Viewpoint: 'We should be encouraging travel by train, not impeding it'

Email Viewpoint letters tojamesp@baylismedia.co.ukor write to Viewpoint, Newspaper House, 48 Bell Street, Maidenhead, SL61HX.

---

Encourage, not impede travel from station

Full marks to the Advertiser for highlighting the atrocious lay-out of the Maidenhead Station forecourt (July 21, p8).

Not only is the vast paved area without any purpose, but it also means the disabled bays are too far away from the main entrance.

In addition, the ability to drop off and pick up passengers is now very difficult, resulting in people queuing or parking in an unsafe way.

The many advantages of the Elizabeth Line have been marred by accessibility problems.

Can the designer, and members of the council planning committee who passed it, be brave enough to explain why they allowed this to happen....and can the new council take steps to remedy it?

We should be encouraging travel by train, not impeding it.

Rabbi Dr JONATHAN ROMAIN

Ray Park Road

Maidenhead

---

Provide better service if you want support

Traditionally when I visit the bank I go to the counter if possible because if we continue to maintain contact with the staff then there is an increased likeliness of more staff being retained rather than relying on machines that a lot of the time don’t work.

I visited Maidenhead railway station on Saturday morning because I had some queries on the type of ticket I should buy but with the knowledge that although GWR staff were on strike, the Elizabeth line was working normally.

To my surprise there was a large queue for the ticket office but the screen was down and no one being served.

I was told that there was only one person on duty and it was his tea break – so we all had to use the machines outside and one of them was not working.

Surely if the rail unions want to get public support for keeping ticket offices open then they should provide as good a service as possible so we cannot do without them.

Unfortunately this incident has changed my attitude to closures of counter services.

JOHN LYNN

Hemsdale

Maidenhead

---

Plans should never have come to panel

Wrong process, right result. Attending over two tortuous hours of the Management Development Panel debate on Spencer’s Farm Local plan site application (19 July), I made observations.

不允许说k, as only one member of the public, on a first come first served basis, gets three minutes, is unreasonable. Council, rethink this, as significant applications benefit from a wider, lengthier, and more diverse range of public comments.

Largely inaccurate and irrelevant debate. Councillors and planning officers quoting false attribution of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance. Examples: Flood zone 2, essential infrastructure, does not, as stated, need an Exception Test, and the proformas (site specific requirements and considerations) on the site do not, as stated, caveat with NPPF policy.

一个建议是一个独立的专家with a computer being able to quote policy, guidance, and Local Plan statements in the meeting. This brings accuracy and efficiency.

This application should never have come to panel. I explained why a year ago in objections and as recently as days before the panel. Why?

Planners and applicant appear not to have understood a local plan based application is not the same as a normal one.

What the inspector requested is the law, literally. I know, I tried to change a report inaccuracy and am told the High Court is the only route.

It’s acknowledged in 5.2 of the BLP. “...the LPA may only adopt a submitted Development Plan Document (such as the BLP) in accordance with the inspector’s final report on the examination..”

The final report and BLP was adopted. The final report (172) reads: “The Exception Test WILL therefore need to be passed at the planning application stage and so MM83 adds this requirement to the proforma.”

Finally, the proforma reads “This WILL need to demonstrate the exception test can be passed and that a safe evacuation route can be provided.”

“WILL” is unequivocal. End of debate.

So why the resistance to something legally demanded? Because you must prove, among other things, the site is safe for its lifetime.

Spencer’s Farm, or likely the surrounding area, will be a lido in a few decades if built. It’s not able to be passed.

Eventually the correct comments were made, and the application refused.

In future, for example on Strande Lane, I suggest a checklist on receipt of BLP applications: does it pass the inspector’s and proforma requirements?

If it makes it to the panel, have 5.2 read out and again check the application meets the needs, if not, don’t waste precious hours, throw it out.

Finally, is there any chance of common sense being utilised?

The planner most bizarrely tried hopelessly to justify that it is okay to have emergency ambulance access on the worst possible floodplain!

This refusal will be challenged. To the applicant and planners, I say …read the rules before generating unnecessary angst.

PAUL STRZELECKI

Berries Road

Cookham

---

Simple steps to make town a better place

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Nadine Wilkinson (Viewpoint, July 14) and would like to expand:

1. Although the town centre is cleaned regularly by an RBWM operative the underpasses and access slopes are both littered and weed invaded.

The new richer areas of the town seem much better serviced than the rest of the town centre and the area surrounding.

2. The flower baskets which hang on railings in Providence Place and Braywick Road and maybe elsewhere are not only full of weeds where flowers once filled them but also contain litter as some people see the weeds as an invitation to put in their rubbish.

Could somebody in the council arrange to remove these if they are not being used and put them in store for when the flowers can return?

3. The council employs a contractor to maintain parks, cemeteries, verges and invading shrubbery throughout Maidenhead.

There have been many complaints regarding the non-fulfillment of this contract but we see no improvement.

Recently St Luke’s cemetery became so overgrown through the railings that the path in Vicarage Road was inaccessible to pedestrians, prompting some parishioners to clear not only the growth of vegetation but also the accumulation of leaves from last year, soil, weeds and the litter that had amassed.

4. Some residents have resorted to clearing outside their houses and the kerbs because of the lack of weed maintenance and inadequate street cleaning.

If the council is responsible and employees or contractors are not performing the tasks to the standard required, the council needs to monitor and take action to get improvement.

Industry deals with similar situations in this way and gives notice for improvement and if this does not happen the contract is ceased. Why isn't this happening?

5. The leaves from last year have been left in situ whereas they used to be cleared by road sweepers.

The result is blocked drains which flood when it rains.

One such area where this is occurring is the corner of Norfolk Road and Cookham Road. This corner has a large sycamore tree by it and the leaves accumulate below.

No longer cleared by the council they have been tramped into the pavement over the winter. This area became slippery underfoot and some dog owners saw the leaves as a toilet for their dogs.

6. One last area that needs attention is the Riverside.

Although probably not council responsibility, they should be ensuring the river does not become a dump for unwanted rivercraft by contacting the organisation responsibile to clear the five or so small boats that are half-sunken and are hanging on by mooring ropes.

One has an engine and I wonder if it is polluting the river?

The council is allowing the deterioration of the once beautiful Maidenhead.

It is bad enough that flats are popping up all over the place without having to endure the above.

Finally, residents can do their part by having pride in their own streets, not dropping litter and continuously complaining to the council until it does something to get our town back in order.

JEAN FULLER

Maidenhead

---

Sign petition to save vital grant for hospice

The potential loss of the NHS Grant for Children's Hospices beyond 2025 is most concerning. As reported in your columns last week, the Alexander Devine Children’s Hospice based in Snowball Hill, Maidenhead stands to lose a grant of just under 10 per cent of its overall costs if the present arrangement is withdrawn.

The charity is seeking a longer term commitment from government so that the grant will be continued beyond that date.

Children’s hospices augment and complement the NHS in keeping children with life threatening conditions out of hospital. It is very much a frontline service.

他们提供价值和喘息的机会or families and children alike.

Ultimately, if the grant is lost, it could not be made up elsewhere by fund raising in the present cost of living crisis.

Inevitably it would affect the essential care that the hospice provides.

The umbrella organisation ‘Together for Short Lives’ is campaigning for the grant to be continued and has launched a petition under the banner of ‘Save the Children’s Hospice Grant’ thus calling on the Prime Minister to take action to protect the grant.

I would urge your readers to access this petition at www.togetherforshortlives.org.uk

GRAHAM CHAMBERLAIN

Snowball Hill

Maidenhead

---

Charity helps NHS go further for everybody

We were sorry to read Helen Macdonald’s opinion piece, titled ‘Striking time for appeal’ (Viewpoint, July 28) in which she shared concerns over recent post received from our charity.

We wanted to thank Helen for her support to date, and address some of the points she raised.

As the national charity caring for our health service, we have been supporting local NHS charities and their attached Trusts for over two decades, and are very proud of the impact we continue to make together.

We are, however, not a large organisation, and it’s important to clarify that we are independent from the NHS.

Our sole focus is on helping the NHS go further for everybody – the workforce, volunteers, patients and their families – and like all charities we must spend some money to reach our supporters and continue this mission.

This is the only way we can continue impacting millions of lives all over the UK.

We communicate with all supporters who have kindly donated to our charity, and everyone is welcome to opt out of communications at any point.

We are sorry that on this occasion the mail wasn’t received positively – the donation amount is a suggestion only, in line with what our average donor gives, and I want to reassure readers that card processing and protection of card details is highly regulated, and completely safe.

Many of our supporters felt the NHS’s 75th anniversary was the perfect time to show their appreciation, but we know it’s also a difficult time for many.

As Helen rightly points out, healthcare staff are under unimaginable pressures, which is why the extra support we provide is more important than ever.

In addition to our work transforming the patient experience and helping people and communities live well, we’ve funded thousands of projects across the UK giving practical and emotional support to our brilliant NHS workforce, through counselling, peer-to-peer support or a place to rest during a busy shift.

This includes a recent grant of £99,000 to Berkshire Health Charitable Fund, helping to fund support for staff at St Marks Hospital in Maidenhead.

It is only thanks to our passionate community of donors and fundraisers, including many of your readers, that we can continue this vital work.

We are grateful to everyone who helps make it possible.

LOUISE McCATHIE

Director of fundraising at NHS Charities Together

---

Health surveys shocking waste of precious funds

Following on from Helen Macdonald’s Opinion piece in last week’s issue, I would like to add my voice to her concern about expenditure on dubious material.

I recently received through the post an envelope containing a survey form and an addressed envelope (First class postage paid). It is not addressed to me; there is no indication of which hospital service it refers to. The heading is iWantGreatCare/ Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust/East ESD.

When I Googled this, here is what I found:

Community Neurological Service: the service provides specialist, coordinated advice and treatment to maximise independence, limit disease progression, reduce hospital admissions and facilitate smooth transition home following a hospital discharge. Therapy is provided in the patients’ own home or appropriate community location. The CNS also provides an Early Supported Discharge (ESD) service.

At least I now knew which service I was being asked to rate.

I recently suffered a mild stroke and was sent to the High Wycombe Stroke Clinic where I received excellent treatment.

After an MRI scan, an ultrasound and several tests I was deemed fit to return home and take care of myself.

My speech and swallowing were slightly affected and I was contacted at once by a member of a team based at St Mark’s Hospital.

A nurse and a speech therapist then visited me at home for about six weeks, checking on my blood pressure and giving me exercises to improve my speech.

This seemed to me a good idea as I had no wish or need to be in hospital and the professional support was reassuring and, I’m sure, beneficial.

BUT what need can there possibly be for the expenditure on this survey, especially useless considering this caveat: To find out about how iWantGreatCare uses personal data, please visit: privacy.iwgc.net (this requires very considerable careful reading time).

If you respond to this feedback questionnaire, you agree to iWantGreatCare’s Terms of Use: http://owc.met/tou. Those include permission for iWantGreatCare to publish your ratings and freetext review on its website,www.iwantgreatcare.org

If you do not agree to the Terms of Use please do not respond to the survey.

This seems to me a shocking waste of precious funds when there is apparently no money to pay doctors and nurses adequately for their invaluable services.

TESS MARSH

St Marks Crescent

Maidenhead

---

Parents and police must act on electric scooters

I thought it was illegal to ride an electric scooter on the highway, but it seems parents are either unaware of this or don't care.

I was glancing out of my bedroom window when I saw a lad of about 14 riding an electric scooter on the road.

He stopped and two other younger lads of about nine or 10 got on board, so that made three people on board which I would have thought made it unstable on a bump.

They then started whizzing down Badminton Road at a terrific speed.

If a car had turned the corner into the road it would have been a disaster.

I just wondered what the parents thought these children were doing, as they had bought them a scooter and allowed them out alone on it.

No doubt any attempt to stop them by the police would have attracted uproar, in which case I take it they are allowed to ride around willy nilly with full parental approval.

Just wondered.

EVELYN ZIVKOVIC

Maidenhead

---

Tory deceit has done huge damage to union

I imagine local Liberal Democrats are jubilant that their party has pulled off another of its trademark by-election triumphs.

I view it with equanimity, because at least one knows where they stand: totally committed to the European federal project.

The Tories, on the other hand, have long been the past masters of deceit over that, back six decades to Macmillan and Heath.

They call themselves the ‘Conservative and Unionist’ party, and talk about ‘our precious Union’, while being prepared to break up the United Kingdom for the sake of a low value special trade deal with the European Union.

Rishi Sunak even told people in Northern Ireland that they have unique ‘dual access’ to both the UK and the EU markets.

In 2022 businesses in Great Britain sold goods worth over £166billion to the EU; so how did they manage to do that, when supposedly it is only businesses in Northern Ireland that have access to the EU single market?

Looking at the dismal parade of five Tory Prime Ministers since 2010 I cannot imagine myself ever voting for that party.

Indeed I am shocked that Theresa May expects to stand again here, after the huge damage she has done to our country.

Dr DR COOPER

Belmont Park Avenue

Maidenhead

---

Where is evidence of support for Rejoin?

进一步我鳍Brexit轰动的列d it impossible to stay silent in the face of Mr Aidan’s latest hyperbole (Viewpoint, July 21).

The invective he subscribed that the elderly dying off would end Brexit ‘due to the shrinking number of Brexit supporters’ was simply crass.

Over recent months we have had the self styled prophet (where he gets his information from remains a mystery) claim ‘37 per cent of supporters regret it deeply’, ‘now an overwhelming majority in favour of rejoining’, ‘the winds of change are blowing: they’ll soon be gale force’, ‘tumultuous tumble/tidal wave and burgeoning rejoin movement’ are further examples of the claims made without factual substantiation.

Almost enough sanctimonious preaching to make one set about building a Noah's Ark to withstand the virtual tsunami of rejoin fever claimed.

As Mr Aidan singularly refuses to answer facts posed by myself and Dr Cooper among others how about addressing this one – in the recent Uxbridge by-election (congratulations to the anti ULEZ candidate) Richard Hewison the REJOIN EU candidate lost his deposit with a tumultuous 105 votes.

I rather doubt this is the start of the burgeoning rejoin movement but perhaps the EU calling The Falkland Islands the ‘Islas Malvinas’ will help him promote the rejoin campaign.

I don’t expect however many of the relatives of the 255 servicemen who died in the action will be joining him.

FRED VEEVERS

Jobs Lane

Cookham Dean