand, sanj, mike, amc-, kws, she-,

There is another problem - quite a few people asked to be members of HRA - but gave no email address. I have recorded them as members and of course they did give their home addresses. But so far we have not communicated by post and to do so adds to our workload, so postal communications will be few. Would anyone who did not give an email address, but can do so, please let me have it.

1 Comment

Toads under threat

10/2/2014

0 Comments

Rachel Cook contacted us, being concerned that a lot of people from Holyport will be commenting on the consultation and asking that all the brownfield sites be built on.

She said as follows:

"There is one brownfield site which is a field (next to the Badnell's pit development) and which supports the last remaining population of the toads which cross Ray Mill Road East each spring to breed. The toad patrol is devastated to learn that this site has been included for housing. The population has suffered a catastrophic decline. In 2001 there were over 6000 recorded. Last year and 2012 there was under 90 individuals recorded. It may be that the development of the pit had something to do with this decline - who can say - but it was accepted that the 6000 toads all came from this general area in their heyday. We would be extremely grateful if you would add this information to your blog. Perhaps it demonstrates what value this local authority places on bio-diversity when it says in the site analysis that it has no known conservation issues! RBWM appear to have a short memory - in 2004 its own countryside ranger ran the toad patrol and it was even featured on country file. I would trust the rest of the analysis with a lot of caution. We would like the site to become a local nature reserve to protect the toads for future generations to enjoy."

We wish Rachel success in preventing development that would reduce the Toad population.

As you will all know from this Blog - we do not encourage residents to vote for development in any Green Belt areas, and we encourage development in brownfield. However there are always exceptions and it seem that the area Rachel is concerned about needs especial consideration and development there should receive no encouragement from us.

0 Comments

Settlement of Holyport

1/1/2014

0 Comments

During the phase of considering how best to counter Central Government driven pressure to build on Holyport's Green Belt it has become apparent to me that areas that in the past that I loosely considered as being Holyport are in fact part of Maidenhead.

The Green Belt area concerned is defined in the RBWM document "Edge of Settlement Analysis" as Area 7A.

Living on Holyport Road (the road to Holyport) I knew that my official postal address did not include the word "Holyport", but is Holyport Road, Maidenhead. This also applies to Aysgarth Park, Springfield Park, Stompits Road etc.

However, the logical significance of this, in the context of RBWM's consultation beginning on 10th January 2014, is that the Green Belt Land between the A330, Holyport Road, Aysgarth Park and Old Holyport (Area 7A) constitutes a "Settlement Gap", between the settlement of Maidenhead and the settlement of Holyport.

In RBWM's analysis, they have excluded from consideration for development, other areas that are in settlement gaps. But in the case of Area 7A, RBWM's analysis considers that it is not in a settlement gap.

My thoughts on this are further explained in my 28th December 2013 letter to RBWM shown elsewhere on this site (last letter in Topics - Threat to Holyport Green Belt). This letter includes part of a photograph of a map supplied to Bray Parish Council and displayed by the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan at one of their public presentations. That map clearly shows the settlements of Holyport and Bray, with part of the settlement of Maidenhead protruding into the space between them. I also show that map in a new tab - see "Holyport - Settlements in the Holyport Area".

Additionally on this site (Holyport - Holyport Conservation Area Boundary) I show a further RBWM map that confirms the independence of Holyport.

As of 1st January 2014, I await a response from RBWM.

0 Comments

Letter (email) to Bray Parish Council, sent 1st Dec 2013

1/12/2013

1 Comment

Further to the previous post on 19th November 2013 about the threat to our Green Belt Land, I have today 1/12/2013 sent the following email to Bray Parish Council;

For the attention of the Bray Parish Council.

Dear Janice Eden Bagley,

I write to formally document how important it is to many Holyport Residents Association members and other Holyport Residents, that the land between Aysgarth Park, Holyport Road, Ascot Road, Blind Lane and Old Holyport will not be built upon.

This email will also be copied to others, and placed on the HRA website so that I am seen to have re-emphasised this point.

I refer to the letter of 17th November 2012 that the leader of the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan sent to RBWM, the text of which follows below;

QUOTE
I write on behalf of the Steering Group of the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan ("BPNP") with reference to my letter of 16 March 2012 where amongst other topics and under the heading of Housing and the Built Environment I gave an example of something that might be discussed with the local residents in due course as part of any consultation;

“e.g. In return for allowing some mixed housing development in the proposal area covering the fields south of Aysgarth Park we would want the landowner / developer to donate some land for community use with the suggestion the Holyport Primary School is moved there. In addition other community facilities could also be included such as a doctor’s surgery and possibly a community Hall. With careful layout and additional green spaces, this would consolidate all the community services and provide a new centre for the village.”

As you are aware, in March 2012 the BPNP was in the early stages of Neighbourhood Planning and had not then had the benefit of hearing local resident’s views as part of their participation in recent BPNP workshop meetings. As a result of these workshops the BPNP now has a clear indication of the strength of feeling amongst Bray Parish residents that Bray Parish Green Belt is inviolable except in special circumstances where there is significant community support and benefit.

The BPNP will therefore have as one of its key policies that any developments on any land in the Parish that is in the green belt, such as the aforementioned land or parts of it, should only take place if there is a significant community benefit and a majority of those living in the area have voted for the proposed development at a specially convened consultation meeting as part of any planning application.
UNQUOTE

The proposal in the letter of 16th March 2012 to build on the land identified above arose from the Housing and Built Environment Topic Group within the BPNP.

The leader of that group is now a Bray Parish Councillor.

As you know, in an area where there is a Parish Council, the Neighbourhood Plan for that area must be created by or under the control of the Parish Council and it is the Parish Council and its councillors that have final responsibility for it.

The text of the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan letter of 17th November 2012 from the leader of the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan, who is also the Leader of the Parish Council, gives hope that the Parish Council itself is supportive of the concept of the aforementioned letter, that Bray Parish Council will not allow building on the aforementioned land unless a majority of those living in the area have voted for the proposed development at a specially convened consultation meeting as part of any planning application.

I would like to have confirmation from you, the Bray Parish Council's Proper Officer, that Bray Parish Council will not allow building on the aforementioned land unless a majority of those living in the area have voted for the proposed development at a specially convened consultation meeting as part of any planning application.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Chairman, Holyport Residents Association, Old Pines, Holyport Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire
SL6 2HA

1 Comment

Ongoing threat to our Green Belt

19/11/2013

0 Comments

When the HRA was first set up, the main driver for that was the danger of building on our Green Belt land between Holyport Road, Aysgarth Park and the Ascot Road.

THAT DANGER HAS NOT FADED AND IS BECOMING MORE ACUTE!

Having reviewed developments in England on land areas of this nature it is clear that the Government is unpredictable in its decision making process on such sites, BUT IT APPEARS THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO APPROVE SUCH DEVELOPMENT THAN TO STOP IT.

We know that Beaulieu Homes owns that land and has plans to build there if they can get permission.

Our Local Authority, RBWM, has been working for some time on a new Borough Local Plan. One stage in this is that the Local Plan is put out for consultation by us, the residents of RBWM.

The stage after that consultation is that the plan and the residents responses will be considered by the Central Government Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol.

As the Planning Inspectorate has a history of rejecting Local Authority Plans if they are not seen to have considered all areas in which housing could be built, it is clear that RBWM will have to include the land I have identified above in their Local Plan as one of the areas where housing could be built.

Members of the HRA have demonstrated by joining that they have concern for our neighbourhood. It is well known that in general when consultations take place the response rate is generally around 4% of the population. As of 22nd March 2014, the HRA has 269 members, this being 9.4% of those on the voters roll. It could be supposed that our members are those same people who respond to consultations.

I therefore believe and hope that when the RBWM puts its Local Plan out for residents consultation, all HRA members will respond to the consultation and reject any proposal to build on our Green Belt and in particular not on the area between Holyport Road, Aysgarth Park and the Ascot Road.

The HRA needs more members. Only by being a member can you receive emails from HRA about any developments.

Please speak to your neighbours and ask them also to reject any proposals to build on our Green Belt land.

When the consultation comes out I will remind you of it.

The following background information is very relevant;

In the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Winter 2013 magazine, under the heading GREEN BELT they wrote;

QUOTE

Despite Government promises that its planning policies would maintain protection for England's Green Belt, CPRE research shows that the area of Green Belt earmarked for development has nearly doubled in a year.

Green Belts of open land outside our towns and cities make up a significant part of the English landscape, covering 12.4% of the country. The protected status afforded to Green Belt land has safeguarded open spaces for farming, forestry and recreation, and helped prevent the kind of urban sprawl here that has disfigured cities from Los Angeles to Lahore. Yet despite Secretary of State Eric Pickles vowing to revoke the old-style regional plans that threatened to sacrifice Green Belt for housing targets, our research has shown that more than 150,000 dwellings, plus 1,000 hectares of mines, warehouses and offices, are planned for Green Belt sites.

In fact, 2013 has seen proposals for development return to much the same level as under the former regional plans.

We welcomed the Government's statement in summer stating that housing demand alone is not enough to justify building on Green Belt - but we're pressing for further action. A commitment to building on brownfield first would take the pressure off the open spaces around our towns and aid regeneration; as would measures to help local authorities direct development away from the Green Belt and clearer guidance on housing requirements in local plans.

`Ministers saying that the Green Belt is not being given the level of protection they expected is a welcome recognition of the problem,' says CPRE Senior Planning Campaigner Paul Miner. `But the extent to which the threat is growing is deeply worrying. It should not be necessary to build on Green Belt land when there is enough brownfield land available for a million and a half new homes.'

UNQUOTE

The following link to a Telegraph article of 17th November 2013 gives the text shown below it;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9935013/Campaigners-claim-localism-pledges-are-being-undermined-by-planning-decisions.html

QUOTE

Campaigners claim localism pledges are being undermined by planning decisions

Beauty spots and protected areas of countryside are to be destroyed to make way for housing after Government inspectors overturned local planning decisions despite promises by ministers to hand more control to communities.

Despite promises by ministers to hand more control to communities, campaigners say decisions by local councils to turn down developments are being routinely overridden by the centralised Planning Inspectorate.

The Sunday Telegraph has discovered that several developments on legally protected landscapes, including greenbelt land, and areas of open countryside have all been approved within recent months by the Inspectorate under the National Planning Policy Framework, the Coalition’s controversial planning reforms.

All the rulings have reversed decisions by local authorities to reject the housing in a bid to safeguard the land.

Among the cases to be overturned by planning inspectors are two applications to build a total of 289 houses in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – land that is protected by law – close to Highgrove House, the Prince of Wales’ private residence in Gloucestershire.

One of these two developments, which were both rejected by Cotswold District Council before being reversed by inspectors, will see 39 houses being built less than a mile from Highgrove. The homes are expected to be visible from Prince Charles’ property.

Although the Prince has not raised any specific objections to these developments, other locals have reacted angrily to the decisions.

Councillor Lynden Stowe, the Conservative leader of Cotswold District Council, said: “Local people are livid and the councillors are extremely angry. We feel completely let down by Government ministers even though they are in our own party.

“Localism appears to be completely one sided in favour of development. Communities have absolutely no say in objecting to proposals that they don’t want.”

Ministers have repeatedly insisted the NPPF, which came into force in April last year, would ensure that developments would be built on brownfield land first before being built elsewhere.

The Government faced intense opposition to the new rules from campaigners, including the National Trust, who insisted the framework would result in unchecked development in the countryside.

At the time ministers dismissed the concerns and said greenbelt land would also continue to be protected under the new rules. In the past year, however, plans to build 135 houses on greenbelt land on the outskirts of the picturesque village of Whittle Le Woods, in Lancashire, have been approved by the Planning Inspectorate despite Chorley Borough Council’s decision to reject the proposals.

Another council decision to reject plans to build 140 homes on greenbelt land in Sedgley, south Staffordshire, was also overturned, while eleven houses on greenbelt outside Stanley Common, Derbyshire were also approved against the wishes of Erewash Borough Council.

There have also been a number of cases where developments were turned down by local councils due to concerns about the impact they would have on the rural nature of the area, but were then later approved by government inspectors.

In Beverley, near East Riding, Yorkshire, a £17 million scheme to build 141 homes was last week approved by the Planning Inspectorate despite being unanimously rejected by East Riding Council due to concerns about its design.

Another application to build 269 homes on greenfield land in Sandback, Cheshire, has also been allowed to go ahead after developers appealed against a decision by the local authority Cheshire East Council.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles approved the application said that although the development would cause “material harm to countryside protection policies”, this was outweighed by the council’s “significant shortfall” in housing land supply and affordable housing.

Paul Miner, senior planning campaigner for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the cases appeared to be at odds with the Government’s promises to allow local communities determine what is built in their area. He said: 'When the Government introduced its planning reforms last year it promised that the local plan would be the keystone of the planning system, and that the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside would be recognised.

“Instead, we are seeing that applications for new housing are being approved regardless of their impact on local areas. This includes some of our most treasured areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

It comes after figures revealed that more than half of local authorities do not have local plans in place to allow communities to set out clearly where building can take place, meaning they will not be able to prevent developers from trying to build where they like.

The National Trust has warned problems implementing the new rules posed a serious threat to the countryside.

UNQUOTE

PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND UNTIL THE LOCAL PLAN IS ISSUED FOR CONSULTATION - IT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT THAT AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE WILL VOTE AGAINST BUILDING ON OUR GREEN BELT LAND.

The following quote is from the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan Chairman's letter of 17th November 2012 to the RBWM's Cabinet Member for Planning and Partnership.

QUOTE
"...the BPNP now has a clear indication of the strength of feeling amongst Bray Parish residents that Bray Parish Green Belt is inviolable except in special circumstances where there is significant community support and benefit.

The BPNP will therefore have as one of its key policies that any developments on any land in the Parish that is in the green belt, such as the aforementioned land or parts of it, should only take place if there is a significant community benefit and a majority of those living in the area have voted for the proposed development at a specially convened consultation meeting as part of any planning application."
UNQUOTE

It is to be hoped that the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan will actually include such a key policy.

The Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan will also have to be put out to residents for consultation.

BE SURE TO REJECT IT IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROMISED PROTECTING POLICY.

0 Comments

Speeding Traffic on Holyport Road

22/6/2013

0 Comments

In 2002 - 2003, together with like minded residents, I attempted to find a solution for traffic speeds and volume on Holyport Road, which already at that time was severe.

In "Topics" - "Speeding on Holyport Road" I show the various leaflets that I produced, and reading through these in order gives a history of how that went.

In summary RBWM agreed to have a survey of what people wanted; I encouraged people to express their opinions; this resulted in RBWM drawing up plans for speed cushions; then Bray Parish Council stopped it.

A decade later it is clear that the Parish Council's solution - the electronic "Slow Down" signs that I considered from the outset would be of no use, are in fact useless. The minor improvements in signage and road markings have no effect. Traffic volume has increased and will increase further. The problem is now acute.

Below are some comments made recently by four residents and in "Topics" - "Speeding on Holyport Road" there is a petition requesting that BPC and RBWM work together with representatives of the HRA to find a solution to enforce a reduction of speed. Do any HRA members have concerns on Holyport Road speeding, and does anyone wish to get involved?

The following email conversation took place on 19th June 2013;

1ST RESIDENT

I have just noticed that they have put in a rather large 40 miles sign at the end of Holyport Road to the Windsor Road junction - so much for trying to minimise street furniture!! Particularly as I couldn't see any post marked with 30 till a very small one obscured by foliage just before Cadogan Close. I am disgusted by the indifference shown by the Parish Council to requests for speed control and their arguments about doing nothing in a conservation area when Bray has been inundated with humps, signs and a 20 miles limit. I think we should ask for a pedestrian crossing from the bus stop across near the school and a slow sign as well as taking out those horrible 40 miles limit signs and include one more visible 30 miles sign and to my view include a 20 miles zone all around the green!
__________________

2ND RESIDENT

I absolutely agree with everything 1st RESIDENT said. I was walking up Holyport Road last week, with my son in the pushchair and a guy raced past me at at least 50 miles an hour. Imagine if a child going to school stepped out in front of him. It doesn't bear thinking about. I have already written to the council about speeding on the Holyport Road and received a pathetic response saying that they'd done a survey, and almost no-one had been caught speeding during the survey, so as far as they were concerned there wasn't a problem!

I am willing to write another letter if need be!
______________________

1ST RESIDENT

Thanks 2ND RESIDENT for that -

You know I was wondering whether this is time for a petition. My immediate neighbour is outraged and has told me about a past accident where a woman was severely shaken up (fortunately no physical injuries) because a driver coming from Moneyrow Green hadn't even stopped at the junction!

I am of the view that a petition covering the whole of Holyport Road and perhaps beyond to draw the attention to the fact that people are totally ignoring the speed limit and as I have shown some of them don't even care about it because it is not reinforced either visibly with signs or physical bodies - i.e. police officers, to act as deterrent.

I heard from someone that last Monday that he had to swerve and go on the verge because a 4x4 was coming from the Green at such a speed round the corner that he was almost skidding and taking over the other side of the road.

This is a story that will run and run if we don't act now.

I think whether we are 20 or 200 the HRA should be behind this otherwise I will be sending a letter to the Maidenhead Advertiser and writing (again and again) to the Parish council - and so will you and anyone else - and we might as well be all united behind a petition to the local borough as well as the parish council and the police and anyone else you can think of.
_______________________

2ND RESIDENT

Yes 1ST RESIDENT - absolutely I think a petition is definitely the way to go. I know that Andrew Cormie has also had past communication with the council about this point and also didn't get much of a response from them.

My mum and dad nearly got knocked over by a car that was going too fast round the bend at the top of Holyport Road shortly after we moved in here, and that was 8 years ago, so nothing has changed in that time!

I could collect signatures. I am sure I could also recruit one of my neighbours to help me who was part of our group when we were trying to get the gateway planning permission refused.
________________________

3RD RESIDENT

I think this is an excellent idea. If nothing is done the situation will only get worse as it already has over the past 16 years that we have been living in the village. I don't understand why Holyport should be distinguished from Bray and Fifield both of which benefit from 20 miles and
hour speed restrictions and speed bumps in areas remote from their respective schools.

I live on the Holyport Road and everyday see cars speeding down the road. I've even been overtaken when obeying the speed limit! Over the last few months we have had to park our cars from time to time on the road, something that we normally avoid at all costs due to the speed. One of our visitors actually had his van driven into by someone speeding along so fast that they didn't recognise that it was stationary until too late to stop in time.
Then someone said to me that they didn't agree that I should park my car on Holyport Road as it was disrupting the flow of traffic.

_________________________

1ST RESIDENT

Thank you 3RD RESIDENT for your encouragement.

Your last paragraph is very symptomatic of what I fear most about trying to find a consensus in the village - people are very quick at judging and this topic needs our support for the safety of all concerned.

2nd Resident and I had further discussions and this lunch time I've taken a few photographs seeing how many cars would trigger the speedometers. Within a few minutes there are a multitude of cars that trigger the device and a good handful who are visibly doing something like 50 miles/hour.

The problem with these electronic devices is that firstly they advise you are speeding only after the event - you may not know it is a 30 miles/hour area (although I believe the law (highway code) says that if you have street lighting than the speed limit must be 30 miles/hr because it represents a built-up area. Wikipedia tells us that: "...unless an order has been made and the road is signed to the contrary, a 30mph speed limit applies where there are three or more lamps throwing light on the carriage and placed not more than 183 m apart. I have not seen signs showing a 30 miles limit at the entrance of Holyport Road, from the Green, so will drivers assume that because of the absence of street lighting the speed limit is not restricted, hence the maddening speed with which some drivers negotiate the bend and then have to break further down the road?

I'm of the view that we should have a written petition and 2nd Resident thinks people would prefer to sign online. I would think the two are not incompatible and we can knock on doors as well as notify people of a petition online.
___________________

ANDREW CORMIE

In 2002 I tried to get traffic calming on Holyport Road. RBWM consulted residents and the consensus was for speed cushions. RBWM drew up plans for them, but in the end BPC had it stopped. They enlisted comments from Police, Ambulance service and Fire Service - who do not want them as Holyport Road is regarded as a "strategic route" for Police and for Ambulances and Fire Engines.

I have also asked for a pedestrian crossing - this request is always refused.

I have also asked for better lighting on the stretch between Stroud Farm Road and The Green. - Always refused.

It appears that some Councillors have concern that any restriction on Holyport Road will cause increased traffic on Ascot Road.

I have also tried to have traffic calming signage on Holyport Road - always refused.

Further, the surface of Holyport Road is in a bad state and we need a quiet road surface.

3rd Resident - other neighbours of yours have also had their car run into (and I believe it was written off) when parked outside their house.

Also, a few years ago at night, a car was parked under the lamp-post between my home and my neighbours. The driver had decided to park there overnight and was in the car trying to sleep. A car ran into it and both cars were written off.

SEE TOPICS - SPEEDING ON HOLYPORT ROAD

As of 16th July 2013, we have 26 signatures on the petition. The following are comments from some who signed, and the comments marked * , ** and *** were received by email;

The 30 mph sign is placed too far up. Traffic comes round the bend at 40 mph and then fails to brake or reduce speed. The 30mph should apply all the way from the Green not just from the junction with Stroud Farm Road.

If we do nothing to curb the speed of traffic as well as its volume, should there be an accident, who will admit responsibility?

It is set at 30 mph for a reason. I, for one, abide to the Law. Why can't everyone else. The flashing speed beacons don't work as a deterrent. The only thing that will reduce the speed is a Gatsby !

Traffic calming at the entrances to the village green would be welcome

Let's change something for once before somebody is killed or seriously injured. Proactive approach rather than reactive to a tragedy as is typically the case.

I walk along the footpath at the side of Holyport Road on a daily basis to take my children to school. I am very glad that we are soon to move house as it is a highly dangerous road to walk beside with 3 children. Drivers RARELY obey the speed limit. It's a long, narrow straight with NO formal crossing and sometimes we have to wait a long time to cross the road. In my opinion, the speed limit should be reduced to 20 and a proper crossing put in PLUS speed bumps. It's a miracle no one has been killed on this road.

Holyport Road passes close by to a school.
Children walk along & cross Holyport Road, so the traffic speed is critical to the safe of the children.

Cars often ignore the 30 mile an hour speed signs. There is a blind bend at the Holyport Green end near to where children to and from school need to cross the road.

I feel the speed signs do make some people think about their speed but I do think a Welcome to Holyport Village with an awareness to the speed limit would make a big difference.

Something needs to be done about this road as soon as possible. We have young children and elderly people using it every single day, and someone passed me the other day doing between 50 - 60 miles. A child, or adult for that matter, wouldn't stand at chance at that speed.

Consideration should be given to providing Speed Cushions which will slow down smaller vehicles but not affect ambulances, fire engines and buses which can straddle the cushion without having to ride up and over it.

* I was walking with my husband on Monday along the Holyport Road, my husband nearly got his head knocked off by the wing mirror of a van going at speed and driving close to the pavement. This is very dangerous. There is also a problem with overgrown bushes which means pedestrians have to walk on the edge of the path.
COMMENT BY A Cormie - Yes - in the past I also have almost been struck by a vehicle mirror. Holyport Road is too narrow for much of the traffic that uses it. Bray Parish Council have advised that they are acting to get the hedge cut.

** New Member joined on 5th July and has following view on this;

"Have joined as I would campaign against any speed bumps in Holyport Road. I was against them some 10 years ago and nothing has changed my view. I was also against the reduction in speed limit from 40 to 30. I have lived here for 27 years, walked both my kids to the primary school and see little wrong with the current set up. Far too much is made of speed as being the cause of accidents rather than the carelessness / inattention of the driver. Pedestrians have to take responsibility for themselves."

Crossing Holyport Road from the end of Blind Lane to go to the shops is particularly hazardous as it is difficult to see round the bend towards Holyport Green. Traffic coming round this bend from the Green frequently trigger the 30 warning sign thus indicating that vehicles are exceeding the speed limit. Walking down the footpath towards the Windsor Road to cross further down does little help reduce the risk.

Pedestrian crossings required and speed reduction.

Dangerous to cross with my 4 year old twins to go to school. The bend near the shops and the speed of the cars makes it a 'dash' for the other side and hope we time it right.

Once someone is killed it will be too late.

*** Received on 15th July 2013 - "Two weeks ago myself my daughter and two of my neighbours nearly got killed while crossing from the pavement between Stroud Farm road and Langworthy over to the other side to walk down the footpath (Blind Lane). A car coming out of Stroud Farm Rd. let us cross and as we got three quarters of the way across a taxi driver came flying around the corner from the green direction at God knows what speed and had to skid to a halt. When starting to cross there was no sight of him. I shouted once safe on the path "It's 30mph" where he got out of his car and we had a few words etc. Then the next day whilst just about to walk down Stroud farm road I heard a screaming and a banging noise one of the mothers from the school and her two children where pushed and trapped in the over grown nettled hedge on the corner as a lorry that had come from Bargain Booze was turning left onto Holyport Road but was so large his wheels were across the path and as he was turning left his back wheels were all the way across the path and unknown to him he was squashing the family into the hedge for their own safety. The driver did not stop and the family were very upset.
These I am sure are normal day to day incidents around Holyport - everyone has a story to tell and until someone is killed it will keep happening."

0 Comments

Establishing HRA Membership Views

26/3/2013

0 Comments

I responded to a question from the Maidenhead Advertiser asking for the Holyport Residents Association view on a Gypsy Site proposed under RBWM Planning Application 13/00702 . The question was asked on Wednsday 20th March shortly before the newspaper would be published so an urgent response was requested.

I responded saying;

Firstly that the Holyport Residents Association was not sufficiently established for me to comment on their behalf.

Secondly that the application and the map seemed to show the location within the area covered by the Oakley Green and Fifield Residents Association.

Thirdly that as a general principle I have no objection to travelling people settling down provided that they behave as normal people, not causing any disturbance and fitting in with the existing population.

Fourthly that the location appeared to be far enough away from immediate neighbours so that few people would have reasonable grounds to object.

It has been suggested in the forum that I should not have commented, as by association it could be inferred that I spoke on behalf of the HRA. I agree and will not make such comment in future without having gained the views of the HRA membership.

Regarding the location – there has been doubt as to where the boundary should lie between the HRA and the Fifield and Oakley Green Residents Association. A membership application on 26th March 2013 from post code SL6 2NN has highlighted this problem and it appears that this area is close to the proposed Gypsy site and is in the Holyport “Ward”.

Regarding what I said about personally having no objection to travelling people settling down provided that they behave as normal people, not causing any disturbance and fitting in with the existing population. For myself, I stand by that statement including the provisions I stated.

What I said about the location not being near neighbours was wrong – I had believed that the site was half a mile further South than it is.

Also I had not known about the preliminary work at and near that site as pointed out in the Forum.

In conclusion;

In future I will not respond to Newspaper Queries without a lot of deliberation and consideration.
I have said elsewhere on this site that the HRA is to develop so as to be able to represent the views of the people of Holyport. Establishing people’s views is not easy and requires a survey of some sort. Suggestions are invited as to how we should proceed with this. For instance – you all could send me by email a list of questions you would like to see asked of members.
See the Poll on Gypsy / Traveller sites.

0 Comments

HRA Concepts

18/3/2013

0 Comments

By Andrew Cormie:

These first remarks are an attempt to discuss some concepts or policy for the HRA; to encourage contributions from members; and to encourage more members to join the HRA.

The reason to have a Residents Association is to express the views of residents. Thus it is necessary to measure the views of residents so that any demands or opinions stated on behalf of residents will actually be representative of the views of the majority of residents. The Forum is intended to enable and encourage members to express their views.

The Topics so far commenced in the Forum and in the "Topics" page were chosen in the hope that they would provoke comment and encourage members to express their opinions.

Many members will be accustomed to me, prior to establishing the HRA, acting basically on my own behalf, and copying you with my various complaints to local authorities and our MP. Indeed, I have written two items recently (early 2013) in that mode, one objecting to the proposed Holyport College, on the basis of traffic increase, and supporting Bray Parish Council; the other following up on my request to Theresa May to see how my complaint to the Ombudsman is proceeding, this being about the Planning Inspectorate's approval on appeal of the Holyport Road field gateway. These were both copied to those contacts in Holyport to whom I had customarily copied such correspondence. Most of the the current HRA members are amongst those on that list.

In this new situation where a Holyport Residents Association Committee or Chairman could write to express opinions, it is important that whatever opinions are expressed are in line with the vews of the majority of members.

I am on record expressing the view that, in respect of Neighbourhood Planning, there is a danger that the resulting plan will not be supported by the majority of residents. To elaborate, the residents working in the BPNP are a self selected group working on behalf of all Bray residents, who somehow have to gain the approval of these residents. This is why it is important to the BPNP to have consultations and public meetings.

The same problem applies to a Residents Association. The current committee is a self selected group, and the current members make the Association a bit bigger, but it is still basically self selected. We aspire to be representative of all Holyport Residents.

But without critical interest and input from residents, the opinions of the HRA Chairman and / or Committee cannot be said to be representative of the views of local residents.

This blog is set so that anyone, not only HRA Members, may respond to it, so please feel free to do so.

0 Comments

Forward>>

Author

Andrew Cormie is concerned about the possibility of adverse change occurring in the Holyport Area. He is particularly concerned about the steady increase in traffic in this area, and the consequences of this - (noise, pollution, delays).
He is concerned about the imposition on local residents of developments that will cause increases in traffic.
He sees the HRA as a possible means to garner local opinion for all mattters that give concern to local residents.

RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

Author