Forum Home Forum Home > Chalfont St Peter > Holy Cross Development
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - SENSE
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Topic ClosedSENSE

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
Message
Number42 View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
Direct Link To This Post Topic: SENSE
    Posted: 16 December 2009 at 9:42am
Has everyone received the SENSE leaflet?  Any views?
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:
 
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:
who sits on both the Parish AND the District councils. 
And/or to John Wertheim
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."
 
 
That's the answer - what's the question?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
PeaBee View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 26 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 216
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2009 at 2:23pm
An important  word that has been suggested to  include in any correspondence regarding this expansion  is 'unsustainable'

I emailed my objections to        ccastle@chiltern.gov.uk

I received an automatic responce from Planning at Chiltern Dist Council
Back to Top
Number42 View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2009 at 2:36pm
Originally posted by PeaBee PeaBee wrote:

An important  word that has been suggested to  include in any correspondence regarding this expansion  is 'unsustainable'

I emailed my objections to        ccastle@chiltern.gov.uk

I received an automatic responce from Planning at Chiltern Dist Council
I've done the same today, and to thers on the planning committee and to our District Councillors - will await any response from them!
 
'Unsustainable' - good - will include that, thanks.
That's the answer - what's the question?
Back to Top
Malc London View Drop Down
Chalfont Snapper
Chalfont Snapper
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8473
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2009 at 5:04pm
With an election due early next year, perhaps we should see who our local MP is supporting.
 
Back to Top
Flyboy View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2009 at 5:27pm
Probably the side that benefits her the most.
Back to Top
Number42 View Drop Down
Villager
Villager
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2009 at 7:37pm
Originally posted by Malc London Malc London wrote:

With an election due early next year, perhaps we should see who our local MP is supporting.
 
The Parish Council and several individuals have contacted her and got the same bog standard reply:
"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."
 
To her credit she has written to Clr John Warder, head of CDC, who also gave a bog standard reply:
"We have been consulting with all the interested parties (except residents) and this will result in changes to the proposals when the CDC come to make a decision in February" - i.e. either the decision will be delayed OR there will be no proper CDC consultation with residents or even back to the parish council about the changed proposals.
 
That's the answer - what's the 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: 20 January 2010 at 2:44pm
Cheryll Gillan deserves no credit at all, monitoring a situation means that she is doing nothing, the standard reply was just a fob off. She will not tell her council what to do, this is against political ethics, nobody makes waves, it is not in their interests to do so, even if it is right thing to do.

Chiltern District Council are dead set on pushing this Core Strategy through despite it being full of holes, mistruths and contradictions. They will not be persuaded. Our mean spirited Central Government have them exactly where they want them. CDC have spent unbelievable amounts of our money building the Draft Core Strategy and they do not want to see it brought down now.

We need to concentrate our efforts on the battles which we know we can win.

These are:

• Challenging CDC on the inadequate consultation period - this is a biggie as improper public consultation will result in the inspectorate failing the DCS. Do any of you feel that you were consulted? The truth is they considered our opinions irrelevant, and they shouldn't have done because public consultation is one of the main building blocks of the Local Development Plan. Indeed the Cabinet Office and CAA requirements state that all councils should have a designated consultation co-ordinator, which they do not.

• Challenging CDC on all the issues within the DCS:
- sustainability (lack of transport links, failing infrastructure, inadequate road network, inadequate schooling, inadequate healthcare provision). Sustainability is mentioned over and over again in the DCS, they say the strategy is based on this, yet both of the sites in Chalfont St Peter are anything but that.
- low cost housing. The core strategy states that they intend to supply low cost housing so that local people will be able to get on the housing ladder. It also states that 70% of low cost housing will be rented and the other 30% will be shared ownership! Neither of these will enable anyone to get on the housing ladder. Besides that, these houses are not being built for local people they are only being built to ease the bulging waiting lists, so we will actually get an influx of people from outside of the area and our children and elderly relatives will not be housed in them.


There are many other points such as:

• The destruction of the Grange Manor at the centre of the Holy Cross site and it's obvious local importance despite the DCS saying it will respect local historical character and amazingly a picture the Chairman of CDC, John Warder standing next to the building stating how important it is to the village in the CDC sustainability document! What unbelievable hypocrisy!

• The complete U-turn by CDC on all planning law. The Holy Cross Convent has an educational status which means that it cannot be used for anything but education unless it can be proved that schooling in the area is adequate. This is certainly not the case, children at the middle school have to eat their lunches at their desks and they have no sporting facilities. The site at the Holy Cross would make a wonderful school, the land that the middle school sits on would be better suited to development, the opportunity should not have been ignored by CDC as it was. The governors were not even consulted or asked to partake in any of the stakeholder meetings at any stage.

• The failure of CDC to choose any of the other 3 options available to them. Indeed the other options had already been deemed 'not viable' before they were even on the table - this hardly makes them options then.

The only way forward is to stall the DCS for as long as possible, if it is passed before we get a Tory government we will be stuck with it. Delay it, then all labour's housing targets will be scrapped and we will get more considered and sensitive options for the sites in question.

It is a sad time when our Conservative MP's and councillors completely ignore our wishes and are more intent on self serving and on pandering to a Labour government's misguided ambition to deface the South East forever.
Back to Top
watsy View Drop Down
Chalfont Admin
Chalfont Admin
Avatar

Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 January 2010 at 3:35pm
Maybe she doesn't realise what is happening in her constituency as she is based in Battersea as she's unable to commute to London from her constituency, poor thing.  If only we had trains and roads that went to London from here.

I think we should put Dan up as our local MP Wink

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: 20 January 2010 at 3:43pm
Well she's got nothing to worry about, hers is the safest seat around.

Hence, she's more preoccupied with horses and mutual backslapping than she is saving our rural landscape.

I for one would like to firmly plant one of my size 9 boots in her safe seat!
Back to Top
brewski View Drop Down
Chalfontonian
Chalfontonian
Avatar

Joined: 12 September 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 January 2010 at 4:05pm
I have now emailed all five relevant councillors & CDC planners, plus our MP  Cheryl Gillam and Carol Castle Head of Panning for the council.
 
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.Angry
Too many laws...
Too few examples...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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