Cookham Discussion Board
December 19, 2014, 05:28:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
20 December 2014 - An Exhibition of Small Graphics for Gifts

20-21 December 2014 - Fizz and Fortified Wine Tasting at Stratfords

22 December 2014 - Christmas Express (5-11 years)

25 December 2014 - Carols by Candlelight at Holy Trinity

26 December 2014 - The Kaffirs Boxing Day Games

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS
DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Affordable Housing  (Read 6126 times)
Paris
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 834


« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2011, 02:49:04 PM »

Bob and Pongo - thank you for your comments.  I'm very glad to hear that there are other people in the Cookhams who feel as I do.  We are already suffering - as has been pointed out already - from infrastructure that cannot cope - remember the blocked and overflowing sewer outside Countrystore a few weeks ago, and outside Elizabeth House (more than one occasion), car parks that cannot hold the amount of cars that want to park there, the list goes on . . .

We must preserve the village for what it is.  Too many houses, cars, people even will turn it from a lovely place to be with space into an overcrowded, struggling small town and then no-one will want to come here.  Think of how the pubs, shops and restaurants will suffer, and are already suffering, because passing trade goes elsewhere (and come to think of it so does some local trade) because there is nowhere to park.  Also, how dangerous our smaller lanes will become with even more traffic 'rat running' to the bigger towns and stations as all the new people make their daily commutes.

Gazetta - I understand your comments, and yes it would be nice if every child ever brought up in the Cookhams could have a house there, but if they did can you imagine how many houses would be needed?  The very reasons that you want to stay here would be completely negated by all the houses!  And we'd probably need a hospital rather than a GP surgery.

As to whoever it was that questioned my 'garden grabbing' comment - my source (not to be revealed) was someone who has actually been approached and asked if they would be interested having part of their garden 'grabbed'.
Logged
kingfisher
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 273



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2011, 06:26:08 PM »



As to whoever it was that questioned my 'garden grabbing' comment - my source (not to be revealed) was someone who has actually been approached and asked if they would be interested having part of their garden 'grabbed'.

If your source (who shall not be revealed), was asked for part of their garden,, it wasn't for the sake of the elderly people of PH.....

Only 5/6 residents remain in Payton House,, all of whom are waiting for more sheltered accommodation to become available...
Logged

Pongo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 300


« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2011, 06:54:15 PM »

I thought Cookham's garden grabber supremo was Mr Shanly.
Logged
monty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 378


« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2011, 07:52:18 PM »

As someone who was born in Cookham and lived here all my life and am horrified at the amount of traffic. The cars parked with children being delivered to the Nursery School is a nightmare between 9.00 and 9.30. The station hill car park is like a free for all and I am very surprised that there are not more bumps and scrapes there. If there were more houses |I dread to think how this is all going to work out. Shocked
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2011, 08:16:10 PM »

Too many houses, cars, people even will turn it from a lovely place to be with space into an overcrowded, struggling small town and then no-one will want to come here.  Think of how the pubs, shops and restaurants will suffer, and are already suffering, because passing trade goes elsewhere (and come to think of it so does some local trade) because there is nowhere to park. 
Most of your complaints seem to be related more to parking than anything else. Perhaps rather than a 1 child per family policy, we should have a 1 car per family policy?

Most of the cars that park at the parade are from people who live within walking distance of it.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 1813


« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2011, 09:27:00 PM »

1 Child per family is a Chinese policy. 1 Car per family is an Island of Bermuda policy, but you can have more than one scooter in the family.

The one child per family will not suit a lot of new immigrants to Britain as their belief the more children the stronger the family.
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2011, 02:30:54 PM »

We know your thoughts on immigrants James (http://www.cookham.com/forum/index.php?topic=838.0) but perhaps as an immigrant yourself, you had best keep your mouth shut and your fingers bound for once!
Logged
cookhamjames
Full Member
***
Posts: 195


« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2011, 04:57:48 PM »

that was one of the best JH idiotic posts ever. It still makes me laugh how his verbal diarrhoea stops him actually thinking before posting. I'd love to meet him, I wonder if he speaks with the same tone?
Logged
kingfisher
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 273



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2011, 06:35:28 PM »

that was one of the best JH idiotic posts ever. It still makes me laugh how his verbal diarrhoea stops him actually thinking before posting. I'd love to meet him, I wonder if he speaks with the same tone?

 Grin Grin Grin
Logged

Paris
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 834


« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2011, 11:25:19 AM »

Showem, I was using the parking as an example of how the infrastructure we already have is struggling to cope with the current level of usage - more houses generally = more cars = more of a problem.  I could also cite the congested roads, especially at school drop off and pick up times, or the overflowing sewers (think I may have already mentioned those), and also as someone else has already said, the difficulty in getting GP appointments, the fact that we are already supporting two dentist practices, the list once you get started goes on and on . . .

As to the garden grabbing I think the general idea was to get more land around PH so that when it is demolished there is plenty of room to build bungalows for the elderly.

Even more worrying than the garden grabbing though, to me at any rate, is the idea of approaching farmers and landowners to ask them for land - we shouldn't be taking away farmland and greenbelt.  If we do genuinely (sorry Gazetta) need affordable housing; even the survey seems a bit 'skewed' as someon put it (don't shoot me Gazetta that's what the article says) then we should be redeveloping areas that have been previously used.  We shouldn't be allowing developers to get their hands on a big house and making it even bigger and even more expensive to buy; they should be made to retain the character of the property and sub-divide it internally into apartments or flats and make them affordable.  And, if need be place a restriction in the deeds so that only 1 car is permitted per household thereby not increasing the load on the villages' roads etc in too much of hurry.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 1813


« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2011, 01:23:56 AM »

For once Paris has got it right. As for Showem and for others and their mundane remarks, for goodness sake grow up!
Logged
Simes
Full Member
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2011, 09:09:56 AM »

... As for Showem and for others and their mundane remarks, for goodness sake grow up!
Pot....kettle!
Logged
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2011, 11:31:47 AM »

We shouldn't be allowing developers to get their hands on a big house and making it even bigger and even more expensive to buy; they should be made to retain the character of the property and sub-divide it internally into apartments or flats and make them affordable.

There are problems with your suggestion.
Living together in a property that was not originally designed for isolation between households means both parties are subject to unintentional noise. There are very few ways of suppressing it.

If a large estate does come up for sale, construction of a separate annex within the grounds would be my preferred option, sufficiently close to the main building to minimise the utility work and pathways required.

 
Logged
Jo Jo
Full Member
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2011, 11:51:08 AM »

There was something on the radio yesterday about UK having many fewer self builds than anywhere else in Europe. I did think of the idea once and discovered it was a bureaucrtic nightmare which put me off. Apparently it is now being suggested this should be encouraged. One place had some land and twenty people bought into it to build the home they wanted. I thought it was rather a nice idea and would make a change from the Shanly look alikes.
Logged
Gazzetta
Full Member
***
Posts: 198


« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2011, 12:00:09 PM »

Thats a terrible idea.  I assembled a garden shed once and it wouldnt have looked out of place in Pisa.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!