Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this planning application even though I am not a member of the Planning Committee and therefore cannot vote.. I am here as one of the local members for Chalfont Common.

This is probably the largest planning application that we have ever considered and I would like to thank the officers for providing such a comprehensive report and for taking the time to make sure that all aspects of this very large application have been considered.

A letter was published last week in the local paper from a resident who said he was disgusted that the district council had not determined this application sooner. He probably does not realise that it has taken this long for many consultees to reply and even now, as we have heard this evening, further reasons for refusal are still being added. If we agree the planning officers' recommendation for refusal tonight, it will be these valid planning reasons we will use to fight the appeal already lodged and which no doubt would still have been lodged following any earlier refusal by C.D.C.

It has also been very important to take notice of the many letters which have been written to all of us from concerned residents of Chalfont Common. They are the people who know what problems a development like this will have, not just for Chalfont Common, but Chalfont St. Peter as a whole.

This is prime Green Belt land adjoining the Colne Valley Park. Our Green Belt land in Chalfont St. Peter is narrow and separates us from the urban sprawl of metroland and must be defended. The granting of an application such as this would set a serious precedent, not just for Chalfont St. Peter.

The NSE owns many acres of land all around this area. We also currently have an appeal outstanding by a gypsy family on Green Belt land very close to this application site.

Chiltern District Council and Chalfont St. Peter parish council have always been very supportive of the NSE and the sterling work that they do and we have over the years as you will see from the planning history allowed many planning applications on this site which have been ancillary to its use as a designated hospital site, the last of which was very recently. This application does not fall into that category.

The one application which was refused permission was for a new building for the Misbourne doctors' surgery in 1989 which was submitted by the surgery on NSE land adjacent to the current intended site with access onto Rickmansworth lane. Although desperately needed by the village it was refused on Green Belt and highway issues, also loss of trees.

I would like to turn now to what is called the highway network. Rickmansworth Lane, Chesham Lane, Denham Lane, Monument Lane, Gorelands Lane. No roads, only lanes, mostly with no pavements. Even prior to this application local residents were campaigning to reduce the speed of the traffic and a petition was sent to Rodney Royston the cabinet member for planning & transportation at county on the 8th may 2003. This had been signed by 1046 residents of Chalfont Common. The police traffic dept. monitored the traffic in 2002 and registered 3750 cars in a 24 hour period using Denham Lane alone.

Following a deputation from concerned residents, the Parish Council borrowed the speed camera for a week to monitor this for themselves. Children walk along these lanes to Robertswood - - a nursery and primary school in Denham Lane. Rickmansworth Lane is an extremely busy lane leading to and from the M25, M1, Watford and Rickmansworth.

This is an ongoing problem which will be exacerbated by the addition of probably 400 - 500 cars and at 6 movements each per day we are looking at an additional 3000 cars.

Public transport in Chalfont st. Peter is lamentable. It has extremely poor transport links - no station and minimal bus services. The village appraisal transport group have been lobbying the bus company for additional buses - particularly evenings and Sundays when there are none. The only success has been that they have agreed not to make the cuts that they were intending.

This means that car ownership is probably higher than in other areas of our district. An application of this magnitude could easily mean a further 400 - 500 cars on these roads.

This in itself would also significantly affect the safety of residents of the NSE itself when they walk around the village. Parking is also an increasing problem in the village.

These lanes are also subject to flooding - the last occasion only a couple of weeks ago. We are sure that the sewers and water supplies could not accommodate these additional dwellings. Foxdell Way - opposite the site only has private sewers which are also prone to overflowing. The centre of the village has annual problems with sewers overflowing into the High St.

We have heard about other infrastucture problems particularly schools and doctors surgeries.

This site is on the edge of Buckinghamshire - when the NSE talk about facilities being within so many miles - many of these are in Hertfordshire and are not relevant.

Chalfont St. Peter has two doctors surgeries but one of these has patients from Gerrards Cross and surrounds as they do not have a surgery. Apparently Chiltern and S. Bucks primary care trust have told the NSE that funding follows population but this can only mean overcrowded surgeries and longer waiting times. Perhaps a new surgery on more Green Belt land?

The county council has advised that it can only consider schools in this catchment area and that both Robertswood School and Chalfonts Community College have no spare capacity. This college is not capable of being expanded. The school start and finishing times have already had to be staggered because of traffic problems in this part of the village owing to the large number of pupils attending this already overcrowded school.

As of today there are 1554 houses in Chalfont Common. This development would therefore add around 15% in one fell swoop.

I have a copy of a letter from the NSE which states "quite a significant proportion of the costs are directly related to the work we will have to do to achieve planning approval for the enabling development e.g. improvements to the sewers and roads" so we have a catch 22 situation.

How much is a significant proportion? How do they know what will be required? It could well be that these enabling costs will mean that they still will not be left with the amount they think they need to fund all their requirements.

The NSE has not proved that the whole of this development is needed to fund its own minimum essential development. It has its own agenda for a state of the art facility and is showing scant regard for our village.

When I first moved here almost 30 yrs. ago the NSE was proud of the fact that it was self sufficient. It had a shop selling fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs, chickens, and flowers. It had its own cows - all this providing work for the residents and an income. It had an annual open day and a Christmas bazaar. This was all supported by the residents of our village.

We are now being asked to provide the necessary funds by allowing this development for upgrading which should have occurred naturally over the years.

The NSE has stated that it has an obligation to its patients but it also has an obligation to its neighbours who have supported it over many years.

This is a national society. Its patients come from all over this country. It should not be left to the residents of Chalfont St. Peter to pay for it by a substantial loss of amenities which they have a right to enjoy.

The size and scale of this development will be detrimental to the character of the locality.

I also feel that it will not be in the NSE patients best interest to be subjected to the additional traffic, pollution, noise and loss of amenity area that this housing scheme would produce.

I agree with the officers recommendation for refusal of this planning application and urge my fellow councillors to vote to this effect.

Linda Smith