Old Mill House in Clewer, Windsor

[amie1974]

I went on a boat trip with the hubby and kids last weekend that went past the Old Mill House in Clewer, Windsor. The tour mentioned how Jimmy owned the house twice, and also Michael Caine, but that was it, no mention of John Bonham's death there, why Jimmy bought and sold the house twice etc...to be fair when you're travelling on a boat they have to fit it all in quickly as you go past everything!

Anybody got more background info (or if this is covered somewhere else on the forum point me in the right direction)? I'm interested in knowing a bit more now I've seen it, not just about the obviously tragic event, but Jimmy's motives for buying it, that kind of thing..

Thanks

[kenog]

amie1974,

If you use the search facility on the site, you will find the threads where the Old Mill House has been exhaustively discussed before. There are photos on here of the property particulars when it went up for sale, so you can see the downstairs interior.

With respect, I don't think the tour guide would cover questions about why JPP bought it, sold it, and then repurchased because he probably doesn't know the inside story himself.

I do know that anyone who has been on River Thames boat trips have remarked that it is a beautiful part of the country.

I went on a boat trip with the hubby and kids last weekend that went past the Old Mill House in Clewer, Windsor. The tour mentioned how Jimmy owned the house twice, and also Michael Caine, but that was it, no mention of John Bonham's death there, why Jimmy bought and sold the house twice etc...to be fair when you're travelling on a boat they have to fit it all in quickly as you go past everything!

Anybody got more background info (or if this is covered somewhere else on the forum point me in the right direction)? I'm interested in knowing a bit more now I've seen it, not just about the obviously tragic event, but Jimmy's motives for buying it, that kind of thing..

Thanks

[SteveAJones]

Jimmy purchased Old MIll House from Michael Caine for 900,000 GBP. He moved into it in August 1980 following Led Zeppelin's Over Europe tour. It was initially offered for sale in Summer 1986 but wasn't sold, so Tower House in Kensington became his primary residence as renovations were undertaken. It was eventually sold around 2006; he had remarried but then he bought it back soonafter. He sold Old Mill House for a second time in 2008 and moved out into his current primary residence. If you use the search function on "Old Mill House" you should be able to find the many photos I have posted of it.

Edited May 24, 2013 by SteveAJones

[SteveAJones]

Edited May 24, 2013 by SteveAJones

[kenog]

Amie74,

I have found the interior shots. They look like they are part of property sale particulars. You will find them on the thread "Jimmy Page's Old Mill House (1990)”. Unfortunately, I am unable to discern who has the intellectual property in said photos. It may be Messrs Pereds who have acted for Jimmy on a number of occasions. I cannot be sure.

Edited May 24, 2013 by kenog

[SteveAJones]

Old MIll House (1986)

Photos courtesy Steve A. Jones Archive

[kenog]

Who has the copyright in these photographs, please?

Old MIll House (1986)

Photos courtesy Steve A. Jones Archive

[SteveAJones]

Who has the copyright in these photographs, please?

These photographs were used for the production of a real estate sales portfolio; the realtor was Hampton & Sons...so far as I know they were never actually copyrighted. I own one of the original portfolios and somewhere on file I also have the real estate listing that Hampton & Sons published in a Slough, Windsor & Eton newspaper on July 4, 1986.

Edited to add: Now that Jimmy no longer lives there I am more receptive to sharing high-resolution images & prints in due course.

Edited May 24, 2013 by SteveAJones

[aen27]

Jimmy purchased Old MIll House from Michael Caine for 900,000 GBP. He moved into it in August 1980 following Led Zeppelin's Over Europe tour. It was initially offered for sale in Summer 1986 but wasn't sold, so Tower House in Kensington became his primary residence as renovations were undertaken. It was eventually sold around 2006; he had remarried but then he bought it back soonafter. He sold Old Mill House for a second time in 2008 and moved out into his current primary residence. If you use the search function on "Old Mill House" you should be able to find the many photos I have posted of it.

This must be the house Jimmy is talking about in his Hard Rock Treasures interview. On that DVD, he mentions that he just moved house and the DVD is around 2005-2006. He still has his short black hair. Unfortunately I have never been able to find the interview on youtube to share here, but it on the Hard Rock Treasures DVD where mentions this. I was wondering which it was because I knew he had sold Bolksine too, though I am not sure when. He is talking about how he never notice how much he had collected until he was trying to move house. Thanks for this, Steve and when he moved in. I was under the impression he lived in the the house before Kembworth. Thank you.

Edited May 24, 2013 by aen27

[kenog]

aen27,

If the interview is in 2006, I am afraid it is not the Old Mill House that he is referring to. Jimmy was undergoing a marital separation. He had lived in a house in West Sussex which was sold as part of the divorce. He bought a property in Berkshire. A property in Forest Row, Sussex was purchased for his estranged wife and family.

I shall, as ever, stand corrected as to any of the above details.

This must be the house Jimmy is talking about in his Hard Rock Treasures interview. On that DVD, he mentions that he just moved house and the DVD is around 2005-2006. He still has his short black hair. Unfortunately I have never been able to find the interview on youtube to share here, but it on the Hard Rock Treasures DVD where mentions this. I was wondering which it was because I knew he had sold Bolksine too, though I am not sure when. He is talking about how he never notice how much he had collected until he was trying to move house. Thanks for this, Steve and when he moved in. I was under the impression Jimmy in the the house before Kembworth. Thank you.

[aen27]

aen27,

If the interview is in 2006, I am afraid it is not the Old Mill House that he is referring to. Jimmy was undergoing a marital separation. He had lived in a house in West Sussex which was sold as part of the divorce. He bought a property in Berkshire. A property in Forest Row, Sussex was purchased for his estranged wife and family.

I shall, as ever, stand corrected as to any of the above details.

The interview is from 2005 and is the copyright of the disc and his hair is still black. As far as I know, they were still together because she is in the audience with him at the end of 2006 for the UK Rock Hall awards which was his first appearance with white hair. I am not clear the details either.

[kenog]

aen27,

I can't find the original article from the UK Daily Mail which I seem to recall I posted on here. I know that in the summer of 2006, JPP was undergoing divorce proceedings because a woman who was a member of the now defunct 'Planet Zeppelin' met Roy Harper backstage at a summer festival, and he told her proceedings were underway. The article from the Daily Mail may have been from 2008, and related to a property in Turners' Hill, Sussex. I recall the article was about the sale price having to be reduced.

I tend to work from memory (bad idea!!!), but someone like SAJ who keeps archived records may be able to offer corrected details.

I recall seeing Jimena in the audience, as you say, but this may have been a prior engagement, or they were on amicable terms. I know she was at the O2, and also at the reception party for the launch of his photo book in 2010.

The interview is from 2005 and is the copyright of the disc and his hair is still black. As far as I know, they were still together because she is in the audience with him at the end of 2006 for the UK Rock Hall awards which was his first appearance with white hair. I am not clear the details either.

Edited May 24, 2013 by kenog

[SteveAJones]

This must be the house Jimmy is talking about in his Hard Rock Treasures interview. On that DVD, he mentions that he just moved house and the DVD is around 2005-2006. He still has his short black hair. Unfortunately I have never been able to find the interview on youtube to share here, but it on the Hard Rock Treasures DVD where mentions this. I was wondering which it was because I knew he had sold Bolksine too, though I am not sure when. He is talking about how he never notice how much he had collected until he was trying to move house. Thanks for this, Steve and when he moved in. I was under the impression he lived in the the house before Kembworth. Thank you.

The Birmingham Sunday Mercury published a news item on February 2, 1992 that Jimmy sold Boleskine House and it's 48 acres for 2.5 million GBP.

-------

Hard Rock Treasures (dvd) was released by MPI Home Video/Twentieth Century Fox on November 21, 2005. Jimmy's interview with Don Bernstine was conducted in the basement of the Sunset Marquis hotel in Los Angeles in February 2005. Jimmy had travelled to Los Angeles in February 2005, arriving on the 9th, to attend a MusiCares Person of the Year - Brian Wilson Tribute Concert featuring Jeff Beck (Feb 11th) and the Grammy Awards (Feb 12th).

You probably won't ever find the interview on You Tube because of copyright protections, but I discussed the Hard Rock Treasures dvd release and Don's untimely passing here:

http://forums.ledzeppelin.com/index.php?/topic/11145-in-memoriam-hard-rock-cafes-don-bernstein/

[kenog]

I am assuming that the photos on this post belong to you, if so, thanks for sharing them with everyone. Are you able to say what the 'public notice' was all about? Even with my contact lenses in, I can't make it out.

[SteveAJones]

I was under the impression he lived in the house before Knebworth.

He was still residing at the Tower House in Kensington and Plumpton Place in Plumpton. You may recall he shared a photograph of himself reading a newspaper outside Plumpton Place shortly after the Knebworth concerts were held. Having moved into the Old Mill House in August 1980, he put Plumpton Place on the market in Summer 1981 with an asking price 1.5 million GBP. Plumpton Place has had several owners since then and was most recently offered on the market for 14 million GBP.

[SteveAJones]

Are you able to say what the 'public notice' was all about? Even with my contact lenses in, I can't make it out.

kenog, I believe it may have pertained to this matter...

THE WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST 2006 AT 6.30PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, GUILDHALL, WINDSOR

Membership: Councillors Scott (Chairman), Miss Hibbard (Vice-Chairman), Beer, Mrs Endacott, Fagence, Fido, Mrs Gliksten, Miss Green, Grey, Hedley, Mrs Knight, Pritchett, Rayner, Wiles and Mrs Yong

Summary of Recent Enforcement Matters in relation to The Old Mill House, Mill Lane, Windsor

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

REPORTING OFFICER: DAVID TRIGWELL

HEAD OF PLANNING

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To provide a summary of recent planning and enforcement matters in relation to The Old Mill House, Mill Lane, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 5JQ and to seek authorisation for the commencement of enforcement action in relation to:

1. the alleged unauthorised change of use of two out-buildings;
2. unauthorised works to renovate the two out-buildings; and
3. the non-compliance with Condition 5 of planning permission ref. 04/85169.

1. OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

In relation to (a) above that the Council should instigate enforcement action to ensure the cessation of the unauthorised use of the two out-buildings, referred to in this report as the Garden Cottage and the bungalow.

In relation to above that it would not be expedient to instigate action under listed building legislation for the works to the two out-buildings.

In relation to © above that it would not be expedient to instigate enforcement action in relation to the non-compliance with Condition 5 of planning permission ref. 04/85169.

3,0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1. Background

The Council, as the Local Planning Authority, is required to consider all matters which may constitute a breach of planning control within their areas, and they have general discretion to take enforcement action when they regard it as expedient (paragraph 5 of PPG 18 – Enforcing Planning Control). Local Planning Authorities also have the primary responsibility for taking whatever enforcement action may be necessary in the public interest (sub paragraph (1) of paragraph 5) and that this action should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates (sub paragraph (4)).

1. Location & Recent History

1. The Old Mill House is a Grade II listed building situated within the Clewer Village Conservation Area. It is situated at the end of Mill Lane and has an extensive garden area. Within the garden area are three out-buildings that the Council considers are within the residential curtilage of The Old Mill House and should be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main house. The three out-buildings are:

1. a poolside building, situated approximately 65 metres to the north-east of the main house;

1. a garden cottage, situated approximately 40 metres to the north of the main house. This is a two storey building which has recently been renovated with the insertion of new windows and doors. Internal renovation works have also occurred to modernise the inside of the building; and

1. a wooden ‘bungalow’, situated approximately 130 metres to the west of the main house. This was until recently derelict and had been for many years. Some limited works have recently occurred both internally and externally in the renovation of the building. The external works have involved the renovation of the external walls and the replacement of the windows.

1. Most recently planning permission and listed building consent was granted for the “Conversion of existing dwelling into three and erection of a detached (5 car) garage” and the “conversion of existing dwelling (The Old Mill House) into three dwellings following some demolition and alterations to existing”. References 04/85169 and 04/85170 respectively, both granted on the 3^rd March 2005.

Most of these conversion works have now been completed, with the main house now separated into 3 individual units.

It is not considered these approvals have altered the position in relation to the three out-buildings in question, which in the Council’s opinion remain incidental to the use of the main dwellinghouse, whether one or a number of the three new dwellings created out of the conversion of The Old Mill House.

1. Enforcement Officers initially received complaints about the unauthorised conversion of the three out-buildings into separate individual dwellinghouses and whether action, under listed building legislation, should be taken in respect of some external and internal renovation works that had taken place to the out-buildings. The manner of the Council’s investigation of these complaints is currently subject to a complaint made to the Local Government Ombudsman, although the outcome of this is not relevant to the consideration of whether it is expedient to take enforcement action in this case. The decision from the Ombudsman is still awaited.

Since the original complaint was received, a number of visits have been made to the site by Enforcement Officers and the owner has also been advised on a number of occasions of the Council’s position in relation to the authorised use of the out-buildings. However, it was not until the most recent visit by the Enforcement Officer on the 10 February 2006 that an unauthorised use of two of the out-buildings was considered to have taken place.

In relation to the poolside building (3.2.1 (i)), this out-building is referred to in the complaints made to the Council but does not form part of this report because it is considered that its present use is incidental to the enjoyment of the main house (whether to one or a number of the three new dwellings created out of its conversion) and there has been no breach of planning control. It is also considered that the physical alterations that have occurred to this out-building require neither listed building consent nor planning permission and again do not amount to a breach of planning control.

During the site visit on the 10 February 2006 it was clear that the Garden Cottage (3.2.1 (ii)) was being used as an independent property separate from The Old Mill House. Subsequent conversations with the owner have confirmed that this position remains today. Works to renovate this building have also occurred which do not require planning permission but would require listed building consent if the building can be demonstrated to meet all the requirements of a “curtilage listed” building. The Conservation Officers view on these works is given in paragraph 4.2 of this report.

It was also clear during the most recent visit that the bungalow (3.2.1 (iii)) was also being used as an independent property separate to The Old Mill House. Works to renovate this building have also occurred which also do not require planning permission but as with the Garden Cottage would require listed building consent if the building can be demonstrated to meet all the requirements of a “curtilage listed” building. The Conservation Officers view on these works is given in paragraph 4.2 of this report.

1. More recently the Council were asked to investigate an alleged non-compliance with Condition 5 of planning permission 04/85169, see paragraph 3.2.2 above. This has also formed part of the recent complaint made to the Ombudsman.

Condition 5 stated:

“No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until vehicle parking spaces (including the garage hereby approved and the additional 3 spaces shown on drawing 203010 P00/rev A received 28 June 2004) have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. These spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users.

Relevant Policies: Local Plan P4.”

The site visit on the 10 February 2006 revealed that the condition had not been complied with because one of the newly formed dwellings was occupied without the garage having been built. The remainder of the condition had been adhered to, in that the vehicle parking spaces, as shown on the approved plan and including where the garage is to be built, were available. The owner stated his intention to erect the garage and said the delay had been due to legal, party wall, difficulties with the neighbouring property. The owner has repeated this intention during a recent conversation with the Enforcement Officer.

4.0 RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Enforcement Officers consider both the Garden Cottage and bungalow to be out-buildings within the residential curtilage of The Old Mill House and thus should be used for purposes that are incidental to the enjoyment of The Old Mill House (either for one or for a number of those three new dwellings created out of its conversion). The owner of the property does not concur with this position and considers that both of these out-buildings are separate residential dwellings. He considers they have an established use because, he alleges, they have been used as separate units for many years. He advises that he has considerable records and information provided by the previous owners to substantiate this position. He has been advised by Enforcement Officers that he can submit a Certificate of Lawful Use application with this supporting evidence but no application(s) have been forthcoming.

1. There are very limited Council records in relation to the previous use of these two out-buildings. In respect of the Garden Cottage, there are Council Tax records which show that they have a listing for a cottage within Old Mill Place since 1993. It was exempt from Council Tax because it was considered uninhabitable until 1996 when it was classed as a second home for the then owner. In February 2004 it became registered for full Council Tax and appears to have been used separately for periods before the original complaints were made to Enforcement Officers. In relation to the old ‘bungalow’, there are no records but it was clear from the Enforcement Officer’s initial visit to the site that this building was derelict and had been so for many years.

The Council has considerable information from a local resident which supports the Council’s current position that both these buildings have historically been used incidental to the enjoyment of The Old Mill House. However, it should be noted that the information provided by the present owner of The Old Mill House does appear to contradict some of this evidence.

1. Listed Building Considerations

1. The issue in terms of the listed building is whether the two buildings should be treated as curtilage listed buildings as they fall within the same ownership as The Old Mill House. If the buildings are considered as curtilage buildings then the physical alterations would have required List Building Consent.

The most basic test for a building to be considered as “curtilage listed” is that it should have been constructed before 1948. On the evidence of the historic maps it appears that both the Garden Cottage and the ‘bungalow’ existed before this date. However, the advice in PPG15 is that:

“The Courts have held that for a structure or building within the curtilage of a listed building to be part of a listed building it must be ancillary to the principal building, that it must have served the purposes of the principal building at the date of listing, or at a recent time before the date of listing, in a necessary or reasonably useful way and must not be historically an independent building”.

1. With regard to both the Garden Cottage and the ‘bungalow’, evidence is available that shows both these buildings existing before 1936, and documents have been provided that indicate that the bungalow was in the same ownership as the Mill House in 1947. Although the present owner of the site has shown officers various property deeds that indicate that the present site has been formed from various parcels of land over about the last 60 years, with some of the land being related at one point to the nearby racecourse, which suggest that the buildings could have had a function independent to the principal listed, he has not definitively demonstrated that the buildings should not be regarded as curtilage listed.

However, with regards to the physical works carried out to the building the Conservation Officer considers that these amount to sympathetic repair and refurbishment for which it is likely that it would have been recommended that listed building consent be granted.

For the reasons given above it is your Officers opinion that it would not be expedient to instigate enforcement action in respect of the physical alterations to the two out-buildings.

1. Planning Considerations

1. Policy GB8 advised that the use of buildings in the Green Belt will be permitted if the use proposed and any associated works (for example boundary walls and fencing) or any external activities would not have a materially greater impact than the present or last use on the openness of the Green Belt, the purposes of including land within it, and would not harm the character and setting of the buildings. There are a number of other criteria to be considered under Policy GB8, in this case the relevant ones being (4) that the building is of permanent and substantial construction and in a sound condition and is of a form, bulk and general design which is in keeping with its surroundings; and (5) that the proposal would not require extensive reconstruction of the buildings or a material increase in its size or scale.

Policy GB8 also refers to Policy GB3 in relation to Listed Buildings. If it is established that the buildings are curtilage listed then the impact on the physical fabric, setting, special character and interest of the Listed Building(s) will also need to be considered, although from paragraph 4.2 above, there are no concerns in respect of the physical alterations that have taken place.

If the use of the buildings as separate dwellings does not satisfy the provisions of Policy GB8 then the use would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt under Policy GB1 and very special circumstances would have to be made in order to overcome the harm caused by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm caused such that an application could otherwise be permitted.

The out-buildings lie within Flood Zone 3 (High Risk) and the provisions of Policy F1, particularly in respect of increasing the number of people or properties at risk from flooding, is considered to be a weighty matter in the consideration of the need or otherwise to take enforcement action in the absence of a demonstration (usually by way of a Flood Risk Assessment) to indicate otherwise.

For this reason it is considered expedient to take enforcement action against the use of the two out-buildings as separate dwellings rather than for purposes that are incidental to the enjoyment of The Old Mill House (whether for one or a number of the dwellings created out of its conversion).

1. In respect of the breach of Condition 5 of planning permission 04/85169 the owner has stated his intention to erect the garage once the legal, party wall, matter has been resolved. It should be noted that the reason for imposing the condition was to “ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users”. This has been achieved in that the parking is available in the positions shown on the approved drawings. The only breach is the failure to cover 5 of the 8 parking spaces through the erection of the garage which, in itself, does not impact on the reasoning behind the condition.

For this reason it is not considered expedient to instigate enforcement action to require the erection of the garage.

1. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

1. The Town and Country Planning Act 1900

Section 172(1) of the Act states:

“The local planning authority may issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an “enforcement notice”) which appear to them –

1. that there has been a breach of planning control; and

1. that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.”

Section 172(2) states that the notice must be served on the owner of the land to which it relates and also any other person who has an interest in that land.

Section 172(3) requires that the notice shall be served not more that 28 days after its date of issue and not less than 28 days before the date specified in it as the date on which it is to take effect.

It should be noted, in relation to the non-compliance with condition 5 of the planning permission 04/85169, that the Council would need to issue an Enforcement Notice under S.172.

1. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990

Section 38(1) of the Act states:

“Where it appears to a local planning authority –

1. that any building works have been or are being executed to a listed building in their area: and

1. that the works are such as to involve a contravention of Section 9(1) or (2)

they may, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the effect of the works on the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest, issue a notice under this section (in this Act referred to as a “listed building enforcement notice”).

Section 9 of the Act allows for a local planning authority to instigate prosecution proceedings where serious unauthorised works have occurred to a listed building, which can not be remedied by the issuing of a Listed Building Enforcement Notice.

1. IMPLICATIONS

1. Human Rights Act

The Convention Rights under the Human Rights Act 1988 relevant to this report are Article 1 – The first Protocol – Entitlement to a peaceful enjoyment of possessions and Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life.

1. In respect of the unauthorised use of the two out-buildings. The victims are the owner of the land who will no longer receive the income generated from their separate letting, along with those currently living in the accommodation who will need to find alternative accommodation. The third party victims are also those currently living in the accommodation along with the neighbouring properties who are put at increased flood risk by the creation of two new dwellings within this High Risk flood zone.

1. In respect of the works to the two out-buildings. The victims are the owner of the buildings who will incur the cost of reversing the unauthorised works.

1. In respect of non-compliance with condition 5 of planning permission 04/85169. The victims are the owner who will have to build the garage required by the condition.

1. RECOMMENDATION

1. That Members authorise enforcement action under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the cessation of the unauthorised of the two out-buildings, referred to as The Garden Cottage and the bungalow, as separate units of accommodation.

1. That Members do not authorise enforcement action under S. 38 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation) Areas Act 1990 for alterations to the two out-buildings, referred to as The Garden Cottage and the bungalow.

7.3 That Members do not authorise enforcement action under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the continued non-compliance with Condition 5 of planning permission 04/85169.

Edited May 24, 2013 by SteveAJones

[kenog]

SAJ,

Wow!! Thanks for this. I am truly amazed at all these 'unauthorised' changes. A couple of years back, a Town Council meeting held in the area of his present country residence had received complaints that bushes were growing over his perimeter wall. Now, that may not sound important, except the wall has an 'A' listing in its own right, and it has to be protected. JPP was going to be spoken to about the matter.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of the meeting in 2006!

THE WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL
WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST 2006 AT 6.30PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, GUILDHALL, WINDSOR

Membership: Councillors Scott (Chairman), Miss Hibbard (Vice-Chairman), Beer, Mrs Endacott, Fagence, Fido, Mrs Gliksten, Miss Green, Grey, Hedley, Mrs Knight, Pritchett, Rayner, Wiles and Mrs Yong

Summary of Recent Enforcement Matters in relation to The Old Mill House, Mill Lane, Windsor

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

REPORTING OFFICER: DAVID TRIGWELL

HEAD OF PLANNING

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To provide a summary of recent planning and enforcement matters in relation to The Old Mill House, Mill Lane, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 5JQ and to seek authorisation for the commencement of enforcement action in relation to:

1. the alleged unauthorised change of use of two out-buildings;
2. unauthorised works to renovate the two out-buildings; and
3. the non-compliance with Condition 5 of planning permission ref. 04/85169.

[aen27]

I own the DVD Steve, so it's okay. Thank you and kenog for your information and background about this period. It's been helpful as always.

[amie1974]

Thanks everyone for the information and of course the photos, fascinating stuff. You do this forum proud

We hadn't gone to Windsor with the intention of even going on a boat trip (we were staying there for one night to take them to Legoland nearby) but the kids talked us into it - if anyone is ever there it's a 40 min round trip from the centre of town. It is a beautiful area, very peaceful (also saw a kingfisher on the river).

[kenog]

Amie,

I was just about to ask you about the boat trip. Are there a number of operators covering that area? How much is it roughly per person? I have been to Windsor before, and was charmed by the whole area, but didn't go down the Thames.

Thanks everyone for the information and of course the photos, fascinating stuff. You do this forum proud

We hadn't gone to Windsor with the intention of even going on a boat trip (we were staying there for one night to take them to Legoland nearby) but the kids talked us into it - if anyone is ever there it's a 40 min round trip from the centre of town. It is a beautiful area, very peaceful (also saw a kingfisher on the river).

[amie1974]

Kenog it cost us £14 for a family of four for the 40 mins - pretty good value I thought. Or there was a two hour trip which was £20 something I think (our kids didn't have the patience for that one ). As far as I could tell there was only one tour operator but I might be wrong. And they have a bar

Alternatively you can hire little motor boats too, not sure how much they were though.

I also love that area - I'm from the north but my brother used to live nearby so I'm quite familiar with it, but going on the river gives you a different perspective

[kenog]

Amie,

Thanks for that. It's very reasonable compared with some of the tourist trips we have here in Edinburgh. I wouid find good use for the bar.

Kenog it cost us £14 for a family of four for the 40 mins - pretty good value I thought. Or there was a two hour trip which was £20 something I think (our kids didn't have the patience for that one ). As far as I could tell there was only one tour operator but I might be wrong. And they have a bar

Alternatively you can hire little motor boats too, not sure how much they were though.

I also love that area - I'm from the north but my brother used to live nearby so I'm quite familiar with it, but going on the river gives you a different perspective

[SteveAJones]

Photo courtesy Steve A. Jones Archive

[kenog]

Nice, thanks for posting. Is this the front entrance? I seem to recall Mark saying that he had been a guest there - I assume you too.

Photo courtesy Steve A. Jones Archive

Edited May 28, 2013 by kenog

[Nick2804]

recent property within the grounds that was up for rent... 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/43763209#/media?id=media1