Cookham Discussion Board
September 25, 2018, 07:12:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
25 September 2018 - Cookham Medical Centre Closed for Training - 12.30-6.30pm

27 September 2018 - Return of the Vaughan at the Cricket Club

3 October 2018 - Oxfam Coffee Morning with Claire Tomlin

4 October 2018 - Monumental Activity at Riding Court Farm, Datchet

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] 4 5 ... 9
  Print  
Author Topic: Move Over Sara Beeny/George Clark.. The Farmers Are Coming!(Woodlands Farm)  (Read 54415 times)
catnip
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2015, 03:32:36 PM »

Well this gets worse in terms of reading the actual planning. Comes across as a very un-used, run down and not at all a concern of use at all. How deceitful by the landowner. Having taken a look and read in detail the plans, very clever of him and sly.

What I also wonder is how many locals will actually be aware (perhaps more so since the Advertiser editorial) of the plans? Is anyone concerned who live close by? Does anyone actually care? It seems not by the lack of comments. Of course, not everyone is internet savvy!

Some very real and relevant comments from all, what a shame that some feel its not worth saving. A shame that locals do not feel intent upon supporting the local businesses that will be affected and of course, the people who have been a part of the farm for many years and have grown such a solid community through horseriding and of course using the land as it should be used 'Woodlands Farm'.

Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2015, 11:19:44 AM »

I think the problem is, those that 'livery' are the locals, who feel they cant say anything for fear having marching orders served on their equine.

I don't think the Simmonds Partnership can be held fully responsible for the 'reasons' given to support the application, because they are paying a contractor to push the application through for approval. Therefore its the contractor that's being dishonest and distorting the truth. For instance, the photos taken to support the application, must of had a dodgy camera lens to make the place look like something from 'withering heights' where you can just make out one figure (sadly not a Heathcilff) at the top of the muck heap concrete ramp!. BUT  . .on the other hand . .someone from the Simmonds Partnership would of had to of signed off the application.

Oh' did you see the thread of ' office space' wanted to rent. Perhaps they could contact the Simmonds Partnership  and be placed on the waiting list also, as currently they are all full!


« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 11:24:41 AM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Merriman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 66


« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2015, 04:59:23 PM »

As Jumping Jack Flash has said, I don't think it is that people don't care, more that they fear reprisals such as being evicted or having their rents substantially increased if they object. Unfortunately one of the criteria of objecting to planning is that you have to give your full name and address, which whilst understandable leaves the objector open to abuse. This is why societies such as the Cookham Society can be very useful to object on behalf of community members without their individual names being made public. Has anyone tried this approach? I have found them very helpful in the past but as this application does not affect me directly I don't really want to get involved or I feel I may risk getting a reputation as a complainer, then when something turns up that seriously affects me their attitude will be 'just ignore him he complains about everything'.

Talking with someone to get a general feel for things up there, it would appear most of the business units had their rents decreased by 20% about a year ago. At the time they thought this a kind gesture but was this really just to reduce the profits and make the business look less viable? I will let you decide. No matter what the agents are doing they are acting under instruction from the land owner so I am sorry but I think all parties know exactly what they are doing and are FULLY responsible. I don't know the details of planning law that deal with non profitable farms but I guess the planning agents do which is why they have chosen that track.

Having fought numerous battles in the past and won and lost in similar proportions, I find you have to remove emotion from the battle as councils are just seeing if the application either meets or doesn't meet the guidelines that they are issued with and are quite cold hearted, especially with all the government pressure to build more houses.

One thing that does stand out to me here part from the very obvious attempts to devalue the business. Is building 3 mansions when there is a shortage of affordable housing. A few years ago friends of mine bought an old 50's bungalow in the Richmond area, with a garden of about half an acre, they intended to knock down the original house and build a new house on the land. They were told in no uncertain terms by Richmond council that due to the size of the plot if they knocked down the original house they would need to build 3 house due to regulations for that size of the plot. I don't know if RBWM have a similar rule but then do the neighbours want 10 affordable houses up there? I can't second guess the developers as to which direction that could take things if that was the case.

Logged
wannabe
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2015, 06:50:54 PM »

The RBWM rule is that the house(s) you build must be in keeping for the area. So you can't knock one big house down and build some smaller ones.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2015, 07:06:19 PM »

Merriman,  thank you, your thread made very interesting reading.

I'm actually really shocked that Simmonds Partnership gave a 20% reduction to the rented offices, especially when the liveries every year have had a price increase to the livery. Not forgetting that you can only buy your, hay and bedding from Woodlands at a cost, with another VAT price included.

And IF you ordered bedding or hay/haylage from "outside" you have to pay a surplus for doing so.

So you see, from what Watchmen commented on . . it is not / was not a failing business  . . unless  . .the Simmonds Partnership want it to fail? BUT I find it had to swallow, when there is a charge for using a hose pipe if your equine has an injury. And a charge for booking the indoor school if you want to use it for personal use . .also, you have to request use of the 'sick paddock' when your equine is ill.

Everything has either a charge, or is tightly controlled. Therefore, being run like this, I really do not think, the Simmonds Partnership would allow a business to fail??

I'm seriously worried now, as there are NO DIY stables locally (FYI Whiteplace Farm had a massive waiting list, and also apparently already over 100 horses).

Sorry, and lastly . . I still think the Cookham Society are not that helpful, as the person I spoke with about the pig track (Bridle way 19) sided with the land owner! Useless!

As Mulder and Scully would say from the "X-Files" Trust No-One! . .

« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 07:13:13 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2015, 10:41:38 PM »

Being nosey and Googling around .... one of the business units was advertised at 9500 pcm rent (I can only presume that was in fact a mistake and it meant pa... ). Not quite sure when that was but yes 100k seems not far off the mark. Then there is the service charge on top of that of 350 pa per unit.

I cant get my head around why the council would approve this though, given the big loss in revenue from council tax/rates. Each unit generates around 4k pa, plus revenue from the remaining livery/residential elements; its clearly considerably more than they would ever earn from 3 houses.
Logged
Merriman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 66


« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2015, 11:01:08 AM »

Well it would seem that today is the last day to raise objections to this application, so if anyone wishes to object they had better do so. For businesses or horse owners alike if planning is approved you are booted out anyway and if planning is refused your rents/fees will be going up regardless of whether you object or not. Looking at the planning in detail it would seem that this planning process has been going on for several years and has already been through a pre-planning action. So any changes that have taken place by the land owner over the last 2 years have been done to facilitate the approval of this application.

The main grounds that I can see for objecting is the change of use of the land from a facility that is of great benefit to existing local people as both a place to keep their horses and a much needed base for small businesses that give employment to local people, to a use that will only benefit 3 home owners that may well come in from outside the area.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2015, 12:16:53 PM »

Whatever happens, the offices and liveries only have limited time to stay, because at some point this is going to happen. These Farmers/developers know how to work the system.

I was really shocked about this thread, where it mentioned that the office units had received a 20% discount to their rentals one year. Which makes me believe that this 'planning' is not for 'inheritance tax purposes' but really is for redeveloping of Woodlands Farm Buildings.

I'm winding myself up... but I don't understand why non equine owners are not bothered about this development.... perhaps its time I thought about moving out of the Cookham's before it loses its charm as a village.

The Cookham's are being changed right under our noses!

Look at the other farmer... how can they get planning for residential on one farm (Cannon Court Farm)  claiming its non functional use - then on the other hand, create another farm out of thin air (Switchback Farm) and put in for planning for a barn, that would easily turn its self into future housing.... and what with the new driveways and the 'Bridle way 19' being turned into a fully operational driveway... there's the road!

I thought Cannon Court Farm was redundant because he didn't need the buildings any longer.... so why a new barn required?

Are our planners 'brain-dead'.... ' Cookham Society' (soon to merge with Maidonian society) are short sighted....why are they not questioning what is starring them in the face?

What are our Cllrs doing about all this?

« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 12:24:15 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2015, 12:23:42 PM »

Notice the '2 storey with basement accommodation' that equals 3 storeys right ? ... and all lit up at night !
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2015, 12:26:27 PM »

Also (sorry I don't mean to hog this thread)...

But have you seen another Barn with sky lights in, from that track backing onto Whyteladys lane (you can see it clearly from the top of Woodlands Offices).

Another future house ?
Logged
wannabe
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2015, 12:40:51 PM »

The pick your own shop?
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 279


« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2015, 08:32:20 PM »

Or ....

A meticulously measured barn ... avoiding RBWM strict planning laws .... to house yet another
shop...  Wedding Hire ... Funeral Parlour ... Car Showroom ... who knows ... to accompany
The Equine Centre and The Formal Hire Shop - both off Long Lane.

This would serve to create the village he is clearly planning as a lasting memory of a "caring farmer" ...

Copasville, anyone?!!

Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2015, 09:46:46 PM »

Ooo I like that one 'copasville' .  .yes that must be it!   . . . Like Marlow being known as Shanley-town . .
Logged
Greenpound
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2015, 10:33:46 AM »

Those concerned about this issue may like to know that the Cookham Society has now sent a comprehensive letter to the Royal Borough objecting to this proposed development.
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2015, 01:37:45 PM »

So pleased they have done that ..... see a few more objections are in also!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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!