Tories lose Chesham and Amersham

[nicko31]

"Contracts for Chums" went down badly with the electorate.

The Good Law project in only just getting started, they have 12 open cases against the government

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The red wall will remain. It's just that instead of it being Labour territory, it's red of the flush faced, angry, gammon with their faux patriotism to cover up their inept understanding of politics.

The red wall has already crumbled ... you should take some of the credit/blame as one of the many anonymous social media warriors castagating the working classes for not doing as they are told [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

The red wall has already crumbled ... you should take some of the credit/blame as one of the many anonymous social media warriors castagating the working classes for not doing as they are told [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Wall of gammon.

 

[The Clamp]

Haha! The idea that the Tory’s don’t want the working classes to do as they’re told. They were told to vote Leave. Look where that’s got everyone in working class areas!
Pfffft. Do me a favour.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Wall of gammon.

Being a patronising condescending bellend always a winning statergy in changing minds/winning arguments [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

The planning reform changes are there for one reason and one reason only to give the the big developers, Tory donors, more profits and ability to do as they wish with little comeback. The biggest issue with housing is land banking. Developers get permissions, but bank the land instead of developing. Developers will never produce more houses if it means flooding the market and reducing house prices.

Hopefully more people will read the proposals and see how awful for planning they are.

A recent parliamentary review of them was not complimentary.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6180/documents/68915/default/

 

[The Clamp]

Being a patronising condescending bellend always a winning statergy in changing minds/winning arguments [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Why do you imagine anyone is trying to change minds? or win arguments?

 

[The Clamp]

The planning reform changes are there for one reason and one reason only-give the the big developers, Tory donars, more profits and ability to do as they wish with little comeback. The biggest issue with housing is land banking. Developers get permissions, but bank the land instead of developing. Developers will never produce more houses if it means flooding the market and reducing house prices.

Hopefully more people will read the proposals and see how awful for planning they are.

A recent parliamentary review of them was not complimentary.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6180/documents/68915/default/

100% correct. And those that do get built are certainly not affordable to the average family. The new Monks Farm Ltd housing estate for example has houses priced between £350k and £750k. Laughable.
And councils love to approve because in that case, it's 600 more households paying council tax.

It was obvious the Tory's would eventually get round to doing something to piss off their core voters. The current government are driven by greed. It looks like the change to planning laws could well be their undoing.

Combine that with the fallout form the covid inquests and when the disaster of Brexit starts hitting home. Nothing is certain, but the ingredients are here for a change of tide.

Does Britain have the guts to stand up to the corrupt Tory's? I think we do. Will the true patriots stand up when it counts? I think we will.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The planning reform changes are there for one reason and one reason only-give the the big developers, Tory donars, more profits and ability to do as they wish with little comeback. The biggest issue with housing is land banking. Developers get permissions, but bank the land instead of developing. Developers will never produce more houses if it means flooding the market and reducing house prices.

Hopefully more people will read the proposals and see how awful for planning they are.

A recent parliamentary review of them was not complimentary.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6180/documents/68915/default/

Look at you standing up for team Nimby against those who want to see more housing for lower income families, instead supporting the comfortable middle classes who don't want the great unwashed cluttering up their views ..

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Amersham is a fairly pleasant Buckinghamshire town, in respect to its shops, eateries and general niceness.
Its elderly relative, Old Amersham is a picture of 'oldie woldly England'.
Roald Dahl would be turning in his grave.
As you've already mentioned, I suspect a major decision in change is because of HS2, which is carving its way through the county, like a Katie Price surgeon.

I'm not surprised. Even if you are a HS2 supporter, the organisation has been its own worst enemy, being totally arrogant, and riding roughshod over local people's concerns, the latest being tunnelling through an aquifer. I'm not a civil engineer, but I would have thought the logic, if you must build the thing, is to put it next to an existing transport corridor like the M40, which would have minimised the environmental effect. Going the route they have, the Chilterns gets all the disruption and none of the benefits (there isn't even the sugar pill of a Chiltern Parkway station).

As far as I know, Chesham often did elect Liberal Democrat councillors and was the Conservatives' weakest area. Amersham, especially Old Amersham, was always rock solid Conservative. However, in May's local elections, the Town Council went Liberal Democrat for the first time. I expect it will be won back easily at the next election (the LDs only held by-election wins in the Blair years), but the way Amersham has turned is quite significant.

Fantastic.

Let’s hope he can get some influence and drag them further into the centre. The darling of millions and millions of Tory remainers will surely bring some credibility for voting Labour to educated Tories across the country.

John Bercow has moved a fair way left over the years. He used to be a member of the Conservative Monday Club, and was invited onto Any Questions after the 2001 General Election with Chris Patten, so they could have a left wing, pro-European and a right wing, Eurosceptic Conservative on the panel. I went to the University of Buckingham, and the local literary society borrowed our lecture hall to host a talk by John Redwood. Bercow, as the local MP, acted as the host. I met him afterwards and mentioned that I was from Nicholas Soames's area (I was briefly a member of the Mid Sussex party, though fell out with Soames over the Amex). His response was "well, he's not from my wing of the party".

 

[The Clamp]

Look at you standing up for team Nimby against those who want to see more housing for lower income families, instead supporting the comfortable middle classes who don't want the great unwashed cluttering up their views ..

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Not happening. Nowhere near enough units on new developments are put aside for affordable housing and those properties that are called affordable, are simply not. They're just a bit cheaper and a lot smaller than the top end properties and come with a poor deal mortgage. Try again.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

Look at you standing up for team Nimby against those who want to see more housing for lower income families, instead supporting the comfortable middle classes who don't want the great unwashed cluttering up their views ..

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

If you think it's nimbyism, you are very, very, very, wrong.

How does planning reform that removes the need to include a percentage of affordable homes support lower income families?

 

[The Clamp]

If you think it's nimbyism, you are very, very, very, wrong.

How does planning reform that removes the need to include a percentage of affordable homes support lower income families?

Unfortunately people are not doing there own research into this (do they ever?). They buy the Tory line and insult anyone that doesn't swallow the lies. Again, you are correct, under the Tory proposals there will be limited or zero requirement to build affordable housing. Another Tory ruse to make it appear they are helping the working classes when in fact they are making their lot worse. And people fall for it. Again and again. Because they believe everything they are told and are too lazy to look into it themselves. And that's what the corrupt Tory's rely on.

 

[GT49er]

The red wall will remain. It's just that instead of it being Labour territory, it's red of the flush faced, angry, gammon with their faux patriotism to cover up their inept understanding of politics.

Oh dear, your prejudices must be hurting you - all that stereotyping you have to do - must be exhausting'. I mean, people making up their minds and not agreeing with you. Insult to injury that, eh?

The planning reform changes are there for one reason and one reason only-give the the big developers, Tory donars, more profits and ability to do as they wish with little comeback. The biggest issue with housing is land banking. Developers get permissions, but bank the land instead of developing.

.... and by the way, you can't spell 'donors'................ although I dare say you'll dive in to correct it now it's been pointed out to you .....


Grizzling Gammon as a user name suits you. Just saying, like. You know, some people do irony so-o-o much better!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Not happening. Nowhere near enough units on new developments are put aside for affordable housing and those properties that are called affordable, are simply not. They're just a bit cheaper and a lot smaller than the top end properties and come with a poor deal mortgage. Try again.

As ever you have no idea what you are talking about. The Government proposals make it easier to build more affordable houses in more areas which is why they are so controversial. Amusingly the Lib Dems appealed to the Nimby vote to secure their by election win and hypocritical muppets rejoice when Nimbys win


Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

Oh dear, your prejudices must be hurting you - all that stereotyping you have to do - must be exhausting'. I mean, people making up their minds and not agreeing with you. Insult to injury that, eh?


.... and by the way, you can't spell 'donors'................ although I dare say you'll dive in to correct it now it's been pointed out to you .....


Grizzling Gammon as a user name suits you. Just saying, like. You know, some people do irony so-o-o much better!

Rest assured, I edited 2 minutes before your post. So no need.

Anything of substance to add about the planning reforms?

 

[The Clamp]

As ever you have no idea what you are talking about. The Government proposals make it easier to build more affordable houses in more areas which is why they are so controversial. Amusingly the Lib Dems appealed to the Nimby vote to secure their by election win and hypocritical muppets rejoice when Nimbys win


Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

The government proposals make it easier to build developments with no affordable housing and stretch the definition of affordable housing rizla thin. They are lowering the requirement of affordable housing for developers. So how does the proposal to lower the requirement for affordable housing increase affordable housing? Even Tory MP's are against the proposals for this very reason. Try again.

 

[beorhthelm]

The planning reform changes are there for one reason and one reason only to give the the big developers, Tory donors, more profits and ability to do as they wish with little comeback. The biggest issue with housing is land banking. Developers get permissions, but bank the land instead of developing. Developers will never produce more houses if it means flooding the market and reducing house prices.

Hopefully more people will read the proposals and see how awful for planning they are.

A recent parliamentary review of them was not complimentary.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6180/documents/68915/default/

land banking is a scary monster to vilify developers. reason why land with permission is valuable is short supply: if theres more land with permission, it will begin to lose value and developers will build. so land banking can only be profitable if we keep supply short. or we could pretend this is the problem, carry on obstructing planning permission, restricting housing, which increase prices for land and homes.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

land banking is a scary monster to vilify developers. reason why land with permission is valuable is short supply: if theres more land with permission, it will begin to lose value and developers will build. so land banking can only be profitable if we keep supply short. or we could pretend this is the problem, carry on obstructing planning permission, restricting housing, which increase prices for land and homes.

Land banking is not a scary monster to vilify developers. Pre-app proposals for large developments come in and get all conditions carried out and signed off, leaving no issues for a developer. Numerous occasions this is then left for years. As you say land with permission is more valuable, but it really isn't in short supply.

Planning permission is never 'obstructed' without very good reason. The reason for refusal needs to be watertight, otherwise it will be quickly overturned on appeal.

About 90% of planning applications are approved. At present the latest estimate is that there are 1million homes with planning permission but not built. And another estimates that 40% of houses are not being built.

 

[beorhthelm]

About 90% of planning applications are approved. At present the latest estimate is that there are 1million homes with planning permission but not built. And another estimates that 40% of houses are not being built.

so push for amendments to the planning reform to force through development on permission, not use this as an excuse.