Jump to content


Photo

Do You Want To Object To Proposed Waste Transfer Site On A413?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,010 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:40 PM

If you want to object to the proposed Waste Transfer site on the A413 between Amersham and Chalfont St. Giles, details can be found at

http://www.webdoc.co...treLeaflet1.pdf

There are claims of a significant amount of large additional lorry traffic through the area.
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!

#2 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:23 AM

I remember this being rejected a while ago? Is this how planning works? The developers keep applying until they get accepted?

#3 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:06 AM

It's a wonder that anything ever gets built in this country.
The Nimby's charter (the new localism bill) is a surefire recipe for this country's descent to third world status.
David P

#4 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:28 AM

I remember this being rejected a while ago? Is this how planning works? The developers keep applying until they get accepted?

Pretty much.

#5 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,182 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:06 PM

Is this how planning works? The developers keep applying until they get accepted?


Often, yes.

It's a wonder that anything ever gets built in this country.
The Nimby's charter (the new localism bill) is a surefire recipe for this country's descent to third world status.


I'm not sure it will be quite as bad as that - I certainly hope not.

No one is going to want a waste station next door, but until we stop generating rubbish, it has to go somewhere, and as this is expanding an existing facility, rather than blighting a new area, it seems like a broadly good idea. The devil will be in the detail, though, and certainly increased traffic is something to consider (especially as there will be a lot of extra HGVs on the A413 when/if HS2 is built).

#6 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:48 PM

Is this how planning works? The developers keep applying until they get accepted?


Yes, but first they take note of why they were rejected in the first place and make appropriate changes.

No one is going to want a waste station next door,


Precisely. So if all such planning decisions are to be determined locally, they will always be rejected and no new infrastructure will get built.
David P

#7 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:25 PM

No one is going to want a waste station next door,


That was one of the reasons it was rejected last time, if I remember correctly - because it's in a residential area. In the real world, there's 5 houses there. Hardly residential.

The devil will be in the detail, though,


And there's no detail at all on the leaflet opposing it. In that regard it's quite reminiscent of the "OMG!!! NO HS2 HERE!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" leaflet. Light on facts, heavy on rhetoric and scaremongering.

#8 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,182 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:16 AM

Apparently this will be considered by BCC Planning Committee at the end of this month. Little Chalfont Parish Council is concerned about traffic: the Examiner says it "could have 50 trucks transferring 300 tonnes of waste six days", which I presume means 50 per day, which would be about one every 10 minutes, depending on the opening hours (http://www.buckingha...14018-31340110/). Not something to be thrilled about, but it has to go somewhere, and an existing site, on a main road, seems like the most sensible option.

#9 PeterC

PeterC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:07 PM

This is all rather confusing, posters around Amersham are protesting about a landfill site ("dump"). Are both being proposed or is it deliberate disinformation or are the protesters simply ignorant?
PeterC aka Chilternbirder

#10 Danny Boy

Danny Boy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2012 - 08:54 AM

It's a wonder that anything ever gets built in this country.
The Nimby's charter (the new localism bill) is a surefire recipe for this country's descent to third world status.


Every single politician/commentator who uses the "nimby" phrase in an attempt to silence contrary views has been proven an utter hypocrite.

Edited by PaulEden, 15 July 2012 - 12:01 AM.


#11 147

147

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 12 July 2012 - 11:02 AM

Every single politician/commentator who uses the "nimby" phrase in an attempt to silence contrary views has been proven an utter hypocrite.


I'm obviously missing something here.

Anyone who has lived here for any length of time will remember that before Mrs Thatcher privatised our refuse service, the site had been used for the transfer of all Chiltern Districts waste.
Refuse lorries would dump there waste in the open air, for it then to be transfered to articulated lorries for the journey to Wapsies Wood Landfill site. Surely 30 years on a Waste Transfer Site would be properly regulated with less local polution. Additionaly there would be fewer journeys by refuse lorries ferrying their load to Wapsies Wood, this daily saving of time could probably mean the removal of another Refuse Round. But then we Council Tax payers wouldn't be the beneficiarys, Verdants share holders would.

#12 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:36 PM

Every single politician/commentator who uses the "nimby" phrase in an attempt to silence contrary views has been proven an utter hypocrite.

If you don't remove that post I shall ask the mods to do it for you.

Edited by PaulEden, 15 July 2012 - 12:04 AM.

David P

#13 Danny Boy

Danny Boy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2012 - 02:31 PM

name='David P' timestamp='1342100213' post='34675']
If you don't remove that post I shall ask the mods to do it for you.
[/u]


On what grounds? You can't dish it out (calling objectors "nimbys"), then starting throwing your toys around when someone gives it back. I have no knowledge of the proposed site as I don't live anywhere near it. However, I respect residents' objections on the grounds it will effect their local environment. Its a natural human charateristic to protect one's environment. Are you suggesting you have never once objected to any proposed change in your local environment? You clearly object to change when it comes to rolling back socialism.

#14 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:39 PM

Not something to be thrilled about, but it has to go somewhere, and an existing site, on a main road, seems like the most sensible option.


Sensibly said.

I'm actually more concerned by the seeming unbounded enthusiasm for chucking up huge these NIMBY banners/signs objecting to almost any development proposal in the area. Talk about blight on the landscape!

Which NIMBY talk leads neatly on to...

If you don't remove that post I shall ask the mods to do it for you.


We can surely disagree, object even, without calling for moderator action, no? Danny Boy's post was a bit ad hominem, but it doesn't need mod intervention.

#15 147

147

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:49 PM

On what grounds? You can't dish it out (calling objectors "nimbys"), then starting throwing your toys around when someone gives it back. I have no knowledge of the proposed site as I don't live anywhere near it. However, I respect residents' objections on the grounds it will effect their local environment. Its a natural human charateristic to protect one's environment. Are you suggesting you have never once objected to any proposed change in your local environment? You clearly object to change when it comes to rolling back socialism.


The 6 houses in the imediate vicinity were originally tied houses for employees of Amersham R.D.C who worked on the site. However over the years they were sold off by the council. The people moving in them surely knew what was at the bottom of their garden, thats why they are cheaaper than other houses in the area.

#16 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 12 July 2012 - 04:07 PM

Keep it clean please! Remember play the ball not the man.

The 6 houses in the imediate vicinity were originally tied houses for employees of Amersham R.D.C who worked on the site. However over the years they were sold off by the council. The people moving in them surely knew what was at the bottom of their garden, thats why they are cheaaper than other houses in the area.

Completely agree! Firstly they live on the A413 and secondly they have the 'dump', so not houses that I would buy, whether or not the 'dump' is extended (or whatever you want to call it) or stays the same!
Mel and Co

#17 Jinni

Jinni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:09 PM

I can understand the concerns of local residents - I was under the impression that it won't just be Chiltern waste but also South Bucks and probably refuse from further afield, such as London Boroughs.

Traffic seems to be a major concern, with 50mph speed limit on A413 already causing problems for local residents who have had streetlights switched off too. I hope that the speeding drivers will be able to allow for slow turning monsters leaving the site.

Trying to cross that road to catch a bus must be a nightmare at the busy time. There also seems to be increased traffic from people 'rat running' through Cokes Lane to avoid White Lion Road/Stanley Hill which appear busier than ever (and people moving into the new houses off Raans & Bell Lane won't help that)

Once aupon a time 'dustbin' accurately described what we discarded - surely we should look to reducing and recycling too not just resort to burn as the first option.

#18 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:52 PM

This link should bring you to the planning application:

https://isa.chiltern...l=LRLYQVES09X00

CDC's report on it isn't too positive.They mentioned its oversized for the capacity they are proposing, to be built on green belt, visual impact/not screened well enough and would harm the listed building Ivy House.

#19 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 July 2012 - 08:04 PM

This is all rather confusing, posters around Amersham are protesting about a landfill site ("dump"). Are both being proposed or is it deliberate disinformation or are the protesters simply ignorant?


As far as I know part of it used to be a landfill site.

Edited by Eaton, 13 July 2012 - 08:34 PM.


#20 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:32 PM

On what grounds? You can't dish it out (calling objectors "nimbys"), then starting throwing your toys around when someone gives it back. I have no knowledge of the proposed site as I don't live anywhere near it. However, I respect residents' objections on the grounds it will effect their local environment. Its a natural human charateristic to protect one's environment. Are you suggesting you have never once objected to any proposed change in your local environment? You clearly object to change when it comes to rolling back socialism.

On the grounds that your first sentence is obviously untrue (Every politician etc. has been proven to be an utter hypocrite) and your second breaks the rules of the forum (read them, they are posted at the top of News & Views). And I object to being called a hypocrite, even your rather strange definition of the word.

Hypocrisy is objecting to a project for the common good because it affects you personally but not giving a damn if it is built elsewhere.
Hypocrisy is objecting to such a project (let us say the M40 or Tesco) and then making good use of it yourself.
Hypocrisy is suddenly feigning great interest in the welfare of newts, when you probably wouldn't recognise one if you saw it.
Hypocrisy is exaggerating and distorting the facts to suit your argument.

I live in Amersham. I will be affected (not 'effected') just as much as 99% of the other residents, yet I support these projects because I believe them to be worthwhile and they have to go somewhere. For the 1% that may be genuinely badly affected, I support decent compensation. How does this make me a hypocrite?
David P

#21 147

147

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:07 AM

I live in Amersham. I will be affected (not 'effected') just as much as 99% of the other residents, yet I support these projects because I believe them to be worthwhile and they have to go somewhere. For the 1% that may be genuinely badly affected, I support decent compensation. How does this make me a hypocrite?


I'm with you on this one David, after all it is our waste.

#22 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:19 AM

Indeed. If David is a hypocrite, then so am I.

#23 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

and your second breaks the rules of the forum (read them, they are posted at the top of News & Views).

So does your NIMBY comment David.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.


http://www.google.co...NBOeMZJY2A0yvfg

Some using the NIMBY term do so in an attempt to discredit project opponents and to avoid dealing with substantive issues raised by the opponents. Thus, “NIMBY” is an ad hominem attack on opponents.


Anyway the thread is going off track a bit. :) As I mentioned before CDC appear to be against this.There's some more info here:

https://docs.google....jq6Yt7SMw&pli=1

The proposal involves one very large waste reception building (about 60m long, 34m deep and
12m high) and a smaller bio-filter building (about 5m high, 8m deep and 10m wide) as well as other
buildings and structures, all of which would be much more visible in the landscape than any of the
development that is on the application site at present


My feelings are that it will eventually go ahead, but hopefully if enough people & CDC object, there maybe a better outcome.Amersham may end up with a WTS that is less visually intrusive and have less negative impact on the town.

#24 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:54 PM

So does your NIMBY comment David.

I don't think so. I have not attacked any individual on this forum, only made comments about Nimbys in general. Also, in general, I have tried to point out the flaw in their argument, rather than just accusing them of Nimyism (not always, I admit.)

http://www.google.co...NBOeMZJY2A0yvfg

Seems like a fairly weak attempt by a Nimby to justify Nimyism. However, some of his definitions of Unimbys seem to match quite closely my definition of hypocrisy. For once, I can agree with him about wind farms.

http://www.google.co...FzxdzQkws44qTkQ

I'm not sure what this has to do with the waste transfer site.
David P

#25 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:07 AM

We have a long standing rule here. Open debate is welcome, but it's not acceptable to attack a user, only his argument. In this case, saying David's arguments are hypocritical would be acceptable. Saying he's a hypocrite isn't.

It may seem like a minor insult to get all boiled up about, but it IS a rule.

I've edited a number of posts in this thread, hopefully it still makes sense.

#26 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:42 AM

I'm not saying youre a hypocrite, but put yourself in the shoes of a nearby resident, being labelled a NIMBY is a derogatory comment made to totally discredit any issues a nearby resident may have, just because they live nearby.To me thats pretty insensitive and not in keeping with open debate.

Ive corrected the above link.

#27 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:04 AM

I don't think so. I have not attacked any individual on this forum, only made comments about Nimbys in general.

I think you know youre dam close ;)

#28 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,182 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:14 AM

I live in Amersham. I will be affected... just as much as 99% of the other residents, yet I support these projects because I believe them to be worthwhile and they have to go somewhere. For the 1% that may be genuinely badly affected, I support decent compensation.


Exactly.

And please - everyone - keep the debate on the issues, not presumptions about the personalities of the participants.

#29 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 15 July 2012 - 09:19 AM

put yourself in the shoes of a nearby resident, being labelled a NIMBY is a derogatory comment made to totally discredit any issues a nearby resident may have, just because they live nearby.

Surely the point is that there has always been a tip/dump there, the houses that are around it were built for workers at that facility and although they have since been sold the people that purchased them got them for a reduced price because of their location. Isn't it better that the existing site, which is on an A-road be upgraded rather than greenbelt land being used for a new dump/tip?

I have to say that I do think that if it's the residents of these few houses that are complaining then they are being Nimby's BUT if a new facility was built on greenbelt land where they had never previously been any waste facility of any kind then I would fully support any argument against it and yes the residents of any new facility would also be Nimby's but in my view would actually have a valid argument.
Mel and Co

#30 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:49 AM

Surely the point is that there has always been a tip/dump there, the houses that are around it were built for workers at that facility and although they have since been sold the people that purchased them got them for a reduced price because of their location. Isn't it better that the existing site, which is on an A-road be upgraded rather than greenbelt land being used for a new dump/tip?

There's no saying when the current occupants bought their houses. The site is technically green belt (former landfill does not qualify as previously developed land), and so they had a reasonable expectation that it would stay as it is. The arguments about developing other green belt land also apply to this site.

I have to say that I do think that if it's the residents of these few houses that are complaining then they are being Nimby's BUT if a new facility was built on greenbelt land where they had never previously been any waste facility of any kind then I would fully support any argument against it and yes the residents of any new facility would also be Nimby's but in my view would actually have a valid argument.

The complaints are coming from a lot further afield. The plan is that this would be a waystation, with all waste from across the Chilterns and beyond arriving and then being transported by v. large lorries to the recently approved incinerator at Calvert. Not only would there be a vast increase in large heavy goods-type traffic (for which the road is unsuitable - even single lorries trying to turn right across the traffic routinely cause hold-ups), but the developers have refused to give a commitment that there will not be a substantial increase in heavy traffic down minor roads such as Nightingales Lane.

What is really concerning, though, is that the scale of the proposed development is apparently 50% larger than it needs to be to cater for the needs of the Chilterns. That suggests they envisage drawing in waste from much further afield. Even if we accept the argument that this needs to be somewhere and this site is the best available, that does not mean it should be substantially larger than it needs to be. We are supposed to be reducing our residual waste, not increasing it.