By way of background, I would like to remind everyone here that not only am I one of the two the local Members of Chalfont Common Ward, I have lived in CSP for 35 years, since the age of three, and so have known the NSE site from when I was taken to see the ducks outside the old egg shop while only the height of these tables! I cycled to the new shop as a teenager to buy eggs, and so the idea of alleviating transport problems by extra cycle racks at Gerrards Cross Station requiring steep hills to be climbed both at the start and end of the day, no doubt sweating profusely in good clothes, is simply laughably impractical.

Most of the BCC schools are located within the Greenbelt, and as BCC has done with school extensions and upgrades, it is pretty obvious from the report planning history that CDC has rightly taken the same pragmatic view that reasonable upgrades within the footprint of the existing NSE site should be supported. This is a balanced view of the greenbelt being rather like the Sabbath: it is for the general good rather than the Biblical Pharisees’ legalistic hindrance of everyone. However, that does not mean that the principle should then be completely ignored by any means.

So, in principle, I would urge the Committee to continue to support the principle of the NSE’s occasional upgrading of facilities for patients and also the provision of on site accommodation for staff within the existing developed site. But, the report shows that the detailed case here has simply not been made adequately to support it this time. I therefore support the Officer’s recommendations with regard to both aspects of this application, i.e. the application as a whole. I oppose the unjustified incursion into Greenbelt.

I’d like to thank and congratulate those who have written in both for and against the application. These sections of the report require no further elaboration from me.

I would also like to thank the NSE for their submissions, since they - no doubt unintentionally - further show why this application should not be supported.

The financial inconsistency, of a mere £3.5 to £5.5 Million, highlighted within para. 7 of the ISSUES section toward the end of the officer’s report, shows that the case has simply not been properly made on financial grounds, as also stated in paras 8, and 15-17, of this section, never mind on any other ground of perhaps greater planning significance.

Within the section entitled Executive Summary - Case for the Development it says “The NSE, Chalfont St Peter is the only organisation in the UK which provides a fully comprehensive range of services for adults with epilepsy . . . buildings are dated and fall short of the standards introduced in the Care Standards Act, 2000 . . . “ Thus, we are dealing with a national concern here. The very fact that the NSE’s Chief Executive’s section is even entitled National Needs Statement is further proof that this is a national issue as is his statement within the section that The NSE is a unique integrated health and social care centre; the only one in the UK providing assessment, medical treatment, research, care and rehabilitation on one site for adults with complex epilepsy. Therefore the national burden should not solely fall on the residents of Chalfont Common - the money for such a facility should be provided nationally thereby negating any need for 218 houses, which the existing infrastructure and environment simply cannot sustain.

In terms of the Other fundraising options section, my speech at the CSP Parish Council Meeting further demonstrated that a vocal campaign by the NSE to get Government funding for upgrades would have the support of everyone. Yet it would appear that the current NSE Board are more interested in fighting locals and making this senseless application as if Government poodles doing their master’s bidding, rather than publicly taking on the Government which hypocritically claims that everyone’s healthcare needs - which most sensible people would take to include epilepsy - are available free at the point of delivery.

The Transportation statement, mentions the NSE in its new role of Property Developer making a contribution towards speed management of Chesham Lane. Perhaps they are unaware of current trends of taking out the mostly ridiculous and money wasting humps and road blocks type of so-called traffic calming schemes, which have already been installed. When people’s eyes have been opened to the realities, in the light of experience, the very same residents who called for such traffic calming then want it completely removed, to get rid of the inconvenience and noise that such highway obstructions cause.

Given that Chiltern has the highest number of cars per household nationally - 3 rather than the usual planning guidelines of 1.5 per dwelling, 218 dwellings would generate an enormous amount of traffic which the existing main roads - never mind the unclassified ones in the immediate vicinity of the NSE - simply couldn’t handle. So you do not need to be an Einstein to realise that in reality we could be talking about anything up to 660 cars which given current trends of most adults working would likely mean an enormous number of movements to and from the dwellings when householders drive to work/schools.

Youngsters need to go to school locally wherever possible not only for their own good use of time, but also to avoid the resulting congestion cost to UK Ltd of unnecessary and excessive travelling. Robertswood at 420 is already the ideal size and cannot be enlarged while the Chalfonts Community College @ just over 1,700 is already the largest Upper School in the County. Even were it possible to enlarge by adding a few classrooms that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the assembly hall would be large enough. Dr. Challoner’s Grammar School was about 1,000 strong when I was there, and that seemed large enough to me at the time, so again even were the site not already at or pretty close to capacity further enlargement would not be sensible. CDC must keep the 3rd reason for refusal even if the NSE comes up with the £1M required to develop these schools. In overstating the number of existing local facilities the NSE defacto shows that the reality of the current number of facilities which could be used - even were in the case of schools the £1 million required for such development available - are inadequate since they are obviously relying on the fantasy numbers they have listed. Thus, the NSE helpfully show themselves that their proposals are over-development.

My final environmental point is that the report rather santitises the water sewerage issue. This is the current situation of the CSP sewer (glass to the brim - pour in water and brown bag.) This is the colour of your trousers if you get splashed in CSP High Street when the waters are high - and don’t swim in the Misbourne because it has been used as an overflow to try to minimise the recreation of the 19th Century Street problems. We need Thames Water to bring us into the 20th Century with existing demand, never mind 21st Century with further demand. So, this development simply cannot happen until the £2-3 Billion is spent on the provision of a new sewer.

I conclude by thanking all Officers involved in this excellent thorough report. I hope that the points I have made will be of assistance to the Committee in its deliberation, and I thank everyone here for your attention.

David Meacock