Take action to avoid unsustainable future

Cookham and northerly routes from Maidenhead are jammed to a standstill daily.

‘The Troubled Bridge over Water’ has stationary traffic in all directions.

RBWM have modelled but disguised this in the local plan.

Residents of Cookham and the wider RBWM – take action to avoid condemning yourselves and children to a grim unsustainable future.

Councillor Coppinger last week explained the latest consultation was the ‘last lap’.

He ‘regrets’ you can only consult on the elements he has agreed with the inspector (the transparent process was removed by a cabinet decision).

Really?

The vital issue isn’t addressed. Don’t be distracted.

For four years I have analysed the visionless plan, specifically the traffic modelling.

I concluded using data sent, only to me, by the head of planning, the traffic model and its defence is fundamentally flawed.

If you live in Cookham or travel through it in the morning, the building allocations and consequential traffic show a 540 per cent increase in travel time, less than walking pace at best, but likely gridlock on the High Street and in The Rise.

Other basic anomalies exist.

Furthermore, the council has now refused to specifically acknowledge the effect on Cookham of 600 approved new homes just over the bridge in Bourne End.

Tweaking the bridge traffic lights – the farcical antidote!

I individually represented the case at the inspector hearings.

I contend she has been, for whatever reason, misled and the RBWM plan being ‘unsound’ (a technical failure term).

My detailed analysis was sent to all

cabinet councillors and officials – not a single response.

Councillor Clark not only representing Cookham, but traffic lead for RBWM, has been silent.

Is he for his constituents or cabinet? Councillor Coppinger agreed to talk but not in the context of the local plan.

I didn’t waste my time.

The reason is simple.

Cookham and two of the three northern routes out of the borough are at or over capacity.

They want to build 600 homes in or close to Cookham, notwithstanding the 600 over the bridge – the traffic scenario just does not support it.

RBWM will not acknowledge this.

I’m not against development.

I provided alternative scenarios.

As for ‘it protects the greenbelt for future generations’, guess where over 90 per cent of the ‘Cookham 600’ are destined for?

For now, relegate the main modifications consultation and any political allegiance.

Time is critical – write to the inspector within the next three weeks.

She still has the option to question the process.

Ask her to review the traffic situation facts and the home allocations for Cookham. Question the councillors mentioned, start a discussion on the local social media, request a face to face public meeting in August with RBWM to explain why they plan for Cookham gridlock.

Perhaps initiate a petition.

For Cookham, the data is fact not opinion. I will continue to be ignored, as a lone voice.

It’s now in your court, your decision, not too late yet.

Gridlock is the default.

Inspectors programme officer: Charlotte Clancy: bankssolutions@gmail.com.

PAUL STRZELECKI Berries Road

Cookham