Attn Mrs Terry Scott,
The Planning Inspectorate,
Room 3/17, Eagle Wing,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Temple Quay,
BRISTOL
BS1 6PN

DTLR Appeal Reference: APP/X0415/A/04/1158520

Dear Mrs Scott,

I object to the above referenced appeal regarding this planning application, ref: 2004/1030/CH and would like to request that you acknowledge my objection and also that you send me a copy of your appeal decision letter.

In addition to the points that I raised with Chiltern District Council, which I understand have been forwarded to you, I would like to add the following:

The proposed development is not sustainable.
It represents cashing in on Green Belt land to cover up years of mismanagement of site maintenance and funding arrangements with health authorities. If they are successful they will simply seek more of the same in years to come.

The high density housing is not required in this area and is totally out of keeping with the area.

The local infrastructure can not support an influx of 850 people.
The water supply and sewer systems are inadequate.
The roads are class C country lanes and could not support all the additional traffic.
The schools are already full. Robertswood primary school is considered to be ideally sized and the Chalfont Community College is already one of the largest secondary schools in the area. Any enforced expansion of either school would require further encroachment of Green Belt Land since both schools are sited in Green Belt.

The existing site is also of great historical interest, it was a radical departure from the Victorian asylums, having been established as a colony to provide the opportunity for epileptics to work and support themselves over 100 years ago. The layout still exemplifies this but would be lost forever if the redevelopment plans are implemented.

The site is also environmentally important with many significant trees that are the subject of tree preservation orders. Furthermore, the low density spacious nature of the site provides an ideal transition between the highly developed area of Chalfont Common and the green fields of Colne Valley Park.

I would also like to record my disgust that the applicant has sought to by-pass the local democratic process by filing this duplicate planning application and appealing to you on the grounds of non-determination by our local authority, Chiltern District Council [CDC], when it became clear to them that the authority would address the application at their next planning committee meeting. No doubt you are aware that the first of these duplicate applications, ref. 2004/859/CH was in fact refused by CDC at that meeting on 2nd September 2004.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Mrs Scott

DTLR Appeal Reference APP/XO415/A/04/1158520

I write as a member of the local community totally opposed to the proposed housing development on Green Belt land by the National Society for Epilepsy ("NSE") in Chalfont St Peter.

There are a number of material points I want to bring to your attention.

1. Sustainability. It is clear that the massive housing development planned by the NSE on its Green Belt land is not sustainable. Chalfont Common and Chalfont St Peter do not have a railway connection. They are not served by anything remotely like a comprehensive bus service. Any limited and transparent promise by the NSE to provide long-term bus services is again clearly not sustainable. Further, the NSE would pay for this 'service' by increasing the Green Belt loss, hardly a worthwhile compromise. Any such service is likely to dwindle and whither and within months be discarded in favour of car transport. The only way residents from the potential NSE housing estate will travel around is by car.

Other facilities in the area are clearly not in place. The schools cannot cope as they are full, the doctors' surgeries cannot cope, the roads cannot cope - these are country roads. The one local shop, no doubt cannot cope. Whichever way one looks at it, this development is clearly not in any way sustainable and must fail on that ground alone, despite the numerous other fatal flaws.

One might also ask where all these extra people will work? There is not a significant need for large numbers of people to fill job vacancies in the Chalfonts. My expectation is that the housing estate residents would add to the commuter belt;- destination London and the Thames Valley, transportation;- car.

2. Fringe Development. Most communities have a high density population at the centre, decreasing outwards toward to a rural boundary. Chalfont St Peter does so at present. Yet the NSE would have that planning common sense turned on its head and build its densest housing on the fringe. Surely that is non-sensible and self-evident to all?

3. Affordable Housing. Chiltern District Council is already meeting its quota of new and affordable houses and has further land available to it meet its quota. The area does not need additional affordable housing over and above that already planned and being built by Chiltern District Council. There is no need for affordable housing. In addition, it is totally out of keeping with the surrounding environment.

4. Necessity. This development is simply not necessary. The NSE has not explained, at any time in any detail, the exact amount required to refurbish its buildings in line with the new care standards. The NSE does not need £32,000,000, or whatever the latest sum is that it is claiming. It needs far less than that. A simple refurbishment of its buildings would cost far less than that. The fact is, the NSE has mismanaged its finances on a gross scale over the past decade or so, and it has not reserved sufficient funds to upgrade its facilities. The changes to the care standards were not a surprise to many people. The NSE should have been prepared for this. It is also apparent that this is not simply about upgrading to meet cost standards. The NSE is going far beyond that. It is cutting the number of its residents to 152. This is simply a blatant attempt to cash in on land sale to raise money.

It is also relevant to note that the NSE has cut its resident numbers down to 152, so it is reducing its numbers and yet spending a massive sum of £32,000,000 on them. The NSE figures do not add up.

5. Enabling Development. The NSE is trying to argue this is an "enabling development". It is not. The money that would be raised is not being used to safeguard a national monument. It is pure property speculation to raise money to tear down and completely rebuild - rather than much more sensible and affordable refurbishment - a care facility. It is simply a blatant attempt by the NSE to use the excuse of its failure through mis-management to meet Care Standards to sell its Green Belt land for profit.

6. Funding. The NSE has not bothered even to cost or show any alternative to this complete rebuild of its facilities. It has not shown any evidence about its efforts to find Government, bank or private funding for its facilities. The fact is it has made no proper effort to secure alternative funding. It cannot demonstrate that no other funding sources are available as they clearly are. The NSE has made no case that it must build a massive housing estate as it clearly does not need to do so.

7. Medical Need. So far at the meetings held locally, the NSE's sole tactic is to put up its medical director to talk about medical needs and what a wonderful job the NSE does for those suffering from epilepsy. That is not in dispute, but obviously that is not a planning reason. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to the NSE and this is not in any way an enabling development. There are no new medical facilities to finance, no sudden influx of patients to accommodate, no other changes to the NSE's operations over many years to necessitate a marked change in funding. This is clearly a smoke screen designed by the NSE to try to fool the planners on emotive grounds as on planning reasons this scheme is untenable.

8. Local Tax. If the NSE truly is a centre of excellence, taking in patients from all over the country, then it requires national funding, not simply local funding. Were the NSE's scheme to be implemented it would effectively be a tax on the local population, as the local population would suffer a drop in house values, a massive loss of amenity locally clogged up roads and so on and in effect the residents of Chalfont Common would be paying for a national centre for the benefit of the nation. This is something that should be funded by the government and the NHS and it is apparent to us that the NSE has not explored these avenues of funding fully enough. The NSE has put in no evidence of its efforts to elicit funding from Government or other sources. It may well be that the NSE recognise in advance the futility of asking central Government to stump up £32M to cover the continuing needs of just 152 deserving people who are already fully-funded by Government monies.

9. Precedent. This scheme is not just about the destruction of its own Green Belt by the NSE. Were this scheme to be allowed to go ahead, then Robertswood School and Chalfont Community College, would need to expand to take the extra numbers. Both of these schools are on Green Belt land. Therefore, any extension would also be required on Green Belt land, so there would be further erosions of Green Belt land. You have to ask the question, where will it end? This is simply a blatant attempt by a charity to sell Green Belt land to raise money. It is not simply about upgrading facilities to meet new national standards.

10. Historical interest. The existing site is of great historical significance and interest. When built it was a radical departure from the other Victorian asylums, being established as a colony to provide the opportunity for epileptics to work and support themselves over one hundred years ago. English Heritage are interested in the site remaining as it is for the benefit of future generations, albeit with sympathetic redevelopment and restoration, not the massive destruction and rebuild plans put forward by the NSE.

11. Traffic. The traffic survey put forward by CDC should reflect the lack of sustainability of the site. In this part of the country there are at least 2 and quite often 3 cars per household. This makes some 600 cars, with an average of 6 car movements per car per day - i.e. 3,600 car movements each day plus car movements from the additional care homes sought to be built. This is almost 4,000 car movements per day. The roads cannot cope, the village cannot cope. It is so dangerous as to be beyond belief.

12. Sewers. These simply cannot cope. In heavy rain, open sewerage sits on the roads in Chalfont St Peter already. Water pressure from the taps locally is already weak - it would dwindle even further with this extra strain.

Accordingly therefore, for all of the reasons set out above, plus all the other reasons set out in my previous correspondence, this is an appeal which must fail. Finally, may I please request that you acknowledge my objection and also that you send me a copy of your appeal decision letter.

Yours sincerely

Re: DTLR Appeal Reference APP/X0415/A/04/1158520

I am sure you are inundated by the amount of paperwork regarding the above subject, therefore as my original letter should have already been passed to you by the Chiltern District Council Planning Department, I will not elaborate on those issues. An additional issue which I would like to draw your attention to is:

ALL charities are short of money and are constantly looking for ways to raise funds.
If the NSE gets the go ahead to sell off green belt land to developers who are paying a premium for land that has planning permission; what will stop any/every charity or deserving cause buying up green belt and using the same reasons as the NSE to raise funds? If the precedent is set then we will all be the losers as no green belt land will be safe.

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter and hope that you will consider this point when coming to a conclusion. Many thanks for your kind attention.

Yours sincerely

Dear Mrs. Scott

National Society for Epilepsy - Proposed Green Belt Destruction
Planning Application Appeal No. APP/X0415/A/04/1158520

Before going into detail, I would like to say that I consider the NSE to have been underhand in running one application through the local democratic process and a separate one directly to you. They made a very poor showing at the Parish meeting that considered their (other) application - they seemed ill-prepared and could not answer many of the questions put to them by the 300 or so local people attending. Although a very large application (40+ boxes of materials) was made to CDC, the NSE's chief executive did not speak to support it. This was left to a medical expert who dealt with medical matters connected with epilepsy and not with planning. I question whether they took these two planning application meetings seriously at all - it seems to me that perhaps they considered them a foregone conclusion and their appeal to the Planning Inspectorate is their main or only strategy.

The NSE have portrayed themselves as a poor, needy and deserving charity. There is another side to the NSE which should be drawn out at an early stage. In their 2003 accounts, they were proud to state that their residential care division was at break even and, given rate rises achieved during the year, was expected to be still more profitable in FY2004. The profit for FY2003 was in excess of £1M. Cash balances were £2.5M and distributable reserves £9.1M. The profit figure was achieved after increased management salary costs and professional fees in connection with their proposed redevelopment. So the NSE is not quite the poor charity it portrays itself to be. Neither is it the underdog in the planning/construction world - it has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on this application and has expert planning advice (both internally and externally) available to it.

It must not be forgotten that so far as the provision of accommodation and care for its residents are concerned, the NSE is fully funded by the NHS and the councils sponsoring the residents. In FY2003 the NSE received an average of £45,000 for each of its long-term care residents, a quite considerable sum.


Green Belt
Keep Green Belt Green!

The virgin Green Belt land outside the NSE's existing developed site that would bear the brunt of their proposed housing estate.
These two photos are of areas inside the NSE's existing developed site. Again, earmarked for the so-called "enabling development."

As part of their "supported planning statement" in their submission to CDC, the NSE talk about "a defensible Green Belt boundary." It seems they consider this important. But there seems to be one in place now - Rickmansworth Lane and Chesham Lane (excluding the Cross Lanes area). That's what we're trying to defend now! The NSE is logic is dubious - they refer to an opinion nearly ten years ago (that was not adopted) that their then existing developed site should be taken out of Green Belt and then, because it's no longer a "defensible Green Belt boundary," they should be allowed to double the land taken out of Green Belt as far as Tate Road and along to Skipping Farm. I do not agree. The panoramic photo above illustrates why this is so. The Green Belt boundary is fine where it is now.

Scale of development
The idea that you need to provide homes for 850 people in order to in turn provide homes for 152 NSE residents is absurd. Yet that is what the NSE suggests. As mentioned above, its residents are fully funded - this includes periodic capital replacement. If the NSE had been properly managed, periodic replacement of their care homes would have been completely covered by the external funding they receive. The cost/extent of the proposed development is unbelievable.

Style of development
Normally, the Town or village centre will have a nucleus of shops and facilitates and have fairly high density housing that becomes less dense towards the fringes. The NSE scheme instead says "let's put the densest population at the edge". They go further. They say "let's build flats and high-rise accommodation where none exist and none are needed".

"Very special circumstances"
The NSE say there are a very special circumstances for them that should allow them to be treated differently to everyone else around them. Although this is key to their case, their representation on this matter in the CDC Case Officers Report amounted to only three lines. These are summarised and addressed as follows:

1 "The need for the development".
What is needed, as a matter of urgency, is the renovation and/or rebuilding of the care residences. I agree with the sense Website costings (see http://www.c-sense.org/Sense Say/Financials3.htm) that say this is in the order of £5-6M. Please be aware that these figures are derived from rebuilding cost data publicised by the information arm of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - they are not pulled out of thin air. Everything else above £5-6M would be nice to have (but also an additional burden to pay for local road and other infrastructure improvements?), but it is not necessary. Remember, again, that the care residents are fully funded.

The NSE say they need £17.5M to rebuild their care homes, and yet:
(a) the CDC Case Officer's report states their supporting documentation identifies only £12-14.5M, and
(b) an earlier version of their scheme sought to raise £25M rather than £32M. (The £32M scheme was sprung on the public in May 2004). The difference was a new retirement home and sheltered accommodation. The construction company involved would need to spend around £4M building it (in addition to the £7M land cost) and sell at around £15M in order to make a profit. I find it difficult to believe that 155 people can be accommodated in the retirement/sheltered accommodation at a building cost of £4M whilst building accommodation for 152 NSE residents requires somewhere between £12M and £17.5M.

2 "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"
What arrogant nonsense. Green Belt policies have been in place for a number of years and affect everyone, not just the NSE. Everyone thinks they are a 'special case'. Local people have been seeking planning permission for small extensions/alterations on Green Belt with little success for a number of years and yet the NSE think they they are God's gift to planning and can do on a grand scale what mortal folk cannot.

3 "Adherence to the Colne Valley Park's aims and aspirations."
My information is that the CVP side with CDC rather than the NSE on this.

In summary, the 'very special circumstances' are not special at all.

"Enabling development"
Perhaps this should be read as "profit-enabling development". From the information I have found on the Internet, an enabling development can be used for planning applications for things such as historical monuments that have little or no available income and are deemed to be of national importance. Basic principle are that only the minimum amount necessary is ever raised and the enabling development provisions apply only as a last resort.

If the minimum required is indeed £5-6M, this can be raised either:

1 Entirely from recurring revenues - the £2.5M in 2003 (mentioned above) would increase by around £1M per year until 2007, generating the required funds, or

2 Per details on the sense Website (www.c-sense.org) the NSE is reducing its residents from around 270 to 152, freeing residences presently in use. There will be an associated reduction in staffing onsite such that some staff buildings will no longer be used. These could be rearranged, rebuilt and sold or leased and would have a capital value in the order of £6M. Provided the overall footprint of buildings within the NSE's existing developed site did not increase, I would see a good case for this being accepted within Green Belt policies.

Of course, the above suggestions could be utilised together, making around £12M available by 2007. Remember, yet again, that the residents care and accommodation is fully funded - once the one-off hurdle of improved residential care accommodation is cleared, the NSE has enough recurring funding to cover future periodic renovation and/or redevelopment. The NSE's current proposals amount to a "Disabling" development for the majority rather than an enabling one.

Sustainability
if 218 new homes, a nursing home and sheltered accommodation were built it is patently obvious that the overwhelming majority of all the additional people would travel everywhere by car. The NSE's representation that suggest otherwise is rubbish. I note they propose contributing towards the cost of cycle racks at Gerrards Cross and Chalfont and Latimer stations. This is rubbing salt into the wound - I imagine Mr Faulkner and his fellow executives at the NSE travel into London for meetings from time to time, but I have yet to see them cycling to Gerrards Cross or Chalfont and Latimer stations to do so.

Sewerage
This is a serious matter and one the NSE seems keen to pass over to Thames Water - "it's outside their boundaries, so it must be somebody else's problem". Twice in the last five years heavy rains and flooding in Winter have caused the escape of raw sewerage into the river Misbourne above Chalfont St Peter. The Scout/Cub/Beaver HQ was a health risk to young children and unserviceable for several months as was the adjacent Red Cross building. The community centre was not at all communal, there was nobody in at the Greyhound Inn and Chalfont St Peter High Street was 'high' in a manner not intended by its name. A further 850 people perched high above the Misbourne can only make matters worse - no doubt about that whatever.

Local residential amenity
As part of their statement to CDC, the NSE said
"Local Residential Amenity: Whilst this is an outline application only, the NSE confirms that the development will not be harmful to the residential amenity of the locality. Landscaping is proposed, suitable distances from existing dwellings and appropriate access ways are proposed."
With the exception of reduced open spaces, increased noise and pollution, five years building works' hell, loss of long-term tranquillity, urbanisation etc. I suppose they're right.

Roads and traffic
I quite like the lanes hereabout. They are semi-rural in nature - no yellow lines, no traffic lights and not too much traffic. If the NSE's proposals were adopted that would change radically. I find it a kind of interesting that the NSE has been active in seeking to put in bollards, speed bumps, "traffic calming" measures and other community nuisances for the last few years, yet they now openly promote another 40-500 cars in their immediate vicinity. How clever or consistent is that?

They have made comments about the junction between Chesham Lane and Rickmansworth Road. Something about "an improvement". I like it as it is, and if their idea of "improvement" is traffic lights and yellow lines it's certainly not mine. And what about the first 200 yards of Rickmansworth Lane? This is a narrow lane with a narrow footpath on one side only - unless the NSE/council arranged to the compulsory purchase of someone's land to widen the footpath this will become much more dangerous, particularly for children.

Winners and losers
I believe that the NSE's care residences should be rebuilt. I believe that should cost between £5-6M. The NSE say £17.5M (although these CDC case officer did point out in his review that the supporting information from the NSE quoted numbers significantly under this; the NSE has not provided sufficient information on the costings to justify any number). No matter - the point is that the care homes are in too poor a state to condone. Everyone seems to agree with that. If they were rebuilt and at a cost of £5-6M, the residents' situation is markedly improved; the NSE does not have to worry about the Care Standards Act and does not need to spend money refurbishing the care homes year-on-year. The local community would not be affected adversely. This would seem to be a win-win situation for everyone. If the NSE were proposing a reorganisation of their buildings' footprint along these lines I would support them. But, of course, they are not.

Now consider the marginal development scheme - the element taking their cash demand from £5-6M to £32M.
1 The care residents.
They would get renewed facilities such as hydrotherapy pool, disability gym, community centre etc. (but they lose the bookbinding plant). They will also endure five plus years of huge destruction and reconstruction, have far less open spaces than at present, find 850 new people, (unaccustomed to them), right on their doorstep. They would suffer, in the same way as the local community, the effects of increased traffic noise, pollution etc. In fact, they would probably lose as much as they would gain from the marginal scheme.

2 The NSE itself.
It would be better off in cash terms. Difficult management decisions will become easy (well, for a number of years at least). But it has sold an asset it cannot replace and will suffer the same urban problems of the existing local residents, both inside and outside its NSE's boundary. They would probably be a marginal winner.

3 Local community.
Completely stuffed. Much worse off. No matter how you look at it.

There is one of other party to consider - the construction company (or companies!). The £5-6M scheme generates a profit of around £1.3M for the developer on the 'external' housing estate and perhaps £0.8M on the NSE's 'internal' care residences. The NSE's proposed £32M scheme would instead provide around £7.5M of profits on the housing estate and nursing/sheltered accommodation and perhaps £4M on the NSE's internal raze/rebuild programme. The differential is not far short of £10M.

The only clear winner if the NSE's £32M scheme is adopted rather than the fundamental £5-6M scheme is the construction company. In my opinion, it is a very poor state of affairs indeed, when property developers stand more to gain on a greenfield Green Belt development than the NSE's residents, the local community or indeed the NSE itself.

With the exception of the construction company(ies) involved, the NSE's current proposals can better be described as a Disabling development rather than an Enabling one.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Mrs. Scott

National Society for Epilepsy - Proposed Destruction of Green Belt
Planning Application Appeal No. APP/X0415/A/04/1158520

I refer to the above Planning Application by the National Society for Epilepsy, to which we are totally opposed, not only because the Society is immediately adjacent to my property, but on many other grounds:

Yours sincerely

These proposals do not represent very special circumstances at all. They simply represent cashing in on Green Belt land to cover up years of mismanagement of site maintenance and funding arrangements with health authorities. If they are successful they will simply seek more of the same in years to come.

The proposed development is not sustainable in this semi-rural area which does not have a local railway station or reliable bus service.

The local infrastructure cannot support the 850 or more people and their cars that this development would bring.

The roads could not support all the additional traffic.

The schools are already full. Robertswood primary school is considered to be ideally sized and the Chalfont Community College is already one of the largest secondary schools in the area. Any enforced expansion of either school would require further encroachment of Green Belt Land since both schools are sited in Green Belt.

The water supply and sewer systems are inadequate.

The high density housing is not required in this area and is totally out of keeping with the area.  Furthermore, the low density spacious nature of the site provides an ideal transition between the highly developed area of Chalfont St. Peter and the green fields of Colne Valley Park.

The existing site is also of great historical significance and interest. It was founded over 100 years ago as a colony to provide the opportunity for epilepsy sufferers to work and support themselves and was a radical departure from the Victorian asylums of the time. The layout still exemplifies this but would be lost forever if the redevelopment plans are implemented.

The site is also environmentally and ecologically important with many splendid trees, some of which are the subject of tree preservation orders.

I would also like to express my dismay that the NSE has sought to bypass the democratic process and necessitated all of this additional effort by implementing this 'twin-tracking' tactic. No doubt you are aware that the first of these duplicate applications, ref. 2004/859/CH was in fact refused by CDC planning committee at their meeting on 2nd September 2004.

I trust that you will see this application for the money making smash & grab on the Green Belt that it is and heed the warning of our councillors that "a dangerous precedent would be set if one charity was allowed to sell Green Belt land for development to raise money then many others would also wish to do the same".

Finally, I would like to request that you acknowledge my objection and also that you send me a copy of the appeal decision letter.

Yours sincerely,