Appeal for homes by railway tracks in Cookham thrown out over safety risk

An appeal to build four homes near Cookham Station has been thrown out over fears it could cause traffic to pile up onto a railway crossing.  

Developer Palatine Homes Ltd had lodged a bid to put the four-bed detached homes on land off Lower Road, next to the train line in Cookham. 

Scores of objections were submitted to Windsor and Maidenhead council before the plan was refused by council officers over highway safety and flooding risks in March.

Network Rail town planning technician Grace Lewis - one of the objectors - said the application ‘failed to recognise’ the safety problems it could cause.

Network Rail owns most railway infrastructure in the UK.

Ms Lewis said because the homes were close to the level crossing, cars waiting to enter the access road could cause traffic to back up over the crossing.

The homes would be accessed via a shared private access road near the level crossing.

Ms Lewis said: “This is considered a serious safety issue for Network Rail and one we cannot accept.”

Worry over the development’s impact on traffic safety was echoed by The Cookham Society chairman Dick Scarff. The society represents more than 600 members from around Cookham.

In a letter on the application, Mr Scarff said visibility for drivers exiting the access road was poor and could cause problems for pedestrians.  

Mr Scarff also said there were problems with flooding near the site.

However, the developer believed its plan was acceptable and sought to appeal the council’s refusal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate is a government organisation responsible for resolving planning disputes.

In a statement on behalf of Palatine Homes’ appeal, Dermot McCaffery from consultants Highway Planning said improvements would be made to the access road to improve safety.

The developers planned to widen the access road to allow two cars to pass through - and offered to paint ‘keep clear’ markings on Lower Road to prevent traffic build-ups.

Mr McCaffery said the improvements would mitigate the ‘modest increase’ in cars turning into the access road, and ‘directly addresses’ Network rail’s concern.

It also noted a previous bid for nine homes on the site had received no objections from council officials on highway risk.

But in a decision notice, the planning inspector upheld the council’s decision to dismiss the application on highways and flooding risk.

Although the inspector considered the homes ‘would be an efficient use of land in a sustainable location’ and would deliver economic benefits, they did identify problems.

On issues with the nearby level crossing, the inspector concluded ‘there would be the possibility of traffic backing up over the railway with potential consequences for highway and railway safety’.

The inspector said the plans did not demonstrate that visibility and access arrangements to the site ‘would safeguard users of the highway and not result in harm to highway safety’.

The inspector also said that as no sequential test had been undertaken – a specific flood risk test – the developer had not shown the site was free of flood risk.