Low Cost Housing - what it really means
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: https://www.chalfontstpeter.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5420
Printed Date: 19 April 2024 at 3:57am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Low Cost Housing - what it really means
Posted By: SENSE
Subject: Low Cost Housing - what it really means
Date Posted: 01 February 2010 at 8:20pm
|
As you probably all know by now, all of the proposed development plans being imposed by Chiltern District Council on Chalfont St Peter will be subject to a mandatory inclusion of a minimum of 40% so called 'low cost housing'.
Sounds great doesn't it? Does this mean that all of your elderly parents or children will now be able to buy a house in Chalfont St Peter and live on your doorstep? Absolutely not! Chiltern District Council have been dangling this carrot as an incentive for us to approve their housing schemes, read into it and you will find that: • 70% of the 'low cost housing' will actually be rented accommodation and not available to buy - so really it should not be termed as low cost housing at all. These rental homes will go straight onto housing association waiting lists and made immediately available to people from outside the area. As well as some key workers, these lists include single parent families, asylum seekers, foreign queue jumpers and long term unemployed - people that they cannot house elsewhere, these schemes are specifically designed to appease central government's requirement to fill that shortfall. • 30% (the remainder) of the 'low cost housing' will be shared ownership housing, also for people from outside of Chalfont St Peter. The deal is that they buy their share, but will never be able to own the house outright, the state will retain it's share to keep the house on the waiting list. So the statement that these homes will help local people and key workers to get on the property ladder is complete nonsense, the term 'low cost housing' is a lie and it's scandalous that it is included in this context. The remaining market housing on the sites will actually be subsidising these local authority houses, so effectively this will be pushing house prices up! Not exactly the pretty picture that CDC would have us believe. It is important that everyone knows about the implications of these developments, it is all about exploitation, there is nothing in the Draft Core Strategy that will be contributing anything to the village or to the people of the village. Our green spaces are an easy target and unless we ALL say an emphatic NO to these plans, they will be pushed through and Chalfont St Peter will become a dumping ground for all kinds of humanity. |
Replies:
Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 01 February 2010 at 8:50pm
|
Low cost housing, over-development, new high speed rail line and Heathrow expansion. We've decided that we're moving by the end of the year. |
Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 12:56pm
How true, not only will it make the houses for sale on the new development more expensive, that in turn will push up the price of every other property in CSP.... (OK if you are selling and moving out!)
These are the bits that they leave out of the bandwagon hype that is far to often used nowadays.
It's about time they actually fixed the real problem and removed the need for more housing within a 75 radius of London, in fact a 20% reduction would be good!.
Art ------------- *** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem! |
SENSE wrote:Posted By: oldchris
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 1:45pm
it won't be long before we all get UB postcodes we already have red buses and the met police in chalfont. move out to wendover, quick!! |
Posted By: ArtB
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 2:55pm
And the rest! Wendover won't be much better.
Art ------------- *** If you're not part of the solution, you may be part of the problem! |
Posted By: J.R.
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 3:19pm
|
don't say that - i'm looking at a house there on saturday !!! ------------- JR was ere |
Posted By: oldchris
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 4:06pm
| wendover and area are nice. |
Posted By: Number42
Date Posted: 02 February 2010 at 6:10pm
|
Very good Italian restaurant in Wendover too: Rossini's. ------------- That's the answer - what's the question? |
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 03 February 2010 at 12:18pm
| I was thinking Wendover as well. |
Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 04 February 2010 at 12:56pm
| I was thinking North Yorkshire or Northumberland. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 12:06am
I see lots of questions, but no answers. What is wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford?
Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims? What is the problem with social housing? What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 7:09am
|
I only see one question mark in the statement from SENSE, this is duly answered in the paragraph that follows it, where are these questions that you can see? In answer to your five questions: What is wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford? There's nothing wrong with having rented properties that people will be able to afford. We just have issue with the fact that CDC wish to build the highest proportion of them in the Chalfont St Peter, effectively flooding our village with unmanageable quantities of new residents that neither our infrastructure nor society could possibly sustain. Especially when the whole social housing policy should be based on integration, community consultation and evenhandedness. Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/HomeBuyingSchemes/DG_066514 In the above link it says how you can own between 25% and 75% of these leasehold properties, but you can never own 100%. The whole concept is based around the need of the local authority to retain a share of the property in order to maintain it's social housing quantities, yet at the same time help the potential homeowner onto the housing ladder. This is a commonly known fact. What is the problem with social housing? There is no problem with social housing, as I have previously said, we have issue with CDC building the highest proportions in Chalfont St Peter. Why for instance has the Great Missenden, Prestwood and Heath End grouping not been apportioned any developments which would result in any social housing allocations, especially when Great Missenden has a train link - we have no train link - this is clearly a result of NIMBYism within the ranks of CDC at the highest level. What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/HousingAssociations/DG_10020860 As demonstrated in the above link, social housing is released on a needs basis, it is possible that some local people will be able to move into some of these properties, but only if they are on the local authority waiting lists and meet certain 'needs' criteria, this is therefore highly unlikely. The exception is of course key workers who will also have the opportunity to rent or buy a share of the low cost housing, but these will be in the minority. It is clear that CDC wishes to use Chalfont St Peter as it's convenient council house dump, they have performed especially badly over the last 20 years with respect to social housing. This has finally caught up with them, and in their usual crisis management style, they have decided that once again just like in the 60's with the precinct, Chalfont St Peter is a worthwhile sacrifice to make in order to disguise their ineptitude. If we allow them to do this it will literally wreck our village and how any of our residents could support such a plan beggars belief. The Secretary of State recently delivered power back to local councils and if our District Councillors were truly representative of our village, this would have all been history. Yet Nick Rose and CDC officers are still trying to shoehorn it through, stating that it is for the good of the district as a whole, it is nothing of the sort, they have wasted millions on drafting up a Core Strategy for which they did not gather sufficient evidence and for which they did not hold the mandatory consultation at the correct stage. Chalfont St Peter is purely a convenient rug for them to sweep away their years of social housing neglect. I hope this answers your questions. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 12:35pm
Not even in the slightest. The link you provided for "What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?" does not work, please re-post.
I will respond to this when you have provided a viable link.
In the link for "Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?"
Please read:
So, more lies and half truths from SENSE.
(It really pays to read the links first before using them to support unsubstantiated claims)
The entire tone of your post is condescending and arrogant to the extreme. It comes across as though you and your cronies do not want lower class people living in the village. You seem to be living in abject fear of some council houses being built in the vicinty, so much so that you foster lies, transmitted by rumour, to frighten the populace of the village, to force submission to your cause. Well I have news for you; it doesn't work. Your little support group does not have the following you think it does. Most sensible people in the area see trough your hyped rhetoric, as nothing more than hollow propaganda. The word on the street is that most people welcome the opportunity to for their children to be able to afford to live in the village they were raised in.
I attended the festivities on the common on Saturday and was waiting to engage with some of your representatives, when they were talking to a gentleman, regarding some the information you had been distributing. I couldn't hear everything that was being said, but I did pick up on a few things. First of all, he challenged one person on the rumour that homes were destined for Eastern European immigrants, who had been waiting for housing in London. Your representative's reply was, "but they are." This was promptly challenged and he was forced to agree that he had no proof at all that was going to happen. He was then told that the schools were bursting at the seems and there was no room. None of those, who were at the stall, could even answer a simple question about how many pupils attend the schools in the area and how many were expected to turn up after the houses were built. The most notable remark came from the man who lied about the immigrants, he said that the number of homes that was planned was two hundred and thirty INCLUDING the residents from the care home. Which, going by your figures would mean that there is about one hundred and sixty new homes planned on the Holy Cross site. Somewhat fewer than you have been bandying around of late.
But, the most startling comment came from a lady who thought she could still convince this man that the development would be a bad thing. She quoted figures relating to the ratio of privately owned and rented homes. She then emphasised that they we going to be (looking around to see if anyone was listening, whilst half-nodding), "social housing, you know, council houses." I couldn't see her face, but judging by her tone and body language, I am willing to bet she was giving him a knowing wink, as though to say, "well, we all know what that would mean." Looking a little taken aback by this exegesis, the man countered with, "but I want my kids to be able to afford somewhere to live close to where they grow up." The woman's reply was, (bearing in mind she has absolutelty no knowledge of this man, his family or his background etc.), "but your children will never be able to afford a house over there."
The general impression that most people have is that you are nothing more than a bunch of NIMBYs, who have no interest in what the ordinary folk of the village want. They feel disenfranchised and ignored, perhaps the reason why you didn't get many returns from the survey you put out.
(A question of note, where are these results, including how many actually responded, compared to the number that were actually sent, measured against the total population of the village.)
All of this is borne out by your posture towards those who need to live in social housing. The whole thrust of your campaign is the fact that you do not want more rented accommodation to be built, which may threaten the value of your own properties. To further this aim you spread rumour and innuendo in an attempt to foster xenophobia amongst the people of this village, thankfully it hasn't worked. I am in two minds as to whether I should set my own group and call it non-SENSE and TRUTH. Then perhaps we will have something to counter this garbage that you seem intent on proliferating.
|
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 1:07pm
|
Flyboy, if you do not think immigration is a major cause for needing more homes in the south east then you are in denial, whether or not you or others believe that immigration is good for the UK.
Add to this the suggestion that jobless people up north be given financial insentives to head for the prosperous south will only add to the problem.
The only way to tackle the problem of overcrowding in the south east is to STOP building new houses, then the population will disperse to areas with housing and to less intensified areas.
You could build on every available inch of Chalfont St Peter and there will still not be enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. What we need to do is to stop encouraging people from other parts of the UK and abroad to head to the south east by building them houses.
|
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 1:23pm
I truly do not believe that two hundred new homes in this village is going to affect the number of migrants in the UK. I also do not believe that these homes are designated for those migrants.
If you believe what you say is true, where did you get the information from. It wouldn't have been from the members of SENSE, would it |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 28 June 2010 at 7:03pm
|
[/QUOTE] Not even in the slightest. The link you provided for "What proof have you that residents of the village will not be able to buy or rent any of the new homes?" does not work, please re-post.
[/QUOTE]I will respond to this when you have provided a viable link.
Please try this link again, if it doesn't work by clicking on it, try pasting it into your browser window. It worked fine on my computer. In the link for "Can you provide examples of where householders cannot ever own the property they acquire through shared ownership? Can you provide your sources for such claims?"
Please read:
So, more lies and half truths from SENSE. (It really pays to read the links first before using them to support unsubstantiated claims) I have just edited this point because I have just had information through that most housing association shared ownership properties are not 'Staircasing homes' and hence cannot be owned outright - some are, but these are generally owned by developers and are private sector. The houses allocated for CSP are destined to be local authority and will hence not be 'Staircasing homes' and not eligible for 100% ownership. So it would seem we did have our facts straight and am glad because we have done our homework and generally speaking we are well researched and factual. Unfortunately we're not government officials or planning professionals and we are made up of local concerned residents who are mostly too busy to worry about quibbling on local forum sites. I do resent being accused of telling lies, we are simply representing the wishes of the village as a whole not to be turned into a housing estate. We take our prompts from the village using documents like the excellent Parish Council Survey to give us guidance as to the majority opinion of our residents. CSP do not want 600 new houses whether low cost, shared ownership, local authority rented or luxury 5 bedroom. We are against the numbers and the disproportionate densities and the effect that 600 dwellings would have on the amenity of the village. The entire tone of your post is condescending and arrogant to the extreme. It comes across as though you and your cronies do not want lower class people living in the village. You seem to be living in abject fear of some council houses being built in the vicinty, so much so that you foster lies, transmitted by rumour, to frighten the populace of the village, to force submission to your cause. Well I have news for you; it doesn't work. Your little support group does not have the following you think it does. Most sensible people in the area see trough your hyped rhetoric, as nothing more than hollow propaganda. The word on the street is that most people welcome the opportunity to for their children to be able to afford to live in the village they were raised in.
Please substantiate your claims for this statement, you have asked me to do so and I would appreciate you letting me know where you obtained this information. If it is more credible than the Parish Council's village survey then I will gladly concede. Also I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from personal insults, it is not necessary and does not add credibility to your cause. I attended the festivities on the common on Saturday and was waiting to engage with some of your representatives, when they were talking to a gentleman, regarding some the information you had been distributing. I couldn't hear everything that was being said, but I did pick up on a few things. First of all, he challenged one person on the rumour that homes were destined for Eastern European immigrants, who had been waiting for housing in London. Your representative's reply was, "but they are." This was promptly challenged and he was forced to agree that he had no proof at all that was going to happen. He was then told that the schools were bursting at the seems and there was no room. None of those, who were at the stall, could even answer a simple question about how many pupils attend the schools in the area and how many were expected to turn up after the houses were built. The most notable remark came from the man who lied about the immigrants, he said that the number of homes that was planned was two hundred and thirty INCLUDING the residents from the care home. Which, going by your figures would mean that there is about one hundred and sixty new homes planned on the Holy Cross site. Somewhat fewer than you have been bandying around of late.
I apologise most of our committee were unable to help out on the stand, I was there in the morning for a couple of hours, but had to rush away. These are decent people trying to save our village, they have given their personal time up to man our stand and to the largest majority of people in CSP they are heroes. There are a couple of locals who have differing views and quite rightly like to put us on the spot, (though they are very, very thin on the ground) - as I have previously said we are not government officials or planning professionals and cannot be expected to keep all of the information at hand all of the time, but we do our best. This doesn't warrant calling us liars when we get something slightly wrong - CDC are however a body who can be held accountable and they have made huge fundamental errors and have cut so many corners that it beggars belief. OK so Eastern Europeans, well I wasn't party to the conversation, but it is certainly feasible that the many houses will go to immigrants if they are on the housing lists and have managed to demonstrate their needs. Houses will also go to single parent families, drug users, long term unemployed, mentally impaired, elderly, key workers and maybe some hard working people who are on low salaries. It's all about needs and if these can be demonstrated to a greater degree, then it doesn't matter where they come from, they will get preference. I have stated clearly the numbers as shown in the draft core strategy, totalling 600 houses in Chalfont St Peter, please do not keep arguing this point it is fact and you can download this on: http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/corestrategy/consultation Please find page 29 of the document, but 27 on the folios at the bottom of the page, please note that CSP and Newlands Park are in separate rows - total 600 dwellings. Gerald Eve's planning application outlines 232 dwellings plus a care home for up to 70 residents, also available on CDC's website in the planning portal. So our gentleman on the stand was almost right bar the fact that the 232 does not include the care home, this was not a lie, it was a small mistake of little consequence, indeed the information given was actually less than outlined in the application. But, the most startling comment came from a lady who thought she could still convince this man that the development would be a bad thing. She quoted figures relating to the ratio of privately owned and rented homes. She then emphasised that they we going to be (looking around to see if anyone was listening, whilst half-nodding), "social housing, you know, council houses." I couldn't see her face, but judging by her tone and body language, I am willing to bet she was giving him a knowing wink, as though to say, "well, we all know what that would mean." Looking a little taken aback by this exegesis, the man countered with, "but I want my kids to be able to afford somewhere to live close to where they grow up." The woman's reply was, (bearing in mind she has absolutelty no knowledge of this man, his family or his background etc.), "but your children will never be able to afford a house over there."
I would say that you misheard my colleague, she would have said that his children would never be able to get a house over there, as in his children would not be able to demonstrate that their needs were greater than those on the housing waiting lists. I know the lady to whom you are referring and she is a kind and intelligent woman, a teacher and I find it very offensive that you should try to paint this picture of her. Whether you're willing to bet she was giving a man a knowing wink or not is not relevant, you simply can't make these stories up, you wouldn't allow me to get away with it, so please keep to the facts. The general impression that most people have is that you are nothing more than a bunch of NIMBYs, who have no interest in what the ordinary folk of the village want. They feel disenfranchised and ignored, perhaps the reason why you didn't get many returns from the survey you put out.
Sources of information please. But this just demonstrates how misinformed you are, the survey got a staggering reply - 35% is more than some local election turnouts and high returns like this can be statistically taken as being 99.5% representative of the survey body as a whole. CDC's consultations were getting percentage returns of around 10-15%! What are ordinary folk? We are all ordinary folk and our Parish survey represents the ordinary folk, everybody got a form and had the chance to reply and 35% did - we were very pleased. So how can you say that anyone was ignored when they clearly received a survey form and were given a forum to voice their opinions. I think that the majority of concerned local people not only consider us as NIMBY's they also proudly consider themselves as NIMBY's and quite rightly so, NIMBYism will save our countryside and our rural villages from exploitative and short sighted plans like this, if everybody had a little bit of local pride then our country might have retained more of it's beauty - please see the precinct. (A question of note, where are these results, including how many actually responded, compared to the number that were actually sent, measured against the total population of the village.)
10,600 questionnaires were sent, and 3,661 completed questionnaires were returned, an excellent response rate. There are 10,200 adults in the village, about 5,300 households. The survey can be downloaded from our website: http://www.sense4csp.org/other_information_menu.html Please click on Chalfont St Peter Parish Council survey to download the Powerpoint file. All of this is borne out by your posture towards those who need to live in social housing. The whole thrust of your campaign is the fact that you do not want more rented accommodation to be built, which may threaten the value of your own properties. To further this aim you spread rumour and innuendo in an attempt to foster xenophobia amongst the people of this village, thankfully it hasn't worked. I am in two minds as to whether I should set my own group and call it non-SENSE and TRUTH. Then perhaps we will have something to counter this garbage that you seem intent on proliferating.
This IS absolute nonsense, you're making things up in an attempt to make us look bad. You are so wrong, our 'posture' is not towards the people who wish to live in low cost housing, we are against the numbers of developments and why they are not being more fairly spread around the district, you are simply not reading our literature, we are happy to have some low cost housing, just not all of it. You seem to be arguing for arguments sake and I just feel I am wasting my time defending your misinformed accusations, but I wouldn't want the village believing what you are saying because it is simply untrue. These developments would effectively create a ghetto in the heart of the village, this is neither good for the residents or the locality, good town planning dictates integration of low cost housing into the community. PLEASE PLEASE set up a counter group this is what democracy is all about and we would absolutely welcome such a move, at least we would have someone who would actually engage with us unlike CDC. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 1:47pm
More claims for which you have no proof. Do you have evidence that these will not be designated as "Staircase" properties? Your "research" seems incomplete, to the point of shoddy. This is just an example of the tactics that you use to scare people.
How would you like me to "substantiate" my claims? How would you like me to present any of evidence? Apart from the conversation that I witnessed, which by now you will have had verified.
There you again with the scare tactics. Please tell me what evidence you have that any of the potential residents of this new development will be as you have described above? Please tell what issues you believe they may raise, whilst living within the village? What impact will these people have on you, or anyone else who lives here? Do these people not deserve to have somewhere to live, or is it, "yes, as long as it is not here?" You have asked me for proof about my allegations of xenophobia, well you have provided that evidence yourself with this.
I misheard nothing at all. The gentleman who was questioning your members pulled her up on exactly that point. He heard her, as did I. My account of her statement is verbatim (if she is a teacher, why did she not know how many pupils attend the school?). But this attitude is endemic within your membership and your supporters. They have been fed so much nonsense that they no longer know what to believe. The rumour machine has been working overtime and it is coming back to haunt you. You have done nothing to dispel any myths, in fact, you have even created many of them yourselves (the paragraph above is evidence of that).
I refer you to the answer I gave above.
Have the results of this survey been audited by an independent body? Apart from the consultants, paid for by you?
The results that you have presented have one very distinct contraction. You have stated that only seven per cent of the respondents are concerned about the threat of development. That's about one in fourteen; hardly a landslide. But then you say that ninety-three per cent are against the development, as you have described it to them (a figure that does not surprise me, based on the information that these people have received scarring the bejesus out of them). But I will await the independently audited results. These two pieces of data are in complete disagreement of each other.
Have you actually read what you have written in this thread? Your xenophobia is as clear as day. You have not done anything to balance the issue and everything to deny the people of this village a future. The business community (people who I have communicated with), the vast majority of whom are in favour of this development. They see it as an opportunity for economic growth and sustainability, that will secure their futures and that of those who rely on them for employment and services.
To be honest, that was a bit of a throwaway remark, having a business to run and a family to feed, I truly believed I have better things to do with my life. But now that you mention it.....
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 2:38pm
|
Sir, with all due respect I have answered all of you requests and given you the information you require and have supplied proof where possible, if I have not supplied proof it is only because this information has not been published yet because it is too early in the process, but the precedence is there. The Parish Council have given us access to an independent planning consultant, we gain most of our specific planning advice from him. Other information is given to us by Chiltern District Council and from on-line research, we do not tell lies or seek to misinform people, we actually have a reputation to uphold and it is VERY important that our advice to the village is spot on especially in our printed or e-mailed communications. If we fail to give correct advice then we are no better that CDC, everything we send out is discussed between the committee before release. The Parish Council Survey as you might or might not realise was actually commissioned by the Parish Council and not by ourselves, it was run independently by a professional body and the questions were not loaded as you can inspect for yourself. Your accusations that we are lying and attempting to scaremonger are wholly incorrect, we are telling the truth that CDC have been trying so hard to hide. I do not intend to continue this argument with you as I feel that you will just continue to pick nits and throw insults and really it's just a waste of both of our time and I feel sure that nobody warrants your statements as credible. Whatever you say, these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming. CDC have have made such monumental errors that none of their Local Development Framework papers will be declared sound not in any stretch of the imagination. Aylesbury have just had their Core Stategy declined and they did a much better job than CDC. I look forward to engaging with your Non-SENSE action group and I wish you luck. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 3:29pm
|
The only reason why the campaign has any strength at all, is because of a select few wealthier individuals pulling at the right strings. I find that your attitude that these houses will not be built at all, is an insult to the people of this village. You maintained that you were not against the building of affordable houses and social housing yet you now say that aim of your campaign is to have no houses built at all. Where are the children of the residents of this village supposed to live once they have grown up. Your xenophobic stance and scaremongering is an abomination to the ordinary people of this community. You threaten them with stories such as foreigners and the mentally ill coming to ruin their "way of life," when you have no evidence that will ever happen. You seem to ignore than everyone has a right to a home, regardless of their health, circumstances and wealth. How dare you use these people, to assume that the good people of Chalfont Saint Peter would choose not have these homes built, because they don't like foreign people, the unemployed or those with mental illness. You insult their intelligence and their compassion, with your covert accustions and assumtions that we are all somehow racist bigots and xenophobes.
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 3:48pm
|
The children of this village will NOT be able to qualify for a low cost house in Chalfont St Peter because they can not compete with the greater needs of other people such as mentally impaired, unemployed, immigrants, single parent families or key workers. These are facts, they are laid out in full in the link that I have already given you, they are not scaremongering or xenophobic. I have already stated these facts and given you proof, we seem to be coming full circle here - this conversation has obviously run it's course. Goodbye. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 4:45pm
You have no idea of the circumstances of any of the children of this village. You are still making wild assumptions about people you have no knowledge of today, let alone the next twenty years. This campaign has been centred entirely on xenophobic ideals, that if we allow those houses to be built, we will be inundated with migrants and any other lower class individual you have cared to label.
You have no knowledge that any of the contemporary youth of this village will not be single parent families, unemployed, suffer from a mental illness (the fact that you continue to call them "menatlly impaired" shows how much care and attention you are paying to your own objections) or be from a migrant family. Yet you still perpetuate this myth that every family in the village are of the affluent middle classes and they will never know hardship or suffering of any kind. This is what shows contempt for the hard working compassionate people of this village. Your conjecture that they will be frightened into submission by your imagined assumption that they are prejudiced, intolerant and uncharitable insults them beyond belief.
|
Posted By: watsy
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 5:25pm
|
http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/housing/downloads/HsgRegister2002ActRevised-mv.pdf http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/ApplyingForACouncilHome/DG_10029763 |
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 6:25pm
I don't think you should go so far as to label migrants as lower class, but certainly the levels of crime and anti social behaviour tend to be from that other social class. We shouldn't be dumbing down the population of Chalfont otherwise the levels of antisocial behaviour already seen in the village will steadily increase. There are other places more suitable to ghetto housing. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 12:48pm
| It is not me who has applied these labels, that accolade is to be claimed By SENSE. |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 2:42pm
|
I think if you read back into my text, you will realise that you have labeled these people as lower class, I nor any of my group consider these people as lower class, neither would I be foolish enough to label them as such. Your little stories are of no consequence. SENSE have always maintained that we would welcome a development of 100 houses or so on the Holy Cross site, this is within reasonable limits and would be a welcome addition to the village. This would deliver 30-35 low cost houses which is more than enough to cater for the requirements of our village, it would be up to CDC to honour our requests to house the needy people of our village as opposed to allowing them to go to people from other areas who wish to move to Chalfont St Peter. This is certainly not a xenophobic attitude, but merely a wish to maintain a balance. There is no reason why our village should be expected to take the lions share of the District's development, I agree that these houses should be built, I do not agree that they should all be built in our village, it doesn't take much intelligence to see that this is a reasonable objection and I am sure that anyone reading this will agree (excepting one rather disgruntled and belligerent gentleman). We would also like to see a land swap deal that would enable our (85% oversubscribed) middle school to move to the site, this would then release the foorprint of the old school for further development and would enable our children to get the education that they deserve. We have also expressed that the historic Grange manor be saved either for the school or for use as a community facility. This central and historic site in the middle of our village is key to the identity of the village and should not be white washed away under a ill conceived development plan, but considered carefully and sensitively with the future of the village in mind. This is what town planning is all about, we are doing our best to get a fair deal for our village and we are careful to follow the wishes of the majority as laid out in the Parish Council's survey. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 2:05am
But you would rather call them lazy, embittered and jealous.
So nice to see how much contempt you have for the opinions of so many villagers. But not surprising.
Really? Even though "Whatever you say, these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming." Doesn't seem that you do really want these houses built at all.
As long as it's not here, eh?
I don't see the problem here at all, unless it is because you don't consider their type as desirable material for our village. Are these the so-called druggies, single mothers, mentally ill, foreigners and unemployed you are so frightened of?
And what is that balance? How many unemployed people are allowed to live here, do we have a quota on the mentally ill. Are we to start counting those who were not born in this country? What about single mothers, do we have enough of those yet?
Not according to "these houses will not be built, the strength of opposition is too overwhelming."
Again, ignoring what real people are telling you!
Sorry, explain eighty-five per cent over-subscribed? Because that sounds to me, as though you are saying that the schools have eighty-five per cent more children in them than they should. Which we all know is a bit of a far-fetched statistic.
Hate to burst your bubble on this, but quite a lot of people didn't even know the convent existed, until this all sparked off. Many were surprised to find out that there was even a school behind that fence.
|
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 10:04am
|
I certainly don't want the housing estate to be built here. There are enough dwellings in the village, from affordable housing & flats, to large detached houses. There are more than enough people living here too, around 13,000 which is already large for a village. Bringing in thousands of people from other areas will not benefit the people living here, it will only increase the demand for housing. And why do you want to encourage the unemployed to move to a village with no transport links other than an infrequent bus service. Surely it's better for them to live in a town close to the Underground? I cannot vouch for the 85% oversubscribed, I am sure Sense can. But the CSP CofE school was built for 60 children and currently holds 360. I do sometimes wonder if you live in the village Flyboy, how could you do so and not know about Holy Cross? |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 10:08am
|
There has been a new application submitted by Gerald Eve, the
application numbers is CH/2010/0293/OA and can be viewed at both
entrances to the site, but please go to CDC planning portal on their website to view it in detail. It would seem that the CDC/Gerald Eve team have had to bow to pressure, the housing numbers have been reduced somewhat from 232 to 198 of which 35% will be affordable homes. The new Baptist church is no longer proposed, they have probably lost out to Sport England's objection to retain the playing fields. They are proposing to retain the Holy Cross chapel for use by the public yet demolish the historic Grange building, what use use have we for the chapel, we already have three perfectly good churches in the village, the retention of the Grange would be a suitable gesture to make, yet they still plan to demolish it forever. This new application is a step in the right direction for the village, though these plans are still completely disproportionate to the rest of the district as well as contravening local and national planning law. We will continue to push for a fairer deal for our village. We are still working on a solution to arrange a land swap deal with the middle school. Although previous objections to CDC will still be taken into account they will substantially weakend by this new application, therefore I urge all of you to submit further objections to CDC's planning department. Thank you. |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 11:08am
|
I cannot vouch for the 85% oversubscribed, I am sure Sense can. But the CSP CofE school was built for 60 children and currently holds 360. [/QUOTE] Thank you Malc. Your sentiments are overwhelmingly reflected throughout the village, indeed CSP will cease to be a village if this is built. I'm sure most people can work out that 85% oversubscribed means that there were 85% more children applying to our middle school than there were places. This figure is given to us by Mr Underwood the head teacher of the middle school. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 04 July 2010 at 12:06pm
Thank you Malc. Your sentiments are overwhelmingly reflected throughout the village, indeed CSP will cease to be a village if this is built. I'm sure most people can work out that 85% oversubscribed means that there were 85% more children applying to our middle school than there were places. This figure is given to us by Mr Underwood the head teacher of the middle school. [/QUOTE] You do know there are other schools in the area, don't you? What has the the application rate been, for those schools, over the last ten years? Or is that information not sympathetic to your cause? Can you back your premise up with actual data? How many applied and where were they from? How many had the school as their second choice? What about the data for other schools in the area? What has been the trends over the last ten years for that specific school and the others? What impact does the falling birth rate have on future applications to the school? Are the numbers you were given just for year three, or is it for every year of the school? Seeing as Chalfont Saint Peter Church of England School is the sole only Junior in the area why have you just quoted figures for that school?
The Junior school is mistakenly considered to be the best school in the village, so it is not surprising that most parents would want to try that one first, but when I was approached to be a governor of the school, three years ago, the admission figures were very different. Years four and five were very under-subscribed. I turned down the offer, due to the school's approach to resource allocation and their attitude to special needs provision. The data proved that the sixty per cent of the resources were allocated to only thirty five per cent of the top students. The headteacher would actively discourage parents with children who were statement and who had additional educational requirements.
How much of the data, which John Underwood provided, was really confidential and how much of it was incomplete?
One final question, has SENSE ever produced any accounts?
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 04 July 2010 at 12:37pm
|
You keep asking questions to which we have already supplied answers and proof in our newsletters and mailings, I am not going to post them on here for your benefit. You do not acknowledge any of the links or information that I send you, you are argumentative and you keep firing back question after question after question, so why should I bother engaging you further? You are wasting mine and your own time, I am not going to give credibility to your arguments by continuing these discussions. You do not represent anyone in the village, you are not part of an action group to oppose SENSE, you are acting alone and to date you have not shown anyone any information that would prove otherwise. When I address you, I am only making comments about you and your misinformation, do not take these comments as addressing anyone else in the village. Please stop polluting this forum with your poor quality arguments, they do not have any credibility and I think I speak for everyone else who reads this forum, I look forward to being challenged by your hoards of anti-SENSE followers. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 11:55am
Have you actually published admission figures for every school in the village? I doubt that very much. Judging by the various tenuous claims, which you have made so far, I would find that very hard to believe, bearing in mind much of that information is highly confidential and I doubt very much the likes of John Underwood would have told you very much of anything relating to admissions. If it is true that you have published this information, produce the evidence, but then I suspect you can't.
How very arrogant of you. Just because I don't have the financial resources of SENSE to be able to set up a group to oppose you , you are not going to address these very important issues? This alone shows that my assessment of your objectives to be accurate.
Talking of financial resources, what about those accounts, I don't suppose you would also publish a list of your members and financial backers, would you ?
Your comments on this forum have been aimed at all those who are unemployed, "mentally impaired" as you prefer to call them (what an awful way to describe anyone who suffers from a mental illness or a learning disability), single parent families, people who were not born in the UK and any other section of society who do not fit in with your vision of a Utopian society.
As far as misinformation is concerned, I think you have that upper hand on that. Very little of what you have predicted has actually come true, or ever likely to. You keep saying that you have no problem with some homes being built, but on other posts you insist that you don't want ANY homes built at all. You continue to attempt to play on the imagined fears of the villagers, for which there is no basis at all. You assume that the population of Chalfont Saint Peter are prejudiced bigots and xenophobes by assuming they will object to having the unemployed, "foreigners" (as you call them), the mentally ill and single parent families living amongst them. You frighten them into thinking that the new development will be some sort of ghetto for the dregs of life, imported from London, when there is no foundation for truth in any of this.
When this was exposed as lies, you then tried to make them believe that they would have no option to occupy any of the properties being built. Yet you have been unable to produce a single document that would back up your claims that this has been planned. It is nothing more that conjecture, lies, hyperbole and reactionary nonsense.
Have you addressed these issues with any of the retailers and traders in the village, have you taken any of their views into account? What about the people who work for these businesses and the jobs that will be created, due to the economic growth this development would inevitably bring?
Dismiss me as much as you like, but it will not change the fact that your "campaign" is based on nothing more than self-serving xenophobia and selfish NIMBYism and your desire to ignore the real people of Chalfont Saint Peter.
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:26pm
|
As I have previously stated, you are the only person in the entire village who has complained about anything that we have been doing. Aside from our District Councillors of course, we have been given universal approval. We do not need to publish anything just for your benefit, we are confident that the information that we are receiving is accurate. When required in a court of law, we will produce the proof of our claims. Until then the people of Chalfont St Peter are just glad that handful of people are fighting for the future of the village for their benefit. |
Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:30pm
| FlyBoy i was recently chatting to a Met police officer who says 80,000 Somalian immigrants in London and half are involved in heroin dealing, gangs and prostitution. Why do you think they have a right to be here?What exactly are they contributing? |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:38pm
Dear god, have you alerted SENSE, that is the very information they love to post.
 But seriously, forty-thousand Somalians involved in "heroin dealing, gangs and prostitution," get real.
|
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 12:50pm
I thought as much, again treating the citizens of this village with disdain and contempt. You have made various claims, for which you refuse to publish any supporting documentation, or any other evidence. Doesn't give your campaign much credibility at all, does it?
You are not fighting for anyone's benefit, but your own. You have no concern for interests of the whole population of the village. Just as long as your property prices don't fall and you don't have bump into any more "common" people.
I wonder if the OFT/Trading Standards would be interested in your attitude, to refuse produce any accounts, or details of finances? I am very surprised your members are comfortable with giving you money with no proof of its use, with the lack of audited accounts. I am also very surprised of your reluctance to stand and be counted. Sounds very secretive to me, I wonder why. I wonder if your members are concerned about who they don't know might be funding your campaign.
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:01pm
My disdain and contempt is for you and you alone.  |
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:01pm
Blatantly untrue. SENSE do a fantastic job in looking after the interests of the village and have huge support.
|
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:05pm
Then prove your claims to the rest of the village. Here seems the best place to start. If you refuse to, you prove the assessment is accurate.
|
Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:06pm
|
SENSE represents my interests thanks Flyboy.
Now why do you think those Somalians should be here?
|
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:06pm
Then why don't they prove it? Publishing their accounts and naming their backers is good start. Followed up with proving thier claims.
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:11pm
|
Why bother, we already have the support of the village, we are honest and decent people and it is not in our or the village's best interests to lie. If we were found to be lying or exaggerating, the damage to our reputation would be devastating. Besides, I am sure they would rather we spent our limited time fighting Gerald Eve and Chiltern District Council. |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 1:15pm
|
So why do you think we have 'backers'? What hellish plot are you trying to dream up now in your twisted cynical little head? All of our funds are donated by the good people of the village, we have accounts and these can be made available if required, please go to the website and call the number or send a letter to the address provided and request a copy of the accounts. We have nothing to hide. |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 2:40pm
|
Holy Cross: some success, but work still to be done Overview: As you may have heard, a new revised planning application has been submitted for the Holy Cross site at the heart of our village. With your help, we have had some success in getting the number of proposed houses reduced considerably, and the new plan also retains the playing field for public use and keeps more of the trees. Please see application no. CH/2010/0293/OA on the CDC planning portal to view all of the details. However, we are seriously concerned that the new plan does not in any way satisfy the views of residents as expressed clearly in the village survey. There are still far too may new houses and flats proposed, at too high a density, and being an outline application, the plan leaves a way clear for increasing the volumes further after 'approval'. We must continue to object because we need a full application - which would fix the number and type of new dwellings - and not an outline application. We must also object to the three accesses they propose since they have not been properly researched and do not take proper account of the considerably increased traffic volumes, and the principle of any development on the site until CDC and Gerald Eve make clear attempts to fulfil the requests of our village. Some of the key details: - The dwelling quantities have been reduced by 34 units - not enough in our view and densities are still too high in comparison to the surrounding properties. It's still a village within a village and would fundamentally affect the amenity of Chalfont St Peter, putting unsustainable pressure on our services, and local facilities. - Loss of The Grange Manor. Considering their detailed intentions, irrelevant though they may be, they really have done little to appease the village. They have offered us the chapel as a token gesture, a step in the right direction maybe, though the Grange Manor is a more significant building which holds more local historic interest, they can save the chapel for the community, but this would have to be in addition to the Grange. We would not want to lose the historic Grange manor in preference to the salvation of a chapel. - Unfair distribution. We continue to question why our village is being used as a housing dump for the Chiltern District: Great Missenden, Heath End and Prestwood are receiving no strategic development sites which would result in low cost housing, despite occupying a larger area and having a similar population to CSP. Great Missenden also has a good quality train link to London when we have no such transport links. CDC has still not undertaken an evidence based sustainability study of the towns and villages in the District as is the requirement of the Local Development plan. The reason CDC have not done this is because its favoured site for large scale developments - our village - would score very low on the sustainability scale effectively prohibiting developments of this scale here. We must insist that this evidence based study is performed to our satisfaction. - School land swap. Since this is the strong preference expressed by residents in the village survey, our main focus has always been to encourage a land swap deal with the middle school. This still has not been considered, despite all manner of pleas and requests from villagers, parents, the diocese, teachers and governors. However, there are on-going negotiations under way to try to influence the planners in this direction. - Facilities for the elderly. The new plans include a care home with 74 beds.There is no hard evidence for the need for a care home in the village.However, the village survey did indicate a need for extra care housing, a half-way house between independent living and nursing/care homes. We must therefore continue to object most strongly, and we urge you to help by recording your own objections. How to object: Please see the following bullet points which you can consider for use in your own objection letters. Policy: Saved policies CSF2 which stipulates retention of community facilities (schools) and R10 which stipulates retention of open spaces have both been ignored. Despite CDC's and Gerald Eve's attempts to override the saved policies, there are no alternative policies that have superseded these saved policies. An outline planning application is not suitable for such a large site. Developers will ultimately attempt to increase numbers once the principle for residential development has been approved, we need the application to be a 'full' application, listing all the details exactly as proposed ensuring that the deal that we agree to do is the deal that we get and not another long battle with a greedy developers and their legal team. Access: The proposed new entrance at the top of Market Place is very dangerously located next to an already hazardous junction and is unsuitably sited. Traffic: The build out on Lower Road is still wholly unsuitable for such a busy road, the traffic along this section is already problematic with cars and trucks not being able to pass each other. The prospect of a build out which further narrows the road is a ridiculous proposal. School: Prefer to have a school on the site, one with improved facilities for our kids, since the existing schools are over-crowded and lack basic amenities. The wishes of the village's residents as outlined in the village survey have still not been taken into account. We voted for less houses, lower densities and favoured a land swap deal with the middle school which have all been completely ignored. Both the previous Labour administration and our new Secretary of State's instruction specified that local opinion be built in to any local planning schemes, yet we have experienced nothing but stonewalling. We have had an almighty battle to even get a handful of our local District Councillors to meet with ourselves and the Parish Council's planning consultant. As our elected representatives, they are all obliged to hear and consider our opinions, this still has not happened. There is no legal or ethical reason why they should not do so. Still too many houses. Still too high a density. Grange Manor: There is a strong feeling that the historic old Grange Manor building should be saved, yet Gerald Eve still have not considered this. Care home: We don't want or need a care home. The village survey had a majority request for sheltered accommodation for a more dignified lifestyle for our seniors. Please post your letters to: Planning Department Chiltern District Council, King George V Road, Amersham, Buckinghamshire. HP6 5AW Or e-mail to: planning@chiltern.gov.uk Please ensure that you receive a reply, if you do not it is likely that your details have been ignored or lost and it is important that you call to ensure safe receipt. NB: It says on the letter and Chiltern District Council's website that they will publish your correspondence and personal information on the website. Whilst CDC insist that they must publish your name and address, there is no reason why they need to publish you e-mail, phone number or signature, therefore we advise that you ask that this information should not be published. They are required by law to remove this text before uploading to their website. Thank you for your continued support. With kind regards SENSE4CSP www.sense4csp.org |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 3:30pm
It is very much in your interests to lie, if you are not then prove it, show us the answers to the questions. Most organisations of this type are quite happy to prove their claims. Those who aren't have something to hide.
Looking at your approach towards this subject, it appears you are too arrogant to believe that anyone would dare question you, because apparently everyone thinks you are wonderful, or are still hanging on to the belief that you can do no wrong?
But rather surprisingly (or not), you don't seem to think they would rather be told the truth. Or is it, win at any costs and to hell with the truth?
|
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 3:31pm
If you don't have any backers, publish a list of donors on your website, along with your accounts. If you have nothing to hide, there should be no question.
|
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 05 July 2010 at 3:57pm
|
What would a 'backer' expect us to do for them, do you think we're some sort of covert anti-government agency trying to recruit the good people of the village to bring down the social security system? Your questions are starting to look a little deranged. You have been told where to get a copy of our accounts, you get a copy, you publish them, do what you like with them, we have nothing to hide. You may be aware that there is something celled a freedom of information act, we are not going to publish the names of the individuals who have sent us funds, that would be unethical. This line of questioning is rediculous, we have only spent in the region of £1500- £2000 on publicity and such, some of our money will go to fund the planning consultant and the rest if required will contribute towards a judicial review. We are running on a shoestring budget to save as much of the contributed funding as possible for fighting CDC and Gerald Eve directly. Members of the committee and willing volunteers help out with the rest. We will publish our accounts if necessary, but I am certainly not going to do anything that you request, your track record is that you don't read or acknowledge anything I send you, so why should I bother sending you anything else. Acknowledge the previous links and proof that I have sent then I might consider continuing this 'discussion' with you. We have the trust of the villagers, they are not a cynical as you, but by all means get in touch with trading standards or the local action group ombudsman and we will be glad to publish our accounts, but they are available on request, we are hiding nothing. This is all very silly and amusing, would love to stay and chat but I've got work to do. |
Posted By: Annoying Jamie
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 9:28am
|
SENSE just ignore this guy he comes on here just to argue with people , he disagrees with everything to try and get a reaction. As the admin said hes just a troll.
SENSE is doing a great job. If it was nt for people like this we d probably have a mosque on Goldhill common by now.
|
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 10:16am
| I agree, it was people like him that allowed the precinct to be built in the first place. |
Posted By: phisch21
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 12:18pm
Well we have a Baptist Church on Gold Hill. Is a mosque any better or worse? |
Posted By: J.R.
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 4:22pm
i can see another warning on its way  ------------- JR was ere |
Posted By: Malc London
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 5:02pm
Yes, a lot worse. You don't get a loudspeaker blasting out a "Call to Prayer" 5 times a day with the Baptists.
|
Posted By: brewski
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 6:13pm
CSP is predominantly Christian, be it CofE, RC, or Baptist.
At present there is not a need for a local mosque, if people like "flyboy" prefer communities which favour the mosque to a church perhaps they should move to Slough, Hayes, Southall or likewise ?
Plenty of high density housing to keep the "flyboy" happy and content there!
 Somehow i dont think he would however!
Keep up the FANTASTIC work SENSE.  ------------- Too many laws... Too few examples... |
Posted By: Dave-R
Date Posted: 08 July 2010 at 6:21pm
Including at about 4am.
|
Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 9:36am
|
Posted By: Pants 2 Tight
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 9:40am
| Please don't start on Muslims now. It's totally unnecessary and small-minded. You are just making yourselves look ignorant. |
Posted By: phisch21
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 11:39am
| Well said Pants 2 Tight. |
Posted By: SENSE
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 8:10pm
|
Yes guys, please be cautious, SENSE are so careful to avoid saying anything inflammatory, just in case 'gentlemen' like Flyboy come into the affray. I should have just ignored him, but in some ways it was a good exercise in showing just how strong our case is, though with his irrational and unfounded accusations it was becoming more of a slanging match. But it's great to come back to find all of your support here, I've just had a hip op and it's timely that you've all seen fit to come out in force - I need them positive vibes.  |
Posted By: DanW
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 9:03pm
|
All, Please desist from such blatently imflammatory posts. I have removed the worst of them. There will be no tolerating of such posts. Consider this the one and only warning. Dan ------------- I used to be with it. But then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. |
Posted By: Flyboy
Date Posted: 10 July 2010 at 7:29pm
What a load of puerile twaddle. When did I ever suggest that Mosque should be built? |