7 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 21 November 2012 13:08 posted by Remy Smith

  Localism only works if there is a platform that encourages open debate, irrespective of the contributor's position vis-a-vis the steering group on this website.
  Affiliation and attachment to LOSRA should not be a prerequisite to having a viewpoint in the context of proposed housing developments that affect ALL of us.
  If to dissent is to devalue your views I perhaps have misinterpreted what I thought was an open forum.
  It appears that LOSRA will again be pushing Lindon Homes for the maximum number of family homes on the EA site to the detriment of smaller units.
  
  Plus ca change!
• Comment Link Tuesday, 20 November 2012 15:06 posted by John Hirsh

  Given that Remy Smith does not wish to disclose whether or not he/she is a LOSRA member I do not propose to enter into any further communication on this subject. Enough of my time is taken dealing with members' enquiries through the Website for me to be distracted by non-subscribing residents' comments. PS. I earnestly hope you will not require this for future reference but my name is Hirsh not Hirsch
• Comment Link Tuesday, 20 November 2012 13:25 posted by Remy Smith

  One should not be criticised or black-listed and their views should not be tarnished as the musings of a 'troll' purely on the basis of adopting a divergent view from the perceived concensus of the local community as epoused under the banner of LOSRA.
  
  Within the village I have witnessed wave upon wave of dissension articulated by LOSRA towards any number of housing developments. Many of the letters of objection sent to the planning department have exactly the same template and only require a change of address and name. An observer could allude to the theory that these reponses have been driven by the beliefs of a few.
  With regard to the 800 signatories Mr Hirsch quotes, how many are of this format? I'm also aware all family members are copied, even if they are juveniles.
  Too many LOCAL people will lose out if Linden Homes decide to pursue the 28 unit scheme aswell as imposing an unsafe junction onto an already crowded Thames Street. Where will the council resite the parkings bays that will be swallowed up by the new exit into Thames Street? Where will the 1/2 bed & affordable units be built or will they ever see the light of day given that the council have hardly been upfront since voting for the 28 unit plan?
  Hardly democratic localism at work is it?
• Comment Link Monday, 19 November 2012 21:09 posted by John Hirsh

  The government's own website states:"The government has simplified the planning system so councils have the freedom to make decisions in the best interests of their area. Councils and communities should be central to a system that achieves socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development".
  
  With the support of over 800 local residents the 28 Unit scheme is a fine example of a 'community being central' to a 'socially sustainable development'as espoused by central government. We may choose to disagree with the outcome but we should surely celebrate the Council's willingness to listen to; and then to act upon the wishes of the local resident community.
  
  This Association is quick to criticise local government where it believes that it does not listen to the wishes of its electorate; and welcomes the opportunity to applaud it when it does. For better or worse,this is such an occasion.
  
  From our membership list it is not clear whether Remy Smith is a LOSRA member. He/she may wish to use the 'Contact LOSRA' menu at the top of the Home Page to advise on this.
• Comment Link Monday, 19 November 2012 13:36 posted by Remy Smith

  I think you mean a contrarian Mr Martin(which I am not).
  I re-iterate, the 44 property scheme & its lay-out is the one that best serves the site.
  The smaller scheme has obvious access problems onto Thames Street and provides no affordable element in its design.
  I think Alfred Friday needs to disclose how much Linden Homes have paid to the council by way of off-setting their commitment to the affordable element as outlined in the 44 property scheme.
  I wonder if Linden Homes have financially benefited by entering into this opaque financial settlement with SBC on the now off-set affordable element of this scheme?
  
  Hardly the work of a troll Mr Martin?
• Comment Link Monday, 19 November 2012 12:43 posted by Remy Martin

  You're what is known in the Internet world as a "Troll" Remy Smith
  
  Just posting a contrary view to whatever is posted on here over and over. Really is it worth it?
• Comment Link Friday, 16 November 2012 17:20 posted by Remy Smith

  If I was Linden Homes I'd be looking to push on with the 44 home scheme as it's clearly the best use of the site.
  Unlike the planning committee the planning inspector has been able to judge another Lower Sunbury development on objective grounds, unburdened by how their vote will play out among the local(Conservative) electorate.