| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 1 | Miss Suzy Kirkwood | This application should be reconsidered, as this is an existing leisure site. Why does the town need anymore Office blocks built. we have over 105 empty offices in and around Maidenhead. This doesn't look good for the Town also. We need this area to be incorporated in the new Waterways Restoration Group's plans and further discussions urgently needed. |
| 2 | Tasha Prior | We have enough offices in Maidenhead and don't need this area compromised in the way that is planned. What Maidenhead needs is more leisure, recreational an arts facitlies. The MWRG has worked very hard to plan for a more vibrant and appealing town centre, lets hope we can still achieve that. |
| 3 | emma | something needs to be done to the whole of maidenhead not just that section i also need to keep within what the bear pub and surrounding areas are like and not look out of place. |
| 4 | Anonymous | Absolutely agree |
| 5 | jacqueline thorne | it is a disgrace. i am old enough to remember when the original cinema was sold and the office block built only on the condition that a cinema would be available on the rest of the site. and guess what a shell was built without electricity or heating which would have cost any potential applicant a fortune to convert. no more office blocks on this site!!!!! |
| 6 | Gillian Chivas | I think the Royal Borough should have no hesitation in refusing this planning application in its entireity. The owners of the site, having done nothing for years, now show the worst kind of cynical exploitation by submitting such a blatant overdevelopment of the site as soon as someone else shows an alternative (less lucrative) interest in the area. The Royal Borough should use all its powers to stall this plan, pending a full review of the whole area. |
| 7 | John White | This application severaly limits the potentail for regenerating the waterways in the town centre. The council and planners are far to slow to put forward plans to stop overdevelopment here. |
| 8 | Liz Kwantes | The height of the building will destroy the whole balance of the area and encroach on York Stream. This could cause problems in the future where there have been plans to improve York Stream as a leisure facility and also a way of transporting product which would take shipping off the road. |
| 9 | R.J.Warne | I object to the application on the grounds that The developer's planning application for the former cinema site at Chapel Arches in Maidenhead should be REJECTED by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead because it:
- would change the existing permitted use from leisure, removing the potential for a major public amenity at this pivotal town centre site;
- is an overdevelopment of the site, with an over 30,000 sq ft office block that is substantially larger and taller than the existing (disused) building;
- the proposed building footprint would come within 5 metres of the York Stream, with an overhang that encroaches even further. The building would threaten some existing mature trees and dominate the waterside area;
- the building would permanently block up two of the smaller c18th century arches (currently filled and behind hoarding) of the historic Chapel Arches bridge - one of the oldest remaining structures in Maidenhead - that adjoins the site;
- although the landscaping plans improve access to the Green Way cycle and footpath, they would compromise rather than help the plans to restore and enlarge the York Stream into a recreational waterway and town centre amenity.
Please do not allow any possibility of a further blot on the Town Centre, and ensure that the overdue and sympathetic redevelopment of this site is carefully considered and blended with The Maidenhead Waterways Scheme and future plans for this important area of the town to ensure an enhanced green area adjoining a potentially rich waterside amenity.
The current proposal does not address these issues, and must be rejected.
R.J.Warne - Cookham resident. |
| 10 | David Snelgar | This application to dominate the plot with 47,350 square feet of office space will provide a very profitable rental option for the owners of this site. But the developers and planners should consider the longer term. By maximising the waterside potential of the plot, and playing a part in regenerating Maidenhead as a leisure and retail centre they would generate the best long-term return for their investors and most importantly for the Maidenhead community.
I urge Maidenhead’s planning committee to think of their grandchildren’s’ future, and to demand a more imaginative solution or history will not forgive them for this missed opportunity. |
| 11 | Anonymous | This development should be part of the Town Plan and not be allowed to be piecemeal. This area of the shopping center needs thought to ensure it does not become even more dejected than it is and to encourage small shop owners to invest in the town, not more offices or multiples. |
| 12 | Robin Butler | The development will seriously compromise the Waterways project. The project is Maidenhead's one chance of creating an interesting and vibrant town centre. |
| 13 | Richard Mole | |
| 14 | sue kindeleit | The proposed over-development will dwarf the colonnade and block off the Chapel Arches. How is that going to be an aesthetically pleasing sight. The Colonnade has definitely (cinema site excepted) had more class than the rest of the town and now the developer wants to build high and wide
with maybe a passing thought to the end result. The end result of course will most likely be a large empty building, covered in graffiti with the ground floor boarded up about 6 months after completion. Think how grossly large the Sainsbury's building turned out to be and be sympathetic to the age and history of the colonnade part of town. |
| 15 | Anonymous | |
| 16 | Jean C. Hester | |
| 17 | Val Mason | |
| 18 | Glyn Thomas | |
| 19 | carol howell | I agree with all the comments in the petition. It is overdevelopment and will prevent the restoration of the waterways plan for Maidenhead. There are also too many empty office blocks in the town. |
| 20 | Gregory Mills | |
| 21 | Tony Ruffell | My objection to the planned new building is that it is too large, too close to the adjacent roads and would preclude the planned development of the York Stream. |
| 22 | E. Gallagher | This decision is a pivotal one for Maidenhead which will signal to everyone whether the town develops as a series of uncoordinated office developments or, at long last, will begin the process to provide a town we can be proud of. |
| 23 | H. Gallagher | |
| 24 | Anonymous | |
| 25 | Paul Davenport | I am worried that short term gains of the new development will be outweighed by the lost opportunity of the waterways development. I believe the application should be changed to be harmonious with the Waterways development as a whole. |
| 26 | Peter and Irmgard Murcott | |
| 27 | Anonymous | why dont the council listen to what the people want from maidenhead |
| 28 | Alan Ketley | The town does not need anymore office blocks, the
town needs rejuvenating and the York Stream
project can do it! |
| 29 | Mr K Wood | |
| 30 | Mrs V Wood | |
| 31 | Peter Herke | The petition has my full suport |
| 32 | suzette richards | |
| 33 | Valerie White | |
| 34 | Prudence Sharp | |
| 35 | Simon Frost | Maidenhead deserves better. Lets make Maidenhead some where people want to live rather than have to live. Long term development for the people not just short term profit of a few. |
| 36 | J Weller | Bring back History! Maidenhead has FAR too many office blocks already. |
| 37 | A.R & F.G.Jesseman | Another unwanted office block would prevent the possibility of making the area more acceptable to the eye.
Maidenhead needs to be "beautified"& the Waterways project gives that opportunity |
| 38 | Lindsay Frost | |
| 39 | Anton Russell | |
| 40 | Olya Russell | |
| 41 | G YATES | I am completely against the application to build more office blocks in Maidenhead and fully support
the efforts being made by the Maidenhead Water Ways Restoration Group to improve the centre of Maidenhead. |
| 42 | Glenn Maybury | Time that the planners realised that they have and are destroying what fragments of Maidenhead still remain--before it become's totally without character!! |
| 43 | Anna Brown | Building another office in the centre of town in such a prime location is absolute madness. This area should be developed in such a way as to draw people and families into the centre. At the moment the town council seem to have an absolute lack of vision for Maidenhead. This area is an asset to the town and must be developed for civic use,such as a park, marina, where people can go in the weekend and enjoy. If the proposal to build offices goes ahead it will only tell me that all our councillors think about is to make short-term profit, and are not interested to help the community cohesion. |
| 44 | Mr & Mrs. H O Stephan | |
| 45 | Simon Brown | This planning application for offices at Chapel Arches must be rejected because it is not in the best long term interest for Maidenhead. This area should be developed for the people of Maidenhead. This is a prime location for creating a much needed focal point in the centre of town to help resuscitate it. I believe years of bad planning, bad decisions and no vision have just about killed the centre of town. I want to see the waterways in this area developed with leisure facilities, arts, restaurants, informal spaces. Things that will draw people to the centre both in the day time and the evening. This area is an asset that should be exploited to its maximum potential. The council must have the imagination to see beyond approving another office block. |
| 46 | Anonymous | having the river come into Miadenhead would be fantastic - let's not lose this opportunity to do something really positive. We have plenty of office space already. |
| 47 | Lynne Chisholm | I think the proposed development is too large for the plot and would seriously impinge on any future development of the Chapel arches waterway. I feel the planners need to take this chance to look at the town as a whole and allowing this development would be detrimental to achieving this aim. |
| 48 | jill McQuhae | I do not think Maidenhead needs another large office block especially as it would probably come within 5 metres of York Stream which we are hoping to make into a feature for the town. |
| 49 | Sue Lowe | |
| 50 | Ian and Sue Pearson | |