Facebook Twitter

You are here:    Forum - Issues & Concerns - Anonymous flyer

Anonymous flyer

Last weekend I received an anonymous flyer through my letter box. At first thought was that is from the Neighbourhood Plan however on reading it I discover it is from a New Road NIMBY who does not have the courage to sign it. May I ask a)that in future people who publish document should identify themselves. b)that the writer of this publication refrains from signing any future publications with the email "shiplakeresidents@gmail.com" unless it clearly identifies the participants.

Posted by: Malcolm Gregory | 06/12/2017 9:32 pm

Mr Littlechild, whatever you may think of the process or of the 300 residents who came to the exhibition, it is certainly not fake news or in anyway misinformation unlike your posts here. If you can get more than 300 people out to an exhibition by all means do so until then you appear to have nothing to say apart from ranting and raving that you don't like the recommendations or the responses of 300 people and thus the process must be bad.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 11/12/2017 8:00 pm

"FAKE NEWS" 300 people probably make up about 20% of the two villages I would therefore suggest a new head line.


ABOUT 80% OF VILLAGERS DO NOT MAKE COMMENT ON THE NP AT THE OPEN EXHIBITION


So I can agree some people are making ridiculous statement.

Posted by: M J Littlechild | 11/12/2017 7:40 pm

I am concerned at some of the ridiculous and personal accusations that are appearing on this forum. 11 residents have given a year of their time to arrive at some recommendations, 73% of 300 attending the exhibition indicated they approved in principle.
Why does that mean that a single resident can call for resignations, infer things are rotten and scatter disinformation. Frankly it's pathetic and I would expect better!

Posted by: Peter Boros | 11/12/2017 6:57 pm

I have no intention of apologising for my comment it was not addressed to Mr Boros but to the whole of this NP process.

Posted by: M J Littlechild | 11/12/2017 5:13 pm

Mount Ida is in the NEW Shiplake parish boundary. SODC has ruled that the Shiplake NP must be based on the OLD boundary. The Shiplake NP Group has no control over this. You owe Mr Boros an apology for your "something rotten in the state of Denmark" comment.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 11/12/2017 5:03 pm

Cllr Bartholomew, I'm sorry but this does not help in any way. It clearly states on SODC's website that Mount Ida is in Shiplake. If SODC are saying Mout Ida cannot be included then are we getting a SODC plan or a Shiplake plan. Maybe there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

Posted by: M J Littlechild | 11/12/2017 5:00 pm

Mr Littlechild

Mount Ida is within the old Harpsden Parish boundary and was considered as part of the Joint Henley Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan and rejected. The advice from SODC was that at this point in time it cannot be reconsidered as part of the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan. If there is a change in the situation, other sites in the old Harpden Parish could also be considered, but that is not the case at the moment.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 11/12/2017 4:01 pm

Mr Boros, My source of information is that of the NP committee and although you are correct that Mount Ida is not within the NP Area, 90% of it is inside the 'Boundaries for Development Area', (which I assume came from the committee). Therefore I think the NP Committe would be able to select it!

Posted by: M J Littlechild | 11/12/2017 3:42 pm

Mr Boros. I have not missed a single point.Thank you.Without wishing to repeat myself again,I understand you questioning their method,I have not argued this. My concern is that you feel you have the right to dismiss resident concerns as Nimbyism and even after a protracted discussion on the subject,you still fail to recognise your words as being ill-chosen and possibly inciteful. I am starting to have some sympathy with the residents of New Road if this is the attitude they have come up against.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 08/12/2017 11:30 am

Charles, I think it is you who misses the point. A resident distributor of a official parish news letter included their own document in the centre of that news letter. It was not signed it purported to represent Shiplake Residents and it gave misleading and incomplete information. What would you term such action as?

Posted by: Peter Boros | 08/12/2017 10:28 am

Mr Littlechild, I omitted to respond to your point about publication of information regarding site selection. I am not sure where you heard this information, but I suggest you obtain the full story from your source.
The list will be published together with the full evidence base when the documentation is ready. There will then be a further 6 week consultation period. At that time everyone will have access to all the information rather than just a few people who have requested it last week.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/12/2017 10:38 pm

Mr Littlechild, Mt Ida does not fall within the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan area. We are not therefore at liberty to select it!
At a personal level if you care to look at the Mt Ida planning register, I have actually supported the scheme providing it comprises a lower density.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/12/2017 9:08 pm

Mr Boros, I find your attitude as a Chair appalling. Rather than listen to peoples legitimate points of view you publicly put them down. You then spout off your views as if the NP is nothing to do with other Shiplake residents. You refuse to publish all the site assessment data, which begs the question as why Mount Ida was not selected maybe you're the NIMBY. Publish the criterion and prove me wrong. This process has been so undemocratic, do we not live in a stalinist state. YOU SHOULD RESIGN!

Posted by: M J Littlechild | 07/12/2017 8:53 pm

Mr Boros. I suspect you fully understand my issue as it is not a complex one and has nothing to do with site 27. My issue is with your attitude toward a resident who has raised concerns. You feel it is acceptable to dismiss the person as a NIMBY, whereas I, do not feel this is acceptable behaviour from a Chair of a Neighbourhood Planning Group. I have repeated this point three time now so suggest we leave it there.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 07/12/2017 5:45 pm

Charles,
We are happy to take questions publicly or privately.
I am not sure I fully understand your comments here however.
The Steering group has already as part of its work assessed site 27 and I was simply explaining our views about it for the benefit of all who might raise a similar question given that a number of residents received the 'flyer' that was inserted into the news letter by a resident.
Also very happy to meet anyone that would like to. I hope this helps.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/12/2017 5:16 pm

Mr Boros. You say you positively welcome comments and yet, right here in this discussion, you have written off a residents concerns as mere Nimbyism. I note your decision not to condemn this attitude, but rather to excuse and support it.
I, for one, do not feel encouraged to provide any public critique or feedback on the proposals.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 07/12/2017 5:03 pm

Charles, We positively welcome comment by residents as highlighted by the exhibition & feedback mechanism, this web site and the consultation processes for Neighbourhood Plans generally. Malcolm's comments were about the methods employed rather than anything else.

The NP Steering Group is charged with representing the whole of the 2 villages.

Residential development at site 27 would in my view result in the 'Green Gap' being attacked by infill proposals from developers which we don't want.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/12/2017 12:22 pm

I am afraid I have not commented on this noticeboard before, so I do hope I am doing this correctly.

I was somewhat taken aback by the comments expressed here.

It is my view that all residents and in particular, the Chair of Neighbourhood Planning Group should be encouraging and supporting resident discussion, deliberation and voicing of concerns without inciting fear of recrimination or being branded NIMBYs, neither of which would appear to be are helpful or in the spirit of this process.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 07/12/2017 11:57 am

Many thanks Malcolm as Chair of the NP Steering Group I confirm that this was a wholly unauthorised and misleading flyer that was inserted in the News letter by one of the distributors. We became aware of this spoiler last week but took the view that most people would recognise the document for what it is - a resident seeking to move development away from New Road where he lives and in to the centre of the Green Gap separating the two villages. We believe this would invite infill of the grn gap.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/12/2017 9:47 pm

Login to post a reply

You are here:    Forum - Issues & Concerns - Anonymous flyer