Local resident submissions to the District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 22 submissions.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

South Bucks District

Personal Details:

Name: Robert Hanbury

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I appreciate the aim of electoral equality but considering the political nature of this area I submit it is of less importance than maintaining local sense of community. Burnham is Burnham, Taplow is Taplow and is Dorney and generally green fields to seperate them. Did you consider a four member ward of Burnham and single member wards for Taplow & Dorney? I live in Hitcham which is tied onto Burnham because in about 1920 the of Hitcham was abolished with half going to Taplow and half to Burnham. Linking part of Burnham across open fields to Taplow is nonsense from a community point of view. Just as joining Windsor and as one authority make no sense other than working to a standard size. Robert Hanbury

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3515 09/09/2014 Sunday, 20 July 2014

TO :

Review Officer (South Bucks) LGBCE Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Re Ward Boundary Changes South Bucks

I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to create a new ward comprising Taplow, Dorney and Lent Rise on the following grounds.

1. WEAKENING OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY

I consider the proposal to incorporate Taplow Parish into a new ward will weaken and damage the strong sense of community that currently exists in Taplow. It is a Parish with an identity and history that is relished by its residents and reflected in its thriving interest groups and residents’ associations. These groups feed their members’ opinions and concerns to a strong Parish Council. Widening the boundaries is contrary to the aims of the Boundary Commission as it will dilute the existing long established and vigorous sense of community in Taplow Parish.

2. DILITING THE REFLECTION OF INTERESTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITY

The proposed boundary changes would also weaken the shared interest element recommended by the Boundary Commission by diluting the issues that arise from the existing Parish character. It is 97 % Green Belt and dominated by 4 Historic Parks and a number of Grade 1 listed buildings. The Taplow Community has worked hard together, not to stop all change, but to try and ensure it is managed in a way that preserves the essential personality of the Parish. This successful approach helped to create the ecology of the Jubilee River and a level of development at that did not disastrously impact the traffic and the local environment. During the process of achieving the latter Burnham Parish was in favour of the proposal which was fought by the Taplow Community. Their attitude, that if Taplow had a high level of development Burnham would be spared is the perfect example of boundaries determining shared interest. A conflict of interest could be introduced by adding an area of Burnham to Taplow. In order to protect their considerable and nationally important heritage residents and interest groups also worked positively with SBDC in the re‐assessment of the two Conservation Areas, expanding their scope and strengthening the protection they provide. 3. QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY OF POPULATION ESTIMATES

There is also a considerable underestimate regarding the future population of Taplow. It is technically not defensible to ignore the future development at Mill Lane on the grounds it has not yet received a planning application. The pre‐planning process is well advanced and all indicators seem to point to a figure of residential dwellings in the region of 200. To properly assess the reliability of the population estimates it would be necessary to know if the following developments have been used in the calculations ;

‐ Station Garage site ‐ which has a planning permission for approximately 50 dwellings. ‐ Dropmore Park ‐ it should also be noted that until work has begun and completed at Dropmore under the most recent application, there is still a possibility of a further 55 houses in that part of the Parish. ‐ Cliveden Gages – it would also be necessary to know whether or not the population in the third and forth phases of the development at Cliveden Gages, ie c. 70 dwellings, have been included in future population calculations.

Unless these developments have been considered together with the Mill Lane potential 200 dwellings any population estimate should be treated with extreme caution. If decisions are reliant on population forecasts made at a time when a considerable increase in the number of dwellings is in the pipeline but not yet verifiable, then it would suggest now is not the time for borders to be changed.

Yours sincerely

Mary Trevallion BA Hons, BA Dip TP

Yours sincerely

Mr & Mrs Russell

2

18 July 2014 Mr Tim Bowden – Review Manager L.G.B.C.f.E. Layden House 76-78 Turnmill Street EC1M 5LG

Dear Tim Bowden

FER – the district of South Bucks: new warding - Draft Recommendations http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-east/buckinghamshire/south-bucks-fer

Welcome the Commission’s ‘draft recommendations’ for South Bucks, which will reduce the bloated membership of this small district, in the Thames Valley: it is an 100% parished small district. The proposal will greatly improve electoral equality and maintain parishes’ community links. May one ask the Commission to re-visit a Thames-side ward’s name in their draft ie … Taplow ward.

There are 3 (three) parishes with electorates of < 1k: they are Hedgerley, Fulmer, and Dorney. Why are only 2-of-3 parishes names included in the proposed wards’ names? Why has the Thames-side communities of Dorney been chosen to be the odd-one without ward-name usage?

In 1972 there was enacted Local Government Reform: Dorney CP lobbied the House of Lords so as to remains in . On a Friday afternoon, during the Local Government Bill’s third reading an amending clause was approved: thus, Dorney CP was successful and remains in Buckinghamshire. Only Eton UDC and parishes downstream transferred into new-.

Cliveden is in Taplow. The Sainsbury’s superstore on the A4 (Bath Road), whilst it is in Burnham CP, is known as “Sainsbury’s Taplow” not Lent Rise.

An alternative name is needed for the … Taplow ward. The Commission’s Burnham Lent Rise & Taplow ward proposal includes two (2) whole parishes, Dorney and Tapow, along with a new (Burnham) Lent Rise parish-ward. May I suggest an alternative name to be Dorney, Taplow & Burnham South ward so as to truly reflect that new ward’s real character.

Yours sincerely

< issued via e-Mail >

Peter Kingswood

Peter Kingswood RIBA

From: Sent: 21 July 2014 13:18 To: Subject: FW: Proposed Taplow/Burnham/Dorney Merger

From: Tony Milnes Sent: 20 July 2014 10:04 To: Reviews@; Subject: Proposed Taplow/Burnham/Dorney Merger

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to object to the proposed merger of Taplow with Burnham and Dorney.

Taplow has a long history as a single-member council. It has its own Church of England school, its own well-supported church, its own village green, of which many local clubs and groups take advantage, and its own village hall, which is similarly much used by local groups. It supports its own village pub, the 'Oak and Saw', and has its own football, rugby and cricket clubs

It is defined by clear geographical features and has clear borders.

The electoral figures forecast are far too low given development projects scheduled to take place in the near future.

I have no objection to the other proposal in the Boundary Commission Report, but Taplow has its own long- established identity and should be left as it is.

Yours faithfully

Tony Milnes

1 Starkie, Emily

From: George Sandy Sent: 09 June 2014 11:37 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: South Bucks Review - Taplow Ward

Dear Review Officer

I write to you wearing 3 x hats. As a Resident, Parish Chairman and SBDC Cllr for Taplow Ward.

Firstly, am going to apologise for what may develop into an avalanche of mail that you will receive from Taplow Residents. The reason being; at a recent Parish Meeting the subject was broached to an audience of no more than 25 folk, but unfortunately one of those present has mailed the Hitcham & Taplow Society, which means you may well be inundated! They have a membership exceeding 250!

Secondly, I wish to endorse, the letter of 23 May 2014 sent to you by our Clerk which contained the Parish Council’s objections to the proposed merging of this Ward with Burnham South & Dorney.

Having lived in Taplow since 1971, during which time I have served at different times on the PC and as a District Cllr. for 14 years, I am aware of the constant pressure from our neighbouring Parish of Burnham which has carried an ambition to be ever closer with Taplow for many years.

The Parish Council has fought hard to maintain its Green Belt Areas, especially those that separate the two Parishes, and it has enjoyed success in appeals against proposed developments.

There are many social and geographical reasons why Taplow should remain an electoral entity so I won’t repeat them here except to emphasise the impact that pending developments will have upon the number of Electors in the Ward.

Berkeley Homes are known to be preparing a Planning Application for circa 250 units. The construction of 66 apartments is just starting at Institute Road with a further 14 at planning consultation stage. 11 are to be built on the site of The Old Court Hotel on the Bath Road, and there are approx 60 units still to be built and occupied at Cliveden Gages.

These total 401 new homes to be occupied over the next 2/3 years. The current housing stock is 791 so Taplow is set to increase by circa 50% in a comparatively short time.

In view of these numbers I believe this Ward is justified in its desire to remain single‐headed and separate.

Please do get in touch should you have any questions regarding the above.

Yours sincerely

George Sandy

1

Thank you for your considered attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Specktor

2

From: Sent: 21 July 2014 13:20 To: Subject: FW: Boundary Review : Taplow Parish / Ward

From: BERNARD TREVALLION Sent: 20 July 2014 17:56 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Boundary Review : Taplow Parish / Ward

Having lived in Taplow Parish for forty five years I have always been impressed by the sense of community and social cohesion. This is an important component to facilitate democratic government at this particularly important "grass roots" level. These characteristics are manifested, inter alia, in the following way.

1 The active association with and pride in the historical background of the Parish reflected by the number and activity of Residents Associations and Amenity Societies in its geographical area. 2 Strong and unequivocal support for retention and enhancement of the Green Belt which represents ninety seven percent of the total area. 3 Appreciation and support for the four Historic Parks and significant number of important listed buildings within the Parish curtilage. 4 Recognition of the contribution to new housing by the Parish. This, together with extant permissions probably represents a total of fifty percent of the original housing stock in the 60's. 5 Recognition of the importance of Taplow Parish as a major regional cultural and leisure facility.

Taplow and Dorney have similar rural environments but represent very distinctive identities. Inclusion of a part of Burnham Parish would be somewhat disastrous. In the process of resolving policy issues with the District Council it has been clear that there are different views and attitudes between the two Parishes. These include policies on housing, the Green Belt, historic, listed buildings and historic parks.

I am firmly of the view that the proposed mergers affecting Taplow, Burnham and Dorney will seriously erode the sense of identity and social cohesion currently enjoyed.

Bernard Trevallion.

Professor BAW Trevallion OBE

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Rupert Sellers Sent: 14 July 2014 10:19 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Objection to proposed changes to Ward Boundary - Taplow/SBDC

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed changes to our Ward Boundary.

Taplow's ward is defined by clear geographical features and is separated from Burnham by Green Belt land.

Taplow has a long historical tradition as a single-member ward and there would be no benefit by adding our ward to an area requiring a further two councillors. The village has two conservation areas and has its own C of E school, Village Hall and Village Green. Taplow is a very social village and there is a real sense of community which is particularly evident at events such as the ox roast, organised by the Hitcham & Taplow Society.

I very much hope that a merger will NOT go ahead, and that Taplow may continue as a single-member ward.

Kind regards

Rupert Sellers

1