Viewpoint: Precious land should not be sacrificed

Precious land should not be sacrificed

I have read the Advertiser’s report about plans for a crematorium off the Switchback Road North and Long Lane in Cookham.

I read that Elegy says there is widespread support within the Borough for this facility and that some residents from Cookham have accepted the need.

There may well be a need but not in Cookham.

I read the social media and people supporting this plan seem to come from the surrounding towns and villages.

It’s all about what they and Maidenhead need and want but this is on Cookham’s farmland in the last field that separates our village from being swallowed up by Maidenhead.

Some people may not realise what this development will incur.

We are getting a sales orientated picture of landscaped gardens, with trees yet to grow, to woo the public into acceptance of this land development.

We will no longer be a village if this field is taken. It is farmland and should only be built on for farm buildings.

Crematoriums need to be built away from housing and on high land. There is a reason for this.

Even with modern technology and the use of chemicals, getting over the problem of the smell within this facility is an ongoing task. Air pollutants will still escape into the air and have adverse health impacts on both humans and the environment.

Traffic problems are obvious. Four cremations a day, seating for one hundred mourners, gives a clue to this.

We have single lane traffic on many roads in Cookham whatever way it is approached, be it Long Lane, Maidenhead Road, Cookham Dean, the Pound, Cookham Village or Cookham Bridge and the A4094 leads to these traffic holdups.

Only the Switchback road has traffic moving which, with this development, would be blocked with traffic each day up to Gardener Road.

This is not on high ground but undulating farm land of historical and artistic importance.

It is precious to the community in Cookham, unsuitable as a crematorium site and should not be sacrificed for the convenience of the Borough.

Barbara Brown

Lyndhurst Avenue

Cookham Rise

Sunken boats removed but work still to do

Wow! I can imagine the scene as the Advertiser Editor ran through his newsroom shouting ‘hold the front page! The sunken boats in Riverside are being removed!’.

What a scoop. Even Cllr Coe is quoted as saying he could not ‘quite believe it has finally happened’.

There are still some issues I do not quite understand, like how did the offer to remove the boats originate, or who received the offer and then implemented the actions but, whatever, we all owe our thanks to the anonymous benefactor who paid for the removal of the sunken boats.

Riverside residents will be eternally grateful to you.

It seems Cllr Coe was in the midst of all this action according to his words in the ‘Tiser front page article on May 17.

Hard to believe as he has spent the last 12 months failing to tackle the issues involved but apparently, behind the scenes, he has been beavering away at a solution.

How he managed to get the benefactor on board (pardon the pun) will probably not be explained but the sunken boats are gone.

All that remains is some action to prevent new boats mooring on our Riverside, and becoming the sunken boats of the future.

Cllr Coe is quoted as saying plans to develop a mooring scheme between Boulters Lock and Maidenhead Bridge were still in the works.

Excellent news, yet mooring scheme is undefined.

This is politically expedient but managerially deficient.

Does Cllr Coe expect further public intervention on this matter as well, another benefactor to come forward and solve this issue for him?

As a Councillor can he not devise a scheme to prevent the next generation of ‘Thames Submarines’ arriving in Riverside?

Can he replicate his success in removing the sunken boats, show more of his persistence and get the job done with an attitude so lauded by his boss Cllr Werner in the Advertiser article?

I offer my assistance in helping to develop a mooring scheme to satisfy Cllr Coe.

A good way to start would be for him to address the issues I raised on such a scheme in my letter to Viewpoint of April 24. 2024. referencing my previous letter of December 2023.

M. G. (Mick) Jarvis

Chairman, Boulters Riverside CIC

Urging trust to U-turn on castle admission fee

Dear chair of the trustees of the Royal Collection Trust,

The decision to withdraw the free admission concession to Windsor Castle for local residents is appalling.

There is some misinformation circulating, like it’s been free for local residents for 200 years.

Firstly, how did they distinguish between local residents and other visitors prior to the introduction of the RBWM Advantage Card?

The castle was first open to the general public when all visitors were first allowed in 1825, and a free-ticketing system was introduced by Queen Victoria in 1837. It remained so until 1992.

The Royal Collection Trust was set up in 1993 in response to the Great Fire at Windsor Castle in November 1992.

It was to bring formality to the various artworks, historical artefacts and building and open them up to the general public on a more commercial basis to help pay for the restoration of the castle and upkeep and maintenance of other Royal palaces. Buckingham Palace was to follow soon after.

Prince Andrew was involved in helping carry valuables out of the castle.

He was the only member of the Royal Family on the grounds during the time of the fire.

According to the Palace's report on the fire, approximately 370 people took part in the salvage process, including 125 castle employees and community members.

Free entry was permitted for all visitors until 1992, when a fire destroyed 115 rooms and caused millions of pounds worth of damage.

Afterwards, visitors were charged an entrance fee to help pay for years of restoration, but in recognition of the help and support from the local community during and after the fire, Her Majesty, The Queen, wanted them to continue enjoying the castle and its artefacts as a mark of gratitude.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead ‘Advantage Card’ issued to ratepayers in the borough was an ideal form of identification.

With the untimely death of our late Queen, the Royal Collection has taken the opportunity to take away this legacy which will have a serious impact on the monarchy as many will associate them with this decision.

I would urge you to reconsider this backward and detrimental step with the adverse publicity and repercussions.

Perhaps you can clarify what percentage of admissions per annum are advantage card holders compared to other paying visitors, which will identify the potential lost revenue, bearing in mind many local residents will have visited the castle in the past and will only visit on an ad hoc basis, which will not happen in the future.

Colin Meads

Old Windsor