RAF Daws Hill base to be sold by Ministry of Defence

RAF Daws Hill to be sold by MoD

RAF Daws Hill to be sold by MoD

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

RAF Daws Hill will be sold off – paving the way for a new housing estate.

The 67 bungalow site has been put on the market by the Ministry of Defence.

Servicemen, women and their families living on the base will be re-housed, the MoD said.

The MoD said it was disposing of land it no longer requires and ‘this made good business sense for defence operations and to the taxpayer’.

An MoD spokesman said: “The MOD is disposing of land it no longer requires and has decided to include an area of land that contains some service properties - as that will significantly increase the value of the site.

“Service personnel and their families have been consulted and will be offered suitable alternative accommodation and financial assistance to move.”

The site, which was bought by the MoD in 1942, was used as a visiting base for US forces, housing an American school, a bowling alley, shops and workshops.

But the 20 hectare base has been mainly used for storage in recent years, leading to the MoD’s decision to sell it off.

The Daws Hill area has previously been earmarked as a potential site for new homes by Wycombe District Council.

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:36pm Mon 13 Jun 11

miccles says...

Maybe Hayes could buy it, and he can build himself a new stadium if he wants one, plenty of land, he's got plenty of money, the 2 go together quite well.
Maybe Hayes could buy it, and he can build himself a new stadium if he wants one, plenty of land, he's got plenty of money, the 2 go together quite well. miccles
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Mon 13 Jun 11

washondo says...

Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. washondo
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Mon 13 Jun 11

yog says...

Best site currently available for stadium
Best site currently available for stadium yog
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 13 Jun 11

J B Blackett says...

I don't think the local dodgy football boss will be inclined that way - it's too slopey like the old Loakes Park and the ball would always end in the Dyke on the Rye.
I don't think the local dodgy football boss will be inclined that way - it's too slopey like the old Loakes Park and the ball would always end in the Dyke on the Rye. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Stand up for England says...

washondo wrote:
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
come now, you don't think they'll actually be any planning involved ? this is WDC remember!
[quote][p][bold]washondo[/bold] wrote: Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.[/p][/quote]come now, you don't think they'll actually be any planning involved ? this is WDC remember! Stand up for England
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

I agree... Great place to put an unwanted, unwelcome and un-needed stadium... Just a small degree of landscaping required to level the ground (Which isn't too much within Daws Hill MoD grounds).
.
Just leave Booker Airfield alone...
I agree... Great place to put an unwanted, unwelcome and un-needed stadium... Just a small degree of landscaping required to level the ground (Which isn't too much within Daws Hill MoD grounds). . Just leave Booker Airfield alone... A VOTER
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Mon 13 Jun 11

KHB1992 says...

Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move.
Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move. KHB1992
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

KHB1992 wrote:
Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move.
There's a TA Centre at Booker, which would be convenient for the ATC sqn, as there's also an active runway and airfield close by.
.
Steve Hayes should be made to pay for the relocation, and contribute a couple of light training aircraft for the inconvenience.
.
Sorted...
[quote][p][bold]KHB1992[/bold] wrote: Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move.[/p][/quote]There's a TA Centre at Booker, which would be convenient for the ATC sqn, as there's also an active runway and airfield close by. . Steve Hayes should be made to pay for the relocation, and contribute a couple of light training aircraft for the inconvenience. . Sorted... A VOTER
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Mon 13 Jun 11

KHB1992 says...

The Army Cadets are based at the TA centre, and the being close to the airfield will make no difference as the cadets fly/glide from either RAF Halton or RAF Benson.
The Army Cadets are based at the TA centre, and the being close to the airfield will make no difference as the cadets fly/glide from either RAF Halton or RAF Benson. KHB1992
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Mon 13 Jun 11

miccles says...

KHB1992 wrote:
Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move.
Surely whatever happens to that site, being serious, ie housing estate, which is probably more likely the ATC sqn will have to go anyway.
[quote][p][bold]KHB1992[/bold] wrote: Just would like to point at that currently the High Wycombe ATC sqn is based at RAF Daws Hill, so all these suggestions for the proposed new stadium to be there will make the sqn have to move. The cadet movement is usually one that is praised, so we wouldn't want to completley get rid of it over a stadium. So unless you can think of another palce where the cadets can be situated, putting the stadium there would be a bad move.[/p][/quote]Surely whatever happens to that site, being serious, ie housing estate, which is probably more likely the ATC sqn will have to go anyway. miccles
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Mon 13 Jun 11

wayneo says...

Considering this site was compulsoraily purchased from Wycombe Abbey School School, I'm sure as part of the Chricheldown rules, that the MOD have to offer it back to the Abbey School first.I'm not so sure that the MOD have the right to sell this land.
Considering this site was compulsoraily purchased from Wycombe Abbey School School, I'm sure as part of the Chricheldown rules, that the MOD have to offer it back to the Abbey School first.I'm not so sure that the MOD have the right to sell this land. wayneo
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Mon 13 Jun 11

BOOKERite says...

I think it would be a good place for a stadium, only one road, Daws Hill Lane, would have to be altered, and as they have hugh front gardens, they could easily pinch enough to make a decent stadium approach. They will have to alter Daws Hill Lane anyway if they are going to build all these extra houses. And it is not GREEN BELT.
.
As Daws Hill is in Lesley Clarke's ward she can't very well fight it can she?
I think it would be a good place for a stadium, only one road, Daws Hill Lane, would have to be altered, and as they have hugh front gardens, they could easily pinch enough to make a decent stadium approach. They will have to alter Daws Hill Lane anyway if they are going to build all these extra houses. And it is not GREEN BELT. . As Daws Hill is in Lesley Clarke's ward she can't very well fight it can she? BOOKERite
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Agniesca says...

Make the Wycombe East M40 junction useable from the East and the West and there would be good access via Flackwell Heath or along the London Road for visiting fans. Wasn't this one of the original options put forward evaluation.
Make the Wycombe East M40 junction useable from the East and the West and there would be good access via Flackwell Heath or along the London Road for visiting fans. Wasn't this one of the original options put forward evaluation. Agniesca
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Golly says...

A Voter
You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit.
You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment.
Try looking outside of the confines of your mind.
As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real.
A Voter You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit. You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment. Try looking outside of the confines of your mind. As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real. Golly
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Mon 13 Jun 11

pookey says...

Don't forget there are unused on and off slips from the services that were never built between J3 and J4. Could use these and build a spur road to the new development whether it be houses or a stadium.
Don't forget there are unused on and off slips from the services that were never built between J3 and J4. Could use these and build a spur road to the new development whether it be houses or a stadium. pookey
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

wayneo wrote:
Considering this site was compulsoraily purchased from Wycombe Abbey School School, I'm sure as part of the Chricheldown rules, that the MOD have to offer it back to the Abbey School first.I'm not so sure that the MOD have the right to sell this land.
Kerching!
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: Considering this site was compulsoraily purchased from Wycombe Abbey School School, I'm sure as part of the Chricheldown rules, that the MOD have to offer it back to the Abbey School first.I'm not so sure that the MOD have the right to sell this land.[/p][/quote]Kerching! Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

Golly wrote:
A Voter
You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit.
You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment.
Try looking outside of the confines of your mind.
As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real.
Golly.
You complete f'in ****.
.
Had you been reading my many many previous comments about the stadium, you will have known that I am totally against the stadium in all it’s forms but one. The only version of a new the stadium I would be ok with (not happy with) is one that is paid for by Steve Hayes and his clubs. This is a private venture and therefore should not draw any funding from taxpayers.
.
Frankly, given the attendance figures for both clubs, a new stadium is unnecessary.
.
My original comments above allude to the fact that it is still likely, that despite the protests, negative comments, anti-stadium campaigns, illegalities, possible corruption et-al, the stadium may well go ahead.
.
Bearing in mind that the MoD “WILL” sell this land, it would seem a better choice for a new development, than one that destroys historical heritage, a place of learning and sport, a thriving high-tec business community, and many other positive attributes.

I reiterate that I am against the new stadium in any form, but Daws Hill would, in my opinion, and many others, be a better location, if this is forced upon the community.
.
So what’s your small minded perspective or opinion Golly?
[quote][p][bold]Golly[/bold] wrote: A Voter You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit. You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment. Try looking outside of the confines of your mind. As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real.[/p][/quote]Golly. You complete f'in ****. . Had you been reading my many many previous comments about the stadium, you will have known that I am totally against the stadium in all it’s forms but one. The only version of a new the stadium I would be ok with (not happy with) is one that is paid for by Steve Hayes and his clubs. This is a private venture and therefore should not draw any funding from taxpayers. . Frankly, given the attendance figures for both clubs, a new stadium is unnecessary. . My original comments above allude to the fact that it is still likely, that despite the protests, negative comments, anti-stadium campaigns, illegalities, possible corruption et-al, the stadium may well go ahead. . Bearing in mind that the MoD “WILL” sell this land, it would seem a better choice for a new development, than one that destroys historical heritage, a place of learning and sport, a thriving high-tec business community, and many other positive attributes. I reiterate that I am against the new stadium in any form, but Daws Hill would, in my opinion, and many others, be a better location, if this is forced upon the community. . So what’s your small minded perspective or opinion Golly? A VOTER
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

Golly - My abuse at you above was censored by BFP.
.
Please would you read into that censorship some highly offensive words that would describe you accurately.
Golly - My abuse at you above was censored by BFP. . Please would you read into that censorship some highly offensive words that would describe you accurately. A VOTER
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Mon 13 Jun 11

washondo says...

Nice. Do behave.
Nice. Do behave. washondo
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Golly says...

Try finding
Words that
Are suitable
To be used.

Can you not read? I am saying you are sadly wrong about the Daws Hill site and you show your prejudice by not even reading the post fully before retorting with abuse.
Try finding Words that Are suitable To be used. Can you not read? I am saying you are sadly wrong about the Daws Hill site and you show your prejudice by not even reading the post fully before retorting with abuse. Golly
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

Golly wrote:
Try finding
Words that
Are suitable
To be used.

Can you not read? I am saying you are sadly wrong about the Daws Hill site and you show your prejudice by not even reading the post fully before retorting with abuse.
Golly,
I read your post fully.
.
You say that I am wrong, yet fail to offer any reason why, other than small minded abuse, hence my retort.
.
Then you fail to answer my question to you.
.
My abuse to you was in response to your unfounded, and unwarranted abuse at me.

.
My abuse at you was in response to your unfounded abuse to me.
[quote][p][bold]Golly[/bold] wrote: Try finding Words that Are suitable To be used. Can you not read? I am saying you are sadly wrong about the Daws Hill site and you show your prejudice by not even reading the post fully before retorting with abuse.[/p][/quote]Golly, I read your post fully. . You say that I am wrong, yet fail to offer any reason why, other than small minded abuse, hence my retort. . Then you fail to answer my question to you. . My abuse to you was in response to your unfounded, and unwarranted abuse at me. . My abuse at you was in response to your unfounded abuse to me. A VOTER
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Mon 13 Jun 11

wayneo says...

Golly wrote:
A Voter You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit. You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment. Try looking outside of the confines of your mind. As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real.
Golly, we all have a self-interest else why comment. I note from your pseudonym that you also post on Drunken WASPs and are in favour of the project so before you call people inbred halfwits, perphaps you should declare you own interests first.
[quote][p][bold]Golly[/bold] wrote: A Voter You typical narrow minded in-bred halfwit. You gave your self interest away with the Leave Booker Airfield alone comment. Try looking outside of the confines of your mind. As for chucking a couple of trainers into the deal, get real.[/p][/quote]Golly, we all have a self-interest else why comment. I note from your pseudonym that you also post on Drunken WASPs and are in favour of the project so before you call people inbred halfwits, perphaps you should declare you own interests first. wayneo
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Mon 13 Jun 11

Golly says...

This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2.
This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned.
This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2. This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned. Golly
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Mon 13 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

Golly wrote:
This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2.
This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned.
True, this was not about the stadium. But it was about land becoming available for sale, legally in the first instance to Wycombe Abbey.
.
However, my statement was still a valid one, that the land on offer would be more suitable for an unwanted stadium, than the current WDC choice of booker.
.
I am not alone in this opinion, however, you have singled me out for targeted abuse and I therefore feel duty bound to respond accordingly.
.
You failed to discuss this topic in a dignified manner, deciding to open with a torrent of ill founded abuse. Then you dislike similar abuse aimed at yourself.
.
This is a forum for discussion – Let’s keep it that way.
[quote][p][bold]Golly[/bold] wrote: This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2. This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned.[/p][/quote]True, this was not about the stadium. But it was about land becoming available for sale, legally in the first instance to Wycombe Abbey. . However, my statement was still a valid one, that the land on offer would be more suitable for an unwanted stadium, than the current WDC choice of booker. . I am not alone in this opinion, however, you have singled me out for targeted abuse and I therefore feel duty bound to respond accordingly. . You failed to discuss this topic in a dignified manner, deciding to open with a torrent of ill founded abuse. Then you dislike similar abuse aimed at yourself. . This is a forum for discussion – Let’s keep it that way. A VOTER
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Mon 13 Jun 11

wayneo says...

Golly wrote:
This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2. This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned.
It's not kneejerk, it's fact.
[quote][p][bold]Golly[/bold] wrote: This was not about the stadium but the blinkered view of what will happen to a bit of land that was reported as up for sale in the paper. The land in daws Hill belongs to the MOD but it has to be offered to Wycombe Abbey if sold as it was commandeered for RAF use during WW2. This is the typical knee jerk reaction we see on the BFP every time rugby is mentioned or, in this case not even mentioned.[/p][/quote]It's not kneejerk, it's fact. wayneo
  • Score: 0

8:18am Tue 14 Jun 11

Phredd says...

It would be a good site for the sports village - let alone a new stadium.
.
I was talking to a coach at a local gymnastics club to the north of Wycombe and he tells me that there used to be a gymnastics club that met there until security issues forced it to move in the 1980s.
.
He was saying there are at least 2 buildings on the site that his current gym club would be able to use as they are in desperate need of proper training facilities.
.
However if the MOD want it to be housing (more bucks per acre) then that's what it will be.
It would be a good site for the sports village - let alone a new stadium. . I was talking to a coach at a local gymnastics club to the north of Wycombe and he tells me that there used to be a gymnastics club that met there until security issues forced it to move in the 1980s. . He was saying there are at least 2 buildings on the site that his current gym club would be able to use as they are in desperate need of proper training facilities. . However if the MOD want it to be housing (more bucks per acre) then that's what it will be. Phredd
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Tue 14 Jun 11

TheHorsesMouth says...

Hmmmm,...what facilities would the Air Cadets need Golly? Couldn't the gliding be done at Booker and purely for my own information, why do you currently travel further afield?
...
As far as I'm aware not all of the Land that the MOD wishes to sell is originally from Abbey School. I may need to check my sources but I understood some may also be Charington's and he's refusing to take it back unless all the concrete is taken out of it (i.e. put back to how it was) Abbey could demand the same!
...
Half the Army/Air Force personnel are marching out (i.e. leaving) this October and the rest next April. Plenty of time for the bidding and blogging to continue.
...
The majority of the land is Brown belt and old USAF buildings which have not been used for a number of years.
...
The housing there is in good order and perfectly sound,...can WDC put a preservation order on it as part of the local Heritage? Somewhat of a pipe-dream!
...
Likely to be a lot of houses to be built on that site and if so the Dawes Hill Road needs a serious upgrade!
...
New M40 intersection (where stubs are) does make sense and would take the pressure off London Road and Flackwell. Department of Transport would have to see some SENSIBLE plans first,...which would make a change to see any plans for this Stadium fiasco!
...
The MOD needs the cash from the sale to pay for rental for the current military tenants as I hear there is no room elsewhere at Strike, Medmenham, etc.
...
Stadium would be a shorter walk from the town centre and they could all work up a thrust getting there and roll down afterwards,...Hayes would have to pay for (or finance) it and certainly not the Tax-payers!!!!
Hmmmm,...what facilities would the Air Cadets need Golly? Couldn't the gliding be done at Booker and purely for my own information, why do you currently travel further afield? ... As far as I'm aware not all of the Land that the MOD wishes to sell is originally from Abbey School. I may need to check my sources but I understood some may also be Charington's and he's refusing to take it back unless all the concrete is taken out of it (i.e. put back to how it was) Abbey could demand the same! ... Half the Army/Air Force personnel are marching out (i.e. leaving) this October and the rest next April. Plenty of time for the bidding and blogging to continue. ... The majority of the land is Brown belt and old USAF buildings which have not been used for a number of years. ... The housing there is in good order and perfectly sound,...can WDC put a preservation order on it as part of the local Heritage? Somewhat of a pipe-dream! ... Likely to be a lot of houses to be built on that site and if so the Dawes Hill Road needs a serious upgrade! ... New M40 intersection (where stubs are) does make sense and would take the pressure off London Road and Flackwell. Department of Transport would have to see some SENSIBLE plans first,...which would make a change to see any plans for this Stadium fiasco! ... The MOD needs the cash from the sale to pay for rental for the current military tenants as I hear there is no room elsewhere at Strike, Medmenham, etc. ... Stadium would be a shorter walk from the town centre and they could all work up a thrust getting there and roll down afterwards,...Hayes would have to pay for (or finance) it and certainly not the Tax-payers!!!! TheHorsesMouth
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Tue 14 Jun 11

sparky49 says...

Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers.
Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers. sparky49
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Tue 14 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

sparky49 wrote:
Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers.
I'm not sure "ANY" residents want a football club near them.
.
Maybe WDC should just drop the idea?
[quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure "ANY" residents want a football club near them. . Maybe WDC should just drop the idea? A VOTER
  • Score: 0

9:48am Wed 15 Jun 11

TheHorsesMouth says...

A VOTER wrote:
sparky49 wrote:
Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers.
I'm not sure "ANY" residents want a football club near them.
.
Maybe WDC should just drop the idea?
Nothing wrong with making the current site more serviceable,...as long as Hayes pays.
...
Most likely they'll be a mixture of housing at this site 30%-40% affordable; which means some 600+ houses and they'll need a new school to service the primary school aged children.
...
Plus as mentioned before, upgrading the road and other infrastructure (sewers, comms & power) along that snaking, speed-bump strewn road.
...
Unless most of Abbey barn area was turned into parking for a stadium, that much housing and a stadium would not fit,....forget the community aspect of it too, as that would eat up even more land which is not there!
...
Yes WDC should forget the idea,...
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: Not sure the Daws hill residents would want a football club (don't blame them), and the Abbey would certainly not want a football club. Why don't the council and government build much needed social housing on the site, oops! forgot WDC sold theirs off. It will become up market housing for the middle classes yet again depriving those that need housing most social and first time buyers.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure "ANY" residents want a football club near them. . Maybe WDC should just drop the idea?[/p][/quote]Nothing wrong with making the current site more serviceable,...as long as Hayes pays. ... Most likely they'll be a mixture of housing at this site 30%-40% affordable; which means some 600+ houses and they'll need a new school to service the primary school aged children. ... Plus as mentioned before, upgrading the road and other infrastructure (sewers, comms & power) along that snaking, speed-bump strewn road. ... Unless most of Abbey barn area was turned into parking for a stadium, that much housing and a stadium would not fit,....forget the community aspect of it too, as that would eat up even more land which is not there! ... Yes WDC should forget the idea,... TheHorsesMouth
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Wed 15 Jun 11

sai-diva says...

It'd be nice if those of us who have visited the base over the years, and those who worked there during the war and later, were given a chance to have a last look before it's all razed to the ground.Many memories.
It'd be nice if those of us who have visited the base over the years, and those who worked there during the war and later, were given a chance to have a last look before it's all razed to the ground.Many memories. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 15 Jun 11

Monte Cristo says...

Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi
ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses.
Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses. Monte Cristo
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Thu 16 Jun 11

TheHorsesMouth says...

Monte Cristo wrote:
Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi

ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses.
Shorter walk from the town centre (breakfast/lunch & shopping), through the Rye and up the boundary of the Abbey School, would improve the circulation of those fans going to watch Rugby/Football and give them some (more) excercise. Though a pleasant & green area of Wycombe to a brownfield site. It sounds a better fit than most other suggested options so far.
The fans can always Ski\taboggen downhill (in the winter?) from the ski slope (when it is re-openned) to the retail parks in loudwater,...almost like an integrated well thought out plan,...I've had five minutes to think of it and it might just work. Any seconders? Votes please ladies & gents?

Oh and if you can't have a concert at Adams Park because you can't have pop fans on the pitch then you shouldn't be able to on/in a new stadium!

A roar of Rugby/football fans during an afternoon is by far less intrusive that a pop concert late evening? What thinks you all?
[quote][p][bold]Monte Cristo[/bold] wrote: Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses.[/p][/quote]Shorter walk from the town centre (breakfast/lunch & shopping), through the Rye and up the boundary of the Abbey School, would improve the circulation of those fans going to watch Rugby/Football and give them some (more) excercise. Though a pleasant & green area of Wycombe to a brownfield site. It sounds a better fit than most other suggested options so far. The fans can always Ski\taboggen downhill (in the winter?) from the ski slope (when it is re-openned) to the retail parks in loudwater,...almost like an integrated well thought out plan,...I've had five minutes to think of it and it might just work. Any seconders? Votes please ladies & gents? Oh and if you can't have a concert at Adams Park because you can't have pop fans on the pitch then you shouldn't be able to on/in a new stadium! A roar of Rugby/football fans during an afternoon is by far less intrusive that a pop concert late evening? What thinks you all? TheHorsesMouth
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Thu 16 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

TheHorsesmouth idea has my vote.
.
YES
TheHorsesmouth idea has my vote. . YES A VOTER
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Thu 16 Jun 11

BOOKERite says...

TheHorsesMouth wrote:
Monte Cristo wrote: Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses.
Shorter walk from the town centre (breakfast/lunch & shopping), through the Rye and up the boundary of the Abbey School, would improve the circulation of those fans going to watch Rugby/Football and give them some (more) excercise. Though a pleasant & green area of Wycombe to a brownfield site. It sounds a better fit than most other suggested options so far. The fans can always Ski\taboggen downhill (in the winter?) from the ski slope (when it is re-openned) to the retail parks in loudwater,...almost like an integrated well thought out plan,...I've had five minutes to think of it and it might just work. Any seconders? Votes please ladies & gents? Oh and if you can't have a concert at Adams Park because you can't have pop fans on the pitch then you shouldn't be able to on/in a new stadium! A roar of Rugby/football fans during an afternoon is by far less intrusive that a pop concert late evening? What thinks you all?
I'll second that as long as Mr Hayes pays for it.
[quote][p][bold]TheHorsesMouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monte Cristo[/bold] wrote: Notwithstanding the objections from residents which would occur wherever a new stadium is built, surely using a brownfield site is more preferable than building on green belt land - and more justifiable too, given that building on gree belt can only be done if exceptional circumstances/benefi ts warrant it. It may not be the ideal site, but it is worth considering surely? Well, no, it probably won't be, if Mr Hayes is required to pay anything for it - he wants a free stadium to be supplied by WDC for his private businesses.[/p][/quote]Shorter walk from the town centre (breakfast/lunch & shopping), through the Rye and up the boundary of the Abbey School, would improve the circulation of those fans going to watch Rugby/Football and give them some (more) excercise. Though a pleasant & green area of Wycombe to a brownfield site. It sounds a better fit than most other suggested options so far. The fans can always Ski\taboggen downhill (in the winter?) from the ski slope (when it is re-openned) to the retail parks in loudwater,...almost like an integrated well thought out plan,...I've had five minutes to think of it and it might just work. Any seconders? Votes please ladies & gents? Oh and if you can't have a concert at Adams Park because you can't have pop fans on the pitch then you shouldn't be able to on/in a new stadium! A roar of Rugby/football fans during an afternoon is by far less intrusive that a pop concert late evening? What thinks you all?[/p][/quote]I'll second that as long as Mr Hayes pays for it. BOOKERite
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Thu 16 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

UPDATE on my VOTE:

I Agree with BOOKERite, so maybe I should VOTE in the recently rejected form of AV:
.
1.) Refurbish current grounds
2.) Do nothing
3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays)
4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project
UPDATE on my VOTE: I Agree with BOOKERite, so maybe I should VOTE in the recently rejected form of AV: . 1.) Refurbish current grounds 2.) Do nothing 3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays) 4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project A VOTER
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Thu 16 Jun 11

J B Blackett says...

A Mr Schickelgruber had a lot of stadiums built at public expense a while ago.
.
They were very popular with most of the people (fans ?) who liked that sort of thing at that time. And those people used to sing a lot of loud songs and wave flags to show their unswerving support for their acclaimed leader (and chairman). He apparently had a rather murky and unfortunate background and came to a sticky end allegedly.
.
The WW chairman has only got one allegedly (?) - so far.
A Mr Schickelgruber had a lot of stadiums built at public expense a while ago. . They were very popular with most of the people (fans ?) who liked that sort of thing at that time. And those people used to sing a lot of loud songs and wave flags to show their unswerving support for their acclaimed leader (and chairman). He apparently had a rather murky and unfortunate background and came to a sticky end allegedly. . The WW chairman has only got one allegedly (?) - so far. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

11:25am Fri 17 Jun 11

TheHorsesMouth says...

A VOTER wrote:
UPDATE on my VOTE:

I Agree with BOOKERite, so maybe I should VOTE in the recently rejected form of AV:
.
1.) Refurbish current grounds
2.) Do nothing
3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays)
4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project
Well I'd probably vote as follows:

2.) Do nothing
1.) Refurbish current grounds
3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays)
4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project

Which would unfortunately mean the third option would win! With hindsight glad AV didn't....

With PR I would have voted:

2.) Do nothing
1.) Refurbish current grounds
3.) -
4.) -

So we'd have a hung parliament on the first two? So far,...
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: UPDATE on my VOTE: I Agree with BOOKERite, so maybe I should VOTE in the recently rejected form of AV: . 1.) Refurbish current grounds 2.) Do nothing 3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays) 4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project[/p][/quote]Well I'd probably vote as follows: 2.) Do nothing 1.) Refurbish current grounds 3.) Use Daws Hill (Hayes pays) 4.) Hayes pays 100% of any project Which would unfortunately mean the third option would win! With hindsight glad AV didn't.... With PR I would have voted: 2.) Do nothing 1.) Refurbish current grounds 3.) - 4.) - So we'd have a hung parliament on the first two? So far,... TheHorsesMouth
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 17 Jun 11

eniluap says...

how about a decent hospital with a/e with all this new housing wevwill need one
how about a decent hospital with a/e with all this new housing wevwill need one eniluap
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Sun 19 Jun 11

GTee says...

what about the bunker underneath the site?
what about the bunker underneath the site? GTee
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Mon 20 Jun 11

A VOTER says...

GTee wrote:
what about the bunker underneath the site?
You're not supposed to know about that....
.
TOP SECRET!
[quote][p][bold]GTee[/bold] wrote: what about the bunker underneath the site?[/p][/quote]You're not supposed to know about that.... . TOP SECRET! A VOTER
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree