The Neighbourhood Plan as it includes our parish and been finalised and submitted to RBWM. it states-

Policy WSL 1- Development in Waltham St Lawrence Parish

Proposals for infill development in Waltham St Lawrence village, including the sub-division of existing dwelling plots, or for any form of development of any open space outside the Recognised Settlement boundary will be resisted.

Proposals for any other form of development in the Recognised Settlements in the parish will only be supported where they can demonstrate they are appropriate in the Green Belt and they will sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets in the parish.

3.21  This is a policy that guides future development in Waltham St Lawrence Parish. The policy indicates the general types of locations and circumstances that may be appropriate for new housing, which is consistent with 2003 Local Plan Policy GB3 and 2014 Borough Local Plan Policy GBC3.

3.22  Of necessity, given the special heritage interest of the parish generally and of Waltham St Lawrence village specifically, all of which lies in the Green Belt, the policy is highly restrictive of development. Although a Recognised Settlement in the Green Belt, the village offers no potential for infill or plot sub-division development that will not seriously harm its heritage significance, as much of which derives from the open spaces of the Conservation Area and the gaps between its historic buildings as from the buildings themselves.

If adopted, our parish will remain much as it now looks for the foreseeable future. This will probably meet with general approval by residents. However, it seems that any likelihood for most children who grow up here being able to find a home in the village they love and wish to remain in and many older residents who need to downsize and retire within the parish will be faced with few options to do so. Some might find this disappointing.

The forced publication of the salaries of prominent BBC presenters and actors has exposed a remarkable range of inequalities by both gender and job type, in some cases eye watering. This has prompted your editor to demand a 1,000% increase from the PCC, which times nil means he will still be paid nothing. It is hoped this might be seen as good value for money. Your editor has, to his horror, completed 14 years of service with this edition.