Crown Farm - a message from Eton Town Council

Following the swift action of several key personnel, the latest licence application for 'Toni's Café' at Crown Farm has now been allocated an enforcement case number: 26/50175/ENF. Eton Town Council submitted an initial objection in principle within the first few hours of the application going live, and a full objection has now also been lodged with RBWM.

Also, during the past week there has been continued fly-tipping on the site, which is reportedly being addressed by the owner. However, the caravan remains in place and continues to block the unauthorised entrance gate. We continue to follow up with enforcement.

General Update

We continue to work closely with residents and have now secured a meeting with RBWM on 3 November. At Eton Town Council's request, Jack Rankin MP, two local residents representing the community, John Griffiths and myself, will attend the meeting. RBWM Borough Councillors will also be in attendance.

We have submitted an initial list of questions to RBWM and will provide a final version nearer the meeting date for consideration by the Planning and Enforcement Team.

The principal concerns raised by residents can be summarised as follows:

• A. Failure to Secure a Timely Resolution Residents have expressed concern that issues identified by the Council have remained unresolved for extended periods. There is a perception that breaches, complaints and reported concerns have too often resulted in further discussion, negotiation and requests for voluntary compliance, rather than decisive enforcement action.

• B. Repeated Reliance on Assurances A key concern is that RBWM officers have repeatedly accepted assurances from the owner that matters would be rectified, regularised or addressed at a later date. From the residents' perspective, these commitments have not always resulted in demonstrable improvements on the ground.

• C. Continuing Impact on Residents Residents remain concerned about the ongoing impact of the situation while discussions, negotiations and appeals continue. Their view is that the burden of delay falls disproportionately on local residents rather than on the party responsible for the alleged breaches.

• D. Lack of Confidence in Enforcement The cumulative effect of delays and continued reliance on voluntary compliance has led some residents to question whether the Council is prepared to utilise the full range of statutory enforcement powers available to it.