| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 101 | Catherine Harris-Evans | |
| 102 | Anonymous | |
| 103 | Philippa Boyland | We should definitely not put an office block on this site. We should preserve York Stream and its surroundings as open space for the community and for wild life |
| 104 | sally gray | the office block has to be stopped |
| 105 | Ann Redgrave | A most unsuitable building for this site, too large and dominant. |
| 106 | Scott Harris | |
| 107 | Helen Harris | |
| 108 | Graeme Copas | |
| 109 | Diane Wilding | Although Maiodenhead was "stiched" up by the last development on this site, who wonderfully circumvented the leisure provision in the proposal, I do not believe that just because Maidonians have been unable to have access to the so called Leisure facilities on this site that any futue developments should ignore that this site was dedicated for leisure purposes when the original planning application for the office buildings next to it.
I believe that any development should be viewed in context with the original application 25+ years ago that required this small portion of the site be allocated for leisure use.
In addition to protect the existing trees on the site consideration needs to be extended to ensure that no development is made over the root protection area. I would hope that at a bare minimum that RPA's are as per the latest BS5837(2005) and that the RPA extends to all trees and shrubs on the site.
I therefore oppose this application. |
| 110 | Lucy Edwards | |
| 111 | D Harris-Evans | Approval of plans such as this in complete isolation from a more encompassing town plan would just add to the piecemeal fashion in which Maidenhead has been allowed to develop by a planning body devoid of any desire to create a better Maidenhead. The plan, if allowed to proceed, would effectively block the creation of a superb civic amenity in the shape of the Waterways Restoration Groups ideas for the York Stream bed and it must not therefore be allowed to go ahead. |
| 112 | Erica Hunter | We have enough offices why not give maidenhead an attraction that would be a pleasent release from offices. |
| 113 | Ailsa Harris | |
| 114 | Anonymous | |
| 115 | Toby Ayre | |
| 116 | Nick Haigh | Maidenhead needs to re create a feature that enhances the centre and acts as a vibrant focal point for locals and visitors to meet. An active waterfront area will achieve this. The development of this office will destroy this unique opportunity. |
| 117 | David MacGregor | |
| 118 | Anonymous | |
| 119 | Nicholas Russell | Developing the waterwys into maidenhead itself would transorm the town into an attractive centre of recreation as well as an attractive business area. |
| 120 | Anonymous | |
| 121 | Alison Sainsbury | |
| 122 | Anonymous | we don't need yet more offices in the centre of the town. We need a more plesent town centre that will give residents somewhere to live, relax and be proud of. |
| 123 | G Pidduck | |
| 124 | Sharon Harvey | |
| 125 | Fiona Hart | We moved into Maidenhead 2 years ago as the location is great for us (young professionals) with the access to London and the M4, and so many pretty surrounding areas on the river. I didn't even realise at this point that Maidenhead had a little river running right through it as it is so hidden. Now that High Wycombe has such great shopping (Maidenhead has really missed the boat on this one), it would be really good if Maidenhead had something else to offer. This proposed Waterway restoration would give us this and would bring life back to the town. We all like fun and relaxtion, and the water is an opportunity for this. Congratulations to the artist for producing the sketch that shows us what we're missing, and what hopefully is the future of Maidenhead town. |
| 126 | Anthony Fry | Dear Sir Or Madam,
I am opposed to the current proposed development of the Chapel Arches site that would build an office development on the current cinema site.
AN OPPORTUNITY MAIDENHEAD CANNOT AFFORD TO MISS:
This is a golden opportunity to develop this historic site in a style that is in harmony with the surrounding historic buildings (Bear Hotel and Regency / Georgian shops on the opposite bank of the stream from the old cinema site). The town centre has suffered too much from inappropriate developments over the past 50 years and we now have a chance to use the cinema site to build a waterside environemnt that will help the regeneration of Maidenhead in a positive way that will benefit the long term interests of residents and visitors to the town.
OPPOSE PROPOSED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHAPEL ARCHES SITE:
The proposed office development is inappropriate and the RBWM should oppose the aplication. Placing another office block on the Chapel Arches Site would ruin the oportunity to improve this site. The proposed development is far too imposing and too intrusive for this site.
DEVELOP THE CHAPEL ARCHES CINEMA SITE TO ATTRACT VISITORS TO A RIVERSIDE SITE AND ATTRACT VISITORS TO OUR TOWN:
As the RBWM is working on a significant development plan it would be short sighted in the extreme to grant permission for the proposed office development of the old cinema site. This site should be preserved for development that would allow creation of an amenity that benefits Residents, the Town and acts in a way to draw in visitors and build up the local trade of the town.
The Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group has plans that would develop this site and allow small river craft to return to the ''Chapel Arches Basin''. What an attractive site this could be. People would have a reason to come to Maidenhead and while they are here they will visit shops, resturants and help the much needed re-generation of our town.
DEVELOPMENT OF SITE ADJACENT TO SAINSBUYS:
The RBWM has the opportunity to ensure the site adjacent to Sainsburys is also developed appropriately. Another office block is proposed for this site and this is also in-appropriate. The Sainsburys site should also be developed in a manner that benefits the town, it's residents and makes the town a more attractive place for people to visit. Another office block will fail to do this. The RBWM should oppose the application for an office development of the site adjacent to Sainsburys. As the RMW&M is planning a significant development of the town the proposed office development adjacent to Sainsburys should be refused and the wider needs of the town plan be considered. Development of the site adjacent to Sainsburys should be restricted to amenities that beneft the town and help with the regeneration of the town and are a benefit to residents and local traders.
CALL TO ACTION:
The RBW&M should oppose the proposed office developments of the Chapel Arches site and site adjacent to Sainsburys. These sites should be used for developemnts that benefit the residents of the town and local traders as set out in the paragraphs above.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Fry. |
| 127 | Paul Martin | The need to attain the right solution for the former cinema site is more important than simply approving any development that removes the current eyesore. This is an opportunity to get it right for the long term of the community. |
| 128 | marc shepherd | the current 'Cinema' site is a 'leisure' use which was required when planning was granted for office buildings along Bridge Avenue when the Bus Station was redeveloped, its change to office use seems to be a failure on the part of the Planning Authority to enforce a planning requirement on a developer who has now sat on the site for a number of years, seen its value increase and now feels he can realise that value. This site should be retained as a leisure use and incorporated into the restoration of the york stream. |
| 129 | Anonymous | Firstly we do NOT need yet another office block in Maidenhead!! We are already full to overflowing with office blocks that are not utilised.
Secondly we at last have a WONDERFUL scheme to bring some culture and sophistication into Maidenhead and INDIVIDUALITY. Windsor and High Wycombe have had thousands spent on them bringing punters in. We have an opportunity to bring something stunning to Maidenhead in the form of the revitalised Chapel Arches and York Stream.
Maidenhead Planners - PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT-SIGHTED and let this wonderful opportunity of expanding our waterways go by. |
| 130 | Fiona Nutburn | My family and I would like to add our voice to the strong arguements already presented against this proposal. A recreational waterway will surely be of much greater benefit to this community than yet another office block! |
| 131 | Caroline Emmett | |
| 132 | Anonymous | |
| 133 | Anonymous | It will be nice to see Maidenhead as it was years ago, why do planners have to ruin everything (oh I know for their own greed). I was born in Maidenhead in 1961, and I enjoyed looking at the streams. Bring back to life those wonderful arches. |
| 134 | Carol Vaughan | We do not need more offices. All work and no play makes Maidenhead a dull town!
Besides, I live dead opposite and wish to exercise my right to eat my breakfast in my underpants without worrying about who is looking in on me. |
| 135 | Paul Baker | |
| 136 | christina | i think we should allow future generations to enjoy the waterways of maidenhead and i am thank ful the council have seen fit to support this project and stop maidenhead turning into a mass of soulless office blocks |
| 137 | Jennefer Oswald | |
| 138 | Anonymous | Miaidenhead planners keep missing opportunities to improve the town's historic heritage.This one mustn't be lost.The town is a mess of poor design, piecemeal decisions and short -term commercial grabbing.. |
| 139 | Alex Whitaker | |
| 140 | Alastair Bates | It is time Maidenhead started making some brave decisions that put the long term interests of the town and community above those of short term property development and housing targets, without making the most of the few features the town has and creating a nice environment for people to live and socialise, the town is on an inevitable slope to become another annonymous, characterless commuter town. |
| 141 | Anonymous | |
| 142 | Phil Holdsworth | |
| 143 | Gary Allen | |
| 144 | Anna Richardson | |
| 145 | Patsy Smith | I fully support the project to restore York Stream.
The proposed office development is totally unsuitable for central Maidenhead. |