Notwithstanding that the District Council is widely regarded as the most inconsistent, centrist and inflexible in the land, (like every other Council?)there are signs that just maybe there is a chink of light climbing over the horizon. For many years the Planning Officers have repeatedly told us that each planning application must be treated on its own merits, independently of any impacting parallel developments and specifically refuse to take into account the developer’s likely intentions. I was given a copy of of the Council’s reasons for rejecting an application for retention of three portable buildings owned by the Paper Mill on the grounds of “presumption against new building in the Green Belt” AND
“if permitted, would be liable to act as a precursor of further proposals for similar forms of development”
This is a remarkable change of policy which opens the door to a more rational basis for examining developer’s strategic or tactical applications in which the real purpose is masked behind a relatively innocuous application. A classic of this form is the 15 year old struggle to prevent ‘proposed’ development in Ellington Gardens. Everyone here knows quite well the real intent of the developer is to open the way to the lovely old house ‘Hermitage’ with an acre of garden (currently owned by a developer) so that proper access can be provided and replace this building with a estate of high density housing.
Attendance at the Cliveden Inquiry was disappointing since only a small number of stalwarts sat through the stupefyingly detailed arguments advanced by the National Trust | Countryside barristers to prove that 191 houses was a better deal than 135. The two opposing counsels spent an immoderate amount of time arguing about the actual area to be considered for density calculations. For example did you know there was a significant difference between ‘landscape incidental space ‘ and ‘significant buffer zone’? Apparently it all depends on whether you are standing under the outermost twig of a tree within a buffer zone or have open sky above you.!
Your Chairman and Treasurer Anne and John Hanford sat through the whole thing with a small number of us turning up at frequent intervals to support ‘our side’. Just as well we did turn up otherwise the Inspector could easily have drawn the conclusion that SBDC weren’t terribly interested since there was hardly anyone there from the Council at all! I have have no news of the outcome at the time of writing but we are assured we shall have our answer before the 7th. of december.
Our website is up and running well and interestingly is being accessed by old Taplovians across the planet. We seem to be forming a Friends Reunited service for exiles. I am delighted to see that the Parish Council also has a nascent website under development so we should be able to have firm links between your Society, the Parish Council and SBDC which can only benefit us all.
There has been a considerable amount of community activity around the parish this last 6 months including the evolution of the Parish Plan. (see article) being driven by Mary and Bernard Trevallion on behalf of the Parish Council. This plan is now entering the ‘how to implement’ stage and we shall soon see how serious the District Council is about consulting with the local people in developing their Local Development Framework.
It has been a sad year since we lost Anne Milne, who saved our village green, Helen Lee, a past president and great contributor, and Harold Elsey who led the original battles to save the Hermitage from developers.
