Forum Home Forum Home > Chalfont St Peter > Holy Cross Development
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Plans to increase housing in CSP
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Plans to increase housing in CSP

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 37>
Author
Message
watsy View Drop Down
Chalfont Admin
Chalfont Admin
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote watsy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 10:59am
Welcome to the forum and for presenting such a clear response.  I'm sorry your first impression of the forum is rather negative I'm afraid democracy appears to descend to shouting and being abusive occasionaly when people inevitably don't agree - which is disappointing but sadly human nature these days.

You have succinctly clarified the green belt issue - none of the plans are on green belt.  Holy Cross is a brownfield site, Newland Park has a very large footprint of buildings - it was enlarged significantly in the early 90's when I was a student there.  The other roads I would guess are inevitable - I'm thinking particularly of Nortoft Road which over the years is gradually being developed so I assume the others mentioned are the same.

I think the big problem with Holy Cross as you've clearly stated is the density.  I spoke to someone last week who could not figure out how to squeeze 400 dwellings on the site - a maximum of 200.  The only way (I could be misquoting here) is if the village status is changed to that of a town and higher density flats are permitted - which they aren't currently.

The are I'm a bit vague on is that CDC has to achieve a quota of houses in the district - and they seem to have allocated the overwhelming majority to CSP rather than dispersed across Amersham and Chesham.

The other issue is that the infrastructure cannot take it - the schools are at capacity, roads are full and sewage especially - they won't be building a new pipe to Great Missenden (I think) to take the extra waste.

The key date above is the February 2010 - then this plan becomes law and cannot be turned down.  If it can be stalled until after the election, it won't be enforced, the rules changed and the developers won't be able to point out that this has been approved at secretary of state level.  I don't think I'm making this point particularly clear.

My personal opinion now is that building affordable homes still won't be affordable to key workers.  They'll be filled by people who have no plans to get off benefits, don't work and don't pay rent and generally don't contribute positively to society.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Malc London Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by Number42 Number42 wrote:

Does ANYONE recall receiving a letter from CDC asking their opinions?
 
 
Definately NOT.
Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Malc London Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by watsy watsy wrote:

I spoke to someone last week who could not figure out how to squeeze 400 dwellings on the site - a maximum of 200. 
 
The term "Affordable Housing" is often mistaken for meaning "cheap". I've seen affordable housing upwards of £500k.
 
It generally means small, densely populated housing with little room for parking or gardens. Maximising the available area is profitable but no consideration is made for the social problems it creates.
 
I'm sure they can build 400 dwellings, but it will be hell to live there.
 
Lets hope there is some unknown covenant that does not permit housing on that site.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flyboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

I don't want ANY building on Green Belt land.
 
As for affordable housing, there is plenty in the village. Start with the precinct flats, then the flats above the shops in Market Place, the New flats near Church Lane car park (partly owned, part rent), then there are the ex-local authority housing, and finally the flats along the A413. There are probably a lot more I have missed.
 
 
 
How many of those are vacant and ready for people to move into? You have described probably about a hundred homes; not nearly enough of what is actually needed.
Back to Top
Number42 View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Number42 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by I spoke to someone last week who could not figure out how to squeeze 400 dwellings on the site - a maximum of 200.  [/QUOTE I spoke to someone last week who could not figure out how to squeeze 400 dwellings on the site - a maximum of 200.  [/QUOTE wrote:

]
 
It's deceptive.  I believe the Holy Cross site
 
It's deceptive.  I believe the Holy Cross site is about 10 Hectares, so 400 dwellings would be 40 Dwellings per Hectare (DpH), which, coincidentally (?), is exactly the target figure set out in the South East Plan and which CDC are having to work towards, according to their Draft Core Strategy document. 
 
However, that's more than twice the density of the rest of the immediate vicinity, the built-up area close to the village centre.  And more than 10 times the current average density in the parish. 
 
Car parking?   CDC insist on one space per bedroom.  
 
Development?  Yes, I think we should support develpment, but in sympathy with the existing environment. 
 
Affordable Housing?  Again, personally, I think we should have some more, but not be overwhelmed by them - CDC are well behind their quota of affordable houses as a proportion of new builds, and plan to get some of that back with a high proportion in Chalfont St Peter. 
 
 
 
 
That's the answer - what's the question?
Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Malc London Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2009 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
How many of those are vacant and ready for people to move into? You have described probably about a hundred homes; not nearly enough of what is actually needed.


Well of course, the more you build, the more will be taken up, and demand will increase. You will never satisfy the demand, so what you need to do is manage it.

People living in those affordable homes will want to move up the ladder at some point, so if anything it's mid size homes that are required. Again there are plenty of those in the village (it's a large village) and all that is needed is for the conditions to be right to encourage people to move.

Unfortunately the Government has put a lot of obsticles in the way to stop people moving with HIP's and tax, and especially unemployment, freeze on pay and other factors.

Once we are back in a boom there will be plenty of houses available, starting from the bottom up.






Edited by Malc London - 25 August 2009 at 6:48pm
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flyboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2009 at 3:29pm
But they weren't available two years ago and they aren't available now. The gap between what you call "mid size" and lower cost properties, is vast. An average three bedroom terraced house in Chalfont Saint Peter is currently about two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. The next step up is roughly three hundred and fifty thousand pounds. A really big difference. Two years ago the difference was much greater.
 
If things were that easy, why has there not been more movement in the market over the last three years?
 
HIPs actually help purchasers, by reducing their costs and having instant information available, in order to complete a sale more efficiently and quickly. It helps vendors because it can highlight any potenial issues that traditionally were raised until after an offer was made; reducing the risks of a purchaser pulling out of a deal.
Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Malc London Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2009 at 5:28pm

Yes there were, it's just over two years ago that the shared ownership flats by the car park went on sale.  As mentioned, they did not satisfy demand, just fueled it.  Bit like feeding pigeons, you put more food out you get more pigeons. Stop feeding them and they go elsewhere, (leaving just a bit for the local pigeons).

I'm not sure what's available now but should imagine that people are sitting tight and waiting for an election so things will get more stable.
 
HIPS are a waste of time and money, they are an added bureaucracy to an already expensive procedure and do not take the place of a full structure survey which you have to buy anyway.  They also stop people putting property on the market who may be thinking of a move but gauging interest. 
 
Get rid of HIPS and Stamp Duty and then you might see some movement in the market.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Pants 2 Tight View Drop Down
Chalfontonian
Chalfontonian
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 520
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pants 2 Tight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2009 at 2:42pm
We don't need more houses. We need less people but that's obviously not going to happen...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/population-growth-uk-birth-rate-immigration

Maybe we need a cull.



Back to Top
Annoying Jamie View Drop Down
Villager
Villager


Joined: 26 April 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 471
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Annoying Jamie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2009 at 2:43pm

Like in China?

Is Winkers still going to be demolished for houses?Bloody dump. Does that pervert still manage it?Mr Im 45 but never date a girl over 17

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 37>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.05
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.