Mixed reaction to Terriers Farm development

Mixed reaction to Terriers Farm development

Mixed reaction to Terriers Farm development

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

A POTENTIAL development of 400 homes on a farm in High Wycombe has received mixed reactions from residents who fought the last threat to the land seven year ago.

Terriers Farm, near Kingshill Road, is one of the five reserve sites across the region which Wycombe District Council have proposed to release to developers.

In their Local Plan, which outlines plans for the reserve sites, Terriers Farm was mooted as a possible area for 400 homes as well as a park and ride site.

During a briefing meeting about the proposal, members of the WDC planning team outlined their need to match a five-year land supply of between 500 and 700 homes every year.

Council workers also asked residents to work alongside them to ensure developments are right for their surrounding area.

The Chairman of the Brands Hill Residents Association, Richard Atkinson, says he thinks it is now time to work with WDC.

After attending the meeting, Dr Atkinson said: “The dilemma is they have a certain amount of homes they need to build every year and if they cannot reach that demand their hand could be forced when developers come along and dictate where they want to build.

“In that sense, I think it was good to hear that we can work alongside the council in little groups for each area to ensure we get the best results.”

However, he admits concerns over the development and the need for new infrastructure still exist.

He said: “Of course we do still have concerns in ensuring that Hazlemere and High Wycombe aren’t just joined up and we would want to work closely on the details of the development.

“I think now we need to look at how we can make sure the right infrastructure and development is put in, there has also been talk of a park and ride which needs addressing.”

He added we don’t necessarily feel a park and ride is right for the area and the need for new infrastructure is still key.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:38pm Sat 30 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats. faircuppa
  • Score: -3

6:14pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Opportunities for what I wonder? Call me a cynic, but if you for example allocate nice spacious estates, the logical conclusion is that even more land will need to be released to accommodate the numbers. The South East will be built on, and built on, incessantly - an appalling thought - and its about time central Government gave a lot more thought to massively subsidising industry in more deprived areas to make them more viable to live in. New garden cities, properly planned, are a better answer than adding 700 more houses each year in this area.
Opportunities for what I wonder? Call me a cynic, but if you for example allocate nice spacious estates, the logical conclusion is that even more land will need to be released to accommodate the numbers. The South East will be built on, and built on, incessantly - an appalling thought - and its about time central Government gave a lot more thought to massively subsidising industry in more deprived areas to make them more viable to live in. New garden cities, properly planned, are a better answer than adding 700 more houses each year in this area. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 18

6:35pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Oh, and as a resident of Green Hill, the thought of NOT including a park and ride fills me with horror. As the BHRA has pointed out in past years, local roads such as ours are used as rat runs. That usage has greatly increased since we moved here, and will be further massively increased if this development is built, especially if no park and ride is offered.
So let's see if there is indeed an "opportunity" to prevent increased usage of our already busy road. I doubt it.
Oh, and as a resident of Green Hill, the thought of NOT including a park and ride fills me with horror. As the BHRA has pointed out in past years, local roads such as ours are used as rat runs. That usage has greatly increased since we moved here, and will be further massively increased if this development is built, especially if no park and ride is offered. So let's see if there is indeed an "opportunity" to prevent increased usage of our already busy road. I doubt it. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 10

8:48pm Sat 30 Aug 14

cezyboo says...

No mention of a new school in the plans,why?
No mention of a new school in the plans,why? cezyboo
  • Score: 2

11:12pm Sat 30 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Oh, and as a resident of Green Hill, the thought of NOT including a park and ride fills me with horror. As the BHRA has pointed out in past years, local roads such as ours are used as rat runs. That usage has greatly increased since we moved here, and will be further massively increased if this development is built, especially if no park and ride is offered.
So let's see if there is indeed an "opportunity" to prevent increased usage of our already busy road. I doubt it.
Park and Ride is urgently needed for main routes into Wycombe and you can lobby your candidates for 2015 WDC elections. Personally I find your road inconvenient as a short cut as it has so many bends!
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Oh, and as a resident of Green Hill, the thought of NOT including a park and ride fills me with horror. As the BHRA has pointed out in past years, local roads such as ours are used as rat runs. That usage has greatly increased since we moved here, and will be further massively increased if this development is built, especially if no park and ride is offered. So let's see if there is indeed an "opportunity" to prevent increased usage of our already busy road. I doubt it.[/p][/quote]Park and Ride is urgently needed for main routes into Wycombe and you can lobby your candidates for 2015 WDC elections. Personally I find your road inconvenient as a short cut as it has so many bends! faircuppa
  • Score: 4

11:24pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Helen J says...

faircuppa wrote:
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.[/p][/quote]Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day. Helen J
  • Score: 12

11:33pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture. Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 9

11:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped. faircuppa
  • Score: -12

8:22am Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude! Monty Cristo
  • Score: 0

8:51am Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Helen J wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.
I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Helen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.[/p][/quote]Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.[/p][/quote]I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 9

8:51am Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Helen J wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.
I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Helen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.[/p][/quote]Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.[/p][/quote]I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 2

9:18am Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

faircuppa wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
Of course it is not just that existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or downsizing - the population is increasing and people are living longer. Thus you are likely to need more doctors etc., and the traffic problems in the town will only get worse as most want to drive. We lost hospital services because of financial pressures; any right minded person would agree that a town the size of Wycombe needs a hospital and that its residents should not have to be taken to Stoke Mandeville etc.
If we are forced to have more people living here (and we are, for we have no say in the matter), then public transport needs to be dirt cheap and convenient, so that more people are encouraged to use it rather than driving.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.[/p][/quote]Of course it is not just that existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or downsizing - the population is increasing and people are living longer. Thus you are likely to need more doctors etc., and the traffic problems in the town will only get worse as most want to drive. We lost hospital services because of financial pressures; any right minded person would agree that a town the size of Wycombe needs a hospital and that its residents should not have to be taken to Stoke Mandeville etc. If we are forced to have more people living here (and we are, for we have no say in the matter), then public transport needs to be dirt cheap and convenient, so that more people are encouraged to use it rather than driving. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 3

9:21am Sun 31 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Helen J wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.
I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.
But there is no garden city planned for Bucks area. Five reserve sites are going to be voted on in October including Terriers Farm. Politicians have let people down over decades regarding forward planning for housing so decisions are going to be made. The more the homes are spread around the District the less pressure on particular areas like Terriers.
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.[/p][/quote]Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.[/p][/quote]I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.[/p][/quote]But there is no garden city planned for Bucks area. Five reserve sites are going to be voted on in October including Terriers Farm. Politicians have let people down over decades regarding forward planning for housing so decisions are going to be made. The more the homes are spread around the District the less pressure on particular areas like Terriers. faircuppa
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

faircuppa wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
I disagree with traffic being the number one problem...

The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times.

I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.[/p][/quote]I disagree with traffic being the number one problem... The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times. I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject. Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 5

6:47pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
I disagree with traffic being the number one problem...

The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times.

I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject.
Better tell the Council that then.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.[/p][/quote]I disagree with traffic being the number one problem... The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times. I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject.[/p][/quote]Better tell the Council that then. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 1

6:47pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
I disagree with traffic being the number one problem...

The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times.

I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject.
Better tell the Council that then.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.[/p][/quote]I disagree with traffic being the number one problem... The roads are not gridlocked, they do stand a chance of getting to that at peak times if we build more homes... but this will only be at peak times. I've driven around many parts of the country and Wycombe is nowhere near gridlock in my experience... though I only have 30 years experience on that subject.[/p][/quote]Better tell the Council that then. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 2

6:50pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?
Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area? Monty Cristo
  • Score: 5

6:58pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude![/p][/quote]Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 3

7:03pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Helen J wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.
Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.
I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.
But there is no garden city planned for Bucks area. Five reserve sites are going to be voted on in October including Terriers Farm. Politicians have let people down over decades regarding forward planning for housing so decisions are going to be made. The more the homes are spread around the District the less pressure on particular areas like Terriers.
Anyone who believes that once released these areas will contain only the number of homes required to meet the Government's current targets needs their head examining. Once released, developers will be applying to fill up all of the land as much as possible, and as soon as possible. For they are after profit for their shareholders. Mark my words, once released all of these areas will be filled in relatively few years to come.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: A small tasteful development on each reserved site seems to be the inevitable outcome. With 4000 needing housing we cannot ignore need. The green buffer scheme outlined by Ms Tollitt seemed to assuage some concerns. There will be several years to plan any developments and hopefully these will be seen as opportunities rather than threats.[/p][/quote]Exactly, we cannot ignore the need. Affordable and social housing is needed by people and new developments are vital as is the utilisation and conversion of long term empty premises such as offices. Having no home is known to have significant negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing. Living in sub standard damp low rent housing is known to have no benefits for people either. I love open space, the Country side and all the beautiful nature you can see when enjoying the outdoors but it would also be nice if I could have my own home one day.[/p][/quote]I agree with what you say. However, wouldn't it be even nicer to be living in a properly planned environment where you could for example use purpose built cycleways to get to the centre of town or work, and which has brand new schools/doctors surgeries etc? Garden cities would provide this, whereas just adding to a town that suffers from a flawed infrastructure (that is already acknowledged by the Council here who are trying to solve gridlock problems) is not really the answer.[/p][/quote]But there is no garden city planned for Bucks area. Five reserve sites are going to be voted on in October including Terriers Farm. Politicians have let people down over decades regarding forward planning for housing so decisions are going to be made. The more the homes are spread around the District the less pressure on particular areas like Terriers.[/p][/quote]Anyone who believes that once released these areas will contain only the number of homes required to meet the Government's current targets needs their head examining. Once released, developers will be applying to fill up all of the land as much as possible, and as soon as possible. For they are after profit for their shareholders. Mark my words, once released all of these areas will be filled in relatively few years to come. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 7

7:07pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme.

Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order?
Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment?
Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school?
What will happen when you next need to see your GP?

It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.
The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.
Of course it is not just that existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or downsizing - the population is increasing and people are living longer. Thus you are likely to need more doctors etc., and the traffic problems in the town will only get worse as most want to drive. We lost hospital services because of financial pressures; any right minded person would agree that a town the size of Wycombe needs a hospital and that its residents should not have to be taken to Stoke Mandeville etc.
If we are forced to have more people living here (and we are, for we have no say in the matter), then public transport needs to be dirt cheap and convenient, so that more people are encouraged to use it rather than driving.
Come on you 4 minus givers, tell me why you disagree with anything I said.! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: Dr Atkinson mentions the need for new infrastructure several times... however it seems the only new infrastructure he's thinking of (and shelving at the same time) is a park and ride scheme. Was it only two years ago we last had a drought order? Isn't it funny how many power outages that are happening at the moment? Where are the children that move into these houses going to go to school? What will happen when you next need to see your GP? It's not just about the roads and high speed internet that we need to be concerned when building these very much needed homes. Yes they need building but there is a need for deeper more forward thinking on the whole matter... and it's going to be expensive. I hope the powers that be don't just rush headlong into building hundreds of little boxes without looking at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The infrastructure debate is a curious one, in my view. If existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or up or downsizing why would there be more pressure on some aspects of infrastructure? GP practices will employ one GP for for every 2,500 patients anyway. We lost hospital services because our population was supposedly not large enough. Schools expand, sewage is pumped to Marlow and utilities are privatised so will want more customers. Traffic is the biggest problem as the Wycombe Ring Road was scrapped.[/p][/quote]Of course it is not just that existing Wycombe residents are being rehoused or downsizing - the population is increasing and people are living longer. Thus you are likely to need more doctors etc., and the traffic problems in the town will only get worse as most want to drive. We lost hospital services because of financial pressures; any right minded person would agree that a town the size of Wycombe needs a hospital and that its residents should not have to be taken to Stoke Mandeville etc. If we are forced to have more people living here (and we are, for we have no say in the matter), then public transport needs to be dirt cheap and convenient, so that more people are encouraged to use it rather than driving.[/p][/quote]Come on you 4 minus givers, tell me why you disagree with anything I said.! :-) Monty Cristo
  • Score: 2

7:11pm Sun 31 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?
At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all!
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?[/p][/quote]At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all! faircuppa
  • Score: 2

7:18pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?
At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all!
So you don't actually know. Nor do I. I wonder if the Government has any firm basis behind the targets it is forcing upon our Council. If not, it is scandalous. And if people commenting on here don't know, how can anyone possibly support the release of this land?
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?[/p][/quote]At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all![/p][/quote]So you don't actually know. Nor do I. I wonder if the Government has any firm basis behind the targets it is forcing upon our Council. If not, it is scandalous. And if people commenting on here don't know, how can anyone possibly support the release of this land? Monty Cristo
  • Score: 12

7:19pm Sun 31 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.
I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude![/p][/quote]Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.[/p][/quote]I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!? faircuppa
  • Score: 2

7:28pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.
I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?
Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude![/p][/quote]Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.[/p][/quote]I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?[/p][/quote]Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 7

7:34pm Sun 31 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?
At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all!
So you don't actually know. Nor do I. I wonder if the Government has any firm basis behind the targets it is forcing upon our Council. If not, it is scandalous. And if people commenting on here don't know, how can anyone possibly support the release of this land?
Ask Coalition representatives, but all parties have ignored housing crisis for decades!
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know how many of the proposed 700 homes per year will be inhabited by people coming in from outside the area? Or inhabited by people already inside the area?[/p][/quote]At a guess 200 minimum social and affordable so local. On open market about 50/50 but depends on employment. Terriers Farm in RGS catchment area so highly sought after by all![/p][/quote]So you don't actually know. Nor do I. I wonder if the Government has any firm basis behind the targets it is forcing upon our Council. If not, it is scandalous. And if people commenting on here don't know, how can anyone possibly support the release of this land?[/p][/quote]Ask Coalition representatives, but all parties have ignored housing crisis for decades! faircuppa
  • Score: -2

7:53pm Sun 31 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.
I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?
Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that.
Car Ownership up? You have 3 councillors and a Real Conservative so you could write to them. I was speaking to a friend in your road and he was not so averse to more housing. Do you have a residents assoc?
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude![/p][/quote]Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.[/p][/quote]I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?[/p][/quote]Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that.[/p][/quote]Car Ownership up? You have 3 councillors and a Real Conservative so you could write to them. I was speaking to a friend in your road and he was not so averse to more housing. Do you have a residents assoc? faircuppa
  • Score: -3

7:59pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
faircuppa wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude!
Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.
I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?
Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that.
Car Ownership up? You have 3 councillors and a Real Conservative so you could write to them. I was speaking to a friend in your road and he was not so averse to more housing. Do you have a residents assoc?
Don't worry I will be writing to them! There used to be a residents association years ago, but not for a long time. Time to resurrect it, or try to integrate with the Brands Hill Avenue one, though from what their chairman has been saying , our views may differ.....
Or maybe we should all sell to developers to help fulfil the perceived need and get out.
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Isn't it interesting that my comment suggesting that the traffic on our road will massively increase if 400 homes are built round the corner warrants (so far) a minus 11 score. Why is this I wonder? It suggests that people want houses in particular areas disregarding the potential adverse impact on others completely. A curious sort of reverseNIMBY attitude![/p][/quote]Ha ha! 6 people so far rate this with a minus. So 6 people either do not believe that traffic will increase on my road. Or they believe that it doesn't matter if traffic increases. Interesting. It would be even more interesting if they could say why they hold those views. I don't suppose they will though, they'll just mark me with even more minuses - adding nothing meaningful to the debate.[/p][/quote]I have given you a minus ! Why would anyone want to go down your road particularly in bad weather! Hamilton Road is better! Do you never take a short cut? Perhaps your councillor could arrange for a no entry! Or straighten out the curves, how about some humps!?[/p][/quote]Why would anyone want to come down my road? Well, ask them. The traffic has increased drastically over the years even without this development - ask anyone who lives here. The traffic will increase here when Amersham Hill and Hamilton get even more saturated. Furthermore, if I remember rightly, the new Development will involve one or two more sets of traffic lights and people will also simply seek to avoid them. Saying that they will all just use Hamilton in preference of course adversely affects those who live there. I'm guessing you are not one of them so don't really care about that.[/p][/quote]Car Ownership up? You have 3 councillors and a Real Conservative so you could write to them. I was speaking to a friend in your road and he was not so averse to more housing. Do you have a residents assoc?[/p][/quote]Don't worry I will be writing to them! There used to be a residents association years ago, but not for a long time. Time to resurrect it, or try to integrate with the Brands Hill Avenue one, though from what their chairman has been saying , our views may differ..... Or maybe we should all sell to developers to help fulfil the perceived need and get out. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 7

2:33pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Scarletto says...

Most districts must take fair share of new homes. There's a pressing national shortage of homes.
Most districts must take fair share of new homes. There's a pressing national shortage of homes. Scarletto
  • Score: 2

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