Newsletter 8




JUNE 1963


The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Astor


Mr. Victor Williams, J.P., C.C.
Mr. E.F.J. Perkins
Mr. J. Martineau
Mr. A.J. Page, M.P.
Lt. Col. B. Morton, 0.B.E., J.P.



Dr. M.A.T. Rogers. Ph.D.

Hon. Committee Secretary:
Dr. N. Hanson

Hon. Treasurer:
Mr. W.J. Garrard

Mr. R.J. Lewis
Miss E.N. Matthews
Mr. J. Morrison
Mr.A.J.C. Paines
Mr. J.M. Taylor
Mrs. D.A.D. Young


This News Letter comes to you rather late and we apologise for the delay. The reason is that, although there has been no major crisis during the last six months, there are a number of outstanding applications some of which are potentially serious. There has been a temptation to postpone issuing the letter until we knew the outcome of these, or of some of them.

We cannot delay further, so we are recording in some detail the more or less completed stories of the Hag Hill Enclosure, of Stockwells and of The Priory (Taplow), The unresolved matters are merely listed and will be discussed in our Autumn letter.


This site opposite William Wood’s Nursery in Hitcham Rd.. is owned by “The People of Hitcham” for the purpose of storing road building and repairing materials (gravel). It was enclosed by Messrs. Short Bros. and used as a ‘Builders Yard’. As a result of our enquiries about the ownership (News Letter No. 6 Paragraph 4). Short Bros. were taken to Court and ordered to remove their enclosure by January 17th 1963. Perhaps the bad weather can be regarded as adequate justification for their failure to comply before March.

However, they have now removed their goods (leaving a squalid mess behind) and we are discussing with the County Authorities a plan of our own to clean this little patch up and make it less of an eyesore.


The question which is of the greatest concern to us is – is the village “Plan” working out well in practice?

Our answer is a cautious and qualified “yes”. So far there have been two tests.

1. Stockwells: This estate was, we understand, specifically named in the “Plan” as a site which should be developed and in our view this was not unreasonable, but we were anxious lest the quality of the houses to be built (density, appearance, size etc..) should be inappropriate. The outcome seems to us on balance to be sensible and reasonable. 12 Terrace type houses with garages are being built and the style is to be in conformity with the prevail— ing style in the village.

2. The Priory Taplow This old building stands in some 8 acres of garden much of it wooded. An application by the owners – Fairey Aviation Ltd., to demolish the house and build (no doubt over the whole site) was lodged in the Autumn. This property is not specifically excluded from the general terms of the village “Plan” and so constituted a test case. These terms were explained in News Letter No. 7. We wrote to the Eton R.D.C. saying that we would not object provided that the spirit of the “Plan” was observed, that is to say, the existing house might be demolished and new buildings erected to cover approximately the same area of ground as the old building and the great majority of the trees to be preserved.

We understand that an amicable arrangement has been reached between Fairey Aviation and the Council and we think that the outcome conforms to the “Plan”. The building will be pulled down (rumour has it that it will soon fall down anyway) and new buildings will cover a slightly greater area (including garages).

The Houses/flats will be used for Fairey Aviation employees and a gardener will live in one of the houses. However, because the garden is too big, Fairey Aviation is giving about two acres to the Eton R.D.C. for preservation as an open space.

On the short term this is clearly the best all round solution. Some people have doubts whether it will prove workable in the long run and prophesy that the garden will become a wilderness and that the Eton R.D.C. will eventually be forced to allow building on the whole site. We can only watch developments and hope that it works out better than this.



1. Hunts Wood. The enquiry into the appeal against the refusal of planning permission to extract gravel at Hunts Wood was postponed and we have heard no more.

2. Kemsley Estates Ltd., has applied for building permission in North Taplow (Dropmore). We are opposing this but we note the opinion expressed in the local press that the object of the application is to get compensation for loss of development rights.

3. Taplow Country Club. We have opposed an application to build.

4. Marsh Lane. We have opposed an application to build in the gardens of a block of houses fronting Marsh Lane.

5. We have opposed an application for permission to use land near Taplow Station for Plant Hire purposes. There are several curious features about this application.

6. Old Park. We have objected to a perennial application for permission to build on this site which is scheduled for Playing fields.

Members will see from the foregoing that your Committee are kept constantly busy throughout the year watching applications for development and following up information gleaned from many sources of possible attempts to encroach further into the countryside.

Committee members would feel well rewarded for their work if membership of the Society became more representative of the number of residents in the area.