Jump to content


Photo

2900 New Homes In Cdc Greenbelt


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:25 PM

The government has decreed that there must be 2,900 extra homes in CDC by 2026, a third of which must be "affordable" (which doesn't necessarily mean what you might think). That's ~160 per year for the whole district, which doesn't sound quite as bad.

The question is where to put them. Options include building them in the towns (Amersham, Chesham, Prestwood and G Miss); the towns + CSP, or spreading them out. The Newlands Park site in CSP is one option as Bucks New Uni (ghastly name) will be leaving soon.

Public consultation starts on Monday 30th July and runs until Monday 11th August, but no info on how/when/where the consultation will be.

See BFP article for details.

I can't see anything on CDC's website yet.

#2 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2008 - 06:19 PM

They can make a start with the land between London Road and the by pass, as they already want to build on that
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!

#3 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:55 PM

They can make a start with the land between London Road and the by pass, as they already want to build on that

Some people want to, but recent proposals were firmly rejected by the CDC planning committee.

#4 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 30 June 2008 - 06:15 PM

CDC have now put lots of information on their website: http://www.chiltern....trategicoptions, including a 6 page leaflet summarising the options: http://www.chiltern...._Leaflet_v7.pdf.

#5 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 01 July 2008 - 08:52 PM

I'm surprised this isn't a hot topic. I wonder if it's because everyone's away, it's too vague at this stage to feel personal, or some other reason. Whatever the case, these homes will be built and it will affect all of us, so it's worth having a say in which scenario is preferable.

The four options are:

  • Urban Concentration: i.e. within Chesham, Amersham, Chalfont St. Peter, Chalfont St Giles, Little Chalfont, Great Missenden, Prestwood, Seer Green, Holmer Green, Penn and Knotty Green. It generally avoids building on green belt but "most development would continue to take place on back garden land at relatively high densities" and there would be fewer units of affordable housing.
  • Targeted expansion of Amersham and Chesham: "Would reduce the impact of redevelopment within established residential areas... it involves some changes to the boundaries of the Green Belt to allow limited urban expansion."
  • Targeted expansion of Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter: similar to option 2, but spreads the development a bit more and "affordable housing would be much higher than Option 1 as larger sites would be identified". [I don't understand the reasoning behind that last point.]
  • Dispersed: spreads new homes throughout the district and would lead to increased support for village facilities, but more building on green belt and increased traffic on rural roads.
Note that other than Newlands Park in CSP, no specific sites are being considered at this stage, which is just to determine the policy within which more detailed choices will be made.

See the Summary Leaflet, for further details, and email comments to planningpolicy@chiltern.gov.uk before Monday 11th August.

#6 Speedy

Speedy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:09 PM

There is an awful lot of land on ashridge road in chesham where factories have been demolished. Building work has started on one site but i cannot see what they are building yet.

#7 Desert Rose

Desert Rose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Chesham

Posted 02 July 2008 - 12:51 PM

Why oh why are they even considering using green field sites for new housing? Have we not seen in recent years the effects of flooding on homes caused by the inefficiencies of our waterways to cope with the run off? Admittedly it's places like York and Gloucester, but it could just as easily be our area. WHEN will planners admit this fact and change their building policies to protect high permeable/porous sites like fields and back gardens and concentrate on areas which are already concreted over like brownfield sites?!?!
I despair. :o

#8 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 02 July 2008 - 01:11 PM

Why oh why are they even considering using green field sites for new housing? Have we not seen in recent years the effects of flooding on homes caused by the inefficiencies of our waterways to cope with the run off? Admittedly it's places like York and Gloucester, but it could just as easily be our area. WHEN will planners admit this fact and change their building policies to protect high permeable/porous sites like fields and back gardens and concentrate on areas which are already concreted over like brownfield sites?!?!I despair. :o

I share some of your emotion, but not all your points.

Whether we like it or not, these homes have to go somewhere, so this consultation is about finding the least bad option. Inevitably that means considering green belt and back gardens.

Sadly and misleadingly "brownfield" includes back gardens and other sites that are not "concreted over", so building on them isn't necessarily what you (or I) want either. (See Brownfield=gardens topic.)

Conversely, some green belt is greener than other bits: there are places where it could be moved slightly so that an existing settlement could be enlarged to include land that is already tainted by adjacent development, i.e. without encroaching too much on virgin green belt. Of course, that sets a precedent, but realistically, the green belt is not going to stay the same indefinitely.

Consequently, I don't think flood risk is directly related to building on green belt: building on some "brownfield" sites would have just as bad an effect. I think the flood risk depends more on the soil, slope and other features of each individual site, rather than the planning label it has. In particular, the generally hilly terrain of the Chilterns makes it unlikely that floods of an acreage comparable to Gloucestershire/Hull/York would occur (which is not to diminish the effect on the smaller number of Chiltern residents who could be affected).

But if we don't want these homes on green belt or in back gardens, what's left? And the smaller the footprint of land these homes are built on, the denser and taller they would have to be - probably not a popular option either.

Very difficult.

#9 Alan

Alan

    Alan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amersham between Quill Hall Farm & Raans Farm
  • Interests:Family, Computers, the country side, the good life, pest control (Old Bill Pest Control) & anything diffrent

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:38 PM

I share some of your emotion, but not all your points.

Whether we like it or not, these homes have to go somewhere, so this consultation is about finding the least bad option. Inevitably that means considering green belt and back gardens.

Sadly and misleadingly "brownfield" includes back gardens and other sites that are not "concreted over", so building on them isn't necessarily what you (or I) want either. (See Brownfield=gardens topic.)

Conversely, some green belt is greener than other bits: there are places where it could be moved slightly so that an existing settlement could be enlarged to include land that is already tainted by adjacent development, i.e. without encroaching too much on virgin green belt. Of course, that sets a precedent, but realistically, the green belt is not going to stay the same indefinitely.

Consequently, I don't think flood risk is directly related to building on green belt: building on some "brownfield" sites would have just as bad an effect. I think the flood risk depends more on the soil, slope and other features of each individual site, rather than the planning label it has. In particular, the generally hilly terrain of the Chilterns makes it unlikely that floods of an acreage comparable to Gloucestershire/Hull/York would occur (which is not to diminish the effect on the smaller number of Chiltern residents who could be affected).

But if we don't want these homes on green belt or in back gardens, what's left? And the smaller the footprint of land these homes are built on, the denser and taller they would have to be - probably not a popular option either.

Very difficult.

If I remember my Geography lessons correctly Green Belt was something around London and the Home counties, the answer maybe more to revitalising some areas outside of the South East, and using what is there more efficiently!

#10 Zoom

Zoom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 831 posts

Posted 02 July 2008 - 06:35 PM

If we don't build on SOME green belt (ie green area on the outskirts of existing towns) then we condemn our nice towns to ever denser development (more deeply unpopular back-garden developments, more infilling, more apartment blocks and other medium-rise buildings). By trying to keep the 'green belt' and existing boundaries of our towns sacrosanct we actually destroy the essential character of the towns and turn them into dense urban areas with all the associated problems (traffic, noise, crime).

If we want chiltern to keep its character then we HAVE TO build on SOME 'green belt' on the outskirts of our existing towns.

#11 echinosum

echinosum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 06 July 2008 - 01:20 PM

What we don't want to do is give encouragement to the people who split up fields and sell them off as plots without planning permission for the "hope" value.

Just imagine how impossible this country would be if we hadn't had the expansions of housing into what was then countryside that occurred throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries. It could have been done better, most things could have been, but it would be impossible without it. It is difficult to know what we should give up to let more people live in the greater comfort that they want, and is available in neighbouring countries. What I find poor in this country is that people who do suffer from neighbouring developments don't get compensated.

#12 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 06 July 2008 - 04:15 PM

What we don't want to do is give encouragement to the people who split up fields and sell them off as plots without planning permission for the "hope" value.

Yes, though it's quite a well known scam and frankly I have limited sympathy for those who invest significant sums in the hope of profiting from blighting the environment of others - and don't even have the nous to check if it's likely to come off.

Just imagine how impossible this country would be if we hadn't had the expansions of housing into what was then countryside that occurred throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Quite.

What I find poor in this country is that people who do suffer from neighbouring developments don't get compensated.

It's particularly harsh with some back garden developments where people in one road chose to sell part of their gardens and although their house is subsequently worth less, they've had a cash payment that they feel compensates them sufficiently. In contrast, the neighbours at the bottom of those gardens, whose outlook and house values may be more impaired than theirs, get nothing at all.

Mind you, implementing a scheme that would be fair to all parties is hard to envisage.

#13 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 July 2008 - 11:09 AM

What impact will the problems and redundancies in the housing sector have on the need for these new homes?

Would the government force them through to help support the house building sector?
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!

#14 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 10 July 2008 - 04:15 PM

What impact will the problems and redundancies in the housing sector have on the need for these new homes?

Would the government force them through to help support the house building sector?

Well, the decline in the economy will reduce the prices of homes and the number of transactions, but it won't necessarily reduce the overall number of homes needed. In fact, the converse may even be true (stress from redundancy and general financial hardship perhaps exacerbating the rate of family breakdown and thus increasing the number of households).

As for "forcing" them through, I get the impression that is what is happening anyway.

#15 Lemonade

Lemonade

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 July 2008 - 01:50 PM

If we don't build on SOME green belt (ie green area on the outskirts of existing towns) then we condemn our nice towns to ever denser development (more deeply unpopular back-garden developments, more infilling, more apartment blocks and other medium-rise buildings). By trying to keep the 'green belt' and existing boundaries of our towns sacrosanct we actually destroy the essential character of the towns and turn them into dense urban areas with all the associated problems (traffic, noise, crime).

If we want chiltern to keep its character then we HAVE TO build on SOME 'green belt' on the outskirts of our existing towns.


I've got to say i totally agree with what you are saying here. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. I know where i'd prefer to live wouldn't you? And it's not on top of my neighbour in a high rise that's for sure! Futhermore i think that we have to consider transport and links too. The areas that are considered have to have transport links, Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont have tube and reasonable bus links. I'm not convinced that Newlands park does? AND whos got any thoughts for the employment land? all the talk of convert brownfield into residential blah blah blah... If an employment area could be regenerated with employment in mind this is surely better? I would prefer to walk or cycle to work than get in the car and sit in traffic for an hour to get to Slough, Watford or another major town. Not to mention the price of petrol these days! (another soap box! :rolleyes: )

Carbon foot prints etc, it's so funny how it's picked up and immediately forgotten when it's on someones door step, we all need to be impartial and give a little i think... Just for the record I have a beautiful view, if it were to change i'd be annoyed for sure, but i didn't pay for it did i? i didn't buy the land all around me... So if it changed i'd prefer a nice housing area (maybe bungalows for the old?! do we need those! :rolleyes: ) rather than a high rise thats for sure!

#16 Alan

Alan

    Alan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amersham between Quill Hall Farm & Raans Farm
  • Interests:Family, Computers, the country side, the good life, pest control (Old Bill Pest Control) & anything diffrent

Posted 15 July 2008 - 09:34 PM

I've got to say i totally agree with what you are saying here. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. I know where i'd prefer to live wouldn't you? And it's not on top of my neighbour in a high rise that's for sure! Futhermore i think that we have to consider transport and links too. The areas that are considered have to have transport links, Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont have tube and reasonable bus links. I'm not convinced that Newlands park does? AND whos got any thoughts for the employment land? all the talk of convert brownfield into residential blah blah blah... If an employment area could be regenerated with employment in mind this is surely better? I would prefer to walk or cycle to work than get in the car and sit in traffic for an hour to get to Slough, Watford or another major town. Not to mention the price of petrol these days! (another soap box! :rolleyes: )

Carbon foot prints etc, it's so funny how it's picked up and immediately forgotten when it's on someones door step, we all need to be impartial and give a little i think... Just for the record I have a beautiful view, if it were to change i'd be annoyed for sure, but i didn't pay for it did i? i didn't buy the land all around me... So if it changed i'd prefer a nice housing area (maybe bungalows for the old?! do we need those! :rolleyes: ) rather than a high rise thats for sure!

Still think there is a lot of land misused or underused, start there before dumping more Concrete.

#17 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 15 July 2008 - 10:25 PM

Still think there is a lot of land misused or underused, start there before dumping more Concrete.

Speedy mentioned somewhere near Asheridge in Chesham, and the council is looking at the old Newlands Park site, but do you know of any other sites that would be good to redevelop?

#18 nick gabb

nick gabb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Chestnut lane

Posted 27 July 2008 - 11:33 PM

It's all part of the master plan! Bury the shires under concret to create a new Toxteth. Then they'll vote labour!!
Seriously, The natural development block is that bounded vy Stanley hill, London Road East, White lion Road and Willow Lane/Nightingales Lane. We have all witnessed the destruction of quality homes in our area as one pleasant house is demolished to provide a 20 house site. We can all see ridiculous plans going in such as he 3 storey block of flats for Clifton Rd. (Or change of use for Little Chalfont Golf Club)
What we need is a list of elected councillers AND unelected council officials who back these plans. Then we can assure the undesirables are not re-elected and bring community pressure to bear on the officials bent on destroying our environment.

#19 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 28 July 2008 - 08:22 AM

What we need is a list of elected councillers AND unelected council officials who back these plans. Then we can assure the undesirables are not re-elected and bring community pressure to bear on the officials bent on destroying our environment.

Well you can get all of that by digging around the CDC website.

Also, attending planning meetings (Thursdays, every three weeks) is useful for getting a feel for how the politics work in practice and who the movers and shakers are.

You also have to bear in mind that the local councils have very little power over big decisions nowadays: so much is imposed by central government, they're only able to tinker with the details - as with these 2900 homes. I doubt anyone on the council wants that many, but it's being forced on them, so they have to find the least bad way to implement it. (And no, I'm not and never have been on the council. ;))

#20 Lemonade

Lemonade

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 July 2008 - 11:51 AM

Has anyone read the Bucks Examiner this weekend? Option 4 Recommended?

So where does this help with traffic? transportation and lower carbon footprint? Also 'Affordable Housing' is for key workers etc, right? SO where's the Schools, Hospitals, and Fire Brigade, Police station based? Not in Little Missenden, Holmer Green or the Rural Villages?

"Disadvantages include the fact that development would be dispersed throughout the whole District on land which is not accessible, including on land currently in the Green Belt. Furthermore, there would be a significant increase in traffic on rural roads. Much of the new development would not be in sustainable locations."

Just release some sustainable Greenbelt, close to amenities.



#21 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 28 July 2008 - 08:14 PM

Has anyone read the Bucks Examiner this weekend? Option 4 Recommended? "Disadvantages include the fact that development would be dispersed throughout the whole District on land which is not accessible, including on land currently in the Green Belt. Furthermore, there would be a significant increase in traffic on rural roads. Much of the new development would not be in sustainable locations."

I'm still not sure which I think is the least bad option, but if you're going to quote the disadvantages of option 4 from the report, I will quote the suggested advantages: "the advantages would be securing a relatively large proportion of affordable housing across most settlements and increased support for village facilities."

You can view the report at Strategic Options summary. It's only 4 pages, and the four options are compared in bullet points on pages 2 and 3.

You can email comments to planningpolicy@chiltern.gov.uk before Monday 11th August - less than a fortnight away.

#22 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 05 August 2008 - 05:24 PM

Just a reminder that if you want to submit your views on this to CDC, you have until next Monday, 11th August. See links earlier on this thread for details of the proposal and who to email etc.

#23 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 August 2008 - 12:03 PM

I really hope they bring something ov value to the town and provide a better infrastructure than is at present, not just build 100's of new homes and skimp on the infrastructure/commercial side.

#24 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 11 September 2008 - 05:19 PM

The public consultation has finished and the recommended option will be put to a special CDC cabinet meeting on 30th September. However, it is impossible to tell from the front page story of this week's Amersham Examiner which option that is! The subheadline is "Amersham earmarked...", the fourth paragraph refers to "Amersham and Chesham", it supposedly quotes directly from the CDC report summarising the options (see Strategic Options summary), but using text I can't find in them, then the final paragraph refers to small scale release of green belt "on the edge of three different settlements".

I think it's option 3 (targeted expansion of Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter) that has been chosen, but can't be sure. Does anyone have a Chesham edition, and if so, is it reported any more clearly there? And of course there is nothing on the CDC website yet.

#25 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 September 2008 - 08:31 PM

I hope if they do go for option 2 in both our towns they develop a mixture of housing not just erect masses of flats to meet the numbers.Adding high spec grand housing and 3-5 bedroom housing.I see too many times loads of flats going up to meet the numbers,quite annoying.We dont all want to live in flats and it does nothing for a well balanced society.

#26 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 29 September 2008 - 12:13 PM

I wonder if the 253 new homes that have just got permission to be built in Bell Lane (see BFP article), will count towards this target, or it's too soon?

#27 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:54 PM

The council has decided on the option that concentrates home building in and around Chesham, Amersham and CSP. This was thought to have least impact on greenbelt, though I suppose the flip side is that it will mean cramming ever more homes into back gardens and every "spare" corner within those towns.

Mind you, given that 86,440 new houses have to be built in the county in the next 18 years, CDC's 161 (by my reckoning) or 145 (by BFP's) per year is not as bad as it could be.

Prescott et al... boo hiss...

For slightly more info, see BFP story.

#28 Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 October 2008 - 12:39 PM

Owing to a technical error (I clicked the wrong button) I maanage to accidentally delete a post.

Below post was previously made
----------------------------------------

Posted Imagehyposmurf View Member Profile Posted Image Add as Friend Posted Image Send Message Posted Image Find Member's Topics Posted Image Find Member's Posts Posted Image Today, 12:24 PM

IP: 217.34.19.177 | Post #1 | Posted Image



Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 296

Posted Image
There is no indication of which sites they propose to build on(maybe they are worried about the backlash by residents at this stage).The options are so broad its hard to comment on them.Also what infrastructure will be carried out?

-----------------------------------------
End of deleted post by Hyposmurf
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

#29 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 01 October 2008 - 12:53 PM

There is no indication of which sites they propose to build on(maybe they are worried about the backlash by residents at this stage).The options are so broad its hard to comment on them.Also what infrastructure will be carried out?

If I remember correctly, this stage is not about identifying any specific sites (with the possible exception of the old college at Newlands Park in CSP).

I don't think the council has to commission all these houses themselves: I think the idea is to designate some general areas and then I presume that planning applications in those areas will be looked on more favourably than those in other areas.

One of the problems with that approach is that infrastructure issues would, mostly, be considered on a case-by-case basis, and if most of the individual developments are small, that could well cause problems.

#30 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 October 2008 - 08:18 PM

Owing to a technical error (I clicked the wrong button) I maanage to accidentally delete a post.

:D
Thanks fr reinserting it.