sense try to make the NSE c-sense
 Chalfont St. Peter Community and:-             
The NSE's £100M+ Developments on Green Belt land

sense Say:- The NSE Scheme
                      (What are they saying to whom?)

  Home
Contact   
   Home > sense say > The NSE Scheme
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
     

The Local Community
NSE publications distributed around Chalfont St Peter have focussed on the accommodation of their care residents. They say it is old and needs massive upgrade or replacement. sense agree. However, we think the numbers are hugely overstated - there are, of course, other material concerns too!

Chiltern District Council
Both (twin-tracked) planning applications lodged with CDC majored on epilepsy as a medical condition worthy of research and assessment funding. Much was made of the care residents' accommodation, but the emphasis was towards 'very special circumstances' in 'protecting a national interest' i.e. the medical side of epilepsy, its research, diagnosis, publicity and support. The very special circumstances case was based on:

  i) the need for the development;  
 ii) the absence of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, the objective of the Green Belt policy and the purpose of including land in the Green Belt; and  
iii) adherence to the Colne Valley Park's aims and aspirations.  

The 'very special circumstances' are, in fact, of no substance; rather a case of 'smoke and mirrors.'   The asserted 'need for the development' is a self-fulfilling prophesy - if there is a need it's true and if it isn't it is not. By itself it is meaningless. The Green Belt comment is arrant nonsense, given that the NSE openly admit their proposals would harm it. The Colne Valley Park item is both a filler and a distraction - they needed a 3rd item as justification, yet elsewhere assert there is no impact on the Colne Valley Park. Whilst this is not true, it would not be relevant if it were true - it is therefore merely a cleverly worded distraction.

The changed Scheme
In the original £25Million scheme, £17 Million was for care homes and £18Million for peripherals. The second (£32Million) scheme submitted to Chiltern District Council, cited £18Million for care homes and £14Million for peripherals. Clearly, the differential was in the non-core agenda items. So why do it?

sense speculate that:
1. There was a perceived problem in Green Belt coverage. The original scheme had long-standing housing up to Chesham Lane, then open spaces to just South of Sarcus Dean and then high-density housing right up to Tate Road. The Green Belt land between the housing areas would have stood out like a bacon sanwich at a Jewish wedding. So the inclusion of two private care homes helped on two fronts; generating more revenue from a further land sale and infilling housing estate developments.
2. There was not a clear enough gap above internally-generated funding (sense think the NSE could raise as much as £25Million without recourse to theproposed huge land sale). So going from £25Million to £32Million puts this possibility out of reach.

The NSE's Planning History
Until (loosely) 2001, when the current management were installed, the NSE had a very good track record of having its planning applications approved by CDC - even with Green Belt implications. That is now history.

1.  The 'Road to nowhere' saga illustrates the NSE's current ethos quite nicely. Planning approval granted in 1999 for a single-track access road to Skippings farm on health and safety grounds. Farm activity ceased, but building works commenced (on a larger than approved scale) presumably for construction and housing estate traffic, not declared on the original application.

2.  The Queen Elizabeth medical centre extension. Allowed. Included rights of way diversions and (minor) incursions into Green Belt.

3.  The substation saga. Heralded first as a replacement to anticipate growth, (but twice the size of the original and 150m away from the original) and then changed to 'health and safety grounds'. Expert reports mysteriously not available at CDC utiil the time for objections closed . At February 2005, this is still outstanding.

In essence, the recent track record of the NSE has been poor as regards planning applications. They appear to decide on a desired outcome and then submit a planning application to achieve that, irrespective of objective truth. In sense's opinion, the site redevelopment application(s) are no different.

  Home
Next