Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error
East Thames Development in Chadwell Heath
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
NB
#1 Posted : 30 January 2009 20:11:27(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 30/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6

To all the residents in Chadwell Heath and surronding areas,

We need to get together to lobby our concerns regarding this new development, which consists of 116 units. This is a major development and we really do not need it in an already
built up area. All the primary and secondary schools that this development will impact are already full to capacity, it will create even more traffic on our roads, parking will also be a nightmare, our GP's surgeries are already full and getting an appointment is hard enough without the need for 116 two to three bed flats.

The planning permission is due to be granted mid February, and if this gets granted the development can be up and running within 18 months. We need to write to our councillors within the next two weeks. SO PLEASE DO NOT SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING...!!! YOU NEED TO ACT NOW.:shock:
Back to top
knowsie
#2 Posted : 02 February 2009 13:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 03/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 251
I thought that "East Thames" development referred to the Thames Gateway project which is nowhere near Chadwell Heath AFAIK.

Could you expand a little on exactly which development you are talking about? I'm sure that you will be more likely to get support if people know what it is you are referring to ...

... assuming that it is not already to late to register objections ...
Back to top
NB
#3 Posted : 02 February 2009 18:59:13(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 30/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
The housing association is called 'East Thames', and the development is definately in CHADWELL HEATH.
It may be linked to the Thames Gateway as Chadwell Heath is on a transport node being close to both Overground stations Chadwell Heath and Goodmayes.

The website for the development is east-thames.co.uk.

For those that know Chadwell Heath, the site is Grove Farm, next to the Staples, Halfords and Smyth toy shop. The develoment will be seven stories high on the High Road, and goes right down onto Grove Road. It is a MAJOR development, and I know too often people always say that they would have liked to voice their concern had they known.

Well now is your chance to do so. We know schools and GP's in Chadwell Heath and surronding areas are already overstretched, do we really want 300 more people on our doorstep.

If I find out any more I shall post on here. I am really suprised more people have not responded, where are you all, what are your views ???
Back to top
vfmctax
#4 Posted : 03 February 2009 12:44:21(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 15/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 186
just googled it and found this:

App.No:
0034/09


Location:
Grove Farm, R/O, 951-1009, Including 1009 High Road,
Chadwell Heath, Essex, RM6 4FH
Redevelopment of site comprising 2 to 6 storeyed buildings
to include 116 dwellings, offices, retail space, energy centre
and associated works.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Copies of plans can be viewed at: KEITH AXON
CENTRE/LIBRARY
Back to top
Newbie
#5 Posted : 03 February 2009 20:14:38(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
I think I know this plot of land, it has quite a nice development of four story flats that went up about 12 years ago opposite, aimed squarely at the first time buyer.

People need somewhere to live, the figures of people on council housing waiting lists both locally and nationally are truly staggering, in the millions.

I saw this article in Inside Housing about building on greenbelt!

It's got to be brown field sites first (like Chadwell Heath), then moving to outer sites when space is limited, like the proposed 425 homes for Five Oaks Lane , one can only count themeselves lucky not to be subject of a compulsory purchase order, to deliver the proposed development.

Given there are nearly 1 Milion empty properties nationally, someone took their eye off the ball.

Nimbyism is not the answer, having derelict empty industrial units instead of that brownfield site used for housing would be wrong.

Whether we like it or not, the population is growing, that growing population needs housing, as well as proper infrastructure, schools, doctors, roads etc.

It is up to a forward thinking council, to strike a balance between overcrowding and sustainable communities for future generations.
Back to top
annesevant
#6 Posted : 04 February 2009 10:58:33(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
I prefer to talk only if I know my facts. In my area 3, recently, when dwellings have changed hand, the one or perhaps two occupants have been replaced by a large family unit. (As an example, I am amazed that three adults and two children can live in a two-bedroom accommodation but I don't think there is a law against it.) The small council tax generated by the small property will have to go a long long way to care for the young, to care for the elderly.
If these families were housed by the Council, they would require massive accommodation because of the rules regarding the number of adults sleeping in a bedroom and children according to their sexes.
It used to be common for families to live in cramped accommodation and I think we are going backwards.
The birth rate is falling, and the accommodation problem is increasing rapidly. Something is going very wrong.

Now I have copied a tiny bit of a lecture I picked from one of the links provided by newbie regarding the green belt.

[If we build more market houses in sufficient quantities then house prices will fall, and private rents will fall with them. This, in and of itself, will help those who are badly housed. Those with too little space will be able to afford somewhere bigger, those who are sharing will more likely to be able to afford a place of their own.]

This was written by somebody with a Phd, lecturing at the LSE.
Be worried, be very worried if that is the level of logic that can be used to destroy the Green Belt.

And I think it is a fact that nobody knows how many properties lay vacant either, so forge ahead, build new and, ... destroy the environment for ever rather than apply proper management in a crisis.
annesevant
Back to top
vfmctax
#7 Posted : 04 February 2009 17:29:57(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 15/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 186

we have the same situation in my road and i agree with anne on the disproportional drain on council tax. when the older owner/residents eventually die(as seems to have been common in most cases) the new family that moves in breed like rabbits. needless to say, it would appear to be specific groups that this desire to procreate (regardless of a lack of need to ensure survival of the species or lack of ability to support that family without financial help from the befits system) affects.


my mother was one of 9 children and two adults and lived in basically a one room flat in south london in the late 1920s. we are more educated these days have better health and live longer so there really is no excuse for anyone to need or have such a large family and culture and religion are to be held largely to blame. government also does nothing to discourage excessively large families. "children are our future" we here them say. yes, they are, but too many will also be our downfall.

birth rate falling?? among specific groups predominantly the indigenous population maybe, but not among the incomers if personal experience is anything to go by.

getting back on topic (and off my soapbox) will these new properties be exclusively for existing redbridge residents as the one thing that really annoys me(and others i would imagine) is when locals have to endure greater density and pressure on local infrastructure only to find the new builds are occupied by non redbridge residents.
Back to top
NB
#8 Posted : 06 February 2009 20:04:19(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 30/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
Thank you people for your responses, the development has not received full planning permission this is due mid February.

It is a MAJOR development, and as it is part and parcel of a housing association/social housing developer I doubt it is being purely built to house existing Redbridge residents.
It will also contains retail units, is this more chicken shops for our area. We already have far too many take-aways and pound shops along the High Road from Seven Kings coming into Chadwell Heath. Will the developers guarantee that leases for the retail outlets will not be given to the chicken shops, also in this climate I really doubt that any of those retail units will be occupied.

Again I re-emphasise we do not need this development in an already crowded area, Chadwell Heath has become a dumping ground for these housing developments and I am sure I am not the only resident that has this view.
Back to top
Newbie
#9 Posted : 13 February 2009 17:41:21(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Like it or not the population of London is expanding. (it always has and always will)

Redbridge, currently has over 2500 families living in temporary accommodation and 12000 households on the housing waiting list, I presume that none of the posters above are in the figures quoted?

This article on NIMBYism is interesting, and Dr Stuart Burgess does have a point, that every village could accomodate 10 affordable homes WITHOUT altering the nature of that village.

Building major developments DO alter the nature of an area, and need to be properly thought out with regard to the concerns of local residents and infrastructure.

However, those concerns need to be balanced with the need for housing, and the above figures show that there clearly is a need.

Sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing, is NOT an option.
Back to top
David Sevant
#12 Posted : 13 February 2009 20:09:13(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 47
Newbie quite rightly states that the population of these tiny islands is increasing rapidly. The question is where is this increase coming from and isn't it the responsiblity of national government to ensure that any increase is sustainable? We all know from personal experience that there is increasing competition for jobs and for services, we all know that the trains into London are packed to the gills, we all know that attending the local hospitals can result in a very lengthy waiting time, that there is growing demand for educational facilities and that the public roads are subject to constant and increasing congestion. Strangely and somewhat mysteriously successive governments appear to have ignored the obvious outcome. Would anybody out there like to submit a few timely suggestions as to the plight of future generations - I really pity them.
David Sevant
Back to top
darel
#10 Posted : 14 February 2009 09:42:47(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 25/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
Newbie wrote:
This article on NIMBYism is interesting, and Dr Stuart Burgess does have a point, that every village could accomodate 10 affordable homes WITHOUT altering the nature of that village.




I agree with this point in principle, but in my experience it only takes ONE household of some people to totally change a small area. Having had a family with no morals move in a few doors away previously (not in Redbridge) bringing with them drug abuse and dealing, casual violence, repeated and incredibly loud car noise and various other forms of sociopathic behaviour (including urinating in what seemed like every garden in the street) I know that it doesn't take much to make a radical change. Nor does policing always work in these matters, the local police were well aware of this family, but lacked the man-power and common-sense powers to deal with these people.

Packing people ever more densely into urban areas will not work, so a solution needs to be found, I don't pretend to have one, but surely the government, with all its resources could put together a think tank to come up with some schemes to at least try.
Back to top
weggis
#11 Posted : 15 February 2009 22:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
Newbie wrote:


Sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing, is NOT an option.



When you say "doing nothing, is NOT an option" do you mean like NOT having children before you are in a position to care for them, feed, clothe and house them?
Back to top
WWW BLOG
weggis
#13 Posted : 15 February 2009 23:46:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
Back to top
WWW BLOG
Newbie
#14 Posted : 16 February 2009 13:29:48(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Following Inside Housing's Empty Promise campaign, the conservatives unveiled a plan to bring back into use some of the estimated 1 million empty homes in the country.

There are many three bedroom properties where I live with 'To Let' signs outside.

I know from local knowledge that these used to be family homes, but are now owned by absent landlords (property speculators?), who are now finding them difficult to let, would these be classified as 'empty properties', could landlords be compelled to let at any price?

The link (NOT having children) is unreadable.

Despite the reports in the media about a minority, the reality (1.63MB Pdf File) tells a dirrerent story.

Quite why anyone would want to breed in such sufficient numbers to outgrow ANY property is beyond me, as is living in poverty with many mouths to feed, but that would be the topic of a whole new thread.
Back to top
Newbie
#15 Posted : 28 February 2009 16:48:53(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Update, the latest figures show 13188 households currently on the council housing waiting list, from 2004 to 2008 the figures rose from 4766 to 13188.

Where is the infrastructure to cope with this increase?

How was the above situation reached, with figures nearly tripling in four years?

Where is the planning to cope with demand?

Why is there a severe shortage of family size accomodation?

There are three fundamental things that humans need, food, clothing and shelter.

With the UK housing market currently in meltdown things will only get worse.

Houses in Redbridge are now an average of £271,747, considerably more than the 2.5 times the average salary needed to buy one. (the correct old accounting formula used before 125% mortgages bankrupted the country).

Owner occupation is an aspiration unaffordable for many, how will the housing demand be met ?
Back to top
Newbie
#16 Posted : 03 March 2009 13:51:55(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Speaking of things getting worse ,these liar loans, and lie to bet mortgages have all been underwritten by you, me and future generations.

It is far from over, as according to the IMF Britain is worse placed to cope with this recession.

This short article paints an even bleaker picture, should nations take protectionist measures (buy US, buy UK etc), expect ever increasing mortgage reposessions, inceased homelessness, more banks / insurance companies going to the wall and local councils struggling to cope.
Back to top
BryanDicker
#17 Posted : 04 March 2009 19:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
Newbie wrote:
Speaking of things getting worse ,these liar loans, and lie to bet mortgages have all been underwritten by you, me and future generations.

It is far from over, as according to the IMF Britain is worse placed to cope with this recession.

This short article paints an even bleaker picture, should nations take protectionist measures (buy US, buy UK etc), expect ever increasing mortgage reposessions, inceased homelessness, more banks / insurance companies going to the wall and local councils struggling to cope.


What is the population of Non English Workers in the UK taking on jobs not wanted by our own?? The NHS 1997 is a prime example. As HCP's were brought in, there was a sudden increase in student places - to an extent the Universities couldnt accomodate them, and so an extra cohort in many Universities were created. In North Lincs strikes have taken place because the privatised company at the Steel works were Italian and so most of the work force were Italians. These people need accomodation. And no, I dont think the stance on immigration by Howard led to votes not casted to his favour. There were lots of reasons!!
Back to top
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET

All areas