Residents grill planners over mass development proposals

Gomm Valley is one of the reserve housing sites earmarked for development

Gomm Valley is one of the reserve housing sites earmarked for development

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

FEARS over east Wycombe becoming a dumping ground for housing and the impact on creaking infrastructure came to a head at a public forum last night to discuss building on five ‘reserve sites’.

Wycombe District Council called the meeting after proposing to develop rural sites including Gomm Valley, Slate Meadow and Abbey Barn to meet the growing demands from government over housing numbers.

During its Local Plan consultation, the question of building on the areas received the biggest number of combined objections from residents.

And last night around 150 people grilled planners and councillors on the options after they revealed the target for new homes in the district was nearer 500-700 rather than 400 as previously thought.

WDC’s head of planning and sustainability Penelope Tollitt laid out the case for releasing the areas, claiming doing nothing is not an option as the council will lose control of the areas to developers anyway.

She said: “These are reserve sites for development, not reserved from development. They have been as such since 1984 when the green belt was first delegated.

“A decision has not yet been made. The cabinet member is looking at the issue and that is a call that needs to be made, but before any decision is made we must work with residents to look at the options.

“You made it very clear to us that you do not like the idea of us building on the reserve sites.”

Opposition to building on the reserve sites - Abbey Barn North, Abbey Barn South, Gomm Valley and Ashwells, Slate Meadow and Terriers Farm – has led to numerous petitions and residents’ action groups.

Last night concerns centred on why the east side of High Wycombe must bear the brunt of development when houses are needed throughout the district.

MsTollitt explained that it is becoming harder to turn down inevitable applications from developers on non-green belt sites like Gomm Valley and Slate Meadow due to national changes in planning policy.

And with appeals likely to go the way of developers if WDC continues to trail behind on its required housing numbers, she argued it is better to retain control of the space so residents can help shape the areas.

A loss of control would also result in a loss of quality, the meeting was told, with Ms Tollitt saying long-term, quality planning was necessary to build well for the future.

With large swathes of the district covered by green belt and Area of Outstanding natural beauty, space for development around Wycombe is at a premium.

Since the 2011 Localism Act and introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework, a greater emphasis is put on an area’s Objectively Assessed Need for housing and councils must show they have enough space set aside for a rolling five–year housing supply.

And planners insist unless previously earmarked reserve sites were ‘mobilised’, a restricted district like Wycombe would not be able to negotiate with its neighbours to take a bigger share of the housing burden.

Councillors and officers were accused of short-termism and of living hand to mouth with their five-year housing supply.

They explained while a Local Plan is still in the offing, it may take years to implement and will deal with the longer term supply of housing, such as expanding Princes Risborough.

But likened to a race horse alongside a cart horse, the five-year supply – backdated to 2011 – leaves a shortfall of around 1400 homes that need to be accommodated soon.

Residents last night voiced anger that Wycombe’s groaning road and transport network could not handle the burden of a glut of new housing.

A 400-home development at Daws Hill – close to Abbey Barn – was cited as an example that little extra infrastructure work seemed likely alongside the influx of new residents.

And while the panel couldn’t make any firm promises, they said drawing up large-scale plans gives the best opportunity at assessing infrastructure needs together.

Ms Tollitt said: “It is a problem that planning can’t solve overnight, bur one of the benefits of doing it all together is we can look at the collective impact.

“If we have lots of small developments we might not see a change, but we look at this on a bigger scale then we can hopefully secure bigger improvements.”

Other issues included empty office and industrial units, with resident Ian Morton asking why the council don’t simply build houses there when the sites were available now.

Planners said Molins in Saunderton is being put forward in this way, but following a serious recession, the units may be needed in future and a separate drive to boost business would follow in the longer term Local Plan.

A further reserve site meeting is planned for August 28, with WDC set to discuss the proposal formally in October.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:27am Fri 15 Aug 14

motco says...

There are no units as such at Molins in Saunderton; it was razed by the German company that bought the land from Molins. The canteen block on Haw Lane is more or less all that remains. The site is now owned by a company specialising in developing residential properties.
There are no units as such at Molins in Saunderton; it was razed by the German company that bought the land from Molins. The canteen block on Haw Lane is more or less all that remains. The site is now owned by a company specialising in developing residential properties. motco
  • Score: 1

3:21pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

".....reserve sites for development, as such since 1984 when the green belt was first delegated?"

The history of the green belt goes back much further than 1984...

...first proposed in the seventeenth century to make a Green Belt two miles from the centre of London. The next proposal was made in 1910 for a Green Belt five miles out of London. Later there was the L.C.C. Green Belt Scheme of 1935 and the Green Belt Act of 1938. These were improved by the Greater London Plan of 1944 and the Green Belt was established by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and more firmly by Amendment in 1968.

Successive governments have whittled away at the green belt ever since...
".....reserve sites for development, as such since 1984 when the green belt was first delegated?" The history of the green belt goes back much further than 1984... ...first proposed in the seventeenth century to make a Green Belt two miles from the centre of London. The next proposal was made in 1910 for a Green Belt five miles out of London. Later there was the L.C.C. Green Belt Scheme of 1935 and the Green Belt Act of 1938. These were improved by the Greater London Plan of 1944 and the Green Belt was established by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and more firmly by Amendment in 1968. Successive governments have whittled away at the green belt ever since... Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 13

5:27pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Darren Hayday says...

Please DO NOT think about dumping lots of homes on the West side of Wycombe! Improve current infrastructure and keep to the East side of town! In-fact why Wycombe at all when we don’t even have a main hospital anymore? Doesn’t make any sense.
Please DO NOT think about dumping lots of homes on the West side of Wycombe! Improve current infrastructure and keep to the East side of town! In-fact why Wycombe at all when we don’t even have a main hospital anymore? Doesn’t make any sense. Darren Hayday
  • Score: -40

6:50am Sat 16 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Commenting on Richard Scott's statement which does not have a comment button!
He is quite correct that the Minister Brandon Lewis is pushing forward the Lib Dem/ Conservative planning policy. This is due to years of neglect by political parties in addressing the national housing shortage crisis. Housing particularly social housing is an area one would really expect Labour to be trailblazing. The root cause of the loss of social housing can easily be traced back to the lack of replacement housing following Thatchers Right to Buy policy. An inspired policy which upset the social housing applecart.
The current debate is a crude one which needs to be moved away from specific sites towards specific needs. If individual/ sub group self interest whether political, financial or 'environmental' is placed before whole community needs then all will lose out eventually.
No body or nobody appears to speak for the 4000 on the housing list plus a good deal of hidden need. We are told that young people cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. People in their 20s and beyond are living with their parents etc. There is overcrowding and available housing for sale is being snapped up by private landlords. People are afraid of the lack of security offered by these landlords.
Let us move to a position of doing the best we can for the greatest number and get the maximum benefits. Who are we really dealing with here? Landowners including pension funds, developers, aristocrats and other vested interests. They can afford to shell out and must be squeezed.
Commenting on Richard Scott's statement which does not have a comment button! He is quite correct that the Minister Brandon Lewis is pushing forward the Lib Dem/ Conservative planning policy. This is due to years of neglect by political parties in addressing the national housing shortage crisis. Housing particularly social housing is an area one would really expect Labour to be trailblazing. The root cause of the loss of social housing can easily be traced back to the lack of replacement housing following Thatchers Right to Buy policy. An inspired policy which upset the social housing applecart. The current debate is a crude one which needs to be moved away from specific sites towards specific needs. If individual/ sub group self interest whether political, financial or 'environmental' is placed before whole community needs then all will lose out eventually. No body or nobody appears to speak for the 4000 on the housing list plus a good deal of hidden need. We are told that young people cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. People in their 20s and beyond are living with their parents etc. There is overcrowding and available housing for sale is being snapped up by private landlords. People are afraid of the lack of security offered by these landlords. Let us move to a position of doing the best we can for the greatest number and get the maximum benefits. Who are we really dealing with here? Landowners including pension funds, developers, aristocrats and other vested interests. They can afford to shell out and must be squeezed. faircuppa
  • Score: 10

10:54am Sat 16 Aug 14

CatherineAB says...

It is becoming obvious that more houses are needed, but houses alone will solve nothing, unless schools and shops are added in to the equation - not to mention access roads. All these things take up more land space, so please think very carefully before any decisions are taken.
Thinking about "affordable" housing. What is that, in reality? The first buyer maybe gets it at a "reasonable" price, but thereafter it goes on sale at a market price. Maybe a cap on resale prices needs to be written into any contract, or we will still have very many who can't get on the property ladder.
A thought, here. I'm all for free enterprise, but how about a cap on house prices in any area, depending on that area's other attributes, like local work, education and other amenities. Cat among the pigeons!!
It is becoming obvious that more houses are needed, but houses alone will solve nothing, unless schools and shops are added in to the equation - not to mention access roads. All these things take up more land space, so please think very carefully before any decisions are taken. Thinking about "affordable" housing. What is that, in reality? The first buyer maybe gets it at a "reasonable" price, but thereafter it goes on sale at a market price. Maybe a cap on resale prices needs to be written into any contract, or we will still have very many who can't get on the property ladder. A thought, here. I'm all for free enterprise, but how about a cap on house prices in any area, depending on that area's other attributes, like local work, education and other amenities. Cat among the pigeons!! CatherineAB
  • Score: 10

11:29am Sat 16 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl.
Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl. faircuppa
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Sat 16 Aug 14

wycombetownie says...

Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision
WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites
That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town
It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!!
Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!! wycombetownie
  • Score: -15

12:41pm Sat 16 Aug 14

Gaulnut says...

"Last night concerns centred on why the east side of High Wycombe must bear the brunt of development when houses are needed throughout the district."

Once again, the selfish Pimms Action Group are volunteering other areas for housing rather than fighting for their area on its own merits:
http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/111
20457.Campaign_group
___Build_houses_in_t
he_west_of_the_distr
ict_/

I don't think it would be unfair for me to label these people as scum for taking such an approach to fighting the plan. Certainly a good way to alienate the rest of us, and generate support for the existing plan throughout the rest of the district. You're not doing yourselves any favours PMSL Action Group.
"Last night concerns centred on why the east side of High Wycombe must bear the brunt of development when houses are needed throughout the district." Once again, the selfish Pimms Action Group are volunteering other areas for housing rather than fighting for their area on its own merits: http://www.bucksfree press.co.uk/news/111 20457.Campaign_group ___Build_houses_in_t he_west_of_the_distr ict_/ I don't think it would be unfair for me to label these people as scum for taking such an approach to fighting the plan. Certainly a good way to alienate the rest of us, and generate support for the existing plan throughout the rest of the district. You're not doing yourselves any favours PMSL Action Group. Gaulnut
  • Score: -18

12:55pm Sat 16 Aug 14

maccapaka says...

I thought that we were told that a summary of the meeting, and questions raised, were going to be on the WDC website on Friday. For such an important issue I assumed it would be fairly obvious. I cant' see it anywhere. Has anyone seen it or did I dream this up.

One other point. I hope that the session on the 28th is opened in a more business like manner than the shambles on Thursday night. We are your customers WDC and as a public presentation it started more like a Wheeltappers and Shunters show.
I thought that we were told that a summary of the meeting, and questions raised, were going to be on the WDC website on Friday. For such an important issue I assumed it would be fairly obvious. I cant' see it anywhere. Has anyone seen it or did I dream this up. One other point. I hope that the session on the 28th is opened in a more business like manner than the shambles on Thursday night. We are your customers WDC and as a public presentation it started more like a Wheeltappers and Shunters show. maccapaka
  • Score: 12

12:59pm Sat 16 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

wycombetownie wrote:
Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision
WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites
That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town
It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!!
I thought Terriers farm was valued at £40 million last time this was published. Alas WDC has nothing like the reserves to purchase these prime sites. Tenants voted for the transfer of council stock with support of Labour, Tories and a good flip flopping display by Libs. I suggest you stand for WDC next May on a Socialist Workers platform. That would be distinctive!!
[quote][p][bold]wycombetownie[/bold] wrote: Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!![/p][/quote]I thought Terriers farm was valued at £40 million last time this was published. Alas WDC has nothing like the reserves to purchase these prime sites. Tenants voted for the transfer of council stock with support of Labour, Tories and a good flip flopping display by Libs. I suggest you stand for WDC next May on a Socialist Workers platform. That would be distinctive!! faircuppa
  • Score: 2

1:07pm Sat 16 Aug 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

faircuppa wrote:
Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl.
"Infrastructure problems are highways mainly..."
So next dry spell when we're all queuing at standpipes and having power brown outs because the real infrastructure we need isn't going to be dealt with... please don't get me started on hospitals/A&E, schools etc ;-)

Was it only two years ago when the last drought order made it rain for 3 months and many power stations have closed and are closing at the moment? It's going to hurt because it's going to cost but think about the jobs created building for a better future rather instead of paying dole money...
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]"Infrastructure problems are highways mainly..." So next dry spell when we're all queuing at standpipes and having power brown outs because the real infrastructure we need isn't going to be dealt with... please don't get me started on hospitals/A&E, schools etc ;-) Was it only two years ago when the last drought order made it rain for 3 months and many power stations have closed and are closing at the moment? It's going to hurt because it's going to cost but think about the jobs created building for a better future rather instead of paying dole money... Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 4

1:20pm Sat 16 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl.
"Infrastructure problems are highways mainly..."
So next dry spell when we're all queuing at standpipes and having power brown outs because the real infrastructure we need isn't going to be dealt with... please don't get me started on hospitals/A&E, schools etc ;-)

Was it only two years ago when the last drought order made it rain for 3 months and many power stations have closed and are closing at the moment? It's going to hurt because it's going to cost but think about the jobs created building for a better future rather instead of paying dole money...
You are completely right to raise the infrastructure implications. My observation of what has happened with the large Ercol, Thames Water developments in East Wycombe is that traffic congestion and pressure on school places has been the most obvious deficit. Utility companies and GP surgeries are under pressure anyway. Why don't you suggest more reservoir capacity? This would help with drought also.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: Yes I can just imagine how popular you would be Catherine. The prices vary throughout the country depending on demand. Developers will have to pay the infrastructure levy CIL so that should generate millions on that level of house building. Infrastructure problems are highways mainly as Wycombe becomes more and more of an urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]"Infrastructure problems are highways mainly..." So next dry spell when we're all queuing at standpipes and having power brown outs because the real infrastructure we need isn't going to be dealt with... please don't get me started on hospitals/A&E, schools etc ;-) Was it only two years ago when the last drought order made it rain for 3 months and many power stations have closed and are closing at the moment? It's going to hurt because it's going to cost but think about the jobs created building for a better future rather instead of paying dole money...[/p][/quote]You are completely right to raise the infrastructure implications. My observation of what has happened with the large Ercol, Thames Water developments in East Wycombe is that traffic congestion and pressure on school places has been the most obvious deficit. Utility companies and GP surgeries are under pressure anyway. Why don't you suggest more reservoir capacity? This would help with drought also. faircuppa
  • Score: -1

6:52am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

This is appalling.

But there's only so much any local government can do when the national government sets such stupid and unfair policies.

In the end the answer is to vote for a decent national government next year. That means voting Green, or Labour, or Liberal Democrat rather than Conservative (or UKIP, heaven help us).

We need national policy which encourages decent jobs everywhere in the country, not just in London and south-east England.

We need national policy which encourages first a stable population and then a gradual decline - not by being xenophobic and against all immigrants, but by encouraging everybody to have one or two children at most. Only then can we stop this madness of always building more and more, and destroying more and more green space.
This is appalling. But there's only so much any local government can do when the national government sets such stupid and unfair policies. In the end the answer is to vote for a decent national government next year. That means voting Green, or Labour, or Liberal Democrat rather than Conservative (or UKIP, heaven help us). We need national policy which encourages decent jobs everywhere in the country, not just in London and south-east England. We need national policy which encourages first a stable population and then a gradual decline - not by being xenophobic and against all immigrants, but by encouraging everybody to have one or two children at most. Only then can we stop this madness of always building more and more, and destroying more and more green space. RowanIW
  • Score: 6

7:01am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

The water supply issue raised by Mr Totteridge Hill is a very important one.

But more reservoirs are not really the answer. The problem is that the water has to get into the reservoirs from rain.

Rainfall per person in south-east England is now very low because there are so many of us. If we take more water away from the land we will cause even more damage to our local environment.

Catchment figures are available from the Environment Agency - I haven't looked these up for the Wye, but the whole of south-east England already takes out more water than is sustainable.
The water supply issue raised by Mr Totteridge Hill is a very important one. But more reservoirs are not really the answer. The problem is that the water has to get into the reservoirs from rain. Rainfall per person in south-east England is now very low because there are so many of us. If we take more water away from the land we will cause even more damage to our local environment. Catchment figures are available from the Environment Agency - I haven't looked these up for the Wye, but the whole of south-east England already takes out more water than is sustainable. RowanIW
  • Score: 3

7:07am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

Here's the Thames river basin management plan

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/289937
/geth0910bswa-e-e.pd
f
Here's the Thames river basin management plan https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/289937 /geth0910bswa-e-e.pd f RowanIW
  • Score: 2

7:11am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

Here's the Cherwell, Thame and Wye catchment abstraction licensing strategy:

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/cherwell-thame-an
d-wye-catchment-abst
raction-licensing-st
rategy
Here's the Cherwell, Thame and Wye catchment abstraction licensing strategy: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/cherwell-thame-an d-wye-catchment-abst raction-licensing-st rategy RowanIW
  • Score: 2

7:13am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/289991
/LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf


says south-east England is the driest part of the UK yet uses the most water per person.

So why does our stupid national government demand that local governments here are forced to build even more houses?

Insane!
https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/289991 /LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf says south-east England is the driest part of the UK yet uses the most water per person. So why does our stupid national government demand that local governments here are forced to build even more houses? Insane! RowanIW
  • Score: 3

7:24am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

See page 11 of the local catchment abstraction licensing strategy
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/289991
/LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf


Whatever the water flows, low, or high, water is not available for licensing from the Wye catchment.
See page 11 of the local catchment abstraction licensing strategy https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/289991 /LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf Whatever the water flows, low, or high, water is not available for licensing from the Wye catchment. RowanIW
  • Score: 2

7:31am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

See page 28 as well on the lower Wye, which is the relevant one for this insane plan for more houses in east Wycombe.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/289991
/LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf
See page 28 as well on the lower Wye, which is the relevant one for this insane plan for more houses in east Wycombe. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/289991 /LIT_2341_1fbc98.pdf RowanIW
  • Score: 1

7:44am Sun 17 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

I agree with CatherineAB - we need controls on house prices and rents.

I reckon we need to bring back council housing with rents that really are affordable. The word 'affordable' now is a joke. So-called 'affordable' housing is not affordable by most people.

For example, in my own case, to make ends meet I now have jobs in two parts of the country, including some work here. But when I'm working here I'm back staying with my parents because there is no way I could afford to even rent anywhere, let alone buy anywhere.
(If it weren't for family reasons and if there were jobs going in less overpopulated parts of the country I wouldn't choose to work or live here at all, because it's got so ugly and hectic and restless. And Wycombe must once have been one of the most beautiful towns in the country. It's heartbreaking to imagine what might have been.)

Letting developers build 'affordable' homes will just give yet more money to developers.

We need a decent national government that would allow local governments to have their own housing again and to let it at honestly affordable rents.

The 1980s Conservative government's 'right-to-buy' policy was actually a ploy to get rid of local government housing so that private landlords could get more money. It worked. Rents went up. Buy-to-lets went up. House prices went up. Now look at the mess they've got us into.
I agree with CatherineAB - we need controls on house prices and rents. I reckon we need to bring back council housing with rents that really are affordable. The word 'affordable' now is a joke. So-called 'affordable' housing is not affordable by most people. For example, in my own case, to make ends meet I now have jobs in two parts of the country, including some work here. But when I'm working here I'm back staying with my parents because there is no way I could afford to even rent anywhere, let alone buy anywhere. (If it weren't for family reasons and if there were jobs going in less overpopulated parts of the country I wouldn't choose to work or live here at all, because it's got so ugly and hectic and restless. And Wycombe must once have been one of the most beautiful towns in the country. It's heartbreaking to imagine what might have been.) Letting developers build 'affordable' homes will just give yet more money to developers. We need a decent national government that would allow local governments to have their own housing again and to let it at honestly affordable rents. The 1980s Conservative government's 'right-to-buy' policy was actually a ploy to get rid of local government housing so that private landlords could get more money. It worked. Rents went up. Buy-to-lets went up. House prices went up. Now look at the mess they've got us into. RowanIW
  • Score: 1

9:26am Sun 17 Aug 14

Agniesca says...

As populations increase and household sizes decrease more and more homes will be needed. Since we cannot increase the land available in Wycombe we will overload all of our infrastructure including hospitals, doctors, water supplies, foul water treatment, residential homes, roads and schools which will have to go onto a two shift day.
The only solution is to restrict the population in this area, even if this means family members being forced to live in less populous parts of the UK
As populations increase and household sizes decrease more and more homes will be needed. Since we cannot increase the land available in Wycombe we will overload all of our infrastructure including hospitals, doctors, water supplies, foul water treatment, residential homes, roads and schools which will have to go onto a two shift day. The only solution is to restrict the population in this area, even if this means family members being forced to live in less populous parts of the UK Agniesca
  • Score: 3

10:58am Sun 17 Aug 14

s6blr says...

Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more.

You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds!

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!
Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more. You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds! 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: -4

11:58am Mon 18 Aug 14

wycombetownie says...

faircuppa wrote:
wycombetownie wrote:
Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision
WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites
That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town
It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!!
I thought Terriers farm was valued at £40 million last time this was published. Alas WDC has nothing like the reserves to purchase these prime sites. Tenants voted for the transfer of council stock with support of Labour, Tories and a good flip flopping display by Libs. I suggest you stand for WDC next May on a Socialist Workers platform. That would be distinctive!!
I think the Socialist Workers all went into the East Wycombe Independents.
What is needed is for people of Wycombe to NOT vote Tory or we get more of the same
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wycombetownie[/bold] wrote: Where WDC is falling down is fact it sold off our council homes -- that was a Tory decision WDC could compulsory purchase all the reserve sites That way it would control the sites and what is build across out town It could then look to work with social housing providers to build local homes for local people at affordable prices . Also control pricing now and in future .. social rent homes!!![/p][/quote]I thought Terriers farm was valued at £40 million last time this was published. Alas WDC has nothing like the reserves to purchase these prime sites. Tenants voted for the transfer of council stock with support of Labour, Tories and a good flip flopping display by Libs. I suggest you stand for WDC next May on a Socialist Workers platform. That would be distinctive!![/p][/quote]I think the Socialist Workers all went into the East Wycombe Independents. What is needed is for people of Wycombe to NOT vote Tory or we get more of the same wycombetownie
  • Score: -3

10:23pm Mon 18 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Depends on the candidates, people do vote in Conservatives time after time. The opposition does not have the resources or the candidates to win a majority on the Council. If you want WDC to bankrupt itself there will be nothing left to run!
Depends on the candidates, people do vote in Conservatives time after time. The opposition does not have the resources or the candidates to win a majority on the Council. If you want WDC to bankrupt itself there will be nothing left to run! faircuppa
  • Score: 4

10:33pm Mon 18 Aug 14

RowanIW says...

s6blr wrote:
Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more.

You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds!

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 - please don't scare people!

Let's remind ourselves that population numbers can fall without sterilisation - contraception has been available on the NHS for about four decades now!

Which illustrates why this is so difficult. As you say we need attractive buildings that fit in well and which are sustainably built. But we do need space as well. And that means people having only one or two children, or else we'll use up the space.
[quote][p][bold]s6blr[/bold] wrote: Suck it up and you either sterilise the population or you build more. You should be focusing your energy on them only approving sustainable building, with proper planning and infrastructure built in with it as that would be the best of all worlds! 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]s6blr - please don't scare people! Let's remind ourselves that population numbers can fall without sterilisation - contraception has been available on the NHS for about four decades now! Which illustrates why this is so difficult. As you say we need attractive buildings that fit in well and which are sustainably built. But we do need space as well. And that means people having only one or two children, or else we'll use up the space. RowanIW
  • Score: 1

7:21pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Forgive me if I have missed something, but what on earth was the point of consulting if the Council feels that building on these site is inevitable? That inevitability was not offered as the starting point for consultation - and yet it is raised now - the thrust has changed from "which of the sites is best for development" to "they will be developed (despite having the highest number of objections!), you must now accept this and try and ensure (somehow) that any building is what you want rather than what the developers want " (though in reality they will seek to cram in as much as they can and will appeal until they get what they want anyway). What on earth was the point is asking people's views given this? It all smacks of the Council lazily simply caving in to central government and completely disregarding the majority local view - which is disgraceful. Where now the "local people decide local things" policy trumpeted by the Tories? Do locals have ANY choice AT ALL? I think not - it's all window dressing, going through the motions, and capitulation by our representatives - and it absolutely stinks.
Forgive me if I have missed something, but what on earth was the point of consulting if the Council feels that building on these site is inevitable? That inevitability was not offered as the starting point for consultation - and yet it is raised now - the thrust has changed from "which of the sites is best for development" to "they will be developed (despite having the highest number of objections!), you must now accept this and try and ensure (somehow) that any building is what you want rather than what the developers want " (though in reality they will seek to cram in as much as they can and will appeal until they get what they want anyway). What on earth was the point is asking people's views given this? It all smacks of the Council lazily simply caving in to central government and completely disregarding the majority local view - which is disgraceful. Where now the "local people decide local things" policy trumpeted by the Tories? Do locals have ANY choice AT ALL? I think not - it's all window dressing, going through the motions, and capitulation by our representatives - and it absolutely stinks. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 5

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