Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
23 December 2024
There are only two more Council meetings for Hughenden Parish Council before the local elections in May. I can’t attend the Council meeting in January and I have no plans to stand again. I therefore have only one more Council meeting to go (in March).
I will up-date you as and when things happen and the latest up-date is below. It is a long blog but you have all year to read it – and perhaps longer as there may not be anything to report between now and March.
In the meantime, a Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year from down the rabbit hole in Wonderland.
Latest up-date
1. TERRIERS
The Strategic Sites Committee of Bucks Council met on 21 November and approved two planning applications for over 300 homes at Terriers. The developments are on the corner of the A404 and Kingshill Road.
If you want to see the Committee’s discussion, the webcast is at Strategic Sites Committee - Thursday 21 November 2024, 2:00pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting.
Here’s my summary.
Cllrs Gemmell, Oliver, Roy and Green (Bucks Council or Hazlemere Parish Council councillors representing Hazlemere or Terriers) spoke objecting to the planning applications.
The main objection lay with the proposed development’s failure to provide physical separation between High Wycombe and Hazlemere; there was a block of housing proposed in the south east of the development which meant there was no clear green space between Wycombe and Hazlemere.
This was in contravention of Wycombe’s development brief and Local Plan and Hazlemere’s Neighbourhood Plan.
In response, the representatives of the developer said they had respected the local plan and the development brief. The landscaping had been comprehensively addressed by BC officers and this was a high- quality development.
On the block of housing to which councillors objected, apparently “it was all a matter of balance” and the developers had decided the balance lay with including this block - and Bucks Council’s planning officials agreed with them.
Other points raised by local councillors who objected, included:-
1. Trees should not be cut down but moved; there should be no reduction to the tree canopy; and any trees planted to compensate should be planted on the development and not put in some central tree bank.
2. The development would not deliver the required biodiversity targets.
3. The application took no account of the Planning Inspectorate’s approval of “new” public rights of way on the site.
4. There had been no collaborative approach (as required of the developer) with Hazlemere Parish Council and the community; the parish council had not been consulted and the community wanted separation.
5. The planning protocol had not been followed, The protocol required officers and members to work together and the Strategic Sites Committee to meet every quarter. In this case the SSC had not met on this application for 18 months and there had been no communication with ward councillors for 7 months.
6. There had been short notice of the meeting; 5 working days was required but only 3 working days’ notice had been given.
7. No community space was allocated in the development and Terriers ward had no community space at all.
8. There was no expansion of community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development, including no additional primary school places nor GP provision.
9. Access from Kingshill Road was in the wrong place directly opposite social housing. It would also destroy an historic hedgerow.
10. Developers had had the opportunity to purchase Terriers farm which could have provided community space for Terriers but they decided not to do so.
11. There would be continuous urban sprawl from High Wycombe to Hazlemere to Holmer Green.
12. The traffic impact assessment for Terriers did not take account of the development at Tralee Farm, a development on the A404 towards Amersham; the combined traffic impact should be assessed.
13. The sports provision planned for the development was still to be decided and further consultation would take place.
A Bucks Council planning officer summed up by saying that, although the meeting had concentrated on the separation issue, the Committee needed to consider the application in the wider sense i.e. there was a critical need for housing and this was one of the larger sites in Bucks and 48% of the homes to be provided would be affordable housing. The development would also provide construction jobs, cycling routes and considerable Community Infrastructure Levy monies.
The officer added that developers were not “required to tick all the boxes”; the Committee needed to consider applications in the round.
The development is going to have a major impact on Widmer End in a number of ways.
First, the development will put Four Ashes and the area around Grange Farm right on the border of urban development in High Wycombe. The area will probably no longer look or feel rural.
Second, the development will increase the vulnerability of land to further development at Four Ashes and to the south of Widmer End, including land in the Chiltern National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Third the development will increase the traffic through Widmer End as more and more people use it as a rat run.
Hughenden Parish Council decided last May to continue not to have a Planning Committee despite residents in Widmer End (and me) pointing out that HPC was a statutory consultee and that developments (both large and small) could have a major impact on residents.
Hughenden Parish Council has not even discussed any proposed developments in the parish for years.
HPC only objected to the Terriers applications on my insistence – and only when I provided the then Clerk with a draft.
I have objected to the Terriers applications, as an individual ward councillor, on a number of occasions and my latest objections were included in the supporting papers to the Committee.
I was invited to speak at the Committee because I had objected but I had only 3 days’ notice and couldn’t make it to Aylesbury. I am sorry about that because there was no mention at the meeting of the impact on Hughenden parish and very little of relevance to Hughenden in the officer’s report.
I don’t think it would have made any difference to the outcome but it would have been good to have flagged up the impact to Hughenden at the Committee meeting.
The only relevant reference in the report was that it will be a condition of approval for “A contribution to fund the clearance and surfacing of the Lady’s Mile bridleway between Green Street and Kingshill Road, and not to cause, permit or suffer the commencement of the development until the contribution has been paid to the council. A contribution towards the improvement of Footpath HWU/146/1.”
And there will be a 15m buffer zone along Lady’s Mile.
I have already made two formal complaints to the enforcement team at Bucks Council about unauthorised developments near this bridleway.
I do this planning work for Widmer End on an individual basis. When I leave the Council at the May local elections, I hope someone else will pick up the work.
Widmer End Residents Association has already put forward proposals for a traffic calming scheme for Widmer End which is vital in view of the development. The proposals have been approved by Hughenden Parish Council in principle.
Despite this Cllr Jones, HPC’s Chair, has said he will oppose the scheme when it goes to Bucks Council’s NW Chiltern Community Board and returns to HPC for funding. Cllr Jones has said there are other traffic schemes more worthy of funding in Hughenden including in Great Kingshill (which he represents).
Widmer End will need ward councillors to pursue this traffic calming scheme after the May elections.
2. PLAYGROUNDS
Did you know that Naphill and Walters Ash has four playgrounds?
There is one on the RAF site which has planning approval to be redeveloped. I asked Council at the beginning of the year if residents other than RAF families could use the playground. I was told this wasn’t allowed and it was not worth asking.
I think it is always worth asking. So I asked the RAF’s Community Development Officer in February. She said:-
“members of the local community can be 'sponsored' by RAF personnel and can have a social pass which would enable families [to use the playground] and access the cafe and the park. This hasn't presented as a problem up until now, local residents use our nursery and after school club without any issues as long as they have a pass.
"The RAF police are currently rewriting the control of access policy so things may change in the future and I will keep you updated.”
I fed this back to Council but the possibility of approaching the RAF for wider “sponsorship” was never discussed; other councillors were not interested; they just wanted a playground at Templewood.
A second playground is now at Templewood. It was opened at the beginning of December.
I have mentioned my concerns about commissioning this new playground a number of times i.e. this has been a rubber-stamping exercise by Council which has failed in its duty to ensure value for money.
I am also concerned that the playground, as built, is not the same as the playground as specified in the bid that Council approved. I asked the locum Clerk if he could give an assurance that the contract he signed with the contractor, Proludic, specified the playground as approved by Council and at a cost approved by Council. He did not reply.
So I went and had a look. And there appear to be significant differences:
- 4 items specified in Proludic’s approved bid have not been installed - a double cradle swing which would have cost £2700, and three animal posts which would have cost in total £1422; and
- 2 items have been installed which were not included in the approved bid - a second multi-play unit which I would estimate would cost £14k and an odd-looking structure outside the playground costing say £2k.
Which makes a difference in costing of about £12k or £14.5k with VAT – a not inconsiderable difference in cost.
Council has not lawfully delegated the power to make changes to the approved bid. So it is a complete mystery as to who has agreed these unauthorised changes to the playground and the associated costs.
But that’s Hughenden Parish Council for you.
The third playground (or play area) is in the new Clappins Lane development. It looks quite nice from the plans 19_08031_FUL-NATURAL_PLAY-3831001.pdf. So I went and had a look.
The play area took a bit of finding and I’m afraid it didn’t look anything like the plan. 3 pieces of very uninspiring equipment and a bench.
However, as Council decided not to have a Planning Committee, I have no idea who, if anyone, on the Council has been monitoring the plans for the development and its delivery.
The fourth playground is owned and managed by Naphill Village Hall, a playground my granddaughter enjoyed very much. Naphill Village Hall received a grant of £5160 for playground equipment in June, 20% of the total cost.
So, two playgrounds in Naphill and Walters Ash are owned by the public sector within a stone’s throw of one another and are being developed at a cost of possibly £150k, one playground is owned and managed by a developer which is pretty minimal and one by the Village Hall which has to find much of its funding itself.
You can come to your own conclusions on this.
However, we can’t forget Great Kingshill playground.
According to the supporting papers for the (unlawfully convened) E&S Committee on 10 December, the bids for the Great Kingshill playground have been received.
The bids are based on a tender specification which went out some months ago. Council has not seen the specification, let alone approved it. I understand the specification gave an estimate for the budget of £90k and all the bids are for the same amount. Council has not approved a budget for this playground.
This budget estimate was based on the assumption that the National Lottery would contribute a grant of £20k. The Lottery has however withdrawn its approval of the grant and asked for its money back.
The bids have already been evaluated by a group of people, including residents. I don’t know who these people are; this process has not been approved by Council. This group has already chosen its preferred bid and will recommend it to Council.
If the same process is carried out as for Templewood, Council will only get a copy of the bid recommended by the group of people and Council will be expected to rubber stamp this preferred bid at its meeting in January.
Again, the Council has been cut out of the process and will be unable to ensure value for money.
So, it looks as though the minimum expenditure on the two HPC playgrounds is £140k (£50k for Templewood and £90k for Great Kingshill) plus £14k for consultancy support making a total of £154. With VAT, this will come to about £185k for the two playgrounds.
At the Finance Committee meeting on 4 December, Cllr Wilding, who represents Great Kingshill, said she thought Widmer End had a disproportionate share of the Council budget.
Mmmmm…. So, let’s have a look at what has been spent on Widmer End.
3. STREETLIGHTS
Three streetlight columns in the Windmill Estate have been replaced at last. It has taken over 4 months to get this done after the Council approved the replacements last July. The replacement columns will cost about £8k.
Council also approved the cleaning of the streetlights and safety repairs to one of the lights over 4 months ago and delegated this work to Mr Truppin, the locum Clerk. The work has still not been done.
I wrote to Cllr Jones on 4 December to arrange another annual inspection of the streetlights in order to recommend to Council the next small batch of columns for replacement for 2025/6. I have had no response.
If he does not respond in time to do the annual inspection before the March Council meeting, Council will have to appoint other councillors to do the inspection (at the earliest May 2025) and the programme of replacing these old columns will be delayed yet again.
4. COCKPIT HOLE
The situation at Cockpit Hole gets curiouser and curiouser. It seems so easy to get Council to pay someone to plant bulbs and seeds and to clear a pond but so difficult to get it to address basic safety concerns.
In October, I raised some safety concerns with the Council (see my blog of 21 October 2024) i.e.:-
a) the walkway over the pond was slippery in wet weather. I thought there was a risk people, particularly toddlers, could slip and fall into the water;
b) There was a gate leading directly into the water with no warning sign;
c) there was a gap in the hedge, probably used by children, leading down a steep slope into the water; and
d) there were no clear signs warning of the deep water.
In response, I was told by the deputy Clerk that:-
a) The walkway was “textured” which was designed to add grip if it’s wet;
b) It might be worth changing the bolt on the gate to a lock;
c) He did not see any access at the back of the site; and
d) there were signs to say “Caution Deep Water” and “Children must be supervised at all times”. One of the signs was broken and he would look at replacing it.
I raised the issue again saying
a) the walkway would be slippery in wet weather, particularly for a toddler in wellington boots. I suggested putting chicken wire over the surface;
b) putting a lock on the gate was a good idea;
c) exactly where the gap in the hedge was and offering to show it to the deputy Clerk; and
d) replacing the broken signs would be good.
I offered to help as I have some experience of preparing risk assessments.
Cllr Jones responded to say “The walkway is especially finished plastic not wood so is fine as it is.”
And later said that I was misleading residents and councillors with inaccurate information. When I asked what inaccurate information, he did not respond.
The deputy Clerk then said he was in the process of “organising a company which carry out assessments on inland waterways and ponds within the UK”.
I expressed my disappointment that, with all the resources of the Council (7 councillors and 7 staff), Council didn’t have the capacity and competence to carry out a risk assessment of a pond without paying consultants.
The risk assessment, prepared by Sundew Ecology, was put to the November Council. It said:-
a) the walkway was a recycled plastic dipping platform with a non-slip surface. The assessment did not mention this as a hazard or make any recommendations about the slipway.
b) the unlocked gate, intended to deter access, was ineffective and unnecessary but the assessment made no recommendation about it.
c) there were two access points at the back of the site, both of which should be fenced off; and
d) the broken sign should be replaced.
The overall risk was assessed as low. I disagreed with that assessment as I thought the consequences of a toddler falling into the water and drowning were very serious.
Council received the report and “agreed to the actions raised being carried out.”
I mentioned that I was not the only one to think the walkway was slippery and was told that if anyone else thought so they should write to the deputy Clerk.
So, after the meeting a resident did write to the deputy Clerk to say they too thought the walkway was slippery in wet weather. He responded to say that when he visited “although it was a bit wet, it was still safe”.
A week ago, I went back to see what had been done about the safety issues:-
a) I still found the walkway slippery but, blow me down, there was now a sign on the walkway saying, "Caution Floor slippery when wet".
It would have been nice for someone to have come back to the resident and me to let us know that the Council had decided after all that the walkway was slippery in wet weather – and perhaps thank us for alerting Council to this safety risk to children.
It would have been even better if the walkway had been made safer – perhaps by simply putting chicken wire down. Because – you know, 3-year-old toddlers can’t read.
b) I forgot to look at the gate. Sorry, it was raining and I was cold.
c) Neither of the access points raised by me and Sundew Ecology as a risk had been fenced off.
d) The sign had been replaced and now says "Children should be supervised at all times". But if you have ever supervised a toddler (or two), you will know how quick they can move when you take your eye off them. Cockpit Hole is not in my view a safe place for small children.
I noted that, unfortunately, one of the two cherry trees planted by Chiltern Rangers has been broken – probably some weeks ago.
Finally, what is odd is that the deputy Clerk told the resident that the walkway had been installed in August 2024. I thought it had been installed years ago as it looks somewhat old (and certainly not nearly new.)
Moreover, I can’t remember Council ever being asked to authorise the expenditure for a walkway at Cockpit Hole - it is not one of the actions Council agreed Chiltern Rangers would do. And I don’t know if anyone has been paid for the work as Council didn't approve payments or see invoices from September 2023 to November 2024.
So, it's a mystery who commissioned the walkway, who authorised the expenditure and who has presumably authorised the payment for its installation.
But that’s Hughenden Parish Council for you.
Comments