Dear Mr. Clasper,

 

We have now returned from a trip abroad and have had the opportunity to look at the proposed LTS consultation.  We remain very concerned that the proposal for the Datchet part of the LTS would run very close to the rear of our property at 12 Beaulieu Close.  There are a number of properties in the close which would be affected.  I would be grateful if you could circulate our comments to the Datchet PC which are as follows:

 

1. The proximity of the scheme to our property.  None of the properties at the rear of Beaulieu Close have deep frontages.  Our boundary is with the existing Thames Water raw water intake.  The existing culvert at times has flooded within the TW property, (notably after the opening of the Jubilee channel) lapping over the private road close to our boundary.  To date we have never experienced flooding in the garden.  However, the proximity of a channel of some 60 metres wide fills us with great concern.  We would be very happy for councillors to visit our home in order to view the garden and its proximity to the proposal.

 

2.  We note from the consultation document that public access is proposed along the channel which again is a matter of concern.  We have already suffered one devastating burglary in 2006 which occurred as a result of trespass in the TW property -  there is regular trespass on the site during the summer months.  If the public were given legitimate access this would create a greater risk of trespass and burglary. I am not aware of any property which is in such close proximity to the Jubilee channel.

 

3.  It follows that the public will wish to park in order to gain access to the proposed channel.  Where will they park?  The lay by in Southlea Road would not accommodate the visiting public as it is always full of commuters' cars since the car park next to the railway station became a paying one.  I would be inevitable that Beaulieu Close as the closest estate will suffer from additional traffic and possible obstruction from car parking if this proposal goes ahead.

 

4.  I also note that EA refer to the need to demolish five properties in order to accomplish the proposal.  They do not identify where these properties are.  This also fills us with concern. 

 

5.  The TW property serves a particular function of taking in raw water up to the pumping station in Horton Road.  There is a leaf collecting machine there.  What will happen to this?  Will it remain or will it be re-sited and if so, where?

 

6.  If the proposal goes ahead does this mean the TW site will be managed and maintained by the EA?  We have always had a running battle with TW about the maintenance of their hedge at the bottom of our gardens as well as the inappropriately large  trees.  We would require assurances from EA that property management would be carried out with good neighbourliness in mind.

 

I am also passing on our concerns to the EA and will be attending the meeting at Wraysbury.  I am rather put out that there is not an exhibition and meeting in Datchet as its residents are very much affected.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Rosailnd and Michael Packham