'The time is right to develop', Wycombe District Council say

Gomm Valley residents campaigning against 'reserve site' plans

Gomm Valley residents campaigning against 'reserve site' plans

First published in News
Last updated
Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

THE time is right to release five ‘reserve sites’ for development, despite residents reinforcing the fact they are unwanted, Wycombe District Council workers have said.

A proposal has been made to release Slate Meadow in Bourne End and High Wycombe sites Gomm Valley and Ashwells, Abbey Barn South and North, and Terriers Farm for development.

This has come after a new government framework stated the district needs to develop between 500 and 700 new homes every year, with the council previously being asked to work to a target of 400 homes.

WDC head of Planning and Sustainability, Penelope Tollitt, said: “We have just consulted on our Local Plan, but during that period our reading of the rules has shifted.

“There is now much more emphasis on the short term delivery of houses rather than the long term plan for development.

“According to the new framework we need to be able to show we can develop a certain amount of houses (between 500 and 700) in a five year land supply. But it is not just enough to say we can do it, we actually have to do it.

“That is why we think the time to release those reserve sites is now, in order to demonstrate we are managing that five year supply.

“If we do nothing, developers can put in applications and if we refuse it is very likely they will just be permitted on appeal.”

The council are now going to begin a consultation with concerned parties to discuss their proposal.

Once they have discussed the plans to release the sites, the concept will be put to the WDC cabinet for a final decision in October.

Ms Tollitt said: “The idea of the consultation for the Local Plan was to see the views of people regarding possible future developments.

“However, we did receive a huge amount of feedback from people in regards to the reserve sites and that reinforced that people are concerned about development in this area.

“That is why we must work with these people to come up with the best possible solution. If we do nothing people will just try and develop as they would like to, and we would struggle to stop it.”

Cllr Neil Marshall, cabinet member for planning and sustainability, said: “We thought we could rest on our laurels and work towards a Local Plan, but the picture is changing and it has changed while we were doing this public consultation.

“There is now much more emphasis on the immediate which is looking around about 600 new homes per annum, although we don’t have an exact number.

“The amount, which is somewhere between 500 and 700 homes, is what we will be expected to achieve, and if we are put to the test, that is what we will be expected to reach.”

The council are now due to hold public workshops to discuss the proposal to release the reserve sites.

The first workshop will be at Bucks New University on Thursday, August 14.

To attend either meeting, register by contacting Lynn Bartley on 01494 421101 or Simon Barlow on 01494 421158 or by emailing newlocalplan@wycombe.gov.uk

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:21pm Tue 12 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

The Coalition have changed the rules then to force councils to utilise some of the reserve sites. Though the figure required for units of housing shows very little change. Curious as to why Con/Liib changed the rules.
I look forward to our MP and local representatives pointing out the limited gain of this change of direction.
The Coalition have changed the rules then to force councils to utilise some of the reserve sites. Though the figure required for units of housing shows very little change. Curious as to why Con/Liib changed the rules. I look forward to our MP and local representatives pointing out the limited gain of this change of direction. faircuppa
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Tue 12 Aug 14

pennman says...

Are there no brownfield sites they can use rather than Gomm Valley? It's not easy to get to (up **** Lane), there are no services supporting it, the infrastructure alone to service the site will be colossal (sewerage, electricity, gas etc), inadequate spaces at the local schools and doctor's surgery and once its gone, its gone. They stopped making land a while ago, to why not re-use some brownfield space?
Are there no brownfield sites they can use rather than Gomm Valley? It's not easy to get to (up **** Lane), there are no services supporting it, the infrastructure alone to service the site will be colossal (sewerage, electricity, gas etc), inadequate spaces at the local schools and doctor's surgery and once its gone, its gone. They stopped making land a while ago, to why not re-use some brownfield space? pennman
  • Score: 15

5:35pm Tue 12 Aug 14

BOOKERite says...

Whatever happened to democracy? WDC's policy is "we will listen to the people that pay our wages, but we are going to ignore anything they have to say". Also, will the infrastructure be put in place before any one brick is laid?
Whatever happened to democracy? WDC's policy is "we will listen to the people that pay our wages, but we are going to ignore anything they have to say". Also, will the infrastructure be put in place before any one brick is laid? BOOKERite
  • Score: 25

6:52pm Tue 12 Aug 14

maccapaka says...

Listen and don't hear. I hope WDC have got their tin hats ready.
Listen and don't hear. I hope WDC have got their tin hats ready. maccapaka
  • Score: 20

7:08pm Tue 12 Aug 14

wycombetownie says...

OK the WDC officers say Yes to developing sites
What do the Councillors say that are supposed to run the council?
OK the WDC officers say Yes to developing sites What do the Councillors say that are supposed to run the council? wycombetownie
  • Score: 9

7:14pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Daryl_Roberts says...

I can't say for the others but I know that people living near to Gomm Valley will Not like this what so ever! This proposal should not be accepted. Surely there are more suitable areas to build in. The public need to be listened to and I hope the meeting this Thursday attracts a large number.
I can't say for the others but I know that people living near to Gomm Valley will Not like this what so ever! This proposal should not be accepted. Surely there are more suitable areas to build in. The public need to be listened to and I hope the meeting this Thursday attracts a large number. Daryl_Roberts
  • Score: 10

7:24pm Tue 12 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Daryl_Roberts wrote:
I can't say for the others but I know that people living near to Gomm Valley will Not like this what so ever! This proposal should not be accepted. Surely there are more suitable areas to build in. The public need to be listened to and I hope the meeting this Thursday attracts a large number.
Well said, I do think they have mistimed this dreadfully. It is bound to be suggested that development takes place at the end of Gomm Road
[quote][p][bold]Daryl_Roberts[/bold] wrote: I can't say for the others but I know that people living near to Gomm Valley will Not like this what so ever! This proposal should not be accepted. Surely there are more suitable areas to build in. The public need to be listened to and I hope the meeting this Thursday attracts a large number.[/p][/quote]Well said, I do think they have mistimed this dreadfully. It is bound to be suggested that development takes place at the end of Gomm Road faircuppa
  • Score: 5

8:35pm Tue 12 Aug 14

AgentMorty says...

Cabinet member for planning and leader of the Council are both Marlow based.
Remind me again how many of the reserve sites are in Marlow?

Wycombe will take some of the share but other areas need to now share the load.
Cabinet member for planning and leader of the Council are both Marlow based. Remind me again how many of the reserve sites are in Marlow? Wycombe will take some of the share but other areas need to now share the load. AgentMorty
  • Score: 15

9:01pm Tue 12 Aug 14

s6blr says...

Housing policy and planning should be fairly and evenly spread throughout the area, that includes Gomm valley!

It's only residents complaining, those who cannot be find a place to live too!
Housing policy and planning should be fairly and evenly spread throughout the area, that includes Gomm valley! It's only residents complaining, those who cannot be find a place to live too! s6blr
  • Score: -3

10:22pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Bodger1966 says...

Seeing as our lovely coalition has moved the goalposts before the consultation has even been written up then surely wdc should rerun the consultation, guided by the new policy. Second time around they could do more to let people know about it too!
Seeing as our lovely coalition has moved the goalposts before the consultation has even been written up then surely wdc should rerun the consultation, guided by the new policy. Second time around they could do more to let people know about it too! Bodger1966
  • Score: 11

12:47am Wed 13 Aug 14

FLiszt says...

All this unwanted housing is part of the fallout arising from uncontrolled immigration - requiring 231 houses per day.

If you want to get a grip on both quality and quantity of immigration, following Australia's example, then forget the three legacy parties and join and vote UKIP.
All this unwanted housing is part of the fallout arising from uncontrolled immigration - requiring 231 houses per day. If you want to get a grip on both quality and quantity of immigration, following Australia's example, then forget the three legacy parties and join and vote UKIP. FLiszt
  • Score: 6

1:16am Wed 13 Aug 14

AgentMorty says...

FLiszt wrote:
All this unwanted housing is part of the fallout arising from uncontrolled immigration - requiring 231 houses per day.

If you want to get a grip on both quality and quantity of immigration, following Australia's example, then forget the three legacy parties and join and vote UKIP.
Council have already said that is not the case in Wycombe so kindly take your poison elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]FLiszt[/bold] wrote: All this unwanted housing is part of the fallout arising from uncontrolled immigration - requiring 231 houses per day. If you want to get a grip on both quality and quantity of immigration, following Australia's example, then forget the three legacy parties and join and vote UKIP.[/p][/quote]Council have already said that is not the case in Wycombe so kindly take your poison elsewhere. AgentMorty
  • Score: -6

5:45am Wed 13 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Bodger1966 wrote:
Seeing as our lovely coalition has moved the goalposts before the consultation has even been written up then surely wdc should rerun the consultation, guided by the new policy. Second time around they could do more to let people know about it too!
Quite Bodger, all that effort on a sham consultation. Clegge and Cameron have no interest in green space at local level. It is a pity they don't have the conviction to build Eco villages and garden cities as was mooted. It will be time to scrutinise party manifestos shortly particularly regarding housing, health, social services and education as we have problems with all of these in Wycombe.
[quote][p][bold]Bodger1966[/bold] wrote: Seeing as our lovely coalition has moved the goalposts before the consultation has even been written up then surely wdc should rerun the consultation, guided by the new policy. Second time around they could do more to let people know about it too![/p][/quote]Quite Bodger, all that effort on a sham consultation. Clegge and Cameron have no interest in green space at local level. It is a pity they don't have the conviction to build Eco villages and garden cities as was mooted. It will be time to scrutinise party manifestos shortly particularly regarding housing, health, social services and education as we have problems with all of these in Wycombe. faircuppa
  • Score: 3

10:04am Wed 13 Aug 14

sundaydriver says...

Well I think the problem is not so much the building on the 'new sites' because we do need more houses for the growing population but that the problem is the style of houses that are built on the site.

The ethos is cram as many cheap little boxes in as possible and get the highest margin possible such that a not so pretty final image is created - why don't WDC only allow the development if it is fully focussed to aligning with the surrounding vista - ah wait a minute that means builders profits will be down then!
Well I think the problem is not so much the building on the 'new sites' because we do need more houses for the growing population but that the problem is the style of houses that are built on the site. The ethos is cram as many cheap little boxes in as possible and get the highest margin possible such that a not so pretty final image is created - why don't WDC only allow the development if it is fully focussed to aligning with the surrounding vista - ah wait a minute that means builders profits will be down then! sundaydriver
  • Score: 9

10:33am Wed 13 Aug 14

ryeman says...

BOOKERite wrote:
Whatever happened to democracy? WDC's policy is "we will listen to the people that pay our wages, but we are going to ignore anything they have to say". Also, will the infrastructure be put in place before any one brick is laid?
Democracy is great, but we all know the 'people' will say 'don't build here'; the council 'have' to build. So what are they meant to do? Consult and ignore? Or just not consult? they can't win.
Agree that the infrascructure needs proper consideration though.
[quote][p][bold]BOOKERite[/bold] wrote: Whatever happened to democracy? WDC's policy is "we will listen to the people that pay our wages, but we are going to ignore anything they have to say". Also, will the infrastructure be put in place before any one brick is laid?[/p][/quote]Democracy is great, but we all know the 'people' will say 'don't build here'; the council 'have' to build. So what are they meant to do? Consult and ignore? Or just not consult? they can't win. Agree that the infrascructure needs proper consideration though. ryeman
  • Score: -1

11:05am Wed 13 Aug 14

BucksComment says...

This policy has nothing to do with the lack of housing and everything to do with trying to boost the economy buy building new stuff.

SODC have a similar policy - '000s of houses to be built but guess how many families in SODC are permanently in temporary accomodation? 10

A freedom of information request is due for WDC I think
This policy has nothing to do with the lack of housing and everything to do with trying to boost the economy buy building new stuff. SODC have a similar policy - '000s of houses to be built but guess how many families in SODC are permanently in temporary accomodation? 10 A freedom of information request is due for WDC I think BucksComment
  • Score: -3

1:36pm Wed 13 Aug 14

wycombetownie says...

BucksComment wrote:
This policy has nothing to do with the lack of housing and everything to do with trying to boost the economy buy building new stuff.

SODC have a similar policy - '000s of houses to be built but guess how many families in SODC are permanently in temporary accomodation? 10

A freedom of information request is due for WDC I think
WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserved sites to stop mass development.
WDC have about 2000 local families on low income or our kids looking for homes .. lets allow building of these at affordable prices to buy or for social rent..... and say no more
[quote][p][bold]BucksComment[/bold] wrote: This policy has nothing to do with the lack of housing and everything to do with trying to boost the economy buy building new stuff. SODC have a similar policy - '000s of houses to be built but guess how many families in SODC are permanently in temporary accomodation? 10 A freedom of information request is due for WDC I think[/p][/quote]WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserved sites to stop mass development. WDC have about 2000 local families on low income or our kids looking for homes .. lets allow building of these at affordable prices to buy or for social rent..... and say no more wycombetownie
  • Score: -6

2:47pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BucksComment says...

^ What are you on about? ^

No one has a right to live anywhere, you have to go where you can afford - otherwise it is just a race to the bottom
^ What are you on about? ^ No one has a right to live anywhere, you have to go where you can afford - otherwise it is just a race to the bottom BucksComment
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Scarletto says...

Our district has to take its fair share of new homes, even though it's a blow for some residents. We desperately need new homes nationally. No doubt there was a big fuss each time there was development of housing estates in our areas such as in Hazlemere, Tylers Green and most other villages around us. No doubt there was a big campaign about the plan to build the M40 across rolling acres, or some of our trading estates, shopping centres and even, way back, the railway. Best hope is that not too many homes are built and the "load" is spread across several areas rather than just one or two having a lot.
Our district has to take its fair share of new homes, even though it's a blow for some residents. We desperately need new homes nationally. No doubt there was a big fuss each time there was development of housing estates in our areas such as in Hazlemere, Tylers Green and most other villages around us. No doubt there was a big campaign about the plan to build the M40 across rolling acres, or some of our trading estates, shopping centres and even, way back, the railway. Best hope is that not too many homes are built and the "load" is spread across several areas rather than just one or two having a lot. Scarletto
  • Score: 3

3:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

sundaydriver says...

Scarletto wrote:
Our district has to take its fair share of new homes, even though it's a blow for some residents. We desperately need new homes nationally. No doubt there was a big fuss each time there was development of housing estates in our areas such as in Hazlemere, Tylers Green and most other villages around us. No doubt there was a big campaign about the plan to build the M40 across rolling acres, or some of our trading estates, shopping centres and even, way back, the railway. Best hope is that not too many homes are built and the "load" is spread across several areas rather than just one or two having a lot.
Positive comment but précis of the above is welcome to England where we all complain about what might happen in our own back yard and don't complain if it is somebody elses but ultimately we do let it happen every time and just hope for the best outcome - Downley Pastures a good example, I remember driving up the hill through the fields to get to the village before the fields were filled with affordable little houses.
[quote][p][bold]Scarletto[/bold] wrote: Our district has to take its fair share of new homes, even though it's a blow for some residents. We desperately need new homes nationally. No doubt there was a big fuss each time there was development of housing estates in our areas such as in Hazlemere, Tylers Green and most other villages around us. No doubt there was a big campaign about the plan to build the M40 across rolling acres, or some of our trading estates, shopping centres and even, way back, the railway. Best hope is that not too many homes are built and the "load" is spread across several areas rather than just one or two having a lot.[/p][/quote]Positive comment but précis of the above is welcome to England where we all complain about what might happen in our own back yard and don't complain if it is somebody elses but ultimately we do let it happen every time and just hope for the best outcome - Downley Pastures a good example, I remember driving up the hill through the fields to get to the village before the fields were filled with affordable little houses. sundaydriver
  • Score: 2

5:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

motco says...

In the 1980s all the talk in the districts was of falling school rolls due to the stagnant population figures. Schools were actually closed: Holtspur Middle School and Primary Schools became Holtspur Juniors and the buildings converted into The Beacon Centre, and Knotty Green disappeared altogether. The same happened in other parts of the area too.

What happened in the meantime to cause the population to suddenly start growing I wonder?
In the 1980s all the talk in the districts was of falling school rolls due to the stagnant population figures. Schools were actually closed: Holtspur Middle School and Primary Schools became Holtspur Juniors and the buildings converted into The Beacon Centre, and Knotty Green disappeared altogether. The same happened in other parts of the area too. What happened in the meantime to cause the population to suddenly start growing I wonder? motco
  • Score: 6

5:41pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Agniesca says...

As the population increases we need to build more houses, however, such building work needs to be preceeded by an increased provision of schools, doctors, hospital facilities, water supplied, foul water processing , community facilities playing fields and roads. Failure to address these problems will result in OFSTED giving us more adverse reports, health problems will arise as a result of pollution and stress from overcrowding. We need a proper plan before we give any go-ahead.
As the population increases we need to build more houses, however, such building work needs to be preceeded by an increased provision of schools, doctors, hospital facilities, water supplied, foul water processing , community facilities playing fields and roads. Failure to address these problems will result in OFSTED giving us more adverse reports, health problems will arise as a result of pollution and stress from overcrowding. We need a proper plan before we give any go-ahead. Agniesca
  • Score: 4

5:47pm Wed 13 Aug 14

sundaydriver says...

Agniesca wrote:
As the population increases we need to build more houses, however, such building work needs to be preceeded by an increased provision of schools, doctors, hospital facilities, water supplied, foul water processing , community facilities playing fields and roads. Failure to address these problems will result in OFSTED giving us more adverse reports, health problems will arise as a result of pollution and stress from overcrowding. We need a proper plan before we give any go-ahead.
Please don't hold your breath
[quote][p][bold]Agniesca[/bold] wrote: As the population increases we need to build more houses, however, such building work needs to be preceeded by an increased provision of schools, doctors, hospital facilities, water supplied, foul water processing , community facilities playing fields and roads. Failure to address these problems will result in OFSTED giving us more adverse reports, health problems will arise as a result of pollution and stress from overcrowding. We need a proper plan before we give any go-ahead.[/p][/quote]Please don't hold your breath sundaydriver
  • Score: -2

8:20am Thu 14 Aug 14

DonRockell says...

Our biggest problem is that we voted these clowns into power and they are using that power for their own ends.

If we want them out - put up and campaign against them - That is the only way any of them will listen to anything the public has any concern over .

Hit them in their power pocket
Our biggest problem is that we voted these clowns into power and they are using that power for their own ends. If we want them out - put up and campaign against them - That is the only way any of them will listen to anything the public has any concern over . Hit them in their power pocket DonRockell
  • Score: -3

7:52am Fri 15 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

DonRockell wrote:
Our biggest problem is that we voted these clowns into power and they are using that power for their own ends.

If we want them out - put up and campaign against them - That is the only way any of them will listen to anything the public has any concern over .

Hit them in their power pocket
They are not clowns that is the problem. They are well organised, well funded and self interested for their political class. If you were elected you would have as much impact as a flea on an elephant. An occasional swishing of the tail then trampled underfoot!
[quote][p][bold]DonRockell[/bold] wrote: Our biggest problem is that we voted these clowns into power and they are using that power for their own ends. If we want them out - put up and campaign against them - That is the only way any of them will listen to anything the public has any concern over . Hit them in their power pocket[/p][/quote]They are not clowns that is the problem. They are well organised, well funded and self interested for their political class. If you were elected you would have as much impact as a flea on an elephant. An occasional swishing of the tail then trampled underfoot! faircuppa
  • Score: -3

9:43am Fri 15 Aug 14

Agniesca says...

For 15 years national policy has facilitated the growth in population. We are looking at 75,000,000 inhabitants in the foreseeable future. To house and care for this large expected increase will result in a decrease in the quality of life for many. The question is, how to we share out the resulting pain?
For 15 years national policy has facilitated the growth in population. We are looking at 75,000,000 inhabitants in the foreseeable future. To house and care for this large expected increase will result in a decrease in the quality of life for many. The question is, how to we share out the resulting pain? Agniesca
  • Score: 0

10:00am Fri 15 Aug 14

gpn01 says...

Agniesca wrote:
For 15 years national policy has facilitated the growth in population. We are looking at 75,000,000 inhabitants in the foreseeable future. To house and care for this large expected increase will result in a decrease in the quality of life for many. The question is, how to we share out the resulting pain?
Accepting continued population growth as if it is a fait accomplis is the wrong place to begin. Proper analysis needs to take place to clearly understand why the population is growing at the rate it is and whether it is sustainable.
[quote][p][bold]Agniesca[/bold] wrote: For 15 years national policy has facilitated the growth in population. We are looking at 75,000,000 inhabitants in the foreseeable future. To house and care for this large expected increase will result in a decrease in the quality of life for many. The question is, how to we share out the resulting pain?[/p][/quote]Accepting continued population growth as if it is a fait accomplis is the wrong place to begin. Proper analysis needs to take place to clearly understand why the population is growing at the rate it is and whether it is sustainable. gpn01
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Fri 15 Aug 14

chillout112 says...

Unfortunately the 'consultation' is just a tick box exercise, the new housing plans are probably now a done deal.
Unfortunately the 'consultation' is just a tick box exercise, the new housing plans are probably now a done deal. chillout112
  • Score: 7

2:51pm Fri 15 Aug 14

gpn01 says...

chillout112 wrote:
Unfortunately the 'consultation' is just a tick box exercise, the new housing plans are probably now a done deal.
That's pretty much what the WDC team stated in their presentation that they were keen to avoid being accused of!
[quote][p][bold]chillout112[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately the 'consultation' is just a tick box exercise, the new housing plans are probably now a done deal.[/p][/quote]That's pretty much what the WDC team stated in their presentation that they were keen to avoid being accused of! gpn01
  • Score: 5

5:15pm Fri 15 Aug 14

s6blr says...

Putting aside the Gommless two people in the picture, you either sterilise the population or you build more. Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children.

We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built.

What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS.

Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built!
Putting aside the Gommless two people in the picture, you either sterilise the population or you build more. Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children. We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built. What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS. Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built! s6blr
  • Score: -7

5:32pm Fri 15 Aug 14

gpn01 says...

s6blr wrote:
Putting aside the Gommless two people in the picture, you either sterilise the population or you build more. Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children.

We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built.

What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS.

Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built!
There are other ways, including:
(1) Encouraging a shift towards downsizing - older people (who're an increasing percentage of the local population), according to Cllr Marshall, also live in property with a low density (i.e. old people live in houses that are bigger than needed) - changing that is a societal/cultural thing though and beyond the short-term ability of a Council to change it
(2) Building higher density housing which is sympathetic to the area (not all flats need to be built to look ugly!)
(3) Accept that th nature of employment is changing and release soem of the sites reserved for employment areas to instead be used for housing
(4) Positively encourage (through improved transport and infrastructure) people to work in areas where there is plenty of land to build housesinstead of trying to cram yet more people into highly populated areas (e.g. by providing opportunities in the Nort insetad of everyone working in the South-East).
[quote][p][bold]s6blr[/bold] wrote: Putting aside the Gommless two people in the picture, you either sterilise the population or you build more. Building then has to happen across numerous locations, in some locales that isn't an instant winner with the local population. The argument just doesn't hold water that it has to be somewhere else for someone to move when you yourself moved to where you are now, and probably bred 2 (or more) children. We don't see you moving out of your house into a box or shipping container to allow your children a place to live, and the logarithmic resulting growth pyramid from the 2x2x2 breeding means more has to be built. What we all as residents, in locales where we may not like the building is to fight the nasty little on-top of each other box building mentality. I think that's the root of the issue -- if the homes to be built actually blended with existing although not ideal I suspect there'd be a darn sight less objections from the NIMBYS. Just remember NIMBYS, there were NIMBYS where you are now before YOUR house was built![/p][/quote]There are other ways, including: (1) Encouraging a shift towards downsizing - older people (who're an increasing percentage of the local population), according to Cllr Marshall, also live in property with a low density (i.e. old people live in houses that are bigger than needed) - changing that is a societal/cultural thing though and beyond the short-term ability of a Council to change it (2) Building higher density housing which is sympathetic to the area (not all flats need to be built to look ugly!) (3) Accept that th nature of employment is changing and release soem of the sites reserved for employment areas to instead be used for housing (4) Positively encourage (through improved transport and infrastructure) people to work in areas where there is plenty of land to build housesinstead of trying to cram yet more people into highly populated areas (e.g. by providing opportunities in the Nort insetad of everyone working in the South-East). gpn01
  • Score: 5

7:48pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Agniesca says...

If populations continue to increase, given that land available in the SE is finite, then we will have to impose restrictions and encourage people to move to less populated parts of the country/ world
If populations continue to increase, given that land available in the SE is finite, then we will have to impose restrictions and encourage people to move to less populated parts of the country/ world Agniesca
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree