Raans Development Site

Residents are now reporting cases of dog muck on the estate which kids have trodden in whilst playing outside.  Residents have also received letters advising them that dogs can no longer be let off their lead on the estate and dog warden patrols are to be instigated. Park Place is already getting a taste of some of the inevitable and rather negative consequences that are undoubtedly to follow.

There is a lovely and very popular dog on this estate called Harry. My son used to enjoy playing ball with him and going over to the field with his owner.  This dog wouldn't hurt a fly, but because of this development his freedom may also be curtailed. And, with that the pleasure of his owner and the children who like playing with him.  It doesn't seem fair does it? When it is dog owners from off the estate who seem to be the main culprits.  A problem I might add that didn't exist prior to the field being closed off.  Under the circumstances I think Cala Homes and not Paradigm should foot the bill for the new dog bins which are clearly going to be needed here in Park Place.

The whole issue of this new development needs looking at very carefully, and I wonder how much thought actually went into the decision making process by Bucks CC when they determined to cash in this asset.

I think to be honest that the idea to involve a church in this was seriously flawed.  Religion, as we know, is often a very divisive issue amongst people, and it is no different here.

On the estate there are people who welcome the church enthusiastically and genuinely believe it will be an asset to the community, equally others understandably feel the whole thing is an incredibly cynical ploy by the powers that be and the developer to enable them to get what they wanted using the church as an effective tool to  help them achieve this. Timing was a critical factor too.  As a result the Park Place Fun Day has had to be cancelled permanently.

As always in these situations is the way  things are gone about that upset people the most.  Things such as; the leaseholders being told when they purchased their properties that the field would not be touched;The Tree Protection Orders (TPO) placed on the trees which are now being cut down, taken off again at the drop of a hat.  There is no function to a TPO if it doesn't protect the trees that have them, if the council have the power to remove them at their convenience then it seems they are not protected at all.

Then there is the fact that residents on the estate received letters only the first time around when the planning application was rejected..More naive individuals (such as myself, not involved in planning applications before) were unaware that it is normal practise for these applications to be resubmitted with only minor alterations until  they are eventually forced through.  When this happens it seems they are not obliged to notify these same residents a second time around, the plans show only a handful on the boundary line were contacted.

It seems, once again,  that our authorities cannot trust the general public enough to share properly in its decision making.  This is one of the points David Cameron is specifically referring to and I understand what he means here.

There is a lack of openness (and that's putting it kindly).

Perhaps BCC were in a panic because they were short of funds to cover services now and in the future ? Or under pressure to build homes and meet targets they couldn't afford (and risk being penalised).  Kings Church, I am sure, must have viewed the offer to buy their piece of land for the nominal price of a £1 as divine providence, and frankly who can blame them! Then there's CDC somewhere in the middle?  Is this how it was?

Please comment. I think people want to understand what's going on here.  I also wonder what agencies such as the police and Paradigm really think?

I believe a group of residents are instigating an appeal process with the Secretary of State at the moment.  I would be grateful if the lady I met the other day from this group would contact me - or PLEASE comment here.  I think there is something to do with a negotiation with Sport England, and some ruling whereby playing fields can only be disposed of with their consent, also funds realised should only be used specifically for the purpose of sport and education.  (Can anyone confirm if this is correct? There is also something here about the field having to be left for a 5 year period without an official sporting body using it??This is of some significance I believe.

If this is correct Park Place would love a new educational play trail (amongst other things) for the kids here.  This is desperately needed.  I notice a £50k fund raising project has begun at Chiltern Heights - I suspect this is not a coincidence either.  It can't have escaped people's attention that the new playground proposed near the church will also be slap bang in the middle, halfway between Park Place and Chiltern Heights.  It doesn't take Einstein to appreciate that this is possibly not the most sensible arrangement in this area!  Well  - Park Place want one too!

Under the circumstances I feel Bucks CC should fund both these projects if the appeal fails.  And, if it does we want something from Cala Homes too!

Can someone else clarify why there is no social housing allocation amongst the new build as this was something else that I thought was mandatory now.  With 20,000 plus applicants on Paradigm's waiting lists are we doing anything about this?  And if not, WHY not?

I'm sorry to have to say it, as it won't be popular, but we are going to have to build on some green belt. What other way round this is there?  With immigration from Europe and the expanding population - you can't keep squeezing everyone into the same small pieces of land.  There will be nothing but more disharmony and social tensions in these overcrowded communities.   I mean HOW CAN YOU?

I imagine both the police and Paradigm, whose resources must be stretched, are waiting with baited breath for the outcome to all this.  So far I can only see problems and less harmony (a harmonious community being the aim of the church presumably!) - the haves and have nots, side by side - are the church ready to take on this challenge...............

What does everyone else think?