Local Plan Adoption meeting

Follow up from Paul

Urgent. The Local Plan Adoption meeting is 7 pm tonight and not 7.30 as stated previously

Local Plan Adoption meeting
The meeting is live tonight at 7.30 on you tube and you can attend at the Holiday Inn Maidenhead.
Following my note of yesterday, I have now received written answers to my two questions on Cookham Traffic. I include the questions and answers should you be interested. Make of them what you will. I can ask one-minute supplementary questions based on these responses at the meeting.
The questions are number 3 and 12 out of 23 across the borough.

Other questions are about Climate Change, Maidenhead Golf Course, and many on the Spencer’s farm development that directly impacts Cookham.
The agenda (and all Q and A) can be found on RBWM council meetings February and click on tonight’s meeting The only topic is the Local Plan. After 30 minutes of public questions the plan will be debated, and our ward councillors get a chance to speak I believe.
It will be good to know that some residents will be taking an interest and watching.

Question (number 3 of 23 at meeting)
Paul Strzelecki of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Clark, Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure, and Digital
Connectivity:
The report finds BLP traffic impact at Cookham Bridge and the narrow Pound “would not be severe”. My detailed analysis, shared, with cabinet and relevant officers, shows a 540% increase in delay times to less than walking pace. RBWM presented 13%! No responses and refusals to meet on the topic. Will you state I was wrong and Cookham
traffic sustainable?

Written response: The evidence for the Borough Local Plan was prepared in line with appropriate guidance, including in terms of assessing the impact of the proposed spatial strategy on transport and local infrastructure. The assessment considered a reasonable worst case for traffic generation which did not take make allowance for the additional investment in sustainable transport expected to come forward as a result of development and our wider transport strategies.

This matter and others related to the transport evidence base were discussed extensively at the examination hearings in late 2020 and given due consideration by the Inspector. The Inspector’s report, quite correctly, concludes that the approach is robust at a strategic level and that the impacts cannot be considered as severe. The Development Management process will provide further opportunity for modelling an Local Plan Adoption meeting assessment of highways impacts and secure mitigation relating to more detailed proposals at the planning application stage

2nd Question ( number 12 of 23 at meeting )
Paul Strzelecki of Bisham and Cookham ward will ask the following question of Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Planning, Environmental Services
and Maidenhead:
“Duty to cooperate” is a plan legal requirement. An agreed strategic issue in the MOU with Wycombe council of Feb 17 is traffic bottlenecks at Cookham Bridge. Do you believe during the plan making phase that there was sufficient and ongoing cooperation on this issue, what were the specific outcomes and why weren’t they included in
examination evidence?

Written response: As stated in the Council’s examination note RBWM_076, on 13 February 2017, the Royal Borough and Wycombe District Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) covering a range of strategic plan-making issues including transport (PS/009). The two councils agreed to seek longer term strategic solutions to address (amongst other matters) congestion related to Cookham
Bridge.

Potential solutions that have been explored since 2017 have included modal shift measures to encourage the use of public transport and walking, strategic route planning to direct traffic away from Cookham Bridge and potential changes to the signals to balance the queues of each side of the bridge. The two Councils have continued to engage constructively on plan-making, including making representations to each other’s emerging Local Plans.

In answer to the question, the Council is confident that there was sufficient and ongoing cooperation on this issue. The Inspector states, in paragraph 24 of her report that “the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan” and concludes that the duty to cooperate has been met. The MoU is part of the examination evidence, as is RBWM_076.