Jump to content


Photo

2900 New Homes In Cdc Greenbelt


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#31 KevinR

KevinR

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Location:Chesham Bois

Posted 02 December 2008 - 03:40 PM

The following is an excerpt from Chesham Bois parish council minutes for October 2008 (at http://www.cheshambo..... Minutes.pdf).

It throws some light on how option 3 was arrived at as the preferred choice for CDC for meeting the government building targets. As can be seen, it is not so black and white as first appears, and does not mean that all new housing will be on green belt land.

CDC Planning Policy – Preferred Core Strategy Option 3
The Chairman explained the thinking behind CDC’s policy to allow the release of a limited number of sites in the green belt for potential development. This has been driven by the government’s refusal to allow windfall sites in urban areas (which usually provide most of the land supply in Chiltern) to be taken into account to achieve the required minima. If CDC had
opted for development to be restricted to the urban centres any refusals could have been overridden by the planning inspectorate. CDC will only need to permit development in areas of the green belt if its targets can’t be met elsewhere.


#32 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 10 April 2009 - 02:24 PM

Confirmation of the decision is here BFP article. It's reported as news, but I don't think it's really saying anything very new (unless I've missed something).

#33 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 January 2010 - 01:59 PM

Although, after public consultation CDC decided which option they want as to roughly where to squeeze these homes, the issue is now going for further public consultation, apparently. There's nothing on the CDC website yet, but there is a little information here: BFP story.

#34 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 January 2010 - 08:17 PM

Do you think that this sudden increase in water, gas and electrical utility work in Chesham/Amersham is related?

#35 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 January 2010 - 10:38 PM

Do you think that this sudden increase in water, gas and electrical utility work in Chesham/Amersham is related?

I'm no expert, but I doubt it because even if they stick to the option they prefer, that is too vague to determine which utilities need to be upgraded where. So far, they have only got as far as saying that over a 15 year period, they will try to put most of the new homes somewhere within the 3 or 4 main settlements in the district.

#36 Rayhoop

Rayhoop

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:cars + track days, scuba, nature,

Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:12 PM

Do you think that this sudden increase in water, gas and electrical utility work in Chesham/Amersham is related?


I doubt it...
Creating new connections to existing utilities - even if there is a new estate being built - would not require work across the whole area. Changes would be localised to where they tap into the utility main, and where the utility will be run.

Fran is correct.
Planning, quoting and prepping for the upgrade/changes would require plans to work off, as the work would need to be quite specific.

#37 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:36 PM

Youre both probably right.Reason it came to mind is that there was a mystery client involved with a new supply running up Nashleigh Hill in Chesham.As there are two areas they could build on in that area,it could have been for one of the proposed developments.

#38 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 05 February 2010 - 01:25 PM

Chiltern housing fears continue

Chiltern building plan a "raging Tyrannosaurus Rex"

Looks like the Council are already have reservations and looks as if the Goverment will have the final say anyway.

Cllr Linda Smith said: “We are having to make this decision with both hands tied behind our backs. Government are restricting our decisions every step of the way.


If the new homes are built how on earth are the council going to maintain our roads with the influx of new residents.They can barely cope now.The Vale in Chesham floods during heavy rainfall adding additional housing will add to this problem.The A416 seems to crawl to a halt in rush hour,also effecting all the assocaited branch roads,adding the number of homes proposed makes no sense, unless the infrastructure is massively improved, but I doubt thats been sufficiently for within the budget.
Im back on the pothole issue again! :)

#39 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts

Posted 05 February 2010 - 07:09 PM

"Chiltern building plan a "raging Tyrannosaurus Rex"


What on earth does that mean?

If the new homes are built how on earth are the council going to maintain our roads with the influx of new residents.


By collecting more council tax from the new residents?

More homes are needed. The answer is not to say 'Yes, but they should be built somewhere else'.
David P

#40 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 05 February 2010 - 08:00 PM

"Chiltern building plan a "raging Tyrannosaurus Rex"


What on earth does that mean?


That there's a councillor trying to get a meaningless but intriguing soundbite published. And it worked.

#41 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 05 February 2010 - 08:51 PM

By collecting more council tax from the new residents?

More homes are needed. The answer is not to say 'Yes, but they should be built somewhere else'.

But would the new council tax pay for all the new infrastructure work that would be required to support this aditional housing,I doubt it would.They are currently struggling to fund poorly maintained roads from an emergency fund.The developers would be just focused on their own particular development and not how it effects the town as a whole and the goverment are unlikely to care too much so long as they meet their quota of new hosuing.Ideally we could all voice our opinions to eventually sway them to build elsewhere, but in reality I doubt that would happen.

#42 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 05 February 2010 - 08:59 PM

That there's a councillor trying to get a meaningless but intriguing soundbite published. And it worked.

Yes a strange title to use, but it had some interesting points in.Such as:

But Cllr Warder said it was necessary to pick out areas for building work – otherwise the council could risk losing its power to make important planning decisions.
He said it would be “no longer the case” local authorities would have the final say on planning approval, with that task passing to Government planning inspectors


Cllr Linda Smith said: “We are having to make this decision with both hands tied behind our backs. Government are restricting our decisions every step of the way.


It would be interesting to know what they are being restricted on by central goverment and if the local council do loose control to central goverment, it doent bare thinking about.

#43 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 February 2010 - 02:31 PM

One answer would be that more cases would go to appeal and they would be more likely to win. A lost case costs the council lots of money.

I don't know if there are other, more direct, sanctions that could be imposed.

#44 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 16 February 2010 - 10:20 PM

A couple of pertinent points that recently caught my eye:
  • A third of the 2,900 homes have already been built or have planning permission, so that's fewer additional ones to worry about (Bucks Examiner, page 8).
  • A survey in CSP has shown that 92% don't want their allocation of 400 new homes. I suspect a similar survey in Amersham or Chesham would give a similar result, but they have to go somewhere, unless government policy changes (BFP story).


#45 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 11:47 PM

  • A survey in CSP has shown that 92% don't want their allocation of 400 new homes.


However, that survey did not include the 1000-odd people that might live in those homes. Such surveys always produce a negative result and are only good for producing headlines.
David P

#46 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 March 2010 - 01:05 PM

Not had time to digest it but this link has quite a bit of info on the proposals

•Draft Core Strategy for Chiltern District March 2010

#47 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 March 2010 - 12:42 PM

As far as I know there is a meeting on Monday 15th March at 7pm in Chesham Town Hall to discuss these planning proposals.Not sure if it includes other areas or just specifically Chesham.
Couldnt find the document immediately on the Chiltern Council website and has very little info on when any meetings wil take place.Leaves very little time for people to be notified.

#48 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:27 PM

It seems this proposed meeting is for Not just Chesham but also Amersham etc.

Building for the future in the Chilterns

#49 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:04 PM

Not trying to influence anyones voting but noticed:

this on the Lib Dem website:

We will scrap the 'Westminster knows best' regional house-building targets by allowing local authorities to determine how many and what type of homes are needed in their area.




and from the Conservative site:

That’s why local people need to decide where new homes should go, instead of Whitehall bureaucrats. And that’s why we will use incentives to encourage new homes to be built, rather than letting unelected quangos impose unsustainable development on communities.



#50 Zoom

Zoom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:51 PM

I'm planning to suggest to the council that they allocate the land just further out of town from St Marys School for housing... on the farm land at the back of the old town at the far end of the bypass.... just where the high speed train line cutting would be in fact... :)

#51 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 March 2010 - 01:04 PM

Two departments fighting over the same bit of land. :D That land could be used for housing.It wouldnt encroach too much on the existing town and is next to the A413.

#52 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 18 September 2010 - 06:47 PM

Probably because of the change of government, the target has fallen from 2,900 over 16 years to 2,400 homes.

Remember that a third of the original 2,900 homes have already been built or have planning permission, which means there will be about 1,443 more, spread over ~16 years, so only ~90 new homes per year, spread across the whole of Chiltern district. That doesn't sound too bad to me.


See Bucks Examiner

#53 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:08 PM

The 500 'lost' houses would have been built in Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter.


Am I reading this correctly?There will be 500 less homes built in these three towns?At the end of the day numbers give you some idea of the scale of the development that is anticipated, but its not until you hear of what developments are proposed and where that you can really envisage whats proposed.

#54 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 08:16 PM

so only ~90 new homes per year, spread across the whole of Chiltern district. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

It sounds pretty bad to me - by my reckoning that's only about 40% of the population growth rate.
David P

#55 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 September 2010 - 08:53 PM

It sounds pretty bad to me - by my reckoning that's only about 40% of the population growth rate.

It does,doesnt really sound sustainable. Wouldve thought that by trying to keep up wih the demand it would possibly keep property values at a more stable level.One of the main driving forces of our economy is construction,just hope the goverment dont under value its worth,coming out of recession.

#56 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 19 September 2010 - 09:34 AM

It sounds pretty bad to me - by my reckoning that's only about 40% of the population growth rate.

Are you thinking of the national rate or the local one (and is it people or households)?

#57 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:19 PM

Are you thinking of the national rate or the local one (and is it people or households)?

The national rate was the easiest to look up. Is it likely to be very different from the local one? It was the population growth figure, which, of course, is lower than the household figure (thanks to the growth in single parent households, now 20% according to today's paper).
David P

#58 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 16 June 2011 - 10:21 PM

Curious timing. The BFP is reporting that CDC won't change the greenbelt to make space for these 2,900 homes - not very surprising when more than half of them have been built or got planning permission: BFP story. If anyone can spot any actual news in the article, please point it out.

#59 HP6

HP6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 17 June 2011 - 10:14 PM

I gave up. The photo is helpful though. A lot of people are wondering where the proposed HS2 line is.