Suggestions to include in your submission

  • You need to complete the three page registration process

  • When you get to the Appeals Casework Portal type the application reference 3362050 into the window on the right and follow the instructions on the next few pages.

ALL PARAGRAPH REFERENCES RELAT TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)

  • The site fails all five tests for appropriate development in the Green Belt to be allowed under para.155

  • The site is not Grey Belt as it contributes strongly to purpose (a) under para.143 of the NPPF: it is the tip of a ‘finger’ of development from Gerrards Cross town, through Chalfont St Peter village and on to Chalfont Common ward.

  • Development of the site would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, specifically the Colne Valley Regional Park that is the main barrier to the westward sprawl of Greater London.

  • The site does not comply with the ‘Golden Rules’ as the Applicant has demonstrated that affordable housing is not viable in this location and no needed infrastructure is being provided. The new framework stipulates 50%.

  • There are no ‘Very Special Circumstances’ in accordance with para.153 on. Failure to be granted the Application is not an existential threat to the Epilepsy Society.

  • The feasibility of the proposed pumped sewerage system from the site has not been evaluated, and the Environment Agency has not cleared its potential impact on the Chalfont St Peter system and the Maple Lodge treatment works.

SUSTAINABLITY

  • The site is not in a sustainable location. It fails to meet the requirements of para.75, relating to larger scale development, namely that these be well located and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including genuine choice of transport modes). It does not consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure.

  • Its size and location will not support a sustainable community with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself, or in larger towns to which there is good access.

  • The site fails to meet the requirements for sustainable transport in paras.109-114. There is no real understanding of the potential impacts of development on local transport networks. Opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use have not been identified (see Travel Plan). The location is not, and cannot, be made sustainable. The Bucks Highway’s proposed cycle route to GX station is hazardous and unsuitable for anyone other than the most physically able and fittest due to the steep terrain on both sides of the A412 and narrow roads in the village centre.    

  • Parking standards have not taken account of local car ownership levels and there is inadequate provision for the Electric Vehicle transition within the development.

TRAVEL PLAN

  • The Transport Assessment is based on a flawed Strategic Traffic Model that produces impossible outputs: there is no incremental traffic shown on the shortest routes from the site to the strategic transport network (A413) or the rail/underground system (Chalfont & Latimer); traffic on one section of the A413 is shown as reducing; incremental traffics on Chesham Lane and Rickmansworth Lane disappear at the first junction. As such, assessment of traffic volumes and impacts through the local lanes and at their junctions is impossible.

  • The Travel Plan predicts only 5 cycle and 56 pedestrian trips in the AM peak hour, consistent with the site’s semi-rural location. Proposed mitigation measures are either impractical (cycling to Gerrards Cross station) or haven’t even been considered (walking to Chalfont Community College secondary school or Chalfont St Giles). The site cannot readily be served by public transport because through-routes run along the valley bottom well below it.

 

A substantially similar application was rejected at Inquiry in 2005. The arguments remain valid.