Forum Home Forum Home > Chalfont St Peter > Holy Cross Development
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Low Cost Housing - what it really means
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Topic ClosedLow Cost Housing - what it really means

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 12:06am
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

As you probably all know by now, all of the proposed development plans being imposed by Chiltern District Council on Chalfont St Peter will be subject to a mandatory inclusion of a minimum of 40% so called 'low cost housing'.

Sounds great doesn't it? Does this mean that all of your elderly parents or children will now be able to buy a house in Chalfont St Peter and live on your doorstep?

Absolutely not! Chiltern District Council have been dangling this carrot as an incentive for us to approve their housing schemes, read into it and you will find that:

• 70% of the 'low cost housing' will actually be rented accommodation and not available to buy - so really it should not be termed as low cost housing at all. These rental homes will go straight onto housing association waiting lists and made immediately available to people from outside the area. As well as some key workers, these lists include single parent families, asylum seekers, foreign queue jumpers and long term unemployed - people that they cannot house elsewhere, these schemes are specifically designed to appease central government's requirement to fill that shortfall.

• 30% (the remainder) of the 'low cost housing' will be shared ownership housing, also for people from outside of Chalfont St Peter. The deal is that they buy their share, but will never be able to own the house outright, the state will retain it's share to keep the house on the waiting list.

So the statement that these homes will help local people and key workers to get on the property ladder is complete nonsense, the term 'low cost housing' is a lie and it's scandalous that it is included in this context.

The remaining market housing on the sites will actually be subsidising these local authority houses, so effectively this will be pushing house prices up! Not exactly the pretty picture that CDC would have us believe.

It is important that everyone knows about the implications of these developments, it is all about exploitation, there is nothing in the Draft Core Strategy that will be contributing anything to the village or to the people of the village. Our green spaces are an easy target and unless we ALL say an emphatic NO to these plans, they will be pushed through and Chalfont St Peter will become a dumping ground for all kinds of humanity.
 
I see lots of questions, but no answers. What is wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford?
 
Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims? What is the problem with social housing? What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?
 
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
SENSE View Drop Down
Local
Local
Avatar

Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 7:09am
I only see one question mark in the statement from SENSE, this is duly answered in the paragraph that follows it, where are these questions that you can see?


In answer to your five questions:

What is wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford?
There's nothing wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford. We just have issue with the fact that CDC wish to build the highest proportion of them in the Chalfont St Peter, effectively flooding our village with unmanageable quantities of new residents that neither our infrastructure nor society could possibly sustain. Especially when the whole social housing policy should be based on integration, community consultation and evenhandedness.


Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/HomeBuyingSchemes/DG_066514
In the above link it says how you can own between 25% and 75% of these leasehold properties, but you can never own 100%. The whole concept is based around the need of the local authority to retain a share of the property in order to maintain it's social housing quantities, yet at the same time help the potential homeowner onto the housing ladder. This is a commonly known fact.


What is the problem with social housing?

There is no problem with social housing, as I have previously said, we have issue with CDC building the highest proportions in Chalfont St Peter. Why for instance has the Great Missenden, Prestwood and Heath End grouping not been apportioned any developments which would result in any social housing allocations, especially when Great Missenden has a train link - we have no train link - this is clearly a result of NIMBYism within the ranks of CDC at the highest level.


What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/HousingAssociations/DG_10020860
As demonstrated in the above link, social housing is released on a needs basis, it is possible that some local people will be able to move into some of these properties, but only if they are on the local authority waiting lists and meet certain 'needs' criteria, this is therefore highly unlikely. The exception is of course key workers who will also have the opportunity to rent or buy a share of the low cost housing, but these will be in the minority.


It is clear that CDC wishes to use Chalfont St Peter as it's convenient council house dump, they have performed especially badly over the last 20 years with respect to social housing. This has finally caught up with them, and in their usual crisis management style, they have decided that once again just like in the 60's with the precinct, Chalfont St Peter is a worthwhile sacrifice to make in order to disguise their ineptitude. If we allow them to do this it will literally wreck our village and how any of our residents could support such a plan beggars belief.

The Secretary of State recently delivered power back to local councils and if our District Councillors were truly representative of our village, this would have all been history. Yet Nick Rose and CDC officers are still trying to shoehorn it through, stating that it is for the good of the district as a whole, it is nothing of the sort, they have wasted millions on drafting up a Core Strategy for which they did not gather sufficient evidence and for which they did not hold the mandatory consultation at the correct stage. Chalfont St Peter is purely a convenient rug for them to sweep away their years of social housing neglect.

I hope this answers your questions.


Edited by SENSE - 28 June 2010 at 7:12am
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

I only see one question mark in the statement from SENSE, this is duly answered in the paragraph that follows it, where are these questions that you can see?


In answer to your five questions:

What is wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford?
There's nothing wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford. We just have issue with the fact that CDC wish to build the highest proportion of them in the Chalfont St Peter, effectively flooding our village with unmanageable quantities of new residents that neither our infrastructure nor society could possibly sustain. Especially when the whole social housing policy should be based on integration, community consultation and evenhandedness.


Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/HomeBuyingSchemes/DG_066514
In the above link it says how you can own between 25% and 75% of these leasehold properties, but you can never own 100%. The whole concept is based around the need of the local authority to retain a share of the property in order to maintain it's social housing quantities, yet at the same time help the potential homeowner onto the housing ladder. This is a commonly known fact.


What is the problem with social housing?

There is no problem with social housing, as I have previously said, we have issue with CDC building the highest proportions in Chalfont St Peter. Why for instance has the Great Missenden, Prestwood and Heath End grouping not been apportioned any developments which would result in any social housing allocations, especially when Great Missenden has a train link - we have no train link - this is clearly a result of NIMBYism within the ranks of CDC at the highest level.


What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/HousingAssociations/DG_10020860
As demonstrated in the above link, social housing is released on a needs basis, it is possible that some local people will be able to move into some of these properties, but only if they are on the local authority waiting lists and meet certain 'needs' criteria, this is therefore highly unlikely. The exception is of course key workers who will also have the opportunity to rent or buy a share of the low cost housing, but these will be in the minority.


It is clear that CDC wishes to use Chalfont St Peter as it's convenient council house dump, they have performed especially badly over the last 20 years with respect to social housing. This has finally caught up with them, and in their usual crisis management style, they have decided that once again just like in the 60's with the precinct, Chalfont St Peter is a worthwhile sacrifice to make in order to disguise their ineptitude. If we allow them to do this it will literally wreck our village and how any of our residents could support such a plan beggars belief.

The Secretary of State recently delivered power back to local councils and if our District Councillors were truly representative of our village, this would have all been history. Yet Nick Rose and CDC officers are still trying to shoehorn it through, stating that it is for the good of the district as a whole, it is nothing of the sort, they have wasted millions on drafting up a Core Strategy for which they did not gather sufficient evidence and for which they did not hold the mandatory consultation at the correct stage. Chalfont St Peter is purely a convenient rug for them to sweep away their years of social housing neglect.

I hope this answers your questions.
Not even in the slightest. The link you provided for "What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?" does not work, please re-post.
 
I will respond to this when you have provided a viable link.
 
In the link for "Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?"
 
Please read:
 
Quote

Buying more shares in your shared ownership home

After you’ve bought your first share, you can usually buy more shares until you own the whole value of the property. This is known as staircasing.

So, more lies and half truths from SENSE.
 
(It really pays to read the links first before using them to support unsubstantiated claims)
 
The entire tone of your post is condescending and arrogant to the extreme. It comes across as though you and your cronies do not want lower class people living in the village. You seem to be living in abject fear of some council houses being built in the vicinty, so much so that you foster lies, transmitted by rumour, to frighten the populace of the village, to force submission to your cause. Well I have news for you; it doesn't work. Your little support group does not have the following you think it does. Most sensible people in the area see trough your hyped rhetoric, as nothing more than hollow propaganda. The word on the street is that most people welcome the opportunity to for their children to be able to afford to live in the village they were raised in.
 
I attended the festivities on the common on Saturday and was waiting to engage with some of your representatives, when they were talking to a gentleman, regarding some the information you had been distributing. I couldn't hear everything that was being said, but I did pick up on a few things. First of all, he challenged one person on the rumour that homes were destined for Eastern European immigrants, who had been waiting for housing in London. Your representative's reply was, "but they are." This was promptly challenged and he was forced to agree that he had no proof at all that was going to happen. He was then told that the schools were bursting at the seems and there was no room. None of those, who were at the stall, could even answer a simple question about how many pupils attend the schools in the area and how many were expected to turn up after the houses were built. The most notable remark came from the man who lied about the immigrants, he said that the number of homes that  was planned was two hundred and thirty INCLUDING the residents from the care home. Which, going by your figures would mean that there is about one hundred and sixty new homes planned on the Holy Cross site. Somewhat fewer than you have been bandying around of late.
 
But, the most startling comment came from a lady who thought she could still convince this man that the development would be a bad thing. She quoted figures relating to the ratio of privately owned and rented homes. She then emphasised that they we going to be (looking around to see if anyone was listening, whilst half-nodding), "social housing, you know, council houses." I couldn't see her face, but judging by her tone and body language, I am willing to bet she was giving him a knowing wink, as though to say, "well, we all know what that would mean." Looking a little taken aback by this exegesis, the man countered with, "but I want my kids to be able to afford somewhere to live close to where they grow up." The woman's reply was, (bearing in mind she has absolutelty no knowledge of this man, his family or his background etc.), "but your children will never be able to afford a house over there."
 
The general impression that most people have is that you are nothing more than a bunch of NIMBYs, who have no interest in what the ordinary folk of the village want. They feel disenfranchised and ignored, perhaps the reason why you didn't get many returns from the survey you put out.
 
(A question of note, where are these results, including how many actually responded, compared to the number that were actually sent, measured against the total population of the village.)
 
All of this is borne out by your posture towards those who need to live in social housing. The whole thrust of your campaign is the fact that you do not want more rented accommodation to be built, which may threaten the value of your own properties. To further this aim you spread rumour and innuendo in an attempt to foster xenophobia amongst the people of this village, thankfully it hasn't worked. I am in two minds as to whether I should set my own group and call it non-SENSE and TRUTH. Then perhaps we will have something to counter this garbage that you seem intent on proliferating.
 
Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 1:07pm
Flyboy, if you do not think immigration is a major cause for needing more homes in the south east then you are in denial, whether or not you or others believe that immigration is good for the UK.
 
Add to this the suggestion that jobless people up north be given financial insentives to head for the prosperous south will only add to the problem.
 
The only way to tackle the problem of overcrowding in the south east is to STOP building new houses, then the population will disperse to areas with housing and to less intensified areas.
 
You could build on every available inch of Chalfont St Peter and there will still not be enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. What we need to do is to stop encouraging people from other parts of the UK and abroad to head to the south east by building them houses.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Flyboy, if you do not think immigration is a major cause for needing more homes in the south east then you are in denial, whether or not you or others believe that immigration is good for the UK.
 
Add to this the suggestion that jobless people up north be given financial insentives to head for the prosperous south will only add to the problem.
 
The only way to tackle the problem of overcrowding in the south east is to STOP building new houses, then the population will disperse to areas with housing and to less intensified areas.
 
You could build on every available inch of Chalfont St Peter and there will still not be enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. What we need to do is to stop encouraging people from other parts of the UK and abroad to head to the south east by building them houses.
 
 
I truly do not believe that two hundred new homes in this village is going to affect the number of migrants in the UK. I also do not believe that these homes are designated for those migrants.
 
If you believe what you say is true, where did you get the information from. It wouldn't have been from the members of SENSE, would it
Back to Top
SENSE View Drop Down
Local
Local
Avatar

Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2010 at 7:03pm

[/QUOTE]
Not even in the slightest. The link you provided for "What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?" does not work, please re-post.
 
I will respond to this when you have provided a viable link.

Please try this link again, if it doesn't work by clicking on it, try pasting it into your browser window. It worked fine on my computer.
 
In the link for "Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?"
 
Please read:
 
Quote

Buying more shares in your shared ownership home

After you’ve bought your first share, you can usually buy more shares until you own the whole value of the property. This is known as staircasing.

So, more lies and half truths from SENSE.
(It really pays to read the links first before using them to support unsubstantiated claims)

I have just edited this point because I have just had information through that most housing association shared ownership properties are not 'Staircasing homes' and hence cannot be owned outright - some are, but these are generally owned by developers and are private sector. The houses allocated for CSP are destined to be local authority and will hence not be 'Staircasing homes' and not eligible for 100% ownership. So it would seem we did have our facts straight and am glad because we have done our homework and generally speaking we are well researched and factual. Unfortunately we're not government officials or planning professionals and we are made up of local concerned residents who are mostly too busy to worry about quibbling on local forum sites. I do resent being accused of telling lies, we are simply representing the wishes of the village as a whole not to be turned into a housing estate. We take our prompts from the village using documents like the excellent Parish Council Survey to give us guidance as to the majority opinion of our residents. CSP do not want 600 new houses whether low cost, shared ownership, local authority rented or luxury 5 bedroom. We are against the numbers and the disproportionate densities and the effect that 600 dwellings would have on the amenity of the village.

 
The entire tone of your post is condescending and arrogant to the extreme. It comes across as though you and your cronies do not want lower class people living in the village. You seem to be living in abject fear of some council houses being built in the vicinty, so much so that you foster lies, transmitted by rumour, to frighten the populace of the village, to force submission to your cause. Well I have news for you; it doesn't work. Your little support group does not have the following you think it does. Most sensible people in the area see trough your hyped rhetoric, as nothing more than hollow propaganda. The word on the street is that most people welcome the opportunity to for their children to be able to afford to live in the village they were raised in.

Please substantiate your claims for this statement, you have asked me to do so and I would appreciate you letting me know where you obtained this information. If it is more credible than the Parish Council's village survey then I will gladly concede. Also I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from personal insults, it is not necessary and does not add credibility to your cause.
 
I attended the festivities on the common on Saturday and was waiting to engage with some of your representatives, when they were talking to a gentleman, regarding some the information you had been distributing. I couldn't hear everything that was being said, but I did pick up on a few things. First of all, he challenged one person on the rumour that homes were destined for Eastern European immigrants, who had been waiting for housing in London. Your representative's reply was, "but they are." This was promptly challenged and he was forced to agree that he had no proof at all that was going to happen. He was then told that the schools were bursting at the seems and there was no room. None of those, who were at the stall, could even answer a simple question about how many pupils attend the schools in the area and how many were expected to turn up after the houses were built. The most notable remark came from the man who lied about the immigrants, he said that the number of homes that  was planned was two hundred and thirty INCLUDING the residents from the care home. Which, going by your figures would mean that there is about one hundred and sixty new homes planned on the Holy Cross site. Somewhat fewer than you have been bandying around of late.

I apologise most of our committee were unable to help out on the stand, I was there in the morning for a couple of hours, but had to rush away. These are decent people trying to save our village, they have given their personal time up to man our stand and to the largest majority of people in CSP they are heroes. There are a couple of locals who have differing views and quite rightly like to put us on the spot, (though they are very, very thin on the ground) - as I have previously said we are not government officials or planning professionals and cannot be expected to keep all of the information at hand all of the time, but we do our best. This doesn't warrant calling us liars when we get something slightly wrong - CDC are however a body who can be held accountable and they have made huge fundamental errors and have cut so many corners that it beggars belief.
OK so Eastern Europeans, well I wasn't party to the conversation, but it is certainly feasible that the many houses will go to immigrants if they are on the housing lists and have managed to demonstrate their needs. Houses will also go to single parent families, drug users, long term unemployed, mentally impaired, elderly, key workers and maybe some hard working people who are on low salaries. It's all about needs and if these can be demonstrated to a greater degree, then it doesn't matter where they come from, they will get preference.
I have stated clearly the numbers as shown in the draft core strategy, totalling 600 houses in Chalfont St Peter, please do not keep arguing this point it is fact and you can download this on:
http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/corestrategy/consultation
Please find page 29 of the document, but 27 on the folios at the bottom of the page, please note that CSP and Newlands Park are in separate rows - total 600 dwellings.
Gerald Eve's planning application outlines 232 dwellings plus a care home for up to 70 residents, also available on CDC's website in the planning portal.
So our gentleman on the stand was almost right bar the fact that the 232 does not include the care home, this was not a lie, it was a small mistake of little consequence, indeed the information given was actually less than outlined in the application.

 
But, the most startling comment came from a lady who thought she could still convince this man that the development would be a bad thing. She quoted figures relating to the ratio of privately owned and rented homes. She then emphasised that they we going to be (looking around to see if anyone was listening, whilst half-nodding), "social housing, you know, council houses." I couldn't see her face, but judging by her tone and body language, I am willing to bet she was giving him a knowing wink, as though to say, "well, we all know what that would mean." Looking a little taken aback by this exegesis, the man countered with, "but I want my kids to be able to afford somewhere to live close to where they grow up." The woman's reply was, (bearing in mind she has absolutelty no knowledge of this man, his family or his background etc.), "but your children will never be able to afford a house over there."

I would say that you misheard my colleague, she would have said that his children would never be able to get a house over there, as in his children would not be able to demonstrate that their needs were greater than those on the housing waiting lists. I know the lady to whom you are referring and she is a kind and intelligent woman, a teacher and I find it very offensive that you should try to paint this picture of her. Whether you're willing to bet she was giving a man a knowing wink or not is not relevant, you simply can't make these stories up, you wouldn't allow me to get away with it, so please keep to the facts.

 
The general impression that most people have is that you are nothing more than a bunch of NIMBYs, who have no interest in what the ordinary folk of the village want. They feel disenfranchised and ignored, perhaps the reason why you didn't get many returns from the survey you put out.

Sources of information please.

But this just demonstrates how misinformed you are, the survey got a staggering reply - 35% is more than some local election turnouts and high returns like this can be statistically taken as being 99.5% representative of the survey body as a whole. CDC's consultations were getting percentage returns of around 10-15%!
What are ordinary folk? We are all ordinary folk and our Parish survey represents the ordinary folk, everybody got a form and had the chance to reply and 35% did - we were very pleased. So how can you say that anyone was ignored when they clearly received a survey form and were given a forum to voice their opinions.
I think that the majority of concerned local people not only consider us as NIMBY's they also proudly consider themselves as NIMBY's and quite rightly so, NIMBYism will save our countryside and our rural villages from exploitative and short sighted plans like this, if everybody had a little bit of local pride then our country might have retained more of it's beauty - please see the precinct.
 
(A question of note, where are these results, including how many actually responded, compared to the number that were actually sent, measured against the total population of the village.)

10,600 questionnaires were sent, and 3,661 completed questionnaires were returned, an excellent response rate. There are 10,200 adults in the village, about 5,300 households.
The survey can be downloaded from our website:
http://www.sense4csp.org/other_information_menu.html
Please click on Chalfont St Peter Parish Council survey to download the Powerpoint file.
 
All of this is borne out by your posture towards those who need to live in social housing. The whole thrust of your campaign is the fact that you do not want more rented accommodation to be built, which may threaten the value of your own properties. To further this aim you spread rumour and innuendo in an attempt to foster xenophobia amongst the people of this village, thankfully it hasn't worked. I am in two minds as to whether I should set my own group and call it non-SENSE and TRUTH. Then perhaps we will have something to counter this garbage that you seem intent on proliferating.
 
[/QUOTE]

This IS absolute nonsense, you're making things up in an attempt to make us look bad.

You are so wrong, our 'posture' is not towards the people who wish to live in low cost housing, we are against the numbers of developments and why they are not being more fairly spread around the district, you are simply not reading our literature, we are happy to have some low cost housing, just not all of it. You seem to be arguing for arguments sake and I just feel I am wasting my time defending your misinformed accusations, but I wouldn't want the village believing what you are saying because it is simply untrue.
These developments would effectively create a ghetto in the heart of the village, this is neither good for the residents or the locality, good town planning dictates integration of low cost housing into the community.

PLEASE PLEASE set up a counter group this is what democracy is all about and we would absolutely welcome such a move, at least we would have someone who would actually engage with us unlike CDC.


Edited by SENSE - 28 June 2010 at 9:23pm
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2010 at 1:47pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:


Quote Not even in the slightest. The link you provided for "What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?" does not work, please re-post.
 
I will respond to this when you have provided a viable link.

Please try this link again, if it doesn't work by clicking on it, try pasting it into your browser window. It worked fine on my computer.
 
In the link for "Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?"
 
Please read:
 
Quote

Buying more shares in your shared ownership home

After you’ve bought your first share, you can usually buy more shares until you own the whole value of the property. This is known as staircasing.

So, more lies and half truths from SENSE.
(It really pays to read the links first before using them to support unsubstantiated claims)

I have just edited this point because I have just had information through that most housing association shared ownership properties are not 'Staircasing homes' and hence cannot be owned outright - some are, but these are generally owned by developers and are private sector. The houses allocated for CSP are destined to be local authority and will hence not be 'Staircasing homes' and not eligible for 100% ownership. So it would seem we did have our facts straight and am glad because we have done our homework and generally speaking we are well researched and factual. Unfortunately we're not government officials or planning professionals and we are made up of local concerned residents who are mostly too busy to worry about quibbling on local forum sites. I do resent being accused of telling lies, we are simply representing the wishes of the village as a whole not to be turned into a housing estate. We take our prompts from the village using documents like the excellent Parish Council Survey to give us guidance as to the majority opinion of our residents. CSP do not want 600 new houses whether low cost, shared ownership, local authority rented or luxury 5 bedroom. We are against the numbers and the disproportionate densities and the effect that 600 dwellings would have on the amenity of the village.
 
More claims for which you have no proof. Do you have evidence that these will not be designated as "Staircase" properties? Your "research" seems incomplete, to the point of shoddy. This is just an example of the tactics that you use to scare people. 
 
Quote The entire tone of your post is condescending and arrogant to the extreme. It comes across as though you and your cronies do not want lower class people living in the village. You seem to be living in abject fear of some council houses being built in the vicinty, so much so that you foster lies, transmitted by rumour, to frighten the populace of the village, to force submission to your cause. Well I have news for you; it doesn't work. Your little support group does not have the following you think it does. Most sensible people in the area see trough your hyped rhetoric, as nothing more than hollow propaganda. The word on the street is that most people welcome the opportunity to for their children to be able to afford to live in the village they were raised in.

Please substantiate your claims for this statement, you have asked me to do so and I would appreciate you letting me know where you obtained this information. If it is more credible than the Parish Council's village survey then I will gladly concede. Also I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from personal insults, it is not necessary and does not add credibility to your cause.

 
 
How would you like me to "substantiate" my claims? How would you like me to present any of evidence? Apart from the conversation that I witnessed, which by now you will have had verified.
 
Quote I attended the festivities on the common on Saturday and was waiting to engage with some of your representatives, when they were talking to a gentleman, regarding some the information you had been distributing. I couldn't hear everything that was being said, but I did pick up on a few things. First of all, he challenged one person on the rumour that homes were destined for Eastern European immigrants, who had been waiting for housing in London. Your representative's reply was, "but they are." This was promptly challenged and he was forced to agree that he had no proof at all that was going to happen. He was then told that the schools were bursting at the seems and there was no room. None of those, who were at the stall, could even answer a simple question about how many pupils attend the schools in the area and how many were expected to turn up after the houses were built. The most notable remark came from the man who lied about the immigrants, he said that the number of homes that  was planned was two hundred and thirty INCLUDING the residents from the care home. Which, going by your figures would mean that there is about one hundred and sixty new homes planned on the Holy Cross site. Somewhat fewer than you have been bandying around of late.

I apologise most of our committee were unable to help out on the stand, I was there in the morning for a couple of hours, but had to rush away. These are decent people trying to save our village, they have given their personal time up to man our stand and to the largest majority of people in CSP they are heroes. There are a couple of locals who have differing views and quite rightly like to put us on the spot, (though they are very, very thin on the ground) - as I have previously said we are not government officials or planning professionals and cannot be expected to keep all of the information at hand all of the time, but we do our best. This doesn't warrant calling us liars when we get something slightly wrong - CDC are however a body who can be held accountable and they have made huge fundamental errors and have cut so many corners that it beggars belief.
OK so Eastern Europeans, well I wasn't party to the conversation, but it is certainly feasible that the many houses will go to immigrants if they are on the housing lists and have managed to demonstrate their needs. Houses will also go to single parent families, drug users, long term unemployed, mentally impaired, elderly, key workers and maybe some hard working people who are on low salaries. It's all about needs and if these can be demonstrated to a greater degree, then it doesn't matter where they come from, they will get preference.
I have stated clearly the numbers as shown in the draft core strategy, totalling 600 houses in Chalfont St Peter, please do not keep arguing this point it is fact and you can download this on:
http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/corestrategy/consultation
Please find page 29 of the document, but 27 on the folios at the bottom of the page, please note that CSP and Newlands Park are in separate rows - total 600 dwellings.
Gerald Eve's planning application outlines 232 dwellings plus a care home for up to 70 residents, also available on CDC's website in the planning portal.
So our gentleman on the stand was almost right bar the fact that the 232 does not include the care home, this was not a lie, it was a small mistake of little consequence, indeed the information given was actually less than outlined in the application.

 
There you again with the scare tactics. Please tell me what evidence you have that any of the potential residents of this new development will be as you have described above? Please tell what issues you believe they may raise, whilst living within the village? What impact will these people have on you, or anyone else who lives here? Do these people not deserve to have somewhere to live, or is it, "yes, as long as it is not here?" You have asked me for proof about my allegations of xenophobia, well you have provided that evidence yourself with this.
 
Quote But, the most startling comment came from a lady who thought she could still convince this man that the development would be a bad thing. She quoted figures relating to the ratio of privately owned and rented homes. She then emphasised that they we going to be (looking around to see if anyone was listening, whilst half-nodding), "social housing, you know, council houses." I couldn't see her face, but judging by her tone and body language, I am willing to bet she was giving him a knowing wink, as though to say, "well, we all know what that would mean." Looking a little taken aback by this exegesis, the man countered with, "but I want my kids to be able to afford somewhere to live close to where they grow up." The woman's reply was, (bearing in mind she has absolutelty no knowledge of this man, his family or his background etc.), "but your children will never be able to afford a house over there."

I would say that you misheard my colleague, she would have said that his children would never be able to get a house over there, as in his children would not be able to demonstrate that their needs were greater than those on the housing waiting lists. I know the lady to whom you are referring and she is a kind and intelligent woman, a teacher and I find it very offensive that you should try to paint this picture of her. Whether you're willing to bet she was giving a man a knowing wink or not is not relevant, you simply can't make these stories up, you wouldn't allow me to get away with it, so please keep to the facts.

 
I misheard nothing at all. The gentleman who was questioning your members pulled her up on exactly that point. He heard her, as did I. My account of her statement is verbatim (if she is a teacher, why did she not know how many pupils attend the school?). But this attitude is endemic within your membership and your supporters. They have been fed so much nonsense that they no longer know what to believe. The rumour machine has been working overtime and it is coming back to haunt you. You have done nothing to dispel any myths, in fact, you have even created many of them yourselves (the paragraph above is evidence of that).
 
Quote The general impression that most people have is that you are nothing more than a bunch of NIMBYs, who have no interest in what the ordinary folk of the village want. They feel disenfranchised and ignored, perhaps the reason why you didn't get many returns from the survey you put out.

Sources of information please.

I refer you to the answer I gave above.

Quote But this just demonstrates how misinformed you are, the survey got a staggering reply - 35% is more than some local election turnouts and high returns like this can be statistically taken as being 99.5% representative of the survey body as a whole. CDC's consultations were getting percentage returns of around 10-15%!
What are ordinary folk? We are all ordinary folk and our Parish survey represents the ordinary folk, everybody got a form and had the chance to reply and 35% did - we were very pleased. So how can you say that anyone was ignored when they clearly received a survey form and were given a forum to voice their opinions.
I think that the majority of concerned local people not only consider us as NIMBY's they also proudly consider themselves as NIMBY's and quite rightly so, NIMBYism will save our countryside and our rural villages from exploitative and short sighted plans like this, if everybody had a little bit of local pride then our country might have retained more of it's beauty - please see the precinct.
 
(A question of note, where are these results, including how many actually responded, compared to the number that were actually sent, measured against the total population of the village.)

10,600 questionnaires were sent, and 3,661 completed questionnaires were returned, an excellent response rate. There are 10,200 adults in the village, about 5,300 households.
The survey can be downloaded from our website:
http://www.sense4csp.org/other_information_menu.html
Please click on Chalfont St Peter Parish Council survey to download the Powerpoint file.

 
Have the results of this survey been audited by an independent body? Apart from the consultants, paid for by you?
 
The results that you have presented have one very distinct contraction. You have stated that only seven per cent of the respondents are concerned about the threat of development. That's about one in fourteen; hardly a landslide. But then you say that ninety-three per cent are against the development, as you have described it to them (a figure that does not surprise me, based on the information that these people have received scarring the bejesus out of them). But I will await the independently audited results. These two pieces of data are in complete disagreement of each other.
 
Quote All of this is borne out by your posture towards those who need to live in social housing. The whole thrust of your campaign is the fact that you do not want more rented accommodation to be built, which may threaten the value of your own properties. To further this aim you spread rumour and innuendo in an attempt to foster xenophobia amongst the people of this village, thankfully it hasn't worked. I am in two minds as to whether I should set my own group and call it non-SENSE and TRUTH. Then perhaps we will have something to counter this garbage that you seem intent on proliferating.
 
This IS absolute nonsense, you're making things up in an attempt to make us look bad.
You are so wrong, our 'posture' is not towards the people who wish to live in low cost housing, we are against the numbers of developments and why they are not being more fairly spread around the district, you are simply not reading our literature, we are happy to have some low cost housing, just not all of it. You seem to be arguing for arguments sake and I just feel I am wasting my time defending your misinformed accusations, but I wouldn't want the village believing what you are saying because it is simply untrue.
These developments would effectively create a ghetto in the heart of the village, this is neither good for the residents or the locality, good town planning dictates integration of low cost housing into the community.

 
Have you actually read what you have written in this thread? Your xenophobia is as clear as day. You have not done anything to balance the issue and everything to deny the people of this village a future.  The business community (people who I have communicated with), the vast majority of whom are in favour of this development. They see it as an opportunity for economic growth and sustainability, that will secure their futures and that of those who rely on them for employment and services.

Quote PLEASE PLEASE set up a counter group this is what democracy is all about and we would absolutely welcome such a move, at least we would have someone who would actually engage with us unlike CDC.
 
To be honest, that was a bit of a throwaway remark, having a business to run and a family to feed, I truly believed I have better things to do with my life. But now that you mention it.....
 
 
Back to Top
SENSE View Drop Down
Local
Local
Avatar

Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2010 at 2:38pm
Sir, with all due respect I have answered all of you requests and given you the information you require and have supplied proof where possible, if I have not supplied proof it is only because this information has not been published yet because it is too early in the process, but the precedence is there. The Parish Council have given us access to an independent planning consultant, we gain most of our specific planning advice from him. Other information is given to us by Chiltern District Council and from on-line research, we do not tell lies or seek to misinform people, we actually have a reputation to uphold and it is VERY important that our advice to the village is spot on especially in our printed or e-mailed communications. If we fail to give correct advice then we are no better that CDC, everything we send out is discussed between the committee before release.

The Parish Council Survey as you might or might not realise was actually commissioned by the Parish Council and not by ourselves, it was run independently by a professional body and the questions were not loaded as you can inspect for yourself.

Your accusations that we are lying and attempting to scaremonger are wholly incorrect, we are telling the truth that CDC have been trying so hard to hide.

I do not intend to continue this argument with you as I feel that you will just continue to pick nits and throw insults and really it's just a waste of both of our time and I feel sure that nobody warrants your statements as credible.

Whatever you say, these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming. CDC have have made such monumental errors that none of their Local Development Framework papers will be declared sound not in any stretch of the imagination. Aylesbury have just had their Core Stategy declined and they did a much better job than CDC.

I look forward to engaging with your Non-SENSE action group and I wish you luck.
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2010 at 3:29pm

The only reason why the campaign has any strength at all, is because of a select few wealthier individuals pulling at the right strings. I find that your attitude that these houses will not be built at all, is an insult to the people of this village. You maintained that you were not against the building of affordable houses and social housing yet you now say that aim of your campaign is to have no houses built at all.

Where are the children of the residents of this village supposed to live once they have grown up. Your xenophobic stance and scaremongering is an abomination to the ordinary people of this community. You threaten them with stories such as foreigners and the mentally ill coming to ruin their "way of life," when you have no evidence that will ever happen. You seem to ignore than everyone has a right to a home, regardless of their health, circumstances and wealth. How dare you use these people, to assume that the good people of Chalfont Saint Peter would choose not have these homes built, because they don't like foreign people, the unemployed or those with mental illness. You insult their intelligence and their compassion, with your covert accustions and assumtions that we are all somehow racist bigots and xenophobes.
 
Back to Top
SENSE View Drop Down
Local
Local
Avatar

Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2010 at 3:48pm
The children of this village will NOT be able to qualify for a low cost house in Chalfont St Peter because they can not compete with the greater needs of other people such as mentally impaired, unemployed, immigrants, single parent families or key workers. These are facts, they are laid out in full in the link that I have already given you, they are not scaremongering or xenophobic.

I have already stated these facts and given you proof, we seem to be coming full circle here - this conversation has obviously run it's course.

Goodbye.


Edited by SENSE - 29 June 2010 at 4:00pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.05
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.