Print Page | Close Window

Plans to increase housing in CSP

Printed From: Chalfont St Peter
Category: Chalfont St Peter
Forum Name: Holy Cross Development
Forum Description: All posts about the developemnt of the Holy Cross site
URL: http://www.chalfontstpeter.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5078
Printed Date: 17†December†2017 at 7:24pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Plans to increase housing in CSP
Posted By: Barn Owl
Subject: Plans to increase housing in CSP
Date Posted: 07†August†2009 at 2:09pm
I don't know how many people know that there are plans to build extensively in Chalfont St Peter.
 
Basically, central government has decreed that there has to be a large increase to the housing stock over the next few years, and Chiltern District is obliged to build a certain number of these houses.
 
A large number has been allocated to CSP (Amersham and Chesham are also affected, but not Chalfont St Giles or other areas).
 
CSP is to build between 600 and 800 'dwellings' - not simply houses. One site that will be developed is Newlands Park. The other major site that is likely to be affected is Holy Cross which is earmarked to take 400 dwellings. Another area affected is Gold Hill/Austenwood.
 
We have a population here of 14,000 to 15,000. 600 more dwellings, with say, 2 to 4 people in each, might increase the population by around 2000 people.
 
Chiltern District Council maintains that it has been consulting on this since 2004. Personally, I have seen nothing - has anyone else?
 
All the developments, as far as I am aware, are being built on the basis that CSP has an aging population, and therefore does not need any more schools to be built to accommodate the increased population. Many people think that this assertion is incorrect, as CSP attracts people with young families who are looking to move out of London and into an area with a strong reputation for education.
 
I understand that little is going to be done to develop infrastructure to support the increased housing and population. So nothing will be done, unless we fight for it, about water supply, sewerage etc.
 
A committee of concerned residents of CSP has got together to examine and to try to protect the rights of the villagers. Also, since some level of development will undoubtedly be carried out, it will try to influence how and where it will be done. This committee has been 'adopted' by the Parish Council and therefore has a certain status which means that it must be listened to.
 
A website will shortly go 'live' which will provide the information on what is happening, what we're trying to do and how local people can become involved. When it does, I will link it to this discussion strand.
 
The first step is to let as many people as possible know what is going on so that everyone can lend their voices to ensure that the residents have input into what happens to our village.
 
People power!



Replies:
Posted By: Paul_G
Date Posted: 08†August†2009 at 9:25pm
Barn Owl,
 
Thank you for a serious and informative post.  This looks like a major issue affecting the fabric of CSP and its quality of life - something that I for one, having strived for its continued development, would not not now wish to see diluted in such a serious manner.
 
Holy Cross is within a currently developed plot and may be problematic.
 
AFAICT Newlands is both on Green Belt land and also within the Colne Valley Park, so the situation may be rather different.  I also wonder if the NSE proposals from a few years ago that failed primarilly on Green Belt and sustainability grounds may be relevant here too?
 
Please continue to keep the community informed.
 
Thanks,
 
Paul
 
 


Posted By: Barn Owl
Date Posted: 18†August†2009 at 11:29am
Dear all,
 
There is now a website up and running which is in its infancy at the moment, but over time will become packed with information and updates on what is happening regarding proposed development in the village. So please add it to your favourites and keep checking it!
 
The website is
 
http://villagedesignstatement.com/wordpress/ - http://villagedesignstatement.com/wordpress/
 
The strong feeling amongst people involved in this is that the residents of CSP must have a say in what goes on. One way that we are planning to do this is to put a flyer through as many front doors as we can get to - if anyone is prepared to help with the leg work, please PM me (asap) with contact details!
 
Many thanks!


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 18†August†2009 at 6:25pm
Wow, I didn't realise that this process had gone so far. Do you have any plans/drawings for the other proposed development sites at Austinwood/Gold Hill and North CSP sites?

As you said in your initial posting, I'm not aware of any consultation by Chiltern District Council. I'll be getting in touch with them to discuss it.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention Barn Owl.


Posted By: slowhand
Date Posted: 19†August†2009 at 5:03am
I am afraid all this is called progress, how long can we hope to keep our heads buried in the sand and hope it does'nt happen here.
I dont remember all the REAL old time residents of Chalfont St Peter groaning at the developments in the 1950's, things were just accepted then.
To me, this NIMBY attitude sounds very selfish.


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 19†August†2009 at 7:42am

I agree, perhaps the heads have been buried in the sand for far too long, back to the 50's in fact! My memory is a little different as I do remember comments from some real old time residents in the 50's bemoaning the expansion of the village, and by the 60's the outcry against the development of the precinct, however in both cases the opinion of the locals didn't matter, the need to fuel London's insatiable appetite for workers took priority.

Selfish.... Mmmm... Isn't it just as selfish for someone to want to ruin the environment for the existing residents and provide a housing provision that does not equate to the existing pattern? Let's face it, judging from various comments in the forum and the press fairly recently: Locally the schools will not be able to cope, neither will the road network, nationally the rail network around London generally can't cope, and in and around London we are building rabbit hutches for people to live in.

Strikes me the active interest that is being shown here could be invaluable, it will give the local council, and therefore the residents,  a platform for the future, perhaps avoiding some of the types of mistakes made during the 50's & 60's. However, judging from my own observations of Village Design Statements you will just need to watch out for those that will want to use it to promote their own bandwagon, often fueled by them using their favourite book on how to lie with statistics to interpret the data!

Hey ho, how does that song go....... "If I ruled the world, every......"

ArtB



-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 19†August†2009 at 8:25am
Originally posted by slowhand slowhand wrote:

I am afraid all this is called progress
If you think progress is the unsustainable, over-development of available green spaces by building cheap, undersize, crappy houses then yes, it is progress.
Originally posted by slowhand slowhand wrote:

To me, this NIMBY attitude sounds very selfish
I'm sure there is an element of NIMBYism, but that's just human nature. Of course I'm going to be more involved when it happens to affect my home and family life. So why should I just ignore it?


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 19†August†2009 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by slowhand slowhand wrote:

I am afraid all this is called progress, how long can we hope to keep our heads buried in the sand and hope it does'nt happen here. To me, this NIMBY attitude sounds very selfish.
 
The problem is that the Governments solution to an increased population (fueled by EU immigration) in the south east, is to build more houses.
 
The solution should be looking at empty housing and brown field sites but also the dispersion of the population from the south east to less populated areas in the UK.  The population of Greater London is around the same as the whole of Scotland, yet look at the areas of land.
 
Recent history shows also that the building of properties does not include other necessities that go with a large influx of people into an area which places added demand on schools, doctors, dentists, plus increase in sewerage, water demand, etc etc. 
 
If you build houses, you increase demand for housing, if there are no houses, the population will go elsewhere.
 
If we don't want to live on one big housing estate linked to Uxbridge on one side and High Wycombe on the other, then we must keep the Green Belt and keep new housing to a minimum.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Walrus
Date Posted: 19†August†2009 at 2:41pm
you can buy a brand new 2 bed flat in stoke on trent for £50k.
 
There are loads of free houses in some northern towns.  Malc is right.


-------------
Is back in the game! :)


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 20†August†2009 at 2:10pm
Have any of the local papers been covering this story?


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 20†August†2009 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Originally posted by slowhand slowhand wrote:

I am afraid all this is called progress, how long can we hope to keep our heads buried in the sand and hope it does'nt happen here. To me, this NIMBY attitude sounds very selfish.
 
The problem is that the Governments solution to an increased population (fueled by EU immigration) in the south east, is to build more houses.
 
The solution should be looking at empty housing and brown field sites but also the dispersion of the population from the south east to less populated areas in the UK.  The population of Greater London is around the same as the whole of Scotland, yet look at the areas of land.
 
 
 
How true... halve the work opportunities in London and the surrounding areas and move the jobs elsewhere.... No not NIMBY'ism, equal opportunity!!
 
ArtB


-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 20†August†2009 at 8:14pm
Let's all just stop having children and over-populating the world, then we won't need so many houses.

...and before you all say "but who'll pay for the health care of the ageing population?", well it won't matter because we'll send them all to the 'Sleepshop' at age 30.

(I get all my population control ideas from Science Fiction. Logan's Run is my current favourite.)



Posted By: tobic
Date Posted: 21†August†2009 at 3:35am
You have to stop copulating to stop populating......LOL

-------------


Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.


Posted By: J.R.
Date Posted: 21†August†2009 at 8:55am
how about stopping the influx of everyone and anyone into the country - small island - over populated.

-------------
JR was ere


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 21†August†2009 at 10:01am
Originally posted by J.R. J.R. wrote:

how about stopping the influx of everyone and anyone into the country - small island - over populated.

No, in my Sci-Fi based master plan we can use them for Soylent Green.

(We're not doing Soylent Yellow though, I don't like Chinese food).


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 11:35am
Originally posted by slowhand slowhand wrote:

I am afraid all this is called progress, how long can we hope to keep our heads buried in the sand and hope it does'nt happen here.
I dont remember all the REAL old time residents of Chalfont St Peter groaning at the developments in the 1950's, things were just accepted then.
To me, this NIMBY attitude sounds very selfish.
 
I totally agree slowhand. People have to live somewhere and the youth of the village are being squeezed out by high property prices and lack of space. I have seen neighbours' children having to move to Slough, Watford or Uxbridge because there are no affordable homes in Chalfont Saint Peter. Schools are desperate for intake and the last two years reception classes have had less than half capacity, in some schools.
 
I too don't understand people's attiitudes of NIMBYism, if it were their childen who were being forced out, I wonder how they would be reacting then?
 
 


Posted By: Toffeeman
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 3:02pm
I wish people had moaned / or been listened to about the development in the 60's then we wouldn't have the 'precinct'. Look at the old pictures - I'd rather live in a village looking like that. As mentioned by others the infrastructure is already at breaking point in Chalfont especially schools and roads. There are plenty of brown field sites in the country so why not use them first. Otherwise we will be the London Borough of Chalfont soon. Nothing to do with Nimbyism.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 3:19pm
There is quite a bit of affordable housing in the village, including I believe an area on Chiltern Heights for ex-sevice personnel.

The precinct is ugly, but at least it serves a purpose. It could have been so much nicer though if people cared about the impact on an area before building.

Take that new factory/offices being built in the village, why couldn't that have been affordable housing?  Then Holy Cross could have remained a school.




Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 7:13pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

People have to live somewhere and the youth of the village are being squeezed out by high property prices and lack of space. I have seen neighbours' children having to move to Slough, Watford or Uxbridge because there are no affordable homes in Chalfont Saint Peter.
...and what 'right' do they have to live here? It's a privilege to live in a nice house in a nice area. It's something you earn. Just because the youth can't afford to buy a house here doesn't mean that we should trash the area and fill it with loads of crappy under-size dwellings.
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

I too don't understand people's attiitudes of NIMBYism, if it were their childen who were being forced out, I wonder how they would be reacting then?
Well, the youth should get a decent job and move here when they can afford to... and I would tell my kids that too.

God, I don't know how I would cope if my children had to live in ..(gulp)..Slough, Watford or Uxbridge.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 7:16pm

Development had nothing to do with the closure of Holy Cross. That was down to bad fiscal management. Where is this affordable housing? I am sure there many young people in the village who would like to know. If there is any, there is nowhere near enough, because young people are leaving the village in their droves, because they can't afford to live here. Housing for ex-servicemen in Chalfont Heights is not going to solve the shortage of low cost housing in the area. Isn't Holy Cross and Newlands Park brownfield anyway?



Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by Pants 2 Tight Pants 2 Tight wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

People have to live somewhere and the youth of the village are being squeezed out by high property prices and lack of space. I have seen neighbours' children having to move to Slough, Watford or Uxbridge because there are no affordable homes in Chalfont Saint Peter.
...and what 'right' do they have to live here? It's a privilege to live in a nice house in a nice area. It's something you earn. Just because the youth can't afford to buy a house here doesn't mean that we should trash the area and fill it with loads of crappy under-size dwellings.
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

I too don't understand people's attiitudes of NIMBYism, if it were their childen who were being forced out, I wonder how they would be reacting then?
Well, the youth should get a decent job and move here when they can afford to... and I would tell my kids that too.

God, I don't know how I would cope if my children had to live in ..(gulp)..Slough, Watford or Uxbridge.
 
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.


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 7:52pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

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.


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.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 8:28pm
But why should they move, they have more right to be here than the ones who are rich enough to move here.


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by Pants 2 Tight Pants 2 Tight wrote:


If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move to the nearest place that you can afford. That's how it works.
And that's the reason we are all in the god awful state we are in today. It's about time the powers that be woke up and fixed the cause instead of filling the cracks with sub-standard plaster!
 
Art


-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

But why should they move, they have more right to be here than the ones who are rich enough to move here.


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.




Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

But why should they move, they have more right to be here than the ones who are rich enough to move here.

No, they don't.


Posted By: Toffeeman
Date Posted: 24†August†2009 at 9:16pm
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.


Posted By: slowhand
Date Posted: 25†August†2009 at 6:13am
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.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 25†August†2009 at 8:36am
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.
 
 


Posted By: Number42
Date Posted: 25†August†2009 at 10:14am
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:
http://www.villagedesignstatement.com - www.villagedesignstatement.com
 
 
Hope that's helpful.  And I hope we get a lot more people aware and involved.
 


-------------
That's the answer - what's the question?


Posted By: watsy
Date 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.


Posted By: Malc London
Date 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.


Posted By: Malc London
Date 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.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date 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.


Posted By: Number42
Date 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?


Posted By: Malc London
Date 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.






Posted By: Flyboy
Date 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.


Posted By: Malc London
Date 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.
 
 
 


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date 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 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/population-growth-uk-birth-rate-immigration

Maybe we need a cull.





Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date 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



Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 27†August†2009 at 3:03pm
No, China did it at source restricting each couple to only one child. That doesn't sort out the problem we'd then have with an ageing population.

I want a CULL. Blood on the streets. Death of the first born. Book of Exodus style.


Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date Posted: 27†August†2009 at 3:10pm
Death of first born?No they were first they have the most right, lets Cull those families of 8 who all claim benefits and have never and will never work


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 27†August†2009 at 3:31pm
Yeah, sorry, I hadn't thought that through properly. Thanks for correcting me.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 12:49pm
"The ONS figures show that nearly a quarter of babies in England and Wales in 2008 were born to mothers who came from outside the UK, most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India"
 
That's an extra 197,750 school places needed each year. Then if say 50% are girls and have babies, that's another 247,000 every year once they reach adulthood, from each years figures.  That's just from Pakistan, Poland and India.
 
Perhaps the impact of immigration is higher than first thought.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 3:05pm

Malc you must nt say that! You ll be accused of being racist!



Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

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).

 
No it didn't. They're what....thirty properties (or less) and I think it was more than two years ago. They were taken up by, mostly, younger Chalfont Saint Peter residents and was nowhere near enough. I suppose if they had laid empty, there would be the customary "what a waste of time" complaints. However, that doesn't address your earlier point. How can this be homeowners moving up the property ladder? These new houses did not have people moving up to larger properties, did it?
 
Quote 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.
 
And how will that help?
 
Quote 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.
 
HIPs are not a waste of time and money. Any vendor can include a full structural survey and add a thousand pounds on to the sale price of the property, without any problem at all. In fact there is room within the rules to charge for this separately anyway, to avoid it being included in the stamp duty. It negates the purchaser's need to conduct a search etc., which only helps with the buying process. Yes it does increase the paperwork and switches the burden on to the vendor, but anything that helps purchasers to conduct the process more efficiently, can only be an advantage, can't it?
 
 
Quote They also stop people putting property on the market who may be thinking of a move but gauging interest. 
 
Well...that's their problem, isn't it. If they want to waste everybody's time and money; estate agents, solicitors and purchasers, it is only right that they shoulder the costs.
 
Quote Get rid of HIPS and Stamp Duty and then you might see some movement in the market.
 
And be taxed another way? What are you willing to pay more tax on, to fill the gap?
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

"The ONS figures show that nearly a quarter of babies in England and Wales in 2008 were born to mothers who came from outside the UK, most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India"
 
That's an extra 197,750 school places needed each year. Then if say 50% are girls and have babies, that's another 247,000 every year once they reach adulthood, from each years figures.  That's just from Pakistan, Poland and India.
 
Perhaps the impact of immigration is higher than first thought.
 
  
 
A link would be useful. Also an explanation as to the demographical calculation, wouldn't go amiss either.
 
 


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 4:38pm
It's all in the original link


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by Flyboy It negates the purchaser's need to conduct a search etc., which only helps with the buying process. Yes it does increase the paperwork and switches the burden on to the vendor, but anything that helps purchasers to conduct the process more efficiently, can only be an advantage, can't it? 
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>[/QUOTE Flyboy It negates the purchaser's need to conduct a search etc., which only helps with the buying process. Yes it does increase the paperwork and switches the burden on to the vendor, but anything that helps purchasers to conduct the process more efficiently, can only be an advantage, can't it?
 
[/QUOTE wrote:


 
Regretably it doesn't all of the time. If a house is on the market for over 6 months, and that isn't unusual in todays environment, lenders et al will not accept the search data in the HIP. This means it has to be done all over again, however, it becomes the responsibility of the p
 
Regretably it doesn't all of the time. If a house is on the market for over 6 months, and that isn't unusual in todays environment, lenders et al will not accept the search data in the HIP. This means it has to be done all over again, however, it becomes the responsibility of the purchaser to get it done and pay for it, not for the vendor to supply it and pay for it.
 
As long as the house remains on the market the vendor has met the obligation to provide the HIP.
 
Needless to say this is just something else the has been extremely badly managed.
 
Art


-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
No it didn't. They're what....thirty properties (or less) and I think it was more than two years ago.  These new houses did not have people moving up to larger properties, did it?.
 
It was Xmas 2006 that the notices went up, I think purchases went through during 2007.  They are not moving yet, but hopefully they will and these flats will become available again.
 
Quote   
Re Election 
And how will that help?
 
An Election will hopefully see a new Government who can manage the economy better and lead us out of recession. Consumer confidence will then lead to more movement in the housing sector.
 
Quote
 
HIPs are not a waste of time and money.  It negates the purchaser's need to conduct a search etc.
 
I am pretty certain the mortgage companies will want an independant survey and not rely on the HIP. I certainly would want my own survey and search. It's just an added cost to the housing market. Why pay for a report that tells you how many energy saving lightbulbs are in the property?
 
Quote   
Well...that's their problem, isn't it. If they want to waste everybody's time and money; estate agents, solicitors and purchasers, it is only right that they shoulder the costs. 
 
Testing the market is an important part of moving. If you don't know how much your house is really worth then how do you know what you can afford?  Not sure how long HIP's are valid, but do you really want to spend hundreds of pounds only to find no-one wants to buy your house or that it's not worth as much as you thought? Houses can be on the market for years before you get a bite.
 
Quote  
And be taxed another way? What are you willing to pay more tax on, to fill the gap?
 
 
Perhaps it needs a fairer method of taxation or at least only tax properties over £1m.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28†August†2009 at 9:24pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

It's all in the original link
 
So....where does it say that the women form Poland, India and Pakistan have had one hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty babies?
 
Also bear in mind that net migration actually fell by forty-four per cent last year. Four hundred thousand British citizens emigrated to other countries and presumably will also have babies there as well. Presuming half of those would have been women; two hundred thousand women having babies.............
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 7:55am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

So....where does it say that the women form Poland, India and Pakistan have had one hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty babies?
From the Guardian website reporting the population growth figures from the Office of National Statistics...

'There were 791,000 babies born in the UK last year' (2008)

'nearly a quarter of babies in England and Wales in 2008 were born to mothers who came from outside the UK, most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India.'

So, according to the O.N.S. 'nearly' a quarter of the 791,000 babies born came from 'most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India'. So Malc's roughly correct on that point.

See article here..

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




Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 8:08am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

Also bear in mind that net migration actually fell by forty-four per cent last year.
Yes, net migration (from Europe only) fell by 44% but that's still an intake of 118,000 people overall.

In June I put on 2 stone of extra weight. In July I only put on 1 stone. That's a 50% fall in net weight gain. So am l losing weight?

No, I'm a fat git and Britain is over populated.

(sorry, I should have mentioned that all those figures are in the same article that I linked to in my previous post)


Posted By: brewski
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 4:37pm
Do these "official" figures take in to account the thousand's off illegal immigrant's we are blessed with every year courtesy of Calais?

-------------
Too many laws...
Too few examples...


Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 6:16pm
Of course they dont and ill bet the offical figures are far lower than the reak number.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 9:07pm
Originally posted by Pants 2 Tight Pants 2 Tight wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

So....where does it say that the women form Poland, India and Pakistan have had one hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty babies?
From the Guardian website reporting the population growth figures from the Office of National Statistics...

'There were 791,000 babies born in the UK last year' (2008)

'nearly a quarter of babies in England and Wales in 2008 were born to mothers who came from outside the UK, most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India.'

So, according to the O.N.S. 'nearly' a quarter of the 791,000 babies born came from 'most commonly women from Pakistan, Poland and India'. So Malc's roughly correct on that point.

See article here..

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


 
"Most commonly," refers to a "mode" of data. The highest proportion of births from women, who were not born in the UK, were of these nationalities, it does not say that they were ALL born from these women.
 
The actual number is forty seven thousand three hundred and eighty births, from women born in Poland, Pakistan and India. Hardly the one hundred and ninety-seven thousand odd that Malc. was trying make us believe. That breaks down to less than six per cent of live births from these women.
 
Now...Mrs Flyboy's cousin's wife, is from France. She lives here with him and last year gave birth to a very beautiful little boy; I wonder how many of these one hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and forty-nine other babies had fathers who were born on the UK?
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 29†August†2009 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Dave-R Dave-R wrote:

Of course they dont and ill bet the offical figures are far lower than the reak number.
 
By how many?


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 7:27am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

"Most commonly," refers to a "mode" of data. The highest proportion of births from women, who were not born in the UK, were of these nationalities, it does not say that they were ALL born from these women.

The actual number is forty seven thousand three hundred and eighty births, from women born in Poland, Pakistan and India.
Thanks, I know what a mode of data is and I know very well that it's always good for a sensationalist headline. I don't understand where 47,380 comes from. Have you got a link/source to verify that?

In fact, don't bother, I'm not really interested in where the kid's mothers were born, just that we don't need to continue over-populating the world and draining more resources and then trying to build crappy shacks to house them all.


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 7:35am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

"Most commonly," refers to a "mode" of data. The highest proportion of births from women, who were not born in the UK, were of these nationalities, it does not say that they were ALL born from these women.
I never said "ALL". I said that Malc was "roughly" right and I kept in the "most commonly" disclaimer.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 8:28am
I never said they ALL came from those three countries. The fact is the one in four babies in the UK is born to a foreign born mother. In London the figure is reported to be 55% of babies born to a foreign mother.

The point is, that there is an unnatural increase in the population caused by immigration which is why we need to build millions of houses in the south east.


If we do not wake up to the fact that building more houses isn't the solution, then we face real problems ahead.



Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 11:46am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

Originally posted by Dave-R Dave-R wrote:

Of course they dont and ill bet the offical figures are far lower than the reak number.
 
By how many?
 
77,182


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 1:05pm
Name them!

Actually that estimation is near to the Governments figure of illegals. Of course, no one knows the true figure.


Posted By: timo_w2s
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

In London the figure is reported to be 55% of babies born to a foreign mother.

Eek, I was born in London to a foreign mother!

-------------
Who is General Failure and why's he reading my hard disk?


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 5:06pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

I never said they ALL came from those three countries. The fact is the one in four babies in the UK is born to a foreign born mother. In London the figure is reported to be 55% of babies born to a foreign mother.

The point is, that there is an unnatural increase in the population caused by immigration which is why we need to build millions of houses in the south east.


If we do not wake up to the fact that building more houses isn't the solution, then we face real problems ahead.

 
You used these figures as a basis for your scaremongering demgraphical calculation, that there would be another two hundred and forty-seven thousand babies, born from just Polish, Indian and Pakistani women every year.
 
You wrote:
 
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

That's an extra 197,750 school places needed each year. Then if say 50% are girls and have babies, that's another 247,000 every year once they reach adulthood, from each years figures.  That's just from Pakistan, Poland and India.
 
Your assumtions are based on the fact that fertilty rates will stay the same. You also assume mortality rates will stay the same, but you have no idea what these will be, or for that matter, how to apply them.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 5:11pm
Originally posted by Pants 2 Tight Pants 2 Tight wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

"Most commonly," refers to a "mode" of data. The highest proportion of births from women, who were not born in the UK, were of these nationalities, it does not say that they were ALL born from these women.
I never said "ALL". I said that Malc was "roughly" right and I kept in the "most commonly" disclaimer.
 
But he wasn't even close to "roughly" right. He inflated the figures by a factor of more than four times.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 5:15pm
Originally posted by Pants 2 Tight Pants 2 Tight wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

"Most commonly," refers to a "mode" of data. The highest proportion of births from women, who were not born in the UK, were of these nationalities, it does not say that they were ALL born from these women.

The actual number is forty seven thousand three hundred and eighty births, from women born in Poland, Pakistan and India.
Thanks, I know what a mode of data is and I know very well that it's always good for a sensationalist headline. I don't understand where 47,380 comes from. Have you got a link/source to verify that?

In fact, don't bother, I'm not really interested in where the kid's mothers were born, just that we don't need to continue over-populating the world and draining more resources and then trying to build crappy shacks to house them all.
 
Here, look on "Table 2"
 
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Mothers_country_of_birth_Further_tables_commentary.xls - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Mothers_country_of_birth_Further_tables_commentary.xls


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by Dave-R Dave-R wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

Originally posted by Dave-R Dave-R wrote:

Of course they dont and ill bet the offical figures are far lower than the reak number.
 
By how many?
 
77,182
 
Really? Where did you dream that number up from?


Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 7:20pm

Its what Prince Philip told me when we had our weekly game of golf yesterday.



Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 10:16pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Mothers_country_of_birth_Further_tables_commentary.xls - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Mothers_country_of_birth_Further_tables_commentary.xls


Great link, I was looking on the stats site but didn't have time to find it.

So, the figures show that foriegn mothers bore 60% of babies in inner London and up to 75% of babies in some parts of London.

I guess the only saving grace is those 75% of babies now become British born so when they have their own offspring, the stats will show that British born mothers are back in the majority.

 



Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 10:49pm
Carrying on using those statistics, from 2001 - 2008 roughly an extra 10,000 babies per year (every year) were born to foreign mothers to the 2008 figure of 174,000.

If this trend were to continue, the number of babies born to foreign mothers would be 240,000+ by 2015.

So my figure of 247,000 each year by 2024 seems wildly underestimated.



Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 30†August†2009 at 11:50pm
This is a tiny country but whatever lets have every f**ker here and no dont have them work lets pay for them to live, raise 7 kids, have satelitte tv and cars


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 12:03am
Words fail me.


Posted By: moggies
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 12:10am
Oh good...hope it lasts, Flyboy.

-------------
Still don't know what I want to do when I grow up...


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 9:50am
Flyboy, I can't believe that you're quibbling about this. The Guardian report was broadly correct (albeit with a bit of journalistic license).

The fact is, 24.1% of babies born in this country last year didn't have a UK born mother. That's a total of 170,834 extra mouths to feed, school and keep healthy. More importantly (in terms of this forum thread) this will put more strain on housing requirements.

So, let's stop mass immigration, let's control population growth. Let's get more in tune with the environment and stop this stupid belief that putting up more houses in areas like ours will cure all the problems.


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 9:58am
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

So, the figures show that foriegn mothers bore 60% of babies in inner London and up to 75% of babies in some parts of London.

I guess the only saving grace is those 75% of babies now become British born so when they have their own offspring, the stats will show that British born mothers are back in the majority.
Confused ...no, wait a minute...Cry ...or should it be...Angry




Posted By: tobic
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 10:13am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

Words fail me.


the best news I've heard all day...LOL


-------------


Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.


Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

Words fail me.
 
So you re happy your taxes(im assuming you pay them) pay for people to come here, contribute nothing and take take take


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 31†August†2009 at 6:04pm
We need to stand this whole argument on its head.
 
Decide what we believe is the minimum standard of property that anyone couple should be able to afford anywhere in the country to give them a sensible standard of living. For example why not use something like Hill Farm estate as the standard, but with better parking facilities.
 
If we can't do that in CSP, and the like, then move jobs & workers to where it is possible.
 
Art
 
 


-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Number42
Date Posted: 03†September†2009 at 2:17pm
The story is covered on the front page of this week's Bucks Advertiser, and on their web site:
http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2009/09/02/council-slams-controversial-housing-plans-82398-24591737/ - http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2009/09/02/council-slams-controversial-housing-plans-82398-24591737/
 
Good publicity, to try to make everyone aware.  The council's web site on the plans is now up and running:
http://www.villagedesignstatement.com - www.villagedesignstatement.com
although it needs updating, but I'm sure we will see more action on this soon. 
 
 
 


-------------
That's the answer - what's the question?


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 03†September†2009 at 5:48pm
Originally posted by Number42 Number42 wrote:

The story is covered on the front page of this week's Bucks Advertiser, and on their web site:
http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2009/09/02/council-slams-controversial-housing-plans-82398-24591737/ - http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2009/09/02/council-slams-controversial-housing-plans-82398-24591737/
 
Good publicity, to try to make everyone aware.  The council's web site on the plans is now up and running:
http://www.villagedesignstatement.com - www.villagedesignstatement.com
although it needs updating, but I'm sure we will see more action on this soon. 
  
 
But:

Quote Under government plans, 2,700 homes have to built in the Chiltern District over the next 17 years.

Because of this Chiltern District Council (CDC) has decided that 720 of these have to be installed in Chalfont St Peter, meaning that 406 of these could be built on the historic Holy Cross Convent School site which closed its doors in 2006.

One of the more vociferous of objections is that the local infrastructure will not cope with such a sudden influx of residents. I would have thought that seventeen years is enough time for it to adjust, wouldn't you? Seven hundred and twenty homes, over seventeen years, is forty-two homes a year. Not a bad rate to acclimatise to.


Posted By: Toffeeman
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 7:48am

I fail to see how the village can acclimatise when it has struggled to with the development of the past 20 years. Roads cannot be widened easily without totally changing the face of the village and assuming 2.4 children where would an extra 1700+ children go to school? As it is school places are at a premium and once the Holy Cross site is gone do we then need to build a new school as well? Surely as was mentioned a while ago a better use of the site would be to move the local school up there and free up that site for a few houses.  Regarding the building of only 42 homes a year do we honestly believe that a developer will sit on that site for the whole 17 years - they will be built as soon as possible to maximise revenue.



Posted By: Number42
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 10:00am
In theory, yes, I'd have thought that a slow rate of growth could be coped with, given proper planning.  720 new dwellings over 17 years calculates to 42 new dwellings a year.  But:
- do we actually want to have the village grow that much?
- and with such density of building?
- and will developers only build 42 houses a year when they get hold of the Holy Cross site?  I imagine the site will be developed in one go, and soon.   The nuns want to sell, and developers want to buy the land, build and dwellings, and sell them. 
 


-------------
That's the answer - what's the question?


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:



One of the more vociferous of objections is that the local infrastructure will not cope with such a sudden influx of residents. I would have thought that seventeen years is enough time for it to adjust, wouldn't you? Seven hundred and twenty homes, over seventeen years, is forty-two homes a year. Not a bad rate to acclimatise to.


That's not how it works. If there are to be 720 new houses in Chalfont St Peter, then they will be built within a couple of years. They don't build 42 then leave it a year and build another 42,

Thankfully the Tory party are already urging councils to stop over building and when in power will make it harder for property speculators to cram housing into the smallest of spaces.



Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by Toffeeman Toffeeman wrote:

I fail to see how the village can acclimatise when it has struggled to with the development of the past 20 years. Roads cannot be widened easily without totally changing the face of the village and assuming 2.4 children where would an extra 1700+ children go to school? As it is school places are at a premium and once the Holy Cross site is gone do we then need to build a new school as well? Surely as was mentioned a while ago a better use of the site would be to move the local school up there and free up that site for a few houses.  Regarding the building of only 42 homes a year do we honestly believe that a developer will sit on that site for the whole 17 years - they will be built as soon as possible to maximise revenue.

 
What twenty years of development are you referring to? There hasn't been that much over the last two decades, there has been some, but not enough to drastically change life as we know it. Your fertility rates are many decades out of date as well, the national fertility rate is only about one point six and I would hazard a guess it is a lot less in our local area. Your assumption that seven hundred and twenty homes will be filled by families with school aged children, is way out of sync with the known demographics of the Chalfonts. Any extra children entering schools will not all be the same age either, so they will be easily absorbed in to the schools' populations.
 
Primary schools throughout the Chalfonts are struggling to find new intake for reception classes. Jordans Village Infant school, for example, were threatened with closure last year, as they only had twelve children go to the school's reception class. Ten of these places were taken by children not living within the village envelope. At Chalfont Saint Giles Infant School, they have experienced a fall of twenty per cent in the number of pupils over the last four years. Chalfont Saint Peter Infant School is also low on subscription. I believe their intake was about just over twenty last year, which is about two thirds of capacity, a matching account from Seer Green school, they have an average of twenty-six pupils per class with a capacity for thirty. Similar stories are being told throughout the district. Bell Lane's year six class, for example, has only sixteen pupils this year and with an average of nineteen pupils per class.
 
So, the point is that the primary school aged child population in the Chalfonts appears to be falling. If we are to maintain the very excellent schools we have in this area, we must keep them filled. We are experiencing a drop in the number of young families and this is most likely due to high property prices. We need more affordable housing stock to maintain the population demographics of our local villages. We cannot sustain the viability of village life if we insist that certain groups of the population go and live elsewhere. Within thirty years, the population of the Chalfonts will be predominantly affluent and elderly, not a very good mix for a balanced local economy or community.
 
With all of this said, it is now common place for local authorities to insist that developers make a substantial capital and revenue contribution to the costs of infrastructure planning. Which means the builders will have a responsibility to provide money for things like schools etc.
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:



One of the more vociferous of objections is that the local infrastructure will not cope with such a sudden influx of residents. I would have thought that seventeen years is enough time for it to adjust, wouldn't you? Seven hundred and twenty homes, over seventeen years, is forty-two homes a year. Not a bad rate to acclimatise to.


That's not how it works. If there are to be 720 new houses in Chalfont St Peter, then they will be built within a couple of years. They don't build 42 then leave it a year and build another 42,

Thankfully the Tory party are already urging councils to stop over building and when in power will make it harder for property speculators to cram housing into the smallest of spaces.

 
You don't really believe that do you? Seeing as the Tory party is made up of people of who make their living as property developers and through the ownership of property. Who do you think pays Cameron's et al campaign costs. It doesn't all come from the pennies that little old ladies drop into the collection boxes, during the weekly whist drives.
 
Planning and developement is mostly down to the local authorties; let me think, which party is in control of CDC.....eerrrmmm.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 04†September†2009 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Number42 Number42 wrote:

In theory, yes, I'd have thought that a slow rate of growth could be coped with, given proper planning.  720 new dwellings over 17 years calculates to 42 new dwellings a year.  But:
- do we actually want to have the village grow that much?
- and with such density of building?
- and will developers only build 42 houses a year when they get hold of the Holy Cross site?  I imagine the site will be developed in one go, and soon.   The nuns want to sell, and developers want to buy the land, build and dwellings, and sell them. 
 
 
This I can empathise with. It would be nice to continue live in the environment we do. But we also have to be realistic; the needs of the population are changing. We can't continue to expect our young to move away from the villages, because, as I said above, the population of the Chalfonts is heading towards an affluent and elderly demographic. This could spell the end for many of our excellent services we receive, ranging from community to educational and through to other social benefits and those of the needs of the village as a whole. The businesses, who rely on the money they spend, for example, will fall into decline and eventually disappear. If the children who are at school today cannot afford to live here, they will move away and take their revenue with them. What is most certainly needed, is more consultation and clearer communication between the residents of the Chalfonts, the District and County Councils and the developers.


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 06†September†2009 at 12:52pm
There just seems to be total apathy about the housing plans at the moment. I wonder how many villagers are concerned about them or even actually know about them?

Incidentally, can we find out what our elected representatives on the Chiltern District Council are doing about this and what their views are?



Posted By: Barn Owl
Date Posted: 06†September†2009 at 2:11pm
[/QUOTE]
 
What twenty years of development are you referring to? There hasn't been that much over the last two decades, there has been some, but not enough to drastically change life as we know it. Your fertility rates are many decades out of date as well, the national fertility rate is only about one point six and I would hazard a guess it is a lot less in our local area. Your assumption that seven hundred and twenty homes will be filled by families with school aged children, is way out of sync with the known demographics of the Chalfonts. Any extra children entering schools will not all be the same age either, so they will be easily absorbed in to the schools' populations.
 
Primary schools throughout the Chalfonts are struggling to find new intake for reception classes. Jordans Village Infant school, for example, were threatened with closure last year, as they only had twelve children go to the school's reception class. Ten of these places were taken by children not living within the village envelope. At Chalfont Saint Giles Infant School, they have experienced a fall of twenty per cent in the number of pupils over the last four years. Chalfont Saint Peter Infant School is also low on subscription. I believe their intake was about just over twenty last year, which is about two thirds of capacity, a matching account from Seer Green school, they have an average of twenty-six pupils per class with a capacity for thirty. Similar stories are being told throughout the district. Bell Lane's year six class, for example, has only sixteen pupils this year and with an average of nineteen pupils per class.
 
So, the point is that the primary school aged child population in the Chalfonts appears to be falling. If we are to maintain the very excellent schools we have in this area, we must keep them filled. We are experiencing a drop in the number of young families and this is most likely due to high property prices. We need more affordable housing stock to maintain the population demographics of our local villages. We cannot sustain the viability of village life if we insist that certain groups of the population go and live elsewhere. Within thirty years, the population of the Chalfonts will be predominantly affluent and elderly, not a very good mix for a balanced local economy or community.
 
With all of this said, it is now common place for local authorities to insist that developers make a substantial capital and revenue contribution to the costs of infrastructure planning. Which means the builders will have a responsibility to provide money for things like schools etc.
 
[/QUOTE]
 
 
I strongly disagree with this, and would like to know from where you source your stats. I know for a fact that the info about CSP Infant School is just wrong.The school is over subscribed and has been since the 2006 intake, that intake was badly affected by a poor ofsted report published just as parents were applying for school places. Now however, it's full as a full thing and the nursery on site is so oversubscribed that its waiting lists are bursting. Neither of these facts point to a drop in the demand for school places.
 
P2T - re members of CDC and their views - this might be a point that you could raise on the dedicated website - it has an area for comments. If you raise it there, it provides good feedback for the guys who are trying to inform the residents and influence what happens - they will then know what info you need.
 
 


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 06†September†2009 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by Barn Owl Barn Owl wrote:

P2T - re members of CDC and their views - this might be a point that you could raise on the dedicated website - it has an area for comments. If you raise it there, it provides good feedback for the guys who are trying to inform the residents and influence what happens - they will then know what info you need.
I'll do that. But in the mean time I've emailed Isabel Darby direct via her CDC address to see if I can get a response regarding her views and actions to date, but I understand that a coordinated approach through the website mentioned would probably be the best option.


Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 7:21am
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
 
With all of this said, it is now common place for local authorities to insist that developers make a substantial capital and revenue contribution to the costs of infrastructure planning. Which means the builders will have a responsibility to provide money for things like schools etc.
 
 
Interesting this, "if you vote in favour of my proposal I'll give you £xxxx, oh you won't let me, then let's make it twice £xxxx, does that help?" I think that any part of this would come into the realms of bribery in any other situation!
 
Equally, make sure that the "developer's contribution" can be used for all of the things that you think it should, it's amazing what it can't be used for.
 
Finally, give some thought about who actually pays for it. Sure as eggs are eggs the developer doesn't, it just becomes a cost to his build and gets built in to his selling price, inflating the cost of the housing. What does that do, inflates the prices of other houses in the area.
 
 
Art
 
 
 


-------------
*** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem!


Posted By: Toffeeman
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 8:22am

 

[/QUOTE FLYBOY]
 
What twenty years of development are you referring to? There hasn't been that much over the last two decades, there has been some, but not enough to drastically change life as we know it. Your fertility rates are many decades out of date as well, the national fertility rate is only about one point six and I would hazard a guess it is a lot less in our local area. Your assumption that seven hundred and twenty homes will be filled by families with school aged children, is way out of sync with the known demographics of the Chalfonts. Any extra children entering schools will not all be the same age either, so they will be easily absorbed in to the schools' populations.
 
[/QUOTE]
 
1) Personnaly i think that there has been alot of development in the past 20 years. Gravel hill school site, back gardens being developed, houses knocked down and flats put up in place etc.
 
2) Talking to a midwife in area  they stated  that there has been a massive jump in births in Chalfont area in the past 2 years. Also backed up by Gov Statistics.

"The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the UK reached 1.96 children per woman in 2008, the highest level since 1973. The UK TFR has increased each year since 2001, when it hit a record low of 1.63"



Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 12:29pm
There is another point to consider. You cannot have between 800 - 1000 cars daily coming out of the Holy Cross driveway.
 
Surely such a development will require new roads to avoid conjestion on Gold Hill.
 
Perhaps a compusary purchase order can demolish some houses on the High Road and create a new junction onto the A413.
 
While we are at it, how about a link road to the M25 as well? Might as well go the whole distance if we are going to increase the population of the village by 10%.
 
 
 


Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 1:25pm
Whilst they are doing all that they could put the new high speed rail link through the centre of the village too.

But if we really want to make homes in Chalfont St Peter affordable, then might I suggest renaming the village to 'Heathrow Terminal 6'.


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 9:39pm
Originally posted by Toffeeman Toffeeman wrote:

 

Originally posted by FLYBOY FLYBOY wrote:

 
What twenty years of development are you referring to? There hasn't been that much over the last two decades, there has been some, but not enough to drastically change life as we know it. Your fertility rates are many decades out of date as well, the national fertility rate is only about one point six and I would hazard a guess it is a lot less in our local area. Your assumption that seven hundred and twenty homes will be filled by families with school aged children, is way out of sync with the known demographics of the Chalfonts. Any extra children entering schools will not all be the same age either, so they will be easily absorbed in to the schools' populations.
 
 
1) Personnaly i think that there has been alot of development in the past 20 years. Gravel hill school site, back gardens being developed, houses knocked down and flats put up in place etc.
 
2) Talking to a midwife in area  they stated  that there has been a massive jump in births in Chalfont area in the past 2 years. Also backed up by Gov Statistics.

"The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the UK reached 1.96 children per woman in 2008, the highest level since 1973. The UK TFR has increased each year since 2001, when it hit a record low of 1.63"

 
Your example of development are not really very significant. Hardly a huge influx of the population. The loss of Gravel Hill School was disappointing, but the reason for its closure was because of falling intake, what do you think should have been done? But has the village suffered because of it? I don't think so, I think it has been enriched by the extra few people. I would like to see some evidence of the local birthrates you speak of, any idea where we can see it?


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 9:55pm
There were nine hundred and forty-two babies born in 2001 in Chiltern District, Eight hundred and sixty-eight in 2002,  nine hundred and fifty seven in 2003, nine hundred and forty in 2005, eight hundred and thirty two in 2005, nine hundred and fifty-two in 2006, nine hundred and eighty-seven in 2007 and nine hundred and thirty-five last year, 2008.
 
So, unless they're putting somethingin the water around here, I'd say that doesn't suggest a huge rise in the local population. It does however, disprove my theory of falling birthrates, but that does not explain the fall in new intake into local state schools. Perhaps, as the local population is becoming more exclusively affluent, there is a rise in the subscription into the private education sector. I'll try to find some figures and let you know.


Posted By: Toffeeman
Date Posted: 07†September†2009 at 10:19pm
Where is this information coming from for the falling intake in local schools? I had to register my 17 month old this week for 19 months time!
Births / deaths / ageing population aside I still fail to see how the 'village' can possibly support another 700 homes. The traffic alone would be terrible. Why can't we look to support our way of life here. Everyone has the right to live where they want and I live here because this is the way of life I want for my family. I have to work for it after all.


Posted By: BuzzBunny
Date Posted: 08†September†2009 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Toffeeman Toffeeman wrote:

Everyone has the right to live where they want .... 
 
Does that include the Gypsy's etc.? And won't the extra housing give more people that want to live here the ability to do so? Wink
 
I imagine that 50 years ago people didn't want the house I live in built, and 100 years ago they probably didn't want my street built,...
 
Personally I don't mind if extra housing gets built, more people to help make the village great, new opinion, culture and business hopefully to help keep the village shops in running.
 
However, I would like to think ( vain hope probably ) that any new housing will be done alongside infrastructure improvements such as the roads.
 
Of course ideally I guess they'd encourage better links to London from further out and encourage settlement elsewhere, but things don't always happen that way!
 
 


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 08†September†2009 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by BuzzBunny BuzzBunny wrote:

 
I imagine that 50 years ago people didn't want the house I live in built, and 100 years ago they probably didn't want my street built,...
 
 
Probably not. Northolt, Southall, Wembley all used to be little villages just like Chalfont St Peter is now, but much smaller. But then, it's only a few houses being built so the people in London can move out to the countryside and still get into London by the new railway stations at South Harrow and Rayners Lane.
 
And as for that flat field called Heath Row. Wouldn't that be a good place to land aeroplances?
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 08†September†2009 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by Toffeeman Toffeeman wrote:

Where is this information coming from for the falling intake in local schools?
 
It comes from being in the school system for the past ten years or so.
 
Quote I had to register my 17 month old this week for 19 months time!
 
The admissions team at county don't decide on admissions until the December/January (the deadline for applications is November), before the academic year the child is due to start primary school; also, there is no first-come-first-served criteria. They are only accepting applications from this week for next year (as the application portal on the Bucks Education Department's website only opened yesterday), for children who will be starting school in the academic year of 2010-2011. Parents are not formally offered a place until February. Which means that you have been wasting your time, trying to register your seventeen month old child for primary school.

Quote Births / deaths / ageing population aside I still fail to see how the 'village' can possibly support another 700 homes. The traffic alone would be terrible.
 
I agree, the traffic will have to be managed effectively. We cannot just have more and more cars driving onto Market Place. So, an alternative will need to be considered and I'm sure that that will be part of the planning criteria.
Quote
Why can't we look to support our way of life here. Everyone has the right to live where they want and I live here because this is the way of life I want for my family. I have to work for it after all.
 
Again, we are in agreement; everyone should have the right to live where they want. This is why the village needs more homes built. Many of the village's families have children growing up, wanting to live where they were raised as well as being close to their families and to where they work, but simply cannot afford to, nor do they have the the properties available to do so.
 
We need to compromise between a growing population and what it means to us as a community. We have to sacrifice a part of our "way of life," in order to satisfy the demands of the citizenship of the village as a whole. We cannot have one without the other. As I have said before, more clear and transparent consultation is needed between all parties, before any decisions are made.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 08†September†2009 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
 
I agree, the traffic will have to be managed effectively. We cannot just have more and more cars driving onto Market Place. So, an alternative will need to be considered and I'm sure that that will be part of the planning criteria.
 
Well that's easily solved. Knock down the houses on Grange Road, Grange Close and Lower Road and make a juction onto A413
 
The other solution is to knock down the houses on Hill Rise and Woodside close and link to the A413.
 
One final solution would be to knock down the White Hart and the shops along both sides of the High Street and Hiljon Crescent and join up to the roundabout.
 
Anything other than these suggestions would mean an increased traffic flow onto Gold Hill East or Market Place and 400 houses can mean between 800 - 1000 car journeys per day.
 
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.co.uk