News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


bux2

Your Area News by you News by email Contact Twitter facebook Blogs Topics Video


Fears over homes plan for Terriers, Tylers Green, Daws Hill and Bourne End


THOUSANDS of planned new homes for Terriers, Tylers Green, Daws Hill and Bourne End will create a “city of High Wycombe” it was warned last night.

Flackwell Heath resident David Johncock said the move to boost home numbers by at least 10 per cent in Wycombe district was the “thin end of the wedge”.

Mr Johncock, a member of Chepping Wycombe Parish Council, said at a public meeting at High Wycombe Town Hall last night: “Once it starts it won’t stop.”

There are now fears the plans will break down the “green” barriers between High Wycombe and Tylers Green and Hazlemere and between Wooburn and Bourne End.

The Government has demanded council bosses find space for developers to build at least 6,832 more homes, 402.5 a year, to 2026. There about 68,000 in the district at present.

The vast majority, 362 a year, are in the south of district, in High Wycombe, Marlow and Bourne End.

These cannot be transferred to the north, Wycombe District Council planning chief Ian Manktelow said – and the use of the greenfield sites was not negotiable.

It is thought the rise of people living alone is driving the need for housing while others are keen to move to the area for its links to London and good schools.

Council chiefs have pledged to use previously developed land – but last night said current predictions show six “greenfield” sites will be needed when these run out.

Wycombe District Council can control where houses are built as developers need planning permission from the authority.

These are: Abbey Barn north and south, Terriers Farm, Slate Meadow, Bourne End, Ashwells, Gomm Valley.

They would be “released” for development in that order with Terriers Farm onwards after 2019. A meeting on Abbey Barn will be held on Monday (see bottom of story).

The greenfield sites:


View Greenfield sites in a larger map

At least 24 homes a year are needed for Princes Risborough.

In the last two years WDC has exceeded its targets – meaning homes could expand by even more than ten per cent.

To see the plans in full click here (pdf, 12mb).

Of all homes, 30 to 40 per cent would be “affordable”, meaning they would be managed by housing associations either at reduced rent or through schemes such as shared ownership.

Yet Mr Manktelow warned developers have challenged council demands for affordable homes “in the current economic climate”.

And there will be not a let up for the recession, which has seen developers reluctant to build homes. House prices were at 2005 levels and sales were down by half, he said.

He also confirmed previously mooted plans to build on Bassetsbury Allotments in Bassetsbury Lane, High Wycombe are now off the agenda.

Tests had found contamination, which has closed the allotments since February, he said.

Abbey Barn (pdf page 110):

People at the meeting were ask to join groups for the site they were interested in – and the Abbey Barn group seemed to have come to a definite conclusion.

Liberal Democrat district councillor Ray Farmer said they only wanted planned development on neighbouring former RAF Daws Hill to go ahead.

He said: “Not the Abbey Barn South – not ever, ever.”

The plan would allow 450 homes on the larger Abbey Barn south and up to 100 on Abbey Barn north.

Party colleague Trevor Snaith told the audience: “There is potentially a 500 per cent increase in traffic down Abbey into the marsh that will split the village.

“These roads will not cope.”

And Mr Johncock said the plans for about 550 homes “do not address traffic problems through Loudwater and Flackwell Heath.

“This is one of the most important aspects of the proposals. They need to be addressed before they are taken forward,” he said.

The plan also proposes moving St Bernard’s and St Augustine’s schools from Daws Hill Lane to the new development to ease congestion – with the remaining land sold for homes.

Mr Manktelow said: “You would need re-development of that site to fund re-location or it would be a non-starter.”

Another primary school would be needed at Abbey Barn to cope with the rise in population, he added.

“Extensive transport modelling” had been carried out, he said but said there would be “additional problems that would be created by this development”.

He said: “I’ll be frank and say we are still working on transport issues at the moment.”

The plans also cover a major re-development of High Wycombe town centre (see link, bottom of story).

Terriers Farm (pdf page 115):

The site has “major landscape constraints” said Mr Manktelow of the 400-home plan, to include “small scale” employment and a 400-space park and ride facility.

A “green wedge” would be needed to keep the division between Hazlemere and High Wycombe, he added.

Janet Chard, who answered for the group, said: “Everybody were concerned there should be employment opportunities for this area, of which there are very few at the moment.”

The park and ride should not necessarily be at the site, she added and said: “The corridor that separates Hazlemere and High Wycombe should me maintained.”

Gomm Valley and Ashwells (pdf pages 119 to 121):

Mr Manktelow said the site has “very major landscape constraints” and ecological concerns.

Access to the massive site would be via Gomm Road, Pimms Grove and Hammersley Lane.

And there would be a “large gap” between the site and Ashwells, to the north.

Planning officer Chris Schmidt-Reid said the group was concerned “development could result in a significant increase in traffic down Cock Lane”.

They were also worried about water run off should large parts be concreted over and increased congestion on the A40.

Slate Meadow, Bourne End (page 124):

About 150 homes would be built on the land, off Cores End Road.

Howard Bellairs, of Stratford Drive, Wooburn Green, said: “There has always been considerable opposition to these proposals and that is not going to lessen in any way.”

He added: “There is a genuine feeling from most of the residents and us here tonight that this is not a site suitable for housing development.”

Councillor Jean Teesdale, council cabinet member for planning and sustainability, said: “It has been a really positive evening.

“The vision for Wycombe in the future is quite an exciting thing.”

The following meetings are also taking place on other proposals:

M40 Gateway Monday 13 July 7-9pm. Amersham & Wycombe College, Flackwell Heath Campus.

Desborough Area (exhibition) Wednesday 15 July 2-8pm. Green Street Youth & Community Centre, High Wycombe.

Sustainability Thursday 16 July 7-9pm. John Hampden School, High Wycombe.

Respond to WDF Consultation, Planning Policy Team, Wycombe District Council, Freepost HY120, Planning and Sustainability WDC 63, Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe, HP11 1BB. Email spatial_planning@wycombe.gov.uk.


Comments(30)

Tref says...
1:03pm Fri 10 Jul 09

People have to live somewhere. The answer can't just be "somewhere else".

Tref says...
1:03pm Fri 10 Jul 09

People have to live somewhere. The answer can't just be "somewhere else".

miccles says...
1:47pm Fri 10 Jul 09

It can "send them home"

thethe says...
1:52pm Fri 10 Jul 09

Why are we building more homes when the ones currently on the market aren't selling despite dropping in price month on month. there clearly is no demand

green damage limitation says...
2:03pm Fri 10 Jul 09

thethe wrote:
Why are we building more homes when the ones currently on the market aren't selling despite dropping in price month on month. there clearly is no demand
there is demand for affordable homes -- thats ones local people can afford !!!
Prob is current prices too high for local people and type of homes/flats wrong type for local families!!

The DJ says...
2:47pm Fri 10 Jul 09

Yes but it will not be LOCAL people that will be getting the Affordable Houses. Normally the Housing Associations that run them are ones from out of the area!

green damage limitation says...
2:57pm Fri 10 Jul 09

The DJ wrote:
Yes but it will not be LOCAL people that will be getting the Affordable Houses. Normally the Housing Associations that run them are ones from out of the area!
Thats the problem that needs rectifying by WDC !!!
They need to specify basis of tenure in contracts !!

ferrellcat says...
4:37pm Fri 10 Jul 09

good point DJ I ring my housing association and they dont even know the town i am in let alone the road.there all too big and too far away

PDplum says...
5:00pm Fri 10 Jul 09

i fail to see a problem with "a city of high wycombe"

NIMBY culture really annys me..

green damage limitation says...
5:16pm Fri 10 Jul 09

PDplum wrote:
i fail to see a problem with "a city of high wycombe" NIMBY culture really annys me..
I see no problem either with a few of our rural villages getting a 100 or so homes and becoming towns also
They would spread the building across the District and protect their communities shops and pubs

Plus ça change... says...
5:16pm Fri 10 Jul 09


'City' is good but would would probably mean a longer dignitary weighing ceremony...





'Disbenefits...?'

wycombenewbie says...
6:01pm Fri 10 Jul 09

I'm not opposed to biulding more houses, it is the failure to do so which lead to our current housing shortage. Which is the reason why home prices are so high. But this problem runs wider than just wycombe district.

Biulding on every bit of green space in a town is not the answer.
A 'new town' policy, similar to that of the 1950s needs to be inplemented, to bring a number of small towns/villages, further afield from london, forward into large towns.

Start with that massive gap south of the M4 between Windsor and Bristol!

Plus ça change... says...
6:08pm Fri 10 Jul 09


I suspect we are 'somewhere else'...

OllieNewbury says...
7:10pm Fri 10 Jul 09

Yay come on! Let's be the first city in Bucks! Knock Milton Keynes off its pedestal!

Seriously though, affordable housing has to go somewhere. I fully support the use of brownfield sites, but those sites are limited. Some day, green land, be it Metropolitan Green Belt, AONB or not, will have to be built on. The sites of our houses that we live in now were once green fields, remember that.

green damage limitation says...
7:49pm Fri 10 Jul 09

OllieNewbury wrote:
Yay come on! Let's be the first city in Bucks! Knock Milton Keynes off its pedestal! Seriously though, affordable housing has to go somewhere. I fully support the use of brownfield sites, but those sites are limited. Some day, green land, be it Metropolitan Green Belt, AONB or not, will have to be built on. The sites of our houses that we live in now were once green fields, remember that.
Agree Ollie
Prob is we have Rural resistance from Rural residents and Rural councillors who beleve we should never change their villages and roads -- they are in timewarp !!!

George1 says...
9:39pm Fri 10 Jul 09

No Cathedral so no City, we have a mosque and a proposed Muslim Garden, the coucillors should name the town more in keeping with the mess they have created over two decades or more.

pennman says...
11:21pm Fri 10 Jul 09

There is certainly no demand for affordable housing in Tylers Green. Why on earth does the government want to ruin the country and over develop the South East and the greenbelt?
Those of us who live in Penn and Tylers Green have worked hard to do so. Building chav homes here will ruin the area and devalue our hard work, not to mention causing a drug / crime spree.

demoness says...
11:41pm Fri 10 Jul 09

pennman wrote:
There is certainly no demand for affordable housing in Tylers Green. Why on earth does the government want to ruin the country and over develop the South East and the greenbelt? Those of us who live in Penn and Tylers Green have worked hard to do so. Building chav homes here will ruin the area and devalue our hard work, not to mention causing a drug / crime spree.
Yes and we had to get up early and go to work on just half a grape and a dry crust, work a 25 hour day and then come back to the shoe box where 26 of us lived....

lol..

davidjc says...
7:34am Sat 11 Jul 09

I see that penman has re branded social housing to CHAV HOMES..Nice comment, obviously a man/woman of the world. It is truly an education reading this site. Affordable housing is a must in this area be it shared ownership or "CHAV" rental, we are in one of the most expensive areas in the country for outright purchase especially if you are first time and single buyers. Look outside the box penman and don't assume anything, you may have a drug addict or thief (tax evasion is classified as theft too you know) living very close to you in their private homes that they have worked so hard for. It is a dangerous thing to assume that only in "CHAV HOMES" do the junkies and thieves exist

davidjc says...
7:54am Sat 11 Jul 09

green damage limitation wrote:
PDplum wrote: i fail to see a problem with "a city of high wycombe" NIMBY culture really annys me..
I see no problem either with a few of our rural villages getting a 100 or so homes and becoming towns also They would spread the building across the District and protect their communities shops and pubs
Where would that be miccles?
Green damage limitation...I agree that rural enabling is an excellent piece of work, I live in one of the districts rural communities, I use the term loosely, and would love for my children to be able to stay in the village but there are no homes, right to buy has depleted the stock of affordable rented and no replacements have been built. Outright purchase is out of reach so one by one they have to leave the place they would prefer to live. I don't know what the answer is but suffice it to say there is a desperate need for new homes not simply because of the implied immigrants but for those of us who have children that would like to stay in the area and for those of us that have children in their 20's and 30's that are still living at home with their parents.

Bogart says...
9:22am Sat 11 Jul 09

It's all very well building hundreds of new houses, but we also need the infrastructure to support them.
If we believe what we read in the papers, we can't produce enough electricity as it is. Reservoirs are often too low to cope with demand in the summer, and who wants a new water treatment plant at the end of their road ?
Providing these services will cost millions, and who will pay for it ? We will.

The Judge says...
9:59am Sat 11 Jul 09

YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID - VERY AFRAID.
EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT A DEMAND EXISTS THE JUDGE HAS CONCERNS ON THE TYPE OF DWELLINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT BY THIS COUNCIL.
THESE ARE PREDOMINATELY 'FLATS'
IF YOU WALK ALONG PAST THE OLD 'ERCOL' SITE YOU WILL NOTE THAT THIS ONCE THRIVING ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RUBBLE TO PROVIDE HUNDREDS OF THESE FLATS THAT ARE OF UNIFORM DESIGN AND LACKING ANY INDIVIDUALIST CHARACTER.
IF YOU CONSIDER THE AREA OF THE OLD SEWER NEAR THE MARSH IT HAS WORRYING CONCERNS FOR THE PEOPLE OF HIGH WYCOMBE - ITS IMMENSITY AND SIZE WILL GENERATE HUGE COUNCIL TAX REVENUES BUT HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON THE TOWN AND ITS PEOPLE.

THIS PRESENTS PROBLEMS IN ITSELF BUT THE DEMAND ON THE SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE IS APPARENT IF ONE VENTURES OUT ONTO THE LONDON ROAD.
THI IS A NIGHTMARE AT THE BEST OF TIMES WHEN TRAFFIC BACKS UP FROM TESCO TO THE TOWN CENTRE.

WHAT IS CALLED FOR IS CONTROLS ON THIS TERRIBLE 'FLAT BUILDING' CULTURE THAT ENABLES DEVELOPERS TO MAKE MONEY AT THE EXPENSE OF EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND SANCTIONED BY GREED DRIVEN COUNCILLORS (PER ICEBANK FIASCO)

MAYBE THE JUDGE SHOULD BECOME AN MP AND START KICKING AR** BEFORE ITS TOO LATE AND WE ARE ALL LIVING IN A DISGUSTING SEWER WHEN WYCOME WILL LOSE THE TITLE 'HIGH' AND BE REPLACED WITH S**T WYCOMBE.
JUDGE

pennman says...
10:12am Sat 11 Jul 09

It stands to reason that if we are in one of the most expensive areas of the country and some people cannot therefore allowed to live here, they should go somewhere cheaper until they save up and can afford to live here. You could equally whinge that because you cannot afford to live in a mansion, the council should pay for you to. There's no substitute for hard work and ambition, but sadly the liberal / labour voters amongst us want to continue with their nanny-state and give things away for nothing that others have to work **** hard for. As for all of this shoe-box nonsense, I haven't the time to watch old TV shows I'm afraid!

davidjc says...
11:25am Sat 11 Jul 09

pennman wrote:
It stands to reason that if we are in one of the most expensive areas of the country and some people cannot therefore allowed to live here, they should go somewhere cheaper until they save up and can afford to live here. You could equally whinge that because you cannot afford to live in a mansion, the council should pay for you to. There's no substitute for hard work and ambition, but sadly the liberal / labour voters amongst us want to continue with their nanny-state and give things away for nothing that others have to work **** hard for. As for all of this shoe-box nonsense, I haven't the time to watch old TV shows I'm afraid!
Do you know penman when I read your 1st little piece I had done what I dislike doing and that was to label you! I take comfort in the knowledge that I was right. You have made yet more assumptions in your response. It is a misconception that the Council "give" homes away. It is also a misconception that all "CHAV" tenants are unemployed and that our children are unemployed. I do agree with you on one thing though there is no substitute for hard work and ambition and we should encourage our children to take that on board, at the same time, when they have managed to purchase their mansion in Penn, by one means or another, it doesn't make them better than those that have not been able to. A lesson perhaps you yourself would perhaps benefit from learning.

Voyeur says...
1:14pm Sat 11 Jul 09


So the JUDGE wants to be an MP, does he?

First he will have to stop shouting.

Then he will have to recognise that in order to be an MP people have to vote for you.

Then he needs to realise that people usually vote for people that they actually like.

Three major stumbling blocks for the JUDGE there then.

Oh, and people don't usually like to vote for the little boy who pokes his head around the door and shouts "poo"!!

One plus for the JUDGE'S campaign - encumbent Paul Goodman is standing down.


green damage limitation says...
6:47pm Sat 11 Jul 09

davidjc wrote:
pennman wrote: It stands to reason that if we are in one of the most expensive areas of the country and some people cannot therefore allowed to live here, they should go somewhere cheaper until they save up and can afford to live here. You could equally whinge that because you cannot afford to live in a mansion, the council should pay for you to. There's no substitute for hard work and ambition, but sadly the liberal / labour voters amongst us want to continue with their nanny-state and give things away for nothing that others have to work **** hard for. As for all of this shoe-box nonsense, I haven't the time to watch old TV shows I'm afraid!
Do you know penman when I read your 1st little piece I had done what I dislike doing and that was to label you! I take comfort in the knowledge that I was right. You have made yet more assumptions in your response. It is a misconception that the Council "give" homes away. It is also a misconception that all "CHAV" tenants are unemployed and that our children are unemployed. I do agree with you on one thing though there is no substitute for hard work and ambition and we should encourage our children to take that on board, at the same time, when they have managed to purchase their mansion in Penn, by one means or another, it doesn't make them better than those that have not been able to. A lesson perhaps you yourself would perhaps benefit from learning.
Agree with Davidjc on all points
DavidJC
Agree with your points

Pennman
If i had all you proport to have i would be looking to return something to the community either through community work or helping those in need -- If you havnt done it try it sometime its very rewarding

Plus ça change... says...
8:09pm Sat 11 Jul 09

George1 wrote:
No Cathedral so no City, we have a mosque and a proposed Muslim Garden, the coucillors should name the town more in keeping with the mess they have created over two decades or more.

I think not all towns had a cathedral when they became cities and not all cities have a cathedral...

There are even towns with a cathedral that aren't cities.

Let Wycombe aspire.

By 2073 ...?

Who knows? Lots to do first though!


OllieNewbury says...
8:23pm Sat 11 Jul 09

Plus ça change... wrote:
George1 wrote:
No Cathedral so no City, we have a mosque and a proposed Muslim Garden, the coucillors should name the town more in keeping with the mess they have created over two decades or more.

I think not all towns had a cathedral when they became cities and not all cities have a cathedral...

There are even towns with a cathedral that aren't cities.

Let Wycombe aspire.

By 2073 ...?

Who knows? Lots to do first though!

That's right. Nowadays they give out city status on special occasions such the millenium. They'll probably do the same for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012, assuming she's still alive.

Northampton has a cathedral but is not a city. Conversely, Preston is a city but it has no cathedral.

Yes, let Wycombe aspire. Think positively.

wayneo says...
7:49pm Sun 12 Jul 09

Fool!

mind-blow

irish john says...
8:36am Sun 26 Jul 09

Pennman your a total ****


"City of High Wycombe" fear over homes plan "City of High Wycombe" fear over homes plan

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses