| Q.
£25M seems an awful lot of money just to meet increased rules
on on care standards. Is it a realistic figure? |
|
|
A.
The NSE's plan is not incremental (i.e. not "over and above"
existing facilities). It is instead a raze and rebuild, hence the
large capital cost. |
| |
A. Update
Jan 04: The NSE now say £17M for care homes and £8M
for peripherals. They have provided no breakdown for the £17M.
Update May 04: £25M may have
seemed 'an awful lot of money'. However, the NSE planning application
submitted was to raise £32M. £18M for care homes, £14M
for 'other'. |
| |
|
|
| Q.
I've seen that they say they're building within their existing
'building line' and also that a Government review in 1996 recommended
their land be excluded from the Green Belt plans. Aren't these valid
reasons to build where they suggest? |
|
|
A.
Where to start! The building line the NSE is relying on takes into
account the few isolated cottages on Tate Road, right at the edge
of their estate. The nearest other NSE buildings are about 130 yards
away, across the field now at risk from urbanisation. Some building
line!! As to the 1996 recommendation, it was just that - a recommendation
that didn't
get adopted. Perhaps not too surprisingly, as the site
is low density with lots of open spaces and many single-story buildings.
Even so, sense are unclear as to what the 1996
review suggested was taken out of Green Belt classification - the
existing developed site, the developed site out to the 'building line'
(which may include Skippings Farm, actually inside the Colne Valley
Park boundary) or the entire estate. The two latter possibilities
are potentially very threatening indeed. |
| |
|
|
| Q.
Is this the full extent of their development plans. Might there
be more in the future? |
|
|
A.
Their documentation states that they have no plans to do further land
sales for development 'outside the
existing perimeter of their site' in the foreseeable future. But of
course that could also have been said three or four years ago, and
look at where we are today. They have made no formal commitment on
future schemes, whether by timescale or size. Also, as the NSE won't
define what they mean by 'the existing perimeter of their site' their
statement is of no great value. |
| |
A. Update
May 04: Isn't hindsight wonderful? It now seems that £25M
wasn't the full extent of their plans after all. So any assurance
now given about future plans . . . . . . |
| |
|
|
| Q.
Do you believe the NSE is really listening to comments and concerns
from the public? |
|
|
A.
To a limited extent. After all, as their planning application
proceeds through several stages, the public will be entitled to formally
comment/object. Far better then (from their perspective) that they
appear to be doing this early. Whether any criticisms affect their
proposals to a major degree remains to be seen. |
| |
A. Update
Jan 04: The NSE have 'shut up shop' since September 2003. There
has been only a trickle of information coming out from them, and
none of that in respect of the key issues.
Update May 04: A complete U-turn
by sense on this one. No, we do not now believe the
NSE listens to the public at all. The petition signed by over 1,800
people in and around Chalfont St Peter has been totally ignored
by them. Correspondence to them is largely answered enthusiastically
if it concerns their continuing site or residents and is sidestepped
where it raises concerns about matters outside their boundaries,
e.g. cars, services, amenity, etc. As
far as we can tell, the NSE only pay lip service to public concerns
- these are not progressed into actions.
|
| |
|
| Q.
The NSE is publicising its proposals, the community's responses
and how it will address and progress these. Isn't this a fair and
reasonable attitude by the NSE? |
|
|
A.
Partially. It's certainly better than nothing, but remember
two things. Firstly, their planning process didn't start recently
- it's probably been underway since 2001; - the NSE has
only taken their ideas to the public when they were ready to do so.
Secondly, the NSE is seeking to control the debate. Their 'Newsletter
1' dated August 2003 quite blatantly "dumbs down" the intensity
of feeling in responses from the public and actually attempts to concentrate
on matters close to their heart, e.g. so-called "traffic calming"
near their property. So, beware the spin! |
| |
A. Update
Jan 04: The NSE's Newsletter No. 2 has carried on where No. 1
left off - it could well have been written at the same time as the
'Outlining The Need For Change' brochure. Perhaps of most interest
is that when sense met with the NSE on 17 November 2003
we were advised that several changes would be incorporated into the
formal planning application. No such reference was made of this in
December's Newsletter No. 2. So much for keeping the public informed!
Update May 04: sense
continue to see the NSE's 'publicity' simply as heavily biased propaganda
that they may later use to say they kept the public fully informed.
sense do not believe that submitting a £32M planning
application without advance public notice (when previously £25M
and £25M only had been publicised) constitutes fair publicity
of its proposals. |
| |
|
| |
|
