Fears over plans to 'regenerate' the Meriden estate

Picture from stock

Picture from stock

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A Watford housing association’s plans to "regenerate" another cramped town estate has residents frightened new homes will be packed in, leaving no open space for the people who have to live there.

Watford Community Housing Trust bosses held a meeting this week to consult with residents and set their priorities for the Meriden estate.

The trust currently has an application to build 56 new homes on the Boundary Way estate, which has similar longstanding problems with overcrowding and lack of parking.

Now the trust is considering how it can "invest" in the Meriden, including new homes, public spaces, amenities and transport.

But residents like Stephen Moss say the estate cannot accommodate any more homes.

He said: "What frightened me was the way the trust was talking about stepping up to be in a position to go forward with all the building in the new year.

"We are an overpopulated estate - we cannot even move anywhere, we cannot park anywhere.

"They had to put double yellow lines in to stop people parking inappropriately."

Residents attended a meeting on Tuesday, where the trust discussed "regeneration and opportunities for the Meriden".

Euan Barr, the trust’s head of New Business, the trust was working up to more detailed proposals.

He said: "This week’s meeting is part of a programme of meetings the Trust has been having about the Meriden, and how best we can continue to invest in it for the future. 

"As we are considering a range of aspects including homes, public spaces, amenities and transport, we are forming a ‘Placemaker’ group with local residents and stakeholders.

"The discussions will continue throughout this year as we work up more detailed proposals."

But Mr Moss said residents were worried their opinions would not be taken into consideration and this was a "tick box" exercise by the trust.

He said: "We’re worried it’s going to be like Boundary Way.

"The nitty gritty is are they going to build all over this estate. Are they just ticking the boxes with this meeting?"

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:23pm Thu 31 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

Personally I don't think there is much scope in this area, in recent years the old school site has been built on that is Harvest End and Meadow way, also there is a new housing estate on the site of Sun chemicals, Infrastructure is also under pressure with the Berrygrove, Knutsfurd, appletree and Coates way full up
Personally I don't think there is much scope in this area, in recent years the old school site has been built on that is Harvest End and Meadow way, also there is a new housing estate on the site of Sun chemicals, Infrastructure is also under pressure with the Berrygrove, Knutsfurd, appletree and Coates way full up ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

12:40pm Thu 31 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

Looking at Google Earth there seems to be a green area in Kytes drive they could build on and Oxhey seems to have some green land.
Looking at Google Earth there seems to be a green area in Kytes drive they could build on and Oxhey seems to have some green land. ancientandageing
  • Score: -5

2:43pm Thu 31 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

Nobody can be surprised at this.

Whilst the LibDems control the council, green land across Watford will be sold and sold and sold until every square foot has been turned into houses and flats.

If you are wondering why the council does not care if Watford people are squashed in like sardines you need to go no further than this government website for the answer....

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/policies/i
ncreasing-the-number
-of-available-homes/
supporting-pages/new
-homes-bonus

The main part is this...

"The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use.

The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 6 years. It’s based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. "

This is no small amount we are talking about either...

"The £917 million of New Homes Bonus allocations announced for 2014 to 2015 brings the total to £2.2 billion over the 4 years between 2011 and 2015. Of that, £1 billion is additional grant provided by DCLG."

So the great con trick being pulled on us residents is that the LibDems pocket their share of this money by shoving up 'affordable housing' at every opportunity and as a bonus get extra Council Tax revenue to also fill their coffers. Then they sell us all the line that a LibDem council keeps down your council tax as if they have performed some economic miracle.

The truth is that any fool with land can sell it off to developers to make a profit - especially if you are in charge and can make up the rules as you go along (such as selling off allotments), but when the land has gone, it can never come back.

So keeping down council tax and wasting money on projects like The Parade whilst hiving off bits of Watford is not smart - it is short-sighted and blighting this town as an overcrowded place to live. The real aim of course is to keep the LibDems in power and they hope nobody has spotted the trick they are pulling on us all.

So all those out there who are happy for Watford to be concreted over and have millions wasted on building bridges over ponds, just keep voting in the LibDems and you'll get your wish.
Nobody can be surprised at this. Whilst the LibDems control the council, green land across Watford will be sold and sold and sold until every square foot has been turned into houses and flats. If you are wondering why the council does not care if Watford people are squashed in like sardines you need to go no further than this government website for the answer.... https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/policies/i ncreasing-the-number -of-available-homes/ supporting-pages/new -homes-bonus The main part is this... "The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 6 years. It’s based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. " This is no small amount we are talking about either... "The £917 million of New Homes Bonus allocations announced for 2014 to 2015 brings the total to £2.2 billion over the 4 years between 2011 and 2015. Of that, £1 billion is additional grant provided by DCLG." So the great con trick being pulled on us residents is that the LibDems pocket their share of this money by shoving up 'affordable housing' at every opportunity and as a bonus get extra Council Tax revenue to also fill their coffers. Then they sell us all the line that a LibDem council keeps down your council tax as if they have performed some economic miracle. The truth is that any fool with land can sell it off to developers to make a profit - especially if you are in charge and can make up the rules as you go along (such as selling off allotments), but when the land has gone, it can never come back. So keeping down council tax and wasting money on projects like The Parade whilst hiving off bits of Watford is not smart - it is short-sighted and blighting this town as an overcrowded place to live. The real aim of course is to keep the LibDems in power and they hope nobody has spotted the trick they are pulling on us all. So all those out there who are happy for Watford to be concreted over and have millions wasted on building bridges over ponds, just keep voting in the LibDems and you'll get your wish. D_Penn
  • Score: 12

3:23pm Thu 31 Jul 14

GG says...

Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens!
Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens! GG
  • Score: 7

4:20pm Thu 31 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

GG wrote:
Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens!
I can find some other wholly inappropriate places if you like. I am sure there are plenty in Watford how about putting a few new roads near cassiobery park and using the gardens of the hoy polly.
But your answer gives the game away its about building on housing trust land not regeneration, if it was regeneration then the waste transfer site could be used adjacent to the new housing and sainsburys.
BTW as a matter of local history I thought Kytes drive predated WW2, and I was just wondering as to its present use surly a low rise bloke on the green could have say 50 dwellings
[quote][p][bold]GG[/bold] wrote: Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens![/p][/quote]I can find some other wholly inappropriate places if you like. I am sure there are plenty in Watford how about putting a few new roads near cassiobery park and using the gardens of the hoy polly. But your answer gives the game away its about building on housing trust land not regeneration, if it was regeneration then the waste transfer site could be used adjacent to the new housing and sainsburys. BTW as a matter of local history I thought Kytes drive predated WW2, and I was just wondering as to its present use surly a low rise bloke on the green could have say 50 dwellings ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sara says...

Yet again David Penn is wrong. The land belongs to Watford Community Housing Trust, not Watford Council. WCHT receive no benefit from New Homes Bonus. It is up to WCHT to decide what it would like to do with its own land.
Yet again David Penn is wrong. The land belongs to Watford Community Housing Trust, not Watford Council. WCHT receive no benefit from New Homes Bonus. It is up to WCHT to decide what it would like to do with its own land. Sara
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Thu 31 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

Sara wrote:
Yet again David Penn is wrong. The land belongs to Watford Community Housing Trust, not Watford Council. WCHT receive no benefit from New Homes Bonus. It is up to WCHT to decide what it would like to do with its own land.
The government document below makes it quite clear that the New Homes Bonus is paid to a council when a new home appears on the Council Tax Base form.

See here...

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/70272/
New_Homes_Bonus_Bull
etin.pdf

Extract:

"When will a new home or property trigger the award?

Once a new home is recorded on the Council Tax Base form it will become eligible for New Homes Bonus grant."

So, if the WCHT want to build houses/flats, they must first ask Watford Council for permission or they cannot build. If the Council approves, it will collect the New Homes Bonus in the year following the new buildings' registration for Council Tax. Once people move in it will then collect even more cash from the Council Tax. So of course, the council approves because it will pick up plenty of dosh. The effect of squashing locals in on top of each other is always of little consequence to the LibDems as long as the money keeps rolling in.

Worse, as we have seen in the past, the LibDems are always happy to take the money but slow to spend it on the infrastructure, creating havoc, like school place shortages, and they do nothing at all for perennial problems made worse, such as parking.

So Sara, please do not try to obfuscate the issue when it is clear that the LibDems grab every opportunity to wallow in the government led incentive that means that every time Watford Council approves new homes, it puts cash in the coffers.


Incidentally, another reason that the Bonus is attractive is because a the council has free reign how to spend they money. Extract from same document...

"How can the Bonus be used?
New Homes Bonus is an unringfenced grant, which means local authorities are free to decide how to spend it, as they are in the best position to make decisions about local priorities."

So what we have witnessed recently, for example, is new flats being thrown up wherever there's a little green space, the council then collecting the New Homes Bonus and then spending over 4 million of it on a tart up of The Parade.

A ten year old would understand that selling off land and cramming people in like sardines to support election winning vanity projects is unsustainable economically as well as an appalling way to act. One thing we can be certain of is that future Watford historians will not be complimentary about our current LibDem councillors' actions.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Yet again David Penn is wrong. The land belongs to Watford Community Housing Trust, not Watford Council. WCHT receive no benefit from New Homes Bonus. It is up to WCHT to decide what it would like to do with its own land.[/p][/quote]The government document below makes it quite clear that the New Homes Bonus is paid to a council when a new home appears on the Council Tax Base form. See here... https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/70272/ New_Homes_Bonus_Bull etin.pdf Extract: "When will a new home or property trigger the award? Once a new home is recorded on the Council Tax Base form it will become eligible for New Homes Bonus grant." So, if the WCHT want to build houses/flats, they must first ask Watford Council for permission or they cannot build. If the Council approves, it will collect the New Homes Bonus in the year following the new buildings' registration for Council Tax. Once people move in it will then collect even more cash from the Council Tax. So of course, the council approves because it will pick up plenty of dosh. The effect of squashing locals in on top of each other is always of little consequence to the LibDems as long as the money keeps rolling in. Worse, as we have seen in the past, the LibDems are always happy to take the money but slow to spend it on the infrastructure, creating havoc, like school place shortages, and they do nothing at all for perennial problems made worse, such as parking. So Sara, please do not try to obfuscate the issue when it is clear that the LibDems grab every opportunity to wallow in the government led incentive that means that every time Watford Council approves new homes, it puts cash in the coffers. Incidentally, another reason that the Bonus is attractive is because a the council has free reign how to spend they money. Extract from same document... "How can the Bonus be used? New Homes Bonus is an unringfenced grant, which means local authorities are free to decide how to spend it, as they are in the best position to make decisions about local priorities." So what we have witnessed recently, for example, is new flats being thrown up wherever there's a little green space, the council then collecting the New Homes Bonus and then spending over 4 million of it on a tart up of The Parade. A ten year old would understand that selling off land and cramming people in like sardines to support election winning vanity projects is unsustainable economically as well as an appalling way to act. One thing we can be certain of is that future Watford historians will not be complimentary about our current LibDem councillors' actions. D_Penn
  • Score: 6

8:04pm Thu 31 Jul 14

ancientandageing says...

GG wrote:
Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens!
So we can't build on kytes drive as in the distant past it was used for soldiers
We can't build on Meriden Park becouse it would deprieve local people who don't have gds with green space.

Best bet then is to build next to big houses with big gardens that don't need parkland maybe on Cassioberry park, or half of it
[quote][p][bold]GG[/bold] wrote: Kytes Drive does not belong to the Housing Trust, it is another HA, and Kytes Drive housing is designed for disabled tenants, it was build for the servicemen and women from WW2 who were injured. Also the green land by the High Rise flats, where the park is ,apparently is protected and can not be built on, it is there for families in the High Rise and low rise, somewhere to play as they dont have gardens![/p][/quote]So we can't build on kytes drive as in the distant past it was used for soldiers We can't build on Meriden Park becouse it would deprieve local people who don't have gds with green space. Best bet then is to build next to big houses with big gardens that don't need parkland maybe on Cassioberry park, or half of it ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

10:48am Fri 1 Aug 14

Sara says...

If WCHT seek to build on their land and it meets nationally set planning 'guidance' then it will get permission. Simples.

School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements.

New Homes Bonus is spent as a council wishes because we have representative democracy in this country. In May all the political parties set out their plans to the electorate. One party emerged with the mist votes, the most councillors and the Mayor. Another still has no elected representatives here. Which party do you think the people of Watford trust to spend money on their behalf? Do you need a clue?
If WCHT seek to build on their land and it meets nationally set planning 'guidance' then it will get permission. Simples. School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements. New Homes Bonus is spent as a council wishes because we have representative democracy in this country. In May all the political parties set out their plans to the electorate. One party emerged with the mist votes, the most councillors and the Mayor. Another still has no elected representatives here. Which party do you think the people of Watford trust to spend money on their behalf? Do you need a clue? Sara
  • Score: -1

10:54am Fri 1 Aug 14

Veritas says...

This should be the best time for UKIP in Watford.

Inept opposition,
lots of Questionable Migrants on Student Visa's!!
EU Nationals having a significant presence in local schools, GP's, making it difficult for established locals to access those services.

Now Everyone want to cram more houses into Watford,
bet they don't live there?

Congestion is bad enough at the DOME, around the Ring road
and going into LONDON, and they expect the population of LONDON
to go up to 11million people,

the current politicians have made a
mess of everything, should not be hard for reasonable new politicians
to stop this Madness
This should be the best time for UKIP in Watford. Inept opposition, lots of Questionable Migrants on Student Visa's!! EU Nationals having a significant presence in local schools, GP's, making it difficult for established locals to access those services. Now Everyone want to cram more houses into Watford, bet they don't live there? Congestion is bad enough at the DOME, around the Ring road and going into LONDON, and they expect the population of LONDON to go up to 11million people, the current politicians have made a mess of everything, should not be hard for reasonable new politicians to stop this Madness Veritas
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 1 Aug 14

Veritas says...

Sara says
"School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements."

The same £300,000, Section 106 money that half wit Dotty paid back to the
Developers over Watford Springs?

The Plot thickens.

Come on UKIP get your act together, as Watford is there for the picking
Sara says "School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements." The same £300,000, Section 106 money that half wit Dotty paid back to the Developers over Watford Springs? The Plot thickens. Come on UKIP get your act together, as Watford is there for the picking Veritas
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 1 Aug 14

D_Penn says...

I see Sara is getting rattled. Perhaps I hit a nerve.

In response to those asking about UKIP, we are working hard in Watford, but we have much to do. The LibDems have a long established, well oiled propaganda machine and regular income from their councillors to fund their regular newsletters whose contents may convince some, but in reality is about as reliable as a Wonga advert.

They also have a big advantage at election time by having the same electoral computer database as Obama used to get elected; which I believe was purchased for them by a wealthy LibDem donor.

UKIP is a new party and we do not have a rack of wealthy donors queuing up to throw money at us, nor union paymasters to support us. As such we rely very much on the goodwill and support of local people to help us move forward and it is thanks to many of them that we are now a prominent party in Watford.

Be assured that we will breakthrough in Watford, but in the meantime we shall continue to shine a torch into the dark corners that the LibDems would prefer remain hidden.
I see Sara is getting rattled. Perhaps I hit a nerve. In response to those asking about UKIP, we are working hard in Watford, but we have much to do. The LibDems have a long established, well oiled propaganda machine and regular income from their councillors to fund their regular newsletters whose contents may convince some, but in reality is about as reliable as a Wonga advert. They also have a big advantage at election time by having the same electoral computer database as Obama used to get elected; which I believe was purchased for them by a wealthy LibDem donor. UKIP is a new party and we do not have a rack of wealthy donors queuing up to throw money at us, nor union paymasters to support us. As such we rely very much on the goodwill and support of local people to help us move forward and it is thanks to many of them that we are now a prominent party in Watford. Be assured that we will breakthrough in Watford, but in the meantime we shall continue to shine a torch into the dark corners that the LibDems would prefer remain hidden. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

11:55am Fri 1 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

Sara wrote:
If WCHT seek to build on their land and it meets nationally set planning 'guidance' then it will get permission. Simples.

School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements.

New Homes Bonus is spent as a council wishes because we have representative democracy in this country. In May all the political parties set out their plans to the electorate. One party emerged with the mist votes, the most councillors and the Mayor. Another still has no elected representatives here. Which party do you think the people of Watford trust to spend money on their behalf? Do you need a clue?
asides about UFLOP On the Meriden the availabilty of school places is an issue, since the county shut lMeriden Primary and sold it of for houses there are no places, whats more there is no site for a new school (other than the park) the number of new house that can be built on the Meriden is very limited.
I would suggest that if a Bourough was aware (and it is) of major problems assosciated with expansion in an area then it would be silly not to take it into account due to it being a "county problem"
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: If WCHT seek to build on their land and it meets nationally set planning 'guidance' then it will get permission. Simples. School places are down to the County Council to plan and provide, not the District/Borough. Funding for this is provided through S106 agreements. New Homes Bonus is spent as a council wishes because we have representative democracy in this country. In May all the political parties set out their plans to the electorate. One party emerged with the mist votes, the most councillors and the Mayor. Another still has no elected representatives here. Which party do you think the people of Watford trust to spend money on their behalf? Do you need a clue?[/p][/quote]asides about UFLOP On the Meriden the availabilty of school places is an issue, since the county shut lMeriden Primary and sold it of for houses there are no places, whats more there is no site for a new school (other than the park) the number of new house that can be built on the Meriden is very limited. I would suggest that if a Bourough was aware (and it is) of major problems assosciated with expansion in an area then it would be silly not to take it into account due to it being a "county problem" ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Fri 1 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

@veritas
if UKIP could not get a single seat on the back of European and Mayor election then they won't in 2016.
As for 2015 come on its a GE and high voter turnout will do for them, I don't see them getting a single seat maybe the Torys will pick up another seat in Park and Nascot Labour probably will get Central, UKIP will likely poll well in some places with the overall effect being to deny the Torys of one seat and Labour of another. That is the council will be 17 libdem 15 others instead of 15 libdem 17 other
So locally for the Bourough elections the situation will be
Vote UKIP get Libdem
@veritas if UKIP could not get a single seat on the back of European and Mayor election then they won't in 2016. As for 2015 come on its a GE and high voter turnout will do for them, I don't see them getting a single seat maybe the Torys will pick up another seat in Park and Nascot Labour probably will get Central, UKIP will likely poll well in some places with the overall effect being to deny the Torys of one seat and Labour of another. That is the council will be 17 libdem 15 others instead of 15 libdem 17 other So locally for the Bourough elections the situation will be Vote UKIP get Libdem ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Sara says...

It's strange that giving factual answers in described as being 'rattled'. Ion dear what disinformation from UKIP is? Blind panic?

For more factual information, every constituency that wishes to use the contact database (every political party gas one and has had one for many years) pays for it.

And as for UKIP not having any wealthy donors, see Fact Chevk and The Independent at http://www.channel4.
com/news/the-publish
ers-and-lords-bankro
lling-ukip-factcheck and http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/people
/paul-sykes-the-fina
ncier-behind-nigel-f
arage-9428798.html.
It's strange that giving factual answers in described as being 'rattled'. Ion dear what disinformation from UKIP is? Blind panic? For more factual information, every constituency that wishes to use the contact database (every political party gas one and has had one for many years) pays for it. And as for UKIP not having any wealthy donors, see Fact Chevk and The Independent at http://www.channel4. com/news/the-publish ers-and-lords-bankro lling-ukip-factcheck and http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/people /paul-sykes-the-fina ncier-behind-nigel-f arage-9428798.html. Sara
  • Score: -2

12:27pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Veritas says...

well we find out something new about the FIBS!!

Main thing is to put people off their spin, and we have convinced
a few not too vote for them again.

Maybe they have promised another Minority Community Centre
on Tolpits lane? That is a sure vote buying winner, given the
demographics in West Watford
well we find out something new about the FIBS!! Main thing is to put people off their spin, and we have convinced a few not too vote for them again. Maybe they have promised another Minority Community Centre on Tolpits lane? That is a sure vote buying winner, given the demographics in West Watford Veritas
  • Score: -1

12:47pm Fri 1 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

Veritas wrote:
well we find out something new about the FIBS!!

Main thing is to put people off their spin, and we have convinced
a few not too vote for them again.

Maybe they have promised another Minority Community Centre
on Tolpits lane? That is a sure vote buying winner, given the
demographics in West Watford
really as I recall there were lots of UKIP voters that put Dotty down as second prefrance at the recent elections.
Vote UKIP get Libdem
[quote][p][bold]Veritas[/bold] wrote: well we find out something new about the FIBS!! Main thing is to put people off their spin, and we have convinced a few not too vote for them again. Maybe they have promised another Minority Community Centre on Tolpits lane? That is a sure vote buying winner, given the demographics in West Watford[/p][/quote]really as I recall there were lots of UKIP voters that put Dotty down as second prefrance at the recent elections. Vote UKIP get Libdem ancientandageing
  • Score: -1

12:56pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Veritas says...

That is so weird, lets hope it changes.

Watford FIB Dems= Overdevelopment, uncontrolled Migration

UKIP= Stop uncontrolled Migration

makes no sense, we did not vote second choice
That is so weird, lets hope it changes. Watford FIB Dems= Overdevelopment, uncontrolled Migration UKIP= Stop uncontrolled Migration makes no sense, we did not vote second choice Veritas
  • Score: -1

1:14pm Fri 1 Aug 14

D_Penn says...

@sara

If you read my post properly you would see that I did not say we didn't have any wealthy doners, just that we do not have a raft of them. The correct information for anyone who wants to see how much money the parties pick up from donations can be found here...

http://www.ukpolitic
al.info/Donations.ht
m

It shows that the donations received last year by the four main parties was...

Con 15.9 million
Lab 13.4
LibDem 3.8
UKIP 0.7

Clearly UKIP are at a huge financial disadvantage when it comes to combating other parties' propaganda, but that makes our progress even more remarkable.
@sara If you read my post properly you would see that I did not say we didn't have any wealthy doners, just that we do not have a raft of them. The correct information for anyone who wants to see how much money the parties pick up from donations can be found here... http://www.ukpolitic al.info/Donations.ht m It shows that the donations received last year by the four main parties was... Con 15.9 million Lab 13.4 LibDem 3.8 UKIP 0.7 Clearly UKIP are at a huge financial disadvantage when it comes to combating other parties' propaganda, but that makes our progress even more remarkable. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Veritas says...

agreed, MR Penn, but you fail a bit trying to grasp that in Watford
everyone is fed up of an elected Mayor on £70,000.

Your Mayoral,Candidate Coxed up, by wanting the full salary.
Joker to do what.

Even the Labour Candidate, knew he would never get away with
that salary, knowing what Dotty does, and elected for a drop.

The fibs waste so much money and remember Dotty, had Dodgy Fibs
living abroad claiming allowances.

Any decent Mayor would have had them arrested for false claims,
opposition kept quiet, wonder why?

So take the moral high ground UKIP, it's the way forward
agreed, MR Penn, but you fail a bit trying to grasp that in Watford everyone is fed up of an elected Mayor on £70,000. Your Mayoral,Candidate Coxed up, by wanting the full salary. Joker to do what. Even the Labour Candidate, knew he would never get away with that salary, knowing what Dotty does, and elected for a drop. The fibs waste so much money and remember Dotty, had Dodgy Fibs living abroad claiming allowances. Any decent Mayor would have had them arrested for false claims, opposition kept quiet, wonder why? So take the moral high ground UKIP, it's the way forward Veritas
  • Score: 1

4:51pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them.
Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Fri 1 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them.
this is absolut rot really, the design of the meriden estate does not lend itself to being futher built upon, and actually there has been in recent decades some adition allready Tibbles close, Amwell close Gossamers, Harvest End and the meadows I think are the biggest but there have been smaller ones exist aswell.
It is also worth noting that an awfull lot of the houses are privatly owned, if the park is maintained that does not leave much space, if by the same lgic green space near low rise is maintained then even less.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them.[/p][/quote]this is absolut rot really, the design of the meriden estate does not lend itself to being futher built upon, and actually there has been in recent decades some adition allready Tibbles close, Amwell close Gossamers, Harvest End and the meadows I think are the biggest but there have been smaller ones exist aswell. It is also worth noting that an awfull lot of the houses are privatly owned, if the park is maintained that does not leave much space, if by the same lgic green space near low rise is maintained then even less. ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Fri 1 Aug 14

D_Penn says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them.
The problem with your view is that it makes no allowance for the existing residents. You look at the densest housing area and assume that you can keep building until every part of Watford is just as densely populated.

That attitude treats our people no better than battery farmed hens. People want space around them, but you just expect everyone in Watford to put up with never ending infill on the sole basis that others need new homes.

Of course new homes are needed. With increasing numbers of people living alone, an ageing population and uncontrolled immigration a housing crisis was inevitable. However, when the last population boom occurred after WWII, the government was smart enough to see that the only sensible solution was to build new towns where people would have space for reasonably priced, decent sized homes and room to build a proper infrastructure around them.

Now across the country we are saddled with dimwits at government and local level who think that building rabbit hutch sized flats in already overcrowded towns is going to provide the next generation with quality living standards. It clearly won't and everyone's living standards are suffering.

From Watford's point of view we cannot do anything to force the government to build new towns but what the LibDems could do is put up the 'Full' sign. They won't do that though, so everyone who lives here should accept that the quality of living in this town is going to go down as the overcrowding is increased again and again.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Meriden is far from being the most dense residential area of Watford, that accolade is shared between West Watford and North Watford, where the homes are predominantly privately owned and incidentally very popular. There must therefore be potential to build more houses in Meriden. There are plenty of people waiting on the list for a 'council' home, we need to get on and start building them.[/p][/quote]The problem with your view is that it makes no allowance for the existing residents. You look at the densest housing area and assume that you can keep building until every part of Watford is just as densely populated. That attitude treats our people no better than battery farmed hens. People want space around them, but you just expect everyone in Watford to put up with never ending infill on the sole basis that others need new homes. Of course new homes are needed. With increasing numbers of people living alone, an ageing population and uncontrolled immigration a housing crisis was inevitable. However, when the last population boom occurred after WWII, the government was smart enough to see that the only sensible solution was to build new towns where people would have space for reasonably priced, decent sized homes and room to build a proper infrastructure around them. Now across the country we are saddled with dimwits at government and local level who think that building rabbit hutch sized flats in already overcrowded towns is going to provide the next generation with quality living standards. It clearly won't and everyone's living standards are suffering. From Watford's point of view we cannot do anything to force the government to build new towns but what the LibDems could do is put up the 'Full' sign. They won't do that though, so everyone who lives here should accept that the quality of living in this town is going to go down as the overcrowding is increased again and again. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

8:28am Sat 2 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

Another perspective, and I suggest it would be worth looking into is to free up housing by designing and building housing that is atractive and practical for older couples and single folk.
Another perspective, and I suggest it would be worth looking into is to free up housing by designing and building housing that is atractive and practical for older couples and single folk. ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

8:28am Sat 2 Aug 14

ancientandageing says...

Another perspective, and I suggest it would be worth looking into is to free up housing by designing and building housing that is atractive and practical for older couples and single folk.
Another perspective, and I suggest it would be worth looking into is to free up housing by designing and building housing that is atractive and practical for older couples and single folk. ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

10:12am Mon 4 Aug 14

garston tony says...

I dont see why there is a focus on the Lib Dems (im no fan of Dotty or her party) as house building would be happening regardless of who was in power in Watford (or indeed the country).

Simple fact is demand is vastly outstripping supply and that is no different in the social renting area where no doubt WCHT have many thousands of people on their waiting list all wanting to be housed in the relatively few of their homes that come available.

All this talk is also over shadowing the fact that regeneration isnt just about building new homes but improving the area and facilities in general too
I dont see why there is a focus on the Lib Dems (im no fan of Dotty or her party) as house building would be happening regardless of who was in power in Watford (or indeed the country). Simple fact is demand is vastly outstripping supply and that is no different in the social renting area where no doubt WCHT have many thousands of people on their waiting list all wanting to be housed in the relatively few of their homes that come available. All this talk is also over shadowing the fact that regeneration isnt just about building new homes but improving the area and facilities in general too garston tony
  • Score: 3

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