chalfont st. peter parish...

CHALFONT St. PETER PARISH COUNCIL Council Office, adj. The Community Centre, Gravel Hill, Chalfont St Peter, Bucks, SL9 9QX

Tel & Fax: 01753 891582 email: [email protected]

Website: www.chalfontstpeter-pc.gov.uk

Clerk: Mrs Debbie Evans Deputy Clerk: Nick Stayt

12th December 2016 Graham Winwright, Planning Policy Manager Chiltern District Council King George V House, King George V Rd, Amersham HP6 5AW

Dear Mr Winwright,

RE: Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation - Chalfont St Peter

PC Representations

Troy Hayes Planning Limited (Troy Planning + Design) has been instructed by Chalfont St Peter Parish

Council to assist in the preparation of representations to the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green

Belt Preferred Options Consultation. On behalf of the Parish Council, we have undertaken a detailed

review of the material presented as part of the consultation alongside the published evidence base and

other associated documents. Details of our extensive experience in the preparation and Examination of

Local Plans is provided in the main body of the representations.

This letter should be treated as part of the Parish Council’s representations. The Parish Council has

formed a joint working party with the local community action group, SENSE 4 CSP. They support this

representation and will also submit their own response.

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council intends to respond to each consultation stage during preparation of the

Local Plan. Upon submission of representations to the ‘Pre-Submission’ Plan it will express, in the

strongest possible terms, a request to attend the oral Examination Hearings. The Parish Council

considers itself to be a stakeholder (and spatial location) of vital importance to plan-making for the area.

We support the Parish Council in this view, which is self-evident when one looks at relevant factors. At

their heart, the Preferred Options for the current consultation show a clear lack of understanding of the

local context. It is currently impossible to claim that exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to

justify the loss of either location proposed in Chalfont St Peter because the consequences for

sustainable development are entirely unknown. Over 50% of the committed or allocated development

pipeline exists within the Parish of Chalfont St Peter, predominantly a result of the current development

plan. These sites are incomplete or not yet started; the outcomes from the development are not yet

known; and the sequential effects on infrastructure capacity and requirements for mitigation and

improvement are uncertain and untested.

Much of the evidence base is absent, incomplete or out-of-date. Where it does exist, evidence such as

the November 2016 Transport Modelling bears out the conclusions of a high level of existing pressure in

Chalfont St Peter, accentuated by the current level of existing commitments, with a very high likelihood

mailto:[email protected]

of adverse effects in the event of further development. Other critical information, such as the

Sustainability Appraisal (January 2016) has not been updated to account for the latest information.

At the same time, setting out the strategic priorities for plan-making, and identifying where these cross

administrative boundaries, is critical to the preparation of sound Local Plans and necessary in order to

satisfy the Duty to Cooperate. The Preferred Options are presented without any evidence or

understanding of these matters, particularly the spatial relationship between the contiguous built

settlements of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross. The emerging Local Plan still lacks a joint Vision or

Objectives to guide development across the Chiltern and South Bucks area.

Chalfont St Peter also contributes to the statutory development plan as a result of producing the only

‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan in the District. The Councils’ evidence base suggests the Neighbourhood

Plan could encourage inappropriate development in the Green Belt and necessitates a review of the

designation. This is not the case and this assessment is contrary to national policy.

The Preferred Options themselves are subject to oversight in terms of relevant policy and guidance and

a number of inaccuracies in terms of the evidence and information to inform any development

prospects. These include a lack of appreciation of the land use implications underpinning the history of

the Chalfont Colony at the National Society for Epilepsy site and the way in which the existing policy

framework supports effective and successful development outcomes.

At Land South East of Chalfont St Peter, the release as proposed would be fundamentally incompatible

with protecting the community facility at the Paccar Scout Camp. Development assumptions would

make no allowance for strategic open space or community infrastructure. There is a disregard of the

implications of access for sustainable development and the character of the surrounding area.

In accordance with the Regulations governing Local Plan-making, Chalfont St Peter Parish Council looks

forward to a detailed summary and response to these representations, explaining how they have

contributed to future stages of plan preparation. The Parish Council would welcome the opportunity to

meet with Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils to assist with understanding and clarifying any of

the points made in the representations and their relevance to the Plan. The Parish Council also believes

that it could make a valuable contribution to completing a clear and comprehensive evidence base for

the Local Plan which accurately reflects local issues.

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council’s Representations to the Initial Local Plan Consultation (Incorporating

Issues and Options) are also attached as Annexe A to these submissions. The Councils’ previous

summary of these representations does not address how they have been taken into account as part of

the current stage of plan-making, therefore they provide further context to these submissions.

We trust these representations are constructive as CDC moves towards the preparation of its Pre-

Submission Draft Local Plan and look forward to working with you over the coming months.

Yours Sincerely,

Troy Hayes (BSc, MSc, MRTPI, AICP)

Managing Director – Troy Planning + Design on behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council

Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council

1

Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 2

2. The Councils’ Approach to Addressing Previous Consultation Responses: .............................................. 4

Summary of Previous Consultation Responses ............................................................................................ 4

The Approach to Future Consultations and Stages of Plan Preparation ...................................................... 6

3. Local Development Scheme and Timetable for Plan Preparation ........................................................... 7

4. Relationship with the Strategic Priorities for Plan-Making ...................................................................... 8

5. Relationship with the Duty to Cooperate................................................................................................. 9

6. Justification of Exceptional Circumstances ............................................................................................ 11

7. Green Belt Development Options Appraisal .......................................................................................... 14

8. Methodological Approach Adopted in Calculating Preferred Options .................................................. 15

Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology ...................................... 15

Calculation of Development Capacity within the Preferred Options ......................................................... 17

9. Overall Housing Land Supply Position and Existing Commitments ........................................................ 20

Implications of Existing Commitments within Chalfont St Peter................................................................ 20

Analysis of Supply Pipeline across Chiltern and South Bucks ..................................................................... 22

10. Commentary on Preferred Option 7 – National Society for Epilepsy, Chalfont St Peter ................... 27

Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan ...................................................................................................... 27

Gaps in the Emerging Evidence Base – Inner Green Belt Boundary Review .............................................. 28

Previous Plan-Making and Decision-Taking ................................................................................................ 28

Assessment Against Green Belt Purposes (including Heritage Value) ....................................................... 29

National Policy and the Principle of Green Belt Release on the Scale Proposed ....................................... 31

Control over Future Development Types and Outcomes ........................................................................... 31

Alternative Policy Approaches .................................................................................................................... 33

11. Commentary on Preferred Option 8: Area South East of Chalfont St Peter ...................................... 35

Protection of the Paccar Scout Camp ......................................................................................................... 35

Townscape and Existing Development Plan Policy..................................................................................... 36

Access and Achieving Good Design ............................................................................................................ 36

Alternative Policy Approach ....................................................................................................................... 37

12. Sustainability Appraisal ...................................................................................................................... 39

13. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Annexe A – Chalfont St Peter Parish Council Representations to Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan

Initial Consultation (Issues and Options) (March 2016) ............................................................................... 43


2

1. Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council seeks to continue to actively engage with and contribute to

preparation of the Joint Local Plan for Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire Districts. Troy

Planning + Design have been instructed to assist in the preparation of the Parish Council’s

representations for the current ‘Green Belt Preferred Options’ Regulation 18 consultation stage.

1.2. Troy Planning + Design has extensive experience of the Local Plan system, with senior members

of the company having contributed to several successful and adopted Local Plans and continuing

to advise a number of authorities as well as qualifying bodies preparing Neighbourhood Plans. In

addition, the company has experience of contributing to numerous Local Plan Examinations and

helping to identify significant issues with soundness as well as compliance with the Duty to

Cooperate.

1.3. Having previously submitted representations to the Regulation 18 consultation of January 2016,

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and its representatives recognise the significant ongoing work to

prepare the Local Plan. However, it is with regret that these representations must highlight and

in some cases reiterate previous comments in relation to shortcomings with the process to date.

1.4. These issues begin with the inadequate summary provided by the partner Councils to the Parish

Council’s previous representations. The failure to provide a clear response to these comments is

ultimately a matter of legal compliance. These representations sought clarification for legitimate

questions regarding the contribution that different specific locations might make to genuinely

sustainable patterns of development in the context of a Joint Local Plan. Chalfont St Peter lacks a

train station or other mass transit and effectively forms a contiguous urban area with Gerrards

Cross. There appears to be no coherent assessment of this spatial relationship. The Parish Council

also seeks clarification on whether Chalfont St Peter comes under greater pressure for

development in the context of the combined needs of Chiltern and South Bucks.

1.5. While these questions remain unanswered, the Preferred Options are presented without any

detail on the wider spatial strategy or a joint Vision or objectives to guide overall development.

This provides no clarity on the overall supply, the split between Chiltern and South Bucks or the

potential level of unmet needs.

1.6. The Parish of Chalfont St Peter continues to represent a very substantial proportion of the

existing pipeline of housing supply. This is well in excess of 50% of the unbuilt commitments

across the District, stemming from earlier plan-making in the adopted Core Strategy. Discrete

evidence such as Transport Modeling is beginning to recognise that the outcomes of this

development are not yet known, with adverse impacts on existing infrastructure. However, there

is no indication that this has been considered as part of comprehensive plan-making or the

effects on the spatial strategy in Chalfont St Peter. In-fact, the Transport Modeling (November

2016) post-dates completion of the Development Options Appraisals (October 2016).


3

1.7. Our summary assessment indicates that the Council’s estimate of unmet need at 5,800

dwellings is incorrect. Whilst Chalfont St Peter Parish Council supports that this (or a higher level)

of unmet need is appropriate for the plan area given the constraints on development, this serves

to highlight that the potential quantum of development identified in the Preferred Options is not

justified. Other opportunities which may cross local authority boundaries should be fully

explored.

1.8. Without this understanding of the strategic priorities for the Joint Local Plan, including cross-

boundary priorities under the Duty to Co-Operate, it is impossible and incorrect to conclude that

exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to justify the release of land from the Green Belt in

Chalfont St Peter. Furthermore, whilst the overall timetable for preparing a Pre-Submission

version of the Local Plan (and all associated evidence) appears to be slipping, the opportunity to

comment on a comprehensive draft has been lost.

1.9. In relation to the specific Preferred Options presented for Chalfont St Peter, these issues are

compounded by substantial gaps in the evidence base which highlight that these locations for

development are highly likely to be found unsound if progressed further in the plan-making

process. Key evidence in relation to infrastructure and Sustainability Appraisal has not been

updated since early 2016. Other more recent information, such as local transport modeling,

indicates a greater likelihood of adverse impacts than is currently acknowledged. Appropriate

mitigation and phasing of infrastructure delivery has yet to be identified.

1.10. For land at the National Society for Epilepsy, there are no conclusions available from the Inner

Green Belt Boundary Review. Given the area’s existing designation as a Major Developed Site in

the Green Belt, which recognises the openness of the area and has supported successful

development outcomes, there is no basis for proposing a boundary revision. For Land South East

of Chalfont St Peter, the Preferred Option highlights inconsistent assumptions for development,

which would undermine protection of open space and community facilities, and shows disregard

to local character and requirements for other land uses.

1.11. Taking into account these factors, the Preferred Options are not considered appropriate and if

taken forward would represent unsubstantiated, piecemeal release of land contrary to achieving

sustainable development. Any alternative must represent a robust understanding of the local

area, taking into account existing commitments, other infrastructure requirements and providing

appropriate mitigation for the A413. However, given the limited scale of development that may

be achieved, and the need to retain enduring Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period, the

Councils are likely to find such refined Options are not essential to securing the most sustainable

outcomes and fail to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

1.12. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the

partner Councils to shape a coherent spatial strategy and specifically to inform the approach

towards development in the local area as well as helping to establish the functional relationships

to Gerrards Cross. This is considered necessary to ensure positive outcomes for sustainable

development, clearly setting out the infrastructure requirements of the area and potential


4

benefits of new development. In general terms, this would best be achieved through

delivering existing commitments and maximising the use of previously developed land (and

potential HELAA sites). At the same time the Parish Council would support Chiltern and South

Bucks in refining strategic options that genuinely secure sustainable development as well as their

work to secure a contribution to development from neighbouring areas.

2. The Councils’ Approach to Addressing Previous Consultation Responses:

Summary of Previous Consultation Responses

2.1. The Councils’ approach and response in summarising the previous representations submitted by

Chalfont St Peter Parish Council as part of the ‘Initial Consultation (Regulation 18) – Incorporating

Issues and Options’ is disappointing and extremely concerning. It is contrary to national guidance

and ultimately calls into question the legal compliance of the process in preparing the Local Plan.

2.2. National Planning Practice Guidance states:

“The local planning authority must take into account any representation made, and

will need to set out how the main issues raised have been taken into account.” (ID:

12-017-20140306)

2.3. Local Plan production should ensure “effective discussion and consultation with local

communities, businesses and other interested parties.” (ID: 12-003-20140306). This paragraph of

the NPPG goes on to say that Local Authorities should make it clear how these consultations fit

within the Local Plan process.

2.4. The Parish Council instructed Troy Planning + Design as consultants to prepare a detailed

response. This is recorded as “Rep 4095” in the Councils’ “Summary of Responses to Local Plan

Initial (Regulation 18) Including Issues and Options Consultation” (October 2016) and detailed in

Volume 4. The full response is not available to view online and this is a further concern. A

response is provided only in terms of the following summary:

“Independent analysis of the housing market area functional linkages concludes that

the “best fit” for Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan area is with the rest of

Buckinghamshire. Best fit groupings do not change functional housing market

relationships and they will continue to be considered through the plan making

process.”

2.5. Whilst the Parish Council acknowledges this response, it is entirely inadequate to cover the issues

raised by the representations. In fact, the issue summarised was not a major dispute within the

representations. The relationship between ‘best-fit’ and ‘functional’ housing market areas is

entirely accepted, with the proviso that the strong relationships between South Bucks and Slough

/ Maidenhead remain recognised in understanding the strategic priorities of the area.


5

2.6. This point (made under ‘Question 1’ of the consultation) merely served as an

introduction and qualification for the detailed matters considered subsequently. These are not

summarised in the Officer’s response.

2.7. Some of the previously identified concerns and considerations for specific potential locations for

development are taken forward and advanced in these representations, so it is not necessary to

repeat all the points here.

2.8. It is, however, useful to highlight the key elements of strategic importance mentioned in earlier

representations. These have not been summarised in the Councils’ responses to date; nor has

sufficient additional evidence been published to demonstrate how these have been addressed in

the context of preparing the plan. These matters serve to highlight that significant soundness

issues exist with the basis of the Preferred Options that have been prevented and this in-turn

makes it highly likely that the Local Plan will subsequently fail at Examination. Key areas to which

the Councils have not responded are:

Confirming that complete infrastructure evidence for the whole (Chiltern and South Bucks)

joint plan area will be available to inform future stages of consultation

Clarifying that the contribution towards housing requirements from other sources (e.g. the

HELAA, existing commitments, use of previously developed land, windfall and under

‘Options’ F to J) should be maximised, clearly set out and taken into account before

conclusions on the appropriate contribution from ‘extensions’ (under Options ‘C’ and ‘D’)

are reached

Clarifying why (or whether) the housing requirements and housing land supply calculations

should be considered jointly across Chiltern and South Bucks and if so setting out what is the

current position and what are the implications for sustainable development

Ensuring ‘Option D’ (meeting needs at principal settlements outside the plan area e.g.

Maidenhead / Slough) is given further consideration due to the functional linkages between

South Bucks and these areas

Demonstrating an understanding of the combined roles of Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St

Peter as part of preparing a Joint Local Plan (rather than considering both as separate

settlements under ‘Option C’)

Explaining how the justification for exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land for

development has been arrived at across the spatial strategy as a whole and as part of the

relationship of specific settlements to that strategy (in-particular, Chalfont St Peter)

Answering whether the incorporation of South Bucks into the Central Buckinghamshire HMA

has affected conclusions on exceptional circumstances and the level of unmet needs across

the plan area; and whether any subsequent pressure to release additional land for

development in Chalfont St Peter is consistent with a strategy for sustainable development.

2.9. None of these points were dealt with in summarising the previous representations of Chalfont St

Peter Parish Council. In the majority of cases, these issues have not been clearly addressed by

later evidence and they are not explored further in the scope of the Preferred Options

consultation. This gives little confidence in the preparation of a sound Local Plan for the area.


6

2.10. The following paragraph contains extracts from the representations that also effectively

summarises the position:

Given the greater overall aggregate requirement that is generated by applying the

‘best fit’ HMA across the whole of both authorities, it becomes critical to understand

the contribution that different specific locations might make to genuinely sustainable

patterns of development. Simply the decision to prepare a Joint Local Plan should not

affect the test of exceptional circumstances for locations such as Chalfont St Peter

and conclusions on unmet need when considered alongside parts of South Bucks

which were, until recently, being assessed as part of a different Housing Market. This

understanding of the relationship between locations within the settlement hierarchy

and their overall potential to contribute towards sustainable development is an

important counterpart to any test of exceptional circumstances.

2.11. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would welcome a comprehensive response to these points along

with all of the detailed matters raised by these representations on the current consultation. This

is considered to be an essential requirement in the preparation of a sound plan.

The Approach to Future Consultations and Stages of Plan Preparation

2.12. The current approach is contrary to The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)

Regulations (in-particular 18(3) and 22(c)(iii and iv)). The Council has yet to show, how in

continuing to prepare the Local Plan, it has taken into account the representations of the Parish

Council. Unfortunately, the next stage of consultation is expected to be upon the version of the

Local Plan the Councils intend to submit for Examination. There is a high likelihood of matters

critical to the preparation of a sound plan being ignored, which is unsound. For this reason the

Parish Council’s original representations to the Issues and Options Consultation are annexed to

this response (see Annexe A).

2.13. Under the Local Planning Regulations, Chiltern District Council is not legally required to publish

copies of the representations received to-date. It has not done so, but such a process is widely

followed and generally accepted as good practice. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would

welcome its representations to this consultation being made available.

2.14. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council intends to respond to each consultation stage of preparation of

the Local Plan. Upon submission of representations to the ‘Pre-Submission’ Plan will express, in

the strongest possible terms, a request to attend the oral Examination Hearings. The Parish

Council considers itself to be a stakeholder (and spatial location) of vital importance to plan-

making for, amongst others, the following key reasons:

A strategically significant amount of development remains committed and unbuilt in the

Parish regardless of any additional growth identified in the Preferred Options;


7

Chalfont St Peter forms a contiguous built settlement with Gerrards Cross and

is critical to understanding the strategic priorities for a Joint Local Plan;

The Parish experiences a high level of stress upon existing infrastructure and the effects

of the existing development pipeline are not well understood; and

At the time of writing, the Parish is the only location with a ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan

2.15. The Parish Council and Local Plan Working Group intends to continue to work constructively to

support the proper planning of the local area. This will include attempting to establish a thorough

understanding of the capacity of existing infrastructure and any opportunities for mitigation or

enhancement. Where appropriate, development opportunities that re-use previously developed

sites either in the HELAA or other unidentified locations will be supported. However, this can only

be achieved in the context of co-operative work alongside the Local Planning Authority.

2.16. These efforts are undermined in the context of an emerging Local Plan which demonstrates a lack

of clarity in the spatial strategy, potential issues of legal compliance and fundamental soundness

issues with specific development options. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and its advisors would

be glad to assist in addressing these issues in the next stage of plan-making.

3. Local Development Scheme and Timetable for Plan Preparation

3.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council is disappointed that the current consultation does not comprise a

comprehensive consultation on a Draft Local Plan for the Chiltern and South Bucks area. The

Councils’ Joint Local Development Scheme indicates this consultation event as a “Preferred

Options” stage in preparing the Local Plan. It does not indicate that this should be used to only

consider “Green Belt Preferred Options” as now being undertaken.

3.2. The fact that the Councils have highlighted the need to potentially amend the timetable further

(moving the target to consult on a Pre-Submission version of the Plan beyond March 2017)

simply demonstrates the significant extra work needed to clearly define the strategic priorities

for the Local Plan and ensure that these are supported by comprehensive evidence.

3.3. It is understood that the two Councils are looking to comply with the NPPG to prepare a

comprehensive single Local Plan for the area (NPPG ID: 12-012-20140306). This is laudable, but it

is currently unclear what format the overall Plan will take. This is significant because it raises a

number of issues under the Duty to Cooperate, the approach to sustainable development and

identifying the strategic priorities for plan-making, and in-particular the specific basis on which

the exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land for development are identified. These

are considered in-turn below.


8

4. Relationship with the Strategic Priorities for Plan-Making

4.1. Paragraph 155 of the NPPF recommends ‘early and meaningful engagement and collaboration’ in

preparing Local Plans, so that pro-active engagement can reflect, as far as possible, an agreed set

of priorities and collective vision for sustainable development. Paragraph 156 of the NPPF defines

the strategic priorities that the policies of the Plan should set out to address, including the

approach towards the provision for infrastructure, conservation and enhancement of the natural

environment, the provision of social and health infrastructure as well as meeting (as far as

possible) the need for the homes, jobs and commercial development an area needs.

4.2. Although Preferred Options for development have now been presented as part of this

consultation, the Councils have yet to consult on a Vision or clearly defined set out objectives to

be addressed by the Joint Local Plan. Question 4 of the ‘Initial Consultation’ (Reg 18, Jan-March

2016) looked at the potential scope for the Vision and objectives but continued to refer to the

two separate Council areas.

4.3. The approach to date has limited the scope for the Local Plan to provide a clear and decisive

answer on key issues such as the Green Belt. It has limited the range of options considered in

sufficient detail. Clarity is not achieved as part of the Preferred Options consultation due to the

lack of information surrounding the overall objectives of the draft Plan and limited findings of the

evidence base available in terms of how the strategic priorities for plan-making area addressed.

4.4. The scope of the Local Plan will effectively be limited by the nature of discrete Preferred Options

identified against a narrow and incomplete evidence base. Decisions on other elements that may

complement the most effective strategy for the Local Plan area are unnecessarily deferred to

future stages with uncertainty over whether they will ever be fully addressed. This approach is

unsound.

4.5. The inability to clearly relate the Preferred Options identified in this consultation to the overall

Vision and Objectives of a Local Plan intended to ensure sustainable development undermines

that extent to which this consultation will inform the preparation of a sound plan.


9

5. Relationship with the Duty to Cooperate

5.1. In-accordance with Paragraph 179 of the NPPF, delivery of the strategic priorities will need to be

coordinated across local authority boundaries under the Duty to Cooperate. This is clearly

paramount in the case of Chiltern and South Bucks where the authorities are working to prepare

a Joint Local Plan. Paragraph 181 of the NPPF goes on to state “Local planning authorities will be

expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-

boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination.”

5.2. National guidance highlights well-defined relationships such as housing market and travel to

work areas that may provide a more effective basis on which to plan for issues such as housing

and job creation; providing the appropriate basis for Local Plans to approach strategic planning

(NPPG ID: 9-008-20140306). This is clearly considered to be the case across Chiltern and South

Bucks (and more widely the ‘Central Buckinghamshire’ area) due to the wealth of joint evidence

that is available. Strong relationships with the Thames Valley area (in-particular Slough and

Maidenhead) should nevertheless also not be overlooked in assessing the considerations for

sustainable development, especially in the south of the County.

5.3. The purpose of these representations is not to specifically question whether the Duty to

Cooperate has been satisfied in the Central Buckinghamshire area. Engagement to-date appears

extensive. The issue, however, is that in terms of the discrete Preferred Options presented in this

consultation, absent of any clearly defined Vision and Objectives, work under the Duty to

Cooperate does not appear to have been translated into specific policies or plan-making in any

meaningful way. The relationship between the Preferred Options and cross-boundary strategic

priorities, including whether these would best contribute to achieving sustainable development,

is not clearly shown.

5.4. Key flaws and questions in the Council’s evidence thus far indicate that it cannot demonstrate

that it has produced “effective and deliverable policies on strategic cross boundary matters”

(NPPG ID: 9-002-20140306) on the basis of the Preferred Options identified.

5.5. The Councils should be aware that even in the event that the legal Duty is satisfied an Inspector

examining the Local Plan will take these matters into consideration under the tests of soundness.

For example, this is particularly relevant when looking at the infrastructure requirements of plan-

making, as set out in the NPPG:

“Planning for infrastructure is a critical element of strategic planning. The National

Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 162) makes clear that local planning

authorities should work with other local planning authorities and providers to assess

the quality and capacity of a range of infrastructure types. This will ensure that key

infrastructure such as transport, telecommunications, energy, water, health, social

care and education, is properly planned.


10

Planning for infrastructure is a key requirement of the effectiveness element of the

test of Local Plan soundness, which requires plans to be deliverable and based on

effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities. The involvement of

infrastructure providers in Local Plan preparation is critical to ensure that Local Plans

are deliverable. Participation in the Local Plan preparation process in turn helps them

to inform their business plans and to plan and finance the delivery of infrastructure

that they have a legal obligation to provide. It is expected that private utility

companies and providers will engage positively in the preparation and delivery of

Local Plans (ID: 9-013-20140306)”

5.6. The recent failure of the St Albans Strategic Local Plan on the grounds of failure to satisfy the

Duty to Cooperate also recognises the importance of addressing the strategic priorities for plan-

making and ensuring the effective outcomes for sustainable development are sought when these

cross local authority boundaries. The Council should pay close attention to these findings,

particular where they highlight that certain locations for development have little prospect of

contributing to a sound or effective plan because they fail to have regard to the likely outcomes

and requirements for sustainable development.

5.7. It is for this (amongst other reasons) that Chalfont St Peter Parish Council highlights that

Preferred Options are identified in the area without the necessary understanding of

infrastructure capacity; without considering whether other options would better meet strategic

and cross-boundary priorities; and without setting out in full the capacity of other options that

may secure more effective outcomes.

5.8. Without a clear understanding on the basis of these points, the Councils of Chiltern and South

Bucks cannot clearly be able to claim what, if any, level of unmet need for homes and jobs exists.


11

6. Justification of Exceptional Circumstances

6.1. The previous representations from Chalfont St Peter Parish Council have not been addressed. The

points below should be read alongside previous submissions. The Preferred Options consultation

document does not appear to reach any definitive conclusions on whether exceptional

circumstances exist to justify the release of land from the Green Belt. However, further detail is

provided in terms of the two Preferred Options in Chalfont St Peter.

6.2. The identification of these options simply reinforces the over-arching concerns about whether

these prospective plan-making choices have been arrived at as part of a robust and clearly

evidenced approach to preparing the Local Plan. This is highlighted by inconsistencies in the

options and the substantial gaps in the evidence base. This approach is contrary to national policy

and guidance in relation to Green Belt and achieving sustainable development.

6.3. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF is clear that:

“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities

should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.

They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channeling

development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns

and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green

Belt boundary.”

6.4. This is precisely why it is inappropriate to put forward the current Preferred Options without

regard to the over-arching spatial strategy, Vision and Objectives for the joint plan area. NPPF

Paragraph 85 requires Local Authorities to “ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for

meeting identified requirements for sustainable development” when defining Green Belt

boundaries. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that for plan-making, the presumption in favour of

sustainable development should be applied as follows:

“Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the

development needs of their area;

Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to

adapt to rapid change, unless:

– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this

Framework taken as a whole; or

– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted [including land designated as Green Belt as set out in Footnote

9]”

6.5. In Green Belt terms, the Parish Council considers that there is little if any material difference

between the need to apply the NPPF as a whole when considering boundaries (as described


12

above) and the basis for deciding planning applications in the Green Belt which

requires potential harm through inappropriateness and any other harm to be outweighed by

other considerations (NPPF Paragraph 88, our emphasis).

6.6. Aside from the point that the Local Plan should seek to meet objectively assessed housing needs

‘as far as is consistent with the policies set out in [the] Framework (NPPF Paragraph 47) and that

the extent and purposes of Green Belt land may comprise one circumstance that may restrain an

Authority’s ability to achieve this (NPPG ID: 3-045-20141006), Local Plans as a whole must

contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 151).

6.7. In taking forward the Preferred Options presented in this consultation, the Councils have in effect

sought to rationalise the justification based on pre-existing evidence, rather than giving full

consideration to the objectives for sustainable development required by NPPF Paragraph 84 as a

whole. This does not establish any clear or comprehensive relationship with the overall spatial

strategy which has yet to emerge through the Local Plan. There remains an absence of a clear

approach towards exceptional circumstances as part of the consultation material. This approach

is unsound.

6.8. We have reviewed the “Draft Green Belt Assessment Part Two” (October 2016) which reinforces

the concerns set out above. In particular, at Appendix 1 ARUP as ‘critical friend’ to the Councils

make following comments:

“In line with previous comments, our view is that a robust exceptional circumstances

case must be developed at the strategic level, and while site specific considerations

would be an important factor (as highlighted in para 10) we believe that it would be

helpful to highlight the need to consider these wider factors” (page 54); and

“Please refer to comment A8 on the definition of boundaries. We suggest that this

should be a factor to weigh up in the overall decision making process rather than an

arbitrary way of filtering sites, and believe that some of the considerations around

spatial fit with the local plan options may be a more effective way of filtering sites

(i.e. site is in a more/less favoured strategic option)” (p.55)

6.9. Whilst Officers have attempted to explain that the process of completing the assessments leaves

scope for planning judgement, it is nevertheless apparent that site specific definition of

boundaries risks over-riding the strategic considerations of plan-making. Paragraph 3.15 of the

main report acknowledges that it cannot provide definitive conclusions on exceptional

circumstances. However, the recommendations at ‘Stage 3’ are based on the existing ‘options’

from the emerging spatial strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal Framework prepared in

January 2016. Both of these sources are based on out-dated and incomplete evidence and do not

support any robust conclusions to appropriately identify exceptional circumstances.

6.10. This approach should be considered against Caselaw which considers the basis of exceptional

circumstances. In Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin),

Hickinbottom J ruled:


13

“Whilst each case is fact-sensitive and the question of whether circumstances are

exceptional for these purposes requires an exercise of planning judgment, what is

capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances is a matter of law, and a plan-

maker may err in law if he fails to adopt a lawful approach to exceptional

circumstances. Once a Green Belt has been established and approved, it requires

more than general planning concepts to justify an alteration." (Para 125 biv)

6.11. In summary, simply preparing a new Local Plan does not itself provide an exceptional

circumstance to justify altering the Green Belt boundary. The judgment also clarifies that

“although the words requiring necessity for a boundary revision have been omitted from

paragraph 83 of the NPPF, the test remains the same”.

6.12. The issue was similarly summarised in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council,

Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin). This also

addresses the achievement in the context of national policy for the Green Belt. Paragraph 19

“Sustainable development embraces environmental factors, and such factors are

likely to be negatively in play where release of Green Belt is being considered. The

second sentence of paragraph 83 supplies a fetter or brake on development which

would, were it not for the Green Belt, otherwise be sustainable; but in deciding

whether exceptional circumstances pertain regard must be had to the whole picture,

including as I have said the consequences.”

6.13. Paragraph 44 also states:

“The issue is whether, in the exercise of planning judgment and in the overall context

of the positive statutory duty to achieve sustainable development, exceptional

circumstances existed to justify the release of Green Belt.”

6.14. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would argue that the Preferred Options in the present

consultation are supported by nothing more than the general concepts and application of

planning judgement across discrete categories of the assessment process. The case for

exceptional circumstances as part of a necessary strategy to secure sustainable development is

not made out.


14

7. Green Belt Development Options Appraisal

7.1. The Chiltern and South Bucks “Green Belt Development Options Appraisal” (October 2016) does

not materially add to the basis for the recommendations in the Green Belt Review. These points

are brought out in more detail when commenting on the specific Preferred Options, but the

following general comments are relevant.

7.2. A significant part of the pro-forma for each site is taken up by findings from the Part 2 Green Belt

Parcel Assessment. The perceived outcomes against the Sustainability Appraisal Framework are

also duplicated in both documents. The ‘key summary considerations’ from earlier consultations

exposes the weaknesses set out earlier in these representations: namely the fundamental

concerns about whether the locations represent sustainable locations for development as part of

a wider spatial strategy are not addressed. There is no indication that infrastructure

improvements are achievable or have been subject to any rigorous testing. Finally, in assessing

the relationship of each ‘Option’ with the existing development plan it should be pointed out that

compatibility with existing policy is not a criterion under Paragraph 85 of the NPPF when

reviewing Green Belt boundaries. An essential characteristic of the Green Belt is its permanence

and ability to endure beyond the plan period. This category of the pro-forma should not in

principle contribute to the identification of exceptional circumstances.

7.3. Paragraph 1.6 of the Options Appraisal accepts that it is affected by significant gaps in

infrastructure evidence and emerging transport modelling. There is no certainty that any

required mitigation from the ‘worst case scenarios’ tested will be achievable; nor is it clear

whether the effects from alternatives strategies might be less.

7.4. Paragraph 1.6 also states: “absence of reference to specific types of infrastructure (such as

education or health facilities) does not mean that investment will not be required”. Whilst this is

welcomed, the fact remains that amongst the Preferred Options presented for Chalfont St Peter,

sufficient land would not be available to meet these infrastructure needs along with the

development quanta quoted.


15

8. Methodological Approach Adopted in Calculating Preferred Options

Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology

8.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council believes it is clear that an inconsistent methodology has been

adopted in assessing and identifying potential development capacity between the Preferred

Options. In essence, this risks making the areas undevelopable for the uses and scale proposed

and the basis for identifying the Preferred Options in this way is therefore unsound at the

outset. Specific comments are raised against the individual Preferred Options in Chalfont St

Peter but the following general points are relevant.

8.2. The Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment methodology

states as follows (Paragraphs 2.40 – 2.41):

“As an overarching principle sites should aim to make the best use of land. The following

sources of information will be used to calculate the number of dwellings and floorspace

likely to be delivered on a site, taking into account areas of land which have significant

environmental constraints identified in Table 2, reducing the developable area and other

considerations identified at stage 2. The density requirements for housing developments

set out in Table 2 will be used as a starting point but will also take into account the

following:

Recent planning application history

Pre-application advice

Officer knowledge

Nearby character and density, although this should not preclude higher density

development where this can be achieved sensitively to ensure best use is made of

land. Certain sites may be suitable for higher density development due to being in a

central location.

Existing studies e.g. development briefs

Requirements for onsite infrastructure e.g. roads, school and healthcare provision

(large urban extension will require more)

Stakeholders for advice e.g. developers for advice on general densities

The reasoning behind the indicative development capacity will be clearly set out in the

report.”

8.3. The relevant extract from Table 2 referred to by the description above sets out (see over):


16

8.4. Stage 2 of the HELAA has still not been completed and the evidence is still emerging. However,

based on section 1.2 of the Preferred Options consultation document the current draft is

understood to have informed assessment of the current options. However, these assumptions

have been applied inconsistently with no explanation of any departure or alternative analysis for

specific sites. The density assumptions of some, but not all, Preferred Options are markedly

higher than those set out in the HELAA methodology.

8.5. A related issue is that although for some Preferred Options a range of potential densities is

indicated, a single number is used for dwelling capacity. It is accepted that the outputs are

indicative at this stage, but in some cases it is the upper estimate of the density that has been

used to derive the dwelling number - for example: Option 13: 800 dwellings / 21ha = 38dph. This

creates further uncertainty regarding realistic dwelling capacities.

8.6. A further principal issue is the lack of detail or consistency in the approach to calculating the

gross:net developable areas of the individual Preferred Options explored. It is accepted that

each site will have particular circumstances, but this should not preclude identifying realistic

development parameters. This stems from shortcomings in the HELAA methodology. There

should be a clear logic to identifying the following parameters:

Gross Site Area

Gross Developable Area (excluding ‘undevelopable’ land e.g. flood plain, tree cover)

Net Residential Developable Area (typically excluding land for other uses (e.g. employment)

infrastructure, strategic open space but including residential gardens and access roads)


17

8.7. Paragraph 2.40 of the HELAA Methodology implicitly refers to the conversion from

gross:net developable area where environmental constraints apply. This is welcomed, but it

should be kept in mind that such constrained land may provide suitable amenity or open space.

If there are few or no other land use requirements then the net developable and net residential

developable areas would be the same. However, this is often not the case. The adjustment for

‘net residential’ area should take account of other land use and infrastructure requirements

(plus the need for open space if it isn’t already accounted for on undevelopable land). A robust

land assessment methodology typically provides broad assumptions. For example, Paragraph

6.20 of the West Northamptonshire SHLAA Methodology provides the following:

Calculation of Development Capacity within the Preferred Options

8.8. The material for the current Green Belt Preferred Options only makes such assumptions on an

arbitrary and inconsistent basis, often leaving doubt about the net residential developable area

and the combination of other uses.

8.9. One good example where the above process generates realistic outcomes is Option 2: Holmer

Green. Here, a gross site area of 17.63ha derives a gross developable area of 12.2ha. This is

amended to specifically recognise the need for a primary school on the land, giving a net

residential developable area of 9ha. This comprises 51% of the gross area and broadly follows

the example from West Northamptonshire. It would be assumed that other strategic open space

would be likely to exist on the areas identified as ‘undevelopable’.

8.10. For other Preferred Options, such as Option 8 (South East of Chalfont St Peter) the stated total

estimate of dwelling capacity can only be achieved by residential development on the total

‘gross developable’ site area quoted. This is patently unrealistic and does not follow robust

assumptions for site assessment. If carried out to the quanta and land areas suggested by the

consultation material, it is extremely unlikely that the outcomes for sustainable development

would be achieved.

8.11. The wording of the Preferred Option indicates that the 12ha identified as ‘developable’ would

“include associated open space, necessary infrastructure and other requirements.” Following


18

the assumptions for density and dwelling numbers to their conclusion, this simply is

not the case.

8.12. The table set out below presents the matters discussed above and shows the number of issues

the Councils must address in refining its Preferred Options. Due to the paucity of information,

data for a large number of criteria has been imputed and this is clarified in the associated

footnotes.

8.13. The outputs from this analysis clearly demonstrate that Option 9 – ‘Land South East of

Chalfont St Peter’ is calculated inconsistently and unrealistically when compared against

typical assumptions for development or the other Options included in the consultation.

Achieving 420 dwellings from the site would require residential development on all 12ha

considered ‘developable’ and at the top end of the 35 dwellings per hectare assumption.


19

Table 1: Summary of Development Parameters for ‘Preferred Option’ Locations

1 Dph Imputed calculated from “Dwelling Number” column divided by “Net Residential (ha)” 2 Calculations based on 75 dwellings as the mid-point 3 Assumes 50% Net Developable Residential Area – Consultation material does not specify 4 Calculations Based on 925 dwellings as the mid-point 5 Assumes 50% Net Developable Residential Area – Consultation material does not specify 6 Calculations Based on 1600 dwellings as the mid-point 7 Figures based on 50% of the gross developable area quoted in the consultation material being used for housing at 30dph as per the HELAA methodology. Total dwellings achievable could realistically be greater.

Preferred Option Name

Gross (ha)

Gross Developable (ha)

Net: Gross Developable Area (%)

Net Residential (ha)

Net Residential (%)

dph (imputed)1

dph quoted (Consultation Document)

Dwelling Number (from Preferred Options unless indicated)

1.NE Chesham 57.26 26.1 45.6% 26.1 45.6% 34.5 35 900

2. Holmer Green 17.63 12.2 69.2% 9 51.0% 33.3 30-35 300

3. E of Hazelmere 9.22 6.67 72.3% 6.67 72.3% 30.0 30-35 200

4. S London Rd, Amersham

9.66 1.8 18.6% 1.8 18.6% 27.8 30 50

5. SE Whielden St, Amersham

5.99 2.2 36.7% 2.2 36.7% 34.1 35-40 70-802

6. SE Little Chalfont 51.22 N/A 25.613 50.0% 36.1 30-35 850-10004

7. National Society Epilepsy

27.97 3.71 13.3% Specialist housing and enabling development – not specified

8. SE of Chalfont St Peter

13.71 12 87.5% 12 87.5% 35.0 35 420

9. E of Beaconsfield 117.39 N/A 58.6955 50.0% 27.3 30 1500-17006

10. N of Denham Roundabout

4.65 4.65 100.0% Employment Uses Only

11. N of Iver Heath, SE of Pinewood

19.41 16.01 82.5% 8.00 41.2% 30.0 N/A Mixed-Uses post-2025 [240

imputed]7

12. W of Iver Heath 31.65 10.27 32.4% 10.27 32.4% 35.1 35 360 (post-2025)

13. N of Iver Station

33.86 24 70.9% 21 62.0% 38.1 35-40 800

Total 5870


20

9. Overall Housing Land Supply Position and Existing Commitments

Implications of Existing Commitments within Chalfont St Peter

9.1. Analysis within the second part of this section demonstrates that the evidence for the Preferred

Options as a whole is not based on a coherent understanding of the existing level of

commitments and other potential supply across the area for the Joint Local Plan and the

resultant level of unmet needs.

9.2. At the outset however, it is relevant to reiterate that the greatest effects of this

misunderstanding and the implications for a spatial strategy which ignores baseline conditions

will be concentrated in Chalfont St Peter. This is a result of the exceptionally high level of

existing commitments in the Parish relative to Chiltern District as a whole.

9.3. These predominantly comprise un-built allocations from the existing Core Strategy where the

full outcomes and effects from development are as yet unknown. Under these circumstances

any related infrastructure and mitigation have typically yet to be provided and the impacts of

development not fully assessed. The Councils’ failure to provide any detailed evidence to

identify infrastructure requirements and plan for their delivery magnifies the issues.

9.4. The little evidence which is emerging does identify this issue, but it has not been incorporated

or coordinated as part of coherent plan-making. Most clearly, the Jacobs Chiltern and South

Bucks Transport “Modelling Report” (November 2016 see section 3.2.1) usefully includes a ‘Do

Minimum’ scenario which tests a scenario based solely on the effects of existing commitments.

9.5. Commitments of 953 houses are identified in Chiltern District. Figure 3-A (page 11) provides a

useful spatial breakdown of this total across the different areas modelled in the study. Data for

Chalfont St Peter Parish is comprised by two zones: existing commitments of 309 dwellings for

the area including Newlands Park and 223 dwellings covering the main settlement. This totals

56% of the total baseline effects for Chiltern District which must be taken into account.

Previous completions and other future projections of windfall are not included. The two

modelling zones in Chalfont St Peter are the two areas with the greatest level of existing

commitments identified. The next closest is Central Chesham at 185 dwellings. By contrast,

Gerrards Cross only shows existing commitments for 189 dwellings.

9.6. The Jacobs Study is also useful as it includes assumptions from the emerging HELAA evidence –

‘Do Something Option A’. Unfortunately, the findings of this work are incomplete at the

contribution of these elements to housing supply is not considered as part of a coherent spatial

strategy for the purposes of this consultation. Subject to the details of the HELAA sites these

locations are supported in principle. This comprises an appropriate profile of supply which might

complement the exceptionally high level of existing commitments. 150 additional dwellings are

identified in Chalfont St Peter under Option A i.e. a total of 682 dwellings.


21

9.7. Conversely, and contrary to sensible logic, only 30 additional dwellings are identified

under Option A in Gerrards Cross. This clearly demonstrates that the evidence to-date has not

followed a “no stone left unturned” approach in Gerrards Cross.

9.8. The implications of this baseline position are clearly shown in the summary for Chalfont St Peter

in section 5.2.8. This demonstrates significant increases in journey time (up to 259%) under

Option A and even before any of the Green Belt Preferred Options is considered. ‘Through

traffic’ on the A413 is a further related issue which has implications before considering any

further major growth. Figure 5-F shows existing congestion under the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario.

Conversely in Gerrards Cross, increases in travel time are limited under Option A.

9.9. Table 6-A provides a useful ‘Red-Amber-Green’ summary of the impacts of different scenarios.

Significant impacts would be experienced under either Options B or C incorporating the release

of Green Belt land. Impacts are moderate even under Option A incorporating only the HELAA.

The Preferred Options chosen for Chalfont St Peter for the purposes of this consultation do not

demonstrate consideration of any mitigation or transport improvements nor do they include

consideration of whether this would be achievable at the scale proposed. There is no prospect

that formal policies drafted on this evidence would be effective, justified by evidence or

consistent with national policy.

9.10. The extremely high level of existing commitments in Chalfont St Peter, and its implications for

evidence informing the plan, demonstrates that a clear understanding of the local area is

essential but not currently available. Paragraphs 156 and 162 of the NPPF are clear that the

assessment of the quality and capacity of infrastructure, along with policies to deliver necessary

transport improvements, are central to sound plan-making.

9.11. An appropriate basis for a spatial strategy in Chalfont St Peter should recognise the existing

constraints on capacity, ensure the successful delivery of existing opportunities, and support

additional small-scale opportunities for growth. This will principally be sites identified by the

HELAA or local community – comprising 150 units under the ‘Option A’ scenario from the

Transport Modelling. The evidence is clear that any additional growth would have a significant

impact without being able to provide necessary mitigation.


22

Analysis of Supply Pipeline across Chiltern and South Bucks

9.12. The latest evidence for the housing requirements informing the emerging Joint Local Plan are

understood to be as follows:

9.13. The Preferred Options consultation states as follows:

“The Councils have been in discussions under the Duty to Co-operate to explore the

potential for some of Chiltern and South Bucks development needs to be met outside

the Plan area and have agreement in principle for unmet needs to be provided in the

emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan subject to further evidence to justify the

amount of development and the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan being able to identify

sufficient capacity. Based on evidence base updates and the Preferred Options

position Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils estimate an unmet housing need

of 5,800 dwellings.”

9.14. The basis for estimating the level of unmet need at 5,800 dwellings is unsubstantiated. Although

the ‘evidence base’ is referred to in reaching this number, there is no clearly identifiable source

that provides a robust estimate for how housing land supply is expected to be managed over the

plan period. The Councils are reminded of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF, in-particular:

“for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery

through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing

implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will

maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target;”

9.15. Chalfont St Peter does not dispute the principle that objectively assessed housing needs will not

be met in full given the circumstances of the plan area. It does, however, urge the partner

Councils to give equal weight and attention to opportunities to meet unmet needs in locations

other than the Vale of Aylesbury Plan.

9.16. A Local Plan period of 2014 to 2036 is proposed. Communities should appreciate that this does

not simply mean carrying forward the previous Core Strategies to cover a longer period. Equally,

the two plans are not cumulative – i.e. it is not a question of ‘completing’ the needs of the Core

Strategy first and then considering the requirements for the new Local Plan as a separate total.


23

9.17. We understand (and expect) that completions prior to 2014/15 would not be taken

into account when setting out how the housing requirements for that period could be achieved.

However, completions since 2014 should be subtracted from the total. Any outstanding

consents or allocations that were originally intended to meet the targets of the Core Strategy

would be transposed into meeting the requirements of the new Local Plan.

9.18. The Councils have yet to publish any joint monitoring data to illustrate the housing land supply

position (and relative performance) across the Joint Local Plan area. Neither authority has yet

released monitoring data for 2015/16. Both have also declined to set out the position in terms

of housing land supply at April 2016; likely to reflect caution in addressing the emerging findings

of the HEDNA and the lack of evidence to inform the spatial strategy as a whole. Both

authorities have provided some useful data in their separate Authority Monitoring Reports for

2014/15 (both June 2016). However, this does not allow one to model the supply of housing

over the plan period to 2036.

9.19. For Chiltern District Council, the latest full housing trajectory comprises the 2014-2029 Housing

Land Supply Trajectory (August 2014). This evidence requires certain adjustments to try and

replicate supply from April 2016 onwards – namely removing estimates for completions for the

last two years. Generally, however, if one assumes all recent completions have come from

supply identified in March 2014, the data will broadly reconcile. Accommodation in the C2 Use

Class is also excluded. This still leaves a significant estimate of dwellings expected to contribute

over the remainder of the plan period.

9.20. It is once again important to reiterate that amongst the estimate of existing identified capacity

in Chiltern District at least 50% is expected to comprise supply within Chalfont St Peter Parish.

9.21. For South Bucks District, although a full housing trajectory is not available relevant data can be

compiled from the Appendixes of the 2014/15 Authority Monitoring Report (June 2016). This is

particularly useful as the appendixes contain updated delivery predictions from the emerging

HELAA evidence and take account of performance to April 2015. Calculations for both areas

include estimates of windfall from 2019 onwards. The relevant information is summarised

overleaf:


24

Total Estimate of Supply and Unmet Needs in the Joint Local Plan Area

Housing Requirements

2014-36

Completions 2014-20168

Extant Permissions /

Strategic Allocations /

emerging SHLAA or

allocations

Windfall over 19 years [per

annum]

Total Estimate of Identified

Capacity

Total from Preferred Options

Derived Total for ‘Unmet’

Needs

(14,700 – (3,662+5,870)

Chiltern 7,300 273 1222 418 [22] 1,913

5,870 5,168 South Bucks 7,400 264 858 627 [339] 1,749

Total 14,700 537 1,941 1,045 3,662

Best Estimate of Pipeline Supply – South Bucks District

Section of Plan Period

“Extant Planning Permissions”10

“Prior Approval” B1-C3 Permitted Development11

“Large SHLAA”12

“Small SHLAA”13

“Refused SHLAA”14

Windfall15 Total16

2014-2029 448 154 146 185 50 [396] 858

2014-2019 300 154 0 0 0 [66] 329

2020-2024 148 0 46 95 25 [165] 314

2025-2029 0 0 100 90 25 [165] 215

2030-2036 [231] 231

8 Figures represent reported 2014/15 totals from Authority Monitoring Reports and a conservative prediction of 125 completions in each District for 2015/16 9 Figure Based on the November 2014 South Bucks Housing Land Supply Assessment: http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3523&p=0 10 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix A 11 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix Ai 12 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix H 13 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix H 14 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix I (assumes delivery of 50% of the 101 dwellings total from AMR) 15 Not included within “Total” column 16 16 Totals reflect figures from the 2014/15 AMR excluding Windfall and the estimate of 125 completions in 2015/16 subtracted from the existing planning permissions for 2014-2019


25

Best Estimate of Pipeline Supply – Chiltern District

Section of Plan Period

Extant Planning

Permission

Extant C2 (Care

Facilities)17

Prior Approval –

B1-C3 Permitted

Development

Approvals in Principle

Strategic Sites from Adopted

Core Strategy

Windfall18 DDPD Total Remaining19

2014-2029 434 [322] 41 90 308 [264] 622 1222

2014-2019 369 [322] 41 90 176 [44] 168 571

2020-2024 65 0 0 0 132 [110] 266 463

2025-2029 0 0 0 0 0 [110] 188 188

2030-2036 0 0 0 0 0 [154] 0 0

17 Not included in Total Column 18 Not included in Total Column 19 Totals reflect Table 2 (p.26) of the Chiltern Housing Trajectory (2014) after subtracting for completions recorded in 2014/15 and 2015/16 and excluding “Windfall” and institutional accommodation falling under Use Class C2


26

9.22. The information set out in this section provides a conservative estimate for an

existing supply of 3,523 dwellings. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council considers that this total will

very likely be greater, taking into account further opportunities to maximise the use of

previously developed land, opportunities from other HELAA sites, uptake of Permitted

Development Rights and any other sources of supply. This will also be dependent on clarity from

the Councils in terms of the overall spatial strategy.

9.23. Taking account of the total for the Preferred Options (taken as 5,870 from the analysis in these

representations), unmet needs would only total 5,168 dwellings. The Council’s figure from the

consultation material suggests that not all the Preferred Options being consulted upon would be

taken forward to leave unmet needs of 5,800 dwellings.

9.24. This is likely to be a conservative assessment. As noted earlier, Transport Modelling (November

2016) included existing commitments and emerging HELAA sites totaling 4,230 dwellings. Along

with the total estimate of supply from the Preferred Options unmet needs could total only 4,600

dwellings. This is considered unrealistic given the constraints on development locally. The

Council’s estimate of 5,800 is more broadly supported, but would rightly indicate that the

prospects of development from the Preferred Options are much more limited than those

include as part of the consultation material.

9.25. Given the extensive scope for the Councils to refine and present detailed evidence for the

supply position in terms of extant permission and other sources of housing delivery, the

Preferred Options cannot be shown to be part of a coherent spatial strategy.

9.26. The Council is requested to consider this evidence alongside the weaknesses in the specific

Preferred Options put forward. This provides an opportunity to avoid the unjustified and

ineffective proposals set out for Chalfont St Peter for which no compelling exceptional

circumstances case has been presented. In-particular, this analysis demonstrates that there

would be no need to deliver any ‘general needs’ housing (Use Class C3) housing on Green Belt

land at the National Society for Epilepsy in order to match the Councils’ estimate of unmet need

(5,800 dwellings). At Land South East of Chalfont St Peter, the scale of development could be

reduced significantly or release of the Green Belt avoided entirely. This would avoid unrealistic

and incorrect assumptions for density; the net developable area; the ability to safeguard the

Paccar Scout Camp; and the absence of sufficient land for other infrastructure or strategic open

space.


27

10. Commentary on Preferred Option 7 – National Society for Epilepsy,

Chalfont St Peter

10.1. The approach to the Preferred Option set out in the consultation does not follow a sound basis

for plan-making. Exceptional circumstances to justify release of land from the Green Belt have

not been demonstrated. Furthermore, the approach to the Preferred Option is not justified,

inconsistent with national policy and does not provide a basis for effective planning outcomes.

The following points should be taken into account and Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would

appreciate a response to these specific matters if the Preferred Option is considered further. An

alternative policy approach is suggested in the conclusions at the end of this section.

10.2. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council has legitimate concerns regarding the principle of releasing land

from the designated Green Belt in this location. The proposals in the Preferred Options

consultation document are not supported by a full evidence base or a coherent understanding

of the strategic priorities that are required to inform a full version of the Local Plan. The

requirement to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances legitimising the release of Green

Belt land in this location is not satisfied.

10.3. Looking at the site specifically, the following points are relevant:

Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan

10.4. The Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan (‘made’ November 2016 Paragraph 2.21) recognises

that the existing designation of the NSE “allows for some redevelopment or infilling so long as it

does not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the listed buildings”. This

position is supported by the local community. By definition as a ‘made’ element of the statutory

development plan, the Neighbourhood Plan satisfies the basis conditions and is in general

conformity with relevant strategic planning policies.

10.5. The Development Options Appraisal (October 2016) misrepresents the existing position of the

statutory development plan. By extension, the approach is not consistent with national policy

for the Green Belt. It is an entirely circular argument to suggest that removal of the NSE site

from the Green Belt would help remove the prospect of future attempts to modernise the site

comprising inappropriate development in the Green Belt:

“The Neighbourhood Plan supports the continued uses of the site and its

modernisation which could require development that would be inappropriate in the

Green Belt. Removal from the Green Belt would help support the Chalfont St Peter

Neighbourhood Plan.”

10.6. There is no support for this approach to defining exceptional circumstances in legislation or

guidance. The Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan is ‘made’. It is part of the statutory

development plan. It does not encourage or effect any change in the designation of the Green

Belt on the site nor is this part of its Vision and objectives. However, it recognises that


28

successful, appropriate development can be achieved within the policy framework of

the adopted Core Strategy (especially Policy CS7).

10.7. Caselaw has clearly established that simply applying planning judgement to the factors which

may or may not indicate a location is currently suitable for development is not the correct

approach when considering if exceptional circumstances existing to change the Green Belt. In

Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin), Hickinbottom J

ruled the Green Belt boundaries are not ‘contingent’ on other development considerations:

“That reflected the fact that Green Belt boundaries are intended to be enduring, and

not to be altered simply because the current policy means that development of those

sites is unlikely or even impossible. Indeed, where the current policy is to that effect,

the amenity interests identified in the sites will be protected by those very policies as

part of the general planning balance exercise. A prime character of Green Belts is

their ability to endure through changes of such policies. For the reasons set out in

Carpets of Worth (at page 346 per Purchas LJ) it is important that a proposal to

extend a Green Belt is subject to the same, stringent regime as a proposal to diminish

it, because whichever way the boundary is altered "there must be serious prejudice

one way or the other to the parties involved"”.

10.8. The Councils’ approach towards assessment of the NSE location is not justified and inconsistent

with national policy. Furthermore, it is an approach which is highly susceptible to challenge.

Gaps in the Emerging Evidence Base – Inner Green Belt Boundary Review

10.9. To paraphrase, the release of Green Belt land as indicated in the Preferred Option is “putting the

cart before the horse”. The Local Authorities have not completed their “Inner Green Belt

Boundary Review” which will need to inform a full Draft version of the Plan.

10.10. A methodology (April 2016) for this study is available, which refers to the NSE site, but no

conclusions are available. Following a thorough assessment, these are required to determine

whether a location contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt; whether a clear alternative

(and enduring) boundary can be identified; and whether the test of exceptional circumstances is

satisfied.

Previous Plan-Making and Decision-Taking

10.11. The site is already afforded effective policy coverage by the approach in the existing

development plan. As an existing Major Developed Site in the Green Belt, land at the National

Society for Epilepsy has helped to secure a number of beneficial, high quality, development

outcomes.


29

10.12. In examining the adopted Core Strategy, Inspector Simon Emerson considered it was

appropriate to designate the NSE as an existing major developed site which remains designated

within the Green Belt. His conclusions note that national policy identifies appropriate uses and

redevelopment opportunities which would “ensure that the existing degree of openness is

retained”.

10.13. The Council’s Topic Paper for Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt (201020) states that: “the

MDS [Major Developed Site] boundary has been drawn tightly in order to reflect the grouped

form of buildings on the site. It does not include a few buildings which lie outside the main

developed area of the site The MDS will provide an important context for any future infilling or

redevelopment.”

10.14. The evidence base for the Preferred Consultation does not set out the reasons for why these

conclusions have changed. Nor does it provide the basis that sets out how, having removed the

Green Belt designation from those buildings previously considered to contribute to the purposes

of the Green Belt, an enduring boundary can be maintained to guide future planning decisions.

10.15. The release of land from the Green Belt on the scale proposed would be Inconsistent with

previous planning decisions and attempts to recognise the openness of the land and establish an

enduring boundary. In setting out the Very Special Circumstances to permit a Continuing Care

Community under CH/2011/2026/FA (the ‘Audley’ Care Village) the applicant’s reasons

explained “the perimeter, which is currently reasonably wooded to the south and very poorly so

to the east and north, will have its boundaries enhanced through the planting of some 500 trees’.

10.16. The Officer’s Report for the proposals under CH/2011/2026/FA explains how these features help

to provide a softer urban edge well-related to the natural environment. The Officer explains:

“this should also help achieve one of the recognised benefits for the Green Belt set out in the

NPPF and weighs favourably for the case for Very Special Circumstances”.

10.17. These outcomes were achieved under the existing policy framework and designations. They are

not considered to unnecessarily restrict the prospects for development and remain appropriate

for the location. Release of land from the Green Belt would make no meaningful additional

contribution to achieving the strategic priorities of the Local Plan as evidenced by the

information currently available. Alternatively, this would introduce uncertainty about whether

similar enduring boundaries could be created or maintained and whether the exiting openness

of the site would be preserved. The prospect of these boundaries enduring beyond the plan

period is considered more limited, subsequently indicating a likelihood of further pressure for

piecemeal release of land from the Green Belt.

Assessment Against Green Belt Purposes (including Heritage Value)

10.18. These comments relate to heritage aspects within the Preferred Option at the NSE. These are

poorly addressed by the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. The fundamental point is

20 http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1592&p=0


30

that the characteristics of this location support and enhance the essential qualities of

the Green Belt – namely its openness and permanence (NPPF Paragraph 79). Paragraph 86 of

the NPPF recognises that where the character of a village should be protected for other reasons

then alternative policy mechanisms may be appropriate. However, where the open character of

a village contributes to the openness of the Green Belt then these area should rightly remain

‘washed over’. This is specifically true at the National Society for Epilepsy.

10.19. The area around the National Society for Epilepsy is a carefully managed landscape. The

Chalfont St Peter Historic Town Assessment (2011) recognises that the ‘Chalfont Colony’ was

established at the northern limits of the settlement as an operation with strong agricultural links

(p.34). The assessment of the Colony (p.55) identifies that the qualities of the site (and benefits

for epileptics) derive specifically from a specifically designed and managed landscape to provide

a safe environment for users. This pattern of land use has been managed for over a century,

preserving openness and a high degree of amenity, as recognised by the Inspector for the

existing Core Strategy. The Colony contains a number (four) of separately Listed Buildings.

10.20. The area is not designated as a Conservation Area but has the potential to be classified as such

in its own right. However, this in itself would not adequately capture the site’s relationship with

and contribution to the wider landscape.

10.21. Strictly in accordance with national policy, the location does not comprise a ‘historic town’ in its

own right, but this is irrelevant in terms of the area’s contribution to the fundamental qualities

of the Green Belt. Even taking into account a limited score under ‘Purpose 4’ of Paragraph 80 of

the NPPF under this classification, it is argued that the assessment of the sub-parcel against

Purposes 1 and 3 (preventing sprawl and protecting the countryside from encroachment) is

under-stated due to this mis-representation of relevant evidence. Of greatest relevance, the

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Historic Towns Project demonstrates how the Colony

provides a separate character area, with high heritage value in evidential and historical terms.

10.22. Further analysis demonstrates that the Sustainability Appraisal identifies development in the

area would have an adverse impact on the setting of Colne Valley Regional Park. By deduction,

this signifies that the existing pattern of land use preserves the relationship of the area with the

rural landscape and acts as an appropriate restraint on uncontrolled development. In this

context, the fact that the Sustainability Appraisal identifies the effects on Cultural Heritage as

only ‘uncertain’ is disputed, given that the significance of the Colony and its setting derives from

the surrounding landscape, which would be fundamentally altered.

10.23. This reiterates the danger of the piecemeal release of Green Belt in this area and the potential

of future sequential pressures to de-designate further areas. The existing policy framework for

the site is appropriate, and works precisely to support the relationship of the area with the

essential qualities of the Green Belt, including where limited appropriate redevelopment may

take place.


31

National Policy and the Principle of Green Belt Release on the Scale Proposed

10.24. The proposed release of land is relatively small and arguably of little significance in strategic

terms. However, the principle of releasing land from the Green Belt for further development

would be established by this Option. The land is part of a larger area considered in the Part One

Green Belt Study and represents one feasible sub-division. However, other divisions are likely to

be possible, leading to incremental pressure to release further land. This is contrary to NPPF

Paragraph 83: “authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their

intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the

plan period” – there is little prospect of the proposed alternative boundary enduring in the

longer-term once a precedent has been established.

10.25. Having regard to national policy, the essential characteristics of the NSE site are both its

openness and its permanence (NPPF Paragraph 79).

10.26. Existing policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 89) already support

appropriate further development opportunities within the developed area.

10.27. Without prejudice to any formal view on proposed amendments to the NPPF consulted on in

December 2015, and notwithstanding the government’s final conclusions on these, a decision

on releasing Green Belt in this location should be deferred until this process is concluded. The

government’s consultation has considered proposing:

“to amend the current policy test in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy

Framework that prevents development of brownfield land where there is any

additional impact on the openness of the Green Belt to give more flexibility and

enable suitable, sensitively designed redevelopment to come forward. We would

make it clear that development on such land may be considered not inappropriate

development where any harm to openness is not substantial.”

10.28. The government has, however, committed to maintaining the safeguards on development

provided by the Green Belt and recognising its important role and purposes in managing land

use. The proposed amendment offers potential alternatives for the NSE site, including the

prospect of increased development opportunities, without requiring unjustified amendments of

Green Belt boundaries. This would represent a better basis for considering appropriate policy

mechanisms for the NSE site.

Control over Future Development Types and Outcomes

10.29. The Preferred Options consultation document refers to the scope to provide general market

housing within this location. Just as the release of land from the Green Belt is not supported, nor

is the prospect of any general Use Class C3 accommodation (beyond very small provision within

the existing site such as for staff accommodation and workers’ dwellings). The Preferred Options

consultation document does not consider the effects of such a policy framework in terms of


32

viability or the implications for land values. The Council does not make a case that

provision of general market housing would assist the provision of specialist accommodation,

which the National Society for Epilepsy site has a strong track-record of providing.

10.30. The provision of specialist accommodation is typically associated with higher development costs

and lower developer returns. Such outcomes are generally accepted to mean that such facilities

do not attract CIL contributions and often do not contribute towards the provision of affordable

housing (with applicants often going to great lengths to demonstrate the proposals fall within

the C2 Use Class. Taken against an alternative use value for general residential development

such development would not provide a competitive return on a like-with-like basis. Even

considered against benchmark land values for commercial development, viability outcomes can

appear marginal.

10.31. Within Chalfont St Peter Parish, there is already an emerging precedent for this scenario.

Application Ref: CH/2016/1716/FA (land at former Holy Cross Covent) promotes an ‘assisted

living’ development, claiming a higher dependency care facility with extant permission is

unviable. Although also related to the scale of development achievable, the primary factor is

likely to be the associated delivery of significant market housing at the site. It is also notable

that the scheme will provide minimal care provision and appears less well-suited to longer-term

provision of specialist accommodation (i.e. higher car dependency; fewer communal facilities).

Nonetheless, and reflect developer returns which are still lower than general housing, the

applicants are seeking definition under the C2 Use Class and no provision of affordable housing.

10.32. The existing policy framework for the National Society for Epilepsy site is the correct approach

and should be maintained. It is important to retain a link between the type of development

considered most appropriate for the site and reasonable developer returns. Introducing

significant ‘hope value’ of general residential development is not sustainable or providing

certainty regarding what represents a reasonable return to a willing landowner.

10.33. The current policy mechanism helps to secure effective overall outcomes for sustainable

development. This reflects the qualities of the location in terms of openness and a strong track

record of providing a high degree of amenity for specialist accommodation. For example, recent

development has secured a high quality of landscaping, security and privacy for residents. The

Council has provided no evidence that general market housing would assist in maintaining the

same outcomes. The converse is likely to be true, taking into account the loss of openness and

introduction of higher density development. The existing policy framework works precisely to

protect the current high level of amenity alongside other qualities such as the heritage assets

within the site. The fact that recent sustainable outcomes would be undermined reiterates the

failure of the Councils to make a robust case for exceptional circumstances.

10.34. Bungalows are also a traditionally less viable form of development. The Councils have not

presented any robust policy framework which would ensure that this type of property could be

secured as a result of clear outcomes from decision-taking, undermining the potential benefit of

providing accommodation for the elderly. Any future controls, such as restrictions on sale or


33

Permitted Development, are often considered unreasonable and subsequently varied.

In the event that such proposals were brought forward, specifically to benefit local residents,

the test of Very Special Circumstances represents an appropriate policy mechanism.

10.35. Strict controls are necessary to ensure that development outcomes are effective and focused on

the main objectives of this location: namely the provision of specialist accommodation co-

located and compatible with the remaining NSE operations. The provision of affordable

accommodation for the elderly would be welcomed, but this should fall clearly within the

specific scope of the site. In the context of proposals for a ‘Continuing Care Retirement

Community’, development management should pay close attention to a potential split of C2/C3

units and the appropriateness of securing contributions towards affordable housing from part of

the development. The Council has provided no justification that introducing general market

housing would increase the likelihood of these outcomes.

Alternative Policy Approaches

10.36. The possible policy approach for the site in the Preferred Options consultation material does not

specify a number of dwellings to be provided within the land. This is welcomed, and the analysis

in these representations further demonstrates that the Council’s estimate of ‘unmet needs’

does not imply any need to provide market housing in this location. The corollary of this

situation is that the Councils’ evidence base cannot take into account the infrastructure

implications (e.g. school places, transport mitigation) from an uncertain and undefined level of

growth on this site.

10.37. In terms of an alternative policy approach, rolling forward the existing policy framework

represents an appropriate basis for proper planning. This would provide the greatest certainty

over future patterns of delivery and maintain a policy-compliant approach to the Green Belt.

Following national policy, this framework would nevertheless continue to allow substantial

opportunities for redevelopment within the existing developed area at the National Society for

Epilepsy.

10.38. The purple line indicated on the following aerial photography plan clearly indicates that a

naturally defensible boundary closely follows the main built area of the Chalfont Colony. Whilst

this incorporates substantial open space and amenity areas associated with the inner parts of

the site, clear distinction should be retained with the immediate agricultural and recreational

setting and the wider open landscape. These features collectively represent the qualities of

openness and permanence central to the defining role of the Green Belt.


34


35

11. Commentary on Preferred Option 8: Area South East of Chalfont St Peter

11.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council has legitimate concerns regarding the principle of releasing land

from the designated Green Belt in this location. Because the Preferred Option is associated with

a specific estimate of dwelling capacity this commentary should be read alongside the specific

analysis earlier in these representations. In-particular, the evidence for the Preferred Option

provides an unrealistic estimate for residential development; does not leave sufficient non-

residential land for other land uses; and is not supported by a robust understanding of

associated infrastructure requirements.

11.2. As well as the specific requirement to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances informing the

Preferred Option, the tests of soundness [justified, effective, consistent with national policy and

‘positively prepared’ plan-making] are also relevant. The evidence-base for the consultation

does not adequately justify the release of Green Belt land. It is inconsistent with key aspects of

national policy and the Preferred Option does not demonstrate why it would achieve more

effective outcomes than those possible under other policy scenarios.

11.3. Looking at the site specifically, the following points are also relevant.

Protection of the Paccar Scout Camp

11.4. The Development Options appraisal accepts that the Paccar Scout Camp is located within the

land identified. The appraisal claims that the option would be consistent with the

Neighbourhood Plan in seeking to retain a community use for this facility. This finding is

inconsistent with the areas quoted in the Preferred Options consultation document. This gives

the total site area as 13.71ha but a developable area of 12ha. From our approximate calculation

of the Scout Camp, it occupies around 2.29ha. This is illustrated below on mapping taken from

Google Earth:


36

11.5. Fundamentally, the developable area quoted by the Council cannot be achieved

without developing the Scout Camp. The associated dwelling capacity could therefore also not

be achieved. This fundamentally alters the basis on which the Preferred Option has been

conceived.

11.6. Given the inability of the Preferred Option to safeguard the Paccar Scout Camp in the manner

described, the proposals are also contrary to the policies of the Chalfont St Peter

Neighbourhood Plan as this location is identified and protected as an important community

facility.

Townscape and Existing Development Plan Policy

11.7. The Development Options Appraisal does not refer to the extant policy designation under Policy

H4 of the Consolidated 2011 Local Plan: Provision of New Dwellings in Established Residential

Areas of Special Character. This policy seeks to avoid proposals that would significantly affect

the density of buildings or damage the special character of an area. Recognition of the

contribution that the built environment in this location makes to Townscape Character is

provided by the Chiltern Townscape Character Assessment (February 2011). The ‘Chiltern Hill’

[Chalfont Heights] Residential Area immediately adjacent to the Preferred Option is identified as

being highly sensitive to change with a limited capacity to accommodate further development.

11.8. These findings follow an assessment of the highly recognisable pattern of development

comprising detached properties within large plots. The pattern of narrow carriageways, soft

verges, distinctive character and strong urban structure (e.g. building lines and deep front

gardens) signify the planned nature of development. Based on this evidence, which is not

explored or refuted in the Development Options Appraisal, the Preferred Option should be

regarded as incompatible with development at 35 dwellings per hectare as currently indicated

by the consultation material. Even at lower densities, detailed analysis should be undertaken to

establish whether a design could be achieved in-keeping with the surrounding area.

Access and Achieving Good Design

11.9. Following on from the considerations for Townscape noted above, the Council has not

presented any indicative layout for the Preferred Option. This is contrary to other Preferred

Options subject to consultation, where a clear indication of a feasible scheme is available for

comment – such as Preferred Option 5. This would give a much clearer indication whether

development could be achieved whilst maintaining supposedly undevelopable land such as the

Scout Fields.

11.10. Of particular concern are the arrangements for access into the site. It is likely that this will only

be achievable from Denham Lane. Furthermore, whilst the site boundary to the east extends

along the length of Denham Lane, in reality none of the Paccar Scout Field adjoining the road

comprises a realistic access point. Although Denham Lane would to some extent allow access

and egress into the land, the consequences for sustainable development should be fully set out.


37

11.11. For example, access in this location would be divorced from the main built settlement. The

relationship with public transport options should be evaluated as part of the likely effects from

development, as non-car modes may appear less attractive to road users under this scenario. A

second consideration is that for a development of this scale, a second access (at least for

emergency vehicles) is likely to be required. It is possible this would have to utilize the same

frontage with Denham Lane.

11.12. We understand that covenants and legal issues are likely to make control of land and access

rights within the ‘Chalfont Heights’ estate problematic to achieve. In any event, significant

changes and widening of narrow carriageways would adversely impact upon local character.

Finally, the proportion of traffic expected to use Denham Lane as the main access point (which

could be as high as 100% of movements associated with any development) should take account

of likely future conditions on Denham Lane, particularly during the intended construction of

HS2.

11.13. This lack of detail provides a lack of reassurance surrounding development parameters and

whether acceptable outcomes could be achieved within the Preferred Option.

Alternative Policy Approach

11.14. The commentary set out above illustrates a number of shortcomings and gaps in the evidence

for the Preferred Option as set out in the consultation material. There are significant current

uncertainties regarding the overall spatial strategy, the infrastructure requirements in this

location and the overall developable capacity. This generates further uncertainties regarding the

outcomes for sustainable development and therefore no basis to identify the exceptional

circumstances to release the land from the Green Belt. These conclusions can further only be

fully appreciated with a full understanding of the existing pattern of development and existing

pipeline of supply in Chalfont St Peter, and the associated baseline understanding on the

implications for infrastructure and transport assessments.

11.15. The findings of the Green Belt Assessment (Part 1) are not disputed in principle, but nor do they

alone substantiate the release of land from the designation. The Council’s own Part 2

assessment presents one possible assessment of a development scenario, although the ability to

create a strengthened and enduring boundary cannot be considered in isolation from the

commentary in these representations. In-particular, landscape improvements at the Paccar

Scout Camp and along Denham lane may not necessarily be within the control of any eventual

applicant or in the interests of the community facility.

11.16. Our view would be that it is not currently possible to demonstrate that dwellings on this site

should make a contribution towards the requirements of the Joint Local Plan. Any release is

likely to comprise a piecemeal approach and this should be avoided. The burden rests with the

local authority to demonstrate any suitable potential allocation having regard to these

considerations. We would expect that as a minimum the scale and density would be significantly


38

reduced, maintaining full protection of the Paccar Scout Camp with sufficient land

available for other uses. The character of the adjoining ‘Chalfont Heights’ estate should be fully

recognised. Only once these aspects are fully considered, and evaluated against ‘Option C’ of

the Councils’ spatial strategy options, should any judgement be reached on whether exception

circumstances exist to release the land from the Green Belt. Our summary assessment would be

that given the limited scale of development that would be achievable, plus existing

commitments in Chalfont St Peter and a location that would remain relatively inaccessible by

public transport then the principle of releasing land from the Green Belt on this site remains

difficult to justify.


39

12. Sustainability Appraisal

12.1. The absence of any updated Sustainability Appraisal is a major weakness of the consultation.

This exaggerates gaps in the evidence base and uncertainties in understanding. It also repeats

and accentuates earlier inconsistencies in the January 2016 version of the Sustainability

Appraisal, which could be addressed or overcome having regard to the latest evidence base. The

Council is not considered to be in a position to set out any definitive view on exceptional

circumstances until this work is complete, which subsequently means there will be no

opportunity to comment until the Pre-Submission stage. The following example illustrates one

such case to review the scoring from the January 2016 Sustainability Appraisal.

12.2. The “Modelling Report” (November 2016) prepared by Jacobs to look at baseline transport

conditions for the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan states as follows for Chalfont St Peter

(Section 5.2.8 page 18):

“The largest increase in demand flow on the minor roads to the east of the

settlement (and A413) originates from the National Centre for Epilepsy greenbelt

option to the northeast of the settlement. This amounts to an additional 389 trips

leaving the site in the AM and 361 returning in the PM in the Option C scenario. There

are also additional trips generated by the Mill Meadow and Chalfont St Peter East

greenbelt options which contribute to increases in demand flow on local links to the

south-east and north-west of the settlement. In addition, locally generated demand

flow increases are compounded by a significant increase in through trips on the A413

(amounting to a total increase of up to 364 one-way trips in the Option C scenario),

through the town centre.”

12.3. It is accepted that the precise impacts will be determined by the development options

ultimately chosen. Equally, however, the current modelling recognises that no potential

mitigation is currently identified and there are significant pre-existing issues with congestion.

12.4. The Councils’ Development Options Appraisal (October 2016) and Part 2 Green Belt Review

indicate that the significant effects scoring for the Sustainability Appraisal objectives has been

reviewed on the basis of the Preferred Options identified. We assume this cannot be the case

for the Transport Modelling, given that the Options Appraisal pre-dates the report prepared by

Jacobs. In any case, the outcomes for ‘Transport’ remain as in January 2016, namely:

Preferred Option 7: National Society for Epilepsy – Transport = Minor Positive Impact

Preferred Option 8: Land SE of Chalfont St Peter – Transport = Moderate Adverse Impact


40

12.5. Extracts from the January 2016 Sustainability Appraisal are shown below:

(Land SE of Chalfont St Peter)

(Land at National Society for Epilepsy)

12.6. Taking into account the findings of the transport modelling, it seems clear that adverse effects

should be identified for both locations and considered collectively in terms of whether

appropriate mitigation can be achieved. This is particularly the case given that paragraph 3.9.4

of the January 2016 Sustainability Appraisal already identifies the A413 through Chalfont St

Peter as a “highly congested route”.

12.7. We would also anticipate that other additional work undertaken as part of preparing the

Preferred Options could have helped to further clarify scoring against the Sustainability

Appraisal objectives. For example, the assessments have yet to conclude the grading of

agricultural land (SA Objective 6) and whether upgrades are needed to sewage treatment works

based on the scale of development that may come forward (SA Objective 7). As presented, the

Preferred Options have not helped in clarifying these uncertain and potentially adverse

outcomes.


41

13. Conclusions

13.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council is a stakeholder (and spatial location) of vital importance to plan-

making for several key reasons. These include the fact that the area represents a strategically

significant amount of development that remains committed and unbuilt in the Parish regardless

of any additional growth identified in the Preferred Options. This generates a high level of stress

on existing infrastructure, many of the effects of which are yet to be fully assessed or realised.

The strategic priorities for plan-making are critical to the settlement given the close relationship

with Gerrards Cross. Finally, the Parish Council has effectively contributed to the statutory

development plan in the area, and provides the only ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan in Chiltern

District.

13.2. The Parish Council and Local Plan Working Group intends to continue to work constructively to

support the proper planning of the local area. This will include attempting to establish a thorough

understanding of the capacity of existing infrastructure and any opportunities for mitigation or

enhancement. Where appropriate, development opportunities that re-use previously developed

sites either in the HELAA or other unidentified locations will be supported. However, this can only

be achieved in the context of co-operative work alongside the Local Planning Authority. Chiltern

District Council has failed to adequately respond to earlier consultation stages to assist this

process.

13.3. It has been impossible to respond fully or collaboratively to these points given the nature of the

current Preferred Options consultation. This presents supposed possibilities for development in

Chalfont St Peter which are deficient in terms of soundness, a complete evidence base and a

fundamental understanding of whether exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the

Green Belt. The evidence base is clearly at various stages of preparation – whilst Transport

Modeling takes account of a future contribution from HELAA sites, details for these and the

relationship of these with the strategy is not available. Evidence for Infrastructure Delivery and

from the Sustainability Appraisal is entirely deficient, having not been updated to support this

consultation.

13.4. The Preferred Options should have been fully assessed and presented as part of a coherent

spatial strategy, taking account of baseline conditions, other sources of supply and the

opportunities to meet unmet needs outside of the plan area. The consultation material has not

even provided a Joint Vision or clear objectives to guide the plan-making process.

13.5. As a result, neither of the Preferred Options in Chalfont St Peter can currently be considered to

represent appropriate opportunities for development or demonstrate exceptional circumstances

for release from the Green Belt. There is no reasonable prospect of this position being

established given the specific circumstances of each site, particularly the National Society for

Epilepsy which already benefits from appropriate policy designations. Land South East of Chalfont

St Peter fails to demonstrate how it would contribute to achieving sustainable development.


42

13.6. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and its advisors would be glad to assist in addressing

these issues in the next stage of plan-making and establishing an appropriate spatial strategy for

the plan area and for Chalfont St Peter in-particular.


43

Annexe A – Chalfont St Peter Parish Council

Representations to Chiltern and South Bucks Local

Plan Initial Consultation (Issues and Options) (March

2016)

chalfont st. peter parish...

Documents