43 replies to this topic

[PaulAmersham]

Members of Kings Church - who are supporting the plan to develop the houses on the Raans Road site - please take this an open invitation to respond to the points contained in this post...I write them as a fellow Christian, and as a local resident whose life will be adversly impacted by the proposed development.

According to your website


Kings Church Amersham is a community of God's people based in Amersham with a vision to serve God in all we do. We believe church is more than just a Sunday!

If this is the case why do you need to develop on ground currently used by local families? Surely church, indeed your faith and mission, as you imply, is more than just a building - you claim to serve God in all you do. Does God condone the demolishment of playing areas for children? And does God truly believe that the children, many of whom live in flats with no gardens, really deserve to have this one haven taken away?

Also, I'd like you to be open and honest about what you get out of this development - how much money are the developers effectively giving you to support their application for development. through construction costs or the like ? I seem to remember a story or two about the evil of riches in the book you claim to live by....

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

I am afraid the simple fact of the matter is that you are allowing yourselves to be tempted by the promise of swanky new buildings, material goods, at the cost of depriving residents of their only recreational area. Be clear and clean in your conscience and disclose the arrangement you have with the developers.


As a committed Christian I know how important the Chuch community can be - but I also know that Amersham has a number of churches which are rarely full....we simply do not need another.

I would urge you to consider maintaining your current site, forging alliances with the other church groups to use their spaces if necessary and see the value of God's love - God would not look kindly on anyone who was so open to what is effective bribery (support our development and we will give you a new church).

This development would go away if it weren't for the support of the Kings Church, people could continue using the fields.....withdraw your support, continue with your good work, but refuse to tempted by offers from developers - the local community will not thank you. The community, with the exception of this one church, is overwhelmingly against this project.

May God be with you in your heart, and I sincerely mean this to all members of the Kings Church. I wish you a Happy Christmas and prosperous, but just, New Year.

[lauren fox]

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...

How about having a very close look at the surrounding areas. I'm going to be very careful in making this suggestion BUT i remember reading that a consultation paper was concluded in 2008 which highlighted that us the public considered redrawing of the greenbelt boundaries (within reason! and that simply means having a close look at the area and what can be considered as an acceptable area to be removed from the greenbelt.) a far more practical answer than cramming the towns, and developing on back gardens and further more destroying well placed open areas that are used by kids.

Paul's quote about the kids in Park Place is very true. They don't have ANY open space as such... why would we consider removing their football pitch?

Our council are supposed to represent us the people and think about things with a common sense approach. I agree we NEED addional houses... I don't agree that Raans is the place to put them... AND I AM NOT BEING A NIMBY!

[hyposmurf]

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

I think you have nailed it on the head Fran both Chesham and Amersham can not support the number of homes they are intent on building.Both towns are already too small for further mass develpment and just dont have the infrastructure to support these developments.Even if they do add to the existing infrastructure they will be impeded by the narrow streets and existing property.To build these proposed additional homes, they would have been better off developing small villages such as Hawridge,Mop End and Hyde Heath etc.I think maybe the idea is that its cheaper to meet their demands by building in Chesham & Amersham,as much of the existing infrastructure is there.Im worried they will just build properties for sake of building,without enough thought and not improve the existing infrastrure to cope with this extra strain.

[Fran]

...Chesham and Amersham can not support the number of homes they are intent on building.Both towns are already too small for further mass develpment and just dont have the infrastructure to support these developments... they would have been better off developing small villages

The first problem is that the council is mandated by government to build more homes. See 2900 new homes topic. However, I don't think they are given funding for any infrastructure, so apart from the odd junction upgrade they impose on larger developments as part of granting planning permission, congestion etc is likely to get worse.

As for whether they should be spreading the development to include the villages, there was a consultation in summer 08 (discussed in the same topic I've linked to above) with four options: 1) Urban Concentration; 2) Targeted expansion of Amersham and Chesham; 3) Targeted expansion of Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter, and 4) Dispersed. They chose number 3.

Im worried they will just build properties for sake of building,without enough thought and not improve the existing infrastrure to cope with this extra strain.

Very possibly.

[lauren fox]

I think we are all singing off the same hymn sheet here... The issue revolves around CDC trying to shoe horn the government dictated houses into our towns... With a view of 'lets just cram them into Amersham and Chesham where we can’ without thinking about it properly...

This NEEDS someone to PLAN it.. with thought to every aspect. If that means adding houses to Mop End and Hyde Heath this can surely be a benefit to those communities? When was the last time a bus went through Hyde Heath?! The corner store has closed due to lack of business etc.. Why is that? BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY ISN'T QUITE LARGE ENOUGH to economically sustain them... I'm not advocating putting 100's of Homes in any of these towns. What i DO BELIEVE in is that it should be PLANNED, with a dispersed number distributed into each town, includiing Little Chalfont, Amersham, Hyde Heath, Holmer Green etc...

And finally, the only practical way to do this sensibly is consider redrawing the Greenbelt in my opinion. And PLEASE don't take that out of context. I’m not referring to the open country side being concreted over, or Shardloes having it's gardens and view turned into houses. I'm referring to carefully planned development on the outter areas of a few select places. I don't want my kids future ruined. But i want my kids to have a future here. At this rate they won't....

[Fran]

Lauren, I agree with most of what you say, but it's too late. How to spread the development was what the consultation was about, but the decision was made and now Chesham, Amersham and CSP will get most of the additional houses.

[hyposmurf]

They want to add 100's of homes into existing small towns that dont have great infrastructure.Updating the existing infrastrutcure to cope with the future demands as you say looks unlikely,all this coming from a council that's budget runs out almost half way through each year, the future doenst look to great for the towns.Just take a look at how many potholes still have to be rectified and youll get an idea of how they are struggling to cope with the existing demands, not matter future demands

[lauren fox]

This is not ment to be a direct dig at anyone personally but it sounds like a budgeting issue then doesnt it! It's quite simply, you have to budget to survive! Half the reason the country's in such as mess is because every civil servant in charge of anything top do with money doesnt have a clue how to budget?!! I've got to make my pay cheque last a month, and still have change to feed the family... It's not that difficult, especially if you're paid to do it! Germany have just cut taxes! why? because they have 'saved' so to fuel the economy they cut taxes, makes sense to me?
And as for the pot holes, well it completely discraceful!

Sorry... (for the rant!)

[PaulAmersham]

Interesting to see nobody from The King's Chruch took it upon themselves to respond. If development goes ahead there will be caranage on Raans Road with people in the neighbouring roads unable to get out....all so a few people can have a slightly bigger Church. The world really has gone mad. Without their support there would be no hope for development.

[Laura S]

I was just wondering if anyone knew when this development work was due to start - we live nearby but there are no signs of any development starting yet. Is this scheduled to start this year or is it still a few years down the line?

[Jess]

I was just wondering if anyone knew when this development work was due to start - we live nearby but there are no signs of any development starting yet. Is this scheduled to start this year or is it still a few years down the line?

Hi, for the current situation look here and PLEASE add your comments!

Sorry, forgot to put the actual link in!! http://maplelawns.blogspot.com/

[gizmo]

I have just driven past the Maple Lawns site, and it looks OK.

http://www.hpcha.org.uk/download.cfm?type=document&document=1061

The social housing situation is a different matter.....

Whoever allocated 23 apartments, 2 two bedroom, and 2 three bedroom houses?
They don't realise that families need housing, children would like gardens to play in, but prefer to stick them
in flats. I'm not impressed.


"New affordable homes: The Maple Lawns development
includes 24 one, two and three bedroom apartments plus
two two-bedroom affordable houses to rent to individuals
and families nominated by Chiltern District Council’s
Choice Based Lettings scheme. Two three-bedroom houses
and a one-bedroom apartment are available for Shared
Ownership to help people who want to buy a home of
their own but cannot afford to do so.
Funding: These affordable homes have been developed by
Hightown at a cost of £4.448 million with £1.613 million
support from the Homes and Communities Agency."

[David P]

They don't realise that families need housing, children would like gardens to play in, but prefer to stick them
in flats. I'm not impressed.

If you look at the plans you will see that they are providing a play area for the affordable homes. It also looks as though there is an larger green area with trees there (though no doubt H&S will keep the kids away from the trees)

[gizmo]

A play-area likely added as an after-thought. A central courtyard play/leisure area for the flats would have been far more practical. Offering safety for children, privacy, and clear line of site view for parents.

I also think the housing should be mixed - hang-on the whole development should be social housing. But this of course is not being practical