IN the summer of 1999 we became aware of the plan by South Bucks District Council to move its offices to Beaconsfield.

Residents were appalled there was no prior consultation, and indeed no intention of it.

Beaconsfield Campaign Group (BCG) was formed to fight the plan which would have eliminated shoppers' car parking, seen the construction of a three-storey office in the town centre and brought in some 150 extra employees. BCG secured massive support with over 3,000 residents voting to oppose it.

The result was that South Bucks Council (SBDC) conceded the need to consult. SBDC reviewed their options and by January 2000 declared that "they had shelved their plan to come to Beaconsfield for a year".

In April 2001 we had a statement that SBDC had started negotiations to move to Tatling End, but they were still not prepared to abandon any plan to move to Beaconsfield.

Since then we have been excluded from discussions and the council's most recent newsletter, South Bucks Report, did not even mention the subject.

Since November we have been seeking information on the proposed move.

A recent press article was the first time we have been given any. Indeed, the chairman of the council cabinet has failed to respond to our letters.

It appears that the proposed sale of the existing council premises in Slough has fallen through and there will be further delays. The council has given no clue about what action it intends. It is high time that the council started to explain itself. A project that was originally deemed so important that plans had to be pursued as matter of urgency, without full justification and consultation, and one that was destined to bring near chaos to Beaconsfield if it proceeded, has now apparently become moribund. Residents are entitled to ask what it has cost council charge payers to date and what are the continuing costs?

This also raises the question of Brindley House, the council-owned residential style property in Burkes Road adjoining Altons car park. This was to have been demolished to make way for the council building. Already in a sorry state externally, the council seems to be leaving it to deteriorate further. BCG understands its last commercial tenant has not had his lease renewed and the council wishes to use the buildings as a store for archives. Council charge payers have a right to know if this is the best use of such a valuable asset, either freehold or leasehold.

The integrity of the district council suffered badly as a result of its handling of the Office Move project in 1999. We must again query its conduct. All BCG supporters can, however, rely upon us to ensure that any further attempts to revive the plan to come to Beaconsfield will not go unchallenged. BCG remains active and vigilant.

P C Knee

Chairman

Beaconsfield Campaign Group

Burkes Road

Beaconsfield