SCHEDULE
OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL
(1) The application site is located within the open Green Belt outside
any settlement or row of dwellings identified on the Proposals Map
of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, wherein the provision
of new dwellings, sheltered housing and nursing homes defined by the
applicant as 'enabling development' is considered to be inappropriate
development under Policies GB2, GB3 and CSF1 of the Chiltern District
Local Plan. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development
and any such development will not be approved, except in very special
circumstances.
The
applicant’s submission that the National Society for Epilepsy
fails to meet some of the standards set for such facilities by the
Care Standards Act 2000, has been noted. However, the case advanced
by the applicant, including requiring enabling development essentially
to fund improvements to the medical facilities. is not considered
to constitute very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh
the very substantial harm to the Green Belt that would arise from
a development of this scale and magnitude. The construction of 218
private dwellings together with a private nursing home and a private
sheltered housing block together with a new vehicular access and
access road, would have a very significant adverse impact on the
openness of this part of the Green Belt. This site is in a particularly
important location, in the Green Belt but on the edge of the built
up area of Chalfont St Peter. In such a " fringe" location
it is particularly important to maintain the openness and integrity
of the Green Belt boundary. The enabling development is objectionable
in principle and would be extremely harmful to the Green Belt and
its openness.
For
these reasons the proposal conflicts with Policies GB2, GB3 and
CSF1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including
The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004), Policies GC1 and
GC3 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 -
2011, Policy 8 of the Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure
Plan 2001 - 2016. Deposit Draft - September 2003, and PPG2 (3).
(2) The application site is located within the open Green Belt outside
any settlement or row of dwellings identified on the Proposals Map
of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, wherein the provision
of new community buildings is inappropriate development under Policies
GB2, GB24 and CSF1 of the Chiltern District Local Plan and is not
permitted in the open Green Belt. There is a general presumption
against inappropriate development and any such development will
not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
The
applicant's submission has been noted that the National Society
for Epilepsy complex fails to meet some of the standards set for
such facilities by the Care Standards Act 2000, which requires the
upgrading of some of the existing facilities on the site. However,
this in itself is not considered to constitute justification for
redevelopment on this massive scale, but rather for refurbishment,
extension and reuse of the existing sub-standard facilities. The
applicant's submissions, including the Society's contention that
the existing facilities are 'run-down' is not considered sufficient
justification to outweigh the substantial harm that would be caused
to the Green Belt from the proposed development. It has not been
demonstrated that the harm to the Green Belt has been clearly outweighed
by other considerations.
The
proposal to redevelop the National Society for Epilepsy site is
objected to in principle and would be seriously harmful to the Green
Belt and its openness. Notwithstanding the information provided
by the applicant it must be noted that under Policy GB29 of the
Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted
Alterations May 2001 and July 2004) the re-use of existing buildings
in the Green Belt can be acceptable. The proposal by the applicant
to demolish and redevelop does not demonstrate to the Council’s
satisfaction that it would be impossible to refurbish and re-use
the existing buildings within the site.
For
these reasons the proposal is in conflict with Policies GB2, GB24
and CSF1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including
The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004), Policies GC1 and
GC3 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 -
2011, Policy 8 of the Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure
Plan 2001 - 2016. Deposit Draft - September 2003, and PPG2 (3).
(3) The Local Education Authority advises that the primary school
and secondary school within the catchment area of the site are full
to capacity and would require substantial investment in order to
accommodate the additional pupils. This would therefore lead to
pupils travelling to schools outside of the catchment area, contrary
to Policy BS1 of the Buckinghamshire Structure Plan which seeks
to reduce unnecessary travel and to promote a close correlation
between new homes and community facilities. Furthermore, no significant
plans exist at the present time to expand local schools at a scale
necessary to accommodate the children from the proposed development.
The proposal therefore constitutes an unsustainable form of development
and conflicts with Policy BS1 of The Adopted Buckinghamshire County
Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.
(4) The proposed residential development would lead to an increase
in the number of highway users and the applicant has not demonstrated
that there is sufficient capacity on the existing highway network
to safely accommodate the additional traffic. Furthermore, as far
as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does
not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility
for the proposed access onto Chesham Lane and the altered access
onto Rickmansworth Lane. The proposed development would, therefore,
be detrimental to highway safety. As such the proposal is contrary
to Policy TR1A of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan
1991-2011 and Policy TR2 of the adopted Chiltern District Local
Plan 1997 (Including Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(5) In recent years, Chalfont St Peter has experienced considerable
problems with widespread surcharging/flooding of its sewers. In
this context Thames Water has pointed out that the ability of local
sewers to dispose of foul and surface water from the proposed development
is unknown and would need to be determined. They indicate, as may
be expected, that if investigations demonstrate that insufficient
capacity is available, Thames Water would need sufficient 'lead
time' to undertake such substantial works. In this context, the
proposed development is considered unacceptable at this time, as
it is by no means certain that the necessary infrastructure to support
the proposed development can be provided within a reasonable time
period. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policy
GC6 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997, (including
Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(6) The Council is significantly exceeding its Structure Plan targets
for delivery of new housing development. There can therefore be
no justification for new housing development in the open Green Belt
on the basis of failure to provide. Furthermore, the proposal does
not comply with the advice given in PPG 3 which advocates the use
of previously developed land before Greenfield sites and also recommends
the sequential approach in selection of appropriate housing sites.
In respect of issues of sustainability, this site is some considerable
distance from the town centre, and although there are a few scattered
community facilities within walking distance, in general the site
not sustainable and not particularly accessible by public transport.
In particular, Chalfont St Peter is not served by the railway and
existing bus services near the site are limited and would be unlikely
to improve to any significant degree as a result of the proposal.
As such the proposal is contrary to Policy BS1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire
County Structure Plan 1991-2011.
(7) In order to provide the required visibility splays for the proposed
access onto Chesham Lane two trees that are protected by a Tree
Preservation Order would have to be removed. These oak and ash trees
are of significant amenity value and consequently, their loss would
be detrimental to the character of the area. As such the proposal
conflicts with Policy TW3 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local
Plan 1997 (Including the Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(8) The proposed development would result in the demolition of a
Grade II listed building, Greene House. In that this building has
been identified as being of special architectural and historic interest
the proposal thus conflicts with Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire
County Structure Plan 1991-2011; Policy 31 of the Replacement Buckinghamshire
County Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft; and Policy LB3 of
the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including the Adopted
Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(9) Three Valleys Water Company advise that the existing mains water
infrastructure is not adequate to supply the proposed development
satisfactorily and indeed to do so would result in inadequate supplies
being available to existing users in the locality. It is indicated
that Three Valleys Water Company would need significant 'lead time'
to undertake the necessary substantial works. In this context the
proposed development is considered unacceptable at this time, as
it is by no means certain that the necessary water main infrastructure
required for the proposed development can be provided within a reasonable
time period. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy
GC6 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including
the Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(10) Inadequate archaeological information and no survey data has
been provided with the application relating to the large number
of buildings that would be demolished as part of the proposed development.
This may result in the destruction of buildings of archaeological/historic
interest and thus, conflicts with Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire
County Structure Plan 1991-2011; Policy 31 of the Replacement Buckinghamshire
County Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft; and Policies AS2
AS3 and AS5 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including
the Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
(1) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding the refusal of planning permission
for the reasons stated above, with regard to the indicative layout
plan you are advised that any redevelopment should be more sympathetic
to the historic character of the site. In addition, you are advised
that the site is being considered by English Heritage as to whether
it is suitable for designation as an Historic Park. If designated
as such, you are advised that in any subsequent application or appeal
this matter would impact on your proposed development and would
be likely to result in the Council raising further objection.
(2) INFORMATIVE - In respect of reason for refusal 5 above, relating
to the adequacy of local sewers to dispose of foul and surface water
from the proposed development, you are asked to note the following
information. Thames Water advise that in cases such as this, it
is normal to require a 3-year lead time to provide additional capacity,
including time for further investigation. They would need to recover
costs from the developer, once the level of the required additional
capacity is known, by use of a Section 106 Planning Agreement together
with appropriate planning conditions on any permission that may
be granted, at that stage. However, in this particular case Thames
Water has not had any prior negotiations with the applicant and
investigations are therefore only at a preliminary stage.
The
applicant's submission, amongst other things, is that his proposal
for housing development on this massive scale should be granted
permission, notwithstanding that it is contrary to Green Belt policies,
because the development is needed immediately to fund urgent works
to the existing substandard NSE facilities on the site. In view
of the applicant's urgent time constraints and the fact that the
level of the necessary sewer provision and associated costs are
not yet known, or indeed whether or not the applicant would be prepared
or able to fund these works accordingly, it is not considered that
the Council can be satisfied at this stage that a 'Grampian style'
condition together with a Section 106 Planning Agreement could overcome
the objection set out in reason 5 above.
However,
if/once the applicant satisfies the Council, in consultation with
Thames Water, that he is prepared to provide the necessary funds
required in connection with his proposed development, and enters
a Section 106 Planning Agreement accordingly, then the Council would
no longer pursue the reason for refusal number 5.
(3) INFORMATIVE - In respect of reason for refusal number 9 above,
relating to the adequacy of the local water mains infrastructure
to supply water to the proposed development, you are asked to note
the following information. Three Valleys Water Company advise that
they cannot supply the proposed development from the existing mains
infrastructure. Indeed to do so would result in inadequate supplies
to existing users in the area. They also advise that having regard
to the proposed development, topography and length of pipe run required,
a main of at least 300mm in diameter would be necessary together
with a booster installation. Their preliminary estimate for the
cost of this work is in the region of £2 million. They would
need to recover the costs of the work from the developer once detailed
investigations and fuller estimates are known, by use of a Section
106 Planning Agreement together with appropriate planning conditions
on any permission that may be granted, at that stage.
In
cases such as this, a significant lead time is normally required
for the provision of the necessary infrastructure, including time
for further investigation. However, in this particular case Three
Valleys Water Company has not had any prior negotiations with the
applicant and investigations have not therefore yet commenced.
The
applicant's submission, amongst other things, is that his proposal
for housing development on this massive scale should be granted
permission, notwithstanding that it is contrary to Green Belt policies,
because the development is needed immediately to fund urgent works
to the existing substandard NSE facilities on the site. In view
of the applicant's urgent time constraints and the fact that the
level of the necessary water main provision and associated costs
are not yet known, or indeed whether or not the applicant would
be prepared or able to fund these works accordingly, it is not considered
that the Council can be satisfied at this stage that a 'Grampian
style' condition together with a Section 106 Planning Agreement
could overcome the objection set out in reason 9 above.
However,
if/once the applicant satisfies the Council, in consultation with
Three Valleys Water Company, that he is prepared to fund both the
investigations and the provision of necessary water mains infrastructure
required in connection with his proposed development, and enters
a Section 106 Planning Agreement accordingly, then the Council would
no longer pursue the reason for refusal number 9.
(4) INFORMATIVE - In respect of refusal number 3 above, relating
to the adequacy of local schools to accommodate the number of children
that would be generated by the development you are asked to note
the following information. Buckinghamshire County Council advise
that they would need to recover the costs from the developer to
provide additional capacity in schools by use of a Section 106 Planning
Agreement with appropriate planning conditions on any permission
that may be granted.
The
applicant's submission, amongst other things, is that his proposal
for housing development on this massive scale should be granted
permission, notwithstanding that it is contrary to Green Belt policies,
because the development is needed immediately to fund urgent works
to the existing substandard NSE facilities on the site. In view
of the applicant's urgent time constraints and the fact that the
level of the necessary educational provision and associated costs
are not yet known, it is not considered that the Council can be
satisfied at this stage that a 'Grampian style' condition together
with a Section 106 Planning Agreement could overcome the objection
set out in reason 3 above.
However,
if/once the applicant satisfies the Council, in consultation with
the County Council, that he is prepared to provide the necessary
funds required in connection with his proposed development, and
enters a Section 106 Planning Agreement accordingly, then the Council
would no longer pursue the reason for refusal number 3.
YOUR
ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO NOTES 1 – 2 ON THE ATTACHED LEAFLET.
|
