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  <1 3456>
Author
Message
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Originally posted by Flyboy Flyboy wrote:

 
You are not fighting for anyone's benefit, but your own. You have no concern for interests of the whole population of the village.
 
Blatantly untrue. SENSE do a fantastic job in looking after the interests of the village and have huge support.
 
 
 
 
 
Then why don't they prove it? Publishing their accounts and naming their backers is good start. Followed up with proving thier claims.
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: 05 July 2010 at 1:11pm
Why bother, we already have the support of the village, we are honest and decent people and it is not in our or the village's best interests to lie. If we were found to be lying or exaggerating, the damage to our reputation would be devastating. Besides, I am sure they would rather we spent our limited time fighting Gerald Eve and Chiltern District Council.

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: 05 July 2010 at 1:15pm
So why do you think we have 'backers'? What hellish plot are you trying to dream up now in your twisted cynical little head?
All of our funds are donated by the good people of the village, we have accounts and these can be made available if required, please go to the website and call the number or send a letter to the address provided and request a copy of the accounts. We have nothing to hide.
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: 05 July 2010 at 2:40pm
Holy Cross: some success, but work still to be done

Overview:
As you may have heard, a new revised planning application has been submitted for the Holy Cross site at the heart of our village.  With your help, we have had some success in getting the number of proposed houses reduced considerably, and the new plan also retains the playing field for public use and keeps more of the trees.
 
Please see application no. CH/2010/0293/OA on the CDC planning portal to view all of the details.
 
However, we are seriously concerned that the new plan does not in any way satisfy the views of residents as expressed clearly in the village survey.  There are still far too may new houses and flats proposed, at too high a density, and being an outline application, the plan leaves a way clear for increasing the volumes further after 'approval'.

We must continue to object because we need a full application - which would fix the number and type of new dwellings - and not an outline application. We must also object to the three accesses they propose since they have not been properly researched and do not take proper account of the considerably increased traffic volumes, and the principle of any development on the site until CDC and Gerald Eve make clear attempts to fulfil the requests of our village.
 
 
Some of the key details:

-       The dwelling quantities have been reduced by 34 units - not enough in our view and densities are still too high in comparison to the surrounding properties. It's still a village within a village and would fundamentally affect the amenity of Chalfont St Peter, putting unsustainable pressure on our services, and local facilities.
 
-       Loss of The Grange Manor.  Considering their detailed intentions, irrelevant though they may be, they really have done little to appease the village. They have offered us the chapel as a token gesture, a step in the right direction maybe, though the Grange Manor is a more significant building which holds more local historic interest, they can save the chapel for the community, but this would have to be in addition to the Grange. We would not want to lose the historic Grange manor in preference to the salvation of a chapel.
 
-       Unfair distribution. We continue to question why our village is being used as a housing dump for the Chiltern District: Great Missenden, Heath End and Prestwood are receiving no strategic development sites which would result in low cost housing, despite occupying a larger area and having a similar population to CSP. Great Missenden also has a good quality train link to London when we have no such transport links. CDC has still not undertaken an evidence based sustainability study of the towns and villages in the District as is the requirement of the Local Development plan. The reason CDC have not done this is because its favoured site for large scale developments - our village - would score very low on the sustainability scale effectively prohibiting developments of this scale here. We must insist that this evidence based study is performed to our satisfaction.
 
-       School land swap. Since this is the strong preference expressed by residents in the village survey, our main focus has always been to encourage a land swap deal with the middle school. This still has not been considered, despite all manner of pleas and requests from villagers, parents, the diocese, teachers and governors.  However, there are on-going negotiations under way to try to influence the planners in this direction.
 
-       Facilities for the elderly. The new plans include a care home with 74 beds.There is no hard evidence for the need for a care home in the village.However, the village survey did indicate a need for extra care housing, a half-way house between independent living and nursing/care homes.
 
We must therefore continue to object most strongly, and we urge you to help by recording your own objections.
 
 
How to object:
 
Please see the following bullet points which you can consider for use in your own objection letters.
 
Policy: Saved policies CSF2 which stipulates retention of community facilities (schools) and R10 which stipulates retention of open spaces have both been ignored. Despite CDC's and Gerald Eve's attempts to override the saved policies, there are no alternative policies that have superseded these saved policies.

 An outline planning application is not suitable for such a large site. Developers will ultimately attempt to increase numbers once the principle for residential development has been approved, we need the application to be a 'full' application, listing all the details exactly as proposed ensuring that the deal that we agree to do is the deal that we get and not another long battle with a greedy developers and their legal team.
Access: The proposed new entrance at the top of Market Place is very dangerously located next to an already hazardous junction and is unsuitably sited.

Traffic: The build out on Lower Road is still wholly unsuitable for such a busy road, the traffic along this section is already problematic with cars and trucks not being able to pass each other. The prospect of a build out which further narrows the road is a ridiculous proposal.

School: Prefer to have a school on the site, one with improved facilities for our kids, since the existing schools are over-crowded and lack basic amenities.

The wishes of the village's residents as outlined in the village survey have still not been taken into account. We voted for less houses, lower densities and favoured a land swap deal with the middle school which have all been completely ignored. Both the previous Labour administration and our new Secretary of State's instruction specified that local opinion be built in to any local planning schemes, yet we have experienced nothing but stonewalling. We have had an almighty battle to even get a handful of our local District Councillors to meet with ourselves and the Parish Council's planning consultant.  As our elected representatives, they are all obliged to hear and consider our opinions, this still has not happened. There is no legal or ethical reason why they should not do so.

Still too many houses.

Still too high a density.

Grange Manor: There is a strong feeling that the historic old Grange Manor building should be saved, yet Gerald Eve still have not considered this.

Care home: We don't want or need a care home. The village survey had a majority request for sheltered accommodation for a more dignified lifestyle for our seniors.
 
Please post your letters to:
 
Planning Department
Chiltern District Council,
King George V Road,
Amersham,
Buckinghamshire.
HP6 5AW
 
Or e-mail to:
planning@chiltern.gov.uk
 
Please ensure that you receive a reply, if you do not it is likely that your details have been ignored or lost and it is important that you call to ensure safe receipt.
 
NB: It says on the letter and Chiltern District Council's website that they will publish your correspondence and personal information on the website. Whilst CDC insist that they must publish your name and address, there is no reason why they need to publish you e-mail, phone number or signature, therefore we advise that you ask that this information should not be published. They are required by law to remove this text before uploading to their website.
 
Thank you for your continued support.

With kind regards
 
 
SENSE4CSP

www.sense4csp.org
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 July 2010 at 3:30pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

Why bother, we already have the support of the village, we are honest and decent people and it is not in our or the village's best interests to lie.
 
It is very much in your interests to lie, if you are not then prove it, show us the answers to the questions.  Most organisations of this type are quite happy to prove their claims. Those who aren't have something to hide.
 
Quote If we were found to be lying or exaggerating, the damage to our reputation would be devastating.
 
Looking at your approach towards this subject, it appears you are too arrogant to believe that anyone would dare question you, because apparently everyone thinks you are wonderful, or are still hanging on to the belief that you can do no wrong?
 
Quote Besides, I am sure they would rather we spent our limited time fighting Gerald Eve and Chiltern District Council.

 
But rather surprisingly (or not), you don't seem to think they would rather be told the truth. Or is it, win at any costs and to hell with the truth?
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 July 2010 at 3:31pm
Originally posted by SENSE SENSE wrote:

So why do you think we have 'backers'? What hellish plot are you trying to dream up now in your twisted cynical little head?
All of our funds are donated by the good people of the village, we have accounts and these can be made available if required, please go to the website and call the number or send a letter to the address provided and request a copy of the accounts. We have nothing to hide.
 
If you don't have any backers, publish a list of donors on your website, along with your accounts. If you have nothing to hide, there should be no question.
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: 05 July 2010 at 3:57pm
What would a 'backer' expect us to do for them, do you think we're some sort of covert anti-government agency trying to recruit the good people of the village to bring down the social security system? Your questions are starting to look a little deranged.
You have been told where to get a copy of our accounts, you get a copy, you publish them, do what you like with them, we have nothing to hide.
You may be aware that there is something celled a freedom of information act, we are not going to publish the names of the individuals who have sent us funds, that would be unethical.

This line of questioning is rediculous, we have only spent in the region of £1500- £2000 on publicity and such, some of our money will go to fund the planning consultant and the rest if required will contribute towards a judicial review.
We are running on a shoestring budget to save as much of the contributed funding as possible for fighting CDC and Gerald Eve directly. Members of the committee and willing volunteers help out with the rest.
We will publish our accounts if necessary, but I am certainly not going to do anything that you request, your track record is that you don't read or acknowledge anything I send you, so why should I bother sending you anything else. Acknowledge the previous links and proof that I have sent then I might consider continuing this  'discussion' with you.

We have the trust of the villagers, they are not a cynical as you, but by all means get in touch with trading standards or the local action group ombudsman and we will be glad to publish our accounts, but they are available on request, we are hiding nothing.

This is all very silly and amusing, would love to stay and chat but I've got work to do.



Edited by SENSE - 05 July 2010 at 4:35pm
Back to Top
Annoying Jamie View Drop Down
Villager
Villager


Joined: 26 April 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 471
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2010 at 9:28am
SENSE just ignore this guy he comes on here just to argue with people , he disagrees with everything to try and get a reaction. As the admin said hes just a troll.
 
SENSE is doing a great job. If it was nt for people like this we d probably have a mosque on Goldhill common by now.
Back to Top
Garry View Drop Down
Villager
Villager


Joined: 11 January 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 283
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2010 at 10:16am
I agree, it was people like him that allowed the precinct to be built in the first place.
Back to Top
phisch21 View Drop Down
Chalfont Oracle
Chalfont Oracle
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1712
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2010 at 12:18pm
Originally posted by Annoying Jamie Annoying Jamie wrote:

If it was nt for people like this we d probably have a mosque on Goldhill common by now.


Well we have a Baptist Church on Gold Hill. Is a mosque any better or worse?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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