CHALFONT St. PETER PARISH COUNCIL Council Office, adj. The Community Centre, Gravel Hill, Chalfont St Peter, Bucks, SL9 9QX Tel & Fax: 01753 891582 email: [email protected]Website: www.chalfontstpeter-pc.gov.uk Clerk: Mrs Debbie Evans Deputy Clerk: Nick Stayt 12 th December 2016 Graham Winwright, Planning Policy Manager Chiltern District Council King George V House, King George V Rd, Amersham HP6 5AW Dear Mr Winwright, RE: Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation - Chalfont St Peter PC Representations Troy Hayes Planning Limited (Troy Planning + Design) has been instructed by Chalfont St Peter Parish Council to assist in the preparation of representations to the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation. On behalf of the Parish Council, we have undertaken a detailed review of the material presented as part of the consultation alongside the published evidence base and other associated documents. Details of our extensive experience in the preparation and Examination of Local Plans is provided in the main body of the representations. This letter should be treated as part of the Parish Council’s representations. The Parish Council has formed a joint working party with the local community action group, SENSE 4 CSP. They support this representation and will also submit their own response. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council intends to respond to each consultation stage during preparation of the Local Plan. Upon submission of representations to the ‘Pre-Submission’ Plan it will express, in the strongest possible terms, a request to attend the oral Examination Hearings. The Parish Council considers itself to be a stakeholder (and spatial location) of vital importance to plan-making for the area. We support the Parish Council in this view, which is self-evident when one looks at relevant factors. At their heart, the Preferred Options for the current consultation show a clear lack of understanding of the local context. It is currently impossible to claim that exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to justify the loss of either location proposed in Chalfont St Peter because the consequences for sustainable development are entirely unknown. Over 50% of the committed or allocated development pipeline exists within the Parish of Chalfont St Peter, predominantly a result of the current development plan. These sites are incomplete or not yet started; the outcomes from the development are not yet known; and the sequential effects on infrastructure capacity and requirements for mitigation and improvement are uncertain and untested. Much of the evidence base is absent, incomplete or out-of-date. Where it does exist, evidence such as the November 2016 Transport Modelling bears out the conclusions of a high level of existing pressure in Chalfont St Peter, accentuated by the current level of existing commitments, with a very high likelihood
45
Embed
CHALFONT St. PETER PARISH COUNCILchalfontstpeter-pc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Chalfont-St... · Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHALFONT St. PETER PARISH COUNCIL Council Office, adj. The Community Centre, Gravel Hill, Chalfont St Peter, Bucks, SL9 9QX
Annexe A – Chalfont St Peter Parish Council Representations to Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan
Initial Consultation (Issues and Options) (March 2016) ............................................................................... 43
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
2
1. Introduction and Executive Summary
1.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council seeks to continue to actively engage with and contribute to
preparation of the Joint Local Plan for Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire Districts. Troy
Planning + Design have been instructed to assist in the preparation of the Parish Council’s
representations for the current ‘Green Belt Preferred Options’ Regulation 18 consultation stage.
1.2. Troy Planning + Design has extensive experience of the Local Plan system, with senior members
of the company having contributed to several successful and adopted Local Plans and continuing
to advise a number of authorities as well as qualifying bodies preparing Neighbourhood Plans. In
addition, the company has experience of contributing to numerous Local Plan Examinations and
helping to identify significant issues with soundness as well as compliance with the Duty to
Cooperate.
1.3. Having previously submitted representations to the Regulation 18 consultation of January 2016,
Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and its representatives recognise the significant ongoing work to
prepare the Local Plan. However, it is with regret that these representations must highlight and
in some cases reiterate previous comments in relation to shortcomings with the process to date.
1.4. These issues begin with the inadequate summary provided by the partner Councils to the Parish
Council’s previous representations. The failure to provide a clear response to these comments is
ultimately a matter of legal compliance. These representations sought clarification for legitimate
questions regarding the contribution that different specific locations might make to genuinely
sustainable patterns of development in the context of a Joint Local Plan. Chalfont St Peter lacks a
train station or other mass transit and effectively forms a contiguous urban area with Gerrards
Cross. There appears to be no coherent assessment of this spatial relationship. The Parish Council
also seeks clarification on whether Chalfont St Peter comes under greater pressure for
development in the context of the combined needs of Chiltern and South Bucks.
1.5. While these questions remain unanswered, the Preferred Options are presented without any
detail on the wider spatial strategy or a joint Vision or objectives to guide overall development.
This provides no clarity on the overall supply, the split between Chiltern and South Bucks or the
potential level of unmet needs.
1.6. The Parish of Chalfont St Peter continues to represent a very substantial proportion of the
existing pipeline of housing supply. This is well in excess of 50% of the unbuilt commitments
across the District, stemming from earlier plan-making in the adopted Core Strategy. Discrete
evidence such as Transport Modeling is beginning to recognise that the outcomes of this
development are not yet known, with adverse impacts on existing infrastructure. However, there
is no indication that this has been considered as part of comprehensive plan-making or the
effects on the spatial strategy in Chalfont St Peter. In-fact, the Transport Modeling (November
2016) post-dates completion of the Development Options Appraisals (October 2016).
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
3
1.7. Our summary assessment indicates that the Council’s estimate of unmet need at 5,800
dwellings is incorrect. Whilst Chalfont St Peter Parish Council supports that this (or a higher level)
of unmet need is appropriate for the plan area given the constraints on development, this serves
to highlight that the potential quantum of development identified in the Preferred Options is not
justified. Other opportunities which may cross local authority boundaries should be fully
explored.
1.8. Without this understanding of the strategic priorities for the Joint Local Plan, including cross-
boundary priorities under the Duty to Co-Operate, it is impossible and incorrect to conclude that
exceptional circumstances are demonstrated to justify the release of land from the Green Belt in
Chalfont St Peter. Furthermore, whilst the overall timetable for preparing a Pre-Submission
version of the Local Plan (and all associated evidence) appears to be slipping, the opportunity to
comment on a comprehensive draft has been lost.
1.9. In relation to the specific Preferred Options presented for Chalfont St Peter, these issues are
compounded by substantial gaps in the evidence base which highlight that these locations for
development are highly likely to be found unsound if progressed further in the plan-making
process. Key evidence in relation to infrastructure and Sustainability Appraisal has not been
updated since early 2016. Other more recent information, such as local transport modeling,
indicates a greater likelihood of adverse impacts than is currently acknowledged. Appropriate
mitigation and phasing of infrastructure delivery has yet to be identified.
1.10. For land at the National Society for Epilepsy, there are no conclusions available from the Inner
Green Belt Boundary Review. Given the area’s existing designation as a Major Developed Site in
the Green Belt, which recognises the openness of the area and has supported successful
development outcomes, there is no basis for proposing a boundary revision. For Land South East
of Chalfont St Peter, the Preferred Option highlights inconsistent assumptions for development,
which would undermine protection of open space and community facilities, and shows disregard
to local character and requirements for other land uses.
1.11. Taking into account these factors, the Preferred Options are not considered appropriate and if
taken forward would represent unsubstantiated, piecemeal release of land contrary to achieving
sustainable development. Any alternative must represent a robust understanding of the local
area, taking into account existing commitments, other infrastructure requirements and providing
appropriate mitigation for the A413. However, given the limited scale of development that may
be achieved, and the need to retain enduring Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period, the
Councils are likely to find such refined Options are not essential to securing the most sustainable
outcomes and fail to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
1.12. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the
partner Councils to shape a coherent spatial strategy and specifically to inform the approach
towards development in the local area as well as helping to establish the functional relationships
to Gerrards Cross. This is considered necessary to ensure positive outcomes for sustainable
development, clearly setting out the infrastructure requirements of the area and potential
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
4
benefits of new development. In general terms, this would best be achieved through
delivering existing commitments and maximising the use of previously developed land (and
potential HELAA sites). At the same time the Parish Council would support Chiltern and South
Bucks in refining strategic options that genuinely secure sustainable development as well as their
work to secure a contribution to development from neighbouring areas.
2. The Councils’ Approach to Addressing Previous Consultation Responses:
Summary of Previous Consultation Responses
2.1. The Councils’ approach and response in summarising the previous representations submitted by
Chalfont St Peter Parish Council as part of the ‘Initial Consultation (Regulation 18) – Incorporating
Issues and Options’ is disappointing and extremely concerning. It is contrary to national guidance
and ultimately calls into question the legal compliance of the process in preparing the Local Plan.
2.2. National Planning Practice Guidance states:
“The local planning authority must take into account any representation made, and
will need to set out how the main issues raised have been taken into account.” (ID:
12-017-20140306)
2.3. Local Plan production should ensure “effective discussion and consultation with local
communities, businesses and other interested parties.” (ID: 12-003-20140306). This paragraph of
the NPPG goes on to say that Local Authorities should make it clear how these consultations fit
within the Local Plan process.
2.4. The Parish Council instructed Troy Planning + Design as consultants to prepare a detailed
response. This is recorded as “Rep 4095” in the Councils’ “Summary of Responses to Local Plan
Initial (Regulation 18) Including Issues and Options Consultation” (October 2016) and detailed in
Volume 4. The full response is not available to view online and this is a further concern. A
response is provided only in terms of the following summary:
“Independent analysis of the housing market area functional linkages concludes that
the “best fit” for Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan area is with the rest of
Buckinghamshire. Best fit groupings do not change functional housing market
relationships and they will continue to be considered through the plan making
process.”
2.5. Whilst the Parish Council acknowledges this response, it is entirely inadequate to cover the issues
raised by the representations. In fact, the issue summarised was not a major dispute within the
representations. The relationship between ‘best-fit’ and ‘functional’ housing market areas is
entirely accepted, with the proviso that the strong relationships between South Bucks and Slough
/ Maidenhead remain recognised in understanding the strategic priorities of the area.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
5
2.6. This point (made under ‘Question 1’ of the consultation) merely served as an
introduction and qualification for the detailed matters considered subsequently. These are not
summarised in the Officer’s response.
2.7. Some of the previously identified concerns and considerations for specific potential locations for
development are taken forward and advanced in these representations, so it is not necessary to
repeat all the points here.
2.8. It is, however, useful to highlight the key elements of strategic importance mentioned in earlier
representations. These have not been summarised in the Councils’ responses to date; nor has
sufficient additional evidence been published to demonstrate how these have been addressed in
the context of preparing the plan. These matters serve to highlight that significant soundness
issues exist with the basis of the Preferred Options that have been prevented and this in-turn
makes it highly likely that the Local Plan will subsequently fail at Examination. Key areas to which
the Councils have not responded are:
Confirming that complete infrastructure evidence for the whole (Chiltern and South Bucks)
joint plan area will be available to inform future stages of consultation
Clarifying that the contribution towards housing requirements from other sources (e.g. the
HELAA, existing commitments, use of previously developed land, windfall and under
‘Options’ F to J) should be maximised, clearly set out and taken into account before
conclusions on the appropriate contribution from ‘extensions’ (under Options ‘C’ and ‘D’)
are reached
Clarifying why (or whether) the housing requirements and housing land supply calculations
should be considered jointly across Chiltern and South Bucks and if so setting out what is the
current position and what are the implications for sustainable development
Ensuring ‘Option D’ (meeting needs at principal settlements outside the plan area e.g.
Maidenhead / Slough) is given further consideration due to the functional linkages between
South Bucks and these areas
Demonstrating an understanding of the combined roles of Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St
Peter as part of preparing a Joint Local Plan (rather than considering both as separate
settlements under ‘Option C’)
Explaining how the justification for exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land for
development has been arrived at across the spatial strategy as a whole and as part of the
relationship of specific settlements to that strategy (in-particular, Chalfont St Peter)
Answering whether the incorporation of South Bucks into the Central Buckinghamshire HMA
has affected conclusions on exceptional circumstances and the level of unmet needs across
the plan area; and whether any subsequent pressure to release additional land for
development in Chalfont St Peter is consistent with a strategy for sustainable development.
2.9. None of these points were dealt with in summarising the previous representations of Chalfont St
Peter Parish Council. In the majority of cases, these issues have not been clearly addressed by
later evidence and they are not explored further in the scope of the Preferred Options
consultation. This gives little confidence in the preparation of a sound Local Plan for the area.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
6
2.10. The following paragraph contains extracts from the representations that also effectively
summarises the position:
Given the greater overall aggregate requirement that is generated by applying the
‘best fit’ HMA across the whole of both authorities, it becomes critical to understand
the contribution that different specific locations might make to genuinely sustainable
patterns of development. Simply the decision to prepare a Joint Local Plan should not
affect the test of exceptional circumstances for locations such as Chalfont St Peter
and conclusions on unmet need when considered alongside parts of South Bucks
which were, until recently, being assessed as part of a different Housing Market. This
understanding of the relationship between locations within the settlement hierarchy
and their overall potential to contribute towards sustainable development is an
important counterpart to any test of exceptional circumstances.
2.11. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would welcome a comprehensive response to these points along
with all of the detailed matters raised by these representations on the current consultation. This
is considered to be an essential requirement in the preparation of a sound plan.
The Approach to Future Consultations and Stages of Plan Preparation
2.12. The current approach is contrary to The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)
Regulations (in-particular 18(3) and 22(c)(iii and iv)). The Council has yet to show, how in
continuing to prepare the Local Plan, it has taken into account the representations of the Parish
Council. Unfortunately, the next stage of consultation is expected to be upon the version of the
Local Plan the Councils intend to submit for Examination. There is a high likelihood of matters
critical to the preparation of a sound plan being ignored, which is unsound. For this reason the
Parish Council’s original representations to the Issues and Options Consultation are annexed to
this response (see Annexe A).
2.13. Under the Local Planning Regulations, Chiltern District Council is not legally required to publish
copies of the representations received to-date. It has not done so, but such a process is widely
followed and generally accepted as good practice. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would
welcome its representations to this consultation being made available.
2.14. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council intends to respond to each consultation stage of preparation of
the Local Plan. Upon submission of representations to the ‘Pre-Submission’ Plan will express, in
the strongest possible terms, a request to attend the oral Examination Hearings. The Parish
Council considers itself to be a stakeholder (and spatial location) of vital importance to plan-
making for, amongst others, the following key reasons:
A strategically significant amount of development remains committed and unbuilt in the
Parish regardless of any additional growth identified in the Preferred Options;
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
7
Chalfont St Peter forms a contiguous built settlement with Gerrards Cross and
is critical to understanding the strategic priorities for a Joint Local Plan;
The Parish experiences a high level of stress upon existing infrastructure and the effects
of the existing development pipeline are not well understood; and
At the time of writing, the Parish is the only location with a ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan
2.15. The Parish Council and Local Plan Working Group intends to continue to work constructively to
support the proper planning of the local area. This will include attempting to establish a thorough
understanding of the capacity of existing infrastructure and any opportunities for mitigation or
enhancement. Where appropriate, development opportunities that re-use previously developed
sites either in the HELAA or other unidentified locations will be supported. However, this can only
be achieved in the context of co-operative work alongside the Local Planning Authority.
2.16. These efforts are undermined in the context of an emerging Local Plan which demonstrates a lack
of clarity in the spatial strategy, potential issues of legal compliance and fundamental soundness
issues with specific development options. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council and its advisors would
be glad to assist in addressing these issues in the next stage of plan-making.
3. Local Development Scheme and Timetable for Plan Preparation
3.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council is disappointed that the current consultation does not comprise a
comprehensive consultation on a Draft Local Plan for the Chiltern and South Bucks area. The
Councils’ Joint Local Development Scheme indicates this consultation event as a “Preferred
Options” stage in preparing the Local Plan. It does not indicate that this should be used to only
consider “Green Belt Preferred Options” as now being undertaken.
3.2. The fact that the Councils have highlighted the need to potentially amend the timetable further
(moving the target to consult on a Pre-Submission version of the Plan beyond March 2017)
simply demonstrates the significant extra work needed to clearly define the strategic priorities
for the Local Plan and ensure that these are supported by comprehensive evidence.
3.3. It is understood that the two Councils are looking to comply with the NPPG to prepare a
comprehensive single Local Plan for the area (NPPG ID: 12-012-20140306). This is laudable, but it
is currently unclear what format the overall Plan will take. This is significant because it raises a
number of issues under the Duty to Cooperate, the approach to sustainable development and
identifying the strategic priorities for plan-making, and in-particular the specific basis on which
the exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land for development are identified. These
are considered in-turn below.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
8
4. Relationship with the Strategic Priorities for Plan-Making
4.1. Paragraph 155 of the NPPF recommends ‘early and meaningful engagement and collaboration’ in
preparing Local Plans, so that pro-active engagement can reflect, as far as possible, an agreed set
of priorities and collective vision for sustainable development. Paragraph 156 of the NPPF defines
the strategic priorities that the policies of the Plan should set out to address, including the
approach towards the provision for infrastructure, conservation and enhancement of the natural
environment, the provision of social and health infrastructure as well as meeting (as far as
possible) the need for the homes, jobs and commercial development an area needs.
4.2. Although Preferred Options for development have now been presented as part of this
consultation, the Councils have yet to consult on a Vision or clearly defined set out objectives to
be addressed by the Joint Local Plan. Question 4 of the ‘Initial Consultation’ (Reg 18, Jan-March
2016) looked at the potential scope for the Vision and objectives but continued to refer to the
two separate Council areas.
4.3. The approach to date has limited the scope for the Local Plan to provide a clear and decisive
answer on key issues such as the Green Belt. It has limited the range of options considered in
sufficient detail. Clarity is not achieved as part of the Preferred Options consultation due to the
lack of information surrounding the overall objectives of the draft Plan and limited findings of the
evidence base available in terms of how the strategic priorities for plan-making area addressed.
4.4. The scope of the Local Plan will effectively be limited by the nature of discrete Preferred Options
identified against a narrow and incomplete evidence base. Decisions on other elements that may
complement the most effective strategy for the Local Plan area are unnecessarily deferred to
future stages with uncertainty over whether they will ever be fully addressed. This approach is
unsound.
4.5. The inability to clearly relate the Preferred Options identified in this consultation to the overall
Vision and Objectives of a Local Plan intended to ensure sustainable development undermines
that extent to which this consultation will inform the preparation of a sound plan.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
9
5. Relationship with the Duty to Cooperate
5.1. In-accordance with Paragraph 179 of the NPPF, delivery of the strategic priorities will need to be
coordinated across local authority boundaries under the Duty to Cooperate. This is clearly
paramount in the case of Chiltern and South Bucks where the authorities are working to prepare
a Joint Local Plan. Paragraph 181 of the NPPF goes on to state “Local planning authorities will be
expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-
boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination.”
5.2. National guidance highlights well-defined relationships such as housing market and travel to
work areas that may provide a more effective basis on which to plan for issues such as housing
and job creation; providing the appropriate basis for Local Plans to approach strategic planning
(NPPG ID: 9-008-20140306). This is clearly considered to be the case across Chiltern and South
Bucks (and more widely the ‘Central Buckinghamshire’ area) due to the wealth of joint evidence
that is available. Strong relationships with the Thames Valley area (in-particular Slough and
Maidenhead) should nevertheless also not be overlooked in assessing the considerations for
sustainable development, especially in the south of the County.
5.3. The purpose of these representations is not to specifically question whether the Duty to
Cooperate has been satisfied in the Central Buckinghamshire area. Engagement to-date appears
extensive. The issue, however, is that in terms of the discrete Preferred Options presented in this
consultation, absent of any clearly defined Vision and Objectives, work under the Duty to
Cooperate does not appear to have been translated into specific policies or plan-making in any
meaningful way. The relationship between the Preferred Options and cross-boundary strategic
priorities, including whether these would best contribute to achieving sustainable development,
is not clearly shown.
5.4. Key flaws and questions in the Council’s evidence thus far indicate that it cannot demonstrate
that it has produced “effective and deliverable policies on strategic cross boundary matters”
(NPPG ID: 9-002-20140306) on the basis of the Preferred Options identified.
5.5. The Councils should be aware that even in the event that the legal Duty is satisfied an Inspector
examining the Local Plan will take these matters into consideration under the tests of soundness.
For example, this is particularly relevant when looking at the infrastructure requirements of plan-
making, as set out in the NPPG:
“Planning for infrastructure is a critical element of strategic planning. The National
Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 162) makes clear that local planning
authorities should work with other local planning authorities and providers to assess
the quality and capacity of a range of infrastructure types. This will ensure that key
infrastructure such as transport, telecommunications, energy, water, health, social
care and education, is properly planned.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
10
Planning for infrastructure is a key requirement of the effectiveness element of the
test of Local Plan soundness, which requires plans to be deliverable and based on
effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities. The involvement of
infrastructure providers in Local Plan preparation is critical to ensure that Local Plans
are deliverable. Participation in the Local Plan preparation process in turn helps them
to inform their business plans and to plan and finance the delivery of infrastructure
that they have a legal obligation to provide. It is expected that private utility
companies and providers will engage positively in the preparation and delivery of
Local Plans (ID: 9-013-20140306)”
5.6. The recent failure of the St Albans Strategic Local Plan on the grounds of failure to satisfy the
Duty to Cooperate also recognises the importance of addressing the strategic priorities for plan-
making and ensuring the effective outcomes for sustainable development are sought when these
cross local authority boundaries. The Council should pay close attention to these findings,
particular where they highlight that certain locations for development have little prospect of
contributing to a sound or effective plan because they fail to have regard to the likely outcomes
and requirements for sustainable development.
5.7. It is for this (amongst other reasons) that Chalfont St Peter Parish Council highlights that
Preferred Options are identified in the area without the necessary understanding of
infrastructure capacity; without considering whether other options would better meet strategic
and cross-boundary priorities; and without setting out in full the capacity of other options that
may secure more effective outcomes.
5.8. Without a clear understanding on the basis of these points, the Councils of Chiltern and South
Bucks cannot clearly be able to claim what, if any, level of unmet need for homes and jobs exists.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
11
6. Justification of Exceptional Circumstances
6.1. The previous representations from Chalfont St Peter Parish Council have not been addressed. The
points below should be read alongside previous submissions. The Preferred Options consultation
document does not appear to reach any definitive conclusions on whether exceptional
circumstances exist to justify the release of land from the Green Belt. However, further detail is
provided in terms of the two Preferred Options in Chalfont St Peter.
6.2. The identification of these options simply reinforces the over-arching concerns about whether
these prospective plan-making choices have been arrived at as part of a robust and clearly
evidenced approach to preparing the Local Plan. This is highlighted by inconsistencies in the
options and the substantial gaps in the evidence base. This approach is contrary to national policy
and guidance in relation to Green Belt and achieving sustainable development.
6.3. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF is clear that:
“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities
should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.
They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channeling
development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns
and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green
Belt boundary.”
6.4. This is precisely why it is inappropriate to put forward the current Preferred Options without
regard to the over-arching spatial strategy, Vision and Objectives for the joint plan area. NPPF
Paragraph 85 requires Local Authorities to “ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for
meeting identified requirements for sustainable development” when defining Green Belt
boundaries. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that for plan-making, the presumption in favour of
sustainable development should be applied as follows:
“Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the
development needs of their area;
Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to
adapt to rapid change, unless:
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted [including land designated as Green Belt as set out in Footnote
9]”
6.5. In Green Belt terms, the Parish Council considers that there is little if any material difference
between the need to apply the NPPF as a whole when considering boundaries (as described
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
12
above) and the basis for deciding planning applications in the Green Belt which
requires potential harm through inappropriateness and any other harm to be outweighed by
other considerations (NPPF Paragraph 88, our emphasis).
6.6. Aside from the point that the Local Plan should seek to meet objectively assessed housing needs
‘as far as is consistent with the policies set out in [the] Framework (NPPF Paragraph 47) and that
the extent and purposes of Green Belt land may comprise one circumstance that may restrain an
Authority’s ability to achieve this (NPPG ID: 3-045-20141006), Local Plans as a whole must
contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 151).
6.7. In taking forward the Preferred Options presented in this consultation, the Councils have in effect
sought to rationalise the justification based on pre-existing evidence, rather than giving full
consideration to the objectives for sustainable development required by NPPF Paragraph 84 as a
whole. This does not establish any clear or comprehensive relationship with the overall spatial
strategy which has yet to emerge through the Local Plan. There remains an absence of a clear
approach towards exceptional circumstances as part of the consultation material. This approach
is unsound.
6.8. We have reviewed the “Draft Green Belt Assessment Part Two” (October 2016) which reinforces
the concerns set out above. In particular, at Appendix 1 ARUP as ‘critical friend’ to the Councils
make following comments:
“In line with previous comments, our view is that a robust exceptional circumstances
case must be developed at the strategic level, and while site specific considerations
would be an important factor (as highlighted in para 10) we believe that it would be
helpful to highlight the need to consider these wider factors” (page 54); and
“Please refer to comment A8 on the definition of boundaries. We suggest that this
should be a factor to weigh up in the overall decision making process rather than an
arbitrary way of filtering sites, and believe that some of the considerations around
spatial fit with the local plan options may be a more effective way of filtering sites
(i.e. site is in a more/less favoured strategic option)” (p.55)
6.9. Whilst Officers have attempted to explain that the process of completing the assessments leaves
scope for planning judgement, it is nevertheless apparent that site specific definition of
boundaries risks over-riding the strategic considerations of plan-making. Paragraph 3.15 of the
main report acknowledges that it cannot provide definitive conclusions on exceptional
circumstances. However, the recommendations at ‘Stage 3’ are based on the existing ‘options’
from the emerging spatial strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal Framework prepared in
January 2016. Both of these sources are based on out-dated and incomplete evidence and do not
support any robust conclusions to appropriately identify exceptional circumstances.
6.10. This approach should be considered against Caselaw which considers the basis of exceptional
circumstances. In Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin),
Hickinbottom J ruled:
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
13
“Whilst each case is fact-sensitive and the question of whether circumstances are
exceptional for these purposes requires an exercise of planning judgment, what is
capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances is a matter of law, and a plan-
maker may err in law if he fails to adopt a lawful approach to exceptional
circumstances. Once a Green Belt has been established and approved, it requires
more than general planning concepts to justify an alteration." (Para 125 biv)
6.11. In summary, simply preparing a new Local Plan does not itself provide an exceptional
circumstance to justify altering the Green Belt boundary. The judgment also clarifies that
“although the words requiring necessity for a boundary revision have been omitted from
paragraph 83 of the NPPF, the test remains the same”.
6.12. The issue was similarly summarised in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council,
Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin). This also
addresses the achievement in the context of national policy for the Green Belt. Paragraph 19
“Sustainable development embraces environmental factors, and such factors are
likely to be negatively in play where release of Green Belt is being considered. The
second sentence of paragraph 83 supplies a fetter or brake on development which
would, were it not for the Green Belt, otherwise be sustainable; but in deciding
whether exceptional circumstances pertain regard must be had to the whole picture,
including as I have said the consequences.”
6.13. Paragraph 44 also states:
“The issue is whether, in the exercise of planning judgment and in the overall context
of the positive statutory duty to achieve sustainable development, exceptional
circumstances existed to justify the release of Green Belt.”
6.14. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would argue that the Preferred Options in the present
consultation are supported by nothing more than the general concepts and application of
planning judgement across discrete categories of the assessment process. The case for
exceptional circumstances as part of a necessary strategy to secure sustainable development is
not made out.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
14
7. Green Belt Development Options Appraisal
7.1. The Chiltern and South Bucks “Green Belt Development Options Appraisal” (October 2016) does
not materially add to the basis for the recommendations in the Green Belt Review. These points
are brought out in more detail when commenting on the specific Preferred Options, but the
following general comments are relevant.
7.2. A significant part of the pro-forma for each site is taken up by findings from the Part 2 Green Belt
Parcel Assessment. The perceived outcomes against the Sustainability Appraisal Framework are
also duplicated in both documents. The ‘key summary considerations’ from earlier consultations
exposes the weaknesses set out earlier in these representations: namely the fundamental
concerns about whether the locations represent sustainable locations for development as part of
a wider spatial strategy are not addressed. There is no indication that infrastructure
improvements are achievable or have been subject to any rigorous testing. Finally, in assessing
the relationship of each ‘Option’ with the existing development plan it should be pointed out that
compatibility with existing policy is not a criterion under Paragraph 85 of the NPPF when
reviewing Green Belt boundaries. An essential characteristic of the Green Belt is its permanence
and ability to endure beyond the plan period. This category of the pro-forma should not in
principle contribute to the identification of exceptional circumstances.
7.3. Paragraph 1.6 of the Options Appraisal accepts that it is affected by significant gaps in
infrastructure evidence and emerging transport modelling. There is no certainty that any
required mitigation from the ‘worst case scenarios’ tested will be achievable; nor is it clear
whether the effects from alternatives strategies might be less.
7.4. Paragraph 1.6 also states: “absence of reference to specific types of infrastructure (such as
education or health facilities) does not mean that investment will not be required”. Whilst this is
welcomed, the fact remains that amongst the Preferred Options presented for Chalfont St Peter,
sufficient land would not be available to meet these infrastructure needs along with the
development quanta quoted.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
15
8. Methodological Approach Adopted in Calculating Preferred Options
Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology
8.1. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council believes it is clear that an inconsistent methodology has been
adopted in assessing and identifying potential development capacity between the Preferred
Options. In essence, this risks making the areas undevelopable for the uses and scale proposed
and the basis for identifying the Preferred Options in this way is therefore unsound at the
outset. Specific comments are raised against the individual Preferred Options in Chalfont St
Peter but the following general points are relevant.
8.2. The Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment methodology
states as follows (Paragraphs 2.40 – 2.41):
“As an overarching principle sites should aim to make the best use of land. The following
sources of information will be used to calculate the number of dwellings and floorspace
likely to be delivered on a site, taking into account areas of land which have significant
environmental constraints identified in Table 2, reducing the developable area and other
considerations identified at stage 2. The density requirements for housing developments
set out in Table 2 will be used as a starting point but will also take into account the
following:
Recent planning application history
Pre-application advice
Officer knowledge
Nearby character and density, although this should not preclude higher density
development where this can be achieved sensitively to ensure best use is made of
land. Certain sites may be suitable for higher density development due to being in a
central location.
Existing studies e.g. development briefs
Requirements for onsite infrastructure e.g. roads, school and healthcare provision
(large urban extension will require more)
Stakeholders for advice e.g. developers for advice on general densities
The reasoning behind the indicative development capacity will be clearly set out in the
report.”
8.3. The relevant extract from Table 2 referred to by the description above sets out (see over):
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
16
8.4. Stage 2 of the HELAA has still not been completed and the evidence is still emerging. However,
based on section 1.2 of the Preferred Options consultation document the current draft is
understood to have informed assessment of the current options. However, these assumptions
have been applied inconsistently with no explanation of any departure or alternative analysis for
specific sites. The density assumptions of some, but not all, Preferred Options are markedly
higher than those set out in the HELAA methodology.
8.5. A related issue is that although for some Preferred Options a range of potential densities is
indicated, a single number is used for dwelling capacity. It is accepted that the outputs are
indicative at this stage, but in some cases it is the upper estimate of the density that has been
used to derive the dwelling number - for example: Option 13: 800 dwellings / 21ha = 38dph. This
creates further uncertainty regarding realistic dwelling capacities.
8.6. A further principal issue is the lack of detail or consistency in the approach to calculating the
gross:net developable areas of the individual Preferred Options explored. It is accepted that
each site will have particular circumstances, but this should not preclude identifying realistic
development parameters. This stems from shortcomings in the HELAA methodology. There
should be a clear logic to identifying the following parameters:
Gross Site Area
Gross Developable Area (excluding ‘undevelopable’ land e.g. flood plain, tree cover)
Net Residential Developable Area (typically excluding land for other uses (e.g. employment)
infrastructure, strategic open space but including residential gardens and access roads)
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
17
8.7. Paragraph 2.40 of the HELAA Methodology implicitly refers to the conversion from
gross:net developable area where environmental constraints apply. This is welcomed, but it
should be kept in mind that such constrained land may provide suitable amenity or open space.
If there are few or no other land use requirements then the net developable and net residential
developable areas would be the same. However, this is often not the case. The adjustment for
‘net residential’ area should take account of other land use and infrastructure requirements
(plus the need for open space if it isn’t already accounted for on undevelopable land). A robust
land assessment methodology typically provides broad assumptions. For example, Paragraph
6.20 of the West Northamptonshire SHLAA Methodology provides the following:
Calculation of Development Capacity within the Preferred Options
8.8. The material for the current Green Belt Preferred Options only makes such assumptions on an
arbitrary and inconsistent basis, often leaving doubt about the net residential developable area
and the combination of other uses.
8.9. One good example where the above process generates realistic outcomes is Option 2: Holmer
Green. Here, a gross site area of 17.63ha derives a gross developable area of 12.2ha. This is
amended to specifically recognise the need for a primary school on the land, giving a net
residential developable area of 9ha. This comprises 51% of the gross area and broadly follows
the example from West Northamptonshire. It would be assumed that other strategic open space
would be likely to exist on the areas identified as ‘undevelopable’.
8.10. For other Preferred Options, such as Option 8 (South East of Chalfont St Peter) the stated total
estimate of dwelling capacity can only be achieved by residential development on the total
‘gross developable’ site area quoted. This is patently unrealistic and does not follow robust
assumptions for site assessment. If carried out to the quanta and land areas suggested by the
consultation material, it is extremely unlikely that the outcomes for sustainable development
would be achieved.
8.11. The wording of the Preferred Option indicates that the 12ha identified as ‘developable’ would
“include associated open space, necessary infrastructure and other requirements.” Following
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
18
the assumptions for density and dwelling numbers to their conclusion, this simply is
not the case.
8.12. The table set out below presents the matters discussed above and shows the number of issues
the Councils must address in refining its Preferred Options. Due to the paucity of information,
data for a large number of criteria has been imputed and this is clarified in the associated
footnotes.
8.13. The outputs from this analysis clearly demonstrate that Option 9 – ‘Land South East of
Chalfont St Peter’ is calculated inconsistently and unrealistically when compared against
typical assumptions for development or the other Options included in the consultation.
Achieving 420 dwellings from the site would require residential development on all 12ha
considered ‘developable’ and at the top end of the 35 dwellings per hectare assumption.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
19
Table 1: Summary of Development Parameters for ‘Preferred Option’ Locations
1 Dph Imputed calculated from “Dwelling Number” column divided by “Net Residential (ha)” 2 Calculations based on 75 dwellings as the mid-point 3 Assumes 50% Net Developable Residential Area – Consultation material does not specify 4 Calculations Based on 925 dwellings as the mid-point 5 Assumes 50% Net Developable Residential Area – Consultation material does not specify 6 Calculations Based on 1600 dwellings as the mid-point 7 Figures based on 50% of the gross developable area quoted in the consultation material being used for housing at 30dph as per the HELAA methodology. Total dwellings achievable could realistically be greater.
Preferred Option Name
Gross (ha)
Gross Developable (ha)
Net: Gross Developable Area (%)
Net Residential (ha)
Net Residential (%)
dph (imputed)1
dph quoted (Consultation Document)
Dwelling Number (from Preferred Options unless indicated)
12. W of Iver Heath 31.65 10.27 32.4% 10.27 32.4% 35.1 35 360 (post-2025)
13. N of Iver Station
33.86 24 70.9% 21 62.0% 38.1 35-40 800
Total 5870
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
20
9. Overall Housing Land Supply Position and Existing Commitments
Implications of Existing Commitments within Chalfont St Peter
9.1. Analysis within the second part of this section demonstrates that the evidence for the Preferred
Options as a whole is not based on a coherent understanding of the existing level of
commitments and other potential supply across the area for the Joint Local Plan and the
resultant level of unmet needs.
9.2. At the outset however, it is relevant to reiterate that the greatest effects of this
misunderstanding and the implications for a spatial strategy which ignores baseline conditions
will be concentrated in Chalfont St Peter. This is a result of the exceptionally high level of
existing commitments in the Parish relative to Chiltern District as a whole.
9.3. These predominantly comprise un-built allocations from the existing Core Strategy where the
full outcomes and effects from development are as yet unknown. Under these circumstances
any related infrastructure and mitigation have typically yet to be provided and the impacts of
development not fully assessed. The Councils’ failure to provide any detailed evidence to
identify infrastructure requirements and plan for their delivery magnifies the issues.
9.4. The little evidence which is emerging does identify this issue, but it has not been incorporated
or coordinated as part of coherent plan-making. Most clearly, the Jacobs Chiltern and South
Bucks Transport “Modelling Report” (November 2016 see section 3.2.1) usefully includes a ‘Do
Minimum’ scenario which tests a scenario based solely on the effects of existing commitments.
9.5. Commitments of 953 houses are identified in Chiltern District. Figure 3-A (page 11) provides a
useful spatial breakdown of this total across the different areas modelled in the study. Data for
Chalfont St Peter Parish is comprised by two zones: existing commitments of 309 dwellings for
the area including Newlands Park and 223 dwellings covering the main settlement. This totals
56% of the total baseline effects for Chiltern District which must be taken into account.
Previous completions and other future projections of windfall are not included. The two
modelling zones in Chalfont St Peter are the two areas with the greatest level of existing
commitments identified. The next closest is Central Chesham at 185 dwellings. By contrast,
Gerrards Cross only shows existing commitments for 189 dwellings.
9.6. The Jacobs Study is also useful as it includes assumptions from the emerging HELAA evidence –
‘Do Something Option A’. Unfortunately, the findings of this work are incomplete at the
contribution of these elements to housing supply is not considered as part of a coherent spatial
strategy for the purposes of this consultation. Subject to the details of the HELAA sites these
locations are supported in principle. This comprises an appropriate profile of supply which might
complement the exceptionally high level of existing commitments. 150 additional dwellings are
identified in Chalfont St Peter under Option A i.e. a total of 682 dwellings.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
21
9.7. Conversely, and contrary to sensible logic, only 30 additional dwellings are identified
under Option A in Gerrards Cross. This clearly demonstrates that the evidence to-date has not
followed a “no stone left unturned” approach in Gerrards Cross.
9.8. The implications of this baseline position are clearly shown in the summary for Chalfont St Peter
in section 5.2.8. This demonstrates significant increases in journey time (up to 259%) under
Option A and even before any of the Green Belt Preferred Options is considered. ‘Through
traffic’ on the A413 is a further related issue which has implications before considering any
further major growth. Figure 5-F shows existing congestion under the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario.
Conversely in Gerrards Cross, increases in travel time are limited under Option A.
9.9. Table 6-A provides a useful ‘Red-Amber-Green’ summary of the impacts of different scenarios.
Significant impacts would be experienced under either Options B or C incorporating the release
of Green Belt land. Impacts are moderate even under Option A incorporating only the HELAA.
The Preferred Options chosen for Chalfont St Peter for the purposes of this consultation do not
demonstrate consideration of any mitigation or transport improvements nor do they include
consideration of whether this would be achievable at the scale proposed. There is no prospect
that formal policies drafted on this evidence would be effective, justified by evidence or
consistent with national policy.
9.10. The extremely high level of existing commitments in Chalfont St Peter, and its implications for
evidence informing the plan, demonstrates that a clear understanding of the local area is
essential but not currently available. Paragraphs 156 and 162 of the NPPF are clear that the
assessment of the quality and capacity of infrastructure, along with policies to deliver necessary
transport improvements, are central to sound plan-making.
9.11. An appropriate basis for a spatial strategy in Chalfont St Peter should recognise the existing
constraints on capacity, ensure the successful delivery of existing opportunities, and support
additional small-scale opportunities for growth. This will principally be sites identified by the
HELAA or local community – comprising 150 units under the ‘Option A’ scenario from the
Transport Modelling. The evidence is clear that any additional growth would have a significant
impact without being able to provide necessary mitigation.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
22
Analysis of Supply Pipeline across Chiltern and South Bucks
9.12. The latest evidence for the housing requirements informing the emerging Joint Local Plan are
understood to be as follows:
9.13. The Preferred Options consultation states as follows:
“The Councils have been in discussions under the Duty to Co-operate to explore the
potential for some of Chiltern and South Bucks development needs to be met outside
the Plan area and have agreement in principle for unmet needs to be provided in the
emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan subject to further evidence to justify the
amount of development and the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan being able to identify
sufficient capacity. Based on evidence base updates and the Preferred Options
position Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils estimate an unmet housing need
of 5,800 dwellings.”
9.14. The basis for estimating the level of unmet need at 5,800 dwellings is unsubstantiated. Although
the ‘evidence base’ is referred to in reaching this number, there is no clearly identifiable source
that provides a robust estimate for how housing land supply is expected to be managed over the
plan period. The Councils are reminded of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF, in-particular:
“for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery
through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing
implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will
maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target;”
9.15. Chalfont St Peter does not dispute the principle that objectively assessed housing needs will not
be met in full given the circumstances of the plan area. It does, however, urge the partner
Councils to give equal weight and attention to opportunities to meet unmet needs in locations
other than the Vale of Aylesbury Plan.
9.16. A Local Plan period of 2014 to 2036 is proposed. Communities should appreciate that this does
not simply mean carrying forward the previous Core Strategies to cover a longer period. Equally,
the two plans are not cumulative – i.e. it is not a question of ‘completing’ the needs of the Core
Strategy first and then considering the requirements for the new Local Plan as a separate total.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
23
9.17. We understand (and expect) that completions prior to 2014/15 would not be taken
into account when setting out how the housing requirements for that period could be achieved.
However, completions since 2014 should be subtracted from the total. Any outstanding
consents or allocations that were originally intended to meet the targets of the Core Strategy
would be transposed into meeting the requirements of the new Local Plan.
9.18. The Councils have yet to publish any joint monitoring data to illustrate the housing land supply
position (and relative performance) across the Joint Local Plan area. Neither authority has yet
released monitoring data for 2015/16. Both have also declined to set out the position in terms
of housing land supply at April 2016; likely to reflect caution in addressing the emerging findings
of the HEDNA and the lack of evidence to inform the spatial strategy as a whole. Both
authorities have provided some useful data in their separate Authority Monitoring Reports for
2014/15 (both June 2016). However, this does not allow one to model the supply of housing
over the plan period to 2036.
9.19. For Chiltern District Council, the latest full housing trajectory comprises the 2014-2029 Housing
Land Supply Trajectory (August 2014). This evidence requires certain adjustments to try and
replicate supply from April 2016 onwards – namely removing estimates for completions for the
last two years. Generally, however, if one assumes all recent completions have come from
supply identified in March 2014, the data will broadly reconcile. Accommodation in the C2 Use
Class is also excluded. This still leaves a significant estimate of dwellings expected to contribute
over the remainder of the plan period.
9.20. It is once again important to reiterate that amongst the estimate of existing identified capacity
in Chiltern District at least 50% is expected to comprise supply within Chalfont St Peter Parish.
9.21. For South Bucks District, although a full housing trajectory is not available relevant data can be
compiled from the Appendixes of the 2014/15 Authority Monitoring Report (June 2016). This is
particularly useful as the appendixes contain updated delivery predictions from the emerging
HELAA evidence and take account of performance to April 2015. Calculations for both areas
include estimates of windfall from 2019 onwards. The relevant information is summarised
overleaf:
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
24
Total Estimate of Supply and Unmet Needs in the Joint Local Plan Area
Housing Requirements
2014-36
Completions 2014-20168
Extant Permissions /
Strategic Allocations /
emerging SHLAA or
allocations
Windfall over 19 years [per
annum]
Total Estimate of Identified
Capacity
Total from Preferred Options
Derived Total for ‘Unmet’
Needs
(14,700 – (3,662+5,870)
Chiltern 7,300 273 1222 418 [22] 1,913
5,870 5,168 South Bucks 7,400 264 858 627 [339] 1,749
Total 14,700 537 1,941 1,045 3,662
Best Estimate of Pipeline Supply – South Bucks District
Section of Plan Period
“Extant Planning Permissions”10
“Prior Approval” B1-C3 Permitted Development11
“Large SHLAA”12
“Small SHLAA”13
“Refused SHLAA”14
Windfall15 Total16
2014-2029 448 154 146 185 50 [396] 858
2014-2019 300 154 0 0 0 [66] 329
2020-2024 148 0 46 95 25 [165] 314
2025-2029 0 0 100 90 25 [165] 215
2030-2036 [231] 231
8 Figures represent reported 2014/15 totals from Authority Monitoring Reports and a conservative prediction of 125 completions in each District for 2015/16 9 Figure Based on the November 2014 South Bucks Housing Land Supply Assessment: http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3523&p=0 10 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix A 11 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix Ai 12 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix H 13 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix H 14 From South Bucks AMR 2014/15 Appendix I (assumes delivery of 50% of the 101 dwellings total from AMR) 15 Not included within “Total” column 16 16 Totals reflect figures from the 2014/15 AMR excluding Windfall and the estimate of 125 completions in 2015/16 subtracted from the existing planning permissions for 2014-2019
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
25
Best Estimate of Pipeline Supply – Chiltern District
Section of Plan Period
Extant Planning
Permission
Extant C2 (Care
Facilities)17
Prior Approval –
B1-C3 Permitted
Development
Approvals in Principle
Strategic Sites from Adopted
Core Strategy
Windfall18 DDPD Total Remaining19
2014-2029 434 [322] 41 90 308 [264] 622 1222
2014-2019 369 [322] 41 90 176 [44] 168 571
2020-2024 65 0 0 0 132 [110] 266 463
2025-2029 0 0 0 0 0 [110] 188 188
2030-2036 0 0 0 0 0 [154] 0 0
17 Not included in Total Column 18 Not included in Total Column 19 Totals reflect Table 2 (p.26) of the Chiltern Housing Trajectory (2014) after subtracting for completions recorded in 2014/15 and 2015/16 and excluding “Windfall” and institutional accommodation falling under Use Class C2
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
26
9.22. The information set out in this section provides a conservative estimate for an
existing supply of 3,523 dwellings. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council considers that this total will
very likely be greater, taking into account further opportunities to maximise the use of
previously developed land, opportunities from other HELAA sites, uptake of Permitted
Development Rights and any other sources of supply. This will also be dependent on clarity from
the Councils in terms of the overall spatial strategy.
9.23. Taking account of the total for the Preferred Options (taken as 5,870 from the analysis in these
representations), unmet needs would only total 5,168 dwellings. The Council’s figure from the
consultation material suggests that not all the Preferred Options being consulted upon would be
taken forward to leave unmet needs of 5,800 dwellings.
9.24. This is likely to be a conservative assessment. As noted earlier, Transport Modelling (November
2016) included existing commitments and emerging HELAA sites totaling 4,230 dwellings. Along
with the total estimate of supply from the Preferred Options unmet needs could total only 4,600
dwellings. This is considered unrealistic given the constraints on development locally. The
Council’s estimate of 5,800 is more broadly supported, but would rightly indicate that the
prospects of development from the Preferred Options are much more limited than those
include as part of the consultation material.
9.25. Given the extensive scope for the Councils to refine and present detailed evidence for the
supply position in terms of extant permission and other sources of housing delivery, the
Preferred Options cannot be shown to be part of a coherent spatial strategy.
9.26. The Council is requested to consider this evidence alongside the weaknesses in the specific
Preferred Options put forward. This provides an opportunity to avoid the unjustified and
ineffective proposals set out for Chalfont St Peter for which no compelling exceptional
circumstances case has been presented. In-particular, this analysis demonstrates that there
would be no need to deliver any ‘general needs’ housing (Use Class C3) housing on Green Belt
land at the National Society for Epilepsy in order to match the Councils’ estimate of unmet need
(5,800 dwellings). At Land South East of Chalfont St Peter, the scale of development could be
reduced significantly or release of the Green Belt avoided entirely. This would avoid unrealistic
and incorrect assumptions for density; the net developable area; the ability to safeguard the
Paccar Scout Camp; and the absence of sufficient land for other infrastructure or strategic open
space.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
27
10. Commentary on Preferred Option 7 – National Society for Epilepsy,
Chalfont St Peter
10.1. The approach to the Preferred Option set out in the consultation does not follow a sound basis
for plan-making. Exceptional circumstances to justify release of land from the Green Belt have
not been demonstrated. Furthermore, the approach to the Preferred Option is not justified,
inconsistent with national policy and does not provide a basis for effective planning outcomes.
The following points should be taken into account and Chalfont St Peter Parish Council would
appreciate a response to these specific matters if the Preferred Option is considered further. An
alternative policy approach is suggested in the conclusions at the end of this section.
10.2. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council has legitimate concerns regarding the principle of releasing land
from the designated Green Belt in this location. The proposals in the Preferred Options
consultation document are not supported by a full evidence base or a coherent understanding
of the strategic priorities that are required to inform a full version of the Local Plan. The
requirement to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances legitimising the release of Green
Belt land in this location is not satisfied.
10.3. Looking at the site specifically, the following points are relevant:
Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan
10.4. The Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan (‘made’ November 2016 Paragraph 2.21) recognises
that the existing designation of the NSE “allows for some redevelopment or infilling so long as it
does not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the listed buildings”. This
position is supported by the local community. By definition as a ‘made’ element of the statutory
development plan, the Neighbourhood Plan satisfies the basis conditions and is in general
conformity with relevant strategic planning policies.
10.5. The Development Options Appraisal (October 2016) misrepresents the existing position of the
statutory development plan. By extension, the approach is not consistent with national policy
for the Green Belt. It is an entirely circular argument to suggest that removal of the NSE site
from the Green Belt would help remove the prospect of future attempts to modernise the site
comprising inappropriate development in the Green Belt:
“The Neighbourhood Plan supports the continued uses of the site and its
modernisation which could require development that would be inappropriate in the
Green Belt. Removal from the Green Belt would help support the Chalfont St Peter
Neighbourhood Plan.”
10.6. There is no support for this approach to defining exceptional circumstances in legislation or
guidance. The Chalfont St Peter Neighbourhood Plan is ‘made’. It is part of the statutory
development plan. It does not encourage or effect any change in the designation of the Green
Belt on the site nor is this part of its Vision and objectives. However, it recognises that
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
28
successful, appropriate development can be achieved within the policy framework of
the adopted Core Strategy (especially Policy CS7).
10.7. Caselaw has clearly established that simply applying planning judgement to the factors which
may or may not indicate a location is currently suitable for development is not the correct
approach when considering if exceptional circumstances existing to change the Green Belt. In
Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin), Hickinbottom J
ruled the Green Belt boundaries are not ‘contingent’ on other development considerations:
“That reflected the fact that Green Belt boundaries are intended to be enduring, and
not to be altered simply because the current policy means that development of those
sites is unlikely or even impossible. Indeed, where the current policy is to that effect,
the amenity interests identified in the sites will be protected by those very policies as
part of the general planning balance exercise. A prime character of Green Belts is
their ability to endure through changes of such policies. For the reasons set out in
Carpets of Worth (at page 346 per Purchas LJ) it is important that a proposal to
extend a Green Belt is subject to the same, stringent regime as a proposal to diminish
it, because whichever way the boundary is altered "there must be serious prejudice
one way or the other to the parties involved"”.
10.8. The Councils’ approach towards assessment of the NSE location is not justified and inconsistent
with national policy. Furthermore, it is an approach which is highly susceptible to challenge.
Gaps in the Emerging Evidence Base – Inner Green Belt Boundary Review
10.9. To paraphrase, the release of Green Belt land as indicated in the Preferred Option is “putting the
cart before the horse”. The Local Authorities have not completed their “Inner Green Belt
Boundary Review” which will need to inform a full Draft version of the Plan.
10.10. A methodology (April 2016) for this study is available, which refers to the NSE site, but no
conclusions are available. Following a thorough assessment, these are required to determine
whether a location contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt; whether a clear alternative
(and enduring) boundary can be identified; and whether the test of exceptional circumstances is
satisfied.
Previous Plan-Making and Decision-Taking
10.11. The site is already afforded effective policy coverage by the approach in the existing
development plan. As an existing Major Developed Site in the Green Belt, land at the National
Society for Epilepsy has helped to secure a number of beneficial, high quality, development
outcomes.
Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan - Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Representations on Behalf of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
29
10.12. In examining the adopted Core Strategy, Inspector Simon Emerson considered it was
appropriate to designate the NSE as an existing major developed site which remains designated
within the Green Belt. His conclusions note that national policy identifies appropriate uses and
redevelopment opportunities which would “ensure that the existing degree of openness is
retained”.
10.13. The Council’s Topic Paper for Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt (201020) states that: “the
MDS [Major Developed Site] boundary has been drawn tightly in order to reflect the grouped
form of buildings on the site. It does not include a few buildings which lie outside the main
developed area of the site The MDS will provide an important context for any future infilling or
redevelopment.”
10.14. The evidence base for the Preferred Consultation does not set out the reasons for why these
conclusions have changed. Nor does it provide the basis that sets out how, having removed the
Green Belt designation from those buildings previously considered to contribute to the purposes
of the Green Belt, an enduring boundary can be maintained to guide future planning decisions.
10.15. The release of land from the Green Belt on the scale proposed would be Inconsistent with
previous planning decisions and attempts to recognise the openness of the land and establish an
enduring boundary. In setting out the Very Special Circumstances to permit a Continuing Care
Community under CH/2011/2026/FA (the ‘Audley’ Care Village) the applicant’s reasons
explained “the perimeter, which is currently reasonably wooded to the south and very poorly so
to the east and north, will have its boundaries enhanced through the planting of some 500 trees’.
10.16. The Officer’s Report for the proposals under CH/2011/2026/FA explains how these features help
to provide a softer urban edge well-related to the natural environment. The Officer explains:
“this should also help achieve one of the recognised benefits for the Green Belt set out in the
NPPF and weighs favourably for the case for Very Special Circumstances”.
10.17. These outcomes were achieved under the existing policy framework and designations. They are
not considered to unnecessarily restrict the prospects for development and remain appropriate
for the location. Release of land from the Green Belt would make no meaningful additional
contribution to achieving the strategic priorities of the Local Plan as evidenced by the
information currently available. Alternatively, this would introduce uncertainty about whether
similar enduring boundaries could be created or maintained and whether the exiting openness
of the site would be preserved. The prospect of these boundaries enduring beyond the plan
period is considered more limited, subsequently indicating a likelihood of further pressure for
piecemeal release of land from the Green Belt.
Assessment Against Green Belt Purposes (including Heritage Value)
10.18. These comments relate to heritage aspects within the Preferred Option at the NSE. These are
poorly addressed by the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. The fundamental point is