Plans to increase housing in CSP |
Post Reply | Page <12345 37> |
Author | |||
Flyboy
Villager Joined: 27 June 2009 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
So, people who have lived in the village for more than twenty years should leave because there are too many selfish people that don't want them to have a chance to live in a nice house in a nice area. What if they already work here, should they leave their jobs, because there are too many selfish NIMBYists to allow them a chance to live in the area they grew up in. Or should they spend a small fortune on commuting back to their home town, in a nice area, just to work. Where would they park? How long would it take for you to complain that outsiders are coming in and taking up all the parking spaces and the parish or district councils have to increase the parking charges because of it?
Your post is the epitome of what a NIMBY is. Thank you for the demonstration.
|
|||
Sponsored Links | |||
Pants 2 Tight
Chalfontonian Joined: 11 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 520 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move to the nearest place that you can afford. That's how it works. That's how I started and, through hard work, that's why I now live in a nice detached house in Buckinghamshire. Don't dismiss all my views as NIMBYism either. I just don't want all the green areas within the village to disappear under concrete and I'm sure any other reasonably minded person wouldn't either. |
|||
Flyboy
Villager Joined: 27 June 2009 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
But why should they move, they have more right to be here than the ones who are rich enough to move here.
|
|||
ArtB
Chalfont Snapper Joined: 24 April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3484 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Art
|
|||
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!
|
|||
Malc London
Chalfont Snapper Joined: 11 January 2005 Status: Offline Points: 8490 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
No-one has a "right" to live anywhere. I wouldn't mind still living in the area I was brought up, but high levels of immigration soon put me in a minority and like many others we were forced out. |
|||
Pants 2 Tight
Chalfontonian Joined: 11 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 520 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
No, they don't. |
|||
Toffeeman
Newcomer Joined: 22 January 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Right to be somewhere!? Surely a right is earnt not as a matter of course. It's like saying you can't move somewhere else because you weren't born in that area. I would love my children to grow up and live near me but if they don't work for it they will live where they can afford.
|
|||
slowhand
Newcomer Joined: 03 February 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 24 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I wonder if there would be the same amount of outcry against the
building, if the proposed homes to be built were all to be substantial
dwellings to be sold in the higher price bracket. These would surely
keep the riffraff, (sorry, I meant lower paid workers ) out of the
village.
|
|||
Malc London
Chalfont Snapper Joined: 11 January 2005 Status: Offline Points: 8490 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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.
|
|||
Number42
Villager Joined: 11 August 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 149 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It's good to see a few people becoming aware of these issues and expressing their feelings -already quite a division! However, I am alarmed at the way some posts are bordering on being abusive rather than stating opinions - is that normal on the Forum?
Back to the topic, and three points:
1. Numbers. It's not the fact that new houses are being proposed, it is the volume and density that's the problem (IMHO): a 12% increase in the population. And this is completely out of proportion compared with the proposals for all the other areas within CDC. I doubt this would have happened had two sites not recently become available for development:
- Holy Cross, where 400+ high density dwellings are proposed. Holy Cross is of course privately owned by an order of nuns in Switzerland. It (Holy Cross, not Switzerland!) is not Green Belt. They have brought in a Development Consultant to make proposals about how they could best (here 'best' = most profitably) develop the site, and I gather it has been offered to CDC for housing.
- Newlands Park, where 200+ are proposed. Most of Newlands Park is protected Green Belt, but I gather there is a part which is Brown Belt, and it's that area which these proposals apply to.
The other proposed sites are Gold Hill Common/Austenwood, Nortoft Road,and Chalfont St Peter North (Rickmansworth Lane area). You can see some maps at the CDC web site, under planning, Core Strategy, but they are only vague at this stage.
2. Bigger picture: Nearly 800 new dwellings being proposed without due consideration for all the implications on services and utilities and the environment. BTW, some (less than half) are said to be 'affordable' homes. I image some work is now being done looking at a few of the potential problems, but there isn't nearly enough time to do it properly before CDC have to submit their formal proposals.
3. Consultation. I am told (by CDC) that they wrote to all key stakeholders and to every single household in the area in June/July last year. So far I have only come across the Parish Councils and the Chambers of Commerce who say they were involved. Apparently CDC received 80 responses from people in the Chalfont St Peter area, so they must have written to somebody!. Hardly representative, almost pathetic in terms of response rate, but the issues were very nebulous at the time. This was called the "Four Choices" consultation (1. Urban concentration, 2. Target Amersham & Chesham, 3. Target Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter, 4. Dispersed pattern throughout the District, including across the Green Belt). Some, me included, would argue that to be a too restrictive choice - what about 'Dispersed pattern but not Green Belt'? (an emotive phrase).
Does ANYONE recall receiving a letter from CDC asking their opinions?
No building plans exist at this stage, it's more in the hands of' Development Consultants', but if CDC's proposals are approved and submitted to the Secretary of State in February 2010, shortly after that developers will be invited to submit plans.
Meanwhile Chalfont St Peter Parish Council are, I gather, making plans (early stages) to propose an alternative development of the village in a more balanced, sustainable and holistic manner. Watch out for proper local consultation, and check the web site previously mentioned:
Hope that's helpful. And I hope we get a lot more people aware and involved.
|
|||
That's the answer - what's the question?
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <12345 37> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |