Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Number42
Villager
Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
|
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?
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
PeaBee
Villager
Joined: 26 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 232
|
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
|
|
Number42
Villager
Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
|
Posted: 16 December 2009 at 2:36pm |
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?
|
|
Malc London
Chalfont Snapper
Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 8490
|
Posted: 16 December 2009 at 5:04pm |
With an election due early next year, perhaps we should see who our local MP is supporting.
|
|
Flyboy
Villager
Joined: 27 June 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 346
|
Posted: 16 December 2009 at 5:27pm |
Probably the side that benefits her the most.
|
|
Number42
Villager
Joined: 11 August 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 149
|
Posted: 16 December 2009 at 7:37pm |
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?
|
|
SENSE
Local
Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
|
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.
|
|
watsy
Chalfont Admin
Joined: 11 January 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1426
|
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
|
|
SENSE
Local
Joined: 20 January 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 41
|
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!
|
|
brewski
Chalfontonian
Joined: 12 September 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 938
|
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.
|
Too many laws...
Too few examples...
|
|