They have already done an incredible amount of work in building a case against innapropriate development in the village.  As an action group they can be (and are!) much more aggresive than the parish council could ever be, although the parish council continue to oppose the plans through official channels. 

 

Have a look at:

http://www.sense4csp.org.uk - www.sense4csp.org.uk

 

There you can sign up for lots more information, get key dates, sign a petition against the development (or preferably e-mail your local District Councillor to object - see below).  They have support from Sport England (playing fields are protected), they are seeking to get the building listed, they have letters to CDC pointing out the failures in CDC's consultation and decision processes, suggesting alternatives (schools, or much more appropriate devbelopment). 

 

A formal planing application for the Holy Cross site is expected within the next two week (quietly, over Christmas).  On 27 January CDC Housing Planning Committee are due to meet at 18:30 (public can attend) to decide on their proposals for 700-800 new dwellings here, and we are doing everything possible to get them to change their minds.  But NOW is the time for everyone to contact their District councillor to register objections, time to make a difference.  Look up the contact details on the CDC web site:

 

or simply e-mail John Warder:

mailto:jwarder@chiltern.gov.uk - jwarder@chiltern.gov.uk

who sits on both the Parish AND the District councils. 

And/or to John Wertheim

mailto:jwertheim@chiltern.gov.uk - jwertheim@chiltern.gov.uk

who is the Chalfont St Peter representative on the planning committee.

 

Of course, you can say what you like, but a proposed draft objection is:

"I wish to object to CDC's Draft Core Strategy for 700-800 new dwellings in Chalfont St Peter on the basis that this is an inappropriate development for our community: the density is far to high, it would change the character of the village, local resources and facilities would be unable to cope, the consultation and decision process was seriously flawed, the strong majority of residents do not want it, and there are better alternatives.  Please vote against it."

 

 

 

'Unsustainable' - good - will include that, thanks.

 

"I have been monitoring the situation for some time now (i.e. doing nothing). Please rest assured I will continue to monitor what is happening with these draft proposals and am always ready to make the necessary representations on behalf of constituents.  I do not want to see either over development in the Chalfonts or a scheme that would damage our precious local amenities and the character of our village."

 

 

 

The more emails and correspondance they recieve the more weight we will have behind us and opposing this crazy high density housing plan.

 

Dont forget the first housing & planning meeting is next week....

 

Get your views in now people.

 

What's the difference/which is most important?

 

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/gerrards_cross/4887529.Chiltern_building_plan_a__raging_Tyrannosaurus_Rex_/

 

 

Is somebody going to invite Cheryl Gillan to the meeting on Monday night?

 

at least you have about 2 column inches to make further comment.....write small everyone, or do it online........

Has anyone NOT received it?  We'd love to know.

 

________________

 

Also CDC now have a consultation portal - an online site for comments on their plans for housing.

 

Last week the new Sectreary of State, Eric Pickles, duly confirmed that he is scrapping the directive and wrote to all Council Leaders instructing them that there are no longer any directives from central Government to build thousand of new houses - that development plans would henceforth be under the management of local authorities working with local people.

 

Great, since the connerstone of CDC Draft Core Strategy for Housing was that (I quote Nick Rose, the new leader of the council) "The Government requires this Council to find and identify land for 2900 homes in the District". This was the opening statement in their consultation in March/April (whatever happened to THAT!?).

 

So, that should remove all the threats of the proposed high density developments in the village.  Yes?

 

Well, maybe not.  Nick Rose has issued a statement that despite the directive from the Secretary of State, CDC intend to continue with their Draft Core Stategy!!!  SO they are going against the wishes of central Governmenty AND the wishes of local residents.  Is that arrogant!?

 

We are working on it.  But it is worth noting that the constituency represented by Nick Rose, Great Missenden/Prestwood, which has a population close to that of Chalfont St Peter, AND has a commuter railway station, has - well guess - how many new houses proposed for the next 15 years?  80 - compared with 600 for Chalfont St Peter.  And now strategic developments at all, so no 'affordable' houses.   That is simply natural growth, no huge estates.  What are OUR Concillors doing about it?

Ask them.

 

 

 

 

 

We are working on it.  But it is worth noting that the constituency represented by Nick Rose, Great Missenden/Prestwood, which has a population close to that of Chalfont St Peter, AND has a commuter railway station, has - well guess - how many new houses proposed for the next 15 years?  80 - compared with 600 for Chalfont St Peter.  And now strategic developments at all, so no 'affordable' houses.   That is simply natural growth, no huge estates.  What are OUR Concillors doing about it? Ask them.

 

 

OOOOKKKAAAAYYYY

 

You'll forgive my scepticism as your track record does not hold out much evidence of veracity.

 

The people that I speak to are more worried about their children's futures and what their prospects are, when they grow up. This includes the issues of housing. Most people don't want to see their families broken up, because some anonymous, arrogant NIMBYs don't want them living in the village.

 

I know several single parents, unemployed people and some who struggle with a mental illness; some are all of these. They find it disgusting that they are being held up by SENSE, as an example of what is most undesirable about society and that they are being used to prove why a housing development scheme is a bad idea. I have friends who also find it as abhorrent that it is being assumed that they would somehow object to foreigners, the unemployed, victims of mental illness and single parents families living in the village. The people I know who live in social housing also resent being accused of being low life, workshy drug users, vandals and criminals. The vast majority of whom are hard working, law abiding citizens, who respect  their environment and regard the village with pride.

 

These self-appointed guardians of, "our way of life," have decided for you, me and the rest of the village, that we should object to this development on the most tenuous and bigoted grounds and are assuming the we, the rest of the village, are as bad as they are.

 

Again you fire insults and disdain at the good people of this community, by calling them embittered and jealous. You suggest they have not worked hard to maintain their families' place in society and by implication that they are lazy and ungrateful for their lot. When will you get it that you and your members do not have grasp on reality, when it comes to understanding the real needs of this village. By suggesting that there is only one person who objects to your campaign, only serves to prove that you are not listening to those whom you seem to detest so much.

 

 

 

The problem of course is that the more people coming into the village, the more will want their children to grow up here. And so it goes on, building on more and more areas and squeezing people in, usually without increasing the infrastructure of Doctors, Dentists, Schools and so forth, which do not give the developers as much return on their investment. I know from the experiences of another village not too far away, how this crowding of housing lifts the tension and sets neighbour against neighbour as dogs barking, children playing and cars being parked on streets not wide enough become major issues.

 

The best solution is the shared ownership scheme in the village, which was aimed at local people and created a number of low cost accomodation. Although the downturn in the economy hasn't helped, there should be a point where these people move on to a small house, larger house and eventually one of the big detached houses, each in turn freeing up a sliding scale of available housing.  Along with that, there are a number of flats for sale which can get people on the ladder.  This is then a natural development of movement up the housing ladder at a pace which doesn't damage the village.

 

To dump high intensity housing which brings thousands of people from outside will damage the village and do nothing to help the young of the village.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I can see where your point of view is, there are no indications that these homes cannot be occupied by the very people you are describing above. Many of the homes will apparently be shared ownership. The shared ownership scheme allows the occupants to gradually purchase the property as time go on allowing them build up an equity and move along the property ladder, as you have highlighted. However, this scheme is being heralded as a disaster, before it even gets off the ground. The fear, for some, is that it will affect property prices exponentially, up along the ladder, until reaches the half million pound plus homes, owned by the ones who want to stop this development from happening. There are many people in this village, who are just a deserving candidates to acquire a new home in the development, despite what we are being told by SENSE (if we are to believe their criteria for qualification). We have our own unemployed, mentally ill, single parent families and yes, even drug addicts, (believe it or not, we even have some people who were born in different countries), who would qualify, just as much as those from anywhere else.

 

The flats that are for sale or rent, are far too expensive for many. So, the affordable homes, social housing and shared housing schemes, proposed for the site, will be their only choice. On the one hand we are being told, by SENSE, that this will not be enough for the future housing needs of the village, but on the other hand they tell us it is a surplus to requirements, another apparent blow to property prices. The demand to live here is what maintains the value of homes and if there is a wider, less expensive choice, some see this as a threat to their wealth and appears to be the main motivation in their objection to this project.

 

I share your concerns about the infrastructure not being able to cope in the short term. This is why I have said in the past that more consultation is needed for both sides. I am also a realist and I know when I am being hoodwinked. The schools are not bursting at the seems as we are being told. Yes one school does have a higher popularity, but this happens in every district in the UK. Everyone wants their children to go to, what they consider to be, the best school.  There is no evidence to indicate that the schools in general, are over-subscribed (which incidentally means that here are more children in the school than should be, not those who have applied), or that they will be in three to five years time, when this development actually gets built (there is a apparently a decline in the birthrates). But SENSE's position is "win at any cost." Which apparently includes exaggerating the facts and assuming everyone will be as xenophobic as they appear to be. They tell us that they do not object to some houses being built there, but in another breath they say that they do not want any houses built at all.

 

The density of housing has been reduced from six hundred, a figure being bandied in the very early stages, to four hundred then three hundred, to over two hundred and now down to one hundred and eighty. Far less than the original proposal. In fact I seem to remember that this was a desirable figure at the beginning, but is now, seemingly, still a scheme borne out of the evil developer's unholy marriage with the council.

 

The other side is, that the development will bring much needed economic growth to the area. Not one of the retailers I have spoken on the village objects to the development. They see it as an opportunity to grow and to provide and maintain much needed jobs to many of the villagers. I know some of the jobs might be taken by some new residents, but at least the business that employ them will stay afloat and keep those who already work there, still employed. I am sure there is no one who would object to that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

Official http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/bdths0510.pdf - figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the fertility rate – the average number of children per woman in England and Wales – rose steadily over the past decade following a slump in the 1960s and 1970s and a plateau throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Immigrant mothers, many from the new Eastern European members of the EU, drove a baby boom that led to a record 61.4million population in Britain by mid-2008.

But new data published on Tuesday show that during 2009, the fertility rate and the total number of births both fell for the first time since the turn of the millennium.

There was a 0.3 per cent drop in the overall number of live births, from 708,711 in 2008 to 706,248 in 2009 - the first annual drop since 2001. "

 

 

I don't supppose you have any actual figures to support such a claim, do you?

 

 

It has been the implied message ever since your campaign started.

Your quality of argument is so thin that you have to resort to lying and making things up about us.

 

Well, seeing as you refuse to provide the evidence of your claims, what can anyone infer from your responses?

This is paramount to playground politics. You are obviously a habitual liar, even your story about overhearing a conversation on Feast Day is fabricated, it was you who was being rude to my colleague, you don't even have the guts to own up to it - how very sad!

And you were there were you? You know who I am? I was visiting the stall next door, when I heard the other gentleman in conversation with your representatives. I heard  the lies being perpetuated by them and his reaction to some very insulting assumptions. If you are so sure it was me, show us all the proof. But you cannot, becasue it doesn't exist, as I was not the person to whom they were talking.

 

Or are you so dogmatically convinced of your own rhetoric, that you will not allow yourself to believe that there is more than just one person who is against this crusade of yours.

I really must apologise to other members of this forum, I am growing weary of defending SENSE from these unnecessary barrages. This man keeps quoting nonsense about us, when it is clear he has no idea about what we represent,

 

I am fully aware of what you represent.

 

These so-called barrages are very necessary. They are to dispel the myths and mistruths you are intent on spreading.

 

he hasn't read any of our material, he is just making it all up and ranting away like a self proclaimed modern day Robin Hood standing up for the poor people against the evil greedy local action group. I do not have the time to retort everything he says, he is painting a picture that we are hypocritical, xenophobic, liars with secret agenda

 

Well, that just about sums it up.

 

Your constant referral to different sections of society, in a cynical attempt to appeal to the non-existent bigotry, that you assume the citizens of our village have, speaks volumes about your agenda.

 

when we simply want a fair distribution of housing in our district.

No you don't. You have already declared several times that you do not want ANY new homes built here at all.

We are being dumped on by CDC, as is Little Chalfont, we do not have the infrastructure to cope.

 

Then campaign on that premise. Not on one that is designed to portray this village as a fortress of middle class xenophobia and prejudice.

 

 

CDC have taken the easy option and have allocated a heavy distribution of housing to CSP, when towns that have their own transport links into London, better road networks, better education and health facilities with infrastructures to suit are getting away with significantly less proportions. We all know the figures and they speak for themselves.

 

Again, more claims about "figures." Where are these figures you speak of? Does Prestwood, Heath End and Great Missenden really have better education services than us? What health facilities do they have that are better than ours? Which towns have better resources than us, that can accept more housing?

Where will all of the less advantaged people in Great Missenden, Heath End and Prestwood find low cost housing when it is all destined for CSP?

 

But we don't see you engaging with the people of those villages and towns, to campaign with them for better housing; I assume it is because they are not local to you. You don't have any of their interests as a priority.

 

 

We will see a net increase of 10% housing within 2-3 years, how could we possibly cope with that influx of humanity when our infrastructure has not been afforded similar increases,

 

when our schools have not been expanded to cope,

 

There you go again, more fear mongering. You have not been able to come up with a jot of evidence that our schools will be overburdened. What is the point of expanding the schools now, when we don't know how many children they will need to accommodate?

 

If we are to believe your assumption that there will be a net increase of ten per cent in housing, bearing in mind that many of them will be occupied by the elderly and by the single without any children, it does not automatically follow that we will see a similar increase in five year old children. Your assertion that parents applied to have more children educated at Chalfont Saint Peter Junior School than there were places, assumes that this will be made worse by the fact the every household in the new development, will arrive with a seven year old child, wanting to go to that one school. You have conveniently forgotten to mention that we have two other combined primary schools in the village and two infant schools (most people forget Maids Moreton). Not to mention Jordans, Seer Green, Gerrards Cross and Chalfont Saint Giles, with Little Chalfont being further afield (Bell Lane now being at half capacity).

 

 

when we don't have local employment opportunities or decent transport links and when our gridlocked roads are being constrained still further? This is not good town planning, CDC simply don't care what happens in CSP, they see us as a worthwhile sacrifice to hide their poor social housing performance. It just doesn't make sense.

I agree, the traffic planning needs reviewing, but there seems to be no dialogue from you, to work with the District Council in order to help resolve this issue. You would rather work on the basis that the housing development will not go ahead, so therefore you will not compromise on accepting that it will.

... and why is this ridiculous man challenging our sound logic?

Go on then, let us all know why.

 

Your campaign is has no basis in logic at all. It is based on the assumption of fear.

I'm afraid I am away for a while, I expect to return to pages and pages of more schoolboy lies.

 

But they are not lies, are they? You know my assertions are based in truth, this is why you cannot produce the evidence to refute it.