|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning
Committee 2nd Sept 2004 -
National Society for Epilepsy
May I start by thanking the officers for a very comprehensive report.
It is probably one of the largest single applications Chiltern District
has received for a long time. It is almost certainly one of the most
complex, with ramifications for other sites in the District.
This evening I hope members will support the officers' recommendation
for refusal. I am not asking for any deferral. We all know the site
well and we have a clear report in front of us.
There has been some adverse comment in the local press about why it
took so long to bring this application to this committee. I hope that,
having seen the report, the public will understand why. Many other
authorities had to be consulted on highways, schools, health services,
utilities supplies and footpaths, to name but a few. There were 477
letters from the public to consider.
For the information of the public, the Council cannot just approve
or refuse applications. For approvals the Council must ensure that
the right conditions are applied. For refusals we must ensure that
all the right reasons are given, because we cannot change the reasons
later. Also we must ensure that the reasons are sound and justified
and will stand up at an appeal.
That I am asking for this application to be refused does not mean
that I do not want the NSE to meet the national care standards. We,
all members of this Council, and probably all the objectors, want
the NSE residents to have the quality of accommodation and the standards
of care they deserve, but:
|
•
|
The
National Care Standards Commission looks at the matter purely
from the care standards point of view, without considering the
cost or planning implications. |
|
•
|
The
NSE looks at the matter purely from the point of view of its
requirements and its resources. |
|
•
|
This
Council and this Committee have wider responsibilities. We have
to take into account National and Local Planning Policies, and
the impact of the proposals on the local people, the infrastructure
and the environment. |
This is not an impasse. This is just one step in a process that we
hope will end up with the best possible solution for all the stakeholders.
The NSE has been in Chalfont St Peter since 1893. It has been a long
and harmonious relationship. Villagers used to buy their eggs and
vegetables at the farm. Residents of the colony used - less so nowadays
- to come into the village for their shopping and their leisure. The
villagers recognise and support the world-class work of the Centre.
However this application has shattered that harmony.
This application must be refused. It is unjustifiably large and unjustifiably
in the Green Belt. Chalfont St Peter does not have the infrastructure
to support it and the District does not need the housing numbers.
The NSE has sought to break the application internally into two parts:
its own redevelopment and the enabling application. However this committee
is looking at just one application. I hope members will not be tempted
to say that they would have approved one part or the other on its
own. The report gives good reasons for refusing either part on its
own and both parts together.
No one disputes that these proposals constitute "inappropriate
development" in the Green Belt. For such "inappropriate
development" the applicant has to make a "very special case".
He must show overwhelming need, that there is nowhere not in the Green
Belt for such a development and that the proposed location in the
Green Belt is the least harmful. I submit that the NSE has not made
that very special case.
Looking first at the Enabling Development, the need is stated as "to
raise funds for the NSE's own redevelopment". I don't think this
Council has ever accepted "raising funds" as a justification
for any form of Green Belt development. It would be a serious precedent
if we did.
The NSE provides services to the NHS and to Social Services departments.
Has the NSE applied to those organisations for funds? Has the NSE
shown us letters of refusal from those organisations as part of its
case?
Are we sure that the NSE genuinely needs even £17.5 million,
let alone £32 million, just to meet the Care Standards Act?
Surely refurbishment and possibly extension of the buildings would
be cheaper than demolition and replacement. Is the NSE sneaking in
other redevelopments not covered by the Act and therefore not justified
by it?
Looking at the NSE's own redevelopment, the stated need is the extra
space required to meet the accommodation standards of the Care Standards
Act. Yet the NSE proposes to reduce the number of residents by 45%.
Can the additional space per resident not be provided from the reduced
number of residents? Are we sure that this development is truly the
minimum required to meet the Act? Are we sure that extra space is
not being sneaked in without proper justification?
On the subject of highways, I'm please to hear the improved wording
for reason 4, but I'm concerned that the highway loadings have been
based on 1.5 vehicles per dwelling. The last census showed that 58%
of Chalfont St Peter households have two or more cars (twice the national
average) and that figure is rising. The justification for reason 6
points out that the lack of public transport makes the site generally
unsustainable. Therefore the number of cars per dwelling will be higher,
probably nearer two. Can we add that as a reason for refusal or can
we persuade the County Highways Engineer to base his calculations
on a more realistic figure?
Finally we should be concerned about the knock-on effect of this application
on the Green Belt. The County Education Authority has said that both
Robertswood School and the Community College are full. Both are right
on the edge of the Green Belt. The Community College site is already
full. The only place they can expand is into the Green Belt. Thus,
allowing this application could cause secondary erosion of the Green
Belt.
In summary, Mr Chairman, we all hope the NSE can find a way of delivering
the national care standards to their residents, but this application
is not the way. It is unjustifiably large, unjustifiably in the Green
Belt and Chalfont St Peter does not have the infrastructure to support
it. I invite members to refuse this and the duplicate application
unanimously.
Jeremy
A Banham
2nd September 2004
|
| |
|
