Cookham Discussion Board
December 11, 2017, 03:22:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
11 December 2017 - Elizabeth House Talk - Brian Clews, local wildlife expert

12 December 2017 - The Wonderful World of Whisky

16 December 2017 - Christmas Carols Around the Tree

16 December 2017 - Cantorum Choir Candlelight Christmas

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
  Print  
Author Topic: Move Over Sara Beeny/George Clark.. The Farmers Are Coming!(Woodlands Farm)  (Read 34602 times)
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« on: November 09, 2015, 12:56:36 PM »

Woodlands Farm, Spring Lane, Cookham Dean has a planning application (15/03388/OUT) in for residential property.

The Planning, Design & Access Statement 'examples' given:


4.13 reads:

The 'DIY' livery business has suffered in recent years due to a decline in horse ownership and as a result of economic climate. Many other competitive venues offer out-door arenas and horse walking facilities, which. due to the topography and constraints of the site, are not possible to provide at Woodlands Farm.

There is a waiting list to 'livery' at Woodlands Farm. There is an adequate indoor arena, and a horse walker is not necessary as riders have direct access to great hacking!

4.15 reads:

These issues coupled with poor soil conditions leaving waterlogged paddocks prevent vital turn-out and grazing in many months. This and the cost of manure disposal has caused several horse owners to leave the complex.

The top paddocks have a clay soil, so are grazed in the summer (as dry). The bottom paddocks have a gravel base, so are grazed in the winter (as dryer). The yard had been on shut down with no turn out for approx 11 weeks . I hear people did leave on a temporary basis, but still paid to keep their stables. According to the 'Horse and Hound'  which livery yards didn't restrict their grazing that year! Also, again... there is a waiting list to get in on this yard! This yard never has to advertise its vacancies!

4.18 reads:

The occupancy of this apartment was restricted to a person solely or mainly employed at the equestrian business (LPA Ref:03/40262). This restriction was amended in November 2012 to allow occupancy by a person employed on either a full or part time basis at the wider business premises (LPA Ref: 12/02812/RLAX)

It would be interesting to see how the apartment was originally 'applied' for?


« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 06:05:32 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2015, 02:06:09 PM »

Bl**dy hell!  So not only houses at the top of the hill (Woodlands) but if Mr C gets his way houses at the bottom as well - how long before the two bits end up joined? 
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2015, 06:40:16 PM »

Its a scary thought that there is so much proposed development within the Cookhams. We should be protecting our 'green' areas, as these are what make the village a desirable place to live.

Cannon Court has dissolved its stabling, as its going to be built on. I hear Lee Farm is doing the same. And now Woodlands Farm is ear-marked to be redeveloped, which farm is next on the hit list? Is there another farm/livery yard left in the village . . ?

Do we really want to see all farms raised to the ground, to make way for million pound plus housing (as thus is what keeps 'the Dean' desirable . .but lose the 'Emmerdale' appeal . .then you have a 'bog standard' location, that could be anywhere!).

Woodlands Farm dates back historically to 'Doomsday'. The buildings themselves may not be quite so significant, but it still looks like a farm, and is a profitable business (who runs a dead end business for years on end?. No one).

The Farm provides 'livery' to 35 horses, many owned by local people who have been a livery for over 20 years. Again proving this to be a viable business.

As quoted in the recent Cookham Parish Magazine, a fantastic location for a number of 'Start-Up' companies.

And the owner being a pillar of our community and thought of fondly. It is sad to think that such a fate could be hanging over the farm.

Where will all the horses go? Without the horse riders, who will help protect our green spaces, support the National Trust, and keep the 'rights of way' open for all to enjoy.

What would the Cookham's become without horses. No local Forge/Black Smith on a Saturday morning, putting new shoes on our equine friends.

The amazing carriage driving potentially gone.

The youngsters growing up in a village, lose out on riding / owning a pony, with this being the last well equipped DIY yard in this area. Because, owning a horse or pony, really is 'a poor-mans' game. Its good for children to do practical stuff, away from modern technology.

DIY is exactly that. Do it yourself, as no one can afford Competition yard prices . .!

Cookham Historic Society should be following this application closely.

As for Cllrs, you should ask yourself, do we really want to affect the Cookhams in such a way, that we loose everything that makes a village a village?

As to the liveries @ Woodlands . .which owner would ever "object" to such an application, without being asked to leave? Like Cannon Court Farm, no livery would object, if they thought it meant their equine companion was saved from leaving . . or worse . .those that live in close proximity to farm land . .with vengeance of having a chicken or turkey farm opening up next door, as pay-back. Who would object?.

Stop building on the farms and farm land!
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 06:58:46 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2015, 10:43:42 AM »

Its funny. I thought the Cookham Residents would have been bothered about these developments. No additional thoughts or comments, not even from the Cookham Society.


« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 11:59:46 AM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2015, 04:54:47 PM »

Its a real shame about Woodlands. Its in the best possible position for outriding; and despite what is claimed in the planning application it has the best grazing for miles around. Where else would you get fields rotated every season; the paddocks are very well maintained and have the best grass all year round. So many other places are over grazed. Its only in the last 3 years or so that turnout has been restricted during very wet weather, it never was prior to that! At least not that I can remember ! But then lockdown is standard practice for most yards; I cant believe thats been cited as justification for planning! On top of which the landowner has made many improvements over the years; refurbished stables, new drainage and resurfacing of the yard to mention just a few. Hence the waiting list for stables! And the facilities are perfectly adequate; good enough in fact for a young unschooled youngster to be trained to advanced level dressage. Oh and the BHS states that horse riding is more popular than ever; it certainly isnt in decline as is claimed!  Yet another contradiction!

Then there are the hoards of bats at Woodlands but sadly every building is to be demolished .... no wonder there was no bat report included in the planning application even though they claim one was done. At least I couldnt see one when I looked !

How on earth can you leave 60 acres or so of prime grazing without any supporting farm buildings..... or is that phase 2 ??
Logged
catnip
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2015, 10:12:31 AM »

Anyone heard about the intended plans for the farm at Cookham Dean (woodlands); what a shame! A beautiful place to be spoiled yet again with houses! Interestingly, it says currently no use, I have a friend who keeps a horse there and has done for over 10 years - along with at least 20 other horse owners. Obviously intending to 'shush' the actual current usage!


Logged
catnip
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2015, 10:20:11 AM »

Ah, just seen this, absolutely agree, absolute shame for yet more 'top end, costly housing' projects to overtake such a plot of beauty.
I too feel for those directly affected, as said, a friend has their horse in livery there and have been for over 10 years. It is more like a community itself I understand, and a place of unity!
Why do we need more houses....although I understand there is not enough housing in the area, but of course, at the prices these developments would be listed at, not the 'average' home-buyer would be able to afford.
Very disappointing. Greed will always rule ones head than heart.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2015, 11:12:32 AM »

I thought there would of been more of an up roar from the Cookham Residents seeing yet another Farm wiped off the map. My mistake. Perhaps bikes and Lycra is the new 'Dean' look?

Sad it loses its Emmerdale attraction, if the stables go. Bet it will level out the 'house' prices playing field in the Dean, as there will be more choice . .

As mentioned under another message board . .  how long will it be until this part of the Dean is 'joined' to the planning application that another farmer has for Whyteladys lane? Only a field keeping the two areas currently separate!.

I think the planning will get approved, as the Cllrs seem to be all in it together (referring to the Advertiser photo shoot of Bridleway 19 , congratulating each-other on the new drive way. And one of the Cllrs verbalising a fellow rider (when asked for their opinion), obviously gave a different answer!).

The Cookham Society take membership payments, yet are not picking up or fighting for sites like this! And this is an 'historic site' . .  May not have a Sir Stanley Spencer painting of it . . but on 'googling' its the last Farm standing in the Dean!. And from Goole Maps - a very attractive farm!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 12:02:13 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2015, 12:05:02 PM »

I always thought there was a need for affordable housing , not 2 million + ones... which is what I think we are talking about here.
Logged
catnip
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2015, 12:44:59 PM »

Very very sad. What will happen to all those people who have horses at the stable and yard? As mentioned, Cannon Court, Lee Farm not an option... not a case of 'rehoming' or worse!

And yes, homes for the high bidders only - GREED by landowner.
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2015, 04:18:25 PM »

I never thought of this particular landowner as being one of the greedy ones. I cant help but feel its the architect who is the greediest and will benefit the most financially from all the advice and consultancy, planning applications and then designs of 3 rather large properties, maybe even project management of the build. Not to mention the further planning applications that will surely follow. Whilst the landowner loses what has been a steady and not insignificant income for the rest of his life, not just from the livery yard but from all of the commercial premises. It must be quite a wrench for him to do this to the family farm and I cant help but feel it isnt the right decision! But then mine doesnt count!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 04:33:57 PM by JTAP » Logged
Watchman
Full Member
***
Posts: 238


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2015, 11:03:47 AM »

Is Simmons still the land owner of Woodlands?
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2015, 12:16:29 PM »

Yes Watchman you are correct ....
Logged
catnip
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2015, 02:00:17 PM »

Maybe the title of this post should be amended as then enables greater awareness of the topic - as somewhat misleading topic currently for such an important matter.
Just a thought.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2015, 03:41:01 PM »

Good point Catnip.

This is a serious issue, and I can't quite get my head round how on earth with one landowner wanting to build on greenbelt to make affordable houses available, others are being permitted to plan for non-affordable housing in the same area.  Surely if the need is for affordable residences then luxury pads should be refused permission?

Our planning controls have to be the barmiest in the world.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!