Legal challenge will not hold up health campus, says Watford elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill

Mayor Dorothy Thornhill

Mayor Dorothy Thornhill

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

A potential legal challenge to the health campus project will not interrupt its progress, according to Watford’s elected mayor.

Dorothy Thornhill said the council will push on with its part of the scheme, which will see 700 homes built on the site, while leaving space for a new hospital redevelopment.

Her comments come after campaigners announced they were fundraising to take the decision to include the Farm Terrace Allotments in the development to judicial review.

Mayor Thornhill said: "They have got to do what they have got to do but I’ll do what I have got to do.

"It is absolutely their right to carry on with this. But what I want to do is crack on with regenerating an area of West Watford with new homes, new jobs and allowing space for the redevelopment of the hospital.

"At some point a judge will have to make a decision about how many times you can do this. I can’t imagine this is something that can continue to keep happening."

Farm Terrace Allotments were initially protected in the health campus plans to regenerate land behind Vicarage Road.

Then in 2012 Watford Borough Council voted to include the 118-year-old plots to make a new version of the scheme viable for developers.

The council was later granted permission by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State of Communities and Local Government, to build on the allotments.

The minister was forced to rethink the permission when Farm Terrace campaigners started the process of taking the decision to judicial review. But just before Christmas he granted the council permission for a second time.

Watford Observer:

Latest health campus masterplan.

Current plans show the allotment land being used for extra car parking for Watford FC, a housing development with a community green and space for possible hospital buildings.

The details of the hospital element of the scheme will not become clear until West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust finalises its new clinical strategy. The trust has said this may not happen for up to 18 months.

Meanwhile progress has been made on the health campus scheme after planning permission was granted for a new access road to the hospital site from Dalton Way.

Mayor Thornhill added: "I was with the ambulance service today and the last comment they made to me when I left the station was ‘when is that road going to be built’. There are people who view this regeneration scheme very differently."

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

UKIP sees things very differently to the current Mayor.

For a new Mayor and to save the allotments, vote UKIP.
UKIP sees things very differently to the current Mayor. For a new Mayor and to save the allotments, vote UKIP. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 10

4:57pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Cuetip says...

So much of this is like a David versus Goliath struggle.

But the health review schedule is in 18 months time which reminds me that Richard H amongst much flag wavinng 4 years ago promised that the Watford hospital deal was all done and dusted and Hemel despite their long march along the Hempstead Rd was dead in the water.

I suppose voters are notorious for having very short memories.

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.
So much of this is like a David versus Goliath struggle. But the health review schedule is in 18 months time which reminds me that Richard H amongst much flag wavinng 4 years ago promised that the Watford hospital deal was all done and dusted and Hemel despite their long march along the Hempstead Rd was dead in the water. I suppose voters are notorious for having very short memories. Hind sight is a wonderful thing. Cuetip
  • Score: 15

5:01pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

Alas dear Dorothy, you led your voters and West Watford residents up the garden path, using the emotive code name of "Health Campus" to try and win hearts and minds. As the sorry debacle unravels, it is apparent that Health was the last thing on developers minds. The contrast from the first set of plans shown on the WO compared to the last shows the hospital expansion as a mere "ghost". I personally feel you have blatantly mislead us all and now is the time to hold your hands up, come clean and step down on the basis you do NOT have the voters interest at heart, just the interests of the developers. Please do the decent thing and resign from the post.
Alas dear Dorothy, you led your voters and West Watford residents up the garden path, using the emotive code name of "Health Campus" to try and win hearts and minds. As the sorry debacle unravels, it is apparent that Health was the last thing on developers minds. The contrast from the first set of plans shown on the WO compared to the last shows the hospital expansion as a mere "ghost". I personally feel you have blatantly mislead us all and now is the time to hold your hands up, come clean and step down on the basis you do NOT have the voters interest at heart, just the interests of the developers. Please do the decent thing and resign from the post. Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 33

5:02pm Thu 6 Feb 14

WestWatfordLady says...

So the true aim is the 'regeneration' of a densely populated area with 'space' for the hospital - not even actual hospital facilities, just space in case one day anything ever happens. Despicable. The Mayor is a liar. Lucky for the rest of us there are people prepared to stand up and fight.
So the true aim is the 'regeneration' of a densely populated area with 'space' for the hospital - not even actual hospital facilities, just space in case one day anything ever happens. Despicable. The Mayor is a liar. Lucky for the rest of us there are people prepared to stand up and fight. WestWatfordLady
  • Score: 28

5:04pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Harry Caine says...

She doesn't look very happy does she?
She doesn't look very happy does she? Harry Caine
  • Score: 19

5:05pm Thu 6 Feb 14

crazyfrog says...

This farce needs to stop and the mayor should resign !
This farce needs to stop and the mayor should resign ! crazyfrog
  • Score: 28

5:12pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Maceo & Fred says...

What the Mayor and her Council keep forgetting to mention is that they admitted to the Government that Farm Terrace allotments are NOT surplus to requirements and then offered the majority of plot holders a new site over two miles away at the very back of Paddock Road in Oxhey (Government guidelines state a replacement site should be offered within 3/4 of a mile). No wonder the tenants have been battling the Council and Government and keep winning their case as they have been wronged on two counts! Unfortunately our Mayor sees it as her way or no way. Lets see if Councillor Sharpe now leaves a post on our Mayors behalf under one of his aliases.
What the Mayor and her Council keep forgetting to mention is that they admitted to the Government that Farm Terrace allotments are NOT surplus to requirements and then offered the majority of plot holders a new site over two miles away at the very back of Paddock Road in Oxhey (Government guidelines state a replacement site should be offered within 3/4 of a mile). No wonder the tenants have been battling the Council and Government and keep winning their case as they have been wronged on two counts! Unfortunately our Mayor sees it as her way or no way. Lets see if Councillor Sharpe now leaves a post on our Mayors behalf under one of his aliases. Maceo & Fred
  • Score: 25

5:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

crazyfrog says...

So let's get this right, hundreds of new properties, thousands of extra people crammed into west watford with an A+E department at watford general virtually at breaking point as it stands, doctors,schools and other public resources over stretched our political elite in watford need their heads examining.
So let's get this right, hundreds of new properties, thousands of extra people crammed into west watford with an A+E department at watford general virtually at breaking point as it stands, doctors,schools and other public resources over stretched our political elite in watford need their heads examining. crazyfrog
  • Score: 19

5:29pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Maceo & Fred says...

I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway.
I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway. Maceo & Fred
  • Score: 21

5:48pm Thu 6 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Maceo & Fred wrote:
I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway.
excellent idea
[quote][p][bold]Maceo & Fred[/bold] wrote: I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway.[/p][/quote]excellent idea dontknowynot
  • Score: 12

6:08pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Maceo & Fred wrote:
I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway.
excellent idea
Seems like it is worth looking into, it must be a viable alternative.
Why wouldn't any decent Mayor want to do that? Or find another site altogether if indeed one is needed now it doesn't look like there will be a new hospital.

Why do the LibDems still insist in calling this a health campus?

It is quite clearly a housing estate. Whether it was ever anything else is a matter for conjecture.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maceo & Fred[/bold] wrote: I have an idea. The nearest replacement allotment site the Council could find was at Paddock Road, Oxhey due to West Watford being so densely populated. What the Council could do is build the 700 homes there instead and leave the allotments where they are. There will then be the space for the hospital buildings when and if the funding eventually comes. Everyone then remains happy. Oh I forgot the Mayor and Cllr Sharpe live in Oxhey ward so wouldn't do such a thing to their residents. It was an idea anyway.[/p][/quote]excellent idea[/p][/quote]Seems like it is worth looking into, it must be a viable alternative. Why wouldn't any decent Mayor want to do that? Or find another site altogether if indeed one is needed now it doesn't look like there will be a new hospital. Why do the LibDems still insist in calling this a health campus? It is quite clearly a housing estate. Whether it was ever anything else is a matter for conjecture. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 10

6:10pm Thu 6 Feb 14

ramage1996 says...

GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong. ramage1996
  • Score: -32

6:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
Evening Mr Thornhill!
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]Evening Mr Thornhill! Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 14

6:20pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 23

6:48pm Thu 6 Feb 14

gusgreen says...

Gee what a spinner dopey Dot is. She has already admitted that the hospital and the rest have been "decoupled" therefore this is now the Cardiff Road housing estate project. She would not know the truth if it bit her in the butt,she has misled the people of Watford and should resign before being kicked out in May!!!
Gee what a spinner dopey Dot is. She has already admitted that the hospital and the rest have been "decoupled" therefore this is now the Cardiff Road housing estate project. She would not know the truth if it bit her in the butt,she has misled the people of Watford and should resign before being kicked out in May!!! gusgreen
  • Score: 22

7:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

BCB69 says...

Dear old dotty has as last been rumbled, I think it's time she looked for another job before May 2014, she tells us there are lots of jobs around as does Dicky Harrington so welcome to the real world.
Dear old dotty has as last been rumbled, I think it's time she looked for another job before May 2014, she tells us there are lots of jobs around as does Dicky Harrington so welcome to the real world. BCB69
  • Score: 16

7:33pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Harry Bee says...

Dotty, for once you're right, the allotment holders' legal challenge won't hold up the health campus - and that's because THERE IS NO HEALTH CAMPUS, just another housing estate.
I agree with the posters above - build the housing estate on the waterlogged fields at Paddock Road where you were planning to shove Farm Terrace allotments.
Dotty, for once you're right, the allotment holders' legal challenge won't hold up the health campus - and that's because THERE IS NO HEALTH CAMPUS, just another housing estate. I agree with the posters above - build the housing estate on the waterlogged fields at Paddock Road where you were planning to shove Farm Terrace allotments. Harry Bee
  • Score: 14

8:08pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -6

8:23pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford. Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 13

8:28pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.[/p][/quote]No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you -Nightingale-
  • Score: -5

8:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you
No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.[/p][/quote]No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you[/p][/quote]No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh? Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 4

8:53pm Thu 6 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

I am sory but I cannot believe the out and out nonsense from the Mayor

""At some point a judge will have to make a decision about how many times you can do this. I can’t imagine this is something that can continue to keep happening.""

UTTER UTTER ROT

it is her re-submission that is the problem, Eric Pickles revisited his decision realizing his initial decision would likely be ruled against, the people who should be asking the Q above are the Farm Terrace allotment people
I am sory but I cannot believe the out and out nonsense from the Mayor ""At some point a judge will have to make a decision about how many times you can do this. I can’t imagine this is something that can continue to keep happening."" UTTER UTTER ROT it is her re-submission that is the problem, Eric Pickles revisited his decision realizing his initial decision would likely be ruled against, the people who should be asking the Q above are the Farm Terrace allotment people dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you
No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?
Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.[/p][/quote]No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you[/p][/quote]No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?[/p][/quote]Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down -Nightingale-
  • Score: -3

9:14pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you
No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?
Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down
I do kind of agree, but lets find away of utilizing the current empty housing stock, rather than just building for building sake. I know we are a throwaway society, but leaving decent bricks and mortar empty is criminal. If there is an excess of 1,000 in Watford alone, lets multiply that across towns and cities UK wide.The same on spending millions on Charter Place when the shopping centre is plagued my many empty outlets. (Another debate lol).
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.[/p][/quote]No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you[/p][/quote]No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?[/p][/quote]Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down[/p][/quote]I do kind of agree, but lets find away of utilizing the current empty housing stock, rather than just building for building sake. I know we are a throwaway society, but leaving decent bricks and mortar empty is criminal. If there is an excess of 1,000 in Watford alone, lets multiply that across towns and cities UK wide.The same on spending millions on Charter Place when the shopping centre is plagued my many empty outlets. (Another debate lol). Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 5

9:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

House prices are far to high
The multiples are way to high when houses are 250K plus, the cost of renting is far to high and whilst the illusion of property ownership is nice, Gawd knows what the Kids will do for a place to live and start a family
House prices are far to high The multiples are way to high when houses are 250K plus, the cost of renting is far to high and whilst the illusion of property ownership is nice, Gawd knows what the Kids will do for a place to live and start a family dontknowynot
  • Score: 3

9:29pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

I agree that vacant property should be brought back into use. However, these properties are often vacant for a reason. It would be nice to say that no more housing is needed, but I don't know how realistic house prices and decent accommodation can be provided without building more houses. The fact that the population is increasing and more family breakdown (therefore more households) doesn't help.
I agree that vacant property should be brought back into use. However, these properties are often vacant for a reason. It would be nice to say that no more housing is needed, but I don't know how realistic house prices and decent accommodation can be provided without building more houses. The fact that the population is increasing and more family breakdown (therefore more households) doesn't help. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -6

9:37pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford.

Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford. Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 4

9:39pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
Phil? You're normally all over the WO like a cheap suit. I'm waiting for your policy!
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]Phil? You're normally all over the WO like a cheap suit. I'm waiting for your policy! -Nightingale-
  • Score: -2

9:39pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.
No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you
No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?
Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down
It's more complicated than that, but I totally agree house prices have to come down, they are at ridiculous levels.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]A quick google search has taken me to a FOI request to WBC regarding about a list of vacant properties in Watford. They responded with an.excel spreadsheet of 1,050 addresses. There is no housing shortage in Watford.[/p][/quote]No housing shortage aye? I'm not sure young couples looking for affordable housing would agree with you[/p][/quote]No there is no shortage of homes. There is an excess of people on low pay, minimum wage and zero hour contracts. But lets not upset the wealth creators eh?[/p][/quote]Well I'm not on low pay and the house prices for family houses are extortionate, mainly because there is such high demand. There needs to be more supply and less demand to bring house prices down[/p][/quote]It's more complicated than that, but I totally agree house prices have to come down, they are at ridiculous levels. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

9:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
House prices are far to high
The multiples are way to high when houses are 250K plus, the cost of renting is far to high and whilst the illusion of property ownership is nice, Gawd knows what the Kids will do for a place to live and start a family
For once, well said.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: House prices are far to high The multiples are way to high when houses are 250K plus, the cost of renting is far to high and whilst the illusion of property ownership is nice, Gawd knows what the Kids will do for a place to live and start a family[/p][/quote]For once, well said. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

9:46pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford.

Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.
The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford. Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.[/p][/quote]The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -6

10:10pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford.

Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.
The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses?
Ask me again when I am Mayor and I have the staff and information at my fingertips.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford. Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.[/p][/quote]The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses?[/p][/quote]Ask me again when I am Mayor and I have the staff and information at my fingertips. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

10:23pm Thu 6 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
GO DOT!

Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital.

The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.
I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate.

Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done.

Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised?

Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.
Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?
No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford.

Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.
The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses?
Ask me again when I am Mayor and I have the staff and information at my fingertips.
I think people would like to know before they vote. It's easy to criticise when in opposition, not quite so easy when you have to make the decisions. You haven't actually put forward a viable alternative.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: GO DOT! Dont let the marrow growing hippies get you down, the regeneration of west Watford is vital. The nimbies can chuff off and Dot is right to stay strong.[/p][/quote]I always love it when someone presents a well-thought-out argument on an important point of principle. It stimulates debate. Of course, if one is lacking in that department one can always resort to insults as you have done. Care to explain why the regeneration of the second most crowded part of Herts is vital? Would you offer your wisdom on what other developments in Watford are vital, or what has happened to the hospital we were promised? Please do not confuse strength and arrogance. The two are quite different.[/p][/quote]Phil. If you become mayor what is your policy on regeneration and providing new housing and jobs? Would you adopt a 'no more housing' policy?[/p][/quote]No, that would not be workable, but we would be more selective about what is built and where it is built within the framework of the law and Watford plan. We might well look to change the Watford Plan if it is inadequate for the needs of Watford. Watford needs to keep what is worth keeping, renovate that which needs renovating and regenerate what needs regenerating to make this the best town for people and businesses.[/p][/quote]The 'health' campus is in the Watford Local Plan. Are you going to change it then? Could prove costly for the ratepayer and take a long time to start a local plan from scratch. What part of Watford needs regeneration more than west watford? Where do you propose to build more houses?[/p][/quote]Ask me again when I am Mayor and I have the staff and information at my fingertips.[/p][/quote]I think people would like to know before they vote. It's easy to criticise when in opposition, not quite so easy when you have to make the decisions. You haven't actually put forward a viable alternative. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -3

10:36pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly.

At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor.

I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto.

1. The Allotments should not be lost to development.
2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised?

It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal.

It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.
It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly. At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor. I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto. 1. The Allotments should not be lost to development. 2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised? It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal. It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 4

11:43pm Thu 6 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

the point at which I just F$%^ off in disgust

Will deal with this issue elsewhere, it matters to much to watch it be hijacked by UKIP
the point at which I just F$%^ off in disgust Will deal with this issue elsewhere, it matters to much to watch it be hijacked by UKIP dontknowynot
  • Score: -3

2:38am Fri 7 Feb 14

Bloodwags says...

How she can say this is one breath while labelling herself the 'elected' mayor is true chutzpah. She has no mandate for the deceitfully labelled 'health campus' in the form presented. It constitutes a gross over-development of a very congested part of west Watford and the proposed new road as currently planned with a left turn out of the development onto Wiggenhall Road will actually exacerbate the congestion. The only way to tackle her though is for enough people to register their disapproval as part of the consultation.

The area behind the hospital arguably does require regeneration but 700 new homes is WAY TOO MANY. For the development (and let's stop calling it a health campus) to be successfully and sustainably integrated within the local area it needs to:
1. Be reduced to about 3-400 homes (not sure there's really any demand for the business space either (except perhaps a serviced office suite for home-workers) - this could become the Hospital & Watford FC car park
2. Preserve Farm Terrace Allotments as its centrepiece (Watford 'Garden Suburb' could be an exemplar of sustainable urban development
3. Scrap the left turn from the new road onto Wiggenhall Rd northbound and widen Wiggenhall Road/Deacons Hill southbound (taking a sliver of land from Oxhey Park) so traffic can turn left onto Eastbury Rd and provide a safe north-south route for cyclists.
4. Provide proper level pedestrian connections from the development to the proposed Vicarage Road station (do people now realise how ridiculous Dicky & Dotty's red-herring fanfare about the station-naming was?).
How she can say this is one breath while labelling herself the 'elected' mayor is true chutzpah. She has no mandate for the deceitfully labelled 'health campus' in the form presented. It constitutes a gross over-development of a very congested part of west Watford and the proposed new road as currently planned with a left turn out of the development onto Wiggenhall Road will actually exacerbate the congestion. The only way to tackle her though is for enough people to register their disapproval as part of the consultation. The area behind the hospital arguably does require regeneration but 700 new homes is WAY TOO MANY. For the development (and let's stop calling it a health campus) to be successfully and sustainably integrated within the local area it needs to: 1. Be reduced to about 3-400 homes (not sure there's really any demand for the business space either (except perhaps a serviced office suite for home-workers) - this could become the Hospital & Watford FC car park 2. Preserve Farm Terrace Allotments as its centrepiece (Watford 'Garden Suburb' could be an exemplar of sustainable urban development 3. Scrap the left turn from the new road onto Wiggenhall Rd northbound and widen Wiggenhall Road/Deacons Hill southbound (taking a sliver of land from Oxhey Park) so traffic can turn left onto Eastbury Rd and provide a safe north-south route for cyclists. 4. Provide proper level pedestrian connections from the development to the proposed Vicarage Road station (do people now realise how ridiculous Dicky & Dotty's red-herring fanfare about the station-naming was?). Bloodwags
  • Score: 6

4:06am Fri 7 Feb 14

TRT says...

So the ambulance service want her to get on with the new road do they? Wouldn't be much good tonight with lower high street and Stephenson Way closed. But besides that, is this an admission that West Watford isn't the best. place for an A&E? Especially one serving an ever expanding catchment area?
So the ambulance service want her to get on with the new road do they? Wouldn't be much good tonight with lower high street and Stephenson Way closed. But besides that, is this an admission that West Watford isn't the best. place for an A&E? Especially one serving an ever expanding catchment area? TRT
  • Score: 4

7:16am Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly.

At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor.

I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto.

1. The Allotments should not be lost to development.
2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised?

It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal.

It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.
1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments?

2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly. At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor. I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto. 1. The Allotments should not be lost to development. 2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised? It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal. It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.[/p][/quote]1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments? 2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -3

7:16am Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly.

At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor.

I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto.

1. The Allotments should not be lost to development.
2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised?

It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal.

It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.
1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments?

2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly. At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor. I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto. 1. The Allotments should not be lost to development. 2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised? It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal. It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.[/p][/quote]1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments? 2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -4

7:46am Fri 7 Feb 14

crazyfrog says...

Bloodwags wrote:
How she can say this is one breath while labelling herself the 'elected' mayor is true chutzpah. She has no mandate for the deceitfully labelled 'health campus' in the form presented. It constitutes a gross over-development of a very congested part of west Watford and the proposed new road as currently planned with a left turn out of the development onto Wiggenhall Road will actually exacerbate the congestion. The only way to tackle her though is for enough people to register their disapproval as part of the consultation.

The area behind the hospital arguably does require regeneration but 700 new homes is WAY TOO MANY. For the development (and let's stop calling it a health campus) to be successfully and sustainably integrated within the local area it needs to:
1. Be reduced to about 3-400 homes (not sure there's really any demand for the business space either (except perhaps a serviced office suite for home-workers) - this could become the Hospital & Watford FC car park
2. Preserve Farm Terrace Allotments as its centrepiece (Watford 'Garden Suburb' could be an exemplar of sustainable urban development
3. Scrap the left turn from the new road onto Wiggenhall Rd northbound and widen Wiggenhall Road/Deacons Hill southbound (taking a sliver of land from Oxhey Park) so traffic can turn left onto Eastbury Rd and provide a safe north-south route for cyclists.
4. Provide proper level pedestrian connections from the development to the proposed Vicarage Road station (do people now realise how ridiculous Dicky & Dotty's red-herring fanfare about the station-naming was?).
For the developers it isn't a health campus more like a WEALTH CAMPUS
[quote][p][bold]Bloodwags[/bold] wrote: How she can say this is one breath while labelling herself the 'elected' mayor is true chutzpah. She has no mandate for the deceitfully labelled 'health campus' in the form presented. It constitutes a gross over-development of a very congested part of west Watford and the proposed new road as currently planned with a left turn out of the development onto Wiggenhall Road will actually exacerbate the congestion. The only way to tackle her though is for enough people to register their disapproval as part of the consultation. The area behind the hospital arguably does require regeneration but 700 new homes is WAY TOO MANY. For the development (and let's stop calling it a health campus) to be successfully and sustainably integrated within the local area it needs to: 1. Be reduced to about 3-400 homes (not sure there's really any demand for the business space either (except perhaps a serviced office suite for home-workers) - this could become the Hospital & Watford FC car park 2. Preserve Farm Terrace Allotments as its centrepiece (Watford 'Garden Suburb' could be an exemplar of sustainable urban development 3. Scrap the left turn from the new road onto Wiggenhall Rd northbound and widen Wiggenhall Road/Deacons Hill southbound (taking a sliver of land from Oxhey Park) so traffic can turn left onto Eastbury Rd and provide a safe north-south route for cyclists. 4. Provide proper level pedestrian connections from the development to the proposed Vicarage Road station (do people now realise how ridiculous Dicky & Dotty's red-herring fanfare about the station-naming was?).[/p][/quote]For the developers it isn't a health campus more like a WEALTH CAMPUS crazyfrog
  • Score: 5

8:46am Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly.

At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor.

I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto.

1. The Allotments should not be lost to development.
2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised?

It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal.

It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.
1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments?

2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right?
I am so pleased you asked that question.

It is quite an indication that you now use the word "scheme" instead of "Health Campus". More and more people are seeing it now as a scheme, devoid of Health. More and more people are feeling let down and misled.

Your question implies that "the scheme" needs more building land and that the allotments, which are protected by law for very good reason, are the only place in the whole of Watford that could possible have those houses built on. The only building plot available to the council. It must be the allotments or nothing at all can happen. How likely is that to be true?

I doubt your assumption is correct. If extra land was needed it could have as easily been found elsewhere if only there was a political will to save the allotments rather than build, for profit, on prime building land in the centre of town.

Our full, open, independent and public investigation into the "scheme" (or "Health Campus") will look into exactly that question, why the allotments were chosen for development, whether they were essential to "the scheme", what the scheme is and whether there has been any scheming behind the scenes.

It should make for interesting reading.

And if we are in time we will save the allotments.

The hospital is another matter. Of course it is not a local building issue, but we will look into that as well, who knew what, when, and why we were told the things we were told that now turn out to be less than the truth.

Let's just get to the bottom of this, let's get the full unvarnished truth out there and see what has been going on.

UKIP want to have the most open council in the UK. No secrets and no clouding of issues. If it's legal to publish information, we will publish in plain English.

We hope people will agree that that is worth having and it is worth voting for.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It would be great to have all the answers but I am afraid that in UKIP we will only proceed based on the full facts. Knee jerk reactions are often regretted later. Mistakes can be costly. At the moment the facts I need to answer your question are simply not available to me. The information I need and the resources required to answer your question will be available to me when I become Mayor. I have two issues with the "Health Campus", both of which are addressed in our local election manifesto. 1. The Allotments should not be lost to development. 2. What is the truth behind the Health Campus and why is there no new hospital as promised? It is clear the current Mayor had a choice of whether or not to build on Farm Terrace and yet she chose to do so, ignoring all other options despite having all the resources of the council at her disposal. It's a fairly simple choice for the people of Watford in my book.[/p][/quote]1. What if on becoming Mayor you see viability assessments showing that the scheme isn't viable without the allotments? 2. It is dependant on the primary care trust whether new hospital facilities get provided. The council can't force them to as the council does not own the hospital. You know that right?[/p][/quote]I am so pleased you asked that question. It is quite an indication that you now use the word "scheme" instead of "Health Campus". More and more people are seeing it now as a scheme, devoid of Health. More and more people are feeling let down and misled. Your question implies that "the scheme" needs more building land and that the allotments, which are protected by law for very good reason, are the only place in the whole of Watford that could possible have those houses built on. The only building plot available to the council. It must be the allotments or nothing at all can happen. How likely is that to be true? I doubt your assumption is correct. If extra land was needed it could have as easily been found elsewhere if only there was a political will to save the allotments rather than build, for profit, on prime building land in the centre of town. Our full, open, independent and public investigation into the "scheme" (or "Health Campus") will look into exactly that question, why the allotments were chosen for development, whether they were essential to "the scheme", what the scheme is and whether there has been any scheming behind the scenes. It should make for interesting reading. And if we are in time we will save the allotments. The hospital is another matter. Of course it is not a local building issue, but we will look into that as well, who knew what, when, and why we were told the things we were told that now turn out to be less than the truth. Let's just get to the bottom of this, let's get the full unvarnished truth out there and see what has been going on. UKIP want to have the most open council in the UK. No secrets and no clouding of issues. If it's legal to publish information, we will publish in plain English. We hope people will agree that that is worth having and it is worth voting for. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

10:23am Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -4

10:37am Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

10:53am Fri 7 Feb 14

TRT says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
Holywell and Brightwell allotments are a lot closer to the new tube station... So's the new Waitrose... Just where do you draw the line?

The problem isn't that there are allotments in the way, it's that central government are handing down "housing targets" to local government agencies without supporting those agencies and without looking at the root cause of the requirement for housing targets. It's all well and good saying "build, build, build", but that which is being built is too expensive for many people to get on the housing ladder, people are living longer and the commute has become the norm.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]Holywell and Brightwell allotments are a lot closer to the new tube station... So's the new Waitrose... Just where do you draw the line? The problem isn't that there are allotments in the way, it's that central government are handing down "housing targets" to local government agencies without supporting those agencies and without looking at the root cause of the requirement for housing targets. It's all well and good saying "build, build, build", but that which is being built is too expensive for many people to get on the housing ladder, people are living longer and the commute has become the norm. TRT
  • Score: 4

11:35am Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -4

12:05pm Fri 7 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

"which will see 700 homes built on the site, while leaving space for a new hospital redevelopment". ......... Did I miss something here? Leave space for a new hospital??? I thought the whole developments intention was to have a NEW HOSPITAL.
"which will see 700 homes built on the site, while leaving space for a new hospital redevelopment". ......... Did I miss something here? Leave space for a new hospital??? I thought the whole developments intention was to have a NEW HOSPITAL. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 4

12:09pm Fri 7 Feb 14

TRT says...

I'd have no problem at all if the mayor and the MP for Watford were going out talking with the property directors of medical and health related companies, promoting Watford's "health campus" as a site for research, development and production. I'd have no problem with them putting a new road across the playing fields if it meant 3,000+ new biotechnology jobs came to the area, and IF >75% of the 700+ homes were reserved for the people doing those jobs or working at the hospital or was sheltered accommodation for the elderly or those needing respite care or other supported individuals. But that's not what's happening. These are free market homes sold for maximum profit, with a smidgeon of commercial property which isn't restricted to health or biotechnology industries and will most likely end up as the postal address of "injury lawyers 4U"...
We've got news reports coming out of bionic arms, robots, vision being restoring through implants, improved cochlear implants, designer drugs... the list goes on. How much of it has an association with Watford? Next to bugger all.
So, Mayor. Earn your keep. Go and talk to Glaxo and Smith Klein and Siemens. Find out what you'd need to bring them to Watford. Get their names on the partnership list and THEN try telling us it's a health campus. Better still, get some vision, will you? Build a health campus if you want, and a new hospital but put it somewhere sensible for emergency response times and public/private transport links, and somewhere it can be seen from the road and the rail network so that people will go "WOW! What is that place?" and stop thinking of Watford as the dreary little concrete joke-town that it currently is.
I'd have no problem at all if the mayor and the MP for Watford were going out talking with the property directors of medical and health related companies, promoting Watford's "health campus" as a site for research, development and production. I'd have no problem with them putting a new road across the playing fields if it meant 3,000+ new biotechnology jobs came to the area, and IF >75% of the 700+ homes were reserved for the people doing those jobs or working at the hospital or was sheltered accommodation for the elderly or those needing respite care or other supported individuals. But that's not what's happening. These are free market homes sold for maximum profit, with a smidgeon of commercial property which isn't restricted to health or biotechnology industries and will most likely end up as the postal address of "injury lawyers 4U"... We've got news reports coming out of bionic arms, robots, vision being restoring through implants, improved cochlear implants, designer drugs... the list goes on. How much of it has an association with Watford? Next to bugger all. So, Mayor. Earn your keep. Go and talk to Glaxo and Smith Klein and Siemens. Find out what you'd need to bring them to Watford. Get their names on the partnership list and THEN try telling us it's a health campus. Better still, get some vision, will you? Build a health campus if you want, and a new hospital but put it somewhere sensible for emergency response times and public/private transport links, and somewhere it can be seen from the road and the rail network so that people will go "WOW! What is that place?" and stop thinking of Watford as the dreary little concrete joke-town that it currently is. TRT
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Fri 7 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets??? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 3

12:31pm Fri 7 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

As I think I have said before, it is utterly ridiculous to develop the area until the hospital requirements are known. The Trust have said that it will take eighteen months to make a decision on the future direction of the hospital and nothing is set in stone at the moment.

That being the case, if housing has already sprouted in places that the Trust then decide that is where they would need to put new buildings, it could very well scupper any plans that the Trust may have for Watford Hospital. Do we want to see developments going elsewhere and our Hospital shrinking and losing services, because it is a real possibility?

The question we should all be asking Thornhill is why the great urgency? Eighteen months is no time at all to have to wait on a project of this magnitude, so why not simply be sensible and hold off?

Anyone with a modicom of intellect can see that the correct way to proceed from here is to wait for the Trust to confirm exactly what its requirements are for the land and then, and only then, decide how the Health Campus is going to be built around the new hospital layout.

The Mayor's plans are totally contrary to this common sense approach so she absolutely has to answer why.

I have a very niggling suspicion that it's because she's intending to resign being Mayor and stand as an MP as we keep hearing on the grapevine. She is probably aiming to do this as her 'legacy' and expecting that the new area will be called the Thornhill Campus.

Let's put an end to her nonsense once and for all. Time for a change of Mayor in May methinks. Come on Phil Cox!
As I think I have said before, it is utterly ridiculous to develop the area until the hospital requirements are known. The Trust have said that it will take eighteen months to make a decision on the future direction of the hospital and nothing is set in stone at the moment. That being the case, if housing has already sprouted in places that the Trust then decide that is where they would need to put new buildings, it could very well scupper any plans that the Trust may have for Watford Hospital. Do we want to see developments going elsewhere and our Hospital shrinking and losing services, because it is a real possibility? The question we should all be asking Thornhill is why the great urgency? Eighteen months is no time at all to have to wait on a project of this magnitude, so why not simply be sensible and hold off? Anyone with a modicom of intellect can see that the correct way to proceed from here is to wait for the Trust to confirm exactly what its requirements are for the land and then, and only then, decide how the Health Campus is going to be built around the new hospital layout. The Mayor's plans are totally contrary to this common sense approach so she absolutely has to answer why. I have a very niggling suspicion that it's because she's intending to resign being Mayor and stand as an MP as we keep hearing on the grapevine. She is probably aiming to do this as her 'legacy' and expecting that the new area will be called the Thornhill Campus. Let's put an end to her nonsense once and for all. Time for a change of Mayor in May methinks. Come on Phil Cox! D_Penn
  • Score: 4

12:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 4

1:55pm Fri 7 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

for those actually interested in the Allotments and not

http://www.gofundme.
com/save-farm-terrac
e
Has legal papers posted up and the full story of the Allotments.
Please don't let Dotty fool you that it is the allotment holders that are wanting to change a legal ruling, the truth is in the Legal papers
for those actually interested in the Allotments and not http://www.gofundme. com/save-farm-terrac e Has legal papers posted up and the full story of the Allotments. Please don't let Dotty fool you that it is the allotment holders that are wanting to change a legal ruling, the truth is in the Legal papers dontknowynot
  • Score: 6

2:34pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -2

2:47pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer.

It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that?

Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for.

There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go?

I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go.

We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that.

The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer. It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that? Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for. There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go? I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go. We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that. The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

4:30pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer.

It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that?

Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for.

There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go?

I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go.

We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that.

The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.
I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments.

What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'.

How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer. It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that? Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for. There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go? I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go. We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that. The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.[/p][/quote]I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments. What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'. How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills? -Nightingale-
  • Score: -4

4:33pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???
The Government.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???[/p][/quote]The Government. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -3

5:01pm Fri 7 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???
The Government.
The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU?
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???[/p][/quote]The Government.[/p][/quote]The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 2

5:03pm Fri 7 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Dorothy doesn't look happy at all, does she?
Dorothy doesn't look happy at all, does she? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 2

5:05pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???
The Government.
The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU?
I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???[/p][/quote]The Government.[/p][/quote]The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU?[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -3

5:23pm Fri 7 Feb 14

TRT says...

"I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue."

But you keep banging on that local authorities must comply with house building targets that have been set by a national authority... you can't pick and choose your playing field like that. If you can find one that hasn't been bulldozed to make way for an access road, that is.
"I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue." But you keep banging on that local authorities must comply with house building targets that have been set by a national authority... you can't pick and choose your playing field like that. If you can find one that hasn't been bulldozed to make way for an access road, that is. TRT
  • Score: 3

5:48pm Fri 7 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???
The Government.
The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU?
I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue.
I take you point, but lets not forget why the council is under this ridiculous and unrealistic pressure to provide housing with no where to build them.. National/Internation
al pressure. So how long does local council lie down and get kicked around?
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]"The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031" Who says the council has to meet these targets???[/p][/quote]The Government.[/p][/quote]The Government, who are controlled, no, dictated to by the Muppets in Brussels. We don't have a government, just Brussels puppets. So it is just a bunch of Muppets and puppets that have decided the grossly immigrant overloaded UK must have 6.500 new homes built be 2031. It's unrealistic! So it's time to leave the EU?[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue.[/p][/quote]I take you point, but lets not forget why the council is under this ridiculous and unrealistic pressure to provide housing with no where to build them.. National/Internation al pressure. So how long does local council lie down and get kicked around? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 2

6:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer.

It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that?

Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for.

There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go?

I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go.

We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that.

The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.
I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments.

What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'.

How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?
If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions.

You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust.

We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary.

I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes.

Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears.

In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was.

I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use.

We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on.

If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer. It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that? Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for. There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go? I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go. We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that. The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.[/p][/quote]I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments. What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'. How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?[/p][/quote]If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions. You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust. We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary. I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes. Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears. In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head. The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was. I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use. We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on. If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

8:08pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

TRT wrote:
"I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue."

But you keep banging on that local authorities must comply with house building targets that have been set by a national authority... you can't pick and choose your playing field like that. If you can find one that hasn't been bulldozed to make way for an access road, that is.
Yes but I wasn't talking about whether that national policy was correct or not. Whereas matey was talking about how the government has allowed too much immigration which has led to these housing targets. That is a much broader debate. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of national policy. I'm merely stating the fact that the Council has to provide 6,500 homes whether we like it or not.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: "I don't disagree with you. But we are talking about a local issue and not a national issue." But you keep banging on that local authorities must comply with house building targets that have been set by a national authority... you can't pick and choose your playing field like that. If you can find one that hasn't been bulldozed to make way for an access road, that is.[/p][/quote]Yes but I wasn't talking about whether that national policy was correct or not. Whereas matey was talking about how the government has allowed too much immigration which has led to these housing targets. That is a much broader debate. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of national policy. I'm merely stating the fact that the Council has to provide 6,500 homes whether we like it or not. -Nightingale-
  • Score: -1

8:19pm Fri 7 Feb 14

-Nightingale- says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer.

It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that?

Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for.

There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go?

I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go.

We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that.

The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.
I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments.

What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'.

How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?
If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions.

You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust.

We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary.

I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes.

Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears.

In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was.

I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use.

We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on.

If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip.
I respect your opinion about the allotments. I just hope that they don't stop redevelopment of the area. Time will tell.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer. It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that? Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for. There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go? I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go. We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that. The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.[/p][/quote]I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments. What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'. How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?[/p][/quote]If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions. You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust. We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary. I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes. Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears. In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head. The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was. I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use. We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on. If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip.[/p][/quote]I respect your opinion about the allotments. I just hope that they don't stop redevelopment of the area. Time will tell. -Nightingale-
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
-Nightingale- wrote:
You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all.

The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil?

Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?
I answered fully the two questions you posed.

You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?"

My answer? Quite simply, NO.

If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there.

UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us.

If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.
I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land.

Read what I asked again and have another go.
Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this.

"We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?"

That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site.

I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER.

Is that clear enough?

I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off.

A lot could change by 2031.

A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.
Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.
On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer.

It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that?

Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for.

There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go?

I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go.

We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that.

The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.
I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments.

What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'.

How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?
If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions.

You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust.

We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary.

I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes.

Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears.

In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was.

I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use.

We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on.

If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip.
I respect your opinion about the allotments. I just hope that they don't stop redevelopment of the area. Time will tell.
Thank you. We all want to work for the best for the whole of Watford. We should be able to achieve that.
[quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-Nightingale-[/bold] wrote: You didn't answer my question Phil. It's amazing how you can write that many words and say absolutely nothing. Maybe you have what it takes to be a politician after all. The Council whether you like it or not has to meet a housing target of 6,500 homes by 2031. You're 700 homes down because you won't build at the 'health' campus. Where are the houses going Phil? Some might say that's it's a good idea to build at the 'Health' campus because the homes will be near the new Vicarage Road underground station that is due to be built, is this not a good idea?[/p][/quote]I answered fully the two questions you posed. You have now asked a new one. "Should we build on protected allotment land?" My answer? Quite simply, NO. If more land is required for building then we should find alternative sites. Allotments are protected by law for a reason, to stop developers snapping up prime sites that are used for this purpose by the people who live there. UKIP is committed to protecting and enhancing parks and allotments. It's a matter of principle for us. If you have trouble with understanding why not come down to one of our public meetings or ask at our street stand. We can then explain face to face.[/p][/quote]I didn't ask if we should build on protected allotment land. Read what I asked again and have another go.[/p][/quote]Your question, if I understand you correctly is more or less this. "We have to build 6,500 homes in the next 17 years. Where will they go?" That's about 382 homes per year. There are about 60 homes slated for the Farm Terrace allotments, the rest (640) are for the remainder of the site. I would suggest we hold off on the Housing Campus scheme altogether, find out what's going on, build housing there if necessary, avoiding building on flood plains and make sure there is plenty of space for a shiny new hospital, save the allotments and BUILD THE OTHER HOUSES SOMEWHERE ELSE - TO BE DECIDED ONCE I AM IN POWER AND I HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME FACTS THE CURRENT MAYOR HAS BUT REFUSES TO CONSIDER. Is that clear enough? I mean let's face it, there are already more houses planned for that site than we need to build in one year anyway. If we manage to get a government that is prepared to manage immigration (UKIP) then pressure on housing will go down and the need to build so many houses will ease off. A lot could change by 2031. A lot could change on May 22nd 2014. I hope it does.[/p][/quote]Build the other houses 'somewhere else' isn't really a constructive answer. Good luck with the mayoral race. You had better get your thinking cap on about where to put these houses. One thing for sure is that if you become mayor you're always going to upset some people about where you're going to put your housing development. 6,500 is a big target.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it is a very constructive answer. It makes the distinction between building on protected allotment land and building on another site, as yet unspecified. What's wrong with that? Let's assume we built these 700 houses on the site you call the scheme, the housing campus, and built over the allotments as you are pushing for. There's still another 5,800 homes to be built. Would you like the answer now as to exactly where each and every home is going to go? I hope you agree that would be a rather foolish expectation. By the same token it is only reasonable to wait until I am elected and have all the facts at my fingertips before deciding where the first and future homes will go. We in Ukip are just trying to be responsible. It would be irresponsible to just come up with an answer for you as to exactly where 6500 homes are going to go in Watford without first examining all the options. I hope you can see that. The common sense approach is to wait, get all the facts and then make a decision. Wouldn't you agree.[/p][/quote]I'm not particularly pushing for the allotments to be built on. It would be better if they weren't built on. But it would be a shame if a decent regeneration development and a new road for the hospital didn't happen because of it. If we were talking about parkland that everyone could use I would agree with you. But frankly those allotments are an eyesore and a tiny proportion of the community use it. In my opinion, the benefits of providing new housing and jobs to the wider community outweighs the loss of the allotments. What's wrong with me calling it a 'scheme'? It probably wouldn't be right calling it a housing campus given that there are new business units as well. And no I don't think it should be called 'health campus'. How do we know that you're going to make the right decisions about where the houses are going to go? Are you going to use your IT skills?[/p][/quote]If my IT skills help that would be great but I doubt they will be of that much use. On the whole I will be relying on the advice and knowledge of the councillors and staff at the council to help inform such decisions. You can't know I will make the right decisions in the future - it is not possible to know the future, so there must instead be trust. We have seen what has happened with the current Mayor who it would appear has made the wrong decisions, misled the people of Watford and gone back on her word several times over the Health Campus, finally taking the allotments despite promises to the contrary. I'm unproven, but then I haven't made those mistakes. Come along to one of our meetings and meet me. It might allay some of your fears. In your opinion the benefits of new housing and jobs outweighs the loss of the allotments which were tatty. Sorry the allotments don't fit into your or Dotty's plans, but that's not the point. Allotments are what they are, they are protected from people who want to build houses on them, it's the law of the land and it's a good law. Most of the housing and business would still happen, leaving the allotments off the plans would have made very little difference, but I think you have hit the nail on the head. The allotments don't fit into the development. You call them an eyesore. And they raise money for the council. 50% of profits I think it was. I disagree about the allotments. I think of them as a green lung for a very built up area of Watford and a valued resource for the people who use them. Removing them should never have been on the agenda. I find it shameful that a council would do such a thing, particularly if they are in use. We are in no doubt, we will work to save them. What's more we will look carefully at the justification for developing them. We will publish our investigation so the whole town can see what has been going on and why. To me, what I have heard just does not add up. I want to know what has really been going on. If we get a UKIP Mayor, we will find out. Vote Ukip.[/p][/quote]I respect your opinion about the allotments. I just hope that they don't stop redevelopment of the area. Time will tell.[/p][/quote]Thank you. We all want to work for the best for the whole of Watford. We should be able to achieve that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

10:47am Sat 8 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
for those actually interested in the Allotments and not

http://www.gofundme.

com/save-farm-terrac

e
Has legal papers posted up and the full story of the Allotments.
Please don't let Dotty fool you that it is the allotment holders that are wanting to change a legal ruling, the truth is in the Legal papers
Again As this may be of interest........
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: for those actually interested in the Allotments and not http://www.gofundme. com/save-farm-terrac e Has legal papers posted up and the full story of the Allotments. Please don't let Dotty fool you that it is the allotment holders that are wanting to change a legal ruling, the truth is in the Legal papers[/p][/quote]Again As this may be of interest........ dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

1:36pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Stacy Hart says...

I've supported and will continue to support Terrace Farm allotments on this as i dont think they are being unreasonable, all too often small communities of people are shoved aside with a "oh well never mind, you can bugger off somewhere else" attitude & Instead of the debaucle of a new health campus why not deal with the real problem that is going on inside Watford Hospital. A new building isn't going to stop or solve that.

I had my first (and my last) stay there in 2012, and was horrified by the experience, It would be quite easy for people to die through neglect there, The stronger of us on the ward looked after the more poorly. We used to say to the staff, "you could die on the night shift" & they used to admit it was a shambles and say they never signed up for this, its not what they went into nursing, or became doctors for, morale is zero. The big bods knew about it and kept promising to remedy the situation but nothings improved.

Even up to last week Due to lack of beds and staff, Instead of Dying terminally ill patients being giving the dignity and peace they deserve they are being shifted around two or three times & ending up on wards with dementia patients calling out all night. Its also common knowledge within Watford hospital that The system is being abused by various ethnicities, who turn up once they've finished worked in the early hours expecting scans, treatment etc, we literally had them en mass all night up and down the corridors, so nobody could sleep, due to language barriers the doctors often couldn't make themselves understood that you cant just turn up like that. But once again due to PCness its swept under the carpet and the staff just have to get on and deal with it. It was dreadful I wouldn't have believed it had i not witnessed and experienced it. I cannot understand how just 25 mins down the road in Stevenage you have a hospital of excellence, many people are now opting to go to Stevenage and elsewhere than risk playing russian roulette with their lives at watford general. Unless all concerned cant stop this PC rubbish abd start being open and honest, talk about the issues and deal with them, building a New Health Campus will just continue sweeping an already out of control & dangerous problem under the carpet.
I've supported and will continue to support Terrace Farm allotments on this as i dont think they are being unreasonable, all too often small communities of people are shoved aside with a "oh well never mind, you can bugger off somewhere else" attitude & Instead of the debaucle of a new health campus why not deal with the real problem that is going on inside Watford Hospital. A new building isn't going to stop or solve that. I had my first (and my last) stay there in 2012, and was horrified by the experience, It would be quite easy for people to die through neglect there, The stronger of us on the ward looked after the more poorly. We used to say to the staff, "you could die on the night shift" & they used to admit it was a shambles and say they never signed up for this, its not what they went into nursing, or became doctors for, morale is zero. The big bods knew about it and kept promising to remedy the situation but nothings improved. Even up to last week Due to lack of beds and staff, Instead of Dying terminally ill patients being giving the dignity and peace they deserve they are being shifted around two or three times & ending up on wards with dementia patients calling out all night. Its also common knowledge within Watford hospital that The system is being abused by various ethnicities, who turn up once they've finished worked in the early hours expecting scans, treatment etc, we literally had them en mass all night up and down the corridors, so nobody could sleep, due to language barriers the doctors often couldn't make themselves understood that you cant just turn up like that. But once again due to PCness its swept under the carpet and the staff just have to get on and deal with it. It was dreadful I wouldn't have believed it had i not witnessed and experienced it. I cannot understand how just 25 mins down the road in Stevenage you have a hospital of excellence, many people are now opting to go to Stevenage and elsewhere than risk playing russian roulette with their lives at watford general. Unless all concerned cant stop this PC rubbish abd start being open and honest, talk about the issues and deal with them, building a New Health Campus will just continue sweeping an already out of control & dangerous problem under the carpet. Stacy Hart
  • Score: 3

11:47pm Sun 9 Feb 14

pippadog says...

Mr Carey Keates,
26 Little Martins,
Bushey


The Bushey Forum meeting nearly two weeks ago was addressed by Kyle McLelland of the Watford Hospital campus scheme.
I was horrified to learn that there is absolutely no provision whatsoever in this scheme for a new hospital.
Since then I have spoken to many people, and asked them what they think the outcome of this scheme is to be. They were all under the impression that it is about providing a new hospital, supported by funding from the proposed development.

So this whole scheme turns out to be simply a money-grabbing scheme, with a large proportion of the general public deceived by calling it “Watford Hospital Campus”, (Watford will take a 50% share of the profits!), so it is hardly any wonder that the allotments had to go, in order to cram in as much building as possible. And don’t forget that the old disused allotment site has already been included.
Much play in the presentation was made of the “community space”. When you actually look at the amount of such space proposed, it is derisory. The whole thing is a complete sham.
Did the people within the hospital’s catchment area, really sign up to this, or has everybody been very successfully duped?
Mr Carey Keates, 26 Little Martins, Bushey The Bushey Forum meeting nearly two weeks ago was addressed by Kyle McLelland of the Watford Hospital campus scheme. I was horrified to learn that there is absolutely no provision whatsoever in this scheme for a new hospital. Since then I have spoken to many people, and asked them what they think the outcome of this scheme is to be. They were all under the impression that it is about providing a new hospital, supported by funding from the proposed development. So this whole scheme turns out to be simply a money-grabbing scheme, with a large proportion of the general public deceived by calling it “Watford Hospital Campus”, (Watford will take a 50% share of the profits!), so it is hardly any wonder that the allotments had to go, in order to cram in as much building as possible. And don’t forget that the old disused allotment site has already been included. Much play in the presentation was made of the “community space”. When you actually look at the amount of such space proposed, it is derisory. The whole thing is a complete sham. Did the people within the hospital’s catchment area, really sign up to this, or has everybody been very successfully duped? pippadog
  • Score: 5

12:41am Mon 10 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

I fully agree with the comment that this is a money grabbing scheme.

The Lib Dems know that keeping down the Council Tax makes them look good, but they do not do it by controlling spending. Their preferred method is so much easier; sell off precious land and cramming housing and people in on top of each other. It matters not a jot that we already have the two densest packed wards in Hertfordshire. Stuff in more homes and collect the cash.

Nice way to keep power if it works and nobody notices, so how they are going to keep this trick running year in, year out is something that occupies many of the Lib Dems strategic decisions.

Unfortunately for them on this nasty plan, the hospital trust is not in a hurry and suddenly has failed to provide them with the expected smokescreen needed to trash the allotments. Now they are stuck with everyone being able to see the trick, but, in need of the cash to balance the books, they are forced to go ahead with it even though it is clear to the dumbest idiot that you should first build the hospital and only then build the campus.

This act of stupidity is so blatant that maybe at last the Watford electorate will realise that the Lib Dems have been and are effectively selling off bits of Watford to keep themselves in power. That's irresponsible enough, but what's even worse is that any money they get in is not used to reduce the Council Tax burden. It is used on things such as spending four million quid on the Parade, a showy project that makes them look good but that we all pay for.

Everyone needs to wise up to what is going on and remove this lot who have been in power for far too long!
I fully agree with the comment that this is a money grabbing scheme. The Lib Dems know that keeping down the Council Tax makes them look good, but they do not do it by controlling spending. Their preferred method is so much easier; sell off precious land and cramming housing and people in on top of each other. It matters not a jot that we already have the two densest packed wards in Hertfordshire. Stuff in more homes and collect the cash. Nice way to keep power if it works and nobody notices, so how they are going to keep this trick running year in, year out is something that occupies many of the Lib Dems strategic decisions. Unfortunately for them on this nasty plan, the hospital trust is not in a hurry and suddenly has failed to provide them with the expected smokescreen needed to trash the allotments. Now they are stuck with everyone being able to see the trick, but, in need of the cash to balance the books, they are forced to go ahead with it even though it is clear to the dumbest idiot that you should first build the hospital and only then build the campus. This act of stupidity is so blatant that maybe at last the Watford electorate will realise that the Lib Dems have been and are effectively selling off bits of Watford to keep themselves in power. That's irresponsible enough, but what's even worse is that any money they get in is not used to reduce the Council Tax burden. It is used on things such as spending four million quid on the Parade, a showy project that makes them look good but that we all pay for. Everyone needs to wise up to what is going on and remove this lot who have been in power for far too long! D_Penn
  • Score: 4

9:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

sjtrebar says...

We are not politically motivated, we are community motivated. We don't care about who people vote for as long as we can all be united in saving Farm Terrace Allotments. To that end it would be great if we could see some financial help to put towards our fight. So far every other party except the Liberals and Conservatives have said they will save us if elected. Please continue to champion us as part of your manifesto but put your money where your mouth is and donate at - http://www.gofundme.
com/save-farm-terrac
e
We are not politically motivated, we are community motivated. We don't care about who people vote for as long as we can all be united in saving Farm Terrace Allotments. To that end it would be great if we could see some financial help to put towards our fight. So far every other party except the Liberals and Conservatives have said they will save us if elected. Please continue to champion us as part of your manifesto but put your money where your mouth is and donate at - http://www.gofundme. com/save-farm-terrac e sjtrebar
  • 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