Slate Meadow plans anger Bourne End and Wooburn residents

Save Slate Meadow campaigners

Save Slate Meadow campaigners

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A PROPOSAL to release five reserve sites for development, including former greenbelt land between Bourne End and Wooburn has been met with an angry reaction within the villages.

It was revealed yesterday that Wycombe District Council were proposing to release five wanted areas of land for development to ensure they kept in-line with government framework.

Residents in Bourne End and Wooburn Green have now reacted angrily to the news that a development could soon be built on Slate Meadow.

Chairman of the Bourne End Residents Association, Jim Penfold, said he does not believe WDC will now listen to the public views in an upcoming consultation.

He said: “It really does beggar belief that the council are just planning to go ahead and build on all of these sites when there is obviously a huge objection to it.

“During the consultation for the Local Plan around 300 people came out and the majority were clearly against Slate Meadow being developed.

“They now want to hold a consultation to see what people think of the plans, but there is absolutely no point holding a consultation if they don’t listen to the consultee.”

Since the Local Plan was published at the start of 2014 plans to potentially develop 175 homes on Slate Meadow was met with strong opposition.

The Save Slate Meadow group formed this year and so far have over 1,200 signatures on an online petition to have the area removed from the reserve list.

Mr Penfold said: “Slate Meadow was put into the greenbelt in the ‘70s and was then taken out quite some years later although nothing had changed, and it still has not changed.

“I just cannot understand how Slate Meadow can be considered a good option to develop when there is a large village green, part of it sits on a floodplain and most importantly it works to separate the two villages.

“If this was developed it would lead to a coalescence of community and if that is done everywhere, we will all just end up being one big town.”

WDC head of Planning and Sustainability, Penelope Tollitt, said: “According to the new framework we need to be able to show we can develop a certain amount of houses (between 500 and 700) in a five year land supply. But it is not just enough to say we can do it, we actually have to do it.

“That is why we think the time to release those reserve sites is now, in order to demonstrate we are managing that five year supply.

“If we do nothing, developers can put in applications and if we refuse it is very likely they will just be permitted on appeal.”

To read more about the WDC proposal, please click here.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:45am Wed 13 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Will they strip off this year? That was a most effective protest. Also non allied politically which helps.
Will they strip off this year? That was a most effective protest. Also non allied politically which helps. faircuppa
  • Score: -2

8:04am Wed 13 Aug 14

MunsterX says...

The article mentions that Slate Meadow was once green belt land and loosely asserts that its status then changed. Local residents have had many years to examine the legality of the change; but as with our reporter, believed the effort to be gainful employment for another.
The article mentions that Slate Meadow was once green belt land and loosely asserts that its status then changed. Local residents have had many years to examine the legality of the change; but as with our reporter, believed the effort to be gainful employment for another. MunsterX
  • Score: 0

10:07am Wed 13 Aug 14

pennman says...

As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc.
Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead.
So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go!
As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc. Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead. So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go! pennman
  • Score: 6

10:51am Wed 13 Aug 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

Building on part of a flood plain again... when will they ever learn?
Building on part of a flood plain again... when will they ever learn? Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 7

2:07pm Wed 13 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

pennman wrote:
As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc.
Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead.
So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go!
But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need?
[quote][p][bold]pennman[/bold] wrote: As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc. Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead. So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go![/p][/quote]But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need? faircuppa
  • Score: 2

4:34pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pennman says...

faircuppa wrote:
pennman wrote:
As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc.
Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead.
So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go!
But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need?
There will be if you spread out the new houses, to just a few per village. It's happening all of the time in Penn, where one house on a big plot is being replaced by 2-3. Alternatively, legislation to avoid having to replace employment generating premises with similar. There was a proposal to replace a garage (selling cars) in our village, with housing which was turned down as the garage employed about 5 people prior to the cessation of the business. It's technically not an office to resi conversion therefore can't fall within the permitted development rights.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pennman[/bold] wrote: As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc. Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead. So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go![/p][/quote]But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need?[/p][/quote]There will be if you spread out the new houses, to just a few per village. It's happening all of the time in Penn, where one house on a big plot is being replaced by 2-3. Alternatively, legislation to avoid having to replace employment generating premises with similar. There was a proposal to replace a garage (selling cars) in our village, with housing which was turned down as the garage employed about 5 people prior to the cessation of the business. It's technically not an office to resi conversion therefore can't fall within the permitted development rights. pennman
  • Score: 1

7:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

pennman wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
pennman wrote:
As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc.
Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead.
So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go!
But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need?
There will be if you spread out the new houses, to just a few per village. It's happening all of the time in Penn, where one house on a big plot is being replaced by 2-3. Alternatively, legislation to avoid having to replace employment generating premises with similar. There was a proposal to replace a garage (selling cars) in our village, with housing which was turned down as the garage employed about 5 people prior to the cessation of the business. It's technically not an office to resi conversion therefore can't fall within the permitted development rights.
That would not add up to 500-700 remember what happened in Hughenden when a modest plan for housing was proposed. They went ballistic! If the local plan consultation was re-run there could be lots of good new ideas. Government edict has scuppered a fair and equal distribution.
[quote][p][bold]pennman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pennman[/bold] wrote: As I mentioned yesterday, they council need to use brownfield sites. the alternative is that instead of having a few large sites which need hugely expensive infrastructure (roads, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.), they just use 'joined up' thinking and Buckinghamshire as a whole adds say 10 houses to each village and a pro-rata amount more to the large towns, to add the capacity needed without causing so many problems. We also need to consider the impact on roads, schools, doctor's surgeries etc. Also, it is worth remembering that the planning officers are employees of the council and can recommend things, but don't have the vote, it's the councillors that have the power to choose whether these developments go ahead. So, please attend the public meetings, contact your councillor and let them know your views and use social media to defeat these planning officers who may well not care (in that they are paid anyway, may not have the ability to live in some of the areas mentioned and hence, don't care if they 'ruin the character' etc.). Oh well, we live in a democracy so use your voice whichever way you want it to go![/p][/quote]But there are not enough brown sites for the housing need?[/p][/quote]There will be if you spread out the new houses, to just a few per village. It's happening all of the time in Penn, where one house on a big plot is being replaced by 2-3. Alternatively, legislation to avoid having to replace employment generating premises with similar. There was a proposal to replace a garage (selling cars) in our village, with housing which was turned down as the garage employed about 5 people prior to the cessation of the business. It's technically not an office to resi conversion therefore can't fall within the permitted development rights.[/p][/quote]That would not add up to 500-700 remember what happened in Hughenden when a modest plan for housing was proposed. They went ballistic! If the local plan consultation was re-run there could be lots of good new ideas. Government edict has scuppered a fair and equal distribution. faircuppa
  • Score: 5

10:01am Thu 14 Aug 14

pennman says...

that's exactly what is needed, a fair and equal distribution, rather than swamping areas (especially apt in a flood plain) with new homes and with the consequential infrastructure / capacity issues. Much less NIMBYism will ensue if things are done on a smaller scale. And I think that there are enough established communities in Bucks to absorb the capacity!
that's exactly what is needed, a fair and equal distribution, rather than swamping areas (especially apt in a flood plain) with new homes and with the consequential infrastructure / capacity issues. Much less NIMBYism will ensue if things are done on a smaller scale. And I think that there are enough established communities in Bucks to absorb the capacity! pennman
  • Score: 2

10:28am Sun 17 Aug 14

s6blr says...

Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more.

You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds!

Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children.

We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built.

What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS.

Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built!
Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more. You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds! Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children. We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built. What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS. Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built! s6blr
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Mon 18 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

Building on or near floodplains is stupid. Building on a green space between villages is just not on.

And pennman is right - we need to use our votes. I used to work in local government and it used to amaze me how people would complain when we know that only a third of people bother to vote in local elections. If people can't even be bothered to make a few pencil marks on a bit of paper once every four or five years then what right have we to complain?

But this is about national policy.

The rich and powerful don't want a house or two here and there, so that towns and villages change organically and beautifully. A house or two won't give the developers the big profits they think they're owed. What do they donate money to the Conservative party for if they're not going to get a payback in national planning policy?

So in the general election next year we need to vote for parties with policies that are more sensible, more sustainable, and fairer.
Building on or near floodplains is stupid. Building on a green space between villages is just not on. And pennman is right - we need to use our votes. I used to work in local government and it used to amaze me how people would complain when we know that only a third of people bother to vote in local elections. If people can't even be bothered to make a few pencil marks on a bit of paper once every four or five years then what right have we to complain? But this is about national policy. The rich and powerful don't want a house or two here and there, so that towns and villages change organically and beautifully. A house or two won't give the developers the big profits they think they're owed. What do they donate money to the Conservative party for if they're not going to get a payback in national planning policy? So in the general election next year we need to vote for parties with policies that are more sensible, more sustainable, and fairer. RowanIW
  • Score: 1

9:12am Fri 22 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

RowanIW is on the right lines I think, though I believe we also need new garden cities with proper infrastructure from the off.
There certainly is an imbalance; you live on an estate of semis with a good view? You will lose that view and hundreds of houses will be built next to you. You live in a smaller village amongst affluent people in large detached houses ? The volume of new build will affect you far less. Is that fair? I think not. The solution is partly to stipulate that any new high volume development is legally obliged to leave a certain (a fairly large) amount of green space between it and its existing neighbours, so as to minimise the impact of that new build. If that was mandatory, then there may be much less NIMBYism. Currently though, new developments can be positioned completely adjacent to existing houses, leaving existing residents overlooked and adversely affecting their house values. Who wants that?
RowanIW is on the right lines I think, though I believe we also need new garden cities with proper infrastructure from the off. There certainly is an imbalance; you live on an estate of semis with a good view? You will lose that view and hundreds of houses will be built next to you. You live in a smaller village amongst affluent people in large detached houses ? The volume of new build will affect you far less. Is that fair? I think not. The solution is partly to stipulate that any new high volume development is legally obliged to leave a certain (a fairly large) amount of green space between it and its existing neighbours, so as to minimise the impact of that new build. If that was mandatory, then there may be much less NIMBYism. Currently though, new developments can be positioned completely adjacent to existing houses, leaving existing residents overlooked and adversely affecting their house values. Who wants that? Monty Cristo
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree