[HTS-members] Mill Lane closure

[Roger]

The following is the text of a objection letter sent by our president on
behalf of the Society:

 

Closure of Mill Lane

 

The Supplementary Planning document included the closure of Mill Lane after
public consultations, together with a new junction on the A4 when Barratt
was deeply involved with the writing of it. At that time the main concern
was in keeping the number of units down to a reasonable level and making
sure that the important fish spawning grounds just off the bank at the north
end of the site were not ruined.  Everyone was relieved that something was
being done about the longstanding derelict eyesore which Skindles had
become.  

 

At the time of the Berkeley Homes application, criticism focussed on
changing the traffic lights to a roundabout, directly influencing and muting
any criticism of the closure in support of lower traffic volumes to permit
TfB to approve the roundabout. So at the time of planning approval, there
was no concerted objection to the closure, although there were a substantial
but unknown number of individual objections. The closure of Mill Lane was
put forward in the public exhibition by Barratt after which they had 125
feedback forms, not all of them commenting on the closure.  59% of those
that did comment, a maximum of only 73 people said they wanted it.  Of these
73 people many were concerned about the poor exit onto the Bath Road.  At
the moment the petition against closure stands at over 400!  

 

We believe that TfB has been wholly inadequate in their handling of the
matter. At both application hearings TfB did not make their response until
the day of the meeting, depriving the public (and the Society) of any
opportunity to digest their submissions. In particular, the closure
condition was not even presented when overall approval was given and only
submitted later. TfB did not, to public knowledge, offer any justification
for the condition beyond a formulaic sentence. This meant that the closure
has not been subject to sufficient public scrutiny since its inclusion in
the SPD.  Not only that the SPD was written with a very different
development in mind, and was substantially written by someone in Barratt's
pay.

 

The notice for closure was issued on 16th September.  Although  It is on the
BCC web at:
https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgConsultationDisplay.aspx?ID=3193  it is
pretty well hidden and you have to be quite determined and alert to find it
so cannot think that this is the correct way of letting the general public
know when the clock is actually ticking.  BCC did send a notice to Taplow
Parish Council but they sent it to an address that is no longer in use.  The
Parish Council only found out about it because one of our Parish Councillors
read the article that a reporter from the Maidenhead Advertiser wrote about
the petition for closure and included the information.  This only happened a
couple of days ago.  This cannot be a correct way to go about things.

 

This petition against the closure of Mill Lane has 400 signatures and
rising, containing names addresses and reasons.  This is a reflection of the
very strong feeling which the local people have against closure and
completely dwarfs the number of people giving their opinions when the SPD
was drawn up.

 

Bucks CC advised SBDC that there were no significant risks hereabouts so why
is closure necessary at all? 

 

If there were a problem, why was the SPD short-sighted in requiring the
developer to spend a substantial amount minimising risk by creating a new
southern junction but neglected to require a much less significant sum to be
spent to make the bend safer?  At the moment there are temporary traffic
lights so that part of Mill Lane becomes one way and this works very
satisfactorily.  That could be a solution to the perceived bend problem.  If
the foliage were to be cut back it would help enormously.  There are many
other roads in our vicinity which are just as narrow with a lack of sight
lines so why close Mill Lane and not the others?  

 

The whole of the development is in a flood risk area and the evacuation of
the new large development in case of flood in an emergency would be made
more difficult by the Road being normally closed.  The SDP states that these
gate would open automatically in case of flood.  How this would happen
quickly in that event is not clear.  Everyone would need to be aware that
this is the only safe way out.  Any emergency vehicle coming from the north
in the rush hour during term time would either have to add approx. 15mins to
the journey time or the individual driving the vehicle would have to know a
code or have a key to open the barrier.

 

One of the reasons people might have wanted the closure of Mill Lane was the
inadequate junction on the A4, but the roundabout is working very well
indeed and sight lines are open and now that the roundabout is in place
instead of traffic lights that reason no longer exists.

 

There should be substantial and transparent reasons for closing an ancient
road which has  been in use for well over a thousand years and possibly
dates back to Roman times.  It is just as vital today as in times past
because as the petition shows it is used by many locals on a regular basis.
It will have serious repercussions in delays because of traffic congestion
on other roads, especially Berry Hill which leads down to the Bath Road.
The A4 is already almost at a standstill at certain times of day.  

 

The threat of closure is already causing a long standing tenant of an office
in Mill Lane to wish to move because of the increased journey time required
to reach those offices from the north, and another office building is
standing empty almost certainly because of the threat of closure.  The owner
is now thinking of selling up.  The SPD is supposed to encourage employment
in the area not hinder it.

 

Eva Lipman

President 

Hitcham and Taplow Society

 

 

If you wish to make your own objection, signing the petition is not enough
because the petition only counts as one objection (as does the Society's).
You need to write to 

peastham at buckscc.gov.uk <mailto:peastham at buckscc.gov.uk>  with copies to
planning at southbucks and taplow.pc at googlemail.com
<mailto:taplow.pc at googlemail.com>    We have until the 7th October to send
our objections in.

 

 

This mail has been sent to you from the Hitcham and Taplow Society. If has
been sent to you in error or you do not wish to receive such communications,
please reply to secretary at taplowsociety.org.uk
<mailto:secretary at taplowsociety.org.uk>  and we will remove you.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ourshack.com/pipermail/hts-members/attachments/20160928/57e196c6/attachment.html>