|
|
|
|
|
|
sense
are aware of correspondence between local residents and the NSE. We have
also received communications from individuals and others supporting our
opposition for a variety of reasons. For the present, we are not publishing
these.
sense
have attempted to engage the NSE in debate about their proposals, both
by meeting their representatives (on 17 November 2003) and correspondence.
Neither have been particularly successful. This is contrary to the message
they utter in their publications, where they attempt to appear reasonable
and helpful. For example, Graham Faulkner's closing sentence in the NSE's
2nd newsletter (November 2003) was:
"In the meantime, my senior management colleagues and I are more
than happy to answer any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate
to contact us."
Sense
did contact Mr Faulkner, but he failed to answer more than three-quarters
of our questions.
Below
are details of all correspondence between sense and the
NSE up to 18 May 2004.
| |
|
|
|
24
November 2003
sense to Mr Graham Faulkner (NSE)
| Ref:
Meeting with Sense 17th Nov
Dear
Mr Faulkner
Thank
you and your staff for spending the time with us on 17th.
We all found it very interesting and would like to continue
to work toward a solution that fits the needs and principles
of both parties if possible.
To this end there were a number of items that you kindly agreed
to help us obtain in our aim to fully understand the details
of the NSE plan and thus contribute positively.
|
| |
|
| 1 |
You
were to ask the governors for permission to provide Sense with
a copy of the Specification generated by your epilepsy care
experts as a proposal to comply with your target best in care
quality practice as well as required by the latest minimum care
standards. It would be very helpful for us in understanding
the compliance needs and interpretations. (This was the large
yellow bound report) |
| |
|
| 2 |
The
original brief to the architects / cost consultants (Atis, Real,
Wetheralls) for their implementation concepts to achieve the
original specification in 1. Above. |
| |
|
| 3 |
The
two reports approved by the Governors in February 2002, one
reviewing the existing buildings and the other defining the
standards the NSE wishes to achieve. |
| |
|
| 4 |
The
report from the care standards office (Aylesbury) as to the
existing buildings fitness for re-use or not. |
| |
|
| 5 |
The
total gross internal floor area of the care homes in m2 as represented
by the budget of £17 million and on which the cost consultant
estimates were based. |
| |
|
|
6
|
A
typical room layout drawing and the gross internal floor area
in m2 of a typical room required for one of the 152 residents
and for each category of service user where different. |
| |
|
| 7 |
The
number of rooms for each category of service user Respite/complex
needs etch and details of any significant extra over costs to
provide the higher dependency rooms over that of your standard
rooms. |
| |
|
| 8 |
A
drawing (referred to as a schematic) showing a typical cluster/care
group of rooms. |
| |
|
| 9 |
A
copy of the planning permission submission before it is submitted,
consistent with a timely consultation process. |
| |
|
| 10 |
The
petition you received with the extra 3 names ! |
| |
|
We
understand there may be some costs associated with this request
and would be willing to meet these if required and reasonable.
Where the data can be provided directly from source, would you
please provide us with the contact details. Your response to
these requests would be appreciated.
Yours
sincerely
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
23
December 2003
Mr Graham Faulkner (NSE) to sense |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr
Faulkner elected to mark his letter to sense as "CONFIDENTIAL". sense
do not know why, but nevertheless, for the present, will respect that.
Suffice it to say that Mr Faulkner was not at all forthcoming as regards
supplying the requested information. Indeed, 8 of the 10 questions
we asked were not responded to at all. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
19
January 2004
sense to Mr Graham Faulkner (NSE) |
|
| |
|
|
| Dear
Mr Faulkner
NSE
land sale and care home development plan
Thank
you for your letter of 23 December in response to mine of 24 November,
where Sense had requested 10 separate requests for information as
discussed in our meeting.
I would
like to summarise this response on an item by item basis with what
is now our understanding of your stance on making this information
available. The original requests are in italics with answers, response
or comments in bold.
"….To
this end there were a number of items that you kindly agreed to
help us obtain in our aim to fully understand the details of the
NSE plan and thus contribute positively.
|
|
| |
|
|
| 1 |
You
were to ask the governors for permission to provide Sense with a copy
of the Specification generated by your epilepsy care experts as a
proposal to comply with your target best in care quality practice
as well as required by the latest minimum care standards. It would
be very helpful for us in understanding the compliance needs and interpretations.
(This was the large yellow bound report) |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 2 |
The
original brief to the architects / cost consultants (Atis, Real, Wetheralls)
for their implementation concepts to achieve the original specification
in 1. Above. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 3 |
The
two reports approved by the Governors in February 2002, one reviewing
the existing buildings and the other defining the standards the NSE
wishes to achieve. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 4 |
The
report from the care standards office (Aylesbury) as to the existing
buildings fitness for re-use or not. |
|
|
A
|
Thank
you providing the letter from Gill Jeffers of the NCSC, where the
quotes from the required standards are quite clear and reasonable,
although do not appear to require extreme redevelopment of the entire
site to satisfy them. |
|
| |
|
|
| 5 |
The
total gross internal floor area of the care homes in m2 as represented
by the budget of £17 million and on which the cost consultant
estimates were based. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 6 |
A
typical room layout drawing and the gross internal floor area in m2
of a typical room required for one of the 152 residents and for each
category of service user where different. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 7 |
The
number of rooms for each category of service user Respite/complex
needs etc. and details of any significant extra over costs to provide
the higher dependency rooms over that of your standard rooms. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 8 |
A
drawing (referred to as a schematic) showing a typical cluster/care
group of rooms. |
|
|
A
|
See
(A1) below |
|
| |
|
|
| 9 |
A
copy of the planning permission submission before it is submitted,
consistent with a timely consultation process. |
|
|
A
|
You
have made no mention of this request and we can only assume that you
now intend to make the submission giving no visibility to Sense before
this time. |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 |
The
petition you received with the extra 3 names ! |
|
|
A
|
Thank
you for supplying these. |
|
| |
|
|
|
A1
|
On
all of these requests you say "They (the governors) have decided
not to release copies of our design guide, the report on the evaluation
of existing houses against the draft standards that was completed
in Oct 2001 or the now superseded specification given to conceptual
architects, as they do not believe that this would be in the best
interests of the society.."
You go on to say that "..the governors felt that it would not
be helpful to supply you (Sense) with outdated material, as revised
plans are nearing completion and it would be more appropriate for
us to have copies of these documents once they are generally available.
|
|
| |
|
|
But
of course this is only in the future, at the point in time when you
are obliged to make this information public anyway.
In essence, you have chosen to provide Sense with practically
no new information whatsoever.
May I please refer you back to the opening paragraph of my above-referenced
letter to you? Firstly, I said Sense would like to work with
you in finding a solution acceptable to all. Secondly, I reiterated
our verbal agreement that you would provide further and better particulars.
In my opinion, your response to me falls seriously short of being
acceptable, in any reasonable consultation process, on both counts.
Please confirm if this interpretation is correct.
In
your original publication "Outlining the Need for Change"
and in both your newsletters you invite questions on your proposals
from the local community. In the light of the above, this appears
not to be the case.
A large degree of trust has built up between the NSE and the local
community over a number of years, but perhaps now you don't need
or want local community involvement. This would be disappointing,
as you have told the local Chalfonts community in your newsletters
otherwise and either way we both must make the truth clear to them.
At
our meeting on 17 November you held yourself out as a principal
negotiating on behalf of the NSE. Your response in your letter suggests
that this is not the case and all important matters must go through
your Governors. Is this so? If it is, perhaps you could supply
appropriate contact details.
In
the final paragraph of your letter to you say "the material
on the sense web site does not encourage us to make more
information available". If there are any factual inaccuracies,
please advise us and we will remedy these immediately. (In
fact the home page on the web site provides an e-mail link to do
just that).
If you do not like the opinions, concerns, doubts expressed there,
you will simply have to accept that there are opposing views about
much of the substance of your proposals, and the communications
conduit you are using to attempt to control the debate does not
permit these to be aired. The Sense web site also provides
a Forum (a.k.a. "message board") where we encourage free
debate on all aspects of your housing development and site development.
Perhaps you would like to contribute there.
Yours
sincerely
R Wilson
For and on behalf of Sense
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
18
February 2004
Mr Graham Faulkner (NSE) to sense |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Mr
Faulkner again elected to mark his letter as "CONFIDENTIAL". sense
do not feel this to be at all in the spirit of consultation and openness.
Nevertheless, again, for the present, will respect that. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
12
March 2004
sense to Mr Graham Faulkner (NSE)
| |
|
| Dear
Mr Faulkner
Regarding
your letter dated 18 February 2004:
I
agree that at our original meeting the tone was respectful,
even where we disagreed. I also left that meeting with the
understanding that the NSE would be transparent in it's plans,
and would open them to detailed scrutiny in an attempt to
actually rationalise and contribute to minimising the stated
costs, thus reducing or avoiding the proposed Green Belt destruction.
Unfortunately the NSE chose not to be forthcoming with any
information, even in the name of "consultation".
Choosing to simply hurtle into planning application with a
"new" plan that, correct me if I'm wrong, has similarly
not been subject to any local community disclosure, or NCSC
review for potential suitability!
Our
intention was and still is to genuinely attempt to positively
contribute. Your actions and obvious intent however make that
very difficult for us. So as far as "simply challenging
everything you have said and done", what is our alternative?
To roll over and let you wantonly destroy the local amenity?
We live in the local area. For you and your colleagues it's
a job. You do not have to live with the situation thereafter,
indeed you may happily move on at some time, and as such your
seemingly opportunistic plans demand our urgent attention.
All
that said let me deal with the detail of your letter:
|
| 1. |
Firstly
I do not understand why you label the communication to be confidential.
Copying David Josephs and getting your PA to pp sign, as well
as any wider distribution of the letter within the NSE itself
would therefore be potentially actionable. Also mutual confidentiality
has to be agreed in writing beforehand by both parties.
|
| 2. |
Regarding
your claim that we "..didn't even have the decency to send
you a copy of our second newsletter". Mr Glyn Taylor sent
a copy of the second Newsletter to Anna Robertson by letter
on 22 December 2003. I have attached a copy of this letter.
Perhaps you would like to withdraw your comment about us not
having the decency to send you a copy?
|
| 3. |
| Our
justification to use the phrases that we have used is
as follows: |
| (a) |
Open
cheque book. This is because there is massive waste in
knocking down and rebuilding a perfectly good bookbinding
plant, which cost millions only a few years ago. All of
the ongoing daily improvements to the NSE properties will
be wasted when they are all destroyed as a result of this
redevelopment. Significant sums are being spent by the
NSE on this development, which is why we think it is evidence
of an open cheque book policy. This also shows why we
think it is a massive waste and extravagance.
|
| (b) |
You
may recall that in our meeting you specifically admitted
that your concern was not for the residents of Chalfont
St Peter. You specifically stated that and we all noted
it. You pointed out that your overriding concern was to
look after your residents, as was your professional responsibility,
and accordingly, we believe the comment we made was justified.
|
| (c) |
It
is in our opinion a highly aspirational exploitation of
land and we believe we are justified in saying you are
using Government guidelines as ransom over Chalfont St
Peter. i.e. if you do not allow us to do this we might
have to close down and you will get something worse. You
also admitted in our meeting that the NSE would not want
to put too many constraints on the developer. As that
would not provide you with the maximum amount of money.
Accordingly, the NSE's key concern is to receive the most
amount of money rather than the legacy that you will leave
behind.
|
|
| 4. |
Please
explain what you mean by "a good many other people"
being staggered by our Newsletter. Could you let us know who
they are and what their thoughts were as we would be interested
to know, and we certainly do not want people to be mislead in
any way, by any party.
|
| 5. |
Can
you please give us details of the traffic surveys you have commissioned.
You told us that you only had one small counting survey done
when we met. You also told us when we met that you had not consulted
local doctors, nor have you been in contact with the local school.
We refute the fact that we are being dishonest, nor are we spreading
more untruths, we are merely repeating what you told us. We
did ask local doctors and we asked local schools, both of whom
told us they have had no approach from you at all.
|
| 6. |
Please
can you quantify your contacting a number of people who had
signed the petition and had no idea what they were signing.
If people would like to discuss with us further, they are perfectly
entitled to do so. No-one was coerced to sign any petition.
We spent a great deal of time over many weeks, talking to many,
many people, explaining the petition and the importance of the
protection of Green Belt land, so your comments are surprising.
However, we would welcome any further specific details you might
wish to send to us on this so we can investigate the details.
|
| 7. |
The
NSE development is worth £100 million, adding up the value
of the property development that is going on and what it will
be valued at on sale. Nowhere have we accused you of starting
your redevelopment without planning permission. It is not what
we have said that is "scandalous and unfounded and running
pretty close to breaking the law," but in fact the contents
of your letter!
|
| 8. |
The
NSE scheme is excessive in our view but we are not suggesting
that your patients should not have the best care. That is a
distortion by you of what we have said.
|
| 9. |
I
would invite you to withdraw your comment that members of our
Group have had the audacity to try and coerce the NSE area manager
to amend her views about the suitability of the facilities and
the need to upgrade them. How on earth have you arrived at that
unfounded scandalous accusation? Are you saying that we do not
have the right to talk to the area manager of the NSE? We have
only asked simple questions seeking (but not getting) simple
answers, considering it is a major plank of your argument that
if you do not make these changes you will be closed down. Surely
we have the right to see if that is the case. I will be taking
your comment up with Gill Jeffers at the NCSC.
|
| 10. |
We
say that the NSE historically does not listen to local concerns.
There are many that remember the NSE proposed housing of high
risk mental patients in Debenham House. Concerns were aired
at the time and ignored until higher authorities became involved.
|
| 11. |
You
keep saying that we do not give you a solution. We cannot give
you a solution because we are not privy to the information you
have. You are not willing to share that information with us
and therefore we are not able to help you. That again, is a
fundamental point. You are not willing to inform the local community,
you are only willing to tell the local community what you want
them to hear. There is no open dialogue, you have closed that.
Surely we are entitled to challenge everything you say or do
because the impact of your proposals on the local community
are so destructive and so appalling that we have no choice other
than to do that.
|
| 12. |
I
would invite you to withdraw your comments that we are "misrepresenting
what the NSE is trying to achieve". We are not doing that.
We can only report on the information that we have, as you are
clearly not prepared to give us any more and we are absolutely
100% accurate in our view that you are trying to ride roughshod
over the Local Plan and in place Green Belt land protections.
|
| 13. |
Please
let us know who the "..people of Chalfont St Peter, and
others with genuine interest in the Society and it's work.."
that you intend to keep informed are, so that we can accurately
report on your consultation process, and attempt to work toward
satisfactory solutions. |
So going forward. We fully expect you to submit planning application
soon.
I would have thought a sensible way forward would have been
to review your plans in detail for likely NCSC compliance, beforehand
though. Claiming the figure you have (£25M) as needed
to comply is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
We have met with the NCSC and understand the lamentable state
the NSE is now in. We also note that remedial work is being
done and this is claimed to be to comply with the standards.
I hope the new work is not then subject to the redevelopment
plans subsequently, as this would be very wasteful. Planning
application has been noted for this work.
Sense would welcome some transparency in the proceedings and
details going forward, because we genuinely want to see the
NSE remain, and provide reasonable accommodation for it's residents.
It is and has always been the scale proposed and amenity/green
belt destruction that is the major problem.
I
also include the correspondence I have had with Cheryl Gillan,
regarding funding of health care in Bucks that was raised
by her in the Commons. As you can see there is opportunity
maybe to apply for a Capital Grant.
Many of us believe that alternate funding has not been exhausted,
and that government funding should be allocated to you. Good
luck in your applications for funding, and any help we can
provide would be forthcoming.
Please feel free to contribute on the web forum if you wish
to. It is open to anybody.
If the local community remain disconnected from any consultation
then we have no choice but to fight the application at every
stage. Sense intend to do this.
Yours
sincerely
Bob
Wilson
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| As
of 18 May 2004 sense had not received a response to
their letter of 12 March2004. |
|
| |
|
|
|
