|
|
|
|
|
|
Details of
the meeting are on Chiltern District Council's Website. The information
can be accessed by performing the following steps:
>Right-click here
and select 'Open in new window' to access the Planning section of CDC's
Website,
>Left-click on 'Council reports and minutes'
on the right-hand side of the page,
>In the right-hand window, scroll
down to '2004.09.02 - Planning' and left-click it'
>The right-hand window
contains the meeting agenda (application 2004/859/CH is only part of
the agenda). The
left-hand window has further information. In particular, left-clicking
on the
'+'
sign to the left of 'Planning Open Report - 2 September 2004' gives access
to the Case
Officer's
report. You need to click 'next' at the foot of each page to progress
through it.
The Planning Committee had access to the Case Officer's report.
sense have reproduced it on this Website, together with our observations
and comments thereon. We agree with most (but not all) of his comments.
Nevertheless we believe it is an excellent report overall and fairly states
the representations of all parties.
Text of the CDC Case Officer's Report,
together with sense's comments.
The meeting was then conducted in the following manner:
| Councillor
Denis Palmer spoke on behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council |
|
He
cited five major reasons why the application should be refused on
planning grounds.
Text of Councillor Palmer's speech.
|
| Robert
Wilson spoke on behalf of objectors to the application |
|
Mr
Wilson made effective use of the 3 minutes permitted him to cover
all the major points against the NSE's application.
Text of Bob Wilson's speech.
|
| John
Duncan spoke for the NSE in favour of the application |
|
Professor
Duncan concentrated on the medical nature of epilepsy, its treatment
and requirement of care for suffers. Although addressing a planning
committee, Professor Duncan chose not to cover planning matters. sense
do not have the text of this address (if we get one we will post it
here). Mr Graham Faulkner, Chief Executive of the NSE and principal
sponsor of the NSE's redevelopment did not address the committee.
|
|
Councillors Jeremy Banham, Linda Smith and David Meacock also addressed
the meeting. |
|
All
spoke against the planning application. Councillor Banham
agreed a basic need to improve the residential housing at the NSE
but could not agree to the scale the development or the harm to neighbouring
people. He requested that the Committee refuse the application.
Text of Councillor Banham's speech.
Text of Councillor Smith's speech.
Text of Councillor Meacock's speech.
|
| The
Committee members then discussed the application. |
|
Several
Committee members addressed the meeting. All spoke against the application
and after a little under an hour, in the absence of anyone to speak
in favour of the application it was suggested the meeting move to
vote.
|
| On
a vote, the Committee REFUSED the NSE's application 2004/859/CH |
| |
By
15-0 unanimous vote, the Committee REFUSED the NSE's application and
agreed that the planning officers should use the same points to object
to the appeal of the duplicate application ref: 2004/1030/CH.
This decision was minuted as follows and incorporated the included
note:
Refuse
permission,
with an alteration to the description of the development; 4 additional
reasons re Tree Preservation Order, loss of listed building, inadequate
water supply infrastructure and lack of archaeological survey; alteration
to reason 4; plus 4 informatives re historic setting, water supply,
sewerage infrastructure and educational facilities.
Note1: The Committee was advised of application 2004/1030/CH
– that was for the identical development for which permission
had been sought under application 2004/0859/CH. An appeal against
non-determination had been lodged against that application and therefore
the Council was no longer able to determine it. The Planning Committee
agreed to the officers raising the same objections as outlined in
the above application in order for necessary statements and evidence
to be prepared in relation to the appeal.
|
| A
formal decision notice was issued by CDC on 20 September |
| |
Text
of CDC decision notice.
|
|
