National Society for Epilepsy- Planning Applications Nos. 2004/859/CH and 2004/1030/CH

I wish to object strongly to the planning applications recently submitted by the National Society for Epilepsy to redevelop its Green Belt land at Chesham Lane.

The reasons for the objection are obvious and numerous.

1. The plan is an enormous housing development being twice as large as the NSE's developed site. It is completely inappropriate in size and is just staggering in its arrogance and total disregard of its detrimental effect on Chalfont Common.

2. The plan is in breach of the CDC Local Plan 1997 and not in keeping with it. It is clearly in flagrant breach of Policy GC1.

3. The NSE site is on Green Belt land, which is protected. There should be no erosion of Green Belt land and no building upon it. This development would irrevocably harm the Green Belt. This is in clear breach of Policy GB2.

4. The NSE is building on what are essentially green fields used by numerous people as an area to walk dogs and enjoy the countryside. It is a true green field site. It will be a significant and irrevocable loss of amenity should this site be developed. It will have a detrimental impact on surrounding houses and residents. It is in clear breach of Policy GC3.

5. The development is completely out of keeping with the local area. It contains housing of a density not found elsewhere in Chalfont St Peter and certainly not required in this locality. Another breach of Policy GC1. In any event, my understanding in that CDC had met its "quota" of "affordable homes" and also has land available to it adjacent to the Amersham Road to build further such dwellings.

6. Rickmansworth Lane and Denham Lane are not capable of dealing with this influx of incoming traffic. There will be fatalities along Rickmansworth Lane as a result of this development should it go ahead. There will be an unacceptable increase in traffic on narrow lanes surrounding the NSE site. It is in breach of Policies TR1 and TR2.

7. The NSE does not need to do this. It is a cunning and cynical misnomer by the NSE to call this an "enabling" development. It is not an enabling development in the true definition (i.e. development to safeguard the future of an important historical monument or building) and many years of mis-management of its finances do not give the NSE a mandate now to build on protected Green Belt land and ride roughshod over the feelings of the local community. The NSE does not need all this money - i.e. approximately £228,000 per resident.

8. This development will totally destroy the ambiance of the local community. Over 1,800 people have already signed a petition put together by SENSE to object to this development, and I believe this petition has been delivered to CDC. Clearly their views are relevant.

9. This development is completely out of keeping with the general space and character of the area. The plans themselves are, quite frankly, a disgrace. Note the spacious area of the NSE's own buildings and attempt to retain the general ambiance of the NSE's own development for its residents (which are now dwindling to 150 as a result of the NSE's plans) as opposed to the cramped and high density area of the for profit housing. This is appalling. Note also how the NSE buildings are completely separate from the development so their residents will not have to suffer cars and people through the NSE site whilst just leaving the rest of the community to bear the brunt of the NSE's appalling legacy.

10. No proper consideration has been given to where the five or six hundred cars from the new housing estate will park.

11. This development will be an overbearing feature to neighbouring residents. It is just unbelievable that it could be contemplated.

12. The local infrastructure, including schools, doctors and so on, cannot cope with this sudden influx of people. Car parking in Chalfont St Peter, already significantly stretched, will be under intolerable pressure.

13. The foul sewers and drainage in the immediate area is already inadequate. This application is in clear breach of Policy GC6. This Policy already states that "Potential housing developments within the [Chalfont St Peter] sewerage system are currently subject to some constraint, unless they are small developments".

I therefore urge you to reject this application forthwith and look forward to your confirmation of such rejections.

Yours sincerely

I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of the National Society for Epilepsy (NSE) site in Chalfont Common to register my objection to these plans. I understand that an application has not been submitted yet, but is shortly to be submitted.

The NSE is proposing to sell off seven hectares (16 acres) of its land for housing development. It expects to raise £25 Million as a result. All the land proposed to be sold is Green Belt.

The area under threat from the residential housing is adjacent to Rickmansworth Lane just north of the Chalfont Common post office, so as to provide easy access from a main road. The development is situated on one corner of the NSE's farmland estate and borders:

1. the NSE's remaining property

2. existing residential areas

3. extensive Green Belt land


The intention is that property developer(s) will then build approx. 213 houses of mixed size, character and value, together with the necessary support infrastructure such as roads, utilities, sewerage etc., which will then be sold. Some existing residential property owned by the NSE will be demolished to permit the scheme to proceed.

At the same time the NSE will spend all or substantially all of the £25Million received from the land sale in demolishing and rebuilding many of their properties on their existing site. Among these is the bookbinding plant, which cost approx. £1 million and was only recently opened.

These plans were first aired at a public consultation in June of last year; I attended this and this, and their subsequent dealings with the local population, have certainly been a somewhat flawed consultation process. A claim was that it is essential to raise this money to redevelop the site, otherwise it will face closure. This is on the grounds of National Care Standards committee guidelines becoming tighter but it is not true to say that they are faced with imminent closure. It has subsequently emerged that the intention of the plan is to significantly upgrade facilities, which are in need of improvement, but that the plan is also to raise sufficient money for a further 60 years and that their claim needs to raise £25 million may very well be a significant overstatement. A parallel time now intending to reduce their occupants from 250 to 150 which, simplistically one could reduce the figure of 166,000 per resident! Whilst the NSE operates as a charity it is currently running a profit of in excess of £1million per year as it is and had already spent £100,000 up to March 2003, and now probably a total of a ¼ million pounds, on the advancement of these plans.

There is very significant local opposition to these developments and the petition of in excess of £1,800 signatures has been presented and not a week passes in the local paper without generally at least one significant objection to this development. I think it is fair to say that local people are very supportive of the work of the NSE and would wish this facility to remain in existence consider that this whole plan is over ambitious, far too large and there is a degree of disappointment that the NSE continue to use the now modified NCSC guidelines to claim imminent closure when this is not the case. It has been stated quite clearly in Parliament that it is not the government's intention for well-run care homes to close and so it is quite disingenuous of them to indirectly blame pressures from the office of John Prescott for this decision as, they were doing in the particular presentation which I attended.

As a local resident I feel that the plan should be rejected as they quite clearly involve building on protected green belt land. The NSE have previously thought to have a proportion of their site de-registered and this has as quite rightly not been successful so green belt protection should certainly mean that the plan does not proceed. In some of their own correspondence they have taken to calling the parts of green belt which they are going to leave inbuilt on as "true green belt" and from this I would assume that if there is green belt which they personally wish to build on then it is not what they would consider "true green belt". Such statements and difficulties in quantifying the precise need for their funds have diminished confidence at local level in the NSE's plans which seem to have been produced for them professionally at great expense, probably rather than being generated directed from themselves to reflect accurate need.

213 houses being built in this small area would increase the local population by around 700 people and this would represent a 15.4% rise in the population in Chalfont Common (4545 in 2001) and 5.4% in Chalfont St. Peter (12 937 in 2001). It would likely be in excess of 400 cars in this vicinity and we do not feel that the infrastructure will cope with this significant added burden with regard to schools, GP facilities, roads, sewage, etc. They have commissioned certain traffic surveys but these seem to be simple car counts and it is unlikely that the true impact has been established. Their initial quote included a sum of £200,000 towards road changes but these are not well quantified and there would be very significant public resistance to any attempts to widen or change the highways around this area.

In the particular meeting which I attended they claimed that there were "falling roles" for schools and this is simply not the case. As a parent at Robertswood I know that the school is completely full and this information is reinforced by colleagues who are involved with the school and with the PTA there.

There was also a claim that GPs roles are falling and this at best is misleading and worst directly false. The practices and their books are full and it is interesting that despite a claim to have consulted with local health planners, correspondence from a Chief Executive of the NCT would indicate that the first contact was of a verbal nature in January 2004, over six months after the flawed local consultation exercise.

There are already existing problems with drainage and sewage in an area like this, particularly at times of high rainfall, and I think it is unlikely that the impact of a new development on this here has been fully considered by their developers.

You will understand the degree of concern about this development, particularly in view of all outstanding concerns at over the future of the University of Bucks campus at Chalfont St. Giles, which may subsequently become a 1000+ housing development.

There is also concern that if this development proceeds then this may be seen as a green light for future sales, at times of financial convenience, for the NSE increasing the development. There is also significant concern about their loose use of a term called "enabling development" and gross resentment about their cavalier treatment of clearly defined green belt land. Certainly an impression is given that there is confidence that even if this process is rejected locally they will fair better in a central government review with appeals and this is not at all heartening to the faith of local people concerning their local democratic rights as invested in their Parish and District Council structure.

I would draw particular attention to the situation regarding the highways and roads; over 30 years ago the junction of Denham Lane and Rickmansworth Lane was staggered for safety and regularly now parents are applying speed boards outside the school because of concerns about traffic on Denham Lane. Whatever is done to calm or change the roads will have not beneficial affect and far the better option would be to avoid placing the extra cars in such a densely built-up area anyway, so close to the local school.

The NSE is ignoring the Chiltern District Council Local Plan and, from that of 1997, this proposed development potentially breaches the following policies:

Policy GC1
Development should be in scale with its surroundings relating well in terms of overall dimensions to all features of the townscape or landscape which forms the setting of the application site.

POLICY GC3
In considering proposals for development throughout the District, the Council will seek to achieve good standards of amenity for the future occupiers of that development and to protect the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of existing adjoining and neighbouring properties.
Where amenities are impaired to a significant degree, planning permission will be refused.

POLICY GC6
Development will not be permitted unless foul sewers and sewerage treatment works of adequate capacity and design are available or will be provided in time to serve that development. "Potential housing developments within the Maple Lodge sewerage system (ie . . . . and Chalfont St Peter) are currently subject to some constraint, unless they are small developments."

POLICY GB2
Most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and there is a general presumption against such development.

POLICY TR1
All major development and, as far as is practicable, all other development should be located in areas which are served by public transport. Where development proposals are acceptable in accordance with this Policy, other policies in this Local Plan should also be complied with. This Policy applies throughout the District.

POLICY TR2
With regard to the highway aspects of planning applications . . .
The highway network in the vicinity of the development site should have the capacity to accept the additional flow of traffic generated by that development without significantly exacerbating any existing overloading or other traffic related problems.
Traffic of excessive volume, size or weight will not be accepted on unsuitable roads, including rural lanes or in conservation areas or residential areas.
Standards of road safety for all users should, at minimum, be maintained and where appropriate, improved.

To summarise this proposed development of green belt to gain significant extra finances for the NSE is most inappropriate for this area and I feel should be rejected. The NSE are a very laudable organisation but on this occasion are pursuing quite selfishly a plan to raise extra funds under the guides of already modified NCSC guidelines and are not at all sensitive to the feelings or needs of the local community. In excess of 1,800 local people have signed a petition against this for very good reason and planning application like this deserves to fail at all levels. The NSE should consider alternative planning by working with the local community with greater degree of transparency. It is uncertain that they have even applied for a government capital grant towards modernisation of facilities!

Dear Madam

I am writing to formally strongly object to the planning applications submitted by the National Society for Epilepsy to build an outrageous number of homes on it's Chalfont Common site, in the name of an "enabling development"

In no particular order the major grounds for my objection are:

The NSE site is on Green Belt land and as such should be protected from building or sprawl of any kind. Especially a massive development of this kind, irrespective of the stated "need". A need which is completely overstated in it's current form. The real issue is for the NSE, over a period, to comply with National Care Standards Commission minimum standards NOT the grandiose for profit exploitation of Green Belt land it owns.

The density of housing (and subsequent influx of population into the area) is totally out of character with not only the local surroundings, but also compared to the planned redevelopment density of the NSE site. I find it disgusting that the NSE could propose something that imposes densities and volumes on others that it flagrantly protects itself against!

Looking at the current local plan, I see no justification or need for the type of housing, volume or density in the area. So cannot understand how this could be considered acceptable.

Rickmansworth Lane and Denham Lane are exactly that…LANES. Already people speed along these and walking children to school is dangerous enough. An influx of both private and commercial vehicles into these roads will seriously affect road safety, as well as far exceed the capacity for which they are currently designed for. I live in Monument Lane which is also a rat run for NSE staff and Newlands park traffic to the A413, where I cannot allow my children to play outside because of cars, easily identifiable as driven by this populace, tearing up and down in the mornings and evenings. This is a Village, NOT suitable for introduction of a new TOWN as proposed by the NSE.
Estimating the population introduced and their likely car use-age will add hundreds of cars into the area. Today, I have difficulty getting onto the A413 due to excessive traffic, especially at rush hours, and car parking in the area is insufficient to support the increase.

The Green belt land the NSE occupies and nature of the surroundings are of particular beauty currently and add to the overall amenity of the area. This would be completely destroyed by the size and type of development proposed.

How on earth does this plan deal with the added pressure it would add to local schools that are currently full, and doctors / dentists / infrastructure in general? Clearly the NSE are lying when they claim that the schools have sufficient space. I have children in the local schools and the class sizes now are heaving. Similarly doctor and dentists appointments have to be made well in advance.

When it rains heavily the bottom of Monument lane, adjoining Rickmansworth Lane currently floods. Oozing foul smelling effluent onto the area. My water pressure is very variable too. The sewers and water facilities in this area are stressed already. A new town built on the NSE estate would completely swamp (literally) this infrastructure, and as such is completely unacceptable.

In summary, I understand, and actually support the fact that the gross mismanagement of the NSE in the past has left their residents in need of better facilities. I welcome the NSE to update it's site. But certainly not with total disregard to local ambiance and destruction to the area which is completely unjustified.

I urge you to reject this application on these points alone, and point out to the applicants that their proposal is unacceptable in the extreme. I also intend to attend any public hearings on the matter to personally object further.

Yours Sincerely

RE: Planning Applications Nos. 2004/859/CH and 2004/1030/CH

We wish to oppose the above planning application made by the National Society for Epilepsy in Chalfont St Peter.

Our main objections are in the four following areas detailed below.

1. Green Belt policy

According to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the following applies to the Green Belt:

3. The aims of Green Belt policy are to:
    *  check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
    *  prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
    *  assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
    *  preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
    *  assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Source: www.odpm.gov.uk

The development at the NSE fails to satisfy any and all of the above guidelines. If we now look at when the construction of new buildings on Green Belt land can be considered inappropriate, we find the following (again from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister):

New buildings

3.4 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

    *  - agriculture and forestry (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn - see paragraph
       D2 of Annex D);
    *  - essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land
       which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including
       land in it (see paragraph 3.5 below);
    *  - limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (subject to paragraph 3.6 below);
    *  - limited infilling in existing villages (under the circumstances described in the box following paragraph 2.11)
       and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according
       with PPG3 (see Annex E, and the box following paragraph 2.11); or
    *  - limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex C1.
Source: Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts

The planning applications for the NSE do not satisfy the first, second, third, or fifth points in any way and in point four the area proposed for affordable housing has changed several times on the plan. In addition, it has not been satisfactorily confirmed that the 'affordable housing' (presumably meant by "50 units of staff accommodation and facilities" in the application) will be kept solely for the purposes of staff at the NSE. My concern is that over time these could be sub-leased or even sold on and extended/developed as the need for staff accommodation falls below 50 units.

2. Visual Amenity & Local Character

Our second point of objection is that the proposed development is clearly out of character with the overall character of Chalfont St Peter. Again, according to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the 'visual amenity' must be taken into consideration:

Visual amenity

3.15 The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design.
Source: Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts

The proposed development of 218 private dwellings is most definitely 'visually detrimental' from within the Green Belt area and externally from the roads around.

3. Infrastructure

Our third point of objection is regarding infrastructure, notably local roads, schools and medical facilities. A development of 218 houses, plus 50 staff houses, will lead to at least an additional 300 and possibly up to 400 cars using Denham Lane and the surrounding local roads. These are already falling apart with pot holes and road surfaces that are deteriorating rapidly and cannot sustain the increased road usage. There will also be an increased risk of accidents and injury on roads that are already considered as 'race tracks' by many people, as well as those drivers now avoiding the pointless speed camera on Gravel hill.

Local schools cannot cope with 200+ additional children. The nearest primary school, Robertswood, is already struggling to reach and maintain government targets for class sizes and there are no plans for increases in primary or secondary school capacity that take into account a likely substantial increase in children of school age. A similar case applies to doctor and dentistry resources and these may expect an increased demand of at least 650 patients - again, no explanation of how the NSE development will resolve this. Current doctor's surgeries and dentists are already struggling to cope with demand and several dentists have closed their doors to new patients.

4. Trust & Future Development

Finally, there is an issue of trust. We attended the first 'open day' given at the NSE last year and were taken on a tour by the Chief Executive. At that point he referred to the plans as 'final' and the capital required as £25m. Since then the plans have changed and expanded and now the capital 'needed' is £32m. This is not a person we can trust to manage our Green Belt satisfactorily. Aside from failing to meet all the provisions laid out in the Government's Green Belt Policy, he is unable to adequately clarify his need to change the plans as he goes along. In addition, we have not seen any information concerning future use of other areas of Green Belt land held 'in trust' by the NSE. Is there a concrete and legal pledge made not to develop any further areas? What about the 268 proposed houses? Are they subject to no further expansions/extensions that would raise the number of residents further? Are there legal restrictions in place that would forbid the future re-development of new house into flats, for example? This would again increase the number of residents. What are the safeguards against any retail development with the area of development? The current plans, which I have read, do not provide sufficient safeguards.

We are in favour of raising the standards of care for those who attend, or are resident at, the NSE. However, the current Board at the NSE have an ill thought out idea that is a 'quick fix' and that will damage the local area forever. We advise the Board at the NSE to reconsider upgrading of the development without the need for additional housing.

Yours sincerely,

Planning Application; Your refs: 2004/859/CH and 2004/1030/CH
(National Society for Epilepsy, Chesham Lane, Chalfont Common)

I write to formally object to the above-referenced planning applications.

There are many areas in which the NSE's 'plan' breaches the Local Plan. I have set these out in Annex 'A' hereto.

The NSE (under Mr Graham Faulkner) seek a complete site raze and rebuild in the name of 152 long-term care residents. The local population recognises that the NSE's management has failed their long-term care residents very badly over recent years and much better accommodation is required for them and deserved by them. There is no doubt in my mind that building housing for around 850 people on virgin Green Belt land to in turn provide accommodation for 152 is ludicrous and grossly overstated. By way of adding insult to injury, the provision of care services to these unfortunate residents is supposed to be fully-funded (including periodic capital replacement) by the Local Authorities from whence they come. I understand that Mr Faulkner has a background as a 'property developer' rather than a business manager.

I am particularly concerned about the loss of Green Belt land and the amenity provided by it. The NSE utilises a small, low-density site off Chesham Lane. To the Northeast there are fields and/or greenhouses or agricultural buildings until one reaches the Colne Valley Park. The NSE's site is a perfect buffer between the built-up areas of Chalfont St Peter and open fields:-

The left-hand diagram shows the active NSE site (sourced from the 'SENSE' Website: http://www.c-sense.org) within the yellow boundary. The buildings are well spaced-out and clearly appropriate to Green Belt status. The right-hand diagram includes the Skippings Farm buildings (in brown) together with some isolated housing (in pink) that remain on the residue of the NSE's large estate. Mr Faulkner appears to regard everything within a boundary formed by brown/blue/pink/yellow objects as fair game for concrete. This must be denied. His presently-disclosed plan deals with the existing developed site plus the Eastern third of the land outside the Colne Valley Park - but, as an addendum to the £25M scheme announced last year, he now wants to 'develop' the farm buildings at Skippings Farm (within the Colne Valley Park!). The cynics amongst us might suggest this was to anticipate a future 'development' taking out the Green Belt to the Northeast of the existing site.

Depending on your view, you may want to replace 'development' with 'desecration.' In any event, if any reclassification of Green Belt were ever contemplated at the NSE's site, it should only be in respect of the existing developed site and not for the greenfield and agricultural components.

Let's get back to the long-term care residents. The SENSE Website suggests that decent accommodation could be built for around £5.5M, entirely funded from utilising the space vacated by 100 or so existing residents departing the site. They also suggest that this could be effected with no overall increase in the footprint of buildings on Green Belt land. This seems sensible and acceptable to me. It has the added advantages of being able to be done quickly and leaving the care-residents with decent greenfield amenity - they deserve it as much as the local community.

Then there is the matter of Mr Faulkner describing the NSE's proposals as an 'enabling development'. My understanding (admittedly amateurish) on this is that an enabling development is used in respect of historical or heritage sites of importance where no other source of finance is possible and is authorised at the minimum level necessary to secure the basic objective. As stated earlier, the basic objective can be achieved without a land sale. Furthermore, the NSE should be fully-funded (including periodic capital replacement) for the provision of long-term residential care. It is also difficult to see how their site could be considered historical or heritage in nature. Their proposals therefore fail to pass muster on all points.

Finally, I have had the thought that the £32M cash they seek to raise is just so unrealistically large that they desire to effect the land sale, collect the cash and relocate elsewhere! Then, of course, with the existing site falling into disrepair, they may submit plans for further land sales (existing site and right out to Skippings Farm) for further intensive out-of-character housing. After all, that would create the maximum cash for them and what would they care about the legacy they would leave behind if they were no longer in the area? An impossible or implausible thought? It would be nice to think so.

Please act to ensure the character of Chalfont Common is retained by refusing the NSE's application.

Yours sincerely

Annex A

2004/859/CH and 2004/1030/CH:- Breaches of Local Plan

Policy GC1
Development should be in scale with its surroundings relating well in terms of overall dimensions to all features of the townscape or landscape which forms the setting of the application site.

< A high-density housing estate (incl. flats and subsidised housing) would not fit in with any/all of its neighbours, viz.
   1. Established residential accommodation,
   2. Green fields,
   3. Colne Valley Park, and
   4. existing/proposed NSE residential care homes.>

POLICY GC3
In considering proposals for development throughout the District, the Council will seek to achieve good standards of amenity for the future occupiers of that development and to protect the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of existing adjoining and neighbouring properties. Where amenities are impaired to a significant degree, planning permission will be refused.

<Amenity would be reduced/destroyed for neighbours and several hundred other nearby people.>

POLICY GC5
Throughout the District the Council will not permit development on the skyline unless it is satisfied that such development will not be visually obtrusive and disruptive to existing views.

<The NSE's proposals would be unreasonably obtrusive from Rickmansworth Lane and from the footpath into their site from Horn Hill.>

POLICY GC6
Development will not be permitted unless foul sewers and sewerage treatment works of adequate capacity and design are available or will be provided in time to serve that development. "Potential housing developments within the Maple Lodge sewerage system (i.e. . . . . and Chalfont St Peter) are currently subject to some constraint, unless they are small developments."

<The NSE's proposal is hardly small. The existing sewers towards the A413 are old and heavily loaded. The Misbourne has flooded twice in the last 5 years allowing the release of raw sewage by the Scout Hut, Community Centre and Chalfont St Peter village itself. An additional 850 or so extra people would only make this worse.>

POLICY GC9
Throughout the District, the Council will not grant permission for any development likely to generate unacceptable levels of air, water or ground pollution . .

<Air pollution would be seriously impaired during construction and to a lesser but significant level thereafter.>

POLICY GB2
Most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and there is a general presumption against such development.

<All the NSE's proposed development is on Green Belt land. Much of it is greenfield, adjacent and linked in character and amenity to that in the Colne Valley Park.>

POLICY TR1
All major development and, as far as is practicable, all other development should be located in areas which are served by public transport. Where development proposals are acceptable in accordance with this Policy, other policies in this Local Plan should also be complied with. This Policy applies throughout the District.

<Public transport is rudimentary in the area. Even if it were substantially improved, it is likely that most of the new residents would make most of their journeys (school, commuting, shopping etc. by car.>

POLICY TR2
With regard to the highway aspects of planning applications . . .
The highway network in the vicinity of the development site should have the capacity to accept the additional flow of traffic generated by that development without significantly exacerbating any existing overloading or other traffic related problems. Traffic of excessive volume, size or weight will not be accepted on unsuitable roads, including rural lanes or in conservation areas or residential areas. Standards of road safety for all users should, at minimum, be maintained and where appropriate, improved.

<Neither Rickmansworth Lane nor Chesham Lane are suitable either for construction traffic nor 400+ extra cars on a day-to-day basis. The HGV construction traffic for the equivalent of 500 new 3-bedroomed houses would pose risks to pedestrians, road users and the roads themselves. Ongoing traffic volumes would impair the semi-rural nature of the area, particularly if yellow lines, traffic lights and grey 'road furniture' are contemplated. Both construction and continuing traffic pose increased risks (and less pleasant environment) for pedestrians and cyclists.>

POLICY TW3
Any development that would result in the loss of a tree or trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, or which would have a significant adverse effect on the appearance, or health, or stability of such a tree or trees, will not be permitted. Trees of good quality, or landscape significance, or amenity value, will be expected to be retained in good condition even where this will restrict, or prevent, development.

<There are trees along Tate Road and South of Sarcus Dean (amongst others) that lend character and amenity to the area. These are under threat from the NSE.>