To:

The Planning Policy Team

Chiltern District Council King George V House King George V Road Amersham Bucks HP65AW

From:

Martin Tett

11/12/16

CHILTERN & SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COllNCILS .

12 OEC 2016 POST ROOM

RECEIVED

CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS GREEN BELT PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Dear Sir/ Madam

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Chiltern and South Bucks District Council Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation. In this response, my comments and observations are specifically in relation to 'Preferred Option 6' Land to the south of the Metropolitan Railway and bordered by Lodge Lane, Burtons Lane and Long Walk Little Chalfont although issues of principle apply to other sites in the Preferred Options.

Principle and Methodology

The principle that a Green Belt Assessment is required to justify continued inclusion or sites within the Green Belt is accepted, even though no such requirement exists within the National Planning Policy Framework. Case law from areas such as Rushcliffe Council demonstrate that defence of the Green Belt is improved on Inspection and Appeal by such an Assessment.

Any such Assessment must however be fair and objective and not seek to justify predetermined conclusions. It is widely felt that the land occupied by Preferred Option 6 has long been a predetermined release site in the eyes of the District Council. The location of the site near to a station and a motorway junction would appear to make it a targeted release site Irrespective of other factors. This view is supported by the decision to subdivide the former Stage 1 Green Belt Parcels (Parcels 35 and 29) even though they performed well (rated 'medium') against the NPPF criteria. It appears that this decision was designed to contradict the conclusion already reached in the first stage of the Part 1 Appraisal.

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1223 (REDACTED)

Page 1 of 5

Exceptional Circumstances?

The previous assertion in the Regulation 18 consultation that 'un met housing need' in itself constitutes 'Exceptional Circumstances' has been corrected challenged in the Part 2 critical review (comment All page 52). Housing need in itself should not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' for release of Green Belt. If it did the entire principle of the Green Belt would be undermined. The recent judgement of the Secretary of State with regard to Greater Birmingham is clear the 'very special circumstances' must apply and that in that case it was noted that such circumstances may almost be 'unique'.

However, the recommendation in All that 'sustainable development' be used, along with consistency with the 'spatial vision for the District' does not add to the value of the test for 'exceptional circumstances'. This is not a concept used for assessing release within the NPPF. It is a concept drawn up specifically for the Chiltern and South Bucks Assessment. The definitions of these concepts in Tables 2 and 3 of the draft Stage 2 Assessment are not relevant to objective assessment of 'exceptional circumstances'. For example, the sustainability objectives would be relevant to any development, not just to any within the Green 8elt. Similarly, the 'Emerging Spatial Strategy options' define where development could go not whether 'exceptional circumstances' have been demonstrated e.g. ' 8uilt area extensions to the principle settlements'. Therefore these tests do not demonstrate that exceptional circumstances applv.

A clearer and more objective definition of 'exceptional circumstances' should be produced and used prior to any final decisions on Green Belt release.

Inconsistency with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement- Inadequate Information Availability

It is again unfortunate that the Green Belt Assessment Stage 2 is only a draft and not the final Report This makes it difficult for residents to fully comment on its final conclusions. A similar situation occurred with the Regulation 18 consultation where the Green Belt Assessment Stage 1 was not available in totalitv until almost the end of the consultation period in practice meaning that few residents were aware of the final document and able to comment upon this. This is contrary to the Statement of Community Involvement of Chiltern District Council.

Inconsistency with the NPPF

Lack of a permanent and defensible boundary.

The NPPF requires that any Green Belt revisions should create 'permanent and defensible boundaries that endure beyond the Plan period'. It is apparent that this is not the case with the proposal for Preferred Option 6.

The clear defensible boundary that currently exists is the Metropolitan Railway line to the north. This is a clear and substantial boundary. This is also consistent with the Green Belt Assessment Stage 1 use of features such as Motorways, Rivers and Railway lines. The decision in Stage 2 to refine the definition of such boundaries to include 'unclassified public roads and private roads' appears more a technique to justify a pre-determined choice that an objective criterion. Such minor lanes or roads are unlikelv to be either permanent or defensible.

It is inevitable that development pressures will lead to the subsequent release of the land bounded by Burtons Lane and Lodge Lane, despite this being in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is noted that AONB deSignation does not in itself prohibit development.

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1223 (REDACTED)

Page 2 of 5

Promotes merging of neighbouring towns

The land identify clearly does add to the separation of Little Chalfont from Chorleywood and also from Chalfont St Giles. As noted above, the loss of this land will inevitably lead to further pressure upon adjacent land and development is highly likely to extend in time to the junction of Nightingales Lane and Roughwood Lane. This would mean the virtual merging of Little Chalfont and St Giles. Contrary to the NPPF Purpose 2. The Stage 2 Assessment Ref:1.08 does not assess this correctly.

Release will encroach Into the openness of the countryside

The Green Belt Assessment Stage 2 Ref:1.08 states 'Due to the edge of built area location and the former golf club, the northern part of the sub area has a semi urban character'. This is completely inaccurate in both factual and Planning terms. Clearly all Green Belt land must by definition at some point abut an urban area. The location next to an urban area cannot in itself constitute grounds for considering release. In addition, as noted above, the railway line forms a distinct boundary above this site separating it from the urban area. The assessment fails in Planning terms also as It misunderstands the nature of the Green Belt. This is characterised by 'openness' rather that by function. The presence of a Golf Course (either existing or unused) does not in itself constitute an inappropriate use in the Green Belt. The fact that it is currently unused does not in itself constitute grounds for 'exceptional circumstances' and release. If it did the precedent would be set for large scale deliberate dereliction of the Green Belt to promote release. The golf club building only occupies a very small area of the site and does not in itself constitute grounds to support this assessment. It could easily and quickly be removed or renovated.

This and the previous two concerns makes the assessment inconsistent with the Stage 3 assessment process on page 25 of the draft Stage 2 assessment Report as it has inadequately taken into account the impact on Green Belt in surrounding areas.

Unsustainable Development

Whilst not accepting that the definition used in Table 3 constitute the grounds for determining 'exceptional circumstances' it is clear that the proposed site is inconsistent with the professed 'Sustainability Objectives'. Specifically:

Objective 2. Landscape -Impact on the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The release of this site would immediately impact on the adjacent AONB south of long Walk and would inevitably in the medium-term lead to the further release of land within the AONB for development.

Objective 3. Biodiversity- Impact on Ancient Woodland

The site has two significant areas of ancient woodland. Given the proposed density of development it is unlikely that a sufficient and sustainable barrier could be established that would prevent severe degradation and eventual loss of this woodland and its biodiversity. The Wood land Trust advises a minimum area of SO metres around any area of ancient woodland, far more than the proposed 15 metres.

Objective 9. Transport and Accessibility - Highways

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1223 (REDACTED)

Page 3 of 5

The site is separated from Little Chalfont by a steep slope and subsequent hill. The existing lanes are extremely narrow and lodge lane access is restricted by the narrow passage of the existing railway bridge. This is likely to, in practice, restrict the desirability of either walking or CYCling to a majority of new residents. There is also a considerable distance from any properties that might be built adjacent to long Walk and the railway station. It is highly unlikely, even should a footbridge be constructed across the railway line, many residents would walk this distance, particularly in dark or cold months of the year.

It is therefore probable that a high proportion of new residents would drive from the new housing estates. Access to either the A404 or A413 is very restricted. To the east an exit from lodge lane would require significant widening of the lane northbound. This however would still be constricted by the narrow rail bridge. Traffic approaching the A404 north bound from lodge lane would also tail back down the steep hill of lodge lane and would therefore most likely seek to divert down Church Grove and Amersham Way (both of which are narrow roads).

An exit to the west of the site onto Burtons lane is likely to lead to congestion at the Village Green where Burtons lane joins the A404. This is already congested at peak periods and would require reconfiguration. This would have a severe negative impact on the centre of the village and detract significantly from its existing attractive character.

In the mornings dUring peak period the A404 towards Chorleywood and the M25/london is already severely congested with frequent congestion extending back from Chorleywood to Chenies Garden Centre.

An exit for traffic southbound towards the A413 from lodge lane is likely to lead to severe traffic congestion in Roughwood lane, a lane already blighted by traffic along its narrow length.

Objective 9. Transport and Accessibility -Railway Capacity

Although Little Chalfont benefits from a railway station the capacity of this station is restricted by both the available car parking and platform length. Whilst a multi-story car park could be built (if funds were available), the length if the platform is fixed and additional carriages to handle the additional passenger load would be difficult to provide.

Objective 9. Transport and Accessibility - Buses

Any public bus service proposed would require substantial subsidy from developers. The routing of any proposed bus service and its impact upon existing bus services would need to be very carefully considered. Any subsidy from the developers would need to be guaranteed into the long term to ensure continuance.

Objective 11. Health (including well-being) - loss of Community Facility

The Little Chalfont Golf Club has been bought by a speculative developer. Its release would mean a loss of community facilities. Although another golf course exists at Harewood Downs this is a considerably more expensive course and caters almost exclusively for high income members rather than those 'just managing'. Given the proposed density of development it is hard to believe that the site would 'allow the creation of new facilities for outdoor sport or recreation'

lack of accessible Education provision

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1223 (REDACTED)

Page 4 of 5

The high proportion of 'affordable housing' -40%, means that it is likely that a significant proportion of the housing would be occupied by young people or child bearing age. This would lead to a demand for school places. little Chalfont Primary School is already at capacity. Whilst Chalfont Valley Academy School has capacity, it is a significant distance away. This would again exacerbate the traffic situation at peak periods. A satellite 'hub' for little Chalfont Primary on site would reduce the land available for housing and lead to logistical problems for the school's management.

Summary

The Council has not clearly defined objective and defensible criteria for 'exceptional circumstances'. The proposal to use 'Spatial Strategy Options' and 'Sustainability' criteria are self-serving. Even when these criteria are applied it is clear that the site does not justify 'exceptional circumstances'. There is a loss of Green Belt functionality as defined by the NPPF with a strong, negative impact both on the site itself and on the 'Green Belt purposes in surrounding areas' e.g. the AONB and the separation of little Chalfont from adjoining towns and villages. There is also an inability to demonstrate 'sustainable development' e.g. the lack of adequate transport infrastructure, schooling and impact on ecology and bio diversity.

The assessment of the site within the draft Stage 2 assessment is site is highly questionable, leading many to assume a pre-determined conclusion. The current assessment is inconsistent with an objective assessment against the principles for Green Belt as defined in the NPPF and therefore the site should be retained within the Green Belt.

Yours Sincerely,

Martin Tett

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1223 (REDACTED)

Page 5 of 5