Cookham Discussion Board
August 22, 2018, 07:14:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
23 August 2018 - Cookham - Flood Response Training

27 August 2018 - Garden Open - St Timothee, Maidenhead

1 September 2018 - Cookham Regatta

1 September 2018 -  Pop Up Sri Lanken Restaurant at the Old Butchers

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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
  Print  
Author Topic: Move Over Sara Beeny/George Clark.. The Farmers Are Coming!(Woodlands Farm)  (Read 52427 times)
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2016, 03:37:30 PM »

Just taking another look at this application, there are some further comments appeared since the last time I looked, including a bat report from the RBWM ecologist. It claims no bats were seen emerging or returning to roost!!!! Ive seen large numbers of them on a daily basis over last summer, so what on earth is going on !!!!! Im quite sure the applicant must be aware of this... how could he not be!!! Huh?

Anyone got any pics of the bats by any chance Huh?
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2016, 03:53:56 PM »

Ralph I have received your message through the Webmaster. You can reach me at toastmaster@islandnet.com.
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 276


« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2016, 05:42:06 PM »

Quote
How does this site meet the demand of RBWM's housing allocation? Should this site (IF to be considered for development) not include AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

One whisper of "Affordable Housing" on the Woodlands Farm site, and you'll find that the entire population of Cookham Dean
will be up in arms ... protesting ... making "NO" placards ... burning effigies ... camping outside their Councillor's garden gates ...
attending the RBWM meeting en masse ... introducing bats to the barns ... and picketing the Farm's front gate!

No, No, No!
One cannot mention "affordable housing" and Cookham Dean in the same breath, doncha know!

Now ...  3 detached houses with 2/3rd acre gardens each will do very nicely, thank you very much!
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2016, 05:59:19 PM »

I had thought the Cookham Society had stated Woodlands was still officially classed as agricultural as opposed to equestrian although I dont really understand the difference in planning terms!   

I still struggle with the basic proposal of developing all of the buildings when there are still 25ha of prime grazing land to be supported. It can only mean ongoing planning applications/buildings to provide housing for machinery and whatever else. I hate the idea of Berkeley homes executive style housing being built there, as illustrated in the sample pics within the planning proposal. Its totally out of keeping with the bulk of the housing in the dean.

Personally Id prefer a larger number of smaller houses .... if all else fails. I cant see how they could ever be termed affordable though given the location.   
Logged
Ralph
Guest
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2016, 12:38:53 PM »

Upon searching the previous applications for Woodlands Farm ( 03/40262 FULL) the barn ear-marked for one of the houses was permitted as AGRICULTRIAL !


And if this barn is no longer required for Agricultural use - should it not need planning  permission HuhHuhHuh??

What's stopping ANY FARMER from putting up Barns, under permitted development as AGRICULTRIAL and then sitting and waiting a few years to convert to housing?

Also, Cllrs and the planners should be reading the history of why previous planning applications were approved ( 10/36112, 03/40262, 04/01332), and why the reasons originally given are all of a sudden redundant.


Like others have mentioned before.... are these Farmers actually clever Developers ?

What is RBWM doing about this? How can RBWM PLANNERS allow this? is there not an ombudsman ?

What's happened to the Cookham Design Statement? Does this not count when determining applications/changes within the Cookhams?

Also, those that vote for such changes should have their names recorded/listed on the application approvals, as we all know that sometimes Cllrs over turn the councils recommendations.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 02:08:12 PM by Ralph » Logged
Merriman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 63


« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2016, 03:06:30 PM »

Unfortunately this is common practice, businessmen buy farms, convert the barns to dwellings, convince the council they need new barns for whatever reason, then say the farm project was unviable and not making a profit due to the unforeseen cost of supplementary feed or similar, then apply to convert them to dwellings and so the circle continues.

I have pointed out this type of behaviour to the council several times but nothing ever seems to change. Once a concrete footing has been established it seems difficult to stop the process. I noted on one occasion the same piece of grazing land was being claimed by 2 farmers as a reason they each needed to erect a new barn, one was the owner and the other the lease holder.

I was recently told by a friend of Mr Simmonds who claimed he had in turn told them that, he was tired of running the farm and was looking to cash in by building the proposed houses at the top and that he had already in principal agreed an offer from that well known local farmer GC for the rest of the land. Who knows this is just something I was told.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 10:13:18 PM by Merriman » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2016, 05:22:41 PM »

I have long thought that a deal would have been done on the land with a local farmer .... interesting that the planning application lists the future use of the site as equestrian. So clearly it must be a viable business currently.  If thats correct ... it means more building .... somewhere for the machinery to maintain the paddock land and make the hay and manage the muck heap ... somewhere to store the hay and straw .... tack and feed rooms and stabling for 30 horses Huh  And then 10 years down the line .....the cycle repeats itself. In 20 years time I can see the whole of that land covered in houses all the way down to the Rise.

I find it a real shame so many people have been left in limbo not knowing what will happen to their horses when it appears further plans have most likely  been made and not shared.

Logged
Snippet
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2016, 11:22:53 AM »

Woodlands Farm
Just to remind every one that the application for the demolition of all the buildings on the farm including the business units, to be replaced by three large houses has yet to be decided. You can still write to the planning office and your councillors.
The proposal will mean the loss of a community of local people, their jobs and a way of life for many.
Are you prepared to see Cookham turn into suburbia with no horses, ponies and children.
in addition the loss of all the wildlife that lives amongst these buildings.
Once the buildings and people have gone the whole of this large block of greenbelt land which forms a break between the Rise and the Dean will be at risk of a takeover and further development, loss of trees hedges and wildlife.
The fantastic view from the farm over Cookham to Cliveden and Windsor will become the sole property of 3 wealthy families.
The 3 new houses will not be within the budget of local people.

I am not sure about the future use as equestrian as referred to before I can not find it anywhere please clarify.
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2016, 12:25:27 PM »

With reference to Snippets comment, if you check the 1st document listed on the planning portal, Application Forms in section 13 it states

'Please describe the activities and processes which would be carried out on the site and the end products including plant, ventilation or air conditioning. Please include the type of machinery which may be installed on site:'

And the response provided is :
'Equestrian related activities and machinary'

Note Section 14 describes the current use of the site which is listed as
'Equestrian, Offices and Residential'

Logged
Ralph
Guest
« Reply #69 on: February 29, 2016, 12:20:00 PM »

Reading the 1st document listed on the planning portal 'Application Form' Section 13 - you are right, it does still mention 'equestrian related activities and machinery' - but surly this is just 'text' to complete a tick box.

If it was intended to keep the place 'equestrian' the Simmonds Partnership should of built more stables and then applied for the existing stable units to be converted to housing (not the other way round, as the argument being provided is that there is no longer a need for equestrian use, sort of shoots themselves in the foot).

I do wonder though about box 9 ' current residential units' = 1 flat? are the two cottages that were 'notified' not also part of Woodlands Farm?



« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 12:25:29 PM by Ralph » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #70 on: February 29, 2016, 06:57:38 PM »

Another chicken farm maybe Huh .... or even a pig farm Huh?
Logged
Ralph
Guest
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2016, 12:25:17 PM »

Expansion of 'Pick Your Own' perhaps? Who knows.... perhaps more will be known once a decision has been made  Undecided
Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 348


« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2016, 12:17:21 AM »

Hey Ralph! Just returned from a nose around Woodlands Farm. I see there is an industrial sprout growing there already, with the name of Centric System Ltd. They do have a website, and they are not agricultural or horse related.
Logged
Ralph
Guest
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2016, 12:21:10 PM »

It seems to me, reading the objections - that the Cookham Society are holding onto the 'National Planning Policy Framework' Paragraph 89 (pasted below):

Paragraph 89:

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:


•buildings for agriculture and forestry; - Not Applicable here for Woodlands Farms Application.

•provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; - Not Applicable here for Woodlands Farms Application.

•the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; [color=red]- Well, changing single story buildings into two story houses, with additional lighting, built over the existing buildings sq footage, sectioning off the land to create formal gardens, with fencing (urbanising an area) with car park, garages and gated is surly considered disproportionate to what already exists?

[/color]•the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; - Not applicable, as replacement buildings are not being used for the same use.

•limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or
•limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. - this is a complete redevelopment, full visual infilling of previous open buildings on the VERY EDGE of the village of Cookham Dean, with great visual impact. This application does not include 'Affordable Housing' for the local community needs, therefore such a development surly does not meet local housing plans.

RBWM and the CLLRS should be very clear with a response when making any decision to this application at Woodlands Farm. As if they misinterpret the 'National Planning Policy Framework'  - they are opening the flood gates for all other 'ex-Farm buildings' to come forward and be redeveloped.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 12:32:30 PM by Ralph » Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 348


« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2016, 03:06:04 PM »

Thanks for that update Ralph. Maybe we should be a little more nosey in a few other places. Especially when they are somewhat hidden from the road!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 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!