Cookham Discussion Board
June 20, 2018, 12:46:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
19 June 2018 - Medical Detection Dogs

19 June 2018 - Part 1 Speak Out

21 June 2018 - Baroque Ensemble Red Priest

21 June 2018 - Open Minds - The Teenagers Debating Group

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 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Whyteladyes Green Belt Outline Planning Application - Again!!  (Read 21373 times)
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 273


« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2015, 09:20:49 AM »

Genealogy does matter.

You have to know who you are dealing with.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2015, 12:58:35 PM »

I was trying to point out that the matter of genealogy, which has nothing to do with turkeys anyway, is immaterial.  It doesn't really matter who submitted the application, it could have been the man on the moon; what matters is stopping the application getting permission.  But I do understand what you mean - hurting Turkey Tom might not help in this case.
Logged
tallmark
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2015, 05:49:29 PM »

There is a Parish Council meeting to discuss this next week 3rd Nov @8pm. Please attend to provide your input and thoughts.  Further details on the Facebook page
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2015, 11:13:44 AM »

Right, never mind all this 'Copas Bashing' - get on and get those objections in.  I've just looked and there was only one on the list! 

I've just submitted mine, so shortly there should be two - come on guys, if we want this blocked then get writing!
Logged
DiscoStu
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2015, 04:47:09 PM »

If anyone is unsure, to object you can:

1) Go to http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp
2) Search for the reference 15/03284
3) Click on "Comment on this application", under the related links

Not sure what to write? Something like this will do...

I object for the following reasons:
- This is green belt land
- Cookham can not cope with yet more residents, it does not have the amenities
- Existing nearby properties would be hugely devalued with no recompense from the developer
- "Affordable" housing should be built in an area which is "affordable"
Logged
Mac
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 88


« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2015, 09:35:35 PM »

Thanks for the bullet point prompts.

I've lodged my objection accordingly.

As for "Copas bashing" I've no interest in supporting a family who behaves this way and will be using Macey's from now on for my Christmas and other culinary needs.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2015, 01:14:49 PM »

If anyone is unsure, to object you can:

1) Go to http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp
2) Search for the reference 15/03284
3) Click on "Comment on this application", under the related links

Not sure what to write? Something like this will do...

I object for the following reasons:
- This is green belt land
- Cookham can not cope with yet more residents, it does not have the amenities
- Existing nearby properties would be hugely devalued with no recompense from the developer
- "Affordable" housing should be built in an area which is "affordable"

Forgive me, but that last one is more than a bit snobbish.  Also, whereabouts in the southeast would you deem an 'affordable' area?  Anywhere along the Crossrail route is becoming 'expensive' and perhaps out of reach of many first time houseowners - doubtless it is this rise in prices that is one reason for the sudden desire to start building on what was once perfectly productive farmland.
Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 192


« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2015, 06:18:36 PM »

In the press today it says:

Ministers have quietly given developers the right to be granted “planning in principle” in areas that are earmarked for new housing schemes.

It looks like the councils do not have a look in.
Logged
tallmark
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2015, 10:13:32 PM »

A quick search of Rightmove shows that on average a 2 bed property to rent in Cookham is c. £1,100 per month.  To label these properties as "Affordable" the council or local housing association will charge the tenant 80% of the market rate.  This would mean the household would typically have to earn >£35k (if your rental costs are c. 30% of your income) which is above what two people who earn national minimum wage (£6.70 per hour) would both earn in a year.  It is these individuals whom the council should be supporting with housing they can afford, not local land owners who are looking make money by destroying some of the countries best countryside.
Logged
DiscoStu
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2015, 06:34:38 PM »

Thanks, Mark. Exactly my point. There's always one, eh? Wink
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2015, 08:02:01 AM »

Move over Sara Beeny/George Clarke - the Farmers are coming!
What is it with all these Farmers and the need to over develop the Cookhams?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

Cannon Court Farm - Planning Application (confirmed)

Lee Farm  - Planning Application?

Woodlands Farm - Planning Application (confirmed)

Are there any LOCAL Farms / Stable yards left?

« Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 12:26:17 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 273


« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2015, 12:31:39 PM »

Move over Sara Beeny/George Clarke - the Farmers are coming!
What is it with all these Farmers and the need to over develop the Cookhams?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

Cannon Court Farm - Planning Application Housing (confirmed)

Lee Farm  - Planning Application? Housing

Woodlands Farm - Planning Application Housing (confirmed)

Are there any LOCAL Farms / Stable yards left?

A few, if any ....

Anyway, some people call it "Copas Bashing" ...

I just call it as I see it.

Exploitation by Copas Bros.

Plain and simple.

This is the Copas Empire (Farmer and sons) seeking to extend itself beyond all recognition by playing up to the
panic stricken "must build affordable homes" directive coupled to the whims of the RBWM.
Money, as the saying goes, makes money.
In the Copas's case ... Land makes money.

Field shelters ... remember them?
Constructions / Erections in fields which have never seen cattle in them in over 100 years -
said fields/greenbelt just sitting and waiting to be "approved" for building land.

This farmer HAS to be stopped in continuing this exploitation of our greenbelt countryside.

His reasoning is highly amusing (and ambiguous) - his intent is there for all to witness.

And if that is defined as  "Copas Bashing"  - then I, for one, am all for it.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2015, 02:39:08 PM »

I'm seriously worried that the 'Cookham's' will shrivel up, as the land and buildings are grabbed at for development, turning an historic area into a modern town.

Why are the Cllrs supporting and allowing these pot bellied, leather jacket wearing, brill creamed receding hair line farmers (developers) do this? When is enough really enough? . .

Would make a great tv show?   "The Farmers Are Coming" . . ! . .
« Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 02:45:50 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
simmie
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2015, 06:28:11 PM »

My understanding is that the RBWM Councillors have little choice.  They need to build c 700 houses a year, which means the Cookhams share (based on its % population of RBWM) is around 30 a year.  Failure on their part to do so simply means the Central Govt steps in and overrides them.  Not sure you can blame the farmer either (who obviously have land as a part of their day job).  If you are offered more money to sell for development, which has to happen somewhere, rather than work hard on the land wouldn't you?  And aren't all of our houses originally built on farmland / greenbelt at some point in time, so there is a danger of hypocrisy in saying it is fine for us but not for others.
   
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 273


« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2015, 07:16:55 PM »

 ^^^ The above post made me split my sides!  Grin ^^^

The mere fact that they (Farmers) deem themselves FARMERS means, certainly in my book, that they FARM the land they own.
Not to use the land for set-aside (unless they're absolutely penniless) nor for development (unless they want to cash in!)

Farmers are NOT developers and should not consider themselves as such.

In days of yore, when the older houses were built on land (unlikely on land owned by farmer's seeking a fast buck)
there were thousands of acres upon which to build.
However, very slowly but surely, the countryside has constricted, with towns/suburbia creeping up absorbing villages/hamlets as
houses are shoe-horned into tiny pockets of land flogged off by a farmer  - until the area becomes one large mass of housing,
thus losing all identity of who or what the area used to be called in the first place.
Milton Keynes anyone?

Hence the urgency to secure GREENBELT land as just that - greenbelt and not land for development.

Please don't kid yourself that a certain farmer in these parts is looking to flog off his land for the love of his fellow man!
« Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 07:19:25 PM by Watchman » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!