Print Page | Close Window

Holy Cross NSE Development

Printed From: Chalfont St Peter
Category: Chalfont St Peter
Forum Name: Holy Cross Development
Forum Description: All posts about the developemnt of the Holy Cross site
URL: http://www.chalfontstpeter.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7426
Printed Date: 23†November†2017 at 8:34pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Holy Cross NSE Development
Posted By: watsy
Subject: Holy Cross NSE Development
Date Posted: 08†August†2013 at 6:12pm
Should the Parish Council carry on with its fight against the proposed development of Holy Cross?

Please only vote once!





Replies:
Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 08†August†2013 at 9:51pm
I am sorry, but no, I support the development, as do the a good number of retailers and traders in the village. I would imagine a good deal of those employed by them would agree as well. As well as the pointless time effort and cost devoted to this cause. Time and money that the Parish Council could have spent on the services they should be providing the village. 


Posted By: watsy
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 9:57am
How much has it cost and future costs do we know?


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 12:59pm
I support the fight absolutely. There are empty shops in the village (perhaps no-one has noticed?) so clearly we do not need more retail development, and the schools are turning away pupils. We're already getting a railway line we neither want nor need. Perhaps all the proceeds from Feast Day might be put towards our village's fight for its existence. If we don't have a decent school, we'll become a dormitory entirely.


Posted By: lesleyr
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 1:32pm
I  agree spending council tax payers money in this way in the current economic climate is wasteful. There are plenty of things this money could be spent on. I wonder how much money was wasted on the campaign against Tesco coming to Gerrards Cross. We need Some housing for our younger generation and a better selection of shops that would bring people back to shopping in the village. If we dont provide this housing who is going to look after the rapidly aging population of this village. Nurses, police officers, carers retail staff.etc many of them local born and bred here are moving out of the area and working and living elsewhere as they cannot afford to live round here.


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 1:59pm
Do you really think the developers are going to build low cost housing at Holy Cross, or indeed that the estate agents are going to either sell it at low cost or rent it out at reasonable rates? I doubt it. Permission has already been ranted for housing development at Newlands Park but, from the plans, none of those houses look as though they will be affordable to key workers.

It will be just like Tesco planning applications - they get agreement to build one thing but it always ends up as something else [eg the traffic issues dictated that Tesco Amersham must be one third retail space and two thirds warehousing but, once planning was granted, it became 100% retail, and consequently became a traffic bottleneck).

Our council have done a great job so far in blocking the sort of house demolition/apartment block construction development which is nowadays blighting GX. I think we should trust their judgement.      


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 2:00pm
line 2: granted, not ranted!.


Posted By: lesleyr
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 6:02pm
Even taking into account all those points i still think that it is not  an appropiate use of local taxpayers money.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 8:19pm
Originally posted by Bucks Fizz Bucks Fizz wrote:

I support the fight absolutely. There are empty shops in the village (perhaps no-one has noticed?) so clearly we do not need more retail development, and the schools are turning away pupils. We're already getting a railway line we neither want nor need. Perhaps all the proceeds from Feast Day might be put towards our village's fight for its existence. If we don't have a decent school, we'll become a dormitory entirely.
  
But, they are not turning children away, are they. We have already established that there is capacity left in local schools.
 
There are very few local traders and retailers who do not support this development. 
 
To use the Feast Day profits and donations would be wholly inappropriate. People gave their money to support local charities; they thought they knew who they were giving the money to. To re-apportion these funds would be a betrayal of trust. I gave money, trusting the committee to give to the charities they said they were giving it to. If they are giving it to someone else, I want my money back.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 09†August†2013 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by Bucks Fizz Bucks Fizz wrote:

Do you really think the developers are going to build low cost housing at Holy Cross, or indeed that the estate agents are going to either sell it at low cost or rent it out at reasonable rates? I doubt it. Permission has already been ranted for housing development at Newlands Park but, from the plans, none of those houses look as though they will be affordable to key workers.

It will be just like Tesco planning applications - they get agreement to build one thing but it always ends up as something else [eg the traffic issues dictated that Tesco Amersham must be one third retail space and two thirds warehousing but, once planning was granted, it became 100% retail, and consequently became a traffic bottleneck).

Our council have done a great job so far in blocking the sort of house demolition/apartment block construction development which is nowadays blighting GX. I think we should trust their judgement.      
 
I thought the objection, from a few of those who are campaigning against the development, was that they didn't want social or low cost housing, because it affected the value of their own properties. They were unhappy that a load of poor people would be living in the village. Wink 
 
I don't think traffic at Amersham Tesco is a bottle neck. I drive through there, most days, at peak and although it does get a bit snarly at the roundabout, I only lose two or three minutes, maximum. Most of that traffic is trying to get to the by-pass.


Posted By: lesleyr
Date Posted: 10†August†2013 at 1:12pm
I cannot believe that any retailer would agree to two thirds warehouse space, even 25 years ago. I did work at the amersham tescos about a year after it opened and can say that those were not the proportions of the floor to warehouse space. The only traffic build tends to be at the roundabout as nessum dorma has said and even then it is minimal. The opening of tesco in Amersham also provided 500 much needed jobs for unskilled workers. I am in favour of of the school moving and more possible jobs in any new shops built plus any increase in jobs at the school and the much needed boost to the local building economy that will be provided by this development.


Posted By: ribeye
Date Posted: 11†August†2013 at 5:27pm
I think we need more school facilities and more retail space. Also 200 new homes will put a strain on the local services.. especially doctors, dentists..  Development yes but it needs to be in proportion to the community.. 


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 12†August†2013 at 1:40pm
What happens at Holy Cross will define the village for decades to come.
 
Many people look at the precinct and ask how it was allowed to be built?  Why it was not in keeping with the village? The answer was there was no-one to stop it and someone made a lot of money out of it..
 
People in future will ask why the Holy Cross slum was allowed to be built? Why so many houses in such a small area and why no thought to the effects on traffic and infrastructure? The reason as always, someone is going to make a lot of money out of it.
 
Only by standing up to the plans and offering a real alternative more in keeping with the village, will we stop another mistake.
 
 
 


Posted By: oldchris
Date Posted: 12†August†2013 at 4:18pm
Seems work has started on the NSE.


-------------
stop HS2.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 13†August†2013 at 3:08pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

What happens at Holy Cross will define the village for decades to come.
 
Many people look at the precinct and ask how it was allowed to be built?  Why it was not in keeping with the village? The answer was there was no-one to stop it and someone made a lot of money out of it..
 
People in future will ask why the Holy Cross slum was allowed to be built? Why so many houses in such a small area and why no thought to the effects on traffic and infrastructure? The reason as always, someone is going to make a lot of money out of it.
 
Only by standing up to the plans and offering a real alternative more in keeping with the village, will we stop another mistake.
 
 
 
 
That's a bit of hyperbole, isn't it? There is nothing at all to suggest that these properties will fall into such a state of disrepair to be considered slums. I am sure the same arguements were proffered when Leachcroft and Layters Clsoe was first mooted.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 15†August†2013 at 8:07am
Leachcroft and Layters do not have the intensity of the proposed new development. If people are given space they tend to be happier. Crowd them into a small space on top of each other and only the very poor and dregs of society will end up living there. I predict it will be a no go area within 10 years.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 15†August†2013 at 8:09am
Think Golf Links Estate or Chalk Farm. That's what we are being given.


Posted By: watsy
Date Posted: 18†August†2013 at 5:57pm
Permission for Newland Park hasn't gone through Chiltern DC has it?
I've lived in the village a few years and never actually seen the inside of Holy Cross and contributes nothing to the village at the moment.  
We need some low cost homes - as Malc said Hillingdon are providing it for local people who've lived in the areas - why can't we?  Paradigm homes who manage the local social housing stock are selling off local properties, not increasing the stock (as far as I can see).  Local facilities and amenities rely on a cross section of people living in the village, not having a void between 20 to 35.


Posted By: EmmaO
Date Posted: 19†August†2013 at 9:06am
I agree the site should be developed, and am delighted for there to be affordable housing, etc. I just want it to be developed in keeping with the rest of the village and thought given to the impact on local services and how we can mitigate that. In many ways development might be good for the village and local businesses but I support the arrowcroft proposal above the current plans.


Posted By: watsy
Date Posted: 19†August†2013 at 1:09pm
If the school needs space, they should re-organise the whole of Mill Meadow - which is an eyesore - but has potential to be re-invigorated into a proper sports, social and leisure amenity and a credit to the village / local area.  Chiltern DC and the Parish Council between them own the parcels of relevant land so should be able to do something much better down there.

There will be a few inevitable objections such as moving the allotments a few hundred yards from where they are currently to the other end of the area but everything is possible with that site.

Then you can do something more high density in Holy Cross and they could contribute to the cost of the newer facilities at Mill Meadow.

Just my own thoughts but will never happen as people cannot see past the end of their noses.


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 20†August†2013 at 1:28pm
 THE MIDDLE SCHOOL IS TURNING AWAY  CHILDREN,  the headmaster stated that at the recent meeting at the community centre... and if you build all these additinal houses where do the  offspring of these new residents go to school ???
 
the councils plan is to ship them to tilehouse school in denham....
 
i still think the most sensible option is to swap sites, move the middle school to the holy cross site  and make any required ammendments needed- any space not utilised for educational purposes could be returned to the community , change the current middle school site into residential use,    and expand the village  slowly...... the addiitonal large numbers of proposed housing on the site will just cause strain on current services and utilities if done in one go, and in one place, cant the district /area as a whole take a proportion of the required additional housing,  why is a large number  allocated to CSP ???
 
is that because someone re-classified the holy cross site from educational to residential some time ago while no one was looking ?


-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: phisch21
Date Posted: 20†August†2013 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by watsy watsy wrote:


There will be a few inevitable objections such as moving the allotments a few hundred yards from where they are currently to the other end of the area but everything is possible with that site.


Damn right there'd be objections. It took me a year to dig mine over from the meadow like state it was in when I took it on. I'd rather not have to do that again from scratch at a new site even if it was only "a few hundred yards" from where it is now.


-------------
foodfrom4.com


Posted By: watsy
Date Posted: 21†August†2013 at 9:25am
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

 THE MIDDLE SCHOOL IS TURNING AWAY  CHILDREN,  the headmaster stated that at the recent meeting at the community centre... and if you build all these additinal houses where do the  offspring of these new residents go to school ???
 
the councils plan is to ship them to tilehouse school in denham....


Robertswood has spare capacity and takes lots of pupils from Denham.  So they can stop taking from Denham and take children from Chalfont - problem solved.
If The middle school goes to Holy Cross, Robertswood may struggle, it is a good school but you will probably end up merging the two - and creating traffic chaos in the centre of the village.


Posted By: Walrus
Date Posted: 21†August†2013 at 8:10pm
Most councils in the country have primary school capacity issues in the next 5 years. The population is growing and the government is not investing in new primary schools. Most councils are trying to add on classrooms to existing school buildings on the cheap.

-------------
Is back in the game! :)


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 21†August†2013 at 11:00pm
mr underwood ( head of the middle school) talked about turning down approx 40 students a year who request a place in the academy....

robertswood may have capacity now...... but when you build several hundred homes the chances are there will be some offspring who in turn will need school places- so lets say that takes up the shortfall in robertswood and fills the places there.... so where do the rest go ?- we ship them tilehouse school ??

i understand the reputation of robertswood is better than that of tilehouse too.....so the places will be in demand 


-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 7:19pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Leachcroft and Layters do not have the intensity of the proposed new development. If people are given space they tend to be happier. Crowd them into a small space on top of each other and only the very poor and dregs of society will end up living there. I predict it will be a no go area within 10 years.
 
There must be at least three hundred homes in Layters, Leachcroft and surrounding roads.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 7:20pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

Think Golf Links Estate or Chalk Farm. That's what we are being given.
Don't be ridiculous. It isn't even close to being that.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 7:22pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

 THE MIDDLE SCHOOL IS TURNING AWAY  CHILDREN,  the headmaster stated that at the recent meeting at the community centre... and if you build all these additinal houses where do the  offspring of these new residents go to school ???
 
the councils plan is to ship them to tilehouse school in denham....
 
i still think the most sensible option is to swap sites, move the middle school to the holy cross site  and make any required ammendments needed- any space not utilised for educational purposes could be returned to the community , change the current middle school site into residential use,    and expand the village  slowly...... the addiitonal large numbers of proposed housing on the site will just cause strain on current services and utilities if done in one go, and in one place, cant the district /area as a whole take a proportion of the required additional housing,  why is a large number  allocated to CSP ???
 
is that because someone re-classified the holy cross site from educational to residential some time ago while no one was looking ?
 
The middle school is not turning children away because of the lack of school places in the village.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

mr underwood ( head of the middle school) talked about turning down approx 40 students a year who request a place in the academy....

robertswood may have capacity now...... but when you build several hundred homes the chances are there will be some offspring who in turn will need school places- so lets say that takes up the shortfall in robertswood and fills the places there.... so where do the rest go ?- we ship them tilehouse school ??

i understand the reputation of robertswood is better than that of tilehouse too.....so the places will be in demand 
 
Those two statements are incongruous; they are non sequitur.


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 9:22pm
do tell me why ?



-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 22†August†2013 at 10:23pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

do tell me why ?

 

 

Your post was implying that, because the Academy had to turn children away, it was due to there not being enough school places, but your next statement was saying that other schools have places. Ergo, the two assertions were "non sequitur."



Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 23†August†2013 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

mr underwood ( head of the middle school) talked about turning down approx 40 students a year who request a place in the academy....

robertswood may have capacity now...... but when you build several hundred homes the chances are there will be some offspring who in turn will need school places- so lets say that takes up the shortfall in robertswood and fills the places there.... so where do the rest go ?- we ship them tilehouse school ??

i understand the reputation of robertswood is better than that of tilehouse too.....so the places will be in demand 
 
Those two statements are incongruous; they are non sequitur.
 
 dont know what your are  questioning Nessun..., - Mr underwood stated he turns down about 40  requests for school places at the academy- fact... he stated this infront of the community centre full of people at the recent meeting regarding holy cross development.... roberstwood school may have places at the moment,  as stated also by watsy in his post.....
what is non sequitur...... they are two different school, one is maybe oversubscribed and turning applications down, the other may have places.....simple fact
add a large number of new properties into the village and as my posting states there is likely to be some additional offspring who reside in CSP- they will need  a school place... so they may fill the vacancies in robertswood , but what happens after that....


-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 23†August†2013 at 4:07pm
Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

do tell me why ?

 

 

Your post was implying that, because the Academy had to turn children away, it was due to there not being enough school places, but your next statement was saying that other schools have places. Ergo, the two assertions were "non sequitur."

 these are your assertions, that are non sequitur
these are two seperate schools- one may be over subscribed one may have vacancies- but add the number of children to the village on a new development of hundreds of dwellings and the result will be the same, not enough school places in the village


-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 23†August†2013 at 9:31pm
The objection being proffered is that there are not enough places in the schools we have right now. It has been a running theme on this thread and is a fallacy. 
 
Yes, they are separate schools, but the numbers quoted by Underwood are not relevant to total school capacity for Chalfont Saint Peter.


Posted By: dickybird
Date Posted: 24†August†2013 at 12:02am
Nessun, you clearly do not support the fight that the Parish Council and SENSE have undertaken on behalf of our village. Am i to understand that you support the change of land use from educational to residential? Are you actually happy to allow the green lung that we have in the very centre of our village to be converted into a huge housing development? You seem to suggest that you share the opinion of store owners in the village in that you support development in CSP, but you are missing the point here, i am afraid. You are completely mistaken in thinking that the Parish Council and SENSE's fight is against development in the village. Everybody can see the need for development and progress. Nobody wants our village to stagnate and to see more shops close, but sensibly, we can surely all agree that the development that does take place needs to benefit our village, and our villagers, rather than just the pockets of a property developer. May i suggest that you clarify for yourself what our Parish Council is fighting for and then perhaps you will not feel as negative? Both our Parish Council and SENSE are hard working volunteers who campaign tirelessly and selflessly for the benefit of our village, fighting against all sorts of over-sized and inappropriate developments being forced on us. I am grateful that they are out there doing something, rather than just on here moaning ...


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 24†August†2013 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by dickybird dickybird wrote:

Nessun, you clearly do not support the fight that the Parish Council and SENSE have undertaken on behalf of our village. Am i to understand that you support the change of land use from educational to residential? Are you actually happy to allow the green lung that we have in the very centre of our village to be converted into a huge housing development? You seem to suggest that you share the opinion of store owners in the village in that you support development in CSP, but you are missing the point here, i am afraid. You are completely mistaken in thinking that the Parish Council and SENSE's fight is against development in the village. Everybody can see the need for development and progress. Nobody wants our village to stagnate and to see more shops close, but sensibly, we can surely all agree that the development that does take place needs to benefit our village, and our villagers, rather than just the pockets of a property developer. May i suggest that you clarify for yourself what our Parish Council is fighting for and then perhaps you will not feel as negative? Both our Parish Council and SENSE are hard working volunteers who campaign tirelessly and selflessly for the benefit of our village, fighting against all sorts of over-sized and inappropriate developments being forced on us. I am grateful that they are out there doing something, rather than just on here moaning ...
 
 
You assume an awful lot, don't you. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate, if you had asked sensible and relevant questions, rather than make me out to be some kind of evil interloper in your quest.
 
But, to respond to your outburst, I will agree, I am not exactly very keen on the so-called fight that has been waged in my name. What many of the objectors seem to forget is that the village consists of about thirteen thousand people, many of whom do not agree with the parish council's stance on this development. Many have children who want to remain in the community where they were born and raised and want at least some opportunity to live here.
 
A great many of the employees, of the businesses that keep our village alive, are fed up with having to commute from Uxbridge, Slough and Rickmansworth. If the employers cannot afford to pay their employees well enough for them to afford to pay the bus fares, they are not going to be able to employ them. But that won't matter, because if this development doesn't go ahead, the traders in the village might not be here much longer anyway.
 
 


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 24†August†2013 at 9:42pm
Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

The objection being proffered is that there are not enough places in the schools we have right now. It has been a running theme on this thread and is a fallacy. 
 
Yes, they are separate schools, but the numbers quoted by Underwood are not relevant to total school capacity for Chalfont Saint Peter.

what dont you understand nessun dorma ? ,do we have masses of empty places in the schools ready for children who will reside in the proposed new development  at the grange ? 

the middle school is full to bursting now....


 the numbers quoted by underwood are 100% relevant to school capacity in CSP - he is a headmaster of a school in CSP he is currently turning away applicants for places at his school-  

i now know that there are some places vacant at robertswood AT THIS CURRENT TIME, 
but what about first school places too,  where do you honestly think the influx of extra children to the proposed new development will be educated? 

you state the objection being proffered is there isnt enough school places in CSP right now- you also state that is the running theme in this thread.....that's your conclusion......

the running theme is where are the residents of the proposed holy cross development going to sent their kids to school? 
what happens when all places at robertswood are taken? - do they build extra classrooms onto the school? 
does the academy put a few potacabins in the playground to accomodate extra children?

 -      please tell us that nessun dorma where will the children of new residents go to school ?

i hear  gayhurst school and thorpe house have a few spaces,  lets hope the future residents  of the grange development are factoring in private school costs - because current school provision will be inadequate to cope with the extra load placed upon it...




-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 26†August†2013 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

The objection being proffered is that there are not enough places in the schools we have right now. It has been a running theme on this thread and is a fallacy. 
 
Yes, they are separate schools, but the numbers quoted by Underwood are not relevant to total school capacity for Chalfont Saint Peter.

what dont you understand nessun dorma ? ,do we have masses of empty places in the schools ready for children who will reside in the proposed new development  at the grange ? 

the middle school is full to bursting now....


 the numbers quoted by underwood are 100% relevant to school capacity in CSP - he is a headmaster of a school in CSP he is currently turning away applicants for places at his school-  

i now know that there are some places vacant at robertswood AT THIS CURRENT TIME, 
but what about first school places too,  where do you honestly think the influx of extra children to the proposed new development will be educated? 

you state the objection being proffered is there isnt enough school places in CSP right now- you also state that is the running theme in this thread.....that's your conclusion......

the running theme is where are the residents of the proposed holy cross development going to sent their kids to school? 
what happens when all places at robertswood are taken? - do they build extra classrooms onto the school? 
does the academy put a few potacabins in the playground to accomodate extra children?

 -      please tell us that nessun dorma where will the children of new residents go to school ?

i hear  gayhurst school and thorpe house have a few spaces,  lets hope the future residents  of the grange development are factoring in private school costs - because current school provision will be inadequate to cope with the extra load placed upon it...


 
I think you may have been a victim of some misdirection here. Just because the junior school is turning applicants away, does not mean that the schools of Chalfont Saint Peter and the surrounding area are full to bursting, neither is it proof that they will be in the future, regardless of what might happen. All that tells us is that more parents want to their children to go to Chalfont Saint Peter Academy, than any other school in the area. 
 
There is quite a bit of capacity in infant schools in the area. Jordans, for example, is getting very worried about their future, due to falling numbers; in some lessons, they are having to combine classes and year groups, just to make up the numbers. Chalfont Saint Giles infant school has some, if limited, space. We have already established, in previous conversations, Gerrards Cross and Saint Joseph's have space as well. It is not possible to tell what pressures are placed on our local schools when the development goes ahead, but you cannot extrapolate the numbers based on an inaccurate premise.
 
As far as the private schools in the area can be considered, they can't be ignored. It is a given that, at the very least, a small percentage of residents are likely to send their children to the independent schools.
 
 
ETA:
 
Let's not forget slightly further afield; Seer Green Primary School, they also have places available, in both Key Stage one and Key Stage two. Coleshill Infant School is also struggling to maintain numbers; from what I understand, they are in a worse position than Jordans.
 


Posted By: hissing sid
Date Posted: 26†August†2013 at 8:30pm
I was born and went to school in Chalfont st. Peter.  I walked to school and back, in all weathers. Why on earth should children now be carted to Jordans, Sear green, Coleshill or Denham. What if the Family has no car or 1 car that the father is using to get too and from work.






-------------
Hissing Sid

It's a free country, adopt whatever PC stance you want. Just don't tell me which stance I should take just because it clashes with your opinion.



Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 26†August†2013 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by hissing sid hissing sid wrote:

I was born and went to school in Chalfont st. Peter.  I walked to school and back, in all weathers. Why on earth should children now be carted to Jordans, Sear green, Coleshill or Denham. What if the Family has no car or 1 car that the father is using to get too and from work.
As I have been reminded, on a few occassions, no one has a "right to live anywhere." Surely that extends to, "no one has a right to go to school anywhere." I am pretty sure the people who want to move to Chalfont Saint Peter will consider the distance they need to travel to school.  I can guarantee that if you took a census of those who are driven to and from school now, the average distance is quite short; a lot shorter than walking distance. Coleshill, Jordans and Seer Green are not very far away.
 
 
 
P.S. I never mentioned Denham.


Posted By: oldchris
Date Posted: 28†August†2013 at 2:31am
If your going to increase the population, you have to increase the infrastructure.


-------------
stop HS2.


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 28†August†2013 at 9:47am
apparently not chris !
 
i am not going to post anymore on this topic,
 


-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 30†August†2013 at 2:31am
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

apparently not chris !
 
i am not going to post anymore on this topic,
 
 
Who said that the infrastructure wouldn't need to change?


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 30†August†2013 at 6:43am
Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

I am not exactly very keen on the so-called fight that has been waged in my name. What many of the objectors seem to forget is that the village consists of about thirteen thousand people, many of whom do not agree with the parish council's stance on this development.


Thankfully, a sizeable majority of the 13,000 support the Parish Councils stance.

There are less school places in the village than before Holy Cross closed down. Adding a thousand or so extra people to the village will require more school places. More everything in fact.

And anyone who ventures outside of Chalfont will know that the new housing estate will not be filled with the children of the existing village population.


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 30†August†2013 at 10:03pm
I suppose you are going to repeat the scare stories I have been hearing, about migrants from Poland and Romania taking the houses?


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 31†August†2013 at 10:51pm
Stories? It's fact. Ealing in particular has a high Polish population and in Acton you are more likely to hear the Polish language spoken. You cannot move without seeing a Polish shop and don't forget the 500,000 or so Romanians coming over.

Housing associations will buy up a sizeable number of properties, councils will have to house immigrants and pay the rent.

So if you think the estate will be filled with the offsprings of residents of Chalfont you are mistaken.

I've seen it happen before, no reason why it can't happen here



Posted By: EmmaO
Date Posted: 01†September†2013 at 11:00pm
Hmmm. School places. Think we were talking about this on another thread too and another poster assured us that Gerrards Cross school and CSP Infants have places that they hold back waiting for the correct profile of students. I can report, now the letters are out with final places that: two people I know have not been able to get places at Gerrards Cross Church of England school and are told that they are still on the waiting list, school starts Thursday!!?? The waiting list is quite long, placed 5th and 11th on the list. Two have been offered places at CSP Infants, another has been told no spaces available. They have been offered places at other schools. All well good saying that people can travel to get to school but if you have more than one child then travelling to another village (as has been suggested) is a bit of a logistical nightmare. Then of course it'd be nice if they can actually play with their school friends after school but again bit difficult if you are scattered around all over the place. So. Maybe school places ARE a factor when considering new homes. I really do welcome development of the site, I think it's great to have more people to use the shops, pubs, cafes, etc. but we must have proper consideration to services and be in keeping with the village. I want my child to be able to buy here but I want then to have a reasonable size place and schools for their kids to attend and the kids who move into the village in the new housing I'm sure would like to be schooled here. Develop the site, yes please, but we need to consider all factors when doing so. Lets not start on getting a doctors appointment! :)


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 02†September†2013 at 12:55am
Originally posted by Bobblehead Bobblehead wrote:

Hmmm. School places. Think we were talking about this on another thread too and another poster assured us that Gerrards Cross school and CSP Infants have places that they hold back waiting for the correct profile of students. I can report, now the letters are out with final places that: two people I know have not been able to get places at Gerrards Cross Church of England school and are told that they are still on the waiting list, school starts Thursday!!?? The waiting list is quite long, placed 5th and 11th on the list. Two have been offered places at CSP Infants, another has been told no spaces available. They have been offered places at other schools. All well good saying that people can travel to get to school but if you have more than one child then travelling to another village (as has been suggested) is a bit of a logistical nightmare. Then of course it'd be nice if they can actually play with their school friends after school but again bit difficult if you are scattered around all over the place. So. Maybe school places ARE a factor when considering new homes. I really do welcome development of the site, I think it's great to have more people to use the shops, pubs, cafes, etc. but we must have proper consideration to services and be in keeping with the village. I want my child to be able to buy here but I want then to have a reasonable size place and schools for their kids to attend and the kids who move into the village in the new housing I'm sure would like to be schooled here. Develop the site, yes please, but we need to consider all factors when doing so. Lets not start on getting a doctors appointment! :)
 
I don't understand what the problem is. The argument has been that schools all over the village are at bursting point, when that is clearly untrue. All schools have a limit on the numbers they can accept, when the number has been reached, alternatives have to be considered, that has been the way for generations.
 
Gerrards Cross obviously filled their admission criteria, so parents will have to go to their second choice; that is how it works. I do know that years four and five are below capacity though. When new people arrive in the village they won't all have children all at the same age.


Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 02†September†2013 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Nessun Dorma Nessun Dorma wrote:

When new people arrive in the village they won't all have children all at the same age.
 
They might.  Chances are they will. 
 
 


Posted By: EmmaO
Date Posted: 02†September†2013 at 10:20pm
The thing is Nessun Dorma, what you are saying is just not borne out by the experiences my friends and I are having navigating the school system and gaining places for our children. In previous generations it was not expected that you would travel outside of your area for a school place unless maybe you were in central London. I don't know what to say other than that, I can only judge the situation as I see it and am experiencing it right now and this is it. Add another load of houses and no more school places and I do think we are in trouble.


Posted By: dickybird
Date Posted: 02†September†2013 at 11:19pm
Nessun, you say that the argument has been that schools in CSP are at bursting point. Surely you understand that schooling is only one part of a much bigger picture? The crux of the Holy Cross issue is that CSP has a massive green space in its heart that is available for development. Our Parish Council and SENSE are trying to ensure that the development chosen for the site will suit our little village, and best meet its needs. Obviously, everybody knows that it will be impossible to please each and every villager, but we need to have faith that dedicated, focused people who have our village's best interests at heart are trying to promote Localism, and Transparency, and Community Consultation, and that they are absolutely determined to not let CDC ride roughshod over us.

Please may i urge people to join the SENSE website so that you can follow the debate for yourself? Especially now that CDC is also proposing allocating a number of traveller settlements for CSP! Please try to get as informed as possible so that you can decide for yourself whose side you are on, and what you think is worth fighting for...

Right, My rant is over, and it is late.
Goodnight all x


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 04†September†2013 at 5:49pm
I'm guessing everyone saw yesterday's news stories about the prediction that in the next 2 years demand for school places will have outstripped availability, and that parents using them are dissatisfied with the Government's 'free schools'?


Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 04†September†2013 at 6:20pm
Yeh i saw that and immediately thought of this thread!


Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 04†September†2013 at 8:16pm
buts it alright, its not an issue in CSP... we have been told !



-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: hissing sid
Date Posted: 04†September†2013 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

buts it alright, its not an issue in CSP... we have been told !




Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

apparently not chris !

i am not going to post anymore on this topic,








-------------
Hissing Sid

It's a free country, adopt whatever PC stance you want. Just don't tell me which stance I should take just because it clashes with your opinion.



Posted By: big baggles
Date Posted: 04†September†2013 at 10:52pm
well i had to !!!!



-------------
need a stella and i need one now !


Posted By: hissing sid
Date Posted: 05†September†2013 at 12:21pm
Originally posted by big baggles big baggles wrote:

well i had to !!!!






-------------
Hissing Sid

It's a free country, adopt whatever PC stance you want. Just don't tell me which stance I should take just because it clashes with your opinion.



Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 06†September†2013 at 1:51pm
Originally posted by dickybird dickybird wrote:

Nessun, you say that the argument has been that schools in CSP are at bursting point. Surely you understand that schooling is only one part of a much bigger picture? The crux of the Holy Cross issue is that CSP has a massive green space in its heart that is available for development. Our Parish Council and SENSE are trying to ensure that the development chosen for the site will suit our little village, and best meet its needs. Obviously, everybody knows that it will be impossible to please each and every villager, but we need to have faith that dedicated, focused people who have our village's best interests at heart are trying to promote Localism, and Transparency, and Community Consultation, and that they are absolutely determined to not let CDC ride roughshod over us.

Please may i urge people to join the SENSE website so that you can follow the debate for yourself? Especially now that CDC is also proposing allocating a number of traveller settlements for CSP! Please try to get as informed as possible so that you can decide for yourself whose side you are on, and what you think is worth fighting for...

Right, My rant is over, and it is late.
Goodnight all x
 
Yes, I understand that the development needs to benefit the village, but when people use spurious reasons for objecting to it, especially the less logical and more outlandish of stories, clearly designed to either scare people or to pander to the less diverse minded of our community, that is when a lot of residents of the village start to feel uncomfortable with siding with those who are more sensible. They don't want to be tarred with the same brush, as those who want to use the development as an excuse to denigrate anyone who is different to what they consider to be the perfect "villager."


Posted By: Nessun Dorma
Date Posted: 06†September†2013 at 1:52pm
Originally posted by Bucks Fizz Bucks Fizz wrote:

I'm guessing everyone saw yesterday's news stories about the prediction that in the next 2 years demand for school places will have outstripped availability, and that parents using them are dissatisfied with the Government's 'free schools'?
 
I didn't catch all of the report, but I think I heard that the figures were specific to London.


Posted By: Chilternman
Date Posted: 07†September†2014 at 7:10am
100% yes, we do not have the infrastructure to support this and it will only make our lives worse, why would you want that? How much better would our village be if people had stood against the precinct before it was built. Unfortunately not enough people realised what was happening and what monstrosity was going to replace such a wonderful collection of historic buildings. We don't need more traffic, more parking issues, more people in the doctors surgery, more pressure on schools etc.
I do agree something will need to be done with it but it should be a small scale development with some lovely timeless properties and maybe open the place up so that people can enjoy walking through, why does everything need to be on a scale that creates a disaster. Create something that enhances the village rather than the opposite, something that will help negate the precinct ( I hate that place ).


Posted By: Insight
Date Posted: 04†November†2014 at 6:53pm

 

It has taken a generation, but history has repeated itself and Chiltern Districtís Planning Authority has again inflicted serious damage on Chalfont St Peter, by their backing of the cynical interests of developers, rather than the benefits to the residents who it is supposed to represent.

 

In the 1960ís, it was the destruction of Barrack Yard and permission for the ghastly St Peterís Court precinct to be built.

Now it is the destruction of playing fields, approval of nearly 200 tawdry homes and dismissing the opportunity to relocate a successful school on to the Holy Cross site.

 

The Planners and their committee did not plan, and they ignored their own consultation and the representations of the people who pay for and who elect them. Their scandalous decisions have cost the District and the Parish Councils a huge amount of taxpayerís money in legal fees in opposing the residents attempts to see justice done.

 

The main architects of the injustice, Carol Castle and Gill Gowing departed suddenly; itís a pity there are not there to answer to their dealings, but many members of the Planning Committee still remain. Their Chairman Cllr Don Phillips is particularly culpable as he mislead the committee about what they were voting for. He said the vote was simply for access, which was untrue; it was for the change of use, loss of playing fields and permission for houses and flats, as well as the destruction of The Grange. Added to that, Bucks County Councilís education department who said a school was not needed. How would they know? They promised a survey of school needs four years ago, but have still not carried it out.

 

The last remaining villains are the nuns and their groundsman. Their testimonies are at odds with the facts and whether this constitutes a pack of lies or not must rest with their consciences.

 

The only heroes are the Parish Councillors, who opposed the plans from day one and used all the means available to them to stop the disgrace. Sadly, to no avail, clearly Cameronís localism is a worthless charade.



Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 04†November†2014 at 11:55pm
Well put Sir. There are people on this forum who have no idea what they are talking about or what was has been at stake. In any event the legal action had overwhelming support from residents and those complaining are in the tiny minority so frankly who cares what they think.  

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 05†November†2014 at 12:05am
So who are all these people who are against the Parish Councils stance and where are they ? I've been at every public meeting re Holy Cross and can't recall a single objection.  I think the only person objecting lives under a bridge frequented by a goat. 



-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: lesleyr
Date Posted: 07†November†2014 at 10:13pm
The playing fields and other facilities at holy cross have never been open for public use and i do think your comments about the nuns and groundsmen are a little harsh. And Grand wazoo your just plain rude, but then i suppose your name just about say's it all !!


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 07†November†2014 at 11:13pm
Lesleyr ....and your point other than directing negative comments at the Grand Wazoo is ? 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 07†November†2014 at 11:16pm
You are wrong about facilities not being open to the public. Local swimming clubs used the pool for a start and in any event a school no matter who owns it, is a community facility. 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Laceyb15
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 12:22am
How many children attending the local academy live outside csp. Gone are the days when it was just for children of the village. The parish council are a rule unto themselves. They don't like it when a ruling goes against them and must be spending thousands of pounds fighting the decision and yet they will not overturn a stupid decission they made to grass over graves at the garden of rest to save money. Vote for change in May if you agree!!!!


Posted By: Chilternman
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 6:44am
I for one will be voting for a change in May, but it will be a complete change, for UKIP, I can't see why anyone would vote for our old main parties after years of swinging back and forth and getting nowhere. We can never move forward because one lot swings one way and the other lot back again. We need out of the EU to give us governing power back. Maybe then we can decide what to do with our own village and our graves, vote UKIP for a real change. By the way is the grange not a listed building?


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 7:38am
Originally posted by Laceyb15 Laceyb15 wrote:

How many children attending the local academy live outside csp. Gone are the days when it was just for children of the village. The parish council are a rule unto themselves. They don't like it when a ruling goes against them and must be spending thousands of pounds fighting the decision and yet they will not overturn a stupid decission they made to grass over graves at the garden of rest to save money. Vote for change in May if you agree!!!!

LaceyB: is it your intention to introduce your gripe about the graves into every thread on this forum? The vast majority of folks in the village either disagree with you or couldn't give a damn. Most of us do want to see our cemeteries looking tidy and dignified, but this post is about the Holy Cross development, which the vast majority of us do not wish to see turned into a housing estate and the village roads even more choked with traffic each morning and evening.

If the development goes ahead, the next stage will likely be a compulsory purchase order on Bridge House - the shops opposite the Greyhound, for road widening to enable a spur from the by pass to alleviate traffic build up on the roundabout. And a vote for UKIP will be a vote wasted.


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 9:46am
Yes and not only that Holy Cross was put to the entire village in a survey in 2009 (that went through every door) and got over 95% support so anyone complaining here is part of the irrelevant 5%.   

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 9:48am
Yes I'll be voting for UKIPs local candidate...a piano teacher with no business experience whatsoever and some extremely dodgy views . Great idea. 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 9:54am
"We need out of the EU to give us governing power back"        Well I hope you never lose your job if we "get out of the EU" because the reason you get a guarantee of your pay if your employer goes bust is due to EU LAW! There are many other examples that you are clearly ignorant of but then you would be if a local piano teacher is your legal adviser ....    

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Bucks Fizz
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 10:37am
Wasn't that the same piano teacher who wrote threatening letters to the parents of children in his kids class because one of those kids had borrowed and not returned one of his kid's toys? Now there's a man with his finger on the nation's pulse and a great sense of proportion. He'll need Mrs Fisher's vote.


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 10:38am
That's the guy....Mr Angry of CSP 



-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 10:40am
Sad thing is he's been on CDC for years and BCC at one point supposedly running our services. I think CDC needed a piano tuning. Where do they find these people ? 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 10:42am
Vote UKIP and stop immigrants tuning our pianos 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: J.R.
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 11:39am
but everyone was happy voting for him when he was the conservative candidate !

-------------
JR was ere


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 11:42am
Speak for yourself! 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 11:43am
You make a valid point though...you want to vote Conservative but the local Conservatives choose idiots... 

-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: EmmaO
Date Posted: 28†January†2015 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by Laceyb15 Laceyb15 wrote:

How many children attending the local academy live outside csp. Gone are the days when it was just for children of the village. The parish council are a rule unto themselves. They don't like it when a ruling goes against them and must be spending thousands of pounds fighting the decision and yet they will not overturn a stupid decission they made to grass over graves at the garden of rest to save money. Vote for change in May if you agree!!!!


Most are village children or at the point of entry into the academy were living in the village. Even the sibling rule comes below actually living in the village.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Bobblehead :)


Posted By: Sunray
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 2:33pm
I see in "The Times" today it has been reported that CSP Parish Council  are taking the Holy Cross order (Sisters of the Holy Cross) to court accusing them of misrepresentation of the facts when the application for planning approval was sought.

The Council claim that the Order misrepresented the past use of the school field, they say that the Order claimed that 3 acres had not been used as playing field when they knew that this was not true.

The Council say that the Order misled planning officers because if the field had been used for school games the application to sell it to a residential developer for £31 million would have been rejected, because local planning authorities will reject applications if they involve loss of sports facilities.


-------------
Sunray


Posted By: Chilternman
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 2:53pm
Wonderful! To think that a holy order would lie for financial gain is so comforting, indicative of what is going on in the world today!! Don't suppose now that it will make any difference but hopefully we can sue for the difference in value and use the money for something to enhance the village rather than destroy it.


Posted By: hissing sid
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 3:57pm
So maybe, they'll be forced to turn it back into a sports field or at least green space.

-------------
Hissing Sid

It's a free country, adopt whatever PC stance you want. Just don't tell me which stance I should take just because it clashes with your opinion.



Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 4:42pm
Its all here : 

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system/%20" rel="nofollow - https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system/


-------------
To know is not to be Wise


Posted By: hissing sid
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 5:39pm
Originally posted by Grand Wazoo Grand Wazoo wrote:

Its all here :†

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system/%20" rel="nofollow - https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system/




The link doesn't seem to be working, well not on this end.

-------------
Hissing Sid

It's a free country, adopt whatever PC stance you want. Just don't tell me which stance I should take just because it clashes with your opinion.



Posted By: swej
Date Posted: 14†April†2017 at 10:15pm
Try https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system" rel="nofollow - https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/redress-abuse-planning-system


Posted By: Grand Wazoo
Date Posted: 15†April†2017 at 7:40pm

Redress for abuse of the planning system

Master Davison refuses to strike out claim alleging planning fraud by religious charity

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council v Holy Cross Sisters Trustees Incorporated

Queen's Bench Division, 10 April 2017

This claim concerns the grant of planning permission by Chiltern District Council ("CDC") in December 2010 for a mixed-use development on the site of the former Holy Cross Convent School in Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire. The Holy Cross later sold the site with the benefit of the planning permission for in excess of £30m.

In August 2016, nearly 6 years after CDC resolved to grant the planning permission, the Parish Council issued a claim in the Queen's Bench Division alleging that the Holy Cross had fraudulently misled CDC as to the extent of the former playing fields at the school and thereby induced CDC to grant the planning permission. The Parish Council alleges that the Holy Cross thereby intended to injure the Parish Council, by knocking out its rival proposal for the development of the site.These allegations are strenuously denied by the Holy Cross.

The present claim followed protracted litigation in the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal, in which the Parish Council sought to set aside the planning permission, and which culminated in defeat for the Parish Council: see R(Chalfont St Peter Parish Council) v Chiltern District Council & Holy Cross Sisters Trustees Inc [2014] EWCA Civ 1393.

The Holy Cross applied to strike out the claim, alternatively for summary judgment.

The main issue was whether it was an abuse of process for the Parish Council to allege fraud at this point in time. It had not alleged fraud within the protracted judicial review proceedings. As Master Davison put it:

"Certainly, the ordinary observer would think that it is unsatisfactory that that allegation should be raised only now Ė 6 years after the events and after multiple hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal about the same subject-matter."

However, the Master concluded that it would not be right to strike out the claim. Essentially, this was because:

"It is a cardinal feature of judicial review proceedings that the court will not ordinarily embark upon a re-hearing of the underlying facts. Firstly, that would be to usurp the function which Parliament has vested in the planning authority. Secondly, judicial review is a procedure fundamentally unsuited to finding facts Ė particularly heavily contested and contentious facts."

Therefore, he was not persuaded that the Parish Council should have alleged fraud within the earlier judicial review litigation.

The Master also stated that there was force in the submission that, if the claim was made out, then the true abuse of process here was the abuse of the planning system, which if the claim were struck out would go unpunished and un-redressed.

As to the summary judgment application, the Holy Cross was in the Master's view unable to land a "knock-down blow" to the Parish Council's case.

The full text of the judgment can be found  https://cornerstonebarristers.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/hq16x02767-chalfont-st-peter-pc-v-holy-cross-trustees-incorporated.pdf" rel="nofollow - here .

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/matt-hutchings/" rel="nofollow - Matt Hutchings QC , instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP, appeared for the Parish Council.

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/mark-lowe/" rel="nofollow - Mark Lowe QC  and  https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/asitha-ranatunga/" rel="nofollow - Asitha Ranathunga , instructed by Farrer & Co LLP, appeared for the Holy Cross. Mark Lowe QC and Asitha Ranathunga also appeared for the Holy Cross in the prior judicial review proceedings.

For coverage of the judgment in the legal press, see the  https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/nuns-accused-of-fraudulent-misrepresentation-in-planning-row/5060652.article" rel="nofollow - Law Society Gazette  website.



-------------
To know is not to be Wise



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.co.uk