Viewpoint: Still no answers on St Mark's walk-in clinic

Email Viewpoint letters to jamesp@baylismedia.co.uk or write to Viewpoint, Newspaper House, 48 Bell Street, Maidenhead, SL61HX.

Still no answers on St Mark’s walk-in clinic

I am concerned and very disappointed that the minor injuries/walk-in clinic has still not re-opened after all this time.

St Mark’s is a super local hospital and so much good work is done there, but we need a walk-in facility in Maidenhead.

A few weeks back, my neighbour slipped on the stairs and hurt her neck and shoulder.

The next day, her husband called Bracknell walk-in centre to be told it wasn’t open due to COVID problems, he got the same reply at Upton Slough.

No further explanation offered.

Would they have been turned away had they simply arrived unannounced?

The next day, as bruising had appeared and being concerned and in the older age group, they contacted St Mark’s, when of course they were told nothing doing there.

However, they did advise them to contact Townlands in Henley, which is in Oxfordshire.

Fortunately, they were familiar with Henley and duly arrived there a little later.

On arrival, after filling in necessary details, my neighbour was told she would be seen within the hour and that was the case.

She was given proper service and attention and an assurance about her condition.

She came away with her arm in a sling and instructions on use and exercises.

That was all she needed, some proper care.

It is also significant she was told ‘we get a lot of people come here from Maidenhead.’

The alternative would have been for her to go to A&E at Wexham Park, which would have added to an already overwhelmed system for something minor and meant her waiting hours in the bargain.

It was totally unacceptable that she had to go to another county to receive treatment.

We need the walk-in facility at St Marks, when will it re-open?

BOB TAVINOR

Hearne Drive

Holyport

Walk in to town is paved with problems

Your correspondent (Viewpoint, August 4) is quite right to bemoan the absence of proper shops in Maidenhead town centre.

However this is not the whole problem.

I regularly walk into the town.

I wade through the litter in the subways; ignore the obscene graffiti on the street furniture, play chicken with the cyclists and apologise for having the cheek to walk on the pavement or in the subway.

Then, of course there are the ‘silent but deadly’ e-scooters that come at you with no warning.

Isn’t there a law governing their use?

Then on the way home there are the scatterings of empty alcohol cans and bottles in every hedge and under benches.

I seem to remember that there was a
by-law banning drinking alcohol outside in the town centre, does this still exist?

With all the development in the town, if we wish to make Maidenhead the ‘go to place’ for shopping and living then we need to clean up our act and have some sort of cleaning regime and enforcement.

If this doesn’t happen then shoppers will not want to visit and shops won’t want to open.

KEN AMERY

Camden Road

Maidenhead

So many buzzwords, so few specific points

As commented in Viewpoint last week (August 4) the Supplementary Planning Document for South West Maidenhead is not a plan.

I was taught in my working life that a plan had to be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound).

This SPD, presented to us in the three recent ‘consultation’ opportunities (each of which I attended), is not a plan but a wishlist.

The lack of important detail (in which the Devil often lies) will doubtless result in a huge gap between what is presented now and what happens in reality.

The words, maps and ‘architect’s views’ presented were often without real meaning.

For example ‘we will protect Rushington Copse’ (from what, how and why are not stated), a ‘green spine’ (what is green about it apart from lollipop trees and mown lawns? Both ‘green’ and ‘spine’ are words that are very fashionable but sadly without any real meaning in this context).

‘Wildlife corridor’ likewise. Anyone with a better grasp of the needs of wildlife than the presenters of the SPD seem to have would realise that the meagre space provided for this and the relatively sterile areas north and south of it would laugh at the use of the word ‘corridor’.

‘Off-setting’ of the loss of biodiversity by seeking improvements in sites nearby was firmly stated by a Borough presenter, but no details as to where and how the 10 per cent improvement was to be measured, let alone be measurable.

We were told that a ‘suitably revised’ document will be ready soon at the stage when potential developers submit their plans for the site.

I can only hope that all these will be much smarter so at least we know what to fight for.

MARTIN WOOLNER

Windsor Road

Bray

Spokesperson’s BLP claims on repeat

There was an interesting letter in Viewpoint (July 28) from Stephen Perret regarding the consultation (a word I use loosely in this context) on the council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the proposed South West Maidenhead development.

It comes as no surprise that the council have made it extremely difficult to make comments on the SPD and one can only assume that this has been done deliberately in order to minimise the number of people responding to this consultation.

This ploy has been used in the past by our council – for instance for residents trying to register to sign petitions on line.

I totally agree with Mr Perret that the current consultation should be suspended and a simple form should be sent to all households in the borough, thus enabling a fair and democratic sounding to be taken.

Sadly, even if this were to happen, the exercise, in all probability, will have been in vain, given the council’s stubbornly blinkered determination to develop S.W. Maidenhead in the face of reason and public opinion.

It is vitally important that residents maintain their opposition to this unpopular, wholly unwanted and totally unnecessary development.

In its present form the BLP will create sufficient new homes to accommodate a 40 per cent increase in the population of Maidenhead – now.

Given that there has been only a 10 per cent growth in the town’s population in the last 10 years, this expansion rate will mean that many of the houses scheduled to be built by the end of the plan in 2033 will not be occupied until around 2077.

Clearly, there is little or no logic to this programme.

Where are all these new residents going to come from?

Has the council done a secret deal with some London boroughs with Maidenhead destined to become a London overspill town?

A ‘council spokesperson’ has recently been repeating the council’s misleading and disingenuous statement regarding the loss of greenbelt due to the BLP.

The statement claims that the BLP ‘still protects 82 per cent of the borough as greenbelt, and just 1 per cent has been released for new homes and employment’.

It is essential that this untruthful statement continues to be challenged, otherwise residents will begin to believe it, and to think that the BLP is not so bad after all.

These figures are mischievous at best, because they include vast areas of Crown Estate land, ie belonging to the Royal Family and thus not eligible for consideration.

This approach significantly and neatly distorts the message repeatedly trumpeted by our council.

Furthermore, how, I wonder, is the destruction of over 150 acres of precious greenbelt compatible with the statement ‘the BLP protects our valued natural historic heritage’?

It is also significant that the council is very careful not to publicise the fact that the development of the golf course alone would result in the destruction of approximately 48 per cent, almost half, of Maidenhead's greenbelt.

This would be a disaster for the town and for all our current and future generations.

Roll on the local elections in May 2023...

JOHN HUDSON

Rushington Avenue

Maidenhead

Car parks could use online pay and display

Public car parks across the Royal Borough are pay and display.

A more convenient option to pay a parking charge is via the RingGo app, which is used by millions of motorists across the UK.

The current method used by the RingGo app in RBWM car parks is ‘Start – Stop’ parking, requiring the session to be started at the point of parking and stopped on returning to the vehicle prior to leaving the car park.

The appropriate charge is then taken from the registered payment card.

I have recently been made aware of the RingGo app receiving criticism on local social media, in turn attracting numerous misleading and inaccurate comments.

I would like to clarify the situation and make a suggestion.

One issue cited is the pre-authorisation fee, which allows RingGo to check that you have sufficient funds to pay for the parking session once it is stopped.

Once you commence a ‘start-stop’ parking session, RingGo will request your bank reserve the maximum daily charge for your chosen car park.

If you have mobile banking, you may see this reserved amount pop up, or shown as pending in your banking app.

When you have stopped your parking session, RingGo will tell your bank or card issuer the actual cost of your parking session and they will deduct only that amount.

RingGo have no control over the speed at which your bank or card issuer releases the surplus pre-authorised amount.

RingGo will only ever charge the amount you have used.

The other issue reported is where drivers have started a parking session, forgetting to stop the session before leaving the car park, resulting in the maximum daily charge being incurred.

I have to confess my wife and I have both made this error!

So how can we stop these two issues from occurring?

Quite simply by changing from ‘Start – Stop’ parking to the alternative method of ‘Buy Time’ which, in effect, is the same principle as ‘Pay & Display’.

At the point of parking you enter the RingGo App, choose the length of time you wish to purchase and that amount is charged against your payment card. There is no pre-authorisation fee.

The app will notify you as the session paid for is nearing the end, giving you the opportunity to buy additional time if required.

The main risk to be aware of with ‘Pay & Display’ and ‘Buy Time’ is the possibility of receiving a fixed penalty notice if you overstay the period paid for.

If residents using the RingGo App would like RBWM car parks to convert from the ‘Start Stop’ method to the ‘Buy Time’ method I will make this happen.

Naturally we will need to consult on this change and I hope the local press will assist in canvassing the RBWM RingGo-using residents.

Please remember if you can’t or do not wish to use the RingGo App the pay and display ticket machines are still available at all council car parks.

Hopefully this has clarified the situation. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about changing to ‘Buy Time’.

Cllr PHIL HASELER

Cabinet Member for planning, parking, highways and transport

Weeds flourished due to weather and timing

Over the last two weeks I have received several complaints concerning weed growth on highways and pavements.

As many of your readers will have similar concerns, I felt that an explanation was due.

It takes four weeks to treat all surfaces in the borough, and this is done twice a year, normally in April/May and September.

This is followed up with mechanical cleansing and manual scraping for dead weeds over two inches in height.

This year we decided to carry out the first spray earlier so that it would have been completed before any Jubilee events took place.

This has meant that the second weed spray started early at the end of July and will finish towards the end of August.

This spring was cool and dry this year and the earlier treatment was not as effective as we expected because a large percentage of weeds had not germinated.

The summer so far has been hot and dry which whilst bad for grass. has been very good for weeds.

So, a plan which worked for the Jubilee has not worked for the remainder of the summer.

Next year we will return to the normal pattern, and we will also consider that we may need to increase to three times a year to cope with the warming climate.

My apologies to all and if you have specific concerns do, please use the report It function on our website.

Cllr DAVID COPPINGER

Cabinet member for environmental services, parks, countryside and Maidenhead

Great breadth of radio and TV programmes

I couldn’t disagree more with almost everything Helen MacDonald wrote about the BBC (Opinion, July 28).

Considering the way the Tory governments since 2010 have tried to lower the funding for the BBC I’m amazed the BBC produce anything.

The TV is still high quality and the iPlayer makes it possible to watch programmes when you’d like to.

The radio is absolutely superb.

Where else would you get the breadth such as Radio 3, 6 Music, Radio 4 and local radio?

The world service is respected worldwide and is still the gold standard for international news and comment.

BBC Sounds makes this all easily available along with podcasts and a library of past programs that is unbeatable..

This is all provided for one fee that is lower than any of the competitors (as Nadine Dorries likes to call them).

Some of the salaries seem silly, but that is the marketplace.

Boris Johnson was paid several hundred thousand a year by the Telegraph for writing scandalous articles.

That it would seem is also the marketplace and I know which I prefer.

JIM

Maidenhead

Growing concerns over the BBC’s agenda

Isn’t it strange how differently we view politicians and events?

In my opinion Boris Johnson was the best Prime Minister this country has had since Harold Wilson.

It’s a great shame he didn’t battle on in the face of adversity.

He took on a very difficult job, having to make good the damage done by Theresa May and Philip Hammond, but he got stuck in, delivered Brexit, tackled the COVID pandemic with alacrity and has stood solidly with Ukraine, making me proud to be British!

Eventually he was brought down by the BBC and others who attacked him relentlessly from the day he was elected.

We all know the BBC didn’t want Brexit.

Their preening comments every day by presenters on Radio 4 and 5 and continuous interruptions on Question Time and The Andrew Marr Show became embarrassing to listen to.

I don’t think a Tory guest was ever allowed to complete a sentence and any contributor with something positive to say about our Prime Minister was cut off immediately.

After Boris Johnson, quite rightly, turned down an interview with Andrew Neil, then appeared on The Andrew Marr Show days later, it soon became obvious Marr was under instructions from those above.

He tore into him like a terrier, snapping at his heels and interrupting Boris with such frequency I thought I was watching a comedy sketch from a Spike Milligan show!

It was embarrassing to watch.

I’m afraid Andrew Marr lost all credibility as a serious political commentator after that performance.

For the BBC to claim they’re impartial would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sinister.

Who are the BBC?

They don’t entertain us anymore and their shabby treatment of national treasures like Sir Cliff Richard and Princess Diana in the past will never be forgotten.

I’m 75 now and voted Conservative for the very first time because Boris was in place, and I’d hoped he’d hang in there, but eventually constituents started to believe the BBC negativity and MPs, fearful for their jobs, caved in and turned on their own Prime Minister instead of digging in and showing some loyalty.

Having witnessed this treachery in Parliament I’ve no desire to do it again, although I feel Liz Truss could do a good job for us.

For me, ‘Partygate’ was peripheral but the BBC and others seized on it, turning the molehill into a mountain and used it as a weapon against our government, day in, day out, week after week.

Let’s be frank, we all know neighbours who boozed in each other’s gardens during lockdown.

If it relieved their stress during difficult times, then good luck to them!

We are all human after all.

But until we get rid of the BBC as it is today and limit the powers of the trade unions, I’m afraid the Great before Britain will continue to have a hollow ring to it.

PAUL JAMES WESTMACOTT

Harcourt Road

Dorney Reach

Forewarned of chaos at Port of Dover

Those who rail on a regular basis against the poor conduct of various Conservative bigwigs, from George Osborne to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, for the bad outcomes of various Brexit negotiations might consider that once the decision was taken to leave the Customs Union and Single Market, there was no chance of anything other than the current mess.

The narrow vote in favour of Leave in 2016 allowed a great variation of possibilities, none of which were as favourable as remaining in the EU, but few of which were as bad as what the UK has now.

The Port of Dover warned of gridlock in the event of a hard Brexit. ’Project Fear’, cried the over optimistic.

Almost all economists apart from Patrick Minford (the joker in the pack if ever there were one) forecast a deflating economy and have been proved right.

Please, please would anyone who still thinks Brexit is anything other than a destructive expensive folly tell the rest of us their thoughts?

JAMES AIDAN

Sutton Road

Cookham

No respect for a Euro federation by stealth

Phil Jones correctly recalls that in February 2016 EU leaders agreed that the UK could be exempt from the process of ‘ever closer union’ (Viewpoint, July 28).

But he should also recall that their agreement was not sufficient to amend the EU’s treaties and thereby give that exemption legal force.

That would have needed a more complicated procedure, which supposedly would have been done, or attempted, some time in the future.

In 2013 the EU Parliament blocked a protocol promised to Czech President Vaclav Klaus to induce him to sign off the Lisbon Treaty.

Supposing that we had voted to stay in the EU, and EU politicians then pulled the same trick, what would David Cameron have done?

We can easily guess the answer to that question: once he had won his referendum he would have dropped his demand for treaty change.

Finally, Mr Jones describes himself as a member of the European Movement UK, the UK branch of the international organisation.

Which according to its website has ‘mobilised citizens and advocated for a democratic, federal and enlarged union since 1948’.

So perhaps he can say whether the terms of affiliation of the UK branch still reflect that long-standing eurofederal ambition?

Those who want the UK to be subordinated in a European federation, and openly and honestly argue their case, are worthy of respect.

But it is an entirely different matter with those, of any party, who have spent decades trying to achieve that objective through stealth.

Dr D R COOPER

Belmont Park Avenue

Maidenhead