NSE 'Development' is a Dump on the Chalfonts and Chiltern District

sense would like answers to the following questions. Most of them have already been put to the NSE in correspondence but their answers have not always addressed the points raised. So the questions, as asked, remain open. As we get answers we will post them here. If you have already received an answer to any of the questions, or indeed have another question to ask, please e-mail the sense editor.

Q	Please explain exactly why £25,000,000 is the true figure that is required by the NSE to meet the new care standards? Will you please specify, in detail, exactly what this huge sum is being spent on? May 2004: Cash demand now £32Million. It's a complete site redevelopment.
	A In their Newsletter #2, the NSE identified £17M for care homes (hardly a detailed breakdown) and £8M for peripherals (not required to meet the Care Standards Act). May 2004: Detailed breakdown and costings still not provided/explained. However, £7Million increased land sale cash in turn pro-rates to £5.4Million building costs for care/sheltered accommodation for 155 people. Very similar to sense's original estimates for the NSE's 152 care residents.

Q	How long would your proposed developments (both residential and remainder of NSE site) take? What are your proposed access points for construction traffic and what routes to these do you expect construction traffic to take to get to the access points?
	A From their planing applications to CDC, 6+ years.

Q	Please explain what will happen to your care residents during the building cycle? (Which sense estimate could be as long as five years). Will they be sent out into the community and if so, where? Also, how can you guarantee during this period that their quality of life will be at least as good as of now?
	A

Q	The NSE Development Plan shows a shocking amount of demolition of good quality buildings. Take, for example, the comparatively recently built book binding unit (which we understand cost the Charity over £1,000,000) and moving it a few yards up the road. How, as a prudent Charity, can you possibly justify this waste? May 2004: Bookbinding unit not rebuilt. Just demolished.
	A

Q	We understand that land was bequeathed to the NSE solely for the purposes of a hospital to help the sufferers of epilepsy. How does selling the land for housing profit fit within this gift?
	A

Q	We notice that the execution of the residential component of your Development Plan is likely to result in between four and five hundred extra cars being parked on the site on a daily basis. We can only see a dozen or so garages on the plan and no designated car parking places. Where do you think all these cars will park? May 2004: Increase in housing developments will increase the cars involved.
	A

Q	There seems to have been significant change in governors and senior employees of the NSE over the last couple of years. Have any of these people departed because they disagreed with the new aggressive building policy?
	A

Q	In order to save unnecessary waste, how has the option of refurbishing existing buildings with sympathetic additions been properly addressed?
	A

Q	The NSE has stated that its traffic consultants had claimed that there would only be a small increase in local traffic as a result of this massive development. This seems very improbable indeed. Can you please provide us with a full copy of the report?
	A

Q	Please confirm or deny that the traffic calming measures and 'improvements' to Rickmansworth Lane and its junction with Denham Lane by your scheme will necessitate any/all of: compulsory purchase of front gardens in Rickmansworth Lane to widen the tarmac, the use of traffic lights, speed bumps, single and/or double yellow lines, and other changes to roads, pavements and verges.
	A May 2005; 2 x new roundabouts on Chesham Lane, chicanes on Chesham Lane and Monument Lane, ground markings in various locations. Submitted to CDC as amendment to planning application - no prior consultation with community.

Q	The NSE states in its Newsletter that it has been loss making, yet the 2003 accounts appear to show a surplus. Please explain this apparent discrepancy.
	A

Q	It appears that your development of resident care homes involves demolishing most/all of the existing ones and building nine new ones, some on greenfield locations. Why: (a) Weren't the same locations used (thereby neither losing greenfield amenity nor flattening the perfectly decent houses on Chesham Lane)?, and (b) What are your plans for the land thus vacated?
	A

Q	How much annual funding is provided by the NHS and how much are they contributing to your redevelopment plan? We note that in your February 2004 planning application re: the Queen Elizabeth Medical centre you assert the need to be medical rather than residential.
	A

Home

Top