Jump to content


Photo

Raans Field - Raans Road


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Alan W

Alan W

    ALAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:58 PM

The planning applications phase of this Development has now been reached and posted on the Chiltern District Council Planning System - under Application Number - 2008/0068

A mass of information to digest about the proposals for the development of what is currently Green Field space - with details of the 80+ Houses to be built, together with the Kings Church. I feel sure this will raise many issues - as shown by the mass of comments from the members of the public who visited the Cala Homes / Kings Church Exhibition some months back.

#2 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 26 February 2008 - 11:18 PM

Here's a direct link to all the details on the CDC website: CH/2008/0068/FA.
Most of the date fields are still blank, so plenty of time to submit comments to the planning committee.

However, at the time of making this post, I can't access any of the Associated Documents (i.e. the actual plans and all associated correspondence), but just get internal server error messages. Hopefully that will be fixed by the time most of you read this.

Also, there was also a brief discussion about it on this forum when it was still hypothetical: Previous Raans thread.

PS It names the council ward as "Amersham On The Hill" (not Top Amersham). ;)

#3 Jinni

Jinni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 08:41 AM

You can't access the Planning system after 8pm.
The date for response is 3 weeks (21days) from the date of publication

Doesn't look much different to the draft which they consulted on to me

#4 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 27 February 2008 - 12:39 PM

You can't access the Planning system after 8pm.

I'd never noticed that before. However, I could access most of it last night: everything except the associated documents. (I wonder what the reason for that is?)

The date for response is 3 weeks (21days) from the date of publication

I think it's 3 weeks from the date the Neighbour Consultations are sent, and there isn't yet a date shown for when that will be. There is often a week or two between it being lodged with CDC and the letters being sent, and if half the consulation time was used up before anyone received their letters, I expect there would be uproar.

Also, as it's such a big application (in size and controversy), it will surely go to the full planning committee, so in practice, that will make things take longer and thus give more time for people to submit comments, though obviously it's better to send them sooner rather than later if you have strong views.

#5 ubu

ubu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 10:55 PM

This is the shortcut link to Associated Documents for the Raans Field scheme.
Straight in - i.e. no faffing around with 15 mouse-clicks.
Hope this helps. It worked last night, tho' not tonight.

https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/0068/FA

Bear in mind:
1) Access to CDC planning applications website can be frequently, enduringly erratic.
2) Planning dept also been known to sit on Contributor letters submitted for weeks before putting them up on site.
3) All Contributor letters are liable to get wiped without explanation or warning as the case clunks through, leaving just the bureaucratic submissions and their version of the issues on record.
4) This application seems well rehearsed - including a lotta worthy box-ticking softening-up PR aspirational cladding. Several bulky and/or multiple-page PDFs in there.

Nearest liable to be affected should sieve and scrutinise the screed carefully, throughout, for actual detail. Cheers.

#6 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:55 PM

I'll probably get mobbed by nearby residents of the site, but I like the proposed new houses.Heres a link to the Architects site,was hoping to come across a proposed 3D model or artists impression, but their site is under construction.

osp architects

#7 147

147

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:amersham

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:44 PM

I'll probably get mobbed by nearby residents of the site, but I like the proposed new houses.Heres a link to the Architects site,was hoping to come across a proposed 3D model or artists impression, but their site is under construction.

osp architects



I think the main argument is the poor access to Raans Road from Woodside Road, can this junction cope with the extra traffic ?

#8 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:32 PM

I think the main argument is the poor access to Raans Road from Woodside Road, can this junction cope with the extra traffic ?

I doubt it could cope. Amongst all the associated documents on the planning website there are detailed transport assessments. The trouble is, there are so many associated documents even before they've uploaded any letters from the public, but they've exacerbated it by scanning the transport assessment as individual pages, so you have to download it page by page - and there are over 80 of them (shared between "part 1" and "part 2"). :angry: I know they need to cater for people without broadband, but that's ridiculous.

You can't access the Planning system after 8pm.

Maybe not always, but it was fine at 9.30pm yesterday, and I know there have been other evenings when I've accessed it after 8pm. Strange.

The date for response is 3 weeks (21days) from the date of publication

It's in this week's published list (e.g. in Examiner), with a response deadline of 21st March.

You can view the details at CH/2008/0068/FA, but at the moment, can't submit comments via the website. However, you can email them to planning@chiltern.gov.uk quoting the application number, your name and address.

#9 147

147

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:amersham

Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:33 PM

You can't access the Planning system after 8pm.
The date for response is 3 weeks (21days) from the date of publication

Doesn't look much different to the draft which they consulted on to me



I thought the cut off time was 11pm to 8am

#10 Ado

Ado

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amersham on Hill

Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:59 PM

I am opposed to it purely on the basis of schools! The primary schools here are already overloaded. They should be building a school not a church! Do you know that the entrance into Chestnut Lane School after siblings and special needs was living in the catchment area and within 400 Metres of the school! Lots of kids in catchment did not get places.

#11 ubu

ubu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 13 March 2008 - 09:57 PM

There's already a couple of articulate letters from local residents, voicing their concerns over the proposed Raans scheme.
'Contributor Letters' published 10 & 11 Mar 2008 respectively on CDC planning site.
https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/0068/FA

#12 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,044 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2008 - 12:19 PM

I am opposed to it purely on the basis of schools! The primary schools here are already overloaded. They should be building a school not a church!


The site is there because they demolished a school and built houses on part of the site!
Matthew P Jones
Web Master of www.amersham.org.uk and www.metroland.org.uk

Follow Amershan News & Views on Twitter

Amersham News Views & Information is also on Facebook


Don't forget to read the Forum Rules!

#13 Kiff

Kiff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 14 March 2008 - 12:22 PM

PS It names the council ward as "Amersham On The Hill" (not Top Amersham). ;)


Yay ! \o/

#14 CtVoice

CtVoice

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Little Chalfont

Posted 08 May 2008 - 07:53 PM

The Kings Church/Carla Homes application to build on Raans Field was refused by Chiltern District Council's Planning Committee, tonight Thursday, May 8. All the councillors who spoke, including Vera Head, Jane Bramwell, Noel Brown and Peter Jones, spoke out strongly against it citing the heavy traffic problems it would create, added to the loss of yet more open space etc. The only one who supported it was the committee Chairman Don Phillips who raised the usual spectre of upsetting the Planning Inspector etc etc No doubt we haven't heard the last of this, but at least a follow-up application should be a lot more 'eco-friendly'.

#15 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 09 May 2008 - 06:24 PM

Chairman Don Phillips who raised the usual spectre of upsetting the Planning Inspector etc etc

Although I agree that the proposal sounds very impractical for the reasons discussed, in fairness to Don Phillips, if they reject something that goes to appeal (i.e. to the Planning Inspectorate), it costs the council a lot of money, so they need to be wary of refusing things that have determined developers and where the Planning Inspectorate is likely to approve it.

Anyway, it sounds as if it was an interesting and controversial meeting with 4 significant developments turned down: this, Latimer Sawmills, Station Court, Rickmansworth Road and Deep Mill motel (only the last of which hasn't had a mention here before), and I wouldn't be surprised if several of those went to appeal.

#16 Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

    Advanced Member

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amersham

Posted 21 November 2008 - 01:32 PM

Planning application CH/2008/1780/FA for 83 dwellings and church building on former Raans school field
Matthew P Jones
Web Master of www.amersham.org.uk and www.metroland.org.uk

Follow Amershan News & Views on src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/twitter-a.png" alt="Follow Amersham News & Views on Twitter"/>

Amersham News, Views & Information Facebook Page

#17 ubu

ubu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 21 November 2008 - 04:10 PM

- Amplified Raans shortcuts & views -
This application:CH/2008/1780/FA
Intro Page
https://isa.chiltern...o=K9YJH2ES06C00
ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS & VIEWS
https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/1780/FA
http://www.aboutmypl.....ation=HP6 6LX
[from adjacent Polish Club postcode: HP6 6LX. Set 'Bird's Eye' and 'Bigger map', rotate NSEW, 'hide inset map'; + press F11, for panorama]
Previous application: CH/2008/0068/FA
ASSOCIATED DOCS was
https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/0068/FA

#18 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:19 PM

It doesn't sound hugely different from the previous applications. See:
Bucks Advertiser article
BFP article

#19 ubu

ubu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 08:02 PM

- I see that Edinburgh-based Cala Homes got a mention in dispatches recently, by the Sunday Times City Editor.
- Something about high finance, corporate pay-offs and bank remuneration for allegedly reckless lending to property entrepreneurs, by Halifax Bank of Scotland.
- The article mulls possibly more orthodox -- as opposed to structured finance modelled -- corporate lending risk management determined by Lloyds TSB as new controller of HBOS.
- While all of this is bit over my head, it may possibly be of fleeting interest to the Raans Field Amersham scheme developer, Cala Homes (South) Limited, and other patently devoted stakeholders and associates.
- For, transparently devout adherents, not to mention pious, ardent supplicants all verily do abound, both locally and even far beyond these parish bounds, doth it seem. Oh Come, All Ye Faithful!
- Gospel of the Day (Luke 14:15-24) "Go out to the highways and hedgerows and make people come in that my home may be filled."
- Sunday Times story link:
http://business.time...icle5337490.ece
- As for funding: Jointly and severally will The Lord and his well-heeled faithful and righteous well-wishers surely and plentifully provide; notwithstanding Lloyds TSB and the Edinburgh Laird in their own times of tribulation, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
- My dear brethren, the retiring collection will be for... the King's ransom. Grant we beseech Thee, pray vouchsafe ye your servants joyfully, redouble their pledges. Give generously, each and all.
- May the congregation keep vigil till the cows come home. Nay, beyond, may they donate unceasingly, e'en till harsh Dawn breaks in the West o'er yon Chiltern bosky brow. Their rewards shall be in Heaven. For God is a long term investment; as is Mammon. Amen
- [Congregation will kneel in deep prayer, meditate sending more out-of-town outlandish unworldly emails to Chiltern District Council Planning Committee by Dec 25th, for the attention of its impregnable chatelaine, the Blessed 'Christmas Carol'.
https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/1780/FA

- Hymn: Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!

ubu

opera mundi ubu Agmondeƒhamƒis dec A.D. MMVIII All rights reserved

#20 ubu

ubu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 01 January 2009 - 10:00 AM

Further to a recent previous post, I now note that the out-of-town bleating angels from beyond Amersham have certainly 'come to the manger' in numbers, regarding, and on behalf of, the King's Church, on the one hand, and that discreet-but-convincingly-socially-aware, acclaimed, solar panel trade award-winner, Cala Homes (South) Limited, in that deeply philanthropic, jointly- shared community real estate development project, for Raans Field, Amersham.
- All of these [spontaneous] submissions were quite pastorally unguided, one might assume. - Just view the latest unprompted sincerity, and the wealth of pious ejaculations, by these enthusiastic external 'virtual parishioners' on:
https://isa.chiltern...CH/2008/1780/FA
- Our thoughts are obviously with them, and all other interested parties, too, naturally.
See also, for
Spiritual reading/hearing: [free, optional] [url="http://\"http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/come_to_the_manger.htm%20%5b/url"]\"http://www.hymnsandc..._the_manger.htm[/url]
- Organ accompaniment: [subscription required] [url="http://\"http://www.oldtownmusic.com/pc-128033-538-come-to-the-manger.aspx\""]http://www.oldtownmusic.com/pc-128033-538-...the-manger.aspx[/url]
- No axe to grind here, just worshipfully wondering.
- Happy new year to all forum readers.

ubu

#21 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:50 PM

The proposed development of ~80 homes plus a church will be discussed (again) at CDC's planning meeting on Thursday 19th February, which starts at 6.30pm. See Examiner story and the CDC website (planning ref: CH/2008/1780/FA).

One of the documents on the CDC website is from Bucks CC Property Services which says BCC has designate the site for "strategic disposal" for short term capital and that it granted Cala Homes a 5 year exclusive option to negotiate a development of housing and a church on it (see letter). On that basis I assume it's just a question of agreeing the details, rather than there being much chance of preventing it all together. I'd be interested to know the process by which Cala Homes got this right from BCC, apparently over the heads of CDC...

#22 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 06:26 PM

It has been recommended for provisional approval by next week's CDC planning committee, prior to referral to the Secretary of State. See: Examiner story.

#23 Eaton

Eaton

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,490 posts
  • Location:Milk Hall Barns, Latimer Road
  • Interests:Animals, Birds, Reading, Crosswords, Suduko and Cross Stitch

Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:51 AM

This application has been approved by the council so the final decision is now in the hands of Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The vote was 8 to 4 for approval despite concerns about the lack of parking. See full story below:


http://www.bucksfree...ing_works/#show
Mel and Co

#24 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:10 AM

I think it's a shame to see that lovely field built on,but hardly surprised.

#25 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 25 February 2009 - 09:06 PM

Too late, but this has a few more details about the decision, how many people opposed and supported etc: BFP article.

#26 lauren fox

lauren fox

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 05:17 PM

Hi this topic is something i feel very strongly about.. They are jsut going to remove a perfectly good playing area and replace it with what? a church? i appreciate the rationale but can children play there? can you walk your dog there? can kids play football there?

HAS OUR COUNCIL REALLY GOT A HANDLE ON WHAT WE WANT?

If you object please log your objection on the partition:

http://www.gopetition.com/online/32517.html

Thanks


#27 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:24 PM

To be honest I dont think the public have an awfull amount of influence on the proposed new housing the council wish to develop.Im even quite suspicious about the roadworks works being carried out around Chesham & Amersham.Why the sudden increase in roadworks?There are plans for even more roads to to subject to roadworks for electrical and water works.I remember hearing that an upgrade to an existing electrical supply in Chesham was being carried out for an unknown client.Wouldnt release the clients name, which makes me wonder if it is for a future devlopment to reach the council's quota of 2900 new properties to be built. :unsure:

#28 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:59 PM

Hi this topic is something i feel very strongly about.. They are jsut going to remove a perfectly good playing area and replace it with what? a church?


Surely the bigger problem is the large number of houses they want to build - with access via roads and junctions that are already congested?

If you object please log your objection on the partition:


Unfortunately, petitions rarely achieve anything (unless they get a million signatures, are delivered to Number 10 and make the 6 o'clock news). In the case of planning applications, I suspect they are even less likely to succeed because the council is so tied by national guidelines to build, build, build, that developers know that if they go to appeal, they are likely to win.

#29 lauren fox

lauren fox

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:20 PM

Surely the bigger problem is the large number of houses they want to build - with access via roads and junctions that are already congested?



Unfortunately, petitions rarely achieve anything (unless they get a million signatures, are delivered to Number 10 and make the 6 o'clock news). In the case of planning applications, I suspect they are even less likely to succeed because the council is so tied by national guidelines to build, build, build, that developers know that if they go to appeal, they are likely to win.



I totally agree. But the developers here are very clever, they've conveniently masked the 83 properties with a Church. The properties are of course the problem. If the church is the important part, can they not build that on the depot, and leave the houses out and then the Football pitch can remain? PERFECT SOLUTION... only question is how to put that to the council... :)

#30 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:05 PM

PERFECT SOLUTION... only question is how to put that to the council... :)

and where should they build the houses?
David P