CDC's Options
Chiltern District Council is now required to show that it can build 2900 new dwellings by 2026, they proposed four different strategies (described briefly on the right) for achieving the targets, though, unbelievably, three of these were deemed not viable before they could be decided on. Click here to see the CDC Options Summary Document 2008.
The map below shows the effect on each settlement in Chiltern District of each of the four options, with the revised 2010 dispersal shown in purple.
Notice how badly Chalfont St Peter (at the bottom of the page) fares under Option 3, CDC's chosen option, compared to the other options, particularly Option 2. The largest towns where extra housing could be sustained are actually receiving similar quantities, this is disproportionate and shows very real bias in CDC’s decision making process.
Click the map above for a larger image.
Option 1 - Urban concentration
Some development within all the principal settlements. MInimises development in the green belt and supports village centres. It would be difficult to provide affordable housing and employment. Development would be on backland.
Option 2 - Targeted expansion of Amersham and Chesham
Development in areas of best accessibility and more affordable housing than option 1. More positive planning of the economy. Reduced impact on established residential areas. Requires green belt development.
Option 3 - Targeted expansion of Amersham, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter
Development in areas of good accessibility. More affordable housing than option 1 and better distribtion. More positive planning of the economy. Reduced impact on established residential areas. (This is untrue in the case of the Grange site.) Requires green belt development.
Option 4 - Dispersed pattern
Large proportion of affordable housing across most settlements. Increased support for village facilities. Development dispersed throughout the District but on land not easy to access. Would require green belt land. Increased rural traffic. Unsustainable locations.
2010 Draft Core Strategy (current CDC plan) Chalfont St Peter numbers reduced to 600. Please note that in this model, Little Chalfont and Chesham Bois have been separated from the Amersham bar chart to reveal the correct proportional distribution. (Amersham is not as hard done by as CDC would have us believe.)
Sense4csp considers the choice of Option 3 to be flawed and irrational. Under Option 2, development would be in the larger, more accessible and more sustainable centres.
• Both Chesham and Amersham have train stations and better bus services.
• The schools in Chalfont St Peter are struggling to cope already, with no land to build a new school, we can not take further demand for education places.
• Impact on established residential areas in Amersham and Chesham would be lower than in Chalfont St Peter.
• Both have considerably higher local employment opportunities than Chalfont St Peter where local employment is almost non-existant.
• For both Chesham and Amersham the bias between option 2 and option 3 is less than in Chalfont St Peter.