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  <12345 6>
Author
Message
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 4:45pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

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.
 
 
You have no idea of the circumstances of any of the children of this village. You are still making wild assumptions about people you have no knowledge of today, let alone the next twenty years. This campaign has been centred entirely on xenophobic ideals, that if we allow those houses to be built, we will be inundated with migrants and any other lower class individual you have cared to label. 
 
You have no knowledge that any of the contemporary youth of this village will not be single parent families, unemployed, suffer from a mental illness (the fact that you continue to call them "menatlly impaired" shows how much care and attention you are paying to your own objections) or be from a migrant family. Yet you still perpetuate this myth that every family in the village are of the affluent middle classes and they will never know hardship or suffering of any kind. This is what shows contempt for the hard working compassionate people of this village. Your conjecture that they will be frightened into submission by your imagined assumption that they are  prejudiced, intolerant and uncharitable insults them beyond belief.
 
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
watsy View Drop Down
Chalfont Admin
Chalfont Admin
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1021
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2010 at 5:25pm
http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/housing/downloads/HsgRegister2002ActRevised-mv.pdf

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/ApplyingForACouncilHome/DG_10029763


Edited by watsy - 29 June 2010 at 5:25pm
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: 29 June 2010 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:



This campaign has been centred entirely on xenophobic ideals, that if we allow those houses to be built, we will be inundated with migrants and any other lower class individual you have cared to label.
 


I don't think you should go so far as to label migrants as lower class, but certainly the levels of crime and anti social behaviour tend to be from that other social class.

We shouldn't be dumbing down the population of Chalfont otherwise the levels of antisocial behaviour already seen in the village will steadily increase.

There are other places more suitable to ghetto housing.






Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2010 at 12:48pm
It is not me who has applied these labels, that accolade is to be claimed By SENSE.
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: 30 June 2010 at 2:42pm
I think if you read back into my text, you will realise that you have labeled these people as lower class, I nor any of my group consider these people as lower class, neither would I be foolish enough to label them as such.

Your little stories are of no consequence.

SENSE have always maintained that we would welcome a development of 100 houses or so on the Holy Cross site, this is within reasonable limits and would be a welcome addition to the village. This would deliver 30-35 low cost houses which is more than enough to cater for the requirements of our village, it would be up to CDC to honour our requests to house the needy people of our village as opposed to allowing them to go to people from other areas who wish to move to Chalfont St Peter. This is certainly not a xenophobic attitude, but merely a wish to maintain a balance. There is no reason why our village should be expected to take the lions share of the District's development, I agree that these houses should be built, I do not agree that they should all be built in our village, it doesn't take much intelligence to see that this is a reasonable objection and I am sure that anyone reading this will agree (excepting one rather disgruntled and belligerent gentleman).
We would also like to see a land swap deal that would enable our (85% oversubscribed) middle school to move to the site, this would then release the foorprint of the old school for further development and would enable our children to get the education that they deserve. We have also expressed that the historic Grange manor be saved either for the school or for use as a community facility. This central and historic site in the middle of our village is key to the identity of the village and should not be white washed away under a ill conceived development plan, but considered carefully and sensitively with the future of the village in mind. This is what town planning is all about, we are doing our best to get a fair deal for our village and we are careful to follow the wishes of the majority as laid out in the Parish Council's survey.

Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2010 at 2:05am
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

I think if you read back into my text, you will realise that you have labeled these people as lower class, I nor any of my group consider these people as lower class, neither would I be foolish enough to label them as such.

 
But you would rather call them lazy, embittered and jealous.

Quote Your little stories are of no consequence.
 
So nice to see how much contempt you have for the opinions of so many villagers. But not surprising.

Quote SENSE have always maintained that we would welcome a development of 100 houses or so on the Holy Cross site, this is within reasonable limits and would be a welcome addition to the village.
 
Really? Even though "Whatever you say, these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming." Doesn't seem that you do really want these houses built at all.
 
Quote This would deliver 30-35 low cost houses which is more than enough to cater for the requirements of our village, it would be up to CDC to honour our requests to house the needy people of our village
 
As long as it's not here, eh?
 
Quote as opposed to allowing them to go to people from other areas who wish to move to Chalfont St Peter.
 
I don't see the problem  here at all, unless it is because you don't consider their type as desirable material for our village. Are these the so-called druggies, single mothers, mentally ill, foreigners and unemployed you are so frightened of?
 
Quote This is certainly not a xenophobic attitude, but merely a wish to maintain a balance.
 
And what is that balance? How many unemployed people are allowed to live here, do we have a quota on the mentally ill. Are we to start counting those who were not born in this country? What about single mothers, do we have enough of those yet?
 
Quote There is no reason why our village should be expected to take the lions share of the District's development, I agree that these houses should be built,
 
Not according to "these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming."
 
Quote I do not agree that they should all be built in our village, it doesn't take much intelligence to see that this is a reasonable objection and I am sure that anyone reading this will agree (excepting one rather disgruntled and belligerent gentleman).
 
Again, ignoring what real people are telling you!

Quote We would also like to see a land swap deal that would enable our (85% oversubscribed) middle school to move to the site, this would then release the foorprint of the old school for further development and would enable our children to get the education that they deserve.
 
Sorry, explain eighty-five per cent over-subscribed? Because that sounds to me, as though you are saying that the schools have eighty-five per cent more children in them than they should. Which we all know is a bit of a far-fetched statistic.
 
Quote We have also expressed that the historic Grange manor be saved either for the school or for use as a community facility. This central and historic site in the middle of our village is key to the identity of the village and should not be white washed away under a ill conceived development plan, but considered carefully and sensitively with the future of the village in mind.
 
Hate to burst your bubble on this, but quite a lot of people didn't even know the convent existed, until this all sparked off. Many were surprised to find out that there was even a school behind that fence.
 
 
 
 
 
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: 03 July 2010 at 10:04am
I certainly don't want the housing estate to be built here. There are enough dwellings in the village, from affordable housing & flats, to large detached houses.  There are more than enough people living here too, around 13,000 which is already large for a village. Bringing in thousands of people from other areas will not benefit the people living here, it will only increase the demand for housing.

And why do you want to encourage the unemployed to move to a village with no transport links other than an infrequent bus service. Surely it's better for them to live in a town close to the Underground?

I cannot vouch for the 85% oversubscribed, I am sure Sense can. But the CSP CofE school was built for 60 children and currently holds 360.

I do sometimes wonder if you live in the village Flyboy, how could you do so and not know about Holy Cross?


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: 03 July 2010 at 10:08am
There has been a new application submitted by Gerald Eve, the application numbers is CH/2010/0293/OA and can be viewed at both entrances to the site, but please go to CDC planning portal on their website to view it in detail.

It would seem that the CDC/Gerald Eve team have had to bow to pressure, the housing numbers have been reduced somewhat from 232 to 198 of which 35% will be affordable homes. The new Baptist church is no longer proposed, they have probably lost out to Sport England's objection to retain the playing fields. They are proposing to retain the Holy Cross chapel for use by the public yet demolish the historic Grange building, what use use have we for the chapel, we already have three perfectly good churches in the village, the retention of the Grange would be a suitable gesture to make, yet they still plan to demolish it forever.

This new application is a step in the right direction for the village, though these plans are still completely disproportionate to the rest of the district as well as contravening local and national planning law. We will continue to push for a fairer deal for our village. We are still working on a solution to arrange a land swap deal with the middle school.

Although previous objections to CDC will still be taken into account they will substantially weakend by this new application, therefore I urge all of you to submit further objections to CDC's planning department. Thank you.


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: 03 July 2010 at 11:08am
I cannot vouch for the 85% oversubscribed, I am sure Sense can. But the CSP CofE school was built for 60 children and currently holds 360.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you Malc. Your sentiments are overwhelmingly reflected throughout the village, indeed CSP will cease to be a village if this is built.
 
I'm sure most people can work out that 85% oversubscribed means that there were 85% more children applying to our middle school than there were places. This figure is given to us by Mr Underwood the head teacher of the middle school.


Edited by SENSE - 03 July 2010 at 11:09am
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 July 2010 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

I cannot vouch for the 85% oversubscribed, I am sure Sense can. But the CSP CofE school was built for 60 children and currently holds 360.


Thank you Malc. Your sentiments are overwhelmingly reflected throughout the village, indeed CSP will cease to be a village if this is built.
 
I'm sure most people can work out that 85% oversubscribed means that there were 85% more children applying to our middle school than there were places. This figure is given to us by Mr Underwood the head teacher of the middle school.
[/QUOTE]
 
 
You do know there are other schools in the area, don't you? What has the the application rate been, for those schools, over the last ten years? Or is that information not sympathetic to your cause? Can you back your premise up with actual data? How many applied and where were they from? How many had the school as their second choice? What about the data for other schools in the area? What has been the trends over the last ten years for that specific school and the others? What impact does the falling birth rate have on future applications to the school?  Are the numbers you were given just for year three, or is it for every year of the school? Seeing as Chalfont Saint Peter Church of England School is the sole only Junior in the area why have you just quoted figures for that school?
 
The Junior school is mistakenly considered to be the best school in the village, so it is not surprising that most parents would want to try that one first, but when I was approached to be a governor of the school, three years ago, the admission figures were very different. Years four and five were very under-subscribed. I turned down the offer, due to the school's approach to resource allocation and their attitude to special needs provision. The data proved that the sixty per cent of the resources were allocated to only thirty five per cent of the top students. The headteacher would actively discourage parents with children who were statement and who had additional educational requirements. 
 
How much of the data, which John Underwood provided, was really confidential and how much of it was incomplete?  
 
One final question, has SENSE ever produced any accounts?
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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.